Sitting of 10 July 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM ETC.) BILL
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham etc.) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  932
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Business Rates
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms failed to pay their business rates last year; what was the total amount involved; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): This information is not available. However, by 31 March this year, charging authorities in England had collected 93 per cent. of their estimated non-domestic rate income for 1990–91 based on returns submitted up to mid-June.
    Mr. Brown: As 900 firms per week are going broke, is it not clear that many of them will not have paid their business rates? Yet, to my knowledge, no one has been hounded or gaoled for that. Working people, on the other hand, are expected to pay the poll tax, and if they do not they are hounded and gaoled. Mr. Norman Laws, a pensioner, is in gaol now in the north of England for that reason. That is a disgrace. The Government are not even-handed—they operate double standards. Will the Minister consider releasing people who have been gaoled for non-payment of the poll tax or, better still, will the Government scrap the poll tax immediately and declare an amnesty for everyone involved in a situation of the Government's own making?
    Mr. Key: No, Sir.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be less non-payment if a better lead had been given by Members of the House? Is it not a national scandal that law makers should become law breakers, and should not Members of the House who have not paid the community charge be disowned by their Front Bench?
    Mr. Key: Of course. Business ratepayers are still liable for what they have not paid, and councils are still pursuing late payers.

    City Challenge
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when an announcement will be made on the successful bids for city challenge.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I intend to announce the successful authorities by the end of July.
    Mrs. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enthusiasm for city challenge in Wolverhampton, and the growing feeling of optimism and anticipation, with the hope that ours may be one of the 10 successful bids? That would benefit especially the deprived area of Low Hill, in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if city challenge is to be truly successful and achieve our aims we cannot simply leave it to local politicians, but there must be a partnership of the private sector, the voluntary sector and—most important of all—the people who live in
    934
    communities such as Low Hill, who best know what they wish to receive from city challenge, and what benefits we can give them?
    Mr. Heseltine: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. City challenge has evoked a remarkable response from local authorities. We are sure that in the bids that we shall begin to evaluate in the next few days an effective partnership will be demonstrated between the public and private sectors and the views of local people.
    Mr. Lewis: The Secretary of State will realise that there will be unsuccessful bids—probably five of them. Those five local authorities will have spent a great deal of money and resources on planning officers and treasury officials to work up their bids. Will the Secretary of State compensate such authorities for the money that they have lost? There are winners as well as losers in city bingo—or rather, city challenge.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will understand that, if one has a competition, there tend to be losers, but there is no compulsion at all on local authorities to enter this competition. They are perfectly free not to do so if they wish.
    The House will be interested to know that not only did the initial 15 authorities respond enthusiastically, but a further six authorities have submitted bids which they hope we will consider for the first year.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be over-persuaded by the obvious charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). May I draw to his attention the enthusiasm of my own city of Nottingham and the welcome that his colleagues from this House and the other place received only recently when the city clearly demonstrated precisely the partnership between local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors that the Government seek. I hope that Nottingham will be high on my right hon. Friend's agenda.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will not misunderstand me if I say that, in a charm competition with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), he has certain obvious disadvantages. However, both my hon. Friends come high on the list of those who are successful advocates of their own areas, and I am grateful to them.

    The Gulf (Coral Reefs)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advantage he has taken of the expertise of Dr. Nigel Downing to make safe from pollution the coral reef areas of Qaru, U Al Maradem, and Kubbar; what help he has given to Dr. Nigel Downing in getting him to the atolls; and what were the results of the meeting between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and Dr. Downing and the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 30 April.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Gentleman was present when I met Dr. Downing and he knows that we fully support the contribution that United Kingdom environmental science, including Dr. Downing, can make in addressing the level of environmental damage in the

    935
    Gulf. To that end, we have helped Dr. Downing with local contacts and travel arrangements to the Gulf and I am glad to say that he is now taking advantage of travel, sponsored by my Department, on board one of the regular Ministry of Defence flights to Al Jubayl and will leave for the Gulf this Friday.
    Mr. Dalyell: What close logistical field support can Dr. Downing expect from the Department of Environment through its contacts with the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Baldry: I am glad to say that we have already given Dr. Downing much help. I am ensuring that our embassies in the region are informed of his visit. They will, of course, consider what extra help they and the remaining British forces in the area can provide.
    Mr. Allason: I congratulate the Government on their action in protecting coral reefs, and particularly on their recent seizure of 4 tonnes of coral originating in the Philippines. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to protect coral reefs, wherever they occur in the world, and to ensure that coral from the reefs is not imported into the United Kingdom in the form of souvenirs?
    Mr. Baldry: We shall continue to make whatever contribution we can, within our means, to supporting these very important habitats throughout the world.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities are imposing a surcharge of £20 or more on their community charge payers for the financial year 1991–92 to make up for any non-collection of community charge in the financial year 1990–91.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): We do not have precise information on what is being charged this year for the non-collection of community charge last year, but I know of 71 councils which have added £20 or more to this year's charge for non-collection during the current year.
    Mr. Summerson: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the Labour-controlled London borough of Waltham Forest for its imposition of a surcharge of no less than £50·29 on the people of my constituency as a result of its failure to collect a reasonable proportion Of the community charge last year? Will my hon. Friend further condemn the Labour leader of that council and those of his Labour colleagues who publicly announced last year that they would be refusing to pay the community charge, thus heaping an even greater burden on my constituents this year?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, I warmly support what my hon. Friend has said, and I feel sorry for his constituents. The London borough of Waltham Forest is number seven on the list of non-collection. Lambeth is top, Liverpool second, Islington third, Newham fourth, Southampton fifth, Birmingham sixth, and Waltham Forest, seventh. Those are the worst performers in collecting the community charge, and they are all Labour controlled. In a similar case in Wirral, the leader of the council—Councillor Nolan, who advocated non-payment, putting £75 on the community charge bill—was thrown out by the
    936
    electorate even though she had a majority of 1,000. The next election in Walthamstow will not be for the London borough but for my hon. Friend's seat, and he will benefit from the backlash.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister agree that, in a city where existing services are virtually non-existent as a result of industrial disputes, it is especially offensive that residents are having to face extra bills of £70·99 this year because of the council's failure to run services properly or to collect outstanding community charge payments? Is it not disgraceful that people are, in effect, being charged double? How does he intend to ensure that people will not face the same situation with the new local tax?
    Mr. Portillo: I fear that across a variety of taxes and charges, those people who are public spirited end up paying for the feckless. We must demand that local authorities take effective action. It is offensive that an additional surcharge has been made in Liverpool. I am sure that the people of Liverpool will find it offensive that, on some vital issues, the Liberals voted with Militant and thus prevented the Labour council from being as effective as it would otherwise have been.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is there not a certain inevitability that, if senior Labour councillors run around inciting people not to pay their community charge, tax evaders will take advantage of that and consider it respectable not to pay their taxes? Is it not desperately unfair that, as a consequence of the example set by Labour councillors, ordinary law-abiding people have to pick up the tab?
    Mr. Portillo: Quite honestly, I put not paying the community charge, and advocating that, on the same moral plane as fare dodging or shoplifting from supermarkets. It amazes me that Labour Members who advocate non-payment are not thrown out of the Labour party by the leadership. Despite all the fuss that is made about the hard left, some Labour Members are still advocating non-payment.
    Mr. Gould: Was it not the Prime Minister who described the poll tax as "uncollectable" and was it not because the Secretary of State and the Minister agreed with him that they decided that the poll tax had to go? Why are the Minister and his colleagues still trying to make political capital out of the difficulties faced by local authorities, especially those in urban areas with highly mobile populations? Why does the Minister not acknowledge the anxieties expressed by the Audit Commission about the problems created for the judicial system and the whole of local government—problems that are intrinsic to the poll tax and are therefore the Government's responsibility? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman be helpful to local government for a change, and begin by abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution rule which carries high administrative costs with virtually no revenue gain?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman cannot shuffle off his reticence about his hon. Friend's advocacy of non-payment. He constantly tries to escape from his responsibility not only to denounce that but to lead a campaign within the Labour party to have those people thrown out.
    On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, I can tell him that the collection rate on average has been about 90 per

    937
    cent. We are talking here about Labour authorities with collection rates as low as 67 per cent. in Lambeth and 68 per cent. in Liverpool and Islington. Labour councils have failed to collect and Labour leaders have advocated non-payment.

    Urban Development Corporations
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest detailed schedule for the winding up of urban development corporations.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have no precise timetable. I will consider the situation of each urban development corporation in the light of circumstances.
    Mr. Wareing: In view of the Government's stated enthusiasm for democracy in eastern Europe, can we take it that when the UDCs are wound up, democratic forms of government will take over? The Merseyside development corporation has done a moderately fine job in the area. Will it come under the auspices of an elected council, such as the previous Merseyside county council, which, before its demise, had the support of politicians of all parties in the locality?
    Mr. Heseltine: The UDCs established no new principles that were not built into the new town movement. From the beginning, it was clearly established that when the UDCs made good the deficiencies of largely Labour-run local authorities, the areas concerned would be returned to local democratic control.
    Mr. Holt: I thank my right hon. Friend for the Teesside development corporation which, more than anything else, has been responsible for the transformation from the smokestack industries of the north-east to the high-tech industries of today. Would not the advancements be even greater were it not for the lunatics on Langbaurgh council, who recently turned down a private sector scheme worth £50 million of investment which would have brought 400 jobs to one of the most hard-pressed parts of the region? The Labour council turned the scheme down because it preferred unemployment.
    Mr. Heseltine: The whole House will be deeply shocked by my hon. Friend's story, but I must support him by saying that the urban development corporation on Teesside will, in the near future, be seen to have given rise to the most exciting rebirth of enterprise and activity on Teesside probably seen in this country this century.

    Derelict Land
    Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of derelict land still remain in Northumberland and Tyneside which qualify for financial assistance for reclamation.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): The derelict land survey of 1988 recorded nearly 3,000 acres of derelict land that were considered to justify reclamation. Financial assistance for the reclamation of derelict land in Northumberland and Tyneside is available through derelict land grant or the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation and it is estimated that since the survey about 900 acres have been reclaimed.
    Mr. Garrett: Is the Minister aware that this scheme was running long before the Government's 12-year rule and has been running all those years with moderate success? He may not be aware of the fact, but the last pit heap to the west of Newcastle has now been levelled out. He probably is aware that much of the reclamation of the industrial dereliction in Northumberland and Tyneside has now been virtually completed. Will the Minister direct the resources that have now been released from the projects in those two areas to the cleaning up of the pollution on the beaches in Durham which is still caused by mining extraction?
    Sir George Young: I understand that the ancestry of the derelict land grant goes back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he was at the Department of the Environment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Resources are available for derelict land grant in his constituency. About £4 million is available for spending in Northumberland and Tyneside. On top of that, about £11 million is available for spending through the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation. I will ensure that both know of the specific claim on that grant that has been made in the House this afternoon.

    Environment White Paper
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the progress of implementation of the policies of "This Common Inheritance".
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): We continue to make excellent progress. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Monday that we will publish a full annual progress report later this year.
    Mr. Hughes: I welcome the progress that the Government have made and their green words, but is there not a long and large gap between their words and their actions? In "This Common Inheritance" the Government said that one of the greatest environmental problems facing the world was global warming, but three months ago the Select Committee on Energy and this month the House of Lords European Select Committee roundly criticised the Government for their inadequate efforts on energy efficiency. When will the Government's actions match their words?
    Mr. Trippier: I am surprised at the churlish attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman. Whatever praise there was was incredibly limp wristed and weak kneed, which is typical of the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman should look to cleaning out his own party's back yard. It beggars belief that any party should try to convince the electorate that it is serious about reducing carbon dioxide levels when it has pledged to scrap the nuclear programme and replace it with coal-fired energy, which would bring about a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend recall my vain attempts in Standing Committee to include noise within the ambit of the Environmental Protection Bill? Now that the Department of Transport has at last issued a new document which includes concern about noise, will my hon. Friend do one thing for me? He is presumably aware

    939
    that his Department part-funds the Airfields Environment Federation. Will he agree to meet its director with me and with a Minister from the Department of Transport 30 that we can try to get to the bottom of the problems which have been caused in the past by interdepartmental wrangling on the problem?
    Mr. Trippier: I shall be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any colleague from the Department of Transport whom he may wish me to meet. Obviously, I do not subscribe to the wrangling that takes place between various Departments on environmental issues. The truth is that one can hardly get a razor blade between us.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Given the commitments to the water industry in "This Common Inheritance", will the Minister explain why there has been slippage on every area of investment in the water industry's core services but an increase in spending on management?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady should take this opportunity to recognise that the highest standards which are being achieved are the result of the Government's having established the National Rivers Authority. The fact that the Government privatised the water industry has allowed it to undertake a £28 billion programme. The hon. Lady and the House should be reminded that the last Labour Government savagely cut the amount of money that they gave to the water authorities. Their term in office was an absolute disgrace.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: In this context, will the Minister pay tribute to the fine results of South West Water, which were recently announced by its chairman who, through privatisation, has managed to re-energise South West Water by pouring truly massive investment into the infrastructure, particularly in the Bideford area, which had never happened before?
    Mr. Trippier: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the efforts of South West Water. I repeat the point that I made earlier—that part of the £28 billion now available to be spent during the next 10 years by South West Water is money that certainly could not have been drawn from Her Majesty's Treasury, where such a proposal would have had to take its place in the queue with other competing and serious demands for money for health, education and so on. We have achieved that investment programme by taking the courageous step of privatising the water industry, and it is a success.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.
    Mr. Key: The introduction of competition into local authority services has produced demonstrable gains in efficiency and value for money, and I am actively considering ways of extending the range of services subject to compulsory competitive tendering.
    Mr. Cryer: Instead of wasting resources on compulsory competitive tendering, which denies those citizens who are affected the right to democratic accountability through their local councillors, why does the Department of the Environment not spend resources on protecting and helping local authorities by checking the list of banking
    940
    institutions that it sends to every local authority and finding out about banks such as the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which appears on the current list issued by the Department of the Environment? The Department encouraged local authorities to invest in shabby concerns without knowing anything about them at all, which has resulted in the loss of millions of pounds invested by local authorities on the advice of the Minister's Department. Why does he not do something about that instead of helping seedy contractors to reduce the standard of democracy?
    Mr. Key: The compulsory competitive tendering process has produced enormous gains for consumers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's citizens charter will do even more. My Department issues no list of such banks. As the hon. Gentleman should know, a list is issued by the Bank of England. I have carefully looked at the allegations that the hon. Gentleman made in points of order yesterday and there is no truth in them.
    Mrs. Roe: Is it not ironic that the Government's policy on compulsory competitive tendering for council services, which was fought so hard by the Labour party, should now be the only policy that is saving the ruling Labour group on Liverpool council from the terrible mess into which it has got both itself and the city?
    Mr. Key: We are delighted at the Labour party's late conversion to the benefits of compulsory competitive tendering.
    Mr. O'Brien: When do the Government intend to introduce quality into contracted-out services? So far, they have targeted only the number, size and value of contracts —quality of services has not been targeted. Before there is any extension of compulsory competitive tendering, will the Government ask Birmingham univeristy to study the quality of services provided as a result of compulsory competitive tendering? We need good-quality services for all the people who depend on local governent services.
    Mr. Key: Quality is one of local authorities' considerations in setting the criteria in awarding contracts. It is entirely up to them to set the standards of quality, and I repeat that my right hon. Friend's citizens charter will deal with that issue afresh.
    Mr. Squire: Is not it strange that a decision that in the private sector is a matter of fact—that it is more efficient and beneficial to employ people in house rather than to bring in outside contractors—has for the Opposition become an ideological obsession? Until they are seen to be acting in the interests of the users rather than of those working in local government, do not they forfeit any right to be considered an alternative Government?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition are split down the middle on the issue—sometimes they find it convenient to support the idea, but sometimes they find it convenient to rail against it. They have no solution of their own, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

    Public Rented Sector
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy towards the public rented sector.
    Sir George Young: Our policy is set out in chapter 7 of the Department of the Environment's 1991 annual report—Cm. 1508.
    Mr. Winnick: Why should so many people be denied adequate rented accommodation? I think that hon. Members probably receive more letters about housing and the need to be rehoused than on any other subject, so why should people be penalised because they cannot afford to buy and because the chance of getting a council house is now so remote? When Ministers go home in their chauffeur-driven cars—usually to one of their palatial homes—do they notice, two or three minutes from here, people living in squalor on the streets? They are some of the victims of the Government's housing policy.
    Sir George Young: On the second point, the hon. Gentleman should know that more progress in helping people who sleep rough in London has been made in the past six months than in the whole history of the capital city. As for homeless people, I note with interest that there are 74 homeless households in Walsall in temporary accommodation, but that Walsall has 989 empty dwellings.
    Mr. Sumberg: How high will council rents in my constituency have to rise to compensate for the disastrous decision made by the Labour-controlled council in Bury to invest all its resources—about £6·5 million—in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Is not that decision an appalling indictment of the Labour leadership in Bury, and are my constituents not entitled to know why it occurred because it has ruined the chances of good services in my constituency for years to come?
    Sir George Young: Of course, one sympathises with the charge payers in my hon. Friend's constituency, but the responsibility clearly rests with the local government leaders who took such a decision.
    Mr. Soley: When answering this question it will be appropriate for the Minister to remember that today there is a major lobby of Parliament by homeless people following the sleep-out night earlier this week. It is also appropriate for him to remember the Duke of Edinburgh's report which said that about 1·7 million to 1·9 million homes have been lost from the rented sector—about half of them from the public sector—in the past 10 or 11 years. Will the Minister give a more definitive answer to the question, because the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), explicitly expressed the view that councils should no longer provide housing. Does the Minister agree? How soon does he envisage council house provision coming to an end?
    Sir George Young: The Government have made it absolutely clear that they look to the housing association movement to provide new affordable homes to rent. They expect local authorities to devote their resources to improving and modernising their stock, and local authorities are now spending twice as much in real terms on improving their stock as they did 10 years ago. That seems a sensible division of responsibility.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities would have been capped in 1991–92 if the £15 million limit on expenditure had not been in force.
    Mr. Portillo: We now announce our capping criteria in advance. The result is that most councils take care to set budgets which will not be capped. Had capping applied this year to councils with budgets under £15 million, many of them, I am sure, would have set lower budgets than they did, to the benefit of community charge payers.
    Mr. Coombs: Is it not good news for hundreds of thousands of community charge payers that the abolition of the £15 million limit on expenditure will force many councils to exercise proper restraint on their future expenditure? Can my hon. Friend quantify the harm already done to community charge payers?
    Mr. Portillo: On my hon. Friend's first point, he may have seen in the case of his own local authority the effect beginning to operate last year. Thamesdown district council set a budget of £15·06 million, just above the capping threshold. The increase was 7·7 per cent. I cannot help thinking that the increase was so moderate only because the council was just coming into the capping criteria at that point.
    My hon. Friend asked me to quantify the harm. There are 18 districts with budgets below £15 million that overspent their standard spending assessment by £40 or more per charge payer. There were 44 cases in which the overspending added at least £20 to the bills.
    Mr. Bellotti: Will the Minister tell us what he expects local authorities that have been prudent in the past and will fall under the capping regulations next year to do about their services? Does he expect them to cut their services so that there can be no local economic generation? In areas that are dependent on jobs in tourism, such as the area that I represent, what advice would the Minister give a local authority that has been prudent in the past and which has set decent budgets, but which, under the new regulations, faces massive local unemployment?
    Mr. Portillo: An authority that has been prudent for many years will not be capped because we will not cap below the standard spending assessment.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the good effects for my constituents in Norwich of the capping of their overspending council and the resulting reduction in their bills? Will he seek an urgent meeting with the leader of Labour-controlled Norwich city council to point out the anger of my constituents about the politically biased and possibly illegal letters that she is sending out, which are distorting the effects of Government policy and concealing the imprudence of Norwich city council?
    Mr. Portillo: I want to help my hon. Friend. If he absolutely insists that I meet the leader of Norwich city council, I suppose that I could be prevailed on to do so. My hon. Friend speaks loudly and clearly for his constituents. He is worried about the community charge burden that they have to bear. Those on Norwich city council are apparently indifferent to that matter and the Labour party is apparently flatly opposed to helping the community charge payer.
    Mr. Flannery: Despite the smart Alec answers from the Minister, is not it a fact that the result not only of capping, but of the vast amounts being taken away from local councils—the total runs into hundreds of millions of pounds—is that beggars are being forced on to the streets and homelessness is created? We have a Minister who apparently treads on bodies when he comes out of the opera. The things that have come about under this Government had not existed for years previously. People are on the streets and, as a nation, not only as a Government, we should all feel deeply ashamed.
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is deeply incredible and the whole House will have found what he said laughable. His first contention was that money had been taken away from local authorities. I remind him that the districts about which we are talking had the amount that the Government thought it appropriate for them to spend increased last year by 28 per cent.—vastly ahead of inflation. There can be no complaint that they have been underfunded.

    Local Government Reform
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has received to his consultation paper on the reform of local government.
    Mr. Key: The Department has received more than 1,700 responses to the recent consultation paper on the structure of local government in England and some 750 responses to the consultation paper on the council tax.
    Mrs. Currie: Has the Minister received an all-party response from the Tory-controlled city of Derby, which wants to be a unitary authority and which would like to see the abolition of the county council? Has he received in addition an all-party response from the Labour-controlled South Derbyshire district council, which wants to be a unitary authority and which wishes to see the abolition of the county council? Will my hon. Friend ignore what is certain to come—the response from Derbyshire county council? The only people who wish to see that retained are the members of it. Will he kindly get on with the reform and the abolition of the said county council as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Key: It is well known that there is antipathy between the county council and the districts in Derbyshire. I am sure that my hon. Friend will draw that to the attention of what we hope will be the local government commission, which will have the responsibility for listening to the important voices in the community. I am sure that my hon. Friend's voice will be heard loudly and clearly.
    Mr. Hardy: How many responses reflected the view that this is now the most overcentralised country in the free world? Will the Government accept that the tendency must soon be to shift power from the centre, rather than seek to accumulate ever more?
    Mr. Key: I am all for having local accountability and for local responsibility in local government, so I find it very hard to understand why the Opposition wish to take power from local people and give it to yet another tier of government which they laughingly call regional government.
    Mr. Burt: Has my hon. Friend received, and would he be prepared to receive, any submissions relating to how local authorities make their financial investment decisions? Is he aware of the considerable anger and distress in my constituency this morning as my constituents woke up to find that they had lost £6·5 million because of a decision to invest in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which councils make those decisions must come into question? Will he again state the status of the document which was sent out and which did not give any approval to the BCCI in terms of its probity but merely required local authorities to look to their laurels and therefore accept responsibility for their investments?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can understand his constituents' concern about this matter. Of course, financial decisions are entirely the responsibility of the treasurer of the council. I confirm that we do not issue a list of preferred investments. We give absolutely no advice on that matter; it is entirely for the council.
    Mr. Trimble: The Government have made clear their preference for single-tier local authorities. Does the Minister therefore agree that one of the great advantages of single tier local authorities is that they would provide the space in which one could create regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions to which the House could then devolve some of its functions?
    Mr. Key: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the desirability of unitary authorities.

    Beaches
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet representatives of the North West Water company to discuss the programme to clean up the Mersey beaches and rivers in the north-west region; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend and I maintain regular contacts with the North West Water company about progress on the clean up of bathing waters and rivers.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware of the massive plans involving billions of pounds over 10 years to clean up the Mersey basin and its attendant rivers. Is my hon. Friend aware of the efforts that are being made by the North West Water company to invest in sewage plants on the north-west coast to clean up the Blackpool beaches, Southport and Formby? Does my hon. Friend agree that that can be achieved only by a privatised company borrowing in the marketplace and doing what the public sector neglected to do for years?
    Mr. Trippier: I not only agree with my hon. Friend but I am very anxious to join him in his praise of the Mersey basin campaign. Since its formation in the early 1980s, an overall improvement in water quality has taken place throughout the whole basin area. About £400 million is being spent by North West Water in major schemes at Southport, St. Anne's, the Fylde coast, Morecambe arid Barrow to bring more bathing waters into compliance by

    945
    1995. The water company has recently announced a preferred option for the Fylde coast scheme to provide full secondary level treatment. I hope that that scheme will go ahead.
    Mr. McCartney: When the Minister meets the chairman of North West Water, will he chastise him for his greed and for the massive pay rise that he has awarded himself since privatisation, when constituents such as mine have been waiting years for investment in proper drinking water and sewerage schemes? Is not it an absolute scandal that the Minister is prepared to meet the gentleman who, the day after hiking up water charges, announced at a press conference a huge pay increase for himself and fellow directors?
    Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already publicly criticised the wage increases to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I agree with him. The Government's policy on the pay of directors is that salaries should be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate. The Government believe also that it is essential that pay at all levels reflects the economic facts of life and the importance of beating inflation. Directors need to exercise both leadership and restraint in the rate at which salary levels are increased.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that far more is being done now than was ever done in the past to clear up pollution, such as that at Eagles brook, which flows from my hon. Friend's constituency to mine and then to the Mersey? Does he agree that that shows the strength of the Government's anti-pollution legislation?
    Mr. Trippier: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. The money that is now available to the North West Water company, like all the other privatised water companies, is sufficient to enable it to embark on a massive investment programme which will last to the end of the decade and will result in water of a higher quality in this country than anywhere in the rest of Europe.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When the Minister meets the chairman or any of the directors of North West Water or of any of the other water companies of England and Wales, will he take steps to do something about the salary rises that he is so willing to condemn? May I suggest that he knocks £10 off their salaries whenever there is a pollution incident in any part of the Mersey or anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Is it not a disgrace that after 12 years of Tory rule the country still fails to meet the European Community's water quality standards?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman completely and utterly ruined his question, which was obviously prepared prior to the substantive answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I am afraid that his hon. Friend stole his thunder. Perhaps my response was not what the hon. Gentleman had expected. In response to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, he should ask himself, "Who invented the National Rivers Authority?" We did. Who invented Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution? We did. Who invented the drinking water inspectorate? We did. Why does not the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to praise the Prime Minister and the Government for the initiative that was taken on Monday to set up the strongest regulatory body in the whole of Europe?

    Countryside Stewardship Scheme
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had to the launch of his countryside stewardship scheme.
    Mr. Heseltine: The countryside stewardship scheme, which is being run on a pilot basis in England by the Countryside Commission, was launched on 25 June. The closing date for applications for this first year of the scheme is not until 31 October. While it is far too early to assess the response, initial reaction has been very encouraging. In the first week following the launch there were more than 300 serious inquiries from potential applicants and there has also been extensive media interest.
    Mr. Paice: The whole House should welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, because it demonstrates that the widespread support that that announcement received in the press is clearly mirrored by the response from applicants. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this targeted way of sustaining fine and important landscape features is a far better way of achieving the objective and that the use of the carrots that he is advocating, rather than the big-stick bureaucracy, which is precisely the sort of measure that is advocated by the Labour party, is the better way?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The House may be interested to know that the Countryside Commission has a target for the first two years of the scheme of between 2,000 and 3,000 agreements that will cover 60,000 to 80,000 hectares.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State remind the House how much money the Government are putting into the scheme? Is he satisfied that it is sufficient and that, through the Countryside Commission, it is his Department which is best able to handle the scheme, rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which, in many cases, has more contact with the farmers involved?
    Mr. Heseltine: There is a commitment of £13 million for the first three years of the scheme. We believe that that is sufficient to prove the value of the experiments that the Countryside Commission has launched. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the relationship between my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I were both present at the launch and are both enthusiasts of the scheme.

    Housing Associations
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the level of financial support for housing associations in the current financial year.
    Mr. Yeo: The gross capital expenditure planned by the Housing Corporation this year is £1,588 million—an increase of more than 40 per cent. over last year. Revenue support for housing associations is £85 million and housing associations also receive support from local authority housing association grant, estimated at about £300 million in the current year. All that public sector support is supplemented by substantial loans from the private sector.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that Labour councillors in my local authority of Kirklees have complained recently about the increase in the number of homeless, even though they have contributed to that increase by refusing to co-operate with the Housing Corporation because one housing association expressed an interest in the tenants' choice scheme? Has any progress been made following our Adjournment debate? Will he join me in condemning the thoroughly negative attitude of the Labour councillors?
    Mr. Yeo: I certainly unreservedly condemn the Labour council in Kirklees for withdrawing its support from the Jephson housing association merely because the housing association responded positively to the Government's initiatives to promote tenants' choice. Labour's determination to force tenants back into the straitjacket of monopoly local authority control is not confined to Kirklees. Only yesterday the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) threatened the tenants of north Hull that, if it were ever given the chance, Labour would overthrow the result of the recent ballot in which the tenants voted to become tenants of a housing action trust. I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that he has the full support of the Government in his efforts to champion the interests of tenants in his constituency, efforts which I am glad to say have restarted a dialogue between the Housing Corporation and the borough council.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that, once the hot air evaporates, an examination of the agreed Housing Corporation development programme will show that 93 per cent. of the increase in the programme will go to London and the south-east and therefore, by definition, not to the provincial towns and cities? Is he also aware that hardly any housing associations are carrying out rehabilitation work on older properties? Does he realise that all of that will lead to homelessness shifting out into the provincial towns and cities and will do nothing to arrest the decline in the older housing stock in Britain as a whole? What does he intend to do about it? When will he take some action instead of just talking?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has already referred to the huge increase in local authority spending on renovating the existing housing stock. The House will be aware that the Housing Corporation's budget is to double from £1 billion to more than £2 billion in the space of three years. I am glad to say that so successful are the Government's efforts to clear the problem of homelessness that the census that took place on 21 April revealed that only 2,703 people were sleeping rough that night—less than 1/14th of the figure used by the promoters of national sleep-out week. In London the numbers were down to only 1,275—a demonstration of our clear progress.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the proposed council tax; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: The Department has received some 750 responses to the recent consultation paper on the council tax, most of which welcome the new tax in principle. These responses are now being considered.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the overwhelming response, made not only to his Department but made as he travels around the country, is in support of the proposed council tax? Has my hon. Friend been overwhelmed by any clamour for a return to the discredited old rating system, which is what the Labour party proposes?
    Mr. Portillo: Most certainly I am not aware of anyone except the Labour party who wants to go back to the rating system. It would be bad enough if the Labour party merely proposed a return to the rating system, but it proposes a bureaucratic nightmare in which each property would have to be revalued four times over. What little chance people had of understanding the rating system would be blown apart by an even more complicated system. One suspects that the Labour party has struggiled to design a system that the public cannot possibly understand because it hopes in that way to avoid the electoral consequences of proposing such an absurd tax.
    Mr. Gould: What calculation has the Minister made of the impact on the likely level of the council tax and, indeed, the level of the poll tax in the intervening period, of the failure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Does not the fact that many local authorities now face the prospect of serious loss mean that millions of poll tax payers will suffer as a consequence of the regulatory failure over which the Government have presided? Is not it typical that the Government should now be trying to blame local authorities when they have done no more than act in accordance with the list prepared by the Bank of England and sent out by the Minister's Department to every local authority? That revised list was published and sent out on 21 June and it clearly includes the name of BCCI. Why will not the Minister face up to the part that he has played and the responsibility that his Department must bear in this whole unhappy episode?
    Mr. Portillo: First, it is not possible to make any estimate of what anybody has lost, because we do not know. We have no idea of the outcome of this particular bank crash for any local authority. On the question of responsibility, I must say that it might be reasonable to argue that an average person might not realise that an authorised institution, which is accredited under the Banking Act 1987, might crash. However, for local authority treasurers to say that they did not understand the difference between some sort of guarantee—that is now being claimed—and the fact that BCCI happened to be an authorised institution under the Banking Act 1987 is astounding.
    The Government are not avoiding any of their responsibilities in this regard, but I fear that some local authority treasurers are trying to imply that the fact that an institution is authorised under the Banking Act gives them some escape from their duty to take due care as to where they invest their funds.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the new council tax will, rightly, have reserve rate-capping powers? In that context will he bear in mind the appalling position of the Labour-controlled Wyre Forest district council, which at present is not only spending 58 per cent. above its standard spending assessment, but has such a bloated recreation programme that one museum is subsidised to the extent of £7 per visit?

    949
    Given that that council is proposing this year to increase its expenditure again by 18 per cent. will my hon. Friend invoke his rate-capping powers against that council as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Portillo: What my hon. Friend tells me appals and worries me very much. What I think will worry my hon. Friend's constituents when the election comes around is that the Labour party will campaign on there being no restraint whatever on local authority spending or on the bills that will be charged to local people. I believe that that Labour party proposal will be deeply unpopular with the electorate.
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to distribute the income from the non-domestic rates under the new council tax; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: We are currently considering the options, and will make clear our conclusions in due course.
    Mr. Eastham: Is it not a fact that the whole position regarding local taxes is becoming a complete dog's dinner? Will the Minister apply himself to the question of non-domestic ratepayers, who could account for between 25 and 26 per cent. of the bill of local authorities?
    What provision will the Minister make for the hundreds of millions of pounds that may be collected from those who may not be on a local authority register but who are still subject to that authority acting responsibly to make provision for their businesses?
    Mr. Portillo: I hope that I can be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. We are not proposing changes to the national non-domestic rate system in general and we have made that perfectly clear in our consultation document. The hon. Gentleman asked about the means by which the income from non-domestic rates would he distributed between local authorities. That is a complicated and technical matter and it would be worth while to spend some time thinking the implications through before making any announcement.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend think again about the way in which non-domestic rates' income is no longer
    950
    linked to the local authority area. Many of my local business men, particularly in the hotel sector and the leisure industry, would like to think that their business rates will pay the high costs that their local authority must face to subsidise and supply the facilities for people coming on holiday to the wonderful beaches of Weymouth, Swanage and other resorts in Dorset.
    Mr. Portillo: I understand that some business men would like a strong linkage between themselves and local authorities, and that might be provided by the tax base. Business in general welcomes enormously the fact that business rates increase from year to year by only the rate of inflation and not by the rate at which local authorities increase their spending. That means that, in the first year of the uniform business rate, business paid £1 billion less than it would have done under the old system.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings he has held in the last year with representatives of UK Nirex to discuss the disposal of nuclear waste; and what is the date of the next such meeting.
    Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend has not met representatives of Nirex and no date has been arranged for such a meeting.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given the great interest that exists on that subject—not only in the highlands and islands of Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom—can the Minister confirm or deny a recent newspaper report, which said that Tom McInerney, the managing director of Nirex, would make a clear statement on 18 July that Sellafield would be the chosen option for the disposal of low-level and intermediate waste?
    Mr. Trippier: I am sorry to say that I can neither confirm nor deny it. As I said at the last Question Time when I was being drawn on those issues, it is a decision entirely for Nirex. However, an announcement will be made before the end of the year.

Property Services Agency
3.32 pm
Mr. Clive Soley(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Property Services Agency.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): In October 1989, the Government made clear their intention to privatise the activities of the Property Services Agency. We are actively considering a range of possible ways to do that. I shall make a statement when we have chosen from among the many options that we are considering.
Mr. Soley: This is a serious matter. The Government now say that at least three Departments are considering proposals. One option is closure, resulting in about 19,000 redundancies—some 5 per cent. of the total civil service. We are also deeply disturbed at an alternative option—the reference to "large dowries" so that the purchase is made attractive to a private buyer.
We want to know today how large those dowries will be and why nothing was put in the Property Services Agency privatisation Act. We debated that legislation at great length in Committee and on the Floor of the House, but no mention was made of large dowries. What form will those dowries take, and how can the Government be sure that the European Commission will allow them? Are the Government satisfied that the debacle referred to in a letter from the Minister's office concerning Crown Suppliers—the other half of the Property Services Agency—will not be repeated in this case?
If the Property Services Agency is to be made attractive to a bidder by requesting the Secretary of State for Defence to co-operate—the letter constantly refers to him as being "hopefully willing to co-operate"—will that be done by giving the agency large contracts via the Secretary of State for Defence? If the organisation that buys the PSA chooses to run those contracts out and then close the organisation down, what will happen to future work in defence and security establishments? What will happen on the security issue generally, bearing in mind that it involves security work in bases not only in Britain but at British bases in Germany, Cyprus, Belize, Gibraltar, Hong Kong and other places?
What guarantees can the Secretary of State give that issues involving security, employment and redundancy, and the European Commission are protected? Above all, will he guarantee that the public purse will be protected from yet another raid from a Minister who seems more interested in putting his hands into the public pocket and using the money to pay someone to take over a public organisation than in ensuring the good management of property development within Government Departments?
Mr. Heseltine: The whole House will welcome the interest that the hon. Gentleman is now taking in the consequences of running down the defence budget. The Opposition spent the whole of the 1980s trying to run down the defence budget. Now the Labour party seems to realise that there are consequences in doing that, in terms of the number of people who might lose their jobs. There is a certain innumerate tragedy in the fact that Labour Members cannot even read leaked letters and understand
952
them when they come into their hands. The great dowry that Labour Members are talking about is nothing other than the redundancy pay that we wish to protect so as to ensure that people employed in the PSA do not suffer by the changes.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the substantial PSA establishment in my constituency staff are worried that, during the 18 months, no real decision has been taken about their future? Will he do all that he can to get ahead with privatisation and not waste time having to talk about it in the House?
Mr. Heseltine: I very much sympathise with the employees in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is precisely because I have been trying to make such progress, in negotiation with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury, the Minister of Defence and other Government Departments, that all the options are now being considered.
Mr. David Bellotti: The Minister will be aware that this debate started because the Select Committee on the Environment said that the PSA was inefficient and its lines of communication were too long. If that were so, why did the Government not look at options other than privatisation? Why should some 20,000 people now be threatened with redundancy, with catastrophic effects on communities as far afield as Hastings in East Sussex, where some of my constituents are employed, and overseas in Cyprus? Given the possibility of further waste of taxpayers' money, is it not now time to have a rethink about privatisation and consider other options?
Mr. Heseltine: I deplore the practice of leaking letters, but if people do it, I wish that they would do it not just to the Labour party but to the Liberal party. The hon. Gentleman would then have seen, from the constructive nature of the leaked letter, that it is precisely the Government's intention to look at a range of ways of transferring the PSA to the private sector. That is what the letter was all about.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is this not an absurd fuss about nothing? The letter contains nothing more than that which any intelligent person would expect to see in communications between one Minister and another about the future options for the PSA, a body which we all know to have been thoroughly inefficient and badly managed. Whether the Government decide to privatise or close the PSA, is there not only one consideration that matters—that the taxpayer should get the best possible value for money?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The taxpayer is entitled to be sure that good government delivers the best possible value for money. In seeking such ends, the country at large, the House and Government employees are entitled to be sure that Ministers take proper consideration of the future and the protection of everyone's interests. It is precisely because we have been considering the consequences in terms of redundancy money that we have looked at what it would be necessary to do to ensure that the entitlement of those people would be protected if the PSA were transferred to the private sector.
Mr. John McAllion: Ministers have consistently argued that an important strand of the civil service reforms has been to improve the morale and commitment of public servants. What will be the impact on the 19,000 workers at PSA of reports in the newspapers today that Ministers cannot make up their minds whether to sack them all or to sell them off to whichever private sector buyer is most susceptible to sweeteners? Any local council which showed the same woeful level of mismanagement as Minsters have shown in this sorry affair would be booted out of office and financially surcharged. Why is that not also the fate of Ministers at the Treasury and at the Department of the Environment?
Mr. Heseltine: We all know that the Labour party's one obsession in life is to elevate the interests of the producers, and of the trade unions representing them, over and above the interests of the consumer we seek to serve. It is no use Labour Members coming to the House time and again, pretending to serve some wider public purpose when they are actually trying to enhance the scale of public sector activity. If they really understood what the issues of morale were all about, they would realise that many hundreds of thousands of people employed in privatised industries have come to relish the excitement and stimulation of their new freedoms.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Is it not the case that there is no absolute need for defence work to be done by the Property Services Agency, and that, when station commanders and commanding officers have gone out locally for work, there has been greater satisfaction and much greater promptness in getting the work done, and everyone has benefited all round?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. All through the 1980s we switched work from the PSA, as a proportion of its total spend, into the hands of private contractors, consultants and architects. The Labour party never seems to understand that that gives greater opportunity to the people employed there and gives the private sector companies concerned the opportunity to sell on the international market, exploiting the procurement underwriting which they get from the British Government.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State will understand the interest in this matter in my area, where a large number of people work at RAF Kinloss. Given that, on 2 May, it was made clear at a meeting with the Whitley council that the Government view was that the PSA faced early privatisation, late privatisation or closure, what time scale does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind, and will he ensure that adequate time is given for negotiations? Wrong handling of the privatisation moves could lead to the closure of many of the PSA establishments.
Mr. Heseltine: I am deeply concerned to ensure that when the transition takes place it is conducted in a way that is as helpful as possible to people employed in the PSA. It is precisely because I have been conducting wide-ranging negotiations to bring about such an end that it has taken a little longer than it would have done if we had reached crude decisions without taking the employees into account. That we would not be prepared to do.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great changes taking place in the
954
Ministry of Defence and the rundown of bases in the United Kingdom, coupled with the fact that, for some time, the Royal Air Force has given station commanders budgets which they never had before, have meant that the role of the PSA has changed substantially? It is therefore correct that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues should look at it carefully, because if they did not do so the stations, the military and those employed by the PSA might not benefit.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend fully understands why the Government must take proper care in this matter. That is what we are doing.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I have to have regard to the fact that there is a statement to come and then an important Northern Ireland debate. I will take two more questions from each side and then move on.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State recall that it was I who exposed breaches of EC and GATT rules while the Government were privatising the Crown Suppliers and the furnishing division, Crown Furnishings? What is meant precisely by the part of the letter which refers to:
"The handling of redundancies, EC state aids and other considerations"?
How is that connected with the dowry? May we have an assurance that there will be no breach of EC regulations or directives or of GATT rulings in this case—so that what we had to expose on a previous occasion does not happen again?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the part that he claims to have played in an earlier case. While I do my best to keep my eye on what is proceeding—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.
Mr. Heseltine: I am about to answer it. I do my best to keep in touch with what is happening within the broad areas of my responsibility, but the role played by the hon. Gentleman had escaped me. I have therefore learnt something this afternoon—a rare event when standing at the Dispatch Box listening to the Labour party.
The hon. Gentleman has read from a letter by a Treasury Minister. One thing about Treasury Ministers is that they are extremely literate, so he ought to be able to understand what they are saying.
Mr. Richard Page: Has my right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read some of the Public Accounts Committee reports and some of the National Audit Office reports on the PSA? I refer, for instance, to a report on the management of the civil estate, published in 1988, to a National Audit Office report on the new headquarters for the Department of Energy published in 1990, and to the new building for the British Library report published in 1990. Does he agree that all those reports present a sorry tale of time slippage and cost overruns which warrant winding up this agency, and that the sooner that is done, the better for the taxpayer? Is not the letter about which there has been such a furore the normal, common-sense commercial practice that any company would follow when considering the sale of such an organisation?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand that when I was responsible for the PSA as Secretary of State for the Environment from 1979 to 1983, and one of its principal customers as Secretary of State for Defence from 1983 to 1986, the reports to which he refers were almost bedside reading. Anyone in the offices that I held did not need such reports to draw his attention to the problems associated with the employment of more than 20,000 people in the construction industry. There is no effective way in which we are likely to be able to secure value for money for the taxpayer or the delivery of adequate service to customers within such an arrangement. That is why we have taken these decisions and are moving in the direction that we have outlined.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if a private contractor sought to sell a subsidiary which was known to be a loss maker in such a way as to deceive the purchaser, that contractor would be prosecuted? What difference does it make if the Department of the Environment seeks to do the same?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is making mischief. My Department has not the slightest intention to deceive anybody. We are trying to find the best possible deal for the taxpayer and for employees of the PSA.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no better way to motivate a work force than to give them a stake in the company in which they work? That being so, does he further agree that, for years, the PSA has been a shambles and badly needs the sorting out that private industry would achieve? I know that privatisation is only one of the options, but will my right hon. Friend consider it favourably because it would be in the interests of the work force and the taxpayer?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The only issue is how we move from where we are to where we want to arrive. The serious responsibilities which flow from this process involve the protection of taxpayers' money, the secure delivery of service to customers of the PSA and a proper regard for the interests of the employees.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us were on the Committee tape.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Well, I know. I heard the hon. Gentleman.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I will take points of order after the statement.

Local Authority Housing Estates
3.43 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the housing action trust and estate action programmes, through which the Government are tackling the problems of rundown local authority estates.
Too many people are still trapped in unattractive, uninspired local authority housing. Considerable progress has been made, but we need to do more. With the thrust of our policy to transfer development of new social housing to housing associations, local authorities should now be able to concentrate on renovation of the existing stock. I am pleased to announce today a further advance in our long-term strategy to upgrade this accommodation.
Yesterday, the House approved the order for establishment of the North Hull housing action trust, and the order will be considered in another place later today. Meanwhile, as hon. Members may be aware, Liverpool city council and the London borough of Tower Hamlets, Bow neighbourhood, have forwarded proposals for the establishment of such trusts in their areas. Other authorities are also expressing interest, and the time has therefore come for the Government to set out their guidelines for future use of housing action trust powers.
The House will also recall that, earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the enhancement of the estate action programme, with additional resources this year and with a wider remit to focus in particular on more comprehensive proposals for the regeneration for seriously rundown local authority estates.
These steps reflect the importance that we attach to efforts to regenerate rundown estates. In the last five years, resources available for the estate action programme have risen from £45 million to £268 million and through the renovation of 300,000 dwellings it has already made a successful contribution to turning round severely rundown estates. I believe that the housing action trust programme, on its new firm footing, can also play a valuable role.
It is important, however, that the two programmes and the other instruments available should complement each other, should fit the wide range of problems confronting local authorities in such areas, and should promote an effective partnership between central Government, local government and tenants.
I am therefore publishing today, for issue to authorities next week, the new guidelines under which we shall consider proposals for the establishment of housing action trusts and for estate action schemes, and I am inviting bids from local authorities for next year's programmes. Within both programmes, the first priority must be to engage the support of tenants and offer then new hope.
We must also look to authorities to propose solutions to problems of estate structure, design and layout, poor management, and lack of housing choice and economic opportunity. They will be able to build on examples such as the major estate action schemes at Cowgate in Newcastle and Netherley in Liverpool, and work already under way for the North Hull housing action trust. Finally, it is essential to ensure the best possible deployment of skills and resources on a long-term basis for regeneration in such areas.

957
I shall deal first with the revised guidelines for estate action. Part of the programme will continue to fund small-scale projects on estates, addressed to particular problematical features of such estates or areas within them. That will help the smaller authorities and those with less obvious but important problems.
However, most of the resources will be deployed to tackle the larger and more severely rundown estates in a comprehensive way. For such schemes, the guidelines will require that all practical steps have been taken to involve the private sector, and that large-scale capital investment is complemented by effective housing management, at both the estate and the authority level, to improve service to tenants and to ensure that capital resources are not wasted. The guidelines will require, too, that the proposals result from a full economic appraisal of options for the estate, and complement the authority's overall strategy for its stock.
Some areas, however, will be so severely rundown and present such exceptional problems that they are likely to be beyond the resources and capacity of the local authority, even with the support of the estate action and other programmes. This is where we believe housing action trusts can now play a key role. It will therefore now be open to all local authorities to put forward bids against the public expenditure resources available, since expected commitments in Hull and Waltham Forest are not expected to absorb more than one third of existing provision.
For such proposals the criteria will be as follows. First, the area should have a high level of social, economic and environmental problems—for example, high unemployment, dependency on state benefits, and a high incidence of crime and vandalism.
Secondly, the area should have problems requiring very costly renovation, redevelopment and improved management, and which it is beyond the capacity of the local authority to tackle. Thirdly, it should be a coherent geographical area, within an area of considerable housing demand, containing a large concentration of poor-quality public sector housing—that is, between 2,000 and 10,000 dwellings.
Finally, the area should have empty properties or land available to accommodate tenants during renovation or development works.
The scheme should be beyond the ordinary resources of the local authority, should stand to benefit from the injection of external skills and resources, and should be best pursued through a special body involving a partnership of the local authority, central Government and tenants.
Finally, there should be a good prospect that the proposal will enjoy the support of both the local authority and the tenants, and a trust should be as cost-effective a way of pursuing the scheme as any other policy instrument.
I commend the guidelines to the House. I believe that they will enable us to build upon the success of the estate action programme and the progress that we are now making with housing action trusts. They should also provide a basis on which central and local government,
958
with the active involvement and support of tenants, can work together over the coming years to eliminate the worst concentrations of rundown local authority housing.
Mr. Clive Soley: This is a significant change in Government policy, and I give it a general welcome. It is a significant change not least because, for the first time, a Minister recognises that a coherent strategy is needed. The problem with the previous Secretary of State and his Ministers was that policy was changed from time to time so that we never knew whether we were supposed to be encouraging housing action trusts, estate action programmes, or whatever.
It is right to link good management with resources and tenant participation. It was not clear from the Minister's statement, so I ask him to make it clear later, that, especially in housing action trust areas, not only tenants but other residents are involved. We want to ensure that tenants and residents in housing action trust areas are involved in the planning, as many of their democratic rights under the local authority structure are taken away by the HAT quango.
During our proceedings on the Housing Act 1988, the Labour party proposed each and every one of the changes that the Government have announced today, but all our amendments were voted down by the Government. Now that the Government have accepted the general position that they consistently opposed then, will they confirm, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), appeared to do in Committee yesterday, that tenants will have an absolute right to choose their own landlords in future—and not just to go back to the council but to go back to it without the council losing funds?
That is vital. Previous Ministers said that primary legislation was needed for that. We want to be clear whether that is a right for tenants or merely something that can be done at the whim of Ministers, who on average do not stay in the job for much more than six months, as the experience of the past three or four years has shown.
Can we have some guarantees for tenants, not only in respect of rent levels, but in respect of the rent-setting mechanism? Will they be involved in the discussions about what rent levels will be, given that different standards of housing will emerge at the end of the development programme?
Can we have some guarantees also on the right of succession for tenants, which they can lose or have watered down by the assured tenancy proposal and, similarly, on the right to buy? Both are important.
Can we have a guarantee that anyone who applies for a housing action trust in particular will have significant number of tenants and/or residents on the board, and that the chair of the organisation will enjoy the support of local people and will not be a Whitehall appointee as the arrangements have unfortunately provided.
When the Government set up the housing action trust system, they identified seven areas which they said were desperately in need of money and, as I recall, set aside 180 million for those areas. Those areas consistently said no, either in Government-organised votes or in tenant-organised votes. Will those areas now be able to bid under the new system, given that it was the tenants' resistance, more than any other factor—certainly more than my intervention on behalf of the Labour party—that forced the Government to change course? Will they be given the

959
opportunity to come back for the money that was taken away from them when they did not do what the previous Secretary of State wanted and vote to opt out of council control?
Finally, will the Minister make it clear that existing estate action programmes will be able to continue? My reading of his statement is that they will, but it would help if he would clarify the matter.
Sir George Young: I am grateful for the welcome that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has given for the proposals, although I must point out that it is not the Government but Labour Members who are shifting their position on housing action trusts.
Of course we should consult residents in the areas concerned. We are talking of local authority estates that are severely run down, and a feature of them is that there has not been a lot of exercise of the right to buy. Where people have bought, however, they are entitled to participate in the work of the housing action trust.
We have made it quite clear that if, at the end of the housing action trust period, the tenants want to return to their local authority landlord, we shall make the resources available to the local authority to enable it to reacquire the properties. I repeat that commitment.
On rent levels, of course tenants want to know, before voting for HATs, roughly what the deal is. In the two specific recent cases, tenants have been told that there will be no increases until the improvements have taken place and that, thereafter, rents will rise broadly to the level of other local authority rents in the area. Within those parameters, it is for the HAT to develop the policy once it has been set up.
I can confirm that the right to buy is carried through and that there is no prejudice to that right in voting for a housing action trust. It will be carried through on the same terms.
We have consulted leaders of tenants associations before appointing shadow chairmen and other members of the housing action trusts and in Waltham Forest and Hull, I understand that the shadow chairmen are acceptable both to tenants and to local councillors. We propose to continue with that model. We are prepared to appoint up to half of the members of a HAT from local people, either councillors or tenants.
On those estates that voted no, mischievous propaganda was circulated encouraging people to vote in that way. Some of those estates now regret that they were misled. However, they will be eligible to resubmit for a HAT, although they will have to accept that there will be other bidders in the field, whereas previously they had a fairly clear round.
If the hon. Gentleman really wants to help local authority tenants living on those estates, he and his Front-Bench colleagues should urge the tenants in Waltham Forest—who start voting on Saturday—to vote for a HAT. If Labour Members were to do that, it would help people who, I think, we all want to help.
Mr. Michael Latham: My hon. Friend is to be warmly congratulated on his statement and on the success of the estate action programme, which he founded about eight years ago when he was previously a Minister in the Department of the Environment. Is he aware that the HAT programme is now being successfully
960
revived because he is integrating the tenants and the local authorities, which unfortunately was not the case previously?
Sir George Young: The Government are anxious that HATs should be set up with the support of local government and local residents. If we want to develop a successful model, we need the goodwill of all parties concerned. The Government are now anxious to work as hard as possible to ensure that, where HATs are proposed, that is done on the basis of collaboration and partnership. We do not want any of the adversarial politics that, sadly, were injected into some of the earlier proposals, mainly by people who were politically dogmatic and committed against HATs.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the proposals. Is the Minister aware that nowhere in the guidelines that he has issued is there any reference to public or recreational spaces? Will he issue guidelines to local authorities, especially on footage for each person? Will he examine the systems of heating? Is it to be the prerogative of the individuals, rather than the board, to control the heating systems?
Sir George Young: It would be against the philosophy of HATs, which are essentially about pushing down decisions to the local people, if the Government were to be too dogmatic about how central heating systems were run on estates. We are anxious that energy efficiency should be an important component within the estate action programmes and within HATs. Every opportunity should be taken to insulate the properties and to ensure that tenants who occupy them have their heating bills reduced because of energy efficient schemes.
On the question of open spaces, some of the most successful estate action programmes have embodied the demarcation of certain land—for example, close to the tower blocks—and attributing it specifically to a tower block rather than leaving it as general open space. Many of the other programmes have allocated space on the ground floor to those living on the ground floor, which has given them some privacy and defensible open space. We are anxious that large open spaces, which are often unused, should be put to better use both in HATs and in the estate action programme.
Sir Dudley Smith: The proposals sound both vigorous and challenging. They are necessary, and should be widely welcomed. In those interesting proposals, is there any equation with the vexed and damaging problem of non-payment of rent? That is spreading in certain areas, and somehow or other it should be dealt with concomitant with these proposals.
Sir George Young: Part of our proposal is to devolve housing management down to particular estates. We are promoting estate management boards under the estate action programme. There is every sign that, where local people are involved in the management of their estate, there are fewer voids, fewer squatters, and a better rent collection record.
With HATs, tenants will be on the board, making decisions. They will know that, the more rent that is collected, the more resources can be put back into the estate. That is a far better model for reducing rent arrears than an often impersonal, remote and out-of-touch local

961
authority management, who simply do not have the same incentive to collect the rents and plough them back into the estates.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister cut through all the jargon and offer some specific hope to some of my constituents? He will be aware that the tenants on the Lancashire Hill estate and the Stockport local authority bid for money to be allocated under the design improvement controlled initiative scheme for work to be done on their estate. Unfortunately, Professor Coleman, who seemed to run the programme rather more than the Department did, insulted many of my constituents and finally decided not to go ahead with the scheme after a great deal of preparatory work had been done by the Stockport local authority. Can the Minister now say that money will be available for the Lancashire Hill flats under the programme that he is talking about today?
Sir George Young: Of course, the local authority can apply under the estate action programme for a programme of improvements. I regret if any offence was caused by Professor Coleman, but the programme which she is supervising, which I think amounts to some £50 million, is monitored and approved by Ministers and we are taking a close interest in the development of the research. We are interested in her findings on the relationship between the design of estates and factors such as vandalism, rent arrears, graffiti and so on.
Mr. James Hill: Will my hon. Friend admit that he has tried several schemes recently and that each time he has come up against the solid brick wall of a Labour-controlled housing committee? When, in Southampton on a former scheme, we had to obtain a percentage of the votes to get tower block tenants to take over a new management programme, the Labour group sent out a tremendous amount of misinformation, and there was a lot of scaremongering about the rise in rents. Is my hon. Friend not relying too much on the co-operation that he is expecting to get? I can say here and now that, in Southampton, which has the worst-maintained tower blocks in the south of England, he will get little or no co-operation, and he will certainly be seeing once again the leaflets of misinformation.
Sir George Young: Realism is breaking out within the Labour party, if not in Southampton certainly in other parts of the country. As the House well knows, in Hull the Labour-controlled council supported the proposal to set up HATs. It urged its own tenants to vote yes. Other Labour-controlled local authorities, such as Liverpool, are approaching the Government to see whether we will set up HATs in their areas. The new enlightened approach may not yet have filtered south to Southampton, but other Labour-controlled areas realise the advantages of Government policy—that our new housing initiatives offer their tenants and themselves fresh ways of tackling problems. At the end of the day, if the tenants in Southampton do not like their present landlord, under tenants' choice they are perfectly free today of this week to choose another landlord, an approved landlord. They can vote to transfer to a housing association if they feel that a housing association would give them a better deal than Southampton council.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Minister aware that any increased or more effective expenditure on improving estates is always welcome, particularly since, during the past 12 years, the Government have robbed local authorities of hundreds of millions of pounds which should have been spent on improving estates? Will he assure the House that he will not force local authorities to spend money at the whim of the Department of the Environment and that he will allow local democracy to prevail?
When the Minister talks so glibly about housing choice, does he recognise that the only real way to provide adequate housing choice is to give local authorities the opportunity once again to build council housing at reasonable rents? That would allow the thousands of people in Bradford in my constituency who are on the waiting list and are desperately in need of housing to get the housing denied them by Government policies?
Sir George Young: I think that the hon. Gentleman was present for Environment questions today, when I made it clear that we expected the housing association movement rather than the local authorities to build new homes for rent. There is no compulsion on local authorities to bid for estate action. However, the Department usually finds that it is over-subscribed. That has been our experience with the urban programme, city challenge and estate action. Local authorities are eager to apply for resources under the scheme brought forward by the Government. If a local authority does not wish to bid, it will have to explain to its tenants why it has not taken advantage of the schemes that I have announced today.
Mr. Richard Tracey: The news that my hon. Friend has given the House is very welcome. I join him in hoping that the friendliness demonstrated by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), will also be shown by Labour councillors and Labour party supporters in residents associations, so that we shall not encounter again the mischief that was caused in London on the last occasion that housing action trusts were talked about by the Government. The policy outlined in my hon. Friend's statement deals with groups of housing dereliction, but I am worried about isolated properties that so often are wilfully kept empty by councils. They must be brought back into use to house the homeless.
Sir George Young: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I very much hope that Opposition Members will rethink their opposition to housing action trusts. A housing action trust is set up only when tenants vote for it. If tenants do not want a housing action trust, they need not have it. To oppose a housing action trust dogmatically is to deny resources to tenants who are living on the worst local authority estates and, moreover, to deny them the opportunity to participate in the management of those estates and in decision making. It is a denial of choice and democracy. I therefore hope that Opposition Members will think again.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that local authorities that have voids will apply to the Department—under the £300 million homelessness initiative, by means of which resources can be made available—to bring them back into use, if that would cost more than local authorities would normally be able to spend out of their housing investment programmes.

963
Alternatively, they can homestead the properties. They can make them available to people on the waiting list, or to people with the necessary skills who want to move and who are prepared to move into the properties and modernise them. The local authority then gets a rent, its property is improved and somebody is housed. I hope that local authorities will look again at the advantages of homesteading.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister consider what can be done about private estates where the builder has gone bankrupt and left a legacy of unmade roads and causeways, and play areas that are a cross between an adventure playground and a tip? The local authority is unable to deal with them. It needs help with refurbishment, if it is to assist the people who are living on those estates.
Sir George Young: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in bringing private estates into the debate. If he will let me have details of the particular estate that he has in mind, I shall see whether there is anything that can be done. If planning permission was given for an estate, on the basis that certain roads would be built, the local authority may be able to take action in default and reclaim—
Mr. McKay: The builder and developer is bankrupt and has now disappeared.
Sir George Young: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have the details. I shall then see whether there is any way through.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I support what the Minister is trying to do, but I urge a little caution, having lived through any number of these schemes as a member of Westminster city council's housing committee. I saw the end product. The experience that I gained there leads me to believe that most tenants to not want to become involved actively in these democratic organisations. They want a private landlord, or just a good landlord. One way to achieve that is to bring in the private sector, even to the extent of selling off blocks of properties on certain terms. That would allow the private owner, or landlord, to do the work. I have seen some excellent schemes in docklands, carried out by Barratts. There are also some very good examples in Wandsworth. I am sure that Westminster's housing officials, with their great experience, would be happy to pass on some very good tips.
Sir George Young: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. There is an important principle: whether to allow tenants to decide whether or not their landlord should change, or whether to do that for them or to them. The Government's view is that before one proposes that the landlord should be changed from a local authority to a housing action trust, the tenants should be told about the proposal and have the opportunity to vote upon it. If one is going to ask them to vote, one must explain what is proposed.
Although it may take longer and although one runs the risk of a "no" vote, it is better to try to obtain the support of the tenants than to impose the change on them. Having been to Waltham Forest and to Hull to meet the tenants, I was greatly encouraged by the interest shown in the housing action trust by people living on the estates and by their commitment to it.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Minister confirm that that does not apply to the privately rented sector, although some of the worst cases involve private landlords? However, I should not expect the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to recognise that. Why is tenants' choice only for private tenants, not for public sector tenants?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke about the need for new council house building. Will the Minister bear it in mind that, during the past 10 to 12 years, there has been a substantial reduction in the publicly rented sector and that the Government have been determined that no new council houses should be built to replace those which have been sold? That is part of the problem.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman should know the answer to the substantive point at the beginning of his question. The Government have a mandate for properties that have been built with taxpayers' money, but not for properties that have been built privately. That is why we have extended the right to buy to public sector tenants, but not to private sector tenants.
As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, we dealt with the issue during the 45 minutes of Environment questions. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is Government policy for housing associations to provide new, socially affordable housing.

Points of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The private notice question dealt with a general subject: unlike most private notice questions, it raised issues related to many constituencies. The Government refused to make a statement, so the Opposition's only option was to put down a private notice question. You restricted it to about 16 minutes, which is a very short time for a private notice question, although I understand what a tremendously difficult job you have. Only four hon. Members were left standing, so it would not have intruded greatly on the business of the day if we had been called—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman there. I have to make difficult judgments. I nearly suggested to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that I would trade his ten-minute Bill for four further questions. However, the hon. Gentleman is saying that I should call those hon. Members who are here now to the detriment of those who want to speak later. The Ulster Members get very little time in the House and they constantly complain—and rightly so—that their debates are squeezed. I have an absolute obligation to protect their interests.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about the fact that the private notice question followed the theft of a letter. We heard the Secretary of State make it clear that it was a storm in a teacup—indeed, one must question the motives of the BBC in leading this morning's bulletin with the story. The granting of the private notice question means that people will not be discouraged from stealing Government letters.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to make such points, but theft, as the Secretary of State said, is always reprehensible. But in granting the private notice question today that is not the criterion that I used. If such an issue is being widely discussed outside, surely it is right that we hear about it on the Floor of the House from the Secretary of State.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will say to those hon. Members who are rising—I know what they are going to say—that we are taking time out of the Ulster debate. We have business questions tomorrow and next week there will almost certainly be an Opposition day. There will be a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill at some stage, so there will be plenty of other opportunities to raise this issue. It is very unfair on the Ulster Members to take time out of their debate today.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This point of order relates to Question Time, and it is not related to the other point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I will take the point of order.
Mr. Cryer: During questions, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that there was no truth in my claim that the Department of the Environment had sent to local
966
authorities lists of institutions authorised by the Bank of England. I have checked with the Library, and I have discovered that the Department of the Environment sent out quarterly returns which included the lists—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Even if the Department has, it is not a matter of order for me.
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot be held responsible for answers given to questions. I have no knowledge of that matter. Goodness me, I should be on my feet all the time if I were called on to adjudicate on whether what was said here was right or wrong.
Mr. Cryer: But, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Well, I would.
Mr. Cryer: It is naturally a matter of order that Ministers should tell the truth.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must find another way of raising the matter.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has it been communicated to you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government intend to make a full statement about the position of the 24 local authorities, including my own authority of Allerdale, which have lent the Bank of Credit and Commerce International at least £30 million, and about the position of the further 20 local authorities that are about to surface to reveal that they too have lent substantial sums? The list to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred has on it two banks, Chancery plc and Edington plc, which have been the subject of administration orders within the past six months. They remain on the list, and the list is misleading local authorities. I wonder whether we can have a statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had no request for a statement about the matter, but we had a statement on Monday. I should have thought that it would be a good subject to raise on the Consolidated Fund Bill or on a Supply day.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991" was issued yesterday. Page 73, says that there will be no continuing need for quality assurance within the Ministry of Defence. You know from the many questions that I have asked in the House that I have been trying to move the quality assurance unit from Woolwich in south London to my constituency. Yet today and yesterday, I have been unable to obtain from the Ministry of Defence any definitive statement on the future of the unit. May we have a statement on the matter?
Mr. Speaker: I am concerned with quality control in the Chamber. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Speaker. I do not want to challenge the Chair. However, it is significant when the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) cynically exploit the position of BCCI. That was compounded by the Parliamentary

967
Under-Secretary of State for the Environment giving a falsehood to the House. I know that it was a falsehood, because I have the documents here—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to pursue the matter. They should reflect that, but for the Chair, they would not have had even the private notice question. The hon. Gentleman should sit down, please. Let us get on.
Mr. David Sumberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: No further points of order.
Mr. Sumberg: Well, I was mentioned.
Mr. Speaker: My God, yes, you were.
Mr. Sumberg: It would be in order and keep tip the quality of the Chamber, which I know that you are anxious to do, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) were not allowed to refer to cynicism on my part in mentioning the point in Question Time. I made the point wholly on behalf of my constituents who have lost £6·5 million because of the Labour council in Bury.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that we shall return lo the subject.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 4) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1533) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland).
  That the Matter of the Scottish economy, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration. —[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland).
  That the Matter of housing in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

Ancient Forests
4.23 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to designate areas of ancient forest within the United Kingdom in connection with the arrangements of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation for declaring World Heritage Sites; to make provision for the conservation and regeneration of such areas of ancient forest; and for connected purposes.
The Bill asusumes an added urgency with the statement this morning in Edinburgh by an old friend of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has done me the courtesy of being present, and myself, Professor Sir Frederick Holliday. He stated:
"Last Thursday, I saw Mr. Trippier and asked him to seek a new Chairman for the JNCC. I outlined to him my reasons for believing that I could best serve the interests of nature conservation in Britain by vacating the post of independent Chairman. I urged that my going be used as an opportunity for the three Departments of State concerned to review:

(a) the role of the JNCC following EPA and SNH legislation;

(b) the way in which Governments expected to see the role discharged;

(c) the administrative and financial framework deemed appropriate for the associated tasks.

I said that I would make this short statement today. After discussion I agreed to add a further sentence to say that the Minister intended to let my proposal lie upon the table until he consulted further. Whilst I remained of the same mind, I agreed to Mr. Trippier's suggestion. I also agreed not to elaborate further at this stage."
When the independent chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, a distinguished marine biologist, lately vice-chancellor of the university of Durham, and much else resigns, on a matter of principle, Ministers should take notice that something is wrong.
My Bill is really the "For Pity's Sake, Please Do Something About Mar Lodge Before It Is Too Late Bill" or the "We Hope That The Environment Secretary Will Put Into Practice What He So Eloquently Expressed on 5 March 1980 Bill". Mar Lodge gives him a litmus test opportunity to do so. In an Adjournment debate, quoting the right hon. Gentleman in extenso—the general case has never been more eloquently put—the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said:
"we give special protection to particularly important sites of … nature conservation or special scientific interest … we … need to consider decisions too from an international as well as a national standpoint."—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 437.]
Exactly. If we in Britain cannot ourselves protect Mar Lodge and the remnants of the Caledonian forest on the southern Cairngorms, we had better belt up about telling Governments in Brasilia, Kinshasa or Kuala Lumpur how they should go about protecting their rain forests.
I address myself to the Department of the Environment because, frankly, I despair of the Scottish Office. This, incidentally, is the explanation for any English hon. Member vexed at being kept out of his bed on Monday night until the Government Chief Whip had to move the closure—incidentally, that action is almost unprecedented in respect of a Lords amendment—and why there is a need for an Ancient Forests Bill.
In the debate on 19 June, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland agreed with the international importance of the Mar Lodge estate, but expressed Her Majesty's Government's view that private ownership, with a

969
management agreement, is, in general, the best approach to the management of Scotland's natural heritage. The Minister expected that, by management agreements, the objectives of conservation could be combined with the interests of the taxpayer. The recent Glenlochay case does not support that conclusion.
In the Glenlochay case, Mr. John Cameron bought the estate in 1986 for about £570,000, knowing full well of the existing sites of special scientific interest and aware that a recent proposal for afforestation affecting the SSSIs had been refused by the Forestry Commission on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council. Shortly after purchase, Mr. Cameron submitted a claim for about £1 million for "profit forgone", which my colleagues know is the cost of a management agreement under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will know exactly what we are getting at, because the hon. Gentleman—faithful Sir Hector—could not, at 2.30 in the morning, bring himself to vote for his own Government, because he knew and cared something about it. That is the extent to which the Government are wrong.
The NCC opposed Mr. Cameron's forestry and agricultural proposals that affected the SSSIs. Finally, after a land tribunal decision, Mr. Cameron was awarded a cool £555,000, which, with added interest and costs, will set the taxpayer back by close to £1 million.
In the light of the Glenlochay experience, it would clearly have been far cheaper to acquire the estate for the nation outright. Albeit that there have been changes purporting to plug the loopholes in forestry taxation and compensation, the fact remains that many other practices can command huge sums in compensation. Mr. Cameron was within the law—just—but it is an abuse of the system.
Mar Lodge provides a valid parallel. Regrettably, management agreements with a variety of private owners, geared to the supposed interests of the taxpayer, have failed to conserve the Caledonian forest's natural character and simply will not meet either the conservation requirements or the demands of the taxpayer, which cannot be open-ended.
Like many of my colleagues, I believe that the compulsory purchase of Mar Lodge on behalf of the nation is now called for and that the world property market, with its vagaries, is no way to protect Mar Lodge or our living treasures.
That is not a maverick view. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will well recollect that Dr. Martin Holdgate, who was the late Tony Crosland's favourite adviser and is now the director general of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, has written to the Secretary of State suggesting the purchase of Mar-Lodge for conservation purposes, and that it be run by SNH. As my hon. Friend the member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) knows, when Dr. Holdgate suggests that, it is not a maverick view.
970
I cannot discuss motives, although I personally would give the Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) the benefit of the doubt that the original motive was not deceit, but what has happened since is deceit, because the position has been made far worse as a result of that infamous clause 11 being inserted at the last minute in the House of Lords.
I shall tell the Minister the story in potted form. There was a row over the flow country and a bad press conference. The present Secretary of State for Transport then thought that he could kill two birds with one stone—that he could appease the Scots at little cost and extend the domain of the Scottish Office. Therefore, there was an agreement with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Then, after the House had given something totally different a Second Reading—and after we had spent many hours in Committee on a totally different proposition—at the 11 th hour and the 59th minute, clause 11 was inserted.
That clause might have been bombed out by the House of Commons Public Bill Office. It is extremely doubtful whether the Lords should have accepted it, because it fundamentally altered the nature of the Bill. It was sneaked into the Lords, and even Lord Patrick Gibson, who is only the ex-chairman of the National Trust, knew nothing about it. A cosy little circle in the Lords got together and, against the advice of Lord Cranbrook, who is the Government's own head of the English Nature Conservancy Council—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please bring his speech to a close?
Mr. Dalyell: Finally, the Government should reflect on this matter and, in the light of what happened this morning, with the resignation of Sir Frederick Holliday, should put the whole thing on ice and go back to the drawing board.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. George Foulkes, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. John McFall, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Gavin Strang and Mr. Brian Wilson.

Ancient Forests

  ANCIENT FORESTS
  Mr. Tam Dalyell accordingly presented a Bill to designate areas of ancient forest within the United Kingdom in connection with the arrangements of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation for declaring World Heritage Sites; to make provision for the conservation and regeneration of such areas of ancient forest; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 19 July and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
  Mr. Speaker: We come now to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Not moved.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland)
Mr. Speaker: Before we start on the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, it might be helpful if I repeat to the House what I have said before from the Chair in these debates. The debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
4.35 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises expenditure of £2,735 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the amount already voted on account, this brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to £4,676 million, an increase of 9 per cent. on 1990–91 provisional outturn. The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess vote in 1989–90. The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office.
The provision contained in these estimates needs to be set in the context of Northern Ireland's recent economic performance. Northern Ireland has, to a large extent, escaped the worst effects of the recession. However, the local economy is beginning to be affected by the downturn in economic activity at national level, with unemployment having increased by 3,100 over the past six months. This increase is regrettable, but it is much less pronounced than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Despite the recent fall in the total numbers of people in work, the trend in employment remains upward. Moreover, output in Northern Ireland's industries in the first quarter of 1991 was up by 2 per cent. compared with the same period a year earlier. The local economy is therefore displaying remarkable resilience. Government will continue to do all that they can to assist Northern Ireland industry to improve its efficiency and competitiveness, so that it is well placed to take advantage of the economic upturn.
I now turn to the estimates themselves. As is customary on these occasions I shall concentrate on the main items, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision sought in the two agricultural votes amounts to some £148 million, an increase of £4·5 million over 1990–91. Vote I covers expenditure of £31 million on various market support schemes which operate on a national basis. This includes £15 million for farm improvements and grants to stimulate investment on farms and £16 million is to provide support for farming in the less-favoured areas, by means of payments on hill cattle and sheep.
Vote II seeks provision of £116 million for local agricultural, fisheries and forestry services and support measures. Of this, £48 million is for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services, reflecting the importance of maintaining the highest possible quality of Northern Ireland agricultural produce; £27 million is for arterial drainage, fisheries and forestry.
972
A sum of £1 million is sought for a new initiative on rural development. This will provide for payments to community bodies to promote regeneration projects in the most deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland. A rural development council, which will promote local community initiatives and advise the Department on rural development policies is being set up. I know that Northern Ireland Members will welcome that development.
Mr. Roy Beggs: In the sum that is allocated for rural development will funds be made available to those who require a decent road from where they live to a main road?
Dr. Mawhinney: I shall discuss the Department of the Environment and the amount of money set aside for roads in a moment.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Government respond tonight to the MacSharry proposals and how they will affect expenditure on agriculture? I am sure that the Minister is aware that the farming community is greatly alarmed about the proposals from Europe. If those proposals are carried out many farmers could be put out of full-time farming.
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman made his point well, but the key to the answer lies in his words: "if those proposals are carried out". As I understand it, they are simply proposals at the moment and therefore it is unlikely that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), will want to address them in the abstract tonight. However, the Government have noted the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. William Ross: Surely the Minister does not expect to get away with that. The Government are bound to make some response to the MacSharry proposals, so when can we expect it?
Dr. Mawhinney: I shall make clear to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the hon. Gentleman's concern. No doubt as soon as he is able to do so, he will respond to the substantive part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
The Department of Economic Development's vote 1 seeks provision for £212 million. That will enable the Industrial Development Board to carry out its role of encouraging industrial development in Northern Ireland, which includes assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. Last December, the board published its forward strategy for the period to 1993. That sets out how the IDB will respond to the challenges of the early 1990s and outlines the assistance that it can offer to companies. The IDB is encouraging the location and development of internationally competitive companies in the manufacturing and tradeable service sectors in Northern Ireland, to create the conditions for growth in durable employment.
In the Department of Economic Development's vote 2, some £40 million is sought for the local enterprise development unit, LEDU, Northern Ireland's small business agency. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that, in the past financial year, LEDU promoted almost 7,000 jobs. That was 16 per cent. above target and some 1,000 more than the previous year's record result. That is

973
a very heartening performance and brings the total number of jobs promoted by LEDU since its establishment in 1971 to more than 50,000.
Also in vote 2, £5·5 million is sought for the Northern Ireland tourist board, to promote the further development of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland and to enable the board to market Northern Ireland more effectively.
The Department of Economic Development's vote 3 covers expenditure of £172 million by the Training and Employment Agency, an increase of £6 million over 1990–91. The sum of £31 million is sought for the youth training programme to provide 8,000 places and to meet the guarantee given by the Government of a training place for every unemployed young person under 18. A sum of £53 million is for the action for community employment programme, to provide almost 10,000 places for long-term unemployed adults. They will be offered the opportunity to re-enter the employment market by undertaking work of community benefit. Some £17 million is for the job training programme, an increase of £6 million over 1990–91. That will allow the programme to increase from 2,500 training places last year to around 5,000 by March 1992.
About 35,000 people are currently engaged on the various programmes provided by the Training and Employment Agency and more than 40,000 have been placed in employment since April 1990. It is encouraging also that 95 per cent. of apprentices on training centre courses, entered permanent employment on completion of their training. The agency has also undertaken a major review of mangement education and training, and introduced new arrangements into both the youth training programme and the action for community employment scheme to improve the availability and quality of training.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way.
On shipbuilding, the Minister will know better than me that Harland and Wolff is one of a small number of major merchant shipbuilding yards left in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister confirm that that merchant shipbuilding yard receives financial assistance through the European Community's seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund? If that money is received and where it is spent on engines, has that shipyard got the power to purchase those engines from anywhere in the world?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he has asked a specific question arising from his deep knowledge of the subject. I believe that it will be much better if I obtain a definitive reply which I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will be able to give the hon. Gentleman when he replies to the debate.
In the Department of the Environment's vote 1, £169 million is sought for roads, transport and ports. That is nearly £8 million more than last year. The sum of £139 million is for the road services programme to finance the operation and maintenance of the Province's road system and new construction and improvement works. A contract for the first phase of the Belfast cross-harbour road and rail links has just been awarded, and work is due to begin
974
in October. The Department of the Environment vote 2 seeks £197 million for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Minister is aware that a serious accident occurred on the rail link through my constituency last night when the second cousin of the mayor of Ballymena was killed. Later tonight, will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary be able to explain to the House why the lights on that crossing were defective on Monday and on Tuesday when the accident happened? Will the hon. Gentleman be able to give us some firm information on a matter that has stirred the community deeply? I am sure that we will all want to express our deepest sympathy to the family at this time.
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is right; the whole House would wish him to extend to the family our condolences on the tragedy in his constituency. I was not aware that the person involved was related to Alderman Spence. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am not sure whether, in the time available, it will be possible to provide a specific answer. If that is not possible, I am sure that my hon. Friend will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information when available.
When net borrowing by the Housing Executive to fund its capital programme, rental income and capital receipts, are taken into account, gross expenditure on the housing programme will be about £522 million, or around £18 million more than in 1990–91.
The Department of the Environment vote 3 covers water and sewerage services. Gross expenditure in 1991–92 is almost £134 million, which includes £45 million for capital and £85 million for operational and maintenance purposes. Over the next 10 to 12 years, some £500 million will be spent on the capital works programme. That will include a new water source for the greater Belfast area and the replacement of the main Belfast sewage treatment works, which was built nearly a century ago. It also covers a programme of works in compliance with European Community directives. In the first three years of the programme, some £96 million will be directed at improving the already high quality of drinking water supplies in Northern Ireland.
In DOE vote 4, £124 million is sought for environmental services, an increase of £13 million over 1990–91. That includes £40 million of urban regeneration measures targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. As in previous years, that will generate much higher overall investment, through the successful partnerships which have been established with the private sector. Over the life of the scheme, every £1 of grant has levered £4 of private sector money, which is an admirable record.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,151 million, an increase of nearly 12 per cent. over the previous year. Vote 1 includes provision of £648 million for the education and library boards to cover recurrent expenditure. Under the new arrangements for local management of schools and colleges, 80 per cent. of that will be delegated to schools and colleges and managed by them at local level. Included in the allocation to boards is £11 million to enable them to tackle a backlog of urgently required maintenance work.

975
The vote also provides a further £138 million to the boards to cover recurrent expenditure on other services such as libraries and youth services, and for mandatory student awards. A further £54 million is for capital projects which will enable work to start on 12 major building projects, and also provide new laboratories and technology workshops for schools, reflecting the enhanced opportunities arising from the education reforms.
Mr. Beggs: Do the estimates include an amount to overcome the alleged underfunding of the Roman Catholic-maintained school system? Many of us were deeply offended at allegations that area boards are in some way responsible for discriminating against the Roman Catholic-maintained sector. Is the Minister in a position to say whether there has been a genuine underfunding of that Church system and what will be done about it?
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is referring to one study of a number that were commissioned by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, although SACHR has not yet endorsed it. It makes certain suggestions about discrimination or lack of balance in the funding of different school systems in Northern Ireland. The assumptions that underlie the report would, by definition, be subject to question and debate by others. Nevertheless, there has been a record of historic differential in funding between schools in the maintained and controlled sectors.
However, the fact that I am not aware of suggestions that education and library boards were responsible for discrimination will be of some encouragement to the hon. Gentleman in the light of his question. The Department of Education in Northern Ireland recognised that problem some years ago. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, when he was chairman of the north-east education and library board, changes in resource allocation were introduced precisely to start to reverse that historic trend. He will also know that the introduction of local management for schools, which is a basis of funding where the money follows the pupil, will be the most effective way to deal with the problem. That is already widely recognised as a consequence of the debate that has arisen following the publication of that study.
Other expenditure in the schools sector, which is administered directly by the Department of Education, will be £128 million. That includes just over £4 million for grant-maintained integrated schools. There are now 12 integrated schools in Northern Ireland, with aggregate enrolments of 2,300 pupils. This is further welcome evidence of the growing demand from parents that their children should be educated alongside children of other denominations. The recent Northern Ireland social attitudes survey showed that 58 per cent. of Protestants and 67 per cent. of Roman Catholics support integrated education.
In the Department of Education's vote 2, £153 million is sought, of which £87 million is to enable Northern Ireland's universities to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. This vote also provides the necessary funds for a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities. In particular, it makes provision of £2·4 million for grants and payments by the Department of Education for the improvement of community relations.
Mr. Beggs: Will funding be available to recognise the community schools that have been established in Northern Ireland, and to provide the necessary funding to enable schools under LMS to keep a community tutor on the payroll?
Dr. Mawhinney: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to matters included in the education reform order. The Department will want to discuss those with schools that might want to become community schools.
The next set of votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. In votes 1 and 3, total net provision of £1,052 million is sought for health and social services. That is an increase of 10 per cent. over last year and will sustain the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. Spending on the family health services will be over £223 million, an increase of £21 million over 1990–91. Some £837 million is for health and social services boards current expenditure, and £51 million is for capital development, to maintain a substantial programme of major and minor works, including £11 million for Antrim hospital. Those allocations will support the Government's reform programme and allow further progress in a number of priority areas, including improved services for the disabled.
Hon. Members will be aware that it is intended to establish a child support agency in Northern Ireland as part of the Government's plans to ensure that absent parents meet their responsibilities for the care and upbringing of their children. In addition, one of the six British regional centres required for the administration of child support work will also be located in Northern Ireland. That welcome development will create 550 new jobs in Belfast. A supplementary estimate to cover the costs of preparatory work in this area will be brought before the House later in the year.
Vote 4 provides £1,106 million for social security benefits, an increase of more than 12 per cent. over last year. Some £491 million is for income support; £170 million for housing benefit and £14 million for payments into the social fund. The balance—£431 million—is for family and non-contributory benefits such as child benefit and retirement pensions.
May I draw hon. Members' attention to the Department of Finance and Personnel vote 3, where a total of almost £3 million is sought for the community relations programme. The programme of community relations work undertaken by the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Education continues to expand. Total expenditure by both Departments will increase from £4 million in 1990–91 to £5·5 million in this financial year. That will support programmes designed to create equality of opportunity and equity of treatment. It also includes projects to promote cross-community contact and increase mutual respect and understanding. The Government believe that those policies and practical measures will, in time, help to ease community divisions.
Mr. James Molyneaux: In view of the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, is the Minister in a position to say what the Government's attitude is to those councils that may sustain heavy losses? Naturally, I am thinking particularly of Lisburn council, which stands to lose some £3 million. Will the Minister explain the standing—I am choosing my

977
words carefully—of what appears to have been a circular issued by the Bank of England and perhaps made available by the Department of the Environment in Great Britain, giving the impression—again, I choose that word carefully —that BCCI was a bona fide institution in which councils could safely invest?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the House appreciates the concern expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, as statute requires, approved the creation of a capital fund by Lisburn borough council. The financial management of the fund, including investment decisions, are matters solely for the district council.
The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland does not offer guidance on the standing of financial institutions and does not maintain a list of authorised institutions. The consequences of individual investment decisions are a matter for the council involved, but I know that Department of the Environment officials would be willing to talk to officials of Lisburn council if they so wish. However, I stress, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will understand, that those discussions will be without commitment.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister must realise that he is the first Minister with an opportunity to comment on this matter since the number of councils involved came tumbling out of the woodwork. What discussions has he had with Scottish Office and Department of the Environment Ministers about how they will adopt a joint approach to the problem? Is he really going to argue to the House that, having led local authorities up the garden path by issuing an approved list that will undoubtedly have been referred to by financial brokers acting on their behalf, those authorities will be left in the lurch by the Government who so callously deceived them?
Dr. Mawhinney: I shall pay the hon. Gentleman the compliment of believing that he knows as well as I do that I have no responsibility for most of the matters to which he has referred. In the context of a debate about appropriations in Northern Ireland and in response to a serious and concerned question from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, I have expressed the position in relation to Lisburn council. I repeat that, if the officials from Lisburn council wish to talk to Department of the Environment officials in Northern Ireland, I am sure that those officials would be happy to do so—but without commitment.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand the Minister's present reticence, but will he give an assurance from the Northern Ireland Office that it will not only look at the issue but will be helpful to the council, because that authority will be in very serious difficulties through no fault of its own? If, as has been alleged, the difficulty has arisen through propaganda put out and approved by authorities on this side of the water, surely the Minister cannot, Pontius Pilate like, wash his hands and say that it is a matter for the people in London and has nothing to do with his office. I am not suggesting that he would do that, but I use that illustration.
Dr. Mawhinney: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for not suggesting that I would do that.
The financial management of any council funds, including investment decisions and their consequences, are matters for the council involved. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. Through the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, I have made an offer to the officials at Lisburn.
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Dr. Mawhinney: I should now like to wind up. I have nearly finished.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was some controversy earlier about whether the Department of the Environment sent out quarterly returns accompanied by a list of institutions that were authorised on 28 February 1991—a copy of which I have in my hand. The Minister seems to be saying that no such list was sent to local authorities in Northern Ireland, which is contrary to what has happened in England, Scotland and Wales. Is it in order for the Minister to deny that when put in terms of a point of order?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is barely a point of order for the Chair, but very much a matter for debate. I regret that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced parliamentarian, chose a point of order to express an opinion.
Dr. Mawhinney: In my opening remarks, I sought to draw the attention of the House to the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North will respond to detailed points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.
5.5 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: First, I thank the Minister for taking us so diligently through the estimates. He will recall that we had a conversation before the debate. I formed the impression then that he was going to make a shorter speech than usual. I presume that his speech was drawn out because of the interventions that arose from his comments.
I shall try to render in order the point of order put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) by asking the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), a specific question. It seems that there is no doubt that the Department of the Environment in England and Wales—and, I presume, the Scottish Office in Scotland—have been issuing advice to local authorities in Great Britain about institutions to which they should turn to borrow money. That advice involved the list to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred.
The Minister of State, however, referred not to the Department of the Environment in London, but to the Department of the Environment in Belfast. I understood him to say clearly that no such advice had been given by officials at the Department of the Environment in Belfast. That is a neat way of ducking the question, but we need to find out the answer, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was seeking to do. Was the information issued by the Department of the Environment in London and, if not circulated in the Province, at least

979
made known to district councils in the Province? It is no good the Under-Secretary shrugging his shoulders as though that would absolve Ministers in the Province of any responsibility for it.
If the information went to the Province in that way, district councils in the Province, like district councils throughout the United Kingdom, were misled into believing that a specific institution against which the Bank of England took action some days ago was a bona fide financial institution which, to coin a phrase, was nearly as safe as the Bank of England. They were led to believe that they could risk their ratepayers' money and future resources by borrowing from that institution. We need an explanation of that.
I wish to devote the bulk of my comments to the state of the economy in the Province. I have previously said that I find the Government's attitude towards economic progress in the Province complacent, and I believe that the Minister of State repeated that complacency today.
I shall raise two issues with the Minister, and I hope that he will be able to give definitive explanations when he winds up the debate. The first, which will come as no surprise to the Under-Secretary of State, relates to Northern Ireland Electricity—an issue that we debated in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland some weeks ago on one of the few occasions in this Parliament when the Government were defeated on an item of policy. That defeat reflected the views of all sections of the community, not just elected representatives but trade unions and ordinary men and women, and clearly illustrated the widespread opposition in the Province to the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity, particularly in the form presented to the House.
I urge the Minister either to shelve his proposals completely and retain Northern Ireland Electricity in public ownership or, if he is not prepared to do that—he has said on a number of occasions that he is not—at least to withdraw the present proposals and return with fresh ones that are more acceptable to the elected Members and the peoples of Northern Ireland. I believe that there is still an opportunity for the Government to do that, and I urge that course of action on them.
The House will know that the management of the Royal Victoria hospital has expressed a keen interest in opting out of the health service, despite widespread opposition on the part of elected representatives in the Province and of the staff and consultants. Will the Minister use his influence in Government circles to deny that hospital opted-out status? As the staff want a ballot before any final decision, I also urge the Minister to exercise any influence that he has with the hospital management to encourage them to hold a ballot so that the staff and consultants and others at the hospital can make their views known in the privacy of the ballot box.
Dr. Godman: Returning to the Minister's comments on the child support agency, what information has my hon. Friend received about the 500 new jobs involved? Are they all new jobs? If so, will he impress on Northern Ireland Ministers the fact that a goodly proportion of these new jobs should be given to handicapped people? I served on the Standing Committee of the relevant Bill, where I sought similar assurances about the Scottish child care agency and the one to be set up south of the border.
Mr. Marshall: It will come as no great surprise to my hon. Friend to know that I do not have the answers to his questions, but I am sure that they will have been heard by the Under-Secretary of State who I hope will answer them later.
The debate takes place against a background of continually increased unemployment in the Province. In previous debates of this kind, Ministers have taken some comfort from the fact that the Province has been cushioned from the economic disadvantages that the rest of the United Kingdom has experienced. That phenomenon is now ending, and the recession will continue apace both in Great Britain and in the Province, where redundancies and unemployment will continue to rise. I have given credit to Ministers before for their attempts to cushion the economy of the Province from the ravages of the past 12 years of Tory Government, but the best that can be said of them is that they have been less successful in devastating the economy of the Province than their counterparts have been in the rest of the United Kingdom—although admittedly they started from a higher level of unemployment.
I think that we can agree that the prospects for job creation continue gloomy. The Industrial Development Board has had a disappointing year in respect of job creation. I am worried that efforts towards job creation appear to be devoted to attracting back—office, civil service-type jobs. There does not appear to be enough urgency about or recognition of the need for increasing the manufacturing base in the Province. It goes without saying that the essential requirement for the economic wellbeing of the Province is the need to attract investment in enterprises which will bring with them research and development facilities.
The precarious nature of the manufacturing base is illustrated by the fact that if the present rate of redundancies continues throughout this year the number of people unemployed will exceed the number of employed in manufacturing in the Province.
If that were not bad enough, the single European market of 1992 is looming and it is no exaggeration to say that it may lead to a catastrophic collapse in the Province's economy. The Minister will have seen the recently published "Cambridge Regional Economic Review" which states that Northern Ireland faces one of the largest losses of employment in the United Kingdom after 1992. Other scenarios can be projected, but if for the sake of argument we accept this assessment and it proves correct, employment in the manufacturing sector is projected to fall by 22·5 per cent.—more than one fifth of the jobs in the sector—as a consequence of the advent of the single market.
Even on the most optimistic assessment that I have seen, the advent of the single market will lead to job losses of about 11,000, or 10·5 per cent. That would reduce employment in the manufacturing sector from 103,000 to 92,000.
It is no good Ministers relying on their piecemeal approach to economic development. Now is the time to develop a comprehensive strategy for attracting investment and improving the manufacturing base in the Province. I repeat a charge that I have levelled at Ministers before—by their failure in this respect, they have done a great deal to undermine the economy of the Province and have jeopardised the prospects for its future economic success.

981
The root causes of the Government's failure to halt the decline in the manufacturing sector in Britain and in the Province has been the absence—they take pride in this and I do not accuse them of hiding it—of a long-term and coherent policy for industry. There has been no sense of direction, no core strategy and no clearly defined purpose in the Government's approach to industrial and manufacturing affairs. The economic difficulties of Northern Ireland will continue under this Government, but after the next general election the Labour Government will attach the highest priority to the regeneration of the economy of the Province.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that it is most important that the Northern Ireland Office should look closely at companies entering the Province and buying up existing companies? Too often, having been bought up, the companies disappear. A company currently under threat is the Loomis Mackie factory in Belfast, which for generations was first in the field of the manufacturing of textile equipment. Now it is under severe threat, many of its employees have been paid off and others have been given notice. We cannot afford acquisitions which lead to the decimation of our industry.
Mr. Marshall: Only a foolish politician would say that he did not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. We wish to attract investment that will increase job opportunities, not reduce them. That will be part of a Labour Government's strategy and we will try to ensure that investment is not just an asset-stripping exercise where people move in quickly, achieve a quick fix and get out. We all have an interest in improving the industrial base and the only way to do that is to attract long-term investment that will provide secure jobs.
Contrary to the way in which the Government have behaved in the past 12 years, the next Labour Government will seek to modernise the Province's manufacturing base, not destroy it. Our strategy for economic development will be drawn up in partnership with all sides of industry. Among other things it will include proper levels of investment in high-quality training and retraining for the young, the unemployed and those who are in work but need retraining. It will also ensure that resources are efficiently targeted, but not just in terms of some spurious concept of competitiveness as defined by Tory politicians and civil servants in the Province. Such targeting will ensure that real employment opportunities are created in all parts of the Province.
We will ensure that the Province receives its proper share of European structural funds and that they are genuinely additional to public expenditure. I have grave doubts, shared by politicians from the Province, as to whether additionality is practised in terms of those funds. Ministers deny that, but I and my party take the view that moneys from the structural fund should increase total expenditure and not just relieve the burden of Treasury expenditure.
Our strategy will be based on a partnership which recognises the crucial role that employers and businesses have to play. It will not undervalue Northern Ireland's greatest asset, which is its people. They and their representatives in the trade unions will be involved in drawing up our economic strategy, and that strategy will
982
refuse to accept the counsel of despair that nothing else can be done. Our strategy will have at its heart the recognition that we cannot break down the sectarian barriers in the Province until people from both communities have equal status and equal economic life chances. Until such a strategy is introduced to the Province, its economy will continue to decline and the prosperity that its people want will be denied. We shall ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the opportunity of such a strategy.
5.23 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: The debate on the order gives hon. Members a chance to discuss matters affecting Northern Ireland constituencies. Before speaking about my own constituency I shall comment on the Minister's speech. The first issue, raised initially by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), relates to the MacSharry proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy, a matter that is causing great consternation in the 12 countries of the Community.
Most Governments are responding, in most cases adversely, to the recommendations. South of the border I mean the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, not that between Scotland and England as was mentioned earlier—the Dublin Government have responded. However, so far in Northern Ireland there has generally been silence from those who govern us from Stormont.
People in the farming community are alarmed. As everyone knows, agriculture is the main industry in the Province and the MacSharry proposals could decimate the numbers employed in the industry and in its allied processing plants. The industry provides thousands of jobs for all sections of the community in all parts of Northern Ireland. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he will bring the matter to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). This is a major opportunity for the Government to make a firm statement on their reactions to the MacSharry proposals and on how they see those proposals affecting Northern Ireland agriculture.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should state that they will fight these proposals and not just wait until they pass into law, at which time the Government will find some way to excuse themselves to farmers?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman and I are in full agreement on that. We want a strong Government response that will give guidance and leadership to the people of Northern Ireland, and especially to those engaged in agriculture. It is not good enough to sit silent while waiting to see what happens in Brussels, because by then events will have overtaken us.
The Minister spoke about the Northern Ireland economy. He was right to say that, to some extent, Northern Ireland has escaped the major impact of the recession, a recession which Government policies have brought to other parts of the United Kingdom. Some Conservative Members are smiling. Prospects are not bright—a fact stressed by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). No advance factories are to be built in Northern Ireland next year, and many such factories are lying idle waiting for

983
clients. That is bad news because it means that the Government and the Industrial Development Board do not anticipate any inward investment in Northern Ireland next year. If they did anticipate such investment, they would have a programme to build more advance factories.
I may be jumping to the wrong conclusion, but if I am not we shall have to look at the whole strategy of the IDB. For example, is it wise to continue to concentrate on offices and staff in Europe and America and in other foreign parts to try to attract inward investment when it is anticipated that there will be none?
At times, it is wise to have offices to promote Northern Ireland as a suitable base within the European Community for foreign firms, but if it is anticipated that in the foreseeable future such investment is unlikely, are they not a waste of public funds? Such expenditure runs into millions of pounds, which could more usefully be used to assist the business men who live in Northern Ireland, who have their roots there, and who are more likely to stay there, even in tough times.
The minute that times get tough those who come in from outside quickly disappear. We have seen that in parts of County Antrim, such as south Antrim, east Antrim and north Antrim, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) knows. It happened with Goodyear, in Craigavon in Upper Bann. Major firms have been attracted, and they were welcome, but once things got rough, they quickly left Northern Ireland.
The Government may need to rethink their strategy for providing employment in Northern Ireland, and concentrate more on assisting smaller businesses in the Province. It must be remembered that small businesses provide a large percentage of total employment in the United States of America—not large firms employing thousands of people, but small firms employing 25 people or fewer. I should like to see that considered in relation to Northern Ireland.
I take the opportunity to praise one other aspect of the work of the Industrial Development Board—its promotion throughout the world of Northern Ireland produce. It is taking groups of industrialists and business men to the continent, to south-east Asia, to Japan and elsewhere to promote goods from Northern Ireland. Most such visits have been successful. The IDB should be congratulated on that form of venture, which it has developed in recent years.
Before I talk about my constituency, I should like to mention one more general aspect—the urban development programme throughout the Province. The Department of the Environment and the Minister responsible deserve our congratulations on the great turnround in many of our rural towns and villages. For 20 years of violence, many border towns and villages went into decline—towns such as Enniskillen, Strabane, Omagh, Dungannon, Armagh and Newry. It is good to see the regeneration now taking place in almost every one of those towns. People returning to Northern Ireland after a five-year absence are astounded to see the progress that has been made. It would be wrong not to put that on the record.
However, one aspect of the urban development programme that requires the Minister's further attention is the speed with which applications are processed by officials at the Department of the Environment. I do not wish to be misunderstood; I am not saying that the problem lies with the officials themselves—far from it. The problem lies in the fact that too few officials are employed in the
984
Department to carry out the task. Many applicants for urban development grants find that it takes almost a year to hear whether their scheme will be approved. It takes so long that the applicant often drops the idea and never starts the scheme at all. The jobs are not created, the contractors do not get the work, and the scheme falls through.
The Department of the Environment staff who deal with applications for urban development grants are so overloaded that, even after a year, when the applicant gets the decision to proceed, often he still does not know what grant he will get. He is told that he can start without knowing what grant he will get, so he may take the risk and start. Once an applicant has started, it may take another year before the grant payable to him is released. The tremendous delay in the mechanism for handling urban development grants is damaging the possibility of further employment and improvements in our rural towns.
There are towns and villages in the east of the Province that need urban development grants just as much as those in the west. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can think of some on the east coast of County Down, near my constituency, and, indeed, one or two in Strangford. The Minister will have heard the response of hon. Members on both sides of the House to my suggestion, so I ask him to ensure a fair allocation of funds for urban development across the whole of Northern Ireland, not just in the border areas.
Mr. William Ross: Surely my right hon. Friend should go on to explain to the Minister that one of the reasons why small towns and villages in the east of the Province are experiencing such difficulty is the great effort being made to get Belfast buzzing. Belfast may be buzzing, but it is buzzing at the expense of the smaller towns and villages.
Mr. Taylor: I do not want to get into a competition between Belfast and our rural towns and villages. I have an interest in the whole of Northern Ireland as well as in Strangford, the part of it that I represent. I rejoice in the fact that Belfast is buzzing. I am delighted to see the progress being made in the capital city of Northern Ireland. Anyone who now sees Royal avenue, and the urban development and housing programmes on the periphery of the city centre, can express nothing but satisfaction at the progress being made in our capital city.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) says, we want a fair distribution of the funds. They should not go just to the west, just to Belfast, or just to the east. My point was that too little may be going to the eastern part of the Province.
Mr. David Trimble: I entirely agree that we need a fair distribution of the funds, and that the present distribution is unfair. Does my right hon. Friend see part of the reason for the present unfair distribution in the malign influence of a certain international fund?
Mr. Taylor: No, I do not. The funding for the urban development programme can come from the Department of the Environment, as happens with Belfast. But the so-called malign influence of the fund to which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) refers has no role to play in the urban development in the city of Belfast.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that, outside the city of Belfast, the urban development fund is tied in to the

985
international fund—in fact, it is the international fund? It seems strange that a part of the country that objects strongly to the international fund and everything about it still has to apply to that fund to get what Belfast can apply for solely from the urban development fund.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Antrim, North is right. The International Fund for Ireland does not finance urban development projects in the city of Belfast; as I understand it, its funding is restricted to projects in villages and towns outside Londonderry and Belfast. I want to see the funding for urban development going to the eastern part of the Province as well as elsewhere in Northern Ireland.
The provision of adequate school buildings is a continuing problem for all of us in the House. I acknowledge that demographic trends in Northern Ireland can mean that some schools are too large, so there has to be some rationalisation in the number of schools. That applies both to the state sector and the Roman Catholic-maintained sector. The number of pupils in Roman Catholic schools—the maintained sector—is falling, too. But in Strangford the situation is very different. Although the number of children in Roman Catholic-maintained schools in my constituency is falling every year—last year it fell below 1,000 for the first time in the history of the region—the reverse is true in the state-controlled schools. Their pupil numbers steadily increase year by year.
We have major schemes that require the serious attention of the Minister responsible for education. I mention especially the necessary extension of Comber high school, which has about 700 pupils and 17 temporary classsrooms parked all over its play areas. That scheme has been on the board for nearly 10 years and still no decision has been made to provide permanent classrooms for the children of Comber, an area which is continuing to grow every year, as it is on the periphery of Belfast.
The second school that I would mention is Regent House grammar school in Newtownards, which is now one of the largest grammar schools in Northern Ireland, with more than 1,500 pupils. It would take more, if the accommodation were available, but at that school, too, pupils have to be taught in temporary classrooms, as the population of Newtownards grows year by year. The population in my constituency has grown by 10,000 electors in the past eight years, and there has been a similar increase in the number of pupils attending both primary and secondary school.
I therefore ask the Department, in co-ordination with the Southern education and library board, to give priority to those projects, and I hope that, before the end of the debate, the Minister will confirm that they are receiving the attention which I say they deserve. Having made that point, let me place on record my appreciation of the fact that both the board and the Department have finally proceeded with the scheme at Movilla secondary school. That scheme is now complete and is providing a useful facility in that part of Newtownards.
My final point regarding general social provision is in connection with hospitals. My main concern is for the Ards hospital in Newtownards, although I have reason to
986
continue to feel worried also about the Foster Greene and Belvoir hospitals and about the various other hospital services throughout the constituency of Strangford.
There was some publicity in the local Newtownards press about suggested or reported cuts at the Ards hospital. I regret to say that the reports were somewhat exaggerated by the sources from which they came. Subsequently, many councillors from the relevant councils—Ards, Castlereagh and North Down borough council—and I had a meeting with the chairman, officers and officials of the area health board. Although it became clear that the figures quoted had been exaggerated, it also became clear that the board had to give increased salaries to its staff this year and that the funding for those increased salaries had to be found from savings in the services being provided by the hospitals.
It became clear that the board was not receiving additional funding from the Government to pay the increased salaries, but had to make cuts in health services in our area to pay for them. That means, in effect, that there will be cuts somewhere along the line—in community care, care for the elderly or at hospitals. We shall be hurt somewhere and, that is bad news for the whole of the North Down and Ards area.
I am anxious for confirmation that Ards hospital will continue as it is and that there is no proposal or intention to take away any of the existing services from that hospital, especially since, as I have already said, it serves one of the fastest-growing areas in Northern Ireland. It is the last place where we should be reducing hospital services—on the contrary, we should be thinking in terms of increasing hospital services in the Ards area.
I said earlier that we wanted urban development programmes in the eastern part of the province as well as in the west. We want fair play for all sections of the community. The same applies to hospitals. Some 40 per cent. of the people in our health board area live in North Down/Ards yet only 10 per cent. of the board's expenditure goes to that area; 90 per cent. goes elsewhere. The time has come for people who live in North Down and Ards—in the constituencies of North Down and Strangford—who contribute 40 per cent., through taxes and rates, to the funding of the health and hospital services, to get 40 per cent., at least, of the services provided. The money should not be going elsewhere, and I shall pursue that point in greater detail as we assemble more information and facts to support the case. I suggest that the people of North Down and Ards are now being denied their fair share of health services in Northern Ireland.
I wish to refer to a number of road schemes in my constituency. Roads are the main means of transport in Northern Ireland—especially in my constituency—and have been since the railway system was removed from most of Northern Ireland. I praise the Minister responsible for the environment for his enthusiasm for the roads system in the Province and I hope that, before long, a policy may develop that gives us even more investment in the road structure and network in Northern Ireland. The order before us provides for an increase in total expenditure in Northern Ireland of 9 per cent. That is more or less in line with the inflation rate that the Conservative Government have created during the past year. I should like to think that, even if inflation falls, as we are told that

987
it may, to 3 or 4 per cent. next year, there will be not a 3 or 4 per cent. increase in expenditure on roads in Northern Ireland but a major and significant increase.
One major road scheme recently completed in Newtownards is on the main Donaghadee road as one leaves the town. On behalf of the whole community, I place on record my appreciation for that scheme. It has been completed successfully and there has been a great improvement in what was a very dangerous section of road.
I should also like to pay tribute to the Minister for his role in securing the new link bridge over the River Lagan, the contract for which was announced yesterday. About £80 million in total is to go jointly to Farrans of Dunmurry —now a southern Irish firm—and John Grahams of Dromore. That scheme has interested me for many years. It has been on the drawing board for well over a decade and is essential to the revitalisation of the city of Belfast and in linking the countryside south of Belfast with that north of Belfast.
It will be tremendously important to people who live in my constituency and in the constituencies of North Down and East Belfast. It will mean the interlinking of our railway system. It is a major project, and I am glad that the Government have taken the bit between their teeth and given it the go-ahead. I wish all involved success, and hope that the scheme will be completed as quickly as possible, to the advantage of all in Northern Ireland.
Some smaller road projects in my constituency have caused me concern over the past few years. Many of them have been the subject of correspondence, but the time has come for me to place it on public record that they are causing me anxiety, and to ask the Government publicly to answer questions about what is happening.
The House will know that Portavogie is one of the two major fishing ports in Northern Ireland. The total value of our fishing industry is £25 million, and half of it comes through the port of Portavogie on the east coast of County Down on the Ards peninsula. Anyone who is familiar with modern fishing ports will know that large lorries and trailers go in and out of them every day. That port, together with Kilkeel—I see that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has entered the Chamber, and he will confirm this—now provides 25 per cent. of the prawn cocktails in the United Kingdom. We are very proud of that, but the prawns have to get out of Portavogie and Kilkeel. The hon. Gentleman looks a bit surprised at the statistic but it is true.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I understood that it was more.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has to say that he likes prawns—or nephrops, as the former Member of Parliament for South Down, being a Greek scholar, would have said. The road system around the harbour is atrocious. It is worn out, narrow and pot-holed. It is time that someone ensured that there was a modern road system to serve that great fishing port and to carry the big lorries and trailers that enter it day after day.
The second road that needs attention crosses the Irish peninsula from Portavogie on the east coast to Kircubbin. The road is like a switchback—it goes up and down and twists around. It is a dangerous road, and there have been many accidents. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that that road receives attention. If there is to be increased
988
investment in the roads system in Northern Ireland, it is important to remember that sometimes the smaller roads need as much attention as the major roads.
The Ards peninsula, as well as being an agricultural and fishing area, is a major tourist area, especially in the summer. It has the largest concentration of caravan sites in Northern Ireland. People go there for their holidays in the summer, and people from Belfast go there for weekends. They all travel through Millisle. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) knows Millisle well. On one side of the main street is a new Baptist church and a significant Presbyterian Housing Association scheme for the elderly. On the other side, and only on that side, are the shops. Elderly people have to walk across the main street, which carries all the traffic for the caravan sites. It is dangerous.
A pedestrian crossing has been provided in the main street of Donaghadee, which carries the same traffic. I am aware that the volume of traffic did not warrant that pedestrian crossing, but the then Minister used his discretion and approved one on the ground that a high percentage of retired people lived in Donaghadee. I appreciate that, when a Minister exercises his discreton, some unkind politicians will try to get him to do it again. I am not being unkind; I am simply stating that the same conditions that applied in Donaghadee also apply in Millisle. The roads carry much the same traffic to the same caravan sites, and both areas have the same proportion of elderly people. I ask the Minister to reconsider providing a pedestrian crossing in Millisle.
Granshaw presbyterian church is a great church in County Down, not too far from La Mon restaurant, which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) knows well—[Interruption.] Of course, he also knows the church well. A new church hall is being built, and that will be opened in a few months. The road is rather twisty, it has many trees and it is dark in places. A great deal of traffic comes out of the La Mon hotel, especially at weekends, and a great deal of traffic will come out of the new church hall when it is opened. We asked for just one street light at the darkest point on the bend of the road, but even that was refused. That was a harsh decision by the Minister; I do not know how he could be so hard-hearted.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Give them light.
Mr. Taylor: If we are not careful, the hon. Gentleman will give us a theology lesson. I think that we had better stick to Presbyterianism. One light would help the congregation of that church, and I ask the Minister to reconsider.
Another road that requires departmental attention is in Castlereagh. A major development called Ryan park, which provides homes for people who move from Belfast into the countryside, lies beside the main road from Castlereagh to Ballygowan. The traffic volume on that road is increasing day by day. Although it is on the main road, Ryan park is isolated because it is the only estate in the area. There is no speed limit on that part of the road.
Further along the road, at Crossnacreevy, there is a 30 mph speed limit. We want the Department to extend that speed limit to include the stretch of road that passes Ryan park. Many young children live there, and there have been some accidents because of the speed of the traffic. The speed limit needs to be extended before something bad happens.

989
A road project of the greatest importance to one of the fastest growing towns in my constituency, and which has been on the drawing board for many years, is the Comber bypass. Last year, it was promised that the second stage would begin in 1991, but there is now a suggestion that it is slipping down the programme. The Minister met a delegation from Ards borough council and myself, and privately at that meeting he gave assurances, which it would be wrong for me to repeat today. I ask the Minister to say publicly today that progress will be made with the scheme, and that he has an anticipated date for inviting tenders. Once that is publicly confirmed, it will be welcomed by the local community. The centre of Comber is congested with traffic, especially in the early mornings and late afternoons. It is chaos and there are many delays. The sooner that section of the bypass is built the better.
Another scheme in Castlereagh that has been promised for some time relates to the junction at the Knockbreda and Saintfield roads. I must declare an interest, as I own a little bit of the land involved—[Interruption] I did give it to the Government for nothing to help them get on with the scheme. They went ahead with vesting orders against other people who were involved, but who could not simply give up their land as their homes were involved.
Carryduff is increasing in size all the time, and there are large housing programmes up the Saintfield road, Cairnshill and all around that area. Every time a new development is built, more traffic is generated, and there are many delays. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is well aware of the problem as Carryduff is in his constituency. Every morning and every evening, people are held up at the traffic lights at the Knockbreda-Newtownbreda junction. That can be resolved only by the major road scheme moving ahead quickly without any further delay. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity today to confirm that the project will proceed.
A wider issue, which affects all of Northern Ireland, is of great concern not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to the people of Scotland, especially those in the west. I am referring to the proposal to transfer most of the freight traffic between Great Britain to Northern Ireland to Holyhead and across to Dublin, and away from the west of Scotland's route from Stranraer to Larne.
I have been pushing that subject for more than a year during Transport, Northern Ireland and Scottish questions, and each time I have had an inadequate reply. The more one analysed the replies, the more one suspected that there was a cover-up and that something was under way.
Recently, I saw that one of the bodies set up by the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the British-Irish Parliamentary Association, had questioned the Minister for Public Transport from the United Kingdom Parliament at a plenary conference and that it was preparing a report on future transport between Ireland and Great Britain.
Since most people in Northern Ireland are opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, therefore, the majority of Northern Ireland is not involved in any way in the discussions of the British-Irish Parliamentary Association, its report will not reflect the views of the people of Northern Ireland on what the transport system should be between Great Britain and Ireland.
990
However, following the latest question that I posed in the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for home affairs and the environment, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), kindly wrote to me further to explain in greater detail what he had suggested in his parliamentary reply. Here, for the first time, we have in writing the confirmation that there is a European Commission working group on proposals for a European high-speed rail network. He says:
"The outline plan which it contains, and which includes the Belfast-Dublin-Holyhead-Crewe route among other key links".
Thankfully—this is the important bit for Scotland as well as Northern Ireland—that recommendation
"has not been adopted by the Transport Council but is currently the subject of further in-depth study."
Then—this is where it becomes more alarming—he goes on:
"As part of that further work, British and Irish officials will shortly be having exploratory discussions about the implications of identifying the Belfast-Dublin-Holyhead-Crewe route as the key link between Great Britain and the island of Ireland."
In other words, Stranraer to Larne, which is presently the key link, is to be downgraded, and that is why we are not getting the investment in the railway system in the west of Scotland that Scottish Members have been demanding at Scottish Question Time after Scottish Question Time every month.
Now we are beginning to see the overall plan—not to invest in the railway system in the west of Scotland and at the same time to have massive capital investment, supported by the EC and the Dublin Government, on the route to Holyhead so that people in business and industry and passengers will feel inclined to use that route rather than go up to Scotland and across from Stranraer to Larne.
Dr. Godman: I have been listening intently to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about that important ferry link. The west of Scotland Members of Parliament—here I include myself—not only want to retain that link, we want to strengthen it, and some of us would like to see additional ferry services. One of my colleagues would like to see the re-establishment of the Ardrossan ferry. I would rather that ferry came into Greenock, but if it cannot, I would support it going to Ardrossan. We are with the hon. Gentleman to a man and a woman on that link.
Mr. Taylor: We in Northern Ireland very much appreciate that support from our Scottish colleagues. The matter is as serious for them as it is for us. These are secret talks between the Dublin Government and the London Government to undermine the railway and transport system to Scotland and between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not strange, too, that the Dublin Government were able to negotiate a tremendous amount of money from Europe for the reculverting of all the roads leading in that direction? When I made that point in the House to Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office, they did not seem to want to take notice of it. If those roads are ready when the traffic comes from the channel tunnel, they will get all the traffic.
Mr. Taylor: That is logical, but one has to look at the overall plan that is taking place before our very eyes.

991
Whether it is the culverting of roads, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned, or the hesitation to invest more money in the railway system in the west of Scotland, overall there is a plan to supplant the link between the west of Scotland and Northern Ireland to try to direct most traffic through Dublin.
The Minister responsible for traffic, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), this week met a delegation from Belfast city council in Belfast to try to revive the ferry service from Belfast to Liverpool. One would applaud those who are trying to achieve that objective, but those decisions must often be based on commercial considerations; that may be the problem there, but it may be that EC aid could help to encourage someone to invest in that ferry.
But when the Minister was talking about ferry services from Northern Ireland, did he tell that delegation that really he is planning to make people use the system to Dublin? That, basically, is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, including the Northern Ireland Office, which should be speaking up for the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, just as the Scottish Office should be speaking up for the people of the west of Scotland.
There should be a joint campaign throughout Scotland and Northern Ireland to retain and develop that link between Lame and Stranraer, which happens to be the main route between the island of Ireland and Great Britain. As the hon. Member for Antrim, East keeps telling us, it takes 95 per cent. of all Ulster freight and passengers. Not only does it do that: it also takes 30 per cent. of all the freight from the Republic of Ireland to Great Britain.
Why are we trying to undermine what commercial interests have managed to develop over the years in the ports of Larne and Stranraer? Is there a political motive behind that underhand scheme of the Northern Ireland Office to invest money with European aid to transfer all Northern Ireland traffic from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the port of Dublin?
Mr. William Ross: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, for many years, the Scottish Office has been pouring huge amounts of money into improving the road link from Dumfries down. That money will be completely lost if the Government now turn around and start developing other road links to benefit others.
Mr. Taylor: With friends like that—I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He concluded properly by saying that the Government will be wasting money if the plan gets under way. They will pour hundreds of millions of pounds into the railway system to Holyhead but not into the railway system in the west of Scotland, and now we know why.
Mr. Beggs: It is most important that, when the Minister replies this evening, he spells out categorically that the Northern Ireland Office, backed by the Secretary of State, is committed to retaining the Larne-Stranraer corridor as our main link within the British Isles to the Euro-route. If the Minister fails to do that, it will destroy the confidence that is now building up on the Scottish side to invest millions to match the excellent facilities that have been developed in Larne with EC grant aid. We demand an open statement tonight. We must get rid of the nonsense of directing people, passengers or hauliers to Dublin.
Mr. Taylor: You will have sensed, Madam Deputy Speaker, the strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East about this matter—and rightly, because Larne is in his constituency. This overall plan, to divert Northern Ireland traffic through Holyhead and Dublin, would have major implications for employment in Lame, something that the hon. Gentleman so carefully guards and upholds in this place I support the way in which he expressed himself, albeit so strongly, on this occasion.
My final appeal is to the business men of Northern Ireland, not just to the Minister. The business men of Northern Ireland are quick at times to tell politicians what they should be doing in Northern Ireland. It is not just the Church leaders: now, it is these so-called spokesmen for business and industry. If, however, we look at who they are, we do not find that many of them take a penny out of their own pockets to invest in Northern Ireland.
Yes, they are involved in business—many of them as executives—but a few years after some of them come to Northern Ireland, they go elsewhere. The real business men of Northern Ireland are the ones who have taken money out of their own pockets to invest in the future of Northern Ireland. They have provided jobs for both communities in Northern Ireland. Catholic and Protestant business men, with their roots in Northern Ireland, are I he real business men, not these people who claim to speak on behalf of business and industry and belong to organisations in Belfast.
The Northern Ireland Office should take a close look at some of these organisations when they make statements and find out whether or not they truly reflect the views of business men in Northern Ireland. I am a business man as well as a politician. The business men with whom I mix certainly do not feel in tune with some of the statements made by these organisations. However, for a change, a politician is now going to tell business men what they should be doing.
The main business interests in Northern Ireland, especially in the city of Belfast, should be most concerned about the plan to divert our freight and passengers through Dublin and away from Stranraer. That is of major significance—not today or tomorrow but over the next two decades, into the 21st century. It will destroy the eastern part of Antrim; it will do great damage to our capital city of Belfast; it will be very upsetting to the future of Northern Ireland.
Therefore, I appeal to trade and industry in Northern Ireland, now that the scheme has been made public, to come to grips with the issue. The Chamber of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry should be involved in this transport issue instead of meddling in politics. It is the job of business men, trade and industry to ensure that there is a first-class transport infrastructure. It already exists between Stranraer arid Lame. It should be maintained, not sacrificed to the advantage of Dublin—as the British and Irish Governments are now discussing.
6.12 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: First may I deal wit h the shadow that has been cast over my constituency, due to the railway accident recently? I referred to it when the Minister of State opened the debate. I am totally and absolutely opposed to the abolition of proper security and

993
protection at level crossings on that line. There was a serious accident in March of last year on this railway track and three people were killed. I thought that last year's lesson at Slaght would have been learnt by both the Minister and Northern Ireland Railways. I thought that everything would have been done to ensure that such an accident could never happen again.
I do not agree with the policy of Northern Ireland Railways. Some of these crossings should still be manned. That would provide employment for people. A large number of people were employed for many years at railway crossings, but there have always been unattended crossings on the line. About 200 yards from the place where the accident happened, there is a very large business enterprise. Large lorries cross the railway track continuously. I tremble to think of the sort of accident that could take place if a huge lorry were in collision there with an oncoming train.
The tragedy last year is put into perspective when we remember that at 7.15 on the previous evening the lights failed on that crossing. They started to give the warning signal. Then they went off completely. Fortunately, because of the amount of activity in the area, a queue of cars had built up, at the head of which was a motor cyclist. He saw the oncoming train, so he did not move on to the level crossing and the cars stayed where they were. The train was travelling slowly. The guard left the train and conducted it across the level crossing. However, that was a security failure.
As the Member of Parliament for the area, I want to know what steps Northern Ireland Railways took when that incident was reported. Or was it reported? I have heard Northern Ireland Railways say unofficially, through people who visited friends and relatives of the man who was killed, that the lights were in order. How do we know that they were in order? Is there an independent witness, or is this just Northern Ireland Railways saying that the lights were in order? Would it have said that the night before?
I do not know why the Minister did not hasten legislation on this issue. I appeal to him now to hasten the legislation and to make it, by law, compulsory that there should be a proper barrier across level crossings. There was an operator arm at that barrier, but it was taken away and lights were substituted. Although we all—councillors in the area and I—said that that was wrong, Northern Ireland Railways went ahead and substituted lights. We see the result. The lesson of Slaght should have been learnt. It was not. The lesson of Broughdone must also be learnt. We do not want that tragedy to be repeated.
I ask the Minister to have a look further up the line at the place where that business enterprise is situated and decide what type of security system should be put in place so that both the employees there and those who are travelling by rail can be safe. I trust that the Minister will arm himself speedily with the law so that he can say to Northern Ireland Railways, "This is what you have to do. Get on with it and see that it is carried out." Then, as best we can, we shall ensure safety on that railway line.
May I again express my sympathy to the family? I thank the Minister for his response. It will be conveyed by me to the family.
I have some general questions about board members. Many Departments have boards and quangos about which
994
I should like some statistics. Under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Dublin Government have the power to nominate people to those boards and those people are then appointed by the Secretary of State if he so chose. Since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed how many nominations to how many boards came from Dublin? How many of those nominations were accepted and on what boards? I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming in answering my questions.
I do not want to hear again what I was told the other day, "For security reasons, we can't tell you," I am not asking for the names of the people involved—I have ways and means of finding out their names. I am trying to get the overall picture, because a prominent member of one of the largest boards told me in Belfast yesterday that the boards are now being overloaded by nominees from the south of Ireland. He also said that five people who had recently been nominated to his board by various groups had been turned down. I know that a tremendous sprinkling—about 20 members—have been taken off a certain board. Four people are still being sought; 16 have been found, although God alone knows where the Secretary of State found them. But what about the 20 who served their day and their generation? Perhaps they did not serve them so well because they were not yes men to the Minister. I trust that the Minister will be able to smile when he informs me of the numbers of people who have come the Dublin road.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the situation is even worse than that? Not only have certain people been removed from that board, apparently because of representations from Dublin, but another member of the board was so upset about what happened that he instantly resigned.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have heard so much about the boards that I am alarmed, which is why I am raising the issue. The time has come to do so. Defeated candidates from the Alliance party seem to get preference on the boards. Patrons of the new Tory party in Northern Ireland also get preference, whereas the Official Unionists and the Democratic Unionists are very scarce on those boards and do not appear on some at all. Recently, two were dropped from a board—they were the only two, but they were swept away.
The House must call the Minister to account so that we might get some facts. What are the qualifications of a defeated Alliance candidate or of a Tory who is afraid to put his head over the parapet in case he is shot down? What are their qualifications to be the chairmen or principals of these boards? Perhaps the Minister can help us on that issue.
Mr. Beggs: They did not say no.
Rev. Ian Paisley: That is right, they did not say no. The other day I walked into the city hall and looked at the gallery which some people call the rogues' gallery. It contains pictures of all the city's mayors. When one becomes mayor of the city, one has one's likeness painted; it is put up, but the next year it is moved down and then down again. The really good men are down in the basement. However, when one looks at the likenesses one sees So-and-so OBE, So-and-so CBE and So-and-so OBE. A Democratic Unionist does not receive an honour because his religion and politics are discriminated against.

995
Some Official Unionists have not been honoured because they took part in the campaign against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Mr. McGrady: For the House's information, will the hon. Gentleman state how many members of the minority community or from parties such as the SDLP have been mayor of Belfast?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Since the SDLP controlled—I believe —eight councils, how many times has it appointed as mayor or chairman a Unionist or even an Independent Unionist?
Mr. McGrady rose—
Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman would not be interested in members of his party receiving OBEs and CBEs. One member did receive an MBE but she was chucked out for accepting it. She had been made chairman of Magherafelt council by the Unionists. Her MBE did her a good turn and did the SDLP a bad turn.
We are talking about boards, not the mayors of councils. However, I also want to mention the Causeway hospital.
Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the question of nominees? I listened with interest to his question about how many people have been nominated from Dublin. Would he also like to ask how many people in Northern Ireland Dublin objected to, had cast out or had not nominated?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to ask that question, but I should not receive an answer. In fact, according to a literal reading of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Dublin has no right to object. As I understand it, Dublin has a right to nominate people but not to object. I have no doubt that it does object and that its objections are listened to and acted upon, but that is not part of the agreement as far as I am aware.
I am glad that the Minister is here because it is he who is holding up the Causeway hospital. Yesterday, I had a call from some general practitioners who said that they had had a meeting with the Minister responsible for hospitals but that the decision would be made by those in finance and personnel. I understand that the spokesman for finance and personnel is therefore replying to the debate, so we have the right man in the right place, and he had better say the right thing. I suppose that he can speak on behalf of the parties involved.
The sum of £150,000 was spent on inquiries, committees and consultations on whether the hospital should be built. There was then an expectation of approval in principle—we have been waiting 14 years for the hospital. It was approved in principle, but we then had to wait for the board. We very nearly missed it because the old board was about to die and a new board was about to be born. We were scared that the new board would do what the Minister wanted and that we should not have it. However, the new board lived to pass the resolution that we should go forward.
We are then told that the money is the difficulty. No new acute hospital has been completed in the northern area in living memory. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) thinks that things are bad in his area but we have not had a new hospital in living memory.
996
Let us consider the other areas. The western area has Altnaglevin and Erne. The southern area has Craigavon, South Tyrone and Daisy Hill. The eastern area has a veritable bonanza: the Ulster hospital, the eye and ear hospital, the Royal Victoria hospital—the accident and emergency service, an out-patients block and block A—the Royal maternity building, the Belfast City hospital tower block, which is not fully occupied, and the Mater Infirmorum hospital. Allowing for 10 to 15 per cent. central movement of hospitalised patients for regional specialist treatment, we are grossly underfunded. In 1988, our funding was estimated to be £5·58 million below the average for the rest of Northern Ireland. Over 20 years, at today's value for money, the accumulated figure comes to £100 million, so £100 million has been taken from us.
Between 1973–76 and 1988, of the total regional commitment to major capital expenditure on hospital services, the northern board's share was 6·1 per cent. That is absymal by any standards. Now that we have the Minister's approval for the hospital, we are held up by personnel and finance, and we have to wait. I make an appeal in the House and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) will do the same if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that he will support me on the matter. We are making the appeal to the Government tonight that we need the hospital. We deserve the hospital. The people need it, and there cannot be proper health care in the area without it. Please will the Government get on with it? Do the Government want us to wait another 14 years? How many more plans do the Government want?
All the general practitioners are united on the issue. All the surgeons are united, including even Dr. Robb, who was a Senator in the Dublin Parliament. All the politicians are united—the Social Democrat and Labour party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party and the Progressive Unionist party. The Government say, "If only you would all get together, we will do anything for you." Yet they will not give us a hospital, but instead steal from us £100 million. The time has come for the Government to get on their running shoes and do something.
I have been a Member of the House for 21 years. There are three councils in my constituency: Moyle, Ballymoney and Ballymena. There used to be more, because my constituency took in most of the constituency of Antrim, East in the old days. I have now come to the conclusion that the planning authorities have declared war on the three council areas. A new planning officer was appointed recently and he seems to take it that his business is to keep everyone from building, to stop all farmers from building and to push employment out of the rural areas. The three councils are now in confrontation with the planning authorities. There are no meetings at which anything is passed. Then I, as Member of Parliament—and I am quite happy about this—am asked to go to every site meeting. From the first week in September, I shall go to every site meeting in the build-up of blocked planning in the area.
Let me explain why the plans have been blocked. A business man decided to build a house in Ballycastle. He wanted to replace two houses with one good house. The objection is that the house is too good. I stood with the planning officer and he said, "Those windows are too elaborate. You cannot have a verandah in this area. Those doors are too wide. That wall is too elaborate." I said, "When were you given orders to start planning about an

997
elaborate wall?" The head planning official, whom I had never seen before, was brought in. I said, "That is senseless. The planning officials say that this man is building too good a house. You should be glad that he is investing money in the area."
The plan has now been turned down. The council has fought the planning people, and the decision is now going to the three wise men. That is unacceptable. What do the planners want the people of Northern Ireland to live in? If people want to build themselves the best possible house within building regulations, no planning officer has a right to say that they cannot build such a house. As for the farmers. It is almost an impossibility to get a retirement bungalow for them now. What are the Government up to? As for getting employment in rural areas—
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking about the same planning office which seems unable to prevent the Sunday market taking place although it does not have permission? It seems unable to prevent the market breaking out on to the main road and carrying on without any regard to the planning office. Is that the same planning office?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. What really riles me is the case of a constituent who has a motor car business. He has done everything that the planning officer asked him to do. He has fulfilled every requirement, and dotted every "i" and stroked every "t" in his business. A group of gipsies started a motor car auction down the road without permission. The prices were lower and they gave better bargains financially. They almost wrecked that man's business. I got in touch with the Minister and with the planning officer. I said, "Do something." He said, "We cannot do anything because they have just sent in a planning application." I said, "Right, is it in order?" He said, "No, it is only a planning application for half of what they are doing." I said, "Move on the other half. Here is a man who has given his life to building up a business and he will go out of business." He is going out of business.
At the weekend, the gipsies put a big notice outside the man's business stating that his business was closed and that all business was to be referred to them at the given telephone number. When I went to the police, they told me that they were not sure who had put up the notice. An honourable business man who gave employment in the area is almost out of business.
I had a meeting with that planning officer. He said to the man, "You can't have your house, because there is no way that you can build a wall and swing a gate without affecting a tree. If that tree is affected, I cannot allow you to cut that tree down." I asked him where in the book it said that one needed a wall and a gate. He said, "I don't think that it is in the book." I said, "This man will not have a wall, he will not have a gate, he will just have his house." He said, "We couldn't do that, but we will come to an agreement." I asked, "Why couldn't he swing the gate off the tree and keep the tree?" Eventually, after a hassle, I had the mayor of the town and six councillors standing on a windy road, arguing with the planning officer about one single tree.
I have faced that individual—I do not want to name him in the House—at the council. We have sat for three hours in a' council meeting, with all the councilors
998
attacking him for his attitude, his arrogance and his determination. I took a big business man, who employs about 30 people, to him, and he told him, "I will put you on the road. I will put you out of business."
Mr. Beggs: It is time he was on the road.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is time he was on the road. He has been on the road twice, and then they dumped him in north Antrim. I ask the Minister to dump him somewhere else. Why send him to pollute us in north Antrim? He can send him down to east Antrim. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) is near the sea, and he can deal with him.
This matter has become appalling. I was up at Moyle, and the Moyle district was the same. I was down at Ballymoney, and the district was the same. We cannot conduct public planning by confrontation. Public planning should be as amicable as possible, by compromise, to see whether there is a way that planning laws can be kept in their spirit and, as far as they can be kept, to their letter. It could be a matter of only a few inches to get a proper entrance access to a road.
A man has a good, flourishing business on a byroad outside a place called Broughshane. One's education is not complete without a visit to Broughshane. It is a lovely part of the countryside, and it has a little business that is doing very well. However, that man had bother because the business premises were not large enough. He went up the road to a disused quarry that sits a distance from the road. He discovered that the quarry had a great shed built on it in the trees. He said, "I could do my business there; planning permission has already been granted and the entrance has already been approved." When the planning officer saw it, he said, "That building must be pulled down. You can't have it." Again I had the mayor and all the councillors out and we had it out with him. He wants that building to be pulled down. We need employment in Northern Ireland. The business men to whom I listen are creating jobs and doing their work.
Let me say something about roads men. [Laughter.] I shall say something good. One roads man said, "Where he is operating from, although he has permission, is a danger. If you brought him up here, it would be safe." However, the planning officer said, "No. Pull it down." We need to do something about planning.
I am glad that the Minister has taken action in respect of electricity for Rathlin island. I am the only Member for Northern Ireland with a large inhabited island in his constituency. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has an island in his constituency. There are only a few people on his island, but there are more than 90 people on Rathlin island. At the turn of the century, there were more than 1,000 people. I am glad that we are bringing light to the island. Although they are not Presbyterians—they are of another tradition from mine —they are getting the light. I would give them as many lights as I could to lighten their darkness.
I am glad that the Minister has acted on the Rathlin project. He will be remembered for doing so. I hope that grants will be available to enable those people to install electricity at a reasonable price. The Minister is nodding. He knows my attitude to this matter. I hope that the matter will soon be settled. Although I am of a different religious persuasion, I am the only constituency Member who has visited the island.

999
I remember when our friend Peter Mills, from Cornwall, and I were stuck on the island. We were flown in, but the fog came down and we had to be taken off in a little open boat. He was well baptised by local immersion before he got to the other side of the pond. We dried out at the local police station. Sergeant Duff's wife gave us wonderful coffee that night and sent us on our way rejoicing like the Ethiopian eunuch, about whom those men would not know anything because they do not read the Acts of the Apostles.
We need something more in Rathlin. We need something done to the harbour at Ballycastle. There is no use in having a good harbour at Rathlin and not a good harbour on the mainland. The Minister knows my mind on this matter, and I trust that we shall see real progress in the coming days.
I have spoken for far too long, but I should like to finish on an agricultural note. I am very perplexed at what the Minister said about agriculture. He should be fighting for jobs in Northern Ireland. It is proposed that there will be reductions in intervention prices. Milk prices are to fall by 10 per cent., beef by 15 per cent., butter by 15 per cent., cereals by 35 per cent., and sheepmeat, pigmeat, poultry and beef intervention meats are also expected to fall by about 15 per cent. On supply control measures, there will be reduced upper limits on sheep premiums and on calves and disposal premiums for beef. That will be the end—the exit—for many farmers in Northern Ireland. Farming is the main industry in Northern Ireland. We cannot afford to lose it. I trust that the Northern Ireland Ministers will take up the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and let him know that, if he is to have a battle royal, he needs one also for the farmers of Northern Ireland.
It is amazing that the EEC had a policy to be self-sufficient, so it brought in subsidies and interventions. It produced vast surpluses. I have sat on the European Parliament's surplus committee which examined the matter. The committee sent for the Agriculture Secretary in the United States. He came over to talk to us, and he laughed. He said, "Your surpluses are only peanuts. We have an intervention in cereals in America—an entire world harvest. Your beef mountains are little molehills. We have beef mountains like Everest." He pooh-poohed the matter, but American pressure under the general agreement on tariffs and trade is coming against us in Europe today. That is where the dictation is from. It is all right for America to dictate, but we need a battle royal to be fought in Europe for our farmers.
The farming community needs to know that the Minister will carry the flag. I do not know whether the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland is allowed to go to Europe, but it is time that he was sent there. He should sit behind the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman is fully cognisant of the dangers that the MacSharry proposals pose to Northern Ireland's farmers. We can ask for nothing less than direct representation at the table when one of the most important businesses in our country is at stake.
I plead with the Ministers on the Treasury Bench to talk to their supremo—that is what he is called in Northern Ireland—and to ensure that they put up a proper fight to save Northern Ireland's farming community. If farming
1000
goes down, the whole economy goes down with it, with serious spill-over effects for the ancilliary businesses, the money that they generate and the people that they employ.
In the past few weeks, Northern Ireland has been through many terrible things. There will be more deaths. The Chief Constable has given us the darkest report that I have ever known a chief of police to make. Some people wonder whether the security forces will be able to contain the violence. Every night we have a litany of bombings, attempted killings and shootings. Although Northern Ireland has a resilience, as has been seen in the past few days and months, there is something that will break Northern Ireland—and that is the destruction of its agriculture and of its trade with Europe via the port of Stranraer.
I have said in Europe, in this House and at every conference that I have attended exactly what the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has just said. I have been watching the Dublin Government well and truly making their plans, covering them with the honey of Irish blarney, and trying to get people to think that the right way to the channel tunnel is through Dublin. I am afraid that they have persuaded many hon. Members of that. I know that some of the hon. Members who attend the Anglo-Irish parliamentary group have been fighting and standing up for Northern Ireland and I am grateful to them for that, but I wonder what the Northern Ireland Office has been thinking and doing.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need a statement tonight, because such a statement would have a steadying effect on our businesses, on the morale of our business people and on our workers who would know that we have friends on this side of the water. I welcome the intervention of our Scottish colleagues, which will be a great help to the people of Northern Ireland.
I could continue to enlarge my case but, in conclusion, let us have proper roads into Lame. Let us do that now and not tarry any more. Let us get those roads to show that we are ahead because if we can do that, we will get the business when it comes. Business people choose those who can produce the goods and we must be in a position to produce those goods.
6.53 pm
Mr. William Ross: Here we are again, for the second time this year and the third debate on a Northern Ireland appropriation order will fall on one side or the other of the general election before the year is over. Some important matters have been raised this evening, but we have also heard one of Her Majesty's Ministers being asked to deal with a single street light—and it serves him right. If the House did what needs to be done for Northern Ireland, the Minister would not even know that a street light was needed because such matters would be dealt with far below his level. The fact that he has to deal with such matters personally is the clearest possible proof of the misgovernment that has been practised on the people of Northern Ireland since 1972. There is no reason whatever for this to go on and on, year after year. Such matters could and should be dealt with properly by other means—and the sooner the better.
I am sure that other hon. Members are, like me, utterly weary of Northern Ireland business being dealt with in this way, but it is the only way and our only chance to bring home to the Government their responsibilities for the

1001
Province and how poorly they have been fulfilling them. As I have said, this has been going on for far too long, and I hope that we can see an end to it.
In one respect, the order is interesting and unusual. It refers in part I to a grant of £1,000 and to an increase of appropriation in aid of £736,246 for the year ended 31 March 1990. We do not often find a sum appearing on the appropriation order 15 or 16 months after the end of the year to which it relates. I could have understood it if the sum related to the year that has just ended. Perhaps an explanation was given before I entered the Chamber—if so, I apologise—but I remain curious because it does not happen very often.
The sums that we are dealing with are large—the order covers about £2·75 billion. That is a lot of money, a large but not infinite sum, and it is our duty to ensure that it is spent both wisely and well. I intend to raise three matters which I raised in March, when the last appropriation debate took place. I make no apology for repeating those issues, because they have not yet been resolved.
First, however, I should like to say something about the Larne-Stranraer route. From what my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has said, it seems that the Government are going along with the idea that they should sacrifice not only the money that was spent on the south-west Scotland road route, but also a large part of the traffic that passes through Lame harbour, with the associated jobs and the money that has been spent on the infrastructure there. The Government also seem prepared to sacrifice something of benefit to the people of south-west Scotland—and north-west England, which has not yet been mentioned—simply to try to placate Dublin and to buy off Irish republicanism. I should have thought that even the Government would have long since learnt that that has been a nugatory effort. Once one starts paying the Danegeld, one pays it for ever—and this House has been paying it to Dublin and to Irish republicanism since 1969 for an absolutely nil return. The time is long since past when that nonsense should have stopped.
I hope that the Minister will accept one Kudo from me. He will be aware that I have been asking for replacement grants for poor quality housing since long before both he and I became Members of this House. I am pleased that that objective has eventually been accomplished, but I am annoyed that so many people have jumped on the bandwagon, from the hype on radio and television and in the newspapers, one would think that one simply has to crook one's finger to get the grant to build a new house. Those of us who have taken an interest in the matter down the years know that it is a difficult and complex scheme which will be difficult to police. It is not quite so simple or straightforward as some would have us believe. Nevertheless, the scheme is long overdue and, had it been put in place 15 years ago instead of now, much of our bad housing would not have been improved but replaced.
I am a great believer in people owning their own dwelling because, home ownership is one of the most stabilising influences. One of the great success stories of the Conservative Administration of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs Thatcher) was that she initiated the concept of selling council houses on a large scale. It has done a lot of good. Of course, we all appreciate that there is a bad side, but basically it was a sound principle and one that
1002
was welcome. I hope to see it extended so that more and more people own their own dwelling, but there will always be a place for let accommodation.
I hope that the rest of my remarks will not be taken amiss by the Government. There is a certain amount of slippage in some areas, which should be dealt with. Some have already been touched on, including the new Coleraine hospital. The proposal for a new hospital has been floating around for not 14 but 30 years, since it was first decided that Coleraine needed a new hospital. The proposal has been chopped and changed and all sorts of arguments have been heard. It is about time that a final decision was made. I have today tabled a written question asking for a statement on the subject next week. I hope that we will receive a favourable response then if not today, because it is overdue. The intellectual argument about the need for that hospital has been won. It is a matter of money. The proposal has been on the waiting list so long that the money should be made available now so that people can look forward to proper health care for the first time.
I ask the Minister to recall that on 11 March I raised the matter of the incinerator at the Du Pont site at Londonderry. Several things have happened since then and the matter has moved on, not least because I have asked several questions and much of the local population has become more worried about the incinerator.
Ministers will not have missed the widespread anxiety about toxic waste and its disposal in Northern Ireland. Even if the Minister missed the public debate about it, he will not have missed the questions that I have tabled. No doubt he will have looked at the answers to those questions and had discussions about them with his officials. I may tell him that I had some difficulty in getting my questions past the Table Office. If the Table Office had taken them as I wrote them, the Minister would have found them rather more precise than the form in which they appeared on the Order Paper.
If the Minister has taken an interest in my questions, he will be aware that there is a need for people throughout the United Kingdom to pay attention to how we get rid of chlorinated hydrocarbons. They are not a nice material. The technology that has been used to dispose of them is burning at high temperatures, but that involves dangers. I am sure that the Minister has also been made aware of the problem in the Bolsover area of England with dioxins in cows' milk. Hon. Members who represent Derbyshire will have besieged the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with demands that he trace and eliminate the source of that dioxin. Their interest in the purity of our food, at least in the case of one Derbyshire Member, is well known.
I have tabled a question about dioxins which has not yet been answered. It is a matter of national importance. It is not restricted to two or three farms in Derbyshire which are troubled with the problem. It should worry every hon. Member. It is a dangerous, long-lasting material. In my question I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet managed to discover and eliminate the source of the pollution. I can assure the House that every farmer in the United Kingdom is anxious about this.
Farmers are also anxious about another matter dealt with in an answer that I received from another Government Department. It is the principle that the polluter pays. The polluter can be made to pay only if he can be identified and the pollution traced back to him. In a case in the Irish Republic, we all saw how difficult it was

1003
to reach that stage when the farmer was facing ruin. If the poor chap had not gone on and on beyond what most people would have done, he would have been out of the door and the pollution would probably have continued. I sometimes wonder whether that, rather than a real need for an incinerator, has anything to do with the proposal to bring an incinerator to the Du Pont site.
Northern Ireland is one huge food factory. Brussels is under pressure to outlaw any incinerators sited near food processing plants. I look on Northern Ireland as a food producing and processing plant and so should every other hon. Member who eats in this House, which probably means all of us. Food production is also the largest industry in Northern Ireland. It is increasingly successful in promoting its food in the European market. Like me, the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) visited the food fair in the early spring of this year in London. I am sure that he was as much impressed with what he saw as I was. It was not a Northern Ireland only event. Scotland, Wales, England, Germany, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all from every corner of Europe were there. It was a most impressive exhibition. I certainly enjoyed it and learned a great deal.
At that exhibition I was told by Northern Ireland producers that they sold their produce with the image of the green, wholesome, naturally produced products which are free from chemicals. One does not need to spell out to the Minister just what effect even the slightest smell of chemical infiltration into the food chain would have on that flourishing trade.
Dioxins will be in not only milk but wool and all meat. They are an insidious chemical and one with which the body has great difficulty dealing. When I read about the problems in Derbyshire I did some checking up. I discovered that MAFF has laid down that the tolerable daily intake of dioxins is 0·01 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day. The maximum tolerable concentration of dioxins in milk is 0·7 nanograms per kilogram of milk. On the farms in Derbyshire the highest concentration was 0·47 nanograms. That should worry every one of us. Dioxins come essentially from chemical waste which is difficult to handle and has had to be burned. If it is burned at the wrong temperature dioxins are the sort of nasties that come out of them.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker will appreciate, I have taken a keen interest in the incinerator. It is in that part of county Londonderry which is now represented by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) but it is not far from my boundary and I represented the area in my former incarnation as the hon. Member for Londonderry before the number of seats was increased from 12 to 17.
I read the statement made by the Du Pont company. The project manager, Mr. Richard Wylie, said that it could be August before any announcement was made. He also said that Du Pont did not operate incinerators anywhere simply for profit. It operated them whenever it had a problem with waste disposal. If there is spare capacity, they will help out locally. That flies somewhat in the face of the idea that we need only one incinerator for the whole of the island of Ireland. Du Pont is building one to deal with its own waste but which can also deal with much more than its own waste.
We are also told that co-operation between the Northern Ireland Office and the Dublin Government—so
1004
on an all-Ireland basis—to draw up a policy for hazardous waste disposal has been a small step in bringing nationalists and unionists together. I assure the Minister that it sure has. It seems that the only time the two Governments can manage to bring us all together is when they do something of which we all disapprove and which affects everyone equally. That shows that we have at least some common interests.
At Maydown there is an existing liquid waste incinerator which treats 5,500 tones per annum, most 01 it in the form of chlorinated hydrocarbons. However, until recently, about 700 tonnes of solid waste has been shipped for incineration to Finland or France.
Mr. Wylie emphasised:
"waste minimisation is the first priority. To run chemicals through a plant and then have to spend vast sums on disposal is obviously daft."
I accept that that would be daft because if those chemicals can be recycled they are just as good as the originals. Mr. Wylie went on to state that the Du Pont projections involve substantial reductions in waste at Maydown—by up to 70 per cent. by the end of the decade. On the source of the greatest local concern, dioxin, Mr. Wylie commented:
"If someone lived downwind and the wind direction never changed"—
I can tell the House that it blows most of the time from the south and west—
"and if they lived there continuously for 70 years; if they had light body-weight; if they never took a holiday; if the incinerator never shut down; and if it always ran at the maximum limit—then the person would still be safe by some orders of magnitude."
The Minister will have long since gathered that the questions that I have put down are so precise that only someone with a fair knowledge of the chemical process would know what to ask. The chap advising me described the latter quote from Mr. Wylie as "nonsense", but I would not expect Du Pont to say anything else—after all, it is their muck and they have to get rid of it somehow.
In the light of the quotes that I have given to the House I should like to know more about the 700 tonnes of solid waste currently shipped out of Northern Ireland. That 700 tonnes is the same quantity as the dangerous stuff that is to be burnt in the proposed new incinerator. At present, 5,500 tonnes of chlorinated hydrocarbons are burnt at the old plant on the Maydown site. Is that present incinerator up to the requirement of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988? I believe that those regulations come into force in Northern Ireland tomorrow. If that plant does not meet those requirements, what steps are being taken to ensure its compliance? If it fails to comply, that means that it is a dangerous plant.
Can the Minister tell me whether the emissions from the stack in the present plant are monitored? What is coming up that chimney and spreading over all Northern Ireland? Is the Minister absolutely certain that the COSHH regulations are being met? If not, what steps will he take to ensure that they are? Will the Minister also make sure that he does not forget that the Safety At Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 applies not only to those working in the Maydown plant, but to farmers in the fields, who may be many miles downwind. The company's responsibilities do not end with its workers, but with all those other folk outside the plant who may be adversely affected.
Has not Australia recently said no to incineration and the working incinerator, which I believe was an ICI plant,

1005
been closed down? Is it not also true that the plant that Du Pont operates in Canada—I believe that it is at Swan Hills —was until recently the only hazardous waste incinerator in Canada? It has an annual capacity of 5,000 tonnes and a queuing time for disposal of more than a year. That plant now takes hazardous waste from Alberta only, following an accident in which a lorry carrying PCBs to the incinerator turned over at the border between Ontario and Manitoba. It is clear, therefore, that the Australians and Canadians are worried about incineration. Indeed, the Canadians have restricted the incineration plant not just to the territory of Canada at large, but to one state only. If the Canadians and Australians are so worried, surely we should also be worried.
On 26 June I tabled a written question which was answered by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. He stated:
"The proposed incinerator would constitute a registrable process under the Alkali and Radiochemical Works Regulation Act 1906 as amended by the Alkali and Radiochemical Works Order (Northern Ireland) 1991."—[Official Report, 26 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 488.]
Will the requirements and information contained in that answer be upgraded by the COSHH regulations which come into force tomorrow? My constituents and everyone downwind of the proposed incinerator in Northern Ireland would like to know the answer.
Is the Minister aware that the De Gaussa organisation in Germany has a chemical process to clean up hydrocarbons contaminated with PCBs leaving nothing but common salt behind? It is possible to unzip, as it were, the PCBs so that the waste is reduced to harmless salt. The possibility of dangerous emissions as a result of waste burning are therefore eliminated. If such technology is already available, people should spend a lot of money on developing it rather than taking the risk of burning the waste. No matter what one does with the incinerator plants, it is a question not of whether but of when something will go wrong—it is inevitable, and when things do go wrong I suspect that the operators will do their best to cover that up.
If there are any investigations into the proposed incinerator, does the Minister accept that those investigations should not be carried out by a university in Northern Ireland, especially Queens university, which has had a chair sponsored by the Du Pont company? I am not saying that the scientists and professors at Queens would be willing to dress up their reports, but some unkind people might think that. I should be much happier if the investigations were carried out by a body outside Northern Ireland.
Is the Minister prepared to give a guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland and to me that the new environmental protection scheme that the Prime Minister announced will have teeth at least as good as those of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. That American organisation, above all others, made the chemical companies and other polluters sit up and take notice. Will the Minister ensure that whatever form the environmental protection scheme takes in Northern Ireland, it will not be based in Belfast where it could have a cosy relationship with the Government and everyone
1006
else, but way out in the sticks where it would feel freer to take a good hard look at the job that it was supposed to do?
If what the spokesman from Du Pont says is correct and the company intends to reduce its waste disposal by about 70 per cent. by the end of the century, how on earth can it build an incinerator small enough to deal with that small amount of waste material? Or do the Government expect a huge increase in the amount of waste to be produced by new chemical plants in the island of Ireland? Those basic questions must be answered.
If an incinerator has to be built, a number of measures must be taken. It should not be owned or run by the company that produces the pollution, because those companies would do their damnedest to ensure that they reduced the cost to themselves. We all know that reducing costs leads to taking risks, which usually means that the plant blows up in our face. We have had enough of that. The nuclear technology scientists have persistently assured us that nuclear establishments are safe. I am sure that the people living in Flixborough and Bhopal were assured that the nearby chemical establishments were perfectly safe. However, whenever the pigeons come home to roost many people are hurt. The only way to ensure that a plant is run properly is for it to be run by an independent body.
Alternatively, all those who produce the waste could own a large chunk of the plant so that they did not pay simply for the burning of the waste created by Du Pont. If Du Pont owns the place it can charge whatever the dickens it likes, because it will be the only incinerator needed in the island of Ireland, and any other person producing material for incineration will be at the mercy of that company.
If an incinerator has to be built, it should not be built on the west coast but on the east coast, where the emissions from the chimney would blow out to sea 90 per cent. of the time.
Mr. Trimble: It will blow up to Scotland.
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Perhaps it should be right over on the east coast of Scotland. Despite the Minister's giggles, there is no point in building an incinerator where the emissions will be blown across Ulster. The wind blows from the south and west much of the time—the Minister knows that perfectly well—so the incinerator should be sited where the emissions will be blown out to sea. Much of the emission will come down in the first 20 miles if it comes down at all, so the decision is difficult.
Is there a small area health statistics unit based in Northern Ireland? If not, will one be created to look after the incinerator? The plant must be operated by highly skilled people. Will the Minister assure me that emissions will be fully scrubbed and that there will be a high-speed quenching of the gases?
The trouble is that one is always caught on the horns of a dilemma: should we trust the machinery, the computer, or the people? They all make errors and a balance must be struck. The risks must be minimised and, if humanly possible, an alternative technology—even if it is not ready for the next couple of years—should be used.
When people talk about state of the art technology, they mean technology that works on the laboratory bench. When it is upgraded and used on a large scale it does not necessarily behave as it did in the laboratory. We must therefore try to use not only state of the art technology,

1007
but tried and tested state of the art technology. The problem is that technology must be tried out for the first time on a large scale, but I should prefer to have technology which I know works rather than experimental technology.
I hope that my questions have shown the concern that I and many of my constituents feel. I cannot believe that a 20,000 tonne incinerator is viable when I consider that the Cleanaway plant—a much larger general purpose plant—handles many multiples of that amount of waste. I also find it hard to credit that the plant can be built for £38 million, because the scrubbing equipment alone is very costly. Before we proceed, we must think carefully and either site the plant where the possibility of damage is minimised or, instead of an incinerator, use technology which, with a little more research, could be a real winner because it would reduce the material to salt and carbon dioxide.
In a written answer the Minister told me that
"At a meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference on 31 January 1991, I exchanged views on this and other environmental issues with the Minister for the Environment in the Irish Republic, Mr. Flynn. I have also discussed with the management of Du Pont (UK) Ltd., their proposal for a hazardous waste incinerator and have visited the company's site".—[Official Report, 25 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 445.]
When I saw the wonderful information that the Minister had discussed at the Anglo-Irish conference I expected a detailed statement, but in fact the statement was only a couple of sentences long and told me nothing. Will the Minister now tell us whether he has done a deal with Mr. Flynn and the Government of the Irish Republic to build the incinerator in Northern Ireland to take all the hazardous materials produced in the Irish Republic? That would give the people of Northern Ireland the benefit of anything that comes out of the chimneys, which would confirm my view that the Irish Republic is always prepared to send the United Kingdom any muck that it possibly can, and we do not want it.
When I asked 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 Cleanway and Raychem plants in Great Britain each year",
the answer was:
"None. Monitoring the movement of hazardous waste within the United Kingdom is the responsibility of local waste disposal authorities."—[Official Report, 3 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 141.]
In Northern Ireland, that ranges from Belfast city council down to Moyle council, which looks after 10,000 people. Is the Minister trying to convince the hon. Members from Northern Ireland that all those local waste disposal authorities in the Province are capable of monitoring the movement of waste? I doubt whether they are even told about it. I wonder whether the health officials in the councils are aware of their responsibilities in that respect, because none of them has ever mentioned them to me. I was horrified to discover that there was no overall authority to oversee the movement of that hazardous waste.
LEDU is not my favourite organisation. The Minister said in his opening remarks that LEDU had promoted 7,000 jobs in the past year and 50,000 jobs since 1971. The real questions are not how many it has allegedly created but how many it has merely replaced and how many still
1008
exist. It is not a question of whether a job is created but whether a continuing job is created. We want industrial growth and more work in Northern Ireland—there is no point in creating jobs which simply disappear.
I make no apology for returning yet again to the problem of one of my constituents, to which I could now add the problems of a couple of others. When I asked about this in March, I received the usual bland reply. As the Minister knows, my constituent went to the commissioner of complaints, who found that he had not suffered through maladministration. That is a matter to which I hope to return when the ombudsman's reports come before the House, so I shall leave it for tonight.
In March I said that I believed then, and I still do now, that LEDU was simply not equipped to deal with inventors because it did not have the necessary machinery to cope with an idea from its invention through to its marketing—that expertise and capacity does not exist. I sometimes think that inventors as a body tend to look at the world in a slightly skewed way. If they did not, they would never come up with an idea. They have difficulties and do not necessarily have a vast amount of machinery or wealth behind them. Frequently, an individual comes up with an idea, which is what happened in the case of my constituent. I am deeply involved in the matter because the individual involved is a neighbour of mine. It is a long and complicated saga. I have a chunk of the file with me and I will gladly give it to the Minister if he wishes to spend the weekend reading it. I am concerned that an idea that I thought was a winner is still not on the market after several years.
The first bone of contention for the inventor involved the control of the project. It seems that help is sparse unless the set-up is acceptable to LEDU, which dictates what can and cannot be done and who will be involved. A Londonderry firm was apparently unacceptable to LEDU, and I often wonder why LEDU was unable to come up with another firm. My constituent and I had no objection to LEDU meeting the firm, but my constituent's bargaining position seemed to be undermined by LEDU's attitude, despite the fact that heads of agreement had already been drawn up, which caused the bone of contention.
Another factor involves the sheer cost of development and patent rights, and protecting those rights across the world. A good product must be protected and there is apparently no way in which a private individual can gain funds for that protection. It is important for ideas to be protected so that they can be brought to fruition and used, but there does not seem to be any help available to the individual. Inventors tend to spend to an enormous amount of their own time and money on their pet projects. Admittedly, not all the projects come to anything—many die the death—but the tenacity of the individuals often ensures that their ideas succeed.
Another factor relates to the grant aid for production. Basic engineering involved can be carried out in Ulster —the difficult part involves sales and promotion. When LEDU made an offer a year or so ago for a grant for market research, it seemed to be saying that the project had not been handled properly and it wanted to get off the hook. By that time, however, my constituent was so suspicious of LEDU and all its works that it was difficult to persuade him to go back to LEDU. I think that LEDU should carry out some market research of its own to find out whether my constituent's product can sell. If it

1009
succeeds, as I am sure that it will, it will create many jobs in Northern Ireland. It is worth taking a risk with that project, and the Minister should get his finger out and take that risk.
Providing such assistance to inventors should be examined because inventors usually come up with only one good idea in their lifetime, and they want to hold on to it. If they do not, it will sometimes go down the plug hole. I should like more help to be given to them, from the inception of their idea until the product proves to be either a failure or a success. LEDU would make enough money out of the successes to pay for the failures.
Another one of my constituents invented a toilet seat that was operated by foot—[Laughter.] It seems laughable, and I appreciate that most people laugh at the idea—I did when I first encountered it—but the inventor said that Americans were going up the wall because of their fear of AIDS and reckoned that the product would sell well. Everyone who has looked at the fancy idea says that it will work. The idea is still floating around, waiting for help to take it from the invention to the development stage—[Laughter.] At least my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) seems to be enjoying this. We need a bit of light-heartedness in this establishment occasionally. It does not matter that the idea involved a toilet seat. If there is money and work in the idea, we should be glad of it.
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Where there's muck, there's money.
Mr. Ross: Yes, I agree.
In that case, an inventor came up with a project which, despite the hilarity, could be manufactured. Why have not greater efforts been made to help him?
Within the past week, another constituent came to me saying that he approached LEDU last September because he wanted to set up a gear cutting business. He said that he was the only person in Northern Ireland doing so, and his story concerned me. I had a word with him on the telephone earlier this evening to confirm what stage he had reached. He said that officials from LEDU made an appointment to come to see him in September or October last year but they did not turn up and he received a telephone call a day or two later to say that the officials' car had broken down which was why no one was able to come. The officials finally arrived in February—that hardly showed the proper amount of speed, efficiency and urgency necessary to promote industry in Northern Ireland and the officials then said that they would not give my constituent any money.
My constituent then went to Donegal and saw the Irish Development Agency in the Republic. He talked to an accountant and within one hour he was looking at premises. He received a telephone call one week later with an offer to go back to look at more premises and was offered all the grants in the world. He said that when he compared the two—the IDA and LEDU—LEDU did not know where to begin. He did not actually use those words but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would reprove me if I uttered the ones that he used. My constituent has now bought five gear-cutting machines and the business is going full blast without money from LEDU. The Minister
1010
may think that that is good enough, but I do not. Will he please go and give that organisation a damned good shaking?
7.36 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for this opportunity to participate in tonight's debate. I apologise to the Minister of State and other hon. Members for my absence at the start of the debate.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a strong plea about agriculture in Northern Ireland and today's news of the proposed changes in the common agricultural policy. The pressure from the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations is disturbing to us in Northern Ireland. I come from a constituency which is mainly made up of small farmers—both lowland and hillside—and they have great concerns about the future.
I realise that there is an apparent dichotomy between the requirements of an agricultural policy for Northern Ireland and that pertaining to Great Britain. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland must be suffering from schizophrenia because what is needed in Northern Ireland, is to support the small farmer in every way possible, whereas that does not seem to be required by farmers in Great Briain. However, the Northern Ireland Office will be responsible for the final policy that is applied to Northern Ireland.
At present in Northern Ireland, there is a great thrust forward to rejuvenate and regenerate rural communities, which seems to be flying in the face of the agricultural policy on which we are about to embark, which will degenerate and lead to the degradation of the countryside in Northern Ireland as we know it.
In the previous appropriation debate, I asked the Minister to pass on to his ministerial colleagues the concept that, if the worst came to the worst—I know that we are a small cog in the big wheel of European and international politics—we need a financial package and a rescue operation that will at least blunt the most severe effects of the changes in the common agriculture policy, which will have a detrimental impact on small farmers. The preparation for that package needs to be in place now. It should not be an ill thought out, ill conceived, ill administered operation when the time comes. We are at the crossroads, at a time of potential emergency in Northern Ireland.
The Department of Agriculture is also responsible for fisheries. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred to some aspects of the fishing industry, claiming that one half of the catch came in through Portavogie. We can assume then that the other half comes in through South Down. Quotas are soon to be applied to parts of the fishing industry in the Irish sea, with the result that those fishing from the east coast of Northern Ireland, from Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel will suffer dramatically. Quotas on cod and haddock have been imposed to protect stocks in the North sea, but they are not necessarily relevant to the Irish sea.
It is clear from answers that I have received from the Minister who is responsible for the fisheries that the Department has not yet thought about a decommissioning programme. Fishermen have been squeezed out of their traditional inherited businesses but have received no help for decommissioning so as to prevent the over-fishing which the quotas are allegedly supposed to prevent. I ask

1011
the Department to revise its attitude to a decommissioning scheme. Not much money would be involved for such a scheme in Northern Ireland, but we are talking about the livelihoods of the families attached to each fishing boat, and decommissioning definitely needs funding.
I am puzzled by another aspect of the fishing industry. We need a proper fishing training centre or school on the east coast of Northern Ireland. I should like to see one at Ardglass or Kilkeel. It could possibly be linked to the fine establishment in Greencastle in north Donegal across in the Irish Republic. Such a centre would ensure that young people who were left in the industry were properly trained in fishing techniques, in conservation and in new technology. Again, this would not involve a huge sum.
These young people do not seem to receive the same sympathy and help as those pursuing other careers. For instance, they have to pay their own way to these schools. University graduates, those who attend Government training centres and those who go to colleges of further education receive assistance—but not youngsters being trained for fishing. Will the Department review its policy on this important area?
As for training under the Department of Economic Development, the Under-Secretary will know that all my constituency has is an annexe of a training centre. Several times, I have urged the Minister to provide a modest expansion programme for the training college so that it can increase the number of subjects it teaches in a modest way. We have virtually no public transport in the constituency—no railways, and the bus service is thin on the ground and does not cater for travelling workers or a travelling training force. Only a modest sum would be involved in this idea.
The main thrust of policy of the Department of Economic Development must be job creation. I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about LEDU. My experience of LEDU does not equate with his. I believe that it is better geared to helping small businesses begin and expand. We live in an era of small business expansion. I should not like LEDU's expertise in this area to be swamped by its being reabsorbed into the parent body, the Industrial Development Board. Today, the Northern Ireland Economic Council made some suggestions to that effect, on which I have not time to report in detail, but we should think carefully before accepting those suggestions.
An important element of the work of the Industrial Development Board is attracting inward investment. I ask the Minister to use his best endeavours to obtain back office development for Northern Ireland. I make a plea for South Down, which has a very weak industrial infrastructure and which could easily benefit from this type of development. We are fully linked up with international fibre-optic communications throughout the constituency, and back office developments can be plugged in almost anywhere in the constituency at little cost. The same can be said of many other constituencies in Northern Ireland.
I know that the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office are committed to fair employment as embodied in the legislation, but it is important also that jobs should be fairly distributed—the more so given the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland where, for all sorts of reasons, communities may be divided into hostile sections. It is therefore not always easy to travel to a workplace in a community different from one's own. New jobs must be fairly distributed—more so than they have been in the
1012
past. We know the number of visits made by the IDB to South Down from the answers to parliamentary questions. I will not bore the House by repeating the statistics, but they show an appalling lack of equality of job opportunity.
The Minister will know from having tasted the fruits of South Down that the tourist industry there has great potential for development. Of course tourism is important throughout Northern Ireland—tourism is a very saleable commodity in the European and North American markets—but there is a problem with what I call St. Patrick's country and the Mournes. Both have a high reputation on many continents.
We have never been able to put together a package comparable to the excellent ones produced for the Fermanagh lakeland and the north coast tourist area. If we could put together a Mourne-St. Patrick's country concept, we would enhance tourism and the potential for jobs in the area from Carlingford lough to Strangford lough. That is a hobby horse of mine. Many potentially exciting infrastructure developments for tourism are on the drawing board and could be translated into reality.
The next vote relates to the Department of Education. Tremendous hardship and disappointment and a sense of failure have been created throughout Northern Ireland by the failure to operate a fair and total transfer system. The Minister knows that by and large, those who have obtained grades 1 and 2 in the 11-plus examination are supposed to be entitled to grammar school education in Northern Ireland. There is also an entitlement to parental choice, which is one of the great thrusts in the Government's promotion of the reform of education.
Last year, many pupils suffered damage to their potential careers because they were unable to obtain the education to which their examination results entitled them. It is possible to excuse that because last year was the first time that that happened, but it is not acceptable for the debacle to be repeated this year. However, matters are even worse this year, and the numbers reported in the Northern Ireland press yesterday, if accurate, reflect nothing short of an educational scandal. Boys and girls who have done their best and worked hard and have received the results of their hard work are being deprived of what they thought would be their reward. That is totally unacceptable and a most inhumane way to start people on their careers.
The Minister must ensure that places are available for those pupils, not next year but this year. Places are being denied because of a paper exercise. Many schools have the capacity to take those children, but because of a Ministry rule of thumb and a paper figure, it is not happening. It is not a question of accommodation or finance, but one of administration, and it could be corrected tomorrow by the stroke of a pen. Perhaps that request could be passed to the Minister who is responsible for education, so that he can take immediate action.
Much has been said about the environment. As I listened to the right hon. Member for Strangford, I wondered whether there would be any money left in the kitty for a road or two in constituencies other than Strangford. From his previous portfolio in Northern Ireland, the Minister is aware that not a pound has been spent on major capital programmes in my constituency over the past 13 years. I may be open to correction on that, but I do not think so.
There are only two class B roads in my constituency, which has no railway system. We are trying to lay the

1013
foundations for a tourist industry that would create jobs for our young people, and we will not succeed unless we have reasonable road communications because, as I have said, we have no railways. We have a fine and developing harbour in Warrenpoint, but it is served by only one major road from one direction. There is not even a class A road on which goods can be transported from other directions.
The right hon. Member for Strangford spoke about the fishing industry and about the heavy articulated and refrigerated lorries from the two major fishing ports of Kilkeel and Ardglass. The roads are not built for such transport, although some minor works are under way to try to improve them. I am not asking for dual carriageways, because we are so unused to them that we would not know which side to drive on. However, even one class A road in the constituency would be greatly appreciated because it would help industrial development by providing a better infrastructure.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East spoke about pollution and about an incinerator for the Foyle area. Since the mid-1940s, there has been pollution in the Irish sea. That has been going on for 45 years, and for a long time we have had continuous daily radioactive discharges from Sellafield. There have also been more than 100 major and minor accidents, atmospheric and from the pipeline in the Irish sea, resulting in the discharge of materials with fairly high radioactivity. The issue contains an element of farce, because now there is to be deep land storage of low-level and medium-level radioactive material from Sellafield.
About two years ago, I attended a meeting in London held by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. We were issued with a glossy and attractive book detailing the great geological survey which BNFL intended to make of the whole of Great Britain to find a suitable dumping area. One of the basic requirements was a sound rock structure. At that meeting, I said that, at the end of the day, the selected site would be Sellafield, because the criterion was money and not safety or the environment. Lo and behold, the selected site for the deep storage in rock was at Sellafield. That is curious, because the most mobile geological fault in the British Isles runs from north Louth through the Isle of Man to Cumbria. There have been tremors in that area in the past couple of years, some of them substantial. In spite of that, Sellafield was the area found to be most suitable.
The Minister should hold a brief for the people of Northern Ireland against the vested interests taking such decisions. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also spoke about the transport of toxic wastes. Toxic wastes of the worst kind—radioactive wastes—continually ply up and down the Irish sea in ships bringing dirt from all over the world. If Japan can send its nuclear waste to Britain for processing, it must be an expensive operation and the Japanese must be damn glad to get rid of it. However, the waste does not go back, it stays here.
I was one of the first to visit Sellafield before it became a "tourist" centre and I saw vat after vat of stuff that will be there for 10,000 or 50,000 years. That is a sobering and frightening thought. Everyone should take the opportunity to visit Sellafield, if only to sample the so-called pleasures of a conducted tour. People will come away frightened, as I did, by the prospect in evidence there.
1014
In terms of the Department of Health, the Minister's responsibility, rather than the requirement of the health boards, is to ensure that people are given adequate and equal access to health care. I should like him to consider what is happening in my constituency. It has no major hospital, only two minor hospitals—Downe hospital in Downpatrick and Mourne hospital at Kilkeel. The Southern board is threatening to close the Kilkeel hospital right at the foot of the Mournes without any consideration of the tremendous distances and the difficulty of the travel which someone who was seriously ill in the area would have to undertake.
The Minister once held the portfolio for health in Northern Ireland, so he knows about the arguments that I and others have been advancing for generations about the final stage of Downe hospital in Downpatrick. That campaign is one of my earliest political memories, from 1956, and the project is still no further up the line.
The Eastern health board carried out a survey of its hospitals, including Downe hospital, which showed clearly that in spite of the appalling physical conditions under which the surgeons, the other doctors and the nursing staff operate, it is the most cost-effective hospital in Northern Ireland. What could it not do if it received the modest boost of the completion of the third phase—the psychiatric, geriatric and maternity provision? In health provision terms, the medical centre would not require an enormous amount of money. It has been designed to cost about £8 million to £10 million, and that would easily be saved on upkeep during the next couple of years.
I know that the Minister has two plans in front of him. One is from the Eastern health board, which has accepted as has the Department over the years—the need to complete the project, but no one ever does anything about it. Ministerial intervention is required, especially now that we have quangos instead of representative health boards.
It is significant that three homes in my constituency are closing—the St. Leonard's home in Rostrevor has already closed, and I understand that the Spelga house residence at Banbridge and Mourne house, in Newcastle, are also to close. In other words, there is a consistent rundown of public health care provision. At the same time in the area —and, indeed, in the Belfast area, where the hospitals are gathered around like doughnuts—the waiting lists for chiropody, coronary heart care, hearing therapists and orthodontic provision are lengthening. The evidence shows that the services are not being delivered and that service quality provision is contracting rather than expanding.
The Minister may be surprised that I do not intend to complain about the amount of money provided for social security. I shall not complain about that, because my present complaint is more serious—it is about the administration of social security, and the effect that that has on the people who come into my constituency surgery.
Why can people looking after children with cystic fibrosis not obtain attendance allowance, when such children require the same care as other children? That is nonsense. Children with cystic fibrosis require very special care. Many of them need not only constant physical care but enzyme treatment and many other complicated medical procedures.
I had a case in my surgery the other week in which the parents had already lost two children through cystic fibrosis and now had a third child, also with cystic fibrosis. They were refused attendance allowance on the ground

1015
that the child did not need care different from that required by a child without the disease. That is administrative nonsense, which should be dealt with.
A young, totally deaf boy had his attendance allowance withdrawn because it was said that he did not need more care and attention than someone with full hearing capacity. What sort of nonsense is that? The evidence of one's eyes is denied by the social security officers and the tribunal.
The same thing happens with mobility allowance. Again, there is a parade through my surgery of people who cannot get mobility allowance. So far as I can see, the only people who can be sure of getting it are those who cannot move at all, because they are dead. A girl badly affected by Down's syndrome and could not walk, did not have the mental capacity or the will to walk, yet she was refused mobility allowance. Another girl had had her arm amputated, had a twisted spine and a difficult gait, because she dragged her legs. Such people are refused mobility allowance because of the weird criterion that they have to be unable or virtually unable to walk. When it comes to the appeal stage, it seems that the only people who can get mobility allowance are those with no legs. I ask the Minister to consider the administration rather than the allocation of the money, and to examine how it is spent.
The consequences of the administration of the social fund, which was set up in April 1988, have been horrific. It often creates poverty rather than resolving it. In December 1989, the Child Poverty Action Group carried out a survey which, with a strong use of statistics, showed clearly that the social fund system was inadequate and was creating a new poverty trap.
Last month, the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network gave evidence beyond a doubt that the social fund was exacerbating the poverty trap. I have many case histories showing that, but I shall not give all the details. I simply ask how social security officers can refuse a destitute young girl a grant to obtain clothes, and how they can refuse the mother of seven children, who had no clothes, a clothing grant. How can a young man just released from gaol, who had nothing, be refused a few pounds to get himself a few respectable things?
Should we not be trying to prevent people being put into gaols or other institutions? Are we not trying to assist the rehabilitation of such people? If grants are not given to such worthy cases, who will be given them?
There is a big gap in the administration of the system, in that such people may be offered loans, but they have no money to pay them back. Some people are refused loans because they already have a loan. I am not talking about usury or about high street lending banks; I am talking about ordinary people who cannot pay their way and buy a reasonably respectable suit of clothes or a dress, or provide food for themselves.
Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman, like me, come across cases of people getting loans from money sharks at high rates of interest? One of my constituents has to pay back £2,000 over two years, having borrowed only £1,000.
Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention in support of what I am saying, and I agree with him. There are many such examples. Back-street moneylending is an enterprise industry in Northern
1016
Ireland at the moment. Some people are borrowing from moneylenders to pay back social security loans. That is a ridiculous situation, and we shall have to get out of it.
We see many adverts in our local newspapers saying that people are not applying for family credit, but I shall explain what happens to the self-employed. I shall say more about the phrase "self-employed" in a moment, but I am not talking about wealthy people who are not entitled to family credit. When a self-employed person claims family credit, he is in for an administrative nightmare.
Who are the self-employed people I am talking about? Every brickie, every plasterer, every carpenter and every agricultural labourer. All of them are classified as self-employed because of the system now operated in the economy. Previously, such people would have fallen within a pay-as-you-earn system and would have been able to get certificates of income without any bother. Under the present system, however, they are self-employed and have to produce accounts proving their income and net income.
The questions coming from the social security administration in Northern Ireland would drive anyone to distraction. The most minute expense is queried. I have heard of queries and requests for an analysis in respect of £10-worth of repairs to a car. In the face of that situation, people are switched off and go to the moneylenders to try to supplement their income, even though they are entitled to social security benefits.
Will the Minister look at the matter urgently? The officers administering the system have no concept of people's income—never mind how to arrive at it and how to prove it. I have been to tribunals with such officers, arid even the tribunals have no concept of the income arid expenditure of self-employed people. They do not know the first principles. They are flying by the seat of their pants in reaching decicisions.
I emphasise that, in referring to the self-employed, I am referring to nearly every person in Northern Ireland, other than shop assistants. I am talking about all those in the construction industry and many of those in agriculture and the fishing industry. I am talking about very small, poor, self-employed people who are being denied family credit because of administrative incompetence and lack of feeling. I ask the Minister urgently to revise the administration—rather than the quantum—of the funding.
8.11 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: It is obvious from many of the matters raised in the debate so far that there is an urgent need to find a better way of dealing with Northern Ireland appropriations. Something must be done to provide greater democracy for the people of Northern Ireland, and to enable them, through their Members of Parliament, to have a say in the governance of Northern Ireland. While we wait for the restoration of a Northern Ireland assembly with powers, there is a duty on this Government to establish a Select Committee on Northern Ireland affairs without further delay. That is needed, and it is the very least that the Government must do to give a semblance of democracy to the Province.
We are here to speak for the people. I must say that I disagreed with the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), who criticised business men for allegedly meddling in politics. Business men are part of the community. Their businesses may fail or falter as a result

1017
of what politicians say or do. I expect—indeed, implore —business men to express their opinions to me and to other Northern Ireland Members so that we know what is in their minds, just as I expect people from other sectors of the community in the Province to tell us what they wish us to say in their name. We depend upon business men to generate jobs in the Province and I welcome all business men, and particularly small business men who employ a few people as they get their businesses going.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred to incinerators, and posed a series of questions. I listened to his speech with the utmost respect; the House should be grateful to him for what he said on the subject. Incinerators are undoubtedly a hazard to health. In many cases, the fumes are dangerous to human beings who live in the vicinity, or downwind of, an incinerator. We are speaking of ordinary incinerators but, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, there is also that incinerator—if I may call it that—at Sellafield, which is sending its fumes over to Northern Ireland. We must do everything possible to resist that health hazard.
Greater attention must be paid to defending the environment in Northern Ireland. It is constantly under attack, particularly from speculators who have litte or no regard for residents in a particular area and whose main and only concern is profit. Many parts of Northern Ireland have been ruined as a result of speculation.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) launched an attack on planning officials for always refusing planning applications. The planning authorities have my full support because, if a planning applicant is refused, he can appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission. People frequently do appeal and, sadly, the Planning Appeals Commission often allows their appeals, even when local people object to the application. That is why I continue to insist that the law should be changed to enable objectors to appeal against a planning permission if they live in the area and are affected by a particular development.
I come now to Castlereagh college. I was pleased to learn from the principal that the South-Eastern education and library board has agreed, following representations —including representations from me—to make a grant towards the cost of community education at what was formerly the Dundonald girls high school. Sadly, the amount of grant does not come anywhere near the amount that was requested and I urge the Minister responsible for education to intervene because the scheme to provide community adult education for the people of the Dundonald and Tullycarnet areas is all-important.
I go further in my appeal to the Minister by repeating my request that the Dundonald girls high school should be devoted entirely to providing recreational, as well as educational, facilities for residents in the area. I mentioned the swimming pool, which has been out of commission for some years. The swimming pool should be restored and other facilities provided—especially for elderly people and young people who live in Dundonald and Tullycarnet.
Insufficient provision is made for residents of housing estates in Northern Ireland. It is not sufficient merely to throw up houses. More facilities must be provided because the people living on housing estates have other needs which must be satisfied. Take the Tullycarnet housing
1018
estate, for instance. It has a totally inadequate community hall. It is inadequate in size for an area as big as Tullycarnet, and I fear that the structure is not perfectly sound. Surely it is essential to provide an adequate building for community facilities in Tullycarnet.
I should emphasise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am deliberately keeping my remarks as brief as possible so that my hon. Friends from other constituencies can take part in the debate. Nevertheless, I take this opportunity to repeat my charge that the Eastern health board, acting as the minion of the Government, and the Department of Health, are undermining hospital services in the North Down area. Over the years, the hospitals in my constituency have done everything humanly possible to save money and to cut out any fat that may have existed. However, a few months ago, the Eastern health board announced proposals that will impose further restrictions on the facilities that can be provided. Because of that decision, further beds will be closed.
When the proposals were first made known, I immediately arranged a meeting with the head of the management committee for North Down at which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I protested about the cuts. The Ulster and Bangor hospitals are about to suffer serious cuts in the money required to provide a proper service. It is not as if there is no waiting list or that people do not want to go to those hospitals. There are long waiting lists and people need treatment. Nevertheless, beds in the Ulster and Bangor hospitals have already been closed, and now further beds are to be closed. The financial restrictions will undermine the morale of doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, as well as denying a proper service for the people of the North Down area.
The health board says that people can go to the hospitals in Belfast. Those hospitals are also part of the eastern health board and, sadly, they drain money away from the hospitals in north Down—money that is vital for their survival. I would not deny money to the hospitals in Belfast if they can get it—and they do—from the Eastern health board. My protest is about the discrimination against the people of North Down because insufficient money is being provided for the Ulster and Bangor hospitals.
According to the chairman of the British Medical Association, the United Kingdom spends 5·4 per cent. of gross domestic product on health, compared with 6·7 per cent. in France and 6·3 per cent. in Germany. We hear a great deal about the failure of Germany and France to make proper provision for their people, but I think that the United Kingdom is lagging behind them. The Government are directly—and indirectly through the Eastern health board, undermining the NHS in the North Down area. The BMA says that an increase of £6 billion is necessary for the United Kingdom, which is a 1 per cent. GDP increase, to bring the United Kingdom level up to that of the continent.
More money must be provided for the Ulster and Bangor hospitals to prevent further bed closures. We need a fully operational hospital at Bangor, as it is a densely populated area with a high proportion of elderly people. The people of North Down are extremely angry, as I am, at the way in which the Government are bleeding the NHS in my constituency. The position is exacerbated because money is being drained away to Belfast, especially to the tower block at the City hospital. I understand that beds in that tower block are empty, yet those beds cost more to

1019
run than beds in the Ulster and Bangor hospitals. Beds at those two hospitals will be closed so that patients can be provided for that white elephant in Belfast.
That is all that I wish to say tonight on the matter. I hope that the Government will heed what the people of North Down are saying, and give them a fair deal.
8.24 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), who is right to fight for his constituents. However, I think that many of his constituents are thankful for the tower block at the City hospital in Belfast. It serves the community. It would be helpful if the people of Bangor would travel to the hospital by rail rather than by car. There is a good railway halt just outside the hospital.
The International Rose conference will be held in Belfast next week, and that will be followed by one stage of the tall ships race. It is an example of the co-operation between the Government, the city council and private enterprise, which will give the world a proper picture of our city. So often, it has adverse reports in the media, which finds it easier to report a bang rather than the good things that are happening. I pay tribute to those who are trying to revitalise the city. On occasions such as this, we often deal with individual problems—and I shall do so —and with particular problems affecting the Province. However, it is also important to put on record the positive aspects in the Province.
Vote 3, under the DHSS, deals specifically with grants. Earlier today, I was speaking to an Australian Member of Parliament, who said that Australia could not run its social services without the support of the Churches and voluntary organisations. The same is true in the United Kingdom. The Government must continue to support the voluntary bodies that support care in the community and help those in need. Recently, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus appointed a full-time representative in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will consider some pump priming to help that organisation in its work.
The press recently reported that while there may be a low incidence of AIDS and HIV in Northern Ireland—and rightly so—there was no ground for complacency. The problem is growing, and how it starts and how it spreads may become known in time. I am concerned that in a community that has a strong Christian conviction, and where the Churches try to help in the education of the community, the Government have consistently refused to help with their AIDS education programme. I understand that the Government have targeted AIDS education through their own education teams, but they should recognise the work of the Churches, and it is important that that work is supported.
The Government have also refused to support their care programmes. The tragedy is that representatives of voluntary bodies have been told that because of their directive approach and the position that they hold on sex education and sexual standards, their policy runs contrary to the way that the Government want to handle the matter. There is a case for reminding the young and the old that there is an abuse of the body that must be stopped for the well-being and health of society.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the advice given to young people by the Brook advisory centres operating here on the mainland would be completely unacceptable to the majority of people in Northern Ireland?
Rev. Martin Smyth: That was not specifically on the point that I was dealing with, but I agree with my hon. Friend. We know that across the community there is deep concern about the manner of the approach and the approach itself.
On the Department of Health and Social Services vote 4, I share the concerns that have already been expressed about the allowances and, more particularly, about the way in which those allowances are granted and the appeals of those who have applied for mobility, attendance or invalid care allowances are treated.
I do not know whether directions from the top have meant that folk have been turned down in order to save money, but some of the medical referees who have carried out examinations have been careless and, as a result, people have been turned down. For example, one person was turned down as a result of past injuries. The medical referee claimed in his report that he was shot in the ankle when he was shot through the lungs—a little way away from the ankle.
A woman was turned down because she was described as a manageress. When I represented her at the tribunal, my first question was what she was a manageress of, to which she replied that she was the manageress of a wine store where she had had to lift crates and so on. Those who assessed whether such people were entitled to benefits were not doing their work properly. We must tighten up and give clearer directions not simply to save money but to ensure that the applicant is entitled to the allowance.
Some years ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), told me that there was a research project on the care of the elderly. Has that research project been completed, what have been its findings and, more importantly, what are the Government doing to implement the best service for the elderly in the community?
I would ask that some of the money in vote 4 might be used to promote hearing therapists. As I have said on other occasions, when some of my English friends, particularly English Ministers, say, "I hear what you say," I am not sure that they do. There is a great need in the community for hearing therapy to help those who have hearing impediments so that they can take their proper place in the community.
With regard to the Department of Education, Northern Ireland vote 2, I again pay tribute to the work done in education. However, I want to make two specific pleas about university education. First, I understand that finances available for ancillary staff have been tightened. I regret that some people seem to think that ancillary staff are lesser mortals than academic staff or, in the hospitals, the surgeons, doctors and so on. Yet all would admit that, without those ancillary staff, things would be in a real mess. I use the word "mess" correctly. Three years ago, youngsters in a school in the city turned their noses down or up—however one described it—when a youngster in the classroom said that her daddy was a bin man. They did not think that a bin man was up to much. However, when the bin men went on strike shortly afterwards, they soon

1021
discovered how much we need them. I plead that the work of the university will not be impeded because of a tightening of finance.
At the same time, is the Department doing anything specific to promote the universities, or is it relying on the Universities Central Council on Admissions or the universities themselves? Is the Department doing something to restore the balance between universities in Northern Ireland and those in England and Scotland? Many of our young people go to English and Scottish universities but we are not getting enough from England to give us a proper balance. We are thankful that there has been an increase in international students, both in the University of Ulster and Queen's university but, as I understand it, the mix of students is one of the benefits of university life. I would like to think that for the benefit of us all we might see more students coming from Scotland and England to take their place in the fine institutions of Northern Ireland.
What is the Department's policy following the decision of Parliament that mentally and physically handicapped children should be integrated into the normal education system? I confess that I was not happy when that decision was taken because we destroyed a fine special education system. But having said that, the decision was taken, so what are we doing to give parents and children the schools of their choice as they have been promised?
I have discovered that the Northern education and library board set up .a committee to consider the matter, but I am more concerned by a letter from the Minister which says that the money that is directed for a child in need may be kept centrally to provide what is thought to be the best education for that child. Since the Government took that decision to have integrated education throughout the country, does not the Department consider that it should be providing the funds to meet the challenge and needs in the community? We cannot simply leave it to boards to try to wrestle with the demands upon their finances and then make it difficult for children to have the benefit of that education.
I appreciate that in some cases there may be real difficulties, but I do not accept the view of one education psychologist that it may be possible to teach physically handicapped young people in ordinary schools, but mentally handicapped children cannot be taught in such a situation. There are those who are not so extremely mentally handicapped; some of them may be much wiser than the rest of us. But if an education psychologist takes that line, he shunts such children into segmented education without necessarily giving them the best chance of being educated.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) in his plea for environmental protection agencies. To some extent, that goes against my views, because I do not like quangos, but if I have to choose between a quango doing its work and two Government Departments making a mess of that work, I will go for the quango.
The actions of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland leave a lot to be desired. There is a growing green lobby in Northern Ireland. Throughout the Province, people are worried about what is happening to the environment. I
1022
fully sympathise with the hon. Member for North Down, who talked about planning appeals. Planners allow the green belt to be built upon and ride roughshod over the wishes of local people. It is time that somebody called a halt. The Minister knows that the Foyle Commission, or somebody else, has allowed nets to be placed in such a position that salmon are prevented from going up river. The Department of Agriculture must ensure that our rivers are properly stocked again.
There is an agency to protect the environment in Great Britain. I want to know what is to happen in Northern Ireland. A similar agency has been refused for the Province, on the ground that the various Departments can look after the environment themselves. Unless it is a question of setting a thief to catch a thief, I am not sure that the Departments can look after themselves.
Under the Department of Economic Development, vote 1, money has been set aside, among other things, for parking. Is the Department ready to introduce a scheme, in city areas and elsewhere, of residents-only parking? Does it intend that people should continue to park their cars in side streets? Motorists have to park where they can. If parking meters are installed around Donegall pass, motorists will put their cars in side streets that were never designed for traffic. The purpose of parking meters is to reduce the number of parked cars, but residents now find it difficult to park their cars in the bays outside their houses. What are the Department's plans for parking?
As for vote 2, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East about the Local Enterprise Development Unit. My particular concern is the Federation of Youth Enterprises. For years it has sought permission to develop its scheme, but time and time again it has been given the run around. It has become obvious during the last two years that LEDU has set its mind against the use of a particular site, ostensibly because it does not meet what it believes is required by the two communities. The committee consists of local professional people and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland. They all say that the site at Annandale should be used, but LEDU says no. It wants to move elsewhere. However, we have discovered that it has even blocked the development there. I hope that the Minister will look again at why the Federation of Youth Enterprises has been impeded for four or five years in its attempts to develop the useful work that it does in south Belfast.
Despite what people say about south Belfast being affluent, a large number of needy, elderly people and unemployed young people live there. In one area in my constituency—Lower Ravenhill—there is 20 per cent. unemployment. Anyone who states that south Belfast is affluent must have forgotten that it contains, apart from wealthy Malone, Sandy Row, Donegall road, Lower Lisburn road, Taughmonagh, Ormeau road, the Markets area, Woodstock and Ravenhill. They are all working-class areas. I should like to think that the Department will start to help us to train young people by means of the Federation of Youth Enterprises.
8.44 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The first matter that I should like to raise is the tragedy that occurred last evening in north Antrim. I draw the attention of the House to the number of unmanned level crossings in Northern

1023
Ireland. In August 1989, Northern Ireland. In August 1989, Northern Ireland Railways advised the Department of Transport in London and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland that it proposed to convert 11 unmanned level crossings into automatic half-barrier crossings. Those crossings included the two where tragedies took place recently—the one at Slaght and the other at Broughdone.
Progress has been made towards the restoration of those barriers, but on 1 March 1990—six months later —three fatalities occurred at the Slaght crossing. After that tragedy I, together with others, urged the Department of the Environment and Northern Ireland Railways to carry out the work that they had promised that they would do. I also raised the matter in the House on several occasions. I had joint consultations with representatives of the Department of the Environment and Northern Ireland Railways. On each occasion, I was assured that the matter was being dealt with urgently.
I presented evidence to the Department of the Environment and Northern Ireland Railways supporting my view that unmanned crossings were very dangerous and potential death traps. I drew their attention to various matters, such as the record of what had happened at unmanned crossings in Northern Ireland. In 1989, a 33-year-old woman was killed and her two children were injured when their car was in collision with a train at Cromore crossing near Portstewart. In 1987, a young couple on a motor bike were killed at an unmanned crossing near Ballymoney. Three years later, a man died when his van was in collision with a train at another crossing at Dunloy. In 1986, a soldier was a killed and another injured when their Land Rover was struck by a train at the Shackleton crossing near Ballykelly. Those were all unmanned level crossings.
At what speed is it assumed that a train will be travelling if a 27-second warning time is allowed for the lights to go on as a train approaches a crossing? For the benefit of the House, there are exactly 27 seconds from the time the train hits the trigger on the track until it crosses the level crossing. One may say that that is a very short time, but the Department and Northern Ireland Railways told me that the purpose behind the 27 seconds is that there is not too long a time for a car to sit at the crossing once the lights start flashing.
I was also asked how long it would take a women pushing a pram over a crossing to unstrap her child from the pram and lift it to safety if one of the wheels of the pram became jammed between the rails. Would she be capable of clearing the track in the 27 seconds?
Another question was how long it would take for a train travelling at the maximum permitted speed of 70 mph on Northern Ireland Railways track to come to a standstill? What distance would be required for that train to stop? A train travelling at 70 mph covers 924 yards in 27 seconds.
I raised many of those points with the Department and with Northern Ireland Railways. On 4 September 1990 I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), which answered a further query that I raised about the matter during Question Time on 19 July 1990. The letter stated:
"In Northern Ireland, NIR identified a list of 11 crossings to which alterations should be made in the light of the Stott criteria. These were the crossings notified to the Department
1024
in August 1989. It has not been possible, however, for NIR to carry the proposal forward pending the outcome of the trial of the prototypes and the drafting requirements by the Railway Inspectorate. Now that that stage has been reached NIR will be able to do 2 things. Firstly they will be able to order material and undertake the design work necessary for the modification of the existing controls."
The letter continued:
"I am assured that NIR will proceed expeditiously. For its part the Department will give the applications priority to allow NIR to implement the programme as quickly as possible."
That was on 4 September 1990.
As someone who has worked in the construction industry, I am well aware that specifications must be met. In October 1990 I was given those specifications—the design of the crossings, photographs of the crossings and other related details. That was in October 1990, but to date not one unmanned level crossing in Northern Ireland has had any of the half-barriers fitted.
Last night, Mr. Robinson was killed at a crossing a few miles further down the line from the Slaght crossing. We cannot speculate on the cause of the accident, but we can protest that, even at this stage, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Railways have not expedited an extremely urgent proposal which had been recommended by Professor Stott and which affects the safety of all who travel—locals and visitors—on Northern Ireland's roads.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I agree that this is a very serious matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, statutory orders must be proceeded with before the new half-barriers can be introduced. The hon. Gentleman asked a question to which I replied at the end of February this year listing the dates when the orders would be passed and when work would start. So far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has not since told me or the Department that the programme that we had set out should be speeded up even more.
Mr. Forsythe: Is the Minister suggesting that despite his letter to me and despite my interest in this matter from the beginning, I must continuously—week after week and month after month—stay on the backs of officials in the transport section of the Department of the Environment and of Northern Ireland Railways to ensure that they carry out their statutory duties to the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Needham: No, I am not suggesting that. I am saying that the hon. Gentleman has known since the end of February what the programme was and how it would be proceeded with. If the hon. Gentleman had felt at that time that a further delay was intolerable, he could have said so, but he did not. That does not mean that the programme should not be proceeded with as quickly as possible, but it takes time to push through the necessary procedures.
Mr. Forsythe: Is the Minister telling the House that, although he sent the letter to say that things were under way, I should have continued to press the Minister, his Department and Northern Ireland Railways to do something for which an application was made in August 1989? The application from Northern Ireland Railways was made to the Department in August 1989 and I received the specifications in my possession in October

1025
1990. We are now in July 1991. Surely the Minister is not suggesting that I should take over his job in Northern Ireland.
I am very disappointed by that reply. I should have thought that the Minister, knowing of a colleague's concern about the matter, would have assumed that when he wrote to that hon. Member, the hon. Member would take him at his word and assume that the Minister would ensure that the work would be done. Sadly, as the Minister sits and I stand in the House in July 1991, no work has been carried out by Northern Ireland Railways to erect half-barriers on the unmanned level crossings, as it was supposed to do.
In view of the paragraph from the earlier letter, the further letter sent to me by the Minister and the fact that I have had the detailed specifications and drawings of such crossings since 12 October 1990, why do the Department of the Environment and Northern Ireland Railways appear to have failed in their duty to those who trust them to carry out their responsibility to keep road and rail users as safe as is humanly possible? Why does the Minister appear to have failed in his duty to ensure that the work was carried out?
I readily concede that no Minister can know about every little nut and bolt in his Department. However, as the Minister knows, it is a parliamentary tradition that Ministers answer to the House for their charge. I submit to the House that in this matter, the Minister appears to have failed to honour his commitment to the House. I am very disappointed that the Minister seeks to shift the blame from himself, from his Department and from Northern Ireland Railways, to the shoulders of a Member of Parliament who has continually urged them to carry out their duty. Now I have had the experience of hearing of yet another death at an unmanned level crossing—and I leave aside the question how the accident occurred.
Mr. Needham: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to shift the blame, least of all on to his shoulders. As he points out, nobody could have done more than he has to raise the matter. The dates that I sent him at the end of February for the start of the schemes were the earliest available dates on which the barriers could be introduced. That is why he tabled his question and I replied to it. I was told that that was the earliest point at which the work could be begun.
The only point that I make to the hon. Gentleman is that, at the time when I gave him the figures, he did not say to me that it was not good enough, that the start should be sooner, or that this or that should be done. However, that does not alter the fact that I agree that we must get on as quickly as we can. In view of what the hon. Gentleman says, I will look at the matter again immediately to see whether there is any way to bring the dates forward.
Mr. Forsythe: I thank the Minister for clearing the matter up. May I seek his assurance in the House that he will endeavour, to the best of his ability, to ensure that half-barriers are fitted to at least the 11 unmanned level crossings that were decided on in August 1989?
Mr. Needham: If there is any way in which we can bring forward the dates of which I informed the hon. Gentleman in my written answer of 25 February, I give him my assurance that we shall do so.
Mr. Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his confident reply and I look forward to action being taken on the matter as soon as possible.
The Minister will also be aware of my views on planning—a matter that other hon. Members have raised. The Minister probably heard me intervene on the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and refer to the market at Nutt's Corner. Perhaps the Minister can assure me on that matter, too. I will give way again if he wishes to intervene. I am keen to give way. I will be fair to the Minister, as he also is concerned about the matter. It really is out of order for anyone not only to decide to have a market in an area in which there is no planning permission but to make a new access to a main road—an A road—to bring in stands for that market and to put up a sign which clearly states "New Sunday Market". No application has been made, local people are up in arms, and the planning department is telling me that it is doing its best but that it is working under great difficulty.
Mr. Needham: I do not want to take up too much time, as other hon. Members wish to speak. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I sympathise with his point about Nutt's Corner. Any market in Northern Ireland can operate for up to 14 days or 14 times in a year without a licence. After that, it must apply. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as soon as the 14 days have passed, we shall deal with the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman, too, that we shall ensure that the regulations in respect of the existing market, which will come before the courts on 26 July, are also dealt with. I do not intend to give up the matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Instead of seeking to turn the debate into a dialogue, perhaps some of those matters might be dealt with by the Minister when he seeks to catch my eye.
Mr. Forsythe: I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I always do.
There are unadopted roads in many constituencies. In some parts of the world, certain people are elected on the issue of potholes in roads. Perhaps the Minister could have a wee look at unadopted roads and consider a campaign so that at least some unadopted roads are brought up to standard. That would get rid of a bugbear for many people in Northern Ireland.
It is good to have trimming in Government Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked about trimming, but we need trimming in the Department of Social Security. Staff who are properly trained in interviewing techniques would get better results. One great bugbear is telephone answering in Government Departments, particularly the DSS and the Housing Executive. I should like to think that a little training in telephone answering went on in both Departments.
As a member of the Select Committee on Social Services, I am aware that there are many problems with the social fund. I agree with the points made by other hon. Members about the position of those who are poor for whatever reason—they may have been made redundant or they may never have been able to find a job—and who are in receipt of benefit. If a benefit claimant's cooker breaks down and he or she does not have the money to buy a new one—and cannot, therefore, cook a meal for the children —the DSS cannot make such a person a grant, but can

1027
only offer a loan. That state of affairs is causing great problems. I am sure that we shall have to reconsider it when the new rates come into effect in the autumn but, until then, I shall sit down to allow some of my colleagues to make their points.
9.10 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: This is an almost unique parliamentary occasion and, as can be seen from the crowded Benches, it is of great interest to hon. Members from outside Northern Ireland who flood into the Chamber to hear the constituency problems of hon. Members who represent the Province. None the less, it is an opportunity that we do not like to miss, and we offer no apology for raising the matters that we do. If they seem trivial to some people within the precincts of the House, all that we can say is that the Government provide us with no other opportunity to represent the people of Northern Ireland on these important issues. If the government of Northern Ireland was ordered differently, we might have greater opportunities for dealing with these vital matters either upstairs in Committee or elsewhere.
To get him into the right mood, I should like first to offer my thanks to the Minister for the efforts that I understand he has been making in relation to an important scheme in my constituency which is competing with the Department of Economic Development's local enterprise scheme for a piece of land in the Severn street area of east Belfast.
For many years, the land has been earmarked for the Connswater housing association and is much needed for local housing. Unfortunately, another body for which the Minister also has responsibility within the DED has had its eyes on the site. The two were in some conflict over the land and, before I met the Minister, it appeared that the more mobile of the two would be the winner. Having met the Minister on this issue, I understand that he has now taken some measures withing the Department and that it now looks as if things are moving in the right direction. I hope that those words will encourage him to continue his efforts to ensure that that land comes back into the ownership of the Connswater housing association, so that houses can be built for local people.
I refer the Minister now to road services. I do not know whether he was in Northern Ireland earlier today and whether he has had access to this evening's Belfast Telegraph. If he has had the opportunity to see that paper, he will have seen on the front page and in living colour a photograph of some of my constituents, who appear relaxed despite a traumatic past few days. They are residents of the Shannon Park area who, through chit-chat and tittle-tattle at a golf club, discovered that their houses were to be demolished. It appears that the Minister's information service requires us all to take out membership of the local golf clubs so that we can find out what is going to happen in our areas.
Those local residents discovered at a barbecue at a local golf club that the Department of the Environment had changed its proposals for widening the road along the Knock dual carriageway and proposed to create a new intersection which would take away two fine properties and the gardens of other properties. It would displace peole who have fond memories of the houses in which they reside and who can see alternatives to the Department's
1028
proposals. For the life of them, they cannot imagine why the Department has not either considered or accepted those alternatives.
The proposals have caused such anxiety in the local area that every political party which has elected representatives in that part of east Belfast has offered its support to the campaign of the local residents. Members of the local council and I contacted the DOE. We have had some response from the Minister's office. It did not go much further than an apology that the matter leaked out. I am glad that the matter leaked out, because it gave people an opportunity to get their armour on and prepare themselves for the battle.
I want the Minister to give me some details about the new phase of the road development. Why was it found necessary to change the proposal at this late stage when houses along the Knock dual carriageway had already been vested? Many houses had already been knocked down, and the road scheme was due to start soon. Why at this late stage was it necessary to have a further scheme which will affect, indeed decimate, the local area?
What alternative proposals were considered by the Department? Why did not the Department properly consult people in the local area and their elected representatives? Why does the Minister use the golf club to disseminate information in the east Belfast community? Perhaps he could also tell me how much the new scheme—[Interruption.] The Minister says that he did not use the golf club. I am sure that he will not deny his responsibility for the actions of his Department. I am sure that he will own up and take full responsibility for what goes on within the DOE road services.
Will there be a planning application for the scheme? Will the Minister allow a public inquiry to be held on the foot of the planning application, if there is one? Will he then apply for a vesting order? Will he allow us to have a public inquiry on the foot of the vesting order? If he allows us to have all those things, how will that affect the timing of the rest of the scheme and the finances of the scheme?
I certainly wish to register my outrage at the means by which people were informed of the scheme and to express my support for those who are campaigning for an alternative to be adopted which would require the slip road to go in a direction other than the one that the Department has chosen. We understand from a telephone conversation that the Department is not prepared to accept that proposal, because it might take a few feet from the scrubland attached to the golf course at which the Minister disseminates information to the local community. Perhaps the Minister could have less association with the golf course and more with the people in the area and sort out the problem for the local residents.
The Department of the Environment has responsibility for housing. I have mentioned grants for improvement of dwellings on previous occasions. Many of my constituents have come to me in the past few months because they were appalled at the delays in processing improvement grants. One should recognise that those grants are given only because of the serious need for improvements to be carried out to the housing stock. However, finance has been so restricted in Northern Ireland that only the worst cases are given approval.
The delays are such that, by the time the Department gets round to giving approval, the building estimates that were received from local contractors when the process began are no longer valid. By and large, those considerable

1029
cost increases must be met by the owner of the dwelling. Surely the Minister is capable of encouraging the Housing Executive to adopt a more speedy process, so that people in need of those grants are given them, and the work is done at the price estimated at the time of application.
I want to raise another issue, but the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is not in his seat at the moment. Therefore, I shall just keep on talking until the hon. Gentleman comes back. I hope that he has not gone for too long, but in the meantime I shall deal with another issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may keep on talking so long as he keeps in order.
Mr. Robinson: I always keep in order, but I hope that the Minister will return to his place soon to ensure that I do so tonight.
The Minister of State, who is present now, has considerable knowledge of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland although he does not have direct responsibility for it outside this House. On the previous occasion that we discussed the appropriation order, I raised the issue of the parents and children in the Clarawood estate in my constituency, who have had their school taken away from them. As a result of that decision, the schoolchildren have had to be sent to the Orangefield primary school. As the crow flies, that school is a short distance from the estate, but it is a long distance by road.
When I raised this matter before I was assured that it could be appropriately dealt with by the Belfast education and library board. The board has since considered that matter and it agrees with me that a bus should be laid on to take the children to the school. However, the Department of Education then stepped in and refused to give the necessary permission.
It is a little odd that the Minister, having washed his hands of the issue and having told me to address my complaints to the education and library board, should then step in to stop the provision of the bus. According to a minute from the education and library board, the Department responded to its request by saying:
"it is unable to justify a departure from the general terms of paragraph 2 of the School Transport Circular 1978/49 which states that 'A Board should not normally supply transport or pay travelling expenses for any pupil, other than a handicapped pupil, who lives within statutory walking distance of the school attended.'"
The board's decision however, is not contrary to the provisions of the 1978 circular, as they allow discretion by saying that a board "should not normally" provide transport. Those provisions clearly permit the Department to allow the transport of schoolchildren in special circumstances. Those special circumstances have arisen in the case of Clarawood—they are so special that the appointed board set up to consider the matter approved of the provision of transport for those children. Unfortunately, the Department overruled that decision. What is the point of having education and library boards if the Minister allows his Department to step in to ensure that the thin veneer of local accountability is removed from the system?
The Department is Scrooge-like when providing for attendance allowances. It is clear to elected representatives in Northern Ireland that the number of people who receive
1030
attendance allowance depends entirely on the annual allocation. It depends not on how many people need it but on how much finance is available. The Department is refusing some of the most needy cases simply because the finance is not available to meet the need.
That has led to much hardship for those who attempt to keep relatives who require care. If they do not receive that care within the household, they will end up in hospital or residential accommodation, which will cost the Department—albeit under a different head of expenditure—a great deal more. Will the Minister reconsider that false economy and make money available for attendance allowances? It could save his Department money in the long run if people did not have to be institutionalised.
During this debate, several hon. Members have spoken of their concern, which I share, about the cuts in the Department's budget for the area of management that covers the Ulster, Bangor and Ards hospitals. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) for inviting me to join him at a meeting with the chief administrator of that area, so that we could question him about those cuts. There seems to be an economic domino theory at work. The Tory Government cut the money, the boards must then cut the budgets of the unit areas, and the unit administrators must also cut back. Ultimately, those who suffer are the people who need the service.
The figures that we have seen show that the local area has been asked to try to effect savings of some £1 million, although a smaller saving may be required. They show that severe hardship would be experienced in geriatric and paediatric care. The budgets in those areas have been trimmed to such an extent that further cuts would seriously affect the local service. Indeed, the cut comes on top of a cut the previous year, when 100 beds were cut from that unit of management. A further cut would have an equivalent financial effect. Moreover, the inflation rate will not be met by the figures allocated by the board.
Hon. Members will forgive me if I make comparisons that draw attention to their areas, but we all have to fight our own corners. The area that contains the city hospital is allocated an expenditure of some £60 million, but the cut will be exactly the same as for this unit of management, where the expenditure is only £30 million. It is most unfair that the percentage cut is so much greater in the management unit area.
Mr. Kilfedder: My hon. Friend realises that the tower block at Ulster hospital has drawn away millions of pounds from the North Down district. He mentioned a figure of £60 million. I believe that the figure is about £70 million. Perhaps the Minister will tell us tonight the total cost of building the tower block, the total cost of the equipment and re-equipment of the tower block and the total cost of the tower block's annual management.
I have been critical of the amount of money spent on the tower block both tonight and over the years, but my criticism is limited to that money being spent wastefully. I support the doctors who work in the City hospital, some of whom I know. I have the utmost admiration for the doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, but the people of North Down expect fair play and even-handedness.
Mr. Robinson: I suspect that my hon. Friend may not get those figures from the Minister this evening. If he does, I should be pleased if he would send me a copy of the reply,

1031
because, it was estimated at an early stage that the City hospital tower block would cost £8·4 million; it was then discovered that it would cost more than £43 million, and at that time the work was not even complete. It will be interesting to know what the final figure was for building the tower block, and for furnishing it.
The extent of the inequality suffered by those in that sphere of management is such that, while they serve a significant proportion of the population of the Eastern health and social services board, they have a relatively insignificant proportion of the funds from that board. I should have thought that there should have been a further spread of money across that sector. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the City hospital. Some of us are keeping a close eye on the expenditure within the Royal Victoria hospital and the wisdom of continuing to plough money into that hospital when some of the other hospitals might be better built up to cater for the whole of the community, not just part of it.
Some months ago, together with some of my colleagues, I met the Minister of State, who has direct responsibility at the Department of Finance and Personnel, to discuss a rating issue. The matter under discussion resulted from the receipt of a bill by Castlereagh borough council for recreation facilities for which the Department had not normally charged the council for rating purposes. As a result of the council receiving that bill, which was for more than a quarter of a million, our interest was raised as to why a council should be asked to pay for a service that it was providing.
I understand that the Minister is considering the matter. When we spoke to him, he was prepared to look at the proposition to see whether, as a general rule, a waiver should be provided on rates bills for all local authorities. A bill of a quarter of a million pounds accumulated over a period is a significant amount for a relatively small district council, but does not have the same impact, in proportional terms, on the funding of the Department.
Will the Minister attempt to draw together the pieces of his investigation? He may have some good news for local authorities in Northern Ireland. I have noticed that several other councils are now being touched up by the Department on the same basis and may well have to fork out large sums.
I find it difficult to accept the Department's reasoning. The councils are providing a much-needed service for their ratepayers. They have been doing so for the past five years without receiving the usual 75 per cent. capital expenditure grant from the Department. The facility that the Minister was asked to consider received no grants from the Department; it was built directly from the rates. It seems hard not only to fail to receive the grants that other councils have received but to have to pay rates to the Department on top of that.
I regret that the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment has not returned to the Chamber. He was present at a social occasion last Saturday evening in Belfast city council. I detected that he was impressed by the speech given by the honoured guest at the installation of the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Alderman Nigel Dodds. His guest speaker was Miss Monica Wilson, assistant director of the Northern Ireland Council for the Disabled. She sincerely and thoroughly articulated the difficulties faced by disabled people in Northern Ireland. She spoke of a need for a change of attitude towards the disabled on the part of the Government. A number of the
1032
issues that she raised had a direct bearing on the Minister's responsibility—they related to building control and planning.
I would be keen to hear the Minister's response to Miss Wilson's speech. He joined in her standing ovation at the dinner, and seemed genuinely pleased with her comments. It would be useful if he used this occasion to respond to her remarks and to tell us that his consciousness of issues to do with disabled people has been heightened. I hope that changes will occur in his Department to help the disabled people of Northern Ireland.
9.37 pm
Mr. David Trimble: This has been a wide-ranging debate, as these debates invariably are. Due to the nature of the subject matter and the way in which the government of Northern Ireland is structured, much of it has been a local government debate. I recall that we had a wide-ranging debate a few weeks ago on the occasion of the renewal of direct rule. I suggested then that it might be better—instead of holding these long, unfocused and wide-ranging debates—to consider structuring debates so that we could debate specific subjects. Incidentally, I was interested to hear the comment by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) to the effect that we need a Northern Ireland Select Committee in which to raise many of these matters. We could also consider discussing some of them in the Northern Ireland Committee, if its format could be made somewhat less restrictive.
In the week in which the House has established a Select Committee to consider our proceedings, our sittings and the way in which our business is handled, it is clearly long overdue that we should examine the handling of Northern Ireland business and put it on a more sensible footing. It is not right to shrug the matter off by allowing Northern Ireland Members two or three nights a year in which to speak on anything they like—that does not provide a satisfactory debate.
Hon. Members have spoken about the Northern Ireland economy, and some expressed false optimism by saying that the Province had missed the recession or was not being affected to the same extent as other parts of the United Kingdom. That is false because the Northern Ireland economy did not fully recover from the first depression in the early lifetime of the present Administration. It had only started to recover when the second recession occurred. It has been said that output has not gone down, but it never recovered to its former level. Other economic problems may arise.
Textiles are an important part of Northern Ireland industry. Some textile firms import cheap yarn from third-world countries and use it to produce high quality goods. I understand that the European Community has recently proposed that anti-dumping duties should be put into effect immediately against imports of cotton, polycotton and polyester yarns from Brazil, Egypt, India, Thailand, Turkey, Taiwan, Indonesia and China. Northern Ireland imports yarn from some of those countries for further processing.
Action against the import of finished garments and fabric from low-cost producer countries would be much more effective. At least cheap yarn enables Northern Ireland to maintain a manufacturing base, whereas finished fabric from abroad is a serious threat to the textile

1033
industry. I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will make representations to the EC about this matter so that Northern Ireland industry can be better protected.
Some hon. Members spoke about urban development grant and the fact that it has not been fairly spread in Northern Ireland. Part of that grant comes from the international fund which has a bias towards certain areas, particularly those that are defined as border areas. Urban development grant in the main cities of Londonderry and Belfast comes directly from the Department. All the towns and villages in eastern and central Ulster, many of which are depressed, are left out. There is one such town in my constituency, the town of Gilford, and in the past 18 months a major employer there has closed. As a result, the town is depressed to some extent and urgently needs some attention, although it is not receiving any from the Department. I hope that that will be remedied.
I regret that the Minister with responsibility for water and sewerage is not in his place, because he is familiar with the problem of Kinnego bay in Lough Neagh where there is serious pollution. The problem comes from the sewage plant at Bulay's hill which discharges into the bay. Because of the location of the discharge point, the shape of the bay and the position of the breakwater, sewage cannot escape from the bay and poses a serious threat to health. Water contact sports have had to be discouraged, even though there has been substantial investment in a marina and the area contains a caravan park and a nature reserve.
The solution is either to move the sewage works from Bulay's hill and put it somewhere else or to place the discharge further into the lough so that sewage does not remain in the bay. The Minister has been fully aware of the problem for some time and knows about the effect on the area. I hope that something can be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) spoke about the serious problem of unadopted roads. In my constituency there are problems on the road adjoining the railway station site at Laurencetown and at Hayes park, Seapatrick. There is a particular problem in Laws lane off the Castlewellan road, Banbridge. The road is in a very bad condition. There are only five households directly on the road, although there is a small terrace off the road also served by it, with more households. A local college of further education also uses property there. The fact that it is an unadopted road in poor condition is helping to sterilise what might otherwise be useful development land.
Laws lane presents a problem slightly different from that posed by other unadopted roads. Many years ago, there was litigation on the matter, and in 1963 a compromise was reached on terms that led local residents to believe that they had been absolved from any future liability to maintain the road. Some local residents argue that the terms of the settlement, or the implications of those terms, meant that the then council accepted an obligation to maintain the road. If that was the case, the obligation would have been transferred from the old Banbridge council to the Department when other road functions were transferred from councils to the Department in 1973.
I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), has returned to the Chamber, because he will remember the
1034
Laws lane case. It was raised at the Northern Ireland Assembly, and a suggestion was made that the position should be examined, and legislation on unadopted roads introduced. I understand that the Minister is planning to introduce legislation on private streets next year, and I urge him to take the opportunity to include in it provisions on unadopted roads.
There is a general problem throughout the Province. The last time the possibility of bringing Laws lane up to standard to be adopted was considered, the cost was estimated at more than £200,000. The handful of residents in Laws lane could never afford that. There is a clear case for public money to be used, or for some other provision to be made. Next year's legislation will provide the opportunity to clear up the issue.
I am sorry to say that all the health matters that I wish to raise relate to the Southern health and social services board, which is not covering itself with glory in Upper Bann. Most of the problems seem to be focused in the town of Banbridge. We have the problem of the day centre —or, at least, the problem is that we do not have the day centre any more.
A month or two ago, there was a serious bomb incident in the town and a number of public buildings were affected. Most were quickly brought back into service, but the board has used the incident as an excuse to close the day centre. It was open after the incident, but a few days later it was closed and has not been reopened. People who used to attend it now have to go to Portadown, where they feel that the provision is less suitable than was the case in Banbridge. The board has given no clear explanation of the position with regard to the day centre, and has not said when it will be reopened. Clearly the situation is unsatisfactory.
The position of the Spelga house element of Banbridge hospital is unsatisfactory, too. I have had occasion to refer to the matter before in the House, and things are not getting any better. Spelga house is an old block providing continuing care for the elderly. It is reasonable for its use to be discontinued, and the board took a decision in principle to dispose of it some years ago. The problem is the provision of an alternative.
Local people were given to understand that, on the closure of Spelga house, its occupants would be accommodated elsewhere on the site of the Banbridge hospital. At a recent board meeting, the unit manager said:
"there was an understanding … every effort would be made to ensure that alternative services were local and accessible … alternative provision would have been made in Banbridge. Whilst not stated it was inferred".
It was more than inferred. The Rev. Roger Purse, a minister in Loughbrickland and Scarva, who was the spokesman for a delegation representing all the clergy of the area at that meeting of the board, said:
"Patients were aware of the initial decision to close Spelga House, but guarantees were given again and again that they would not be moved off the Banbridge hospital site."
Mr. Purse continued:
"The Chairman of the former board, at a meeting I attended on 8 March 1989, stated that, with the planned closure of Spelga House the 30 patients would be relocated within the main hospital."
Instead, on 11 June, the new board apparently took a decision in principle to run down the number of people in Spelga, to move the remainder to Lurgan during the refurbishment of the main Banbridge site and then, 15 or 20 months later, to move them back to Banbridge.

1035
That is not acceptable. There is a need for continuing care in the locality. Lurgan is some distance away and there is inadequate transport, particularly public transport, to it. There is also the question of the risk to the old people of the move from Spelga to Lurgan. In similar cases in England and Wales there has been significant attrition where people have been relocated. The new board will have to consider that carefully and not be too casual in running risks with people's health in the move to Lurgan.
The solution is obvious: it is to leave the patients in Spelga house until the refurbishment of the main site is complete and then to move them on to the main site. If that were done, the problem would not arise. People were given to understand that that would happen, and it should still happen.
We also have a problem with the casualty unit at Banbridge hospital, which has been in difficulties for some time. It has been run on a half-day basis because of the shortage of junior consultants. Constant representations have been made to the board about it and, until recently, the board said that it was trying to recruit junior medical staff to cover casualty at Banbridge.
On 21 June, the clerk of a committee of Banbridge district council telephoned the unit general manager at approximately 2 pm simply to inquire what the current position was. The clerk was told by the unit general manager that interviews for junior medical staff were taking place and that an appointment would be made soon. Less than half an hour later, Banbridge council received a telex from the unit general manager saying that casualty was closing immediately. Someone made the decision to close the unit; it was obviously not the unit general manager. It is a terrible way to administer a service to be telling people at 2 pm that the recruitment of junior medical staff to run casualty is going ahead and then to close down casualty completely.
When the council queried the closure of casualty, it was told that an additional reason for the closure was the proposed refurbishment of the main site, which would make it difficult to run the casualty service. That inevitably gives rise to the question of what other facilities will be affected by the refurbishment because other parts of the hospital, too, should continue in operation throughout the refurbishment period.
We feel that many of these problems can be placed at the door of the new boards that have been established. I have to tell the Minister that, so far, our experience of the new boards has not been particularly satisfactory. We queried the basis of their creation and the absence of a representative element. People have noticed, however, that there seems to be a certain geographical spread in relation, to the persons serving on the boards. Not unnaturally, noticing that a person resident in the Banbridge district had been appointed to the board, Banbridge council sought a meeting with that person, only to be told, in a reply from the chairman of the board, that members of the board would not be meeting district councils.
We know that there is now no representative element in the administration of the health services but it is most unsatisfactory for board members to be instructed by their chairman not to meet local councillors to hear their views. It is not good enough to say that consultative councils will sit in parallel with the board. If board members are
1036
obstructive, that in itself is unsatisfactory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is that a general ruling?"] I do not know—perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies.
I should have liked to raise other matters, but some of my colleagues have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate and they are anxious to speak. I shall conclude, and give them the opportunity to do so.
9.55 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I wish to direct my remarks to the vote covering the Departments of Economic Development, the Environment, Education, and Health and Social Services. I shall try not to take up all the time available, as I know that other hon. Members are waiting patiently for the opportunity to speak.
Of the 3,100 jobs lost in Northern Ireland recently, a disproportionately high number have been in my constituency. While I welcome the announcement today of another 500 jobs for Belfast, and support a fair distribution among able-bodied and disabled people, those jobs are not readily accessible to many of my constituents. We urgently need a major employer to locate in our area. The town of Lame expanded rapidly with the development of BTH, which later became GEC, and then GEC Alsthom. The seriousness of the 500 recently announced job losses can be appreciated and put into perspective only when it is understood that the former work force at that plant was three times that number. It has steadily reduced over the years.
Job opportunities that would absorb 500 employees are not readily available in the area, so it is vital that new resources are found from the ecomomic development budget, and directed towards east Antrim. The local economy has suffered terribly, with the closure of ICI, Courtaulds, Clingers Yarns and Carreras, with constant job losses in other manufacturing industries. Northern Telecom, formerly Standard Telephones and Cables, is a vital part of the community in Newtownabbey, but there have been redundancies in recent years, and now the company has announced a further 205 job losses. Forced redundancies begin this month, and will run until the end of the year.
There is a thriving retail trade in Newtownabbey., but many of those who use the shopping facilities come from outside the area. That disguises the genuine hardship that has resulted from high levels of unemployment in east Newtownabbey and, in particular, in the huge estates in that area. In addition to the 205 redundancies, a further 350 temporary workers at Northern Telecom were laid off earlier this year. East Antrim cannot sustain that level of job losses.
Following the announcement of the redundancies, the Under-Secretary was reported in the local press as having said that Northern Telecom would continue to play a vital role in the area. That is welcome, but it is not much consolation for those who have been made redundant, their families, or the local businesses that will undoubtedly suffer.
A number of shops in Lame have already closed, and traders badly need a confidence boost. Indeed, the whole community needs a morale boost, which only a new major industry can provide. The area has a fine tradition of hard work. The skills are available but the local work force is not being given the opportunity to demonstrate just what it can do. A special effort must be made.

1037
I appreciate the efforts and support of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), recently when the employees of Circaprint made a special effort to protect and defend the jobs that were about to be lost there. Sadly, most of the major industries that have been set up in the past 30 years have now gone, but the skills which were learned are still there. We need a commitment to revitalise industry in east Antrim.
It seems a long time to go back, but my first employment was at the then BTH plant in 1957. The Duke of Gloucester said that the project was an example of faith in industrial development in Ulster. At the opening ceremony, the factory manager proposed a toast to the Northern Ireland Government, saying that he was happy to be able to regard the Government as a friend, always willing, ready and able to help. I hope that, before too long, I can pay the same tribute to the Minister.
The then Prime Minister said that the Northern Ireland Office was always eager to extend all possible help to new industry. That was the legacy of the Stormont Administration, always willing and able to help new industry. The Stormont Administration did much to bring inward investment to the Province and to east Antrim. My constituency was a prime beneficiary of their forward-looking policies. The Ulster Unionist Government worked hard to attract investment in Northern Ireland and had a clear policy on how to achieve that end. Promoting the Province was not superficial; it was not a shop window competition. Before promoting the Province to potential investors, the Stormont Administration made sure that conditions for investors in industry in Ulster were at the level necessary for large-scale manufacturing industry.
Under the Ulster Unionist Government, the transport network in Northern Ireland was greatly improved, and an electricity service of the highest standard was developed. All that was achieved in co-operation with the Westminster Government. Sadly, little has been done since direct rule and our loss of the Stormont Administration.
East Antrim has now lost most of its larger employers. Resources must again be made available to promote the area and to attract investment there. Such resources have already been made available to west Belfast and Londonderry. East Antrim is a neighbour of Belfast, on the eastern seaboard. It has the second busiest port in the United Kingdom, and it accommodates two of Northern Ireland's four power generating stations. Yet, as a result of the loss of much of its manufacturing sector, it urgently needs the same level of resources and commitment to the unemployed as have already been given to west Belfast and Londonderry.
The people of east Antrim have taken a lead in generating business confidence against all the odds, and the people locally—trade unionists, educationists, public representatives and the business community—plan to revitalise the town's industrial sector. They have the co-operation of the local council, despite its limited powers, but they need the co-operation of Government to succeed in their objectives. I ask the Minister tonight for that commitment and support and whether he has yet had
1038
any success in promoting interest in the huge GEC-Alsthom complex where nearly 2,000 people were once employed.
We need to invest in further training provision in east Antrim as a whole and in Lame in particular. The area has a tradition of skilled and willing workers, good industrial relations and excellent education facilities. Excellent training was provided for years by GEC. Many of the people trained there were either head hunted or poached by smaller employers who did not involve themselves in training. Newtownabbey has a Government training centre.
Larne and Carrickfergus need the same provision as has been made available at Newtownabbey and at the Government training centre in Ballymena. In view of the difficulties that have arisen from the closure of GEC, will the Minister consider as a priority providing Government support for a training centre in Larne? The younger generation must be given the opportunity to learn the skills that their elders learned in the factories of east Antrim. They need more than a youth training programme job in a bakery or shoe shop.
When he takes into account our serious job losses, will the Minister provide guidance to his planning service on the need for flexibility and common sense? There must be a sensible relaxation of the rules concerning land that is zoned as special or of outstanding natural beauty. For example, there is the prospect of developing a small hotel-leisure facility at Ballycarry in east Antrim. That would create 30 to 40 jobs. We desperately need any jobs. We must have assistance if we are to attract jobs to the area. The project has the support of the local council.
There is no reason why, therefore, common sense should not prevail. The project could be constrained by means of the enforcement of planning conditions, thereby ensuring that it fits neatly into the area for which it is designed. That would meet local needs and provide employment opportunities. At the same time, it would satisfy the planning conditions. If they were not complied with, I should support their enforcement.
As for money voted to the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, I draw attention to the importance of Larne harbour to the Northern Ireland economy and also to the importance of the Larne-Belfast road to the Province as a whole. Larne is the second busiest port in the United Kingdom. It is at one end of the Larne-Stranraer corridor. It is the shortest sea crossing between Northern Ireland and the mainland. The successful development of Lame harbour, through private initiative and with European Community grant aid, deserves the whole-hearted protection that Northern Ireland Office Ministers and Her Majesty's Government can give. It must be defended and supported so that what has been achieved can be protected against the designs of the Irish Republic, which wishes to redirect passenger and freight traffic along the Dublin-Holyhead route.
It would be an absolute disgrace if public money were to be used to duplicate what has already been provided, through EC funding, and to destroy the local initiative that has already been established there. I hope that, as a demonstration of good faith the Larne-Stranraer corridor is given at least equal status, as a Euro-route, from the island of Ireland and that there will be a clear announcement by the Minister that money will be made available to upgrade the Larne-Belfast road. it would be

1039
most satisfying if we also heard from him that an application had already been submitted to the European Community for the requisite funding for this project.
There is a black spot on the Antrim coast road in my constituency, which is, of course, one of the most beautiful in the British Isles. That black spot is an old limestone whiting mill. One knows when one is approaching the area half a mile before reaching it because every house, shop and church in the village is affected by limestone dust. The village needs more than a mere face lift—it needs a commitment from the Department of the Environment and support from the Department of Economic Development to ensure that the money spent on the Glenarm village study was not wasted and that the report was not another merely to be pigeonholed and forgotten.
The village community would like a commitment for funding to relocate the old whiting mill from the coast road inland. I understand that the Eglinton limestone company is prepared to make a substantial financial contribution to help the village meet its long-term objective, but that Government intervention and support would be necessary to make it a possibility. I hope that that matter will be dealt with at an early date. As the local community would be the main beneficiary of a move inland by the limestone company, the use of public funding to encourage the company to make that move would be well justified.
I also appeal on behalf of the tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in Nos. 1 to 8 in Roscor square in Rathcoole. I support the tenants in their wish to remain in their homes. They have taken pride in them and they have a secure mini-community. The houses should not be demolished; they should be refurbished and improved as has happened elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will be able to advise the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that tenants' wishes should be given priority over those of the people who wish to promote landscaping and redevelopment schemes, however attractive and desirable they may be.
A report has been published about discrimination in funding in Northern Ireland. Wild allegations have been made, but I have not yet had the opportunity to digest the report fully. I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the statistics published in Hansard of 29 April on expenditure per pupil in England on books and equipment, and the statistics published in Hansard of 30 April at column 131 referring to expenditure on books and equipment in primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland.
Those statistics—regardless of whether schools are Protestant or Roman Catholic—show that expenditure in Northern Ireland on primary and secondary school pupils since 1978–79 has been to the disadvantage of Northern Ireland primary school pupils. Expenditure was approximately £10 less per primary pupil in Northern Ireland than in England. In 1988–89, that disadvantage had been reduced to £4·40 per pupil. However, the real gap in funding for pupils in secondary schools in Northern Ireland in 1988–89 compared with those in secondary schools in England shows a disadvantage of approximately £20 a pupil.
In both our primary and secondary schools, all our children have been losing out. If my interpretation of the figures contained in Hansard on those two dates is inaccurate, I wish to be so advised. Although some
1040
movement has been made to bridge the gap, in 1989–90, according to the statistics available, much more must be done.
How can the Secretary of State justify discrimination against Northern Ireland pupils? Funding has been the same in Protestant and in Roman Catholic schools, but at a lower level than that provided in England. I want an assurance that all school pupils in Northern Ireland will be treated fairly and equally, and that funding will be provided at the same rate as for comparable children in schools in England. I also want to know what steps can be taken to make up for the shortfall in funding over all those years for books and equipment in Northern Ireland schools.
I must again refer to the funding under the order for health and social services. My constituents in the Larne-Carrickfergus area would never forgive me if I failed to appeal again to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who is responsible for health, and to the Secretary of State to consider further the case presented by Carrickfergus and Larne borough councils and by the Moyle action committee for the retention of acute hospital facilities at the Moyle hospital in Larne. I record my thanks to the Minister in his absence for his usual courtesy in informing me in advance of his visit to the Moyle hospital last week. It was not possible for me to meet him on that occasion, because I was representing the borough council at the 75th anniversary of the battle of the Somme in France.
I would also like the Minister to know that we in Lame, the councils in Carrickfergus and Lame and the Moyle action committee will avail ourselves of the opportunity to meet him formally and to discuss our problems in the very near future. Limited expenditure on Moyle hospital now would upgrade it and provide accessibility to acute hospital provision for the isolated coastal area equal to that provided for patients elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Such upgrading should happen before any commitment is given to proceed with phase 2 of the new Antrim hospital project. The vast majority of general practitioners in east Antrim and the overwhelming majority of the population are unconvinced by the arguments of the northern health board in favour of the new Antrim hospital. I again appeal for an independent option appraisal on the future of the Moyle hospital before any services are removed.
10.18 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words, especially as I realise that there is at least one other hon. Member who wishes to speak, and I know that the Minister will need as much time as possible to wind up. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the problem of the flooding in north Belfast last weekend. That brings me to a subject of great concern—the fact that the gullies did not seem to be able to take the heavy rain that fell last weekend, as has happened on other occasions. What concerns me more is the fact that the Department of the Environment does not accept any responsibility for the damage caused to houses as a result of the flood. In the circumstances, the Department should be far more sympathetic to claims.
I know of widows who are on very limited incomes and cannot afford to take the Department to court. They

1041
depend on what the Department can do to honour its obligations as a result of the flooding. I hope that the Minister will consider that aspect with a view to trying to help those unfortunate people who are suffering as a result of the flooding which frequently happens in Northern Ireland, particularly in north Belfast, because water does not quickly run off the hills.
I have with me a news release from the Housing Executive which states that a survey of 11,000 dwellings in Northern Ireland is to be carried out by the Housing Executive and that earlier surveys carried out in 1974, 1979, 1984 and 1987 have provided valuable information. I do not know where the Housing Executive conducted its survey, but it cannot have surveyed north Belfast to any great extent, particularly the Shankill road, where vast areas of ground are lying derelict and countless numbers of people, particularly the elderly, are looking for decent accommodation and cannot get it. Every week, perhaps 20 or 30 people from that area look for housing but cannot find it.
I cordially invite the Minister to come with me to view the Shankill road and see the problem for himself. The Housing Executive is dragging its feet. Prime land which is suitable for elderly people's accommodation—it is close to shops and all amenities—is not being developed. Some of it has been offered to the private sector. As I understand it, there is no great interest in it. Some of it will be turned into playing fields, and so on. That is completely wrong and it is opposed root and branch by the people of the area. I congratulate the Minister on his service to Northern Ireland. He is the longest-serving Minister in the Province—long may it continue.
Although I have much sympathy for the homeless, in some situations there is exploitation. The Housing Executive, in its desire to house an many homeless people as possible, is not properly examining the real facts. It is giving houses to supposedly homeless people who are making themselves homeless. Houses are being used for what we now know are giro drops. We find that it will take the Housing Executive more than a year to go through the process of trying to remove so-called homeless people from houses that they are not even inhabiting.
I now refer to solid fuel fires. Many glass-fronted room heaters have run their course and are causing great trouble. They are emitting fumes and causing problems for the elderly. Many elderly people are now opposed to them. I hope that the Minister will now consider providing a more acceptable form of heating. Economy 7 is now widely demanded by the elderly. Some would much prefer an open solid fuel fire which they can control. Elderly people have great difficulty in moving the ash pans on glass-fronted heaters and, as a result, are sometimes injured in the process.
My hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to unadopted roads. I should like to refer to unadopted entries, of which there are innumerable examples in north Belfast. It is unfair that residents should have to maintain such entries and that services are not provided. The Government should now decide that all entries should be adopted and be brought up to a decent standard of
1042
repair. That is necessary, because there is a problem with people falling into them, especially the elderly. We should examine that issue carefully and as soon as possible.
I am sure that we all remember our nursery rhymes from school and learning about simple Simon meeting the pieman when going to the fair and about four and twenty blackbirds being baked in a pie. That brings me to my next subject. I refer to the draconian public health measures. Quite a number of people in north Belfast follow the tradition of pie-making, of which there is a great tradition throughout the United Kingdom.
Those poor people in my constituency, who have been making pies for generations without any problems and have exported them throughout the United Kingdom, are being put out of business because they cannot meet the draconian environmental health provisions. The Government should look at this matter carefully. If they are to insist that those people are put out of business, they should ask the Local Enterprise Development Unit to do something specific and to acquire new premises so that those people can continue their activity of piemaking and protect the jobs that are in danger of being lost.
I said that I did not want to speak for long, and I shall refer only briefly to the privatisation of the health authorities. Many people connected with the health boards are concerned about the benefits that are accruing from the privatisation of the services. They tell me that undue emphasis seems to be placed on administration and that the savings which accrue from the privatisations are not being channeled into medical services or into community health care. I should like the Minister to look into that to see where the savings are being directed.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Minister on the action for community employment schemes in the Province which are doing an imaginative job. The training initiatives are working well. From my experience, I know that more than 50 per cent. of those who have had 12 months' training are now getting jobs. That is an excellent record, and I commend it to the Minister with the thought that perhaps the schemes could be enlarged. Nevertheless, they are doing an excellent job for the young people of the Province.
10.28 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) for completing his speech early to allow me time to speak before those on the Front Benches reply.
This is a peculiar appropriation debate. We are used to having only three hours late at night—we do not usually start as early as 4.30 pm—to deal with important matters relating to Northern Ireland, such as agriculture, economic development, the environment, education, health, social services and the like. However today, because of the peculiarities of the timetable and because the Government have run out of business—they are not being generous to Northern Ireland—they are allowing us to enjoy a fuller debate on Northern Ireland issues; there has been an opportunity for a much more wide-ranging debate than usual.
I do not know whether hon. Members have made use of the longer debate to discuss general issues in Northern Ireland, its bread-and-butter problems and the details of

1043
economic and social development. I appreciate that Northern Ireland Members have used the debate as an opportunity to deal with their constituency problems. It is a great chance, and it should be done. However, I sometimes think that that should be put in a different framework, so that general matters of economic and social concern can be raised.
If we get economic and social development right, we help to handle many of the wider problems in Northern Ireland. Some time ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) argued from the Opposition Front Bench that economic and social developments, although important in their own right, had another purpose. They aided peace and security in Northern Ireland. Gloomy job prospects and economic deprivation and all the problems that flow from it were conditions that bred sectarianism. Therefore, a comprehensive economic strategy needed to be developed for Northern Ireland. That has been absent under this Government in the past 12 years.
My hon. Friend said that the top priorities were economic regeneration and partnership between public and private capital, and he stressed Labour's policies on training. In Northern Ireland, the standard of use of the educational system and of qualifications is high. But training appropriate for the jobs that should be created by economic regeneration in modern technological circumstances also needs to be in place. That is part of Labour's programme
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South also stressed the European dimension. He referred to the European structural fund. He said that it should not be hidebound in Northern Ireland by the principle of additionality, under which funds that were available from Europe could not be utilised fruitfully. It is disgraceful that the principle operates generally, but if there is a place where its operation is most disgraceful, it is Northern Ireland. If more funds are needed anywhere to assist economic and social development, it is Northern Ireland. If money is available to do many of the things that have been suggested by Northern Ireland Members tonight, it should be grasped and made use of. There is a case for killing off the principle that the Government are following in Northern Ireland, and it would be of great benefit to do so in the rest of the United Kingdom too.
There is an extra-European dimension. To a large extent, Europe needs democratic institutions, especially through the European Parliament, and a social content. The social charter and the principles that follow from it could nowhere be made use of more beneficially than in Northern Ireland. Some of the advantages that have been lost under this Government's policies in recent years could be brought back by the adoption of the social charter. That is why the Trades Union Congress found some attraction in the social contract, and had a new look at the position in Europe.
The social charter is particularly appropriate to Northern Ireland, where European provisions have often operated to make grants and moneys available. It might not have qualified for such grants under the criteria, but it qualified to some extent, because the European Community realised the problems that existed there. In the past 12 years, the Government have pushed forward the enterprise culture. That culture is competitive and divisive, and it encouraged a divided society in which there are already two distinct communities. If anything is destined
1044
to make things worse, it is an inappropriate response to economic and social problems. The difficulty with the enterprise culture and the principles of Thatcherism is that they operate as though there were universal truths which must apply to all circumstances and conditions. Those truths manifestly did not apply to the conditions in Northern Ireland.
Cuts in direct taxation, and the Government's privatisation policies, are of little relevance to Northern Ireland. The Government are still pushing for the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland when the people, the constitutional political parties and those outside that structure are opposed to it. The trade unions and other organisations also object to the proposal. The reaction to the apparent consensus identified by the Government is disgraceful and should not be accepted.
The Secretary of State has taken steps to try to draw Northern Ireland together, but he has also often had to come to the Dispatch Box to advocate doctrinaire measures in line with Government policy. That action has been foisted upon the right hon. Gentleman as result of Cabinet decisions—and such decisions are still being taken despite the change of Prime Minister.
Where do the politicians of Northern Ireland stand on the broader political principles? We have heard a great deal about their concern for the well-being of certain areas, the Moyle hospital and other issues. We should treat the appropriation debate like the Budget debate, but it is important to know where those politicians stand on the issues other than those that divide the two communities. Often, those issues are not addressed unless they involve the politics of the border.
The broader political issues are often left to one side, because the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland are not involved in forming a Government in the United Kingdom. They would come into play only if they were in the peculiar position of holding the balance of power. If that were to happen, where would they stand on the issues I have outlined? Would they favour a comprehensive economic strategy or an enterprise culture? Would they want the Government's principles to be adhered to? I should like to hear where those hon. Members stand on those issues.
Just as economic and social development aids peace and security, so peace and security aids economic and social development. One must move on both fronts to achieve progress. Many things are happening in Northern Ireland that show that people are prepared to be brave and to stand up for peace. I have mentioned previously organisations such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror, which is run by Nancy Gracy, and the trade union support for the campaign "Hands Off My Mate".
Another important development is the peace train that will travel between Belfast, Dublin and London. That train will use the Holyhead route to London, so I hope that that is not judged ideologically suspect, given some of the comments made tonight. The idea is that the line between Belfast and Dublin should not be disrupted by terrorist threats, as it often has been by the IRA. In the past years, travel on that line has been disrupted in both directions.
Because of the IRA's action to disrupt the rail services in this country and the death that occurred at Victoria, it has been decided that the peace train journey will have a three-way link from Belfast to Dublin, through Holyhead,

1045
to Euston. The train will travel from Dublin to Belfast next Thursday and people will then be brought here on the Friday to meet in the Grand Committee Room of the House of Commons. The attitude that such action symbolises needs wide support, as well as the economic and social measures that I outlined earlier.
1046
Improved economic and social conditions, which undermine the position on which sectarianism stands, seem to go hand in hand with the actions of those who stand for peace and security. They allow trade to take place, and they make economic and social development possible.
10.41 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for limiting his thoughtful contribution to 10 minutes and allowing me a little time to sum up the debate. As is the custom during debates on the appropriation order, hon. Members have spoken about a wide range of issues that affect their constituencies and the people of Northern Ireland. By the time the Minister has replied to the debate, we shall have debated the order for almost seven hours, which may be a record. Having sat through most of the debate, I pondered long and hard on whether there should be a different forum where many of the issues could be discussed. I do not wish to be controversial at this late hour, but I merely drop that sultana in the pudding of the politics of Northern Ireland. Perhaps hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland on both sides of the Chamber should try to find a different way for such debates to proceed.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a way forward might be a Select Committee, where we could scrutinise the Departments much more closely?
Mr. Stott: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman is running away from it.
Mr. Stott: I am not running away from anything. I do not want to enter a discussion about that issue. I was simply attempting to suggest that a more appropriate forum to discuss many of those issues could perhaps be found in Northern Ireland. So that the Minister has adequate time to reply, I shall simply leave the hon. Gentleman to ponder that matter.
I wish to concentrate on a serious issue for which I have Opposition responsibility—education. It is now nearly 18 months since the Minister of State introduced his Northern Ireland reform order. Many hon. Members present tonight will remember the debate on. The proposals had the unique effect of unifying all the hon. Members from the Province against the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "What do you mean?"] It is a pity that that degree of unanimity and sense of purpose has not been continued in the past few months. However, I shall leave that issue as a second sultana in the pudding for hon. Gentlemen to consider.
During the past 18 months I have visited many schools and colleges in Northern Ireland and had meetings with all the individual trade unions which represent the teaching profession in Northern Ireland. Three weeks ago, I had a meeting in Belfast with the umbrella group of teachers unions that represent the entire teaching force of the Province. All is not well—we have heard that during this evening's debate. There are serious problems in the educational system in Northern Ireland.
Before the Minister accuses me of making party political points, I shall refer him to his own report—that of Her Majesty's inspector of schools, which concluded that one third of Ulster's secondary schools had accommodation deficiencies which adversely affect children's education. The inspectors said that, in one school, to which I think the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred, there were 17 temporary
1048
classrooms, and pupils were also being taught in corridors and in alcoves. In another school, youngsters had to sit on broken chairs.
The major investigation conducted by Her Majesty's inspectors said that 20 per cent. of post-primary schools had heating systems that were inefficient and/or noisy, and there were problems that could endanger the health and safety of children. One school had inoperative smoke doors and a padlocked exit. In one fifth of the 58 schools formally inspected over the past year, inappropriate or inadequate books were being used in some classes, with pupils occasionally required to share books.
With the education reform now the law of the land, the inspectors say that there is a wide diversity in schools in the timetable allocation for a common curriculum. The only subjects being taken by fourth and fifth form pupils are English, maths, physical education, religious education and careers. The inspectors said that only one quarter of the schools had developed "particular effective" policies of assessment and that many schools had no co-ordinated policy on marking or homework. The report continued:
"The absence of a policy led to a wide divergence in the quality of marking in the majority of schools … at times the marking was thorough … at other times superficial and on occasions work was left unmarked".
The inspectors confirmed—this is regrettable—an all too depressing trend in Northern Ireland, with low-ability pupils receiving a "raw deal". Those words are not mine, but those of the Government inspectors. Children in Ulster's educational system are receiving a raw deal. They are frequently excluded from important sectors of the curriculum and have inadequate access to other parts of it.
That report is a damning enough indictment in itself, but when added to other reports that have been published —not necessarily by a Government Department, but by other people with a great interest in education—the position seems a great deal worse. A study by the campaign group, the Association for Comprehensive Education in Northern Ireland—ACE—argued that
"declining pupil numbers and the policy of open enrolment will make it impossible to achieve parity of esteem between grammar and other post-primary schools, despite the new common curriculum and assessment system. It is much more likely that the gap between the haves and the have nots will widen and that the welcome idea of a common curriculum will perish."
I welcome the idea of a common curriculum and I have no doubt that the Minister has heard those arguments on many occasions. He may know one of the authors of that report, Mr. Robert Crone, who commented in a document, "The Transfer Market: Selection for Secondary Education in Northern Ireland 1947–1991":
"It is difficult to avoid the feeling that what is said one day by the grammar school lobby becomes Department policy shortly afterwards.
Since the Second World War all the procedures for selection have been biased in favour of the grammar schools, which in effect 'opt out' of the state system.
The Association believes the willingness of Ulster parents to pay fees to secure grammar school places for their children negated the sort of community opposition which resulted in comprehensive education on the mainland.
After more than a decade of serious decline in pupil numbers the voluntary grammar schools have hardly felt any difference. There have been variations, with Belfast the worst sufferer, but clearly the contraction of secondary education has been managed by the sacrifice of controlled and maintained secondary schools in order to preserve the priviliged voluntary grammar schools. The effect of the flaws and fallacies of open enrolment will be the creation of a split system of education—one defined by its exclusive right to

1049
select pupils by ability, its financial resources and independence and its political influence."
Here we find a recurring theme in what has been said about Northern Ireland education:
"On the other hand there is an underprivileged section marked by the meanness of its funding, its responsibility for looking after the casualties of present day society, its lack of resources and political power and the persistence of Government refusal ever to offer more than token support."
The continuation in Northern Ireland of a selective system of secondary education is corrosive and disgraceful. At this moment, many parents are involved in a costly appeal procedure to get their children into schools of their choice. The Government pretend to favour parental choice, but in Northern Ireland they fund and maintain a system of secondary and grammar schools with unequal resources and parental esteem. The selection of children at 11 has taken place in Northern Ireland since 1948 and it is wholly discredited. I oppose a divided and inequitable system of education, funded by public funds.
I was interested to read a question tabled by that well known renegade, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asking the Minister to delineate some examination results. Granted, A-level passes in Northern Ireland are superb, principally because there is a selection system. If it did not achieve those results, the system would not be worth the paper it was written on. The written answer to the hon. Gentleman's question went on to say that children leaving Northern Ireland schools without a single qualification make up 16·4 per cent. of the school population.
My children went through the comprehensive education system. I failed the 11-plus. I am on the side of the 16·4 per cent. of kids in Northern Ireland who do not get a decent chance because of selection at 11 and because of the resources put into selective schools. Wherever it comes from, Northern Ireland or Wigan, taxpayers' money should not be used in this way. In the competitive labour market of the future, qualifications will be important. If these kids are to stand a chance of finding jobs, they must leave school with a decent education and some qualifications.
I want to mention local management of schools. The first tranche of locally managed schools in Northern Ireland has caused grave problems in teaching and non-teaching sectors of education. The crisis engendered by the introduction of LMS was so grave that the Government were forced to release an additional £2·7 million to relieve the problem. That clearly shows the real threat of LMS to the education system. The problem has been worsened in Northern Ireland by the absence of an agreed redeployment scheme for teachers and the imposition of cash limits by the Government for funding for premature retirement.
The lack of funding implicit in Northern Ireland's locally managed schools has been accentuated by the total removal of flexibility caused by the overall global budget being broken up into smaller budgets. Schools throughout Northern Ireland are facing problems coping with provision for educational needs and funding the existing teaching staff.
Teachers throughout Northern Ireland face the threat of redundancy, and the threat is not alleviated by the
1050
Minister's statement of 24 June when he said that 543 schools, 214 in the maintained sector and 329 in the controlled sector, would have a reduced share of resources.
It is no consolation to schools in Northern Ireland that 689 schools will get additional resources while 543 schools will lose out on their budgets. The net effect is destructive to school life with greater pressures being imposed on teachers and consequent loss of morale. There is an urgent need for the Government to consider removing the teachers' salary element from LMS and injecting monies to make formula funding more workable.
I touched on other aspects of education in Northern Ireland when I spoke in the debate on a Northern Ireland education order. The Minister became angry when I trotted out one or two unfortunate statistics on nursery education, but those statistics remain. In Northern Ireland only 13 per cent. of three and four-year-olds receive nursery education, compared with 25 per cent. in England and Wales and 34 per cent. in Scotland. I suggest to Northern Ireland Members that, to say the least, 13 per cent. is lamentable. They should press the Minister to do more about that.
On special educational needs, one wonders what the Government have been doing about the Education and Library Board Order 1986 which sought to promote special education in Northern Ireland. That order addressed many problems, but they have not been resolved. The Government have made no progress on that.
Hon. Members have spoken about the report just published by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. That report reveals substantial imbalances in expenditure between Catholic and non-Catholic schools. The differential in capital expenditure has always been clear, as Catholic schools are eligible for only 85 per cent. capital funding. In practice, the payments scheme means that the true cost to Catholic schools is over 15 per cent. That could be remedied by a more streamlined procedure in the Northern Ireland Department of Education and the newly established council for Catholic maintained schools.
Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stott: No, because I am coming to the end of my speech.
The report of the standing Advisory Commission makes a strong case for reviewing the 85 per cent. capital funding. Although the Catholic Church believes that it should be responsible for some capital funding, the logic of the present breakdown of costs is debatable. The present system is justified in terms of the degree of managerial control preserved by the Church. However, that is undermined by the national curriculum, the reduction in managerial independence and by the decision to give 100 per cent. funding to integrated schools, with which I do not argue.
The major surprise in the report is the discovery that there are substantial imbalances in recurrent spending. The grammar school sector, the state Protestant sector, spent £1,652 per pupil in 1989–90. The equivalent figure for Catholic schools was £1,557—in other words, only 94 per cent. of state school expenditure. The report calls on the DENI to monitor all funding decisions with respect to their impact on such differentials and on the promotion of equality between the two sectors.

1051
Given the implications of educational attainment for status in the labour market, equality of opportunity in education is essential if fair employment policies are to retain their credibility. I am flagging the issue so that the Minister can reply fully to the debate. I am sure that the House will want to know the Government's intentions in regard to the SCHR report. Is there any foundation for the report's conclusions that a sector of Northern Ireland schools has been inadequately funded for a number of years? It has been suggested that the inadequacy in funding could amount to about £70 million. If that is so, the position should be rectified as quickly as possible.
How can one best sum up the demise of education in Northern Ireland, which is in a very difficult state? I have been reading a book called "Northern Ireland—The Thatcher Years". The right hon. Member for Finchley was still Prime Minister when the Minister of State introduced the Northern Ireland education reform order. The book is by Frank Graffikin and Mike Morrissey. I propose—on your instructions, Mr. Speaker—to paraphrase one of their paragraphs, because I could not think of a better way of describing the position.
The decomposition of the state school system into a number of competing institutions is ultimately based on this Government's theory of social Darwinism—the survival of the fittest. The real agenda behind the reforms may be the construction of a three-tier system, made up of independent schools—schools in the private sector and the city technology colleges—public sector schools, both grant-maintained and local education authority, well enough reinforced by parental choice and the voluntary sector, and a third sector—an underclass of school located in areas of poverty, forced to exist on basic funding and less cushioned than previously by discretionary funding by the local education authorities.
I regret to say that that is what we have in the Northern Ireland education system at the moment. Perhaps, in a year's time, when roles are reversed and Labour Members are on the Government Benches, we can put that problem right.
11.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): If I tried to answer all the points that have been covered in this varied, interesting and always lively debate, I could spend at least half an hour answering the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and probably still only deal with half the points that he made. Having said that, I shall do my best.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) asked about the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) drew attention to the problems of his district council in that regard. I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, except that the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland does not issue endorsements for any particular banks. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Leicester, South would wish the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to advise him on where to place his savings. What we do is refer local authorities to banks on the Bank of England's list. But as my hon. Friend said—and, of course, without commitment—my officials will meet the officials of the council to discuss the implications.
1052
The hon. Member for Leicester, South, who is usually careful with his words, had one slight slip when he talked about the Royal Victoria hospital "opting out" of the national health service. Perhaps he has listened too much to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). There is absolutely no question of the Royal Victoria, or any other hospital that wants to become a trust, opting out of the NHS.
The question for the Government is whether the health service boards, as purchasers, will determine the type and volume of patient care that will be provided by the hospitals. If the hospitals wish to establish themselves as trusts—which I believe would make them much closer to the communities they serve—the question is whether they will be able to provide, in a competitive way, services to the boards in the best interests of the patients. It is to the best interests of the patients that the health service reforms are directed.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South spoke about the ravages of the past 12 years of Conservative Government in Northern Ireland. That was echoed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I am not absolutely sure how often they visit the Province. Those who come to Belfast, Londonderry or the small towns of Ulster will see a difference in the economic livelihood of Northern Ireland that cannot be compared with the position that we inherited from the Labour Government.
I accept that unemployment as a percentage is higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, but when the Labour party left power, unemployment in the Province was 2·3 times that of Great Britain; now it is only 1·7. There is nothing in our record of which we cannot be proud.
I am aware of the views of the hon. Member for Leicester, South on Northern Ireland Electricity. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), with whom in Committee I discussed the question of gas in Northern Ireland, will be interested to know that British Gas has now shown an interest in the purchase of a generator in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said that he has ambitions to be standing in my place this time next year. If he can do anything to ensure that he is not in charge of Northern Ireland—should that day ever come, and I doubt that it will—I shall do so. Let us consider Labour policy and, if it were ever put into operation, the effect that it would have on the economy of Northern Ireland.
The privatisation of Harland and Wolff and of Shorts would never have happened. Those two companies, which had been a millstone around the neck of the economy of Northern Ireland and which had demoralised their work forces, are now two immensely successful businesses. What would a 60 per cent. tax rate do for incentives in Northern Ireland? What would the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who said that he would like to be the last Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, do for the confidence of business people thinking about investing in Northern Ireland? Very little, I suspect. What confidence can come from a Government who would say to the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, "We think you are wrong; we would like you to go somewhere else"?
The hon. Member for Wigan said that he would abolish the grammar schools in Northern Ireland. I am sure that that will be greeted with pleasure by all the parents who

1053
have this week, as he said, seen their children get the opportunity for an educational service that gives the highest levels of attainment in the country. Of course he is right to draw attention to the problems of those at the lowest end. That is why the Government, through "Making Belfast Work" and "Making Derry Work", and through the programmes that we are initiating in the most deprived areas, are concentrating resources in that sphere.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) became Minister with responsibility for education, those with no qualification stood at 24·6 per cent.; now it is 16·4 per cent. We are moving in the right direction. The hon. Member for Wigan would have slightly more credit in this House if he did not knock Northern Ireland and at the same time follow a policy that would take it out of the United Kingdom and undermine and immensely damage the confidence of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said that we do not have an economic strategy. As I said, some Opposition Members do not appear to visit Northern Ireland very often. However, we do have a strategy, and it is called "Competing in the Nineties". We aim to have a strategy which matches inward investment with the growth of small businesses in Northern Ireland and we back winners. We want to do that through a partnership. We are doing it through a partnership in Northern Ireland with business people. I agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder): I do not mind business people being involved in politics. The more involved in politics they are, the happier I would be.
In the Northern Ireland context, it is that partnership that we are determined to achieve, and we are already beginning to show the successes of that partnership in the way that we are managing to ride the recession, as the right hon. Member for Strangford said. That is an extraordinary achievement, which is due entirely to the people of Northern Ireland. They are managing to get through the recession better than any other region of the United Kingdom. This is the first time that that has happened since the 1920s. It is due entirely to the confidence that the Northern Ireland people have in themselves, which would be wrecked if the hon. Member for Wigan ever found himself on this side of the Dispatch Box.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked me about Harland and Wolff and the child support agency. Harland and Wolff is eligible for intervention aid grant under the EC seventh directive, and that also applies to the purchase of engines. The hon. Gentleman made the point about employing disabled members of staff, and I shall certainly consider that, but the majority of the staff there are new.
The right hon. Member for Strangford and others referred to the MacSharry proposals and the problem of the damage that they could cause to Northern Ireland agriculture. The Government cannot tonight give definitive answers to those proposals which, as hon. Members said, have only been tabled today. However, the Government will firmly resist any proposals that are not fair to our farmers, and that obviously includes Northern Ireland farmers.
Having said that, I quite accept the need in Northern Ireland to ensure that agriculture works together. Many
1054
hon. Members will have read the Davies report, which offers a way forward in the dairy industry. We have some fine companies in Northern Ireland in the beef, poultry and dairy industries. They must work together to give added value and a product that we can export throughout the United Kingdom and Europe.
The right hon. Member for Strangford talked about advance factories. He said that there were no advance factories in this year's budget. Next year's budget has not yet been decided. Of the Industrial Development Board's capital budget of £20 million, £16 million will be spent on factory building, £3 million on the purchase of industrial land and £1 million on developing and landscaping industrial estates. Two advance factories, one at Glen road and another at Ballygomartin, should be completed and ready for occupation at the end of November. A further 40 acres of land will be acquired at Poleglass to meet the needs of that area of west Belfast.
I am confident that we shall continue to obtain inward investment during the next year. The figures were not as encouraging last year as the year before, but there were reasons for that. There is a recession not only here but in the United States and many other parts of Europe. However, we have in the pipeline a number of inward investment propositions which we will be able to clinch —if I might use that elegant word—during the course of the year.
It is worth reminding the House that we have had inward investment in the past two years from Canada, The United States, Japan, France, Korea, Norway, Germany, Great Britain—a range of countries. We are now managing to improve our image and obtain a quality of investment which, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Strangford said, I do not believe will necessarily disappear at the first wave of recession that comes along. We should never forget the importance of smaller companies in Northern Ireland and the need to grow them and to back and support them, which is the basis of our strategy.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about urban development grant being too slow. I take that point, and it is something that I shall look into. He also talked about the urban development programme as supported by the international fund for Ireland and the need to ensure that that programme spreads equally in the east and the west of the Province. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point on that. Clearly we must look to those areas in Northern Ireland, whether they are east, west, north or south, which have the greatest problems and deal with them. That is exactly what we shall do. If we can get enough funding, we shall spread it as widely as we can.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not go into too much detail regarding his school points. However, I shall make sure that my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General provides him with a reply.
Three hon. Members referred to the reduction of acute services at Ards. There is no question of any change being made in acute services at Ards, unless there were to be a major refurbishment at the Ulster, which is five miles away. Even if that were to be proposed, there would have to be public consultation—as would happen, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East said, in the case of the Moyle. The right hon. Member for Strangford referred to cuts. When I became a Health Minister, the budget for the health service in Northern Ireland was £650 million. This

1055
year it is £1·166 billion—almost double within the space of five years. That shows the Government's commitment to the health service in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman said that 10 per cent. of the services are in the North Down area, while 40 per cent. of the population are there. That is true. However, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, we have the City hospital, the Royal Victoria hospital and the Ulster hospital. These are very well-equipped, professional hospitals in the middle of our capital city. Yes, people have to travel to them, but when they are there they find a quality of service that many elsewhere in the world would envy.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into too much detail about the pedestrian crossing at Millisle, or the need for a light at Gransha. I shall happily look into the question of a light at Gransha, and into the view that there ought to be more lights there. It is felt that there is insufficient light in the area. Suffice it to say that lights sometimes shine into people's bedrooms, which they do not always like.
The right hon. Gentleman then raised a very important point about the Holyhead-Dublin-Belfast rail link. I am the Minister with responsibility for transport in Northern Ireland. Therefore, my job is to protect and expand the ports, harbours and railways of Northern Ireland. I am absolutely determined to achieve that. The vast majority of traffic in Northern Ireland is on the roads. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) nearly shot his fox. We have an excellent port facility. A large number of goods from the south come out through Lame to Stranraer.
The Government will do everything they can to ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland, Larne, Belfast and Warrenpoint are protected. We have a road infrastructure there. I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, East that we must improve the A8, the road between Larne and Belfast. Everything that needs to be done will be done. We must not be complacent, but we should not be unduly concerned when we take into account the competence and the efficiency of Northern Ireland hauliers and the way that they manage to get goods into and out of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. I am sure that that will continue.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred—as did the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe)—to the appalling accident last night at Broughdone. I gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Antrim, South in the absense of the hon. Member for Antrim, North that I would look immediately tomorrow into whether we can bring forward the programme for the introduction of half-barriers, to be phased in over the next few months. I give an undertaking that that will be done.
There will have to be an inquiry to discover what happened. Northern Ireland Railways has assured me that the lights were working when the accident occurred, but that will be investigated. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South said, there have been far too many such accidents, and we must do all that we can to ensure that the right system is installed as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North gave us a dissertation on nominees to boards. For those boards for which I have responsibility, one of my concerns is to ensure that there should be a community and a sex balance, but the main concern is to ensure that all those boards contribute to the success of the organisation in
1056
which they serve. I am not aware of and have no evidence of any political discrimination. The political views of those who serve on the boards are irrelevant to the jobs that they must do.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the hospital at Coleraine. He has heard me talking about that more times than he would wish. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also mentioned the hospital, but I must state that I no longer have responsibility for it, although I hope that a decision can be made soon.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North also mentioned his problems with a planning officer in his constituency. I look forward to meeting the officer with the hon. Gentleman, so that we can discuss how he goes about his business. Northern Ireland is a very beautiful part of the United Kingdom. Some of us—I count myself as one—feel that some planning decisions taken in Northern Ireland during the past few years have perhaps allowed too many foreign-looking bungalows on our hilltops. Through a policy of siting, location and design we are trying to stop the rural sprawl that has developed in, for example, Donegal.
I was grateful for the support of the hon. Member for North Down for the planning office. However, I accept that there must be sensitivity and an understanding of local circumstances. It is difficult to achieve a balance, and where there are problems, hon. Members know that I am always prepared to do what I can to try to find a solution. Nevertheless, it will not always be possible. If we are to protect the environment in Northern Ireland for the future, we shall not be able to give everyone what they think is reasonable and what they desire.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Rathlin Island, arid I was grateful for his compliments. I agree that there is a need for the harbours, and work on them is in progress. I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point about agriculture.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East mentioned the incinerator. I compliment him on his investigation into and work on it. I understand his suggestion that we proceed with caution. I have already said that the incinerator will be subject to an environmental impact assessment and a very thorough public inquiry. All the issues will have to be fully debated and resolved, and seen to be debated and resolved.
I shall not deal in detail with the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, because they will be discussed during the inquiry. I agree that it is important to protect the green image. He asked me about my discussions with Mr. Flynn. The question is, do we need an incinerator in the island of Ireland? Can the waste be disposed of indefinitely elsewhere? What is happening to the waste at the moment? Are we sure that it is being disposed of properly?
What will happen if we do not build an incinerator? Will we lose jobs in the places creating the waste if the waste cannot be got rid of? That may be a real fear in the future. All the issues need to be discussed and will be discussed. I make the point to the hon. Gentleman that we cannot just say that the waste can disappear.
The hon. Member for North Down said that incinerators can be dangerous. I suspect that toxic waste can be rather more dangerous than an incinerator, if the incinerator is properly run. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East made a fair point about the need to have it properly run, controlled and manned. I agree with

1057
the hon. Gentleman that all those matters will have to be discussed in the fullest detail and depth, and will have to be argued out publicly.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East made some fairly derogatory comments about the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and I am glad that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) put a little balance on that. Bank managers are not much easier than LEDU is on inventors. We give 50 per cent. of a maximum grant up to £1,000 for an invention. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East mentioned three cases. It is important that the chairman of LEDU, who is a business man and is meant to represent the interests of his clients, gets to grips with the three cases. Perhaps we could get together with the three people concerned and discuss the matter with the chairman to see how we can take it forward.
The hon. Member for South Down mentioned farming, and I hope that he will agree that I have dealt with that. He also mentioned training and the fishermen. I will take that matter up with the Training and Employment Agency, and I will bring the other points about fishing to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).
The hon. Gentleman also made the point about there being only one annexe to the training centre in South Down. I understand that point, which was not dissimilar to that made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East, who was concerned about what we do with the work force at GEC and with the training centre there. I understand the point about the lack of transport facilities to get people to and from such training centres. I will look into the matter and discuss it later with the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for South Down also spoke about an Industrial Development Board-LEDU merger. I have some sympathy with the concept, but the problem is that it would require statutory regulation. We do not have enough time to do that. We must consider how we can build our economic strategy with our present institutions. However, I accept that we must ensure that they work as closely together as possible. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the IDB is very aware of the pressures that he and other hon. Members bring on back office and inward investment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that tourism is crucial to the Mournes and the St. Patrick's trail. I may initially have had something to do with starting that. I agree that it is an important aspect.
The hon. Member for South Down mentioned roads. We are, as I have told hon. Members before, having a review of the whole road system. I cannot give answers at the moment, but I will do so as soon as possible. The review will probably show that we need to spend money on
1058
roads. However, the problem is that, if we do that, where will the funding come from? It does not fall off a tree, and we will need to look carefully at other budgets.
The hon. Member for South Down raised a series of issues about attendance allowance and mobility allowance, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South. I will bring those issues to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes. If there are particular cases, we will consider them. However, in such distressing cases, one has to consider the age of the person and his condition.
The hon. Member for North Down talked about democracy, and there was a general discussion about the way in which we conduct our business. I had hoped that, at some time over the past 10 weeks, when hon. Members were doing whatever they were doing while the rest of us did whatever we were doing, we might have moved somewhere on the matter. However, that has nothing to do with me.
I listened carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about Connswater housing association and about what happened on the golf course. As I go down the Knock dual carriageway, I will consider what we can do. He made several points about disability. I have a lot of sympathy with him on the issue of what Monica Wilson said. We have a strategy in the public service. The Department of the Environment is funding three access offices for the Northern Ireland Council on Disability for three years. We are working closely to produce guidelines for developers, and we are ensuring that all public buildings have access.
I shall write to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and deal in detail with the issues that he raised. As for GEC Alsthom, there are two people who have showed some interest in the factory. We have still to market it and sell it. I cannot deal in detail with the points which were made about education in Northern Ireland. As the SACHR report has been publicised, I do not think that it gives as fair a picture as it should. Hon. Members will know that 75 per cent. of recurrent teaching costs are not included in the figures, but there is a narrow area of costs that the Government will have to examine.
I think that Northern Ireland is in good heart under the Government; it is well ruled and well financed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That for the remainder of the present Session Standing Order No. 97 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland) shall have effect as if the word 'eight' were substituted for the word `six' in line 12.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

PETITION

  Castleford Hospital
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble petition of Brian Bullock on behalf of 8,289 people residing in the Pontefract and Castleford, Normanton, Hemsworth, Elmet and Wakefield constituencies showeth that I oppose the closure of the casualty minor injuries unit at Castleford hospital whether on a temporary or a permanent basis. I believe that the casualty unit provides a valuable and necessary service to the local community, and therefore thoroughly urge members of the Pontefract health authority to reconsider their decision.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Health to advise the Pontefract health authority to reopen the casualty minor injuries unit at Castleford hospital on a permanent basis.
  Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Manchester Airport
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
11.31 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the future of Manchester airport. I am sorry to keep my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment so late, but I am sure that he realises that it is no fault of mine that other hon. Members wished to talk until 11.30 pm.
In the past decade, Manchester airport has grown from handling 4 million passengers a year to 11 million. It is the fastest growing airport in Europe. It is important to me because it is the largest employer for my constituency. It is just outside my constituency, but it happens to employ more of my constituents than any other employer.
I pay tribute to the Government because, since they took office in 1979, Manchester airport has changed from what was basically a regional airport to become the 17th largest international airport in the world. There have been significant advances in recent years, including Cathay Pacific flying to Hong Kong, Singapore Airlines to Singapore, Qantas to Australia, South African Airlines to Johannesburg, the emirates airlines to Dubai, and British Airways and Pakistan International to Islamabad. Canada is served by both Canadian International and Air Canada.
The crunch has come largely in the efforts to get sufficient licences for United States airlines which want to serve Manchester. About five years ago, American Airlines was offered a temporary operations permit to Chicago, and I pay tribute to American Airlines for the work that it has done on the route. Things were not quite so easy as they could have been in the beginning, but the airline persevered. The route has now become the most successful and profitable of the airline's international network. That has helped to prove what many of us have always believed—that with the airport's catchment area of about 20 million people, there is always demand.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) for his work while Secretary of State for Transport. It is largely due to his persistence and it is thanks to him that an agreement was reached with the United States Government to grant a further two licences that were available to any non-London airport. There were eight applications for the licences, all the applicants choosing to serve Manchester to Atlanta in preference to any other regional airport. That says a great deal for Manchester airport. This year, those two licences were awarded to Delta Air Lines which, in the last week of June, began a service from Manchester, and to American Airlines which only last week began a service to New York, alongside that of British Airways. That shows American Airlines' faith in Manchester.
I should like to draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that there are 28 scheduled services between Manchester and the United States, compared with 393 from London. That illustrates the imbalance between north and south. I hope that the interest that has been evinced in introducing new services by a number of United States airlines will be given favourable consideration by the Government. After all, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is my hon. Friend's boss, expressed support for the economic benefits that flow from the expansion of regional airports.

1061
It is good to have a Secretary of State for Transport who does not come from the great London area but from Scotland, and is therefore well aware of the problems in those parts of the United Kingdom that are further from London.
The benefits, which have been quantified, show that each new daily United States air service creates 1,400 new jobs and improves the regional economy by £14 million. That brings me to one of my main points. There are rumours that Stansted airport will soon be opened up to United States airlines. If that is true, it will not be of any assistance to the regional airports, nor will it help to relieve aviation congestion in the south-east. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to quash that rumour.
I pay tribute to the part that the Government have played in improving the regulatory process in Europe, which has allowed more opportunity for the airlines and has helped to meet demand from north-west travellers. Only a few years ago, the Manchester-Paris route had only three or four flights a day, but it now has 10. Virtually every major European city is now served from Manchester. The other important point is that Manchester has developed airline services from other British cities, so that passengers from other British cities can get to Manchester and link into its long-haul network.
All that has had an effect. Manchester has now overtaken Gatwick as the largest summer holiday airport. Last year, Manchester airport was awarded the "silver globe" award, Heathrow being second and Gatwick third. The success of Manchester Airport is also due to the provision of facilities for passengers. The construction of terminal 2, which will double the airport's capacity to 25 million passengers, is on schedule and on budget. I thank the Government for their support for the development, which they view as a project of national importance and, in that regard, have authorised the appropriate borrowing powers.
Another vital question relates to the airport's rail link. I used to think that Manchester was not very good at providing a means of getting those who land at Manchester airport into the centre of Manchester. A slight hiccup some time ago caused some anxiety, but I understand that British Rail has now allocated the money to finalise the link. Such a link is long overdue and will be an enormous asset for travellers to Manchester airport. Again I make a comparison with Stansted. The link from Stansted into central London cost £80 million and carries some 50,000 passengers a year. The Manchester rail link, even according to British Rail's conservative estimate, will carry a million people a year.
Looking to the future, several European Community issues could affect the airport. First, the possible abolition of the duty-free facilities causes a great deal of anxiety. If abolition were approved, it would mean a loss of jobs. I know that the Government have not reached a final decision and that they are sympathetic to the proposals made by Manchester airport for up to five years of transitional arrangements, thus saving jobs and avoiding a significant increase in scheduled and charter air tariffs.
Secondly, there is the worry that air tickets and holiday accommodation, which are currently exempt from value added tax, could have VAT added by the European Community. That would inevitably mean an increase in
1062
cost both for air fares and for holiday accommodation, thus threatening jobs and the stability of the vital travel industry.
My hon. Friend the Minister may be interested to know that I recently received through the post a copy of a letter from a man called B. A. Didsbury, the district secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. The letter was sent to an Opposition Member. I have no idea where the copy came from—it came in a plain envelope and had a Manchester postmark. At first I thought that it had been wrongly sent to me, but because I have a curious nature, I suppose, I read it and I am glad that I did so. Perhaps one of the leakers who has been so helpful to the Labour party has decided that the balance should be redressed and that someone should leak something to the Conservative party.
Whoever sent the letter to me has my thanks, as it makes interesting reading. I will gladly let my hon. Friend the Minister have a copy of the whole letter to pass on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who, I believe, should see it. I will quote just one extract:
"Increasingly, elected members are refusing to be involved with local authority grievance and disciplinary procedures, and have almost totally withdrawn from negotiations.
Likewise at Manchester Airport where councillors, who are directors, repeatedly have refused to meet with shop stewards. Fortunately, for as long as the Airport remains in local ownership, then the underlying company policies can be influenced by political, rather than strictly economic considerations.
To this end, and following stupendous efforts by Paul McDermott and other branch officials, airport workers are forming themselves into a political pressure group. This, we intend, will have a significant impact on local Labour Parties. The Airport and the job security of its workers will become a major political consideration in the selection and promotion of local Labour Party candidates."
I do not know what my my hon. Friend the Minister thinks about Mr. Didsbury, but he scares me—to him, economic factors are unimportant, but political commitment is the thing.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that it has been estimated, I believe, by Councillor Howarth, who is a former chairman of the airport, that excess manning costs at Manchester airport amount to £2 million per year? Does he agree that that should be dealt with, because Manchester airport has a great future as an airport which serves more United Kingdom airports than any other airport in this country?
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I agree with my hon. Friend. Councillor Howarth was once a Labour Member of Parliament. He is a moderate member of the Labour party and not part of the far left fringe. The type of policy suggested by Mr. Didsbury is similar to what we saw behind the iron curtain in eastern Europe, and we all know where such policies led the people of eastern Europe.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport should be made aware of such happenings because if such a policy is allowed it will not bode well for the future of Manchester airport. It could put at risk all the great achievements of the airport in the past decade.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give me some hope that the benefits that have accrued to Manchester airport in the past 10 years will continue and that a watchful eye will be kept on people using that airport for political ends rather than for the good of the community.
11.44 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): First I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on his constructive speech. I also congratulate him on having secured this debate at a much more civilised hour than was possible for yesterday's Adjournment debate.
The final part of my hon. Friend's speech was the sting in the tail and gave a revealing insight into the secret socialist agenda and the brazen abuse of power that that so often involves. I shall be pleased to see the letter to which my hon. Friend referred and to pass it on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
One thing is absolutely certain. Manchester airport, a fine airport, should be developed not for the benefit of socialist trade unionists, but for the benefit of customers. As a result of its success, it should be able to ensure that there are good employment prospects for its workers. The letter referred to by my hon. Friend was most disturbing, and I am glad that he brought it to the attention of the House.
I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to put on record the Government's appreciation of the contribution made by Manchester airport to air travel in this country and internationally. The recent topping out of Manchester's second terminal by my right hon. and learned Friend was another milestone in that airport's history. The airport has been so successful in recent years that milestones come thick and fast.
It is only two years since the new domestic complex, capable of handling up to 2·5 million passengers a year, was opened. Now the airport is well on the way to completing capacity to handle an additional 6 million international passengers a year. Apart from the London airports, no other United Kingdom airport has total current capacity for 6 million passengers, let alone an expansion programme of that size. Ten years ago, Manchester handled about 4·5 million passengers; now it handles more than 10 million—my hon. Friend quoted 11 million—and the prospects for the future are looking good.
We welcome the development of the first phase of the second terminal at Manchester airport and the substantial increase in capacity that it will bring. It is a testimony to the importance of regional airports and the development of air services to and from them. It is a tribute to the vision, skills and hard work of those responsible for Manchester airport and it is a tribute to British efforts to open up new possibilities for services to and from regional airports.
We want to see regional airports handling all the traffic that they can attract, not only for the benefits that this brings for those living in the region, but for the contribution that it can make to relieving pressure on the London airports. As the third largest airport in the United Kingdom, Manchester airport plays a vital role in our regional airports policy. In the past decade, the Government have approved supplementary credit and borrowing allocations for Manchester airport amounting to some £132 million, almost 43 per cent. of the total allocations for local authority airports over this period. Manchester already enjoyes scheduled services or chartered flights to more than 140 destinations. The new terminal, when it is ready in two years' time, will increase the airport's ability to provide a still wider range and greater frequency of services.
1064
During the past half dozen years, the United Kingdom has put the issue of opening up new routes on to the political agenda, and major changes have been delivered. That is most striking within the European Community, where services can now be operated to any point, save the Azores and the Greek Islands. That is the result of the initiative taken during our last presidency in 1986.
The opening up of routes is only one part of liberalisation. The whole paraphernalia of out-moded bilateral air services restrictions needs to be opened up if free and fair competition is to follow. Negotiations of a third and final stage of EC liberalisation is about to begin, culminating in the next United Kingdom presidency al the end of 1992. However, much progress has already been made. As an illustration, there are now more than 40 air services from Manchester to other EC airports. There are some 200 services from British regional airports to points in other European countries.
We concentrated on Europe first, as the extent to which old restrictions were holding back development of regional services seemed greatest there, but we have not been idle elsewhere. Manchester has a good range of transatlantic services at present. British Airways flies to New York and Orlando. American Airlines has had a service to Chicago for some time and recently introduced a service to New York. As my hon. Friend said, Delta Airlines introduced a service to Atlanta at the end of June.
Those services result, in part, from an agreement which we reached with the United States in 1990. I was grateful for the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale paid to our right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), who played an important part in that agreement. Under its terms, three new routes were created to United Kingdom regional airports for United States carriers. One of those opportunities was immediately used to provide cover for the service provided by American Airlines to Chicago, which had been operating informally for some time. The other two new opportunities could be used for services to any regional airport. The United States chose to use those opportunities for additional services to Manchester, resulting in the recent inauguration of the Delta Airlines service to Atlanta and a service by American Airlines to John F. Kennedy Airport in New York.
The fact that Manchester was chosen is indeed a tribute to the attractiveness of Manchester as a destination for transatlantic services, but it also reflects a lot of hard work by the airport authorities and others to ensure that the airlines were aware of the facilities and traffic opportunities available.
The 1990 agreement also resulted in new rights from regional airports for United Kingdom carriers and, at present, there are three route opportunities available which could be used by United Kingdom carriers to provide services from Manchester to United States destinations. Whether they do so is a commercial matter for the airlines, but if they so decide, they will find no Government or bureaucratic obstacles in their way.
We know that there is probably unsatisfied demand for route opportunities. More United States carriers wanted to fly than could be covered by the two route opportunities on offer, but further services by United States carriers will depend on new rights being negotiated under the Bermuda 2 air services agreement and, as a first step, the United States authorities will have to come forward with proposals.

1065
We would certainly consider such proposals with a clear view in mind of the advantages of additional services to the airport and the region. We want to see regional airports develop further. Our past actions underline that commitment, but creation of new rights for the United States must bring about appropriate new opportunities for our carriers. It would be wrong to allow advantages to the United States which could distort the balance of opportunities in the market to an extent that would be unfair to our airline industry.
I think that a better approach than piecemeal trading of rights is to look at the transatlantic market to the United States as a whole. We need to consider with the United States whether the present arrangements provide for fair, effective and healthy competition by the airlines of both sides, or whether changes are necessary. We need to consider whether sufficient opportunities are available for services or whether they can be expanded. We also need to consider whether unnecessary restrictions and regulations can be removed.
We have therefore been engaged in liberalisation talks with the United States for some time. Good progress is being made, but there are difficult issues to be tackled. Consequently, it is not possible to say when conclusions will be reached. Neither side has ruled anything out of the discussion. We are looking at fundamental issues, such as cabotage rights and inward investment in United States carriers. We shall also consider such key marketing issues as use—or abuse—of frequent flier programmes, use of computer reservation systems and opportunities for commercial arrangements between airlines. We shall look at the route structure and the availability of route opportunities generally, as well as to regional airports, including Manchester.
What we want from liberalisation is fair competition, which should bring benefits for all concerned—not just for airlines and airports, but for their customers and the economy as a whole. We do not want—and are concerned to guard against—scope for abuse of market dominance, leading to the extinction of competition.
We have also been successfully pursuing liberalisation elsewhere in the world—with, for example, Canada, Singapore and New Zealand. We are in the midst of talks with Thailand. A standard element of liberalisation is to remove restriction of routes from regional airports, so that services can be from any point in one country to any point in the other.
There is a myth that we agree to new routes to or from regional airports only when that suits British airlines, and I should like to dispel it. As I said, we see liberalisation as good for all concerned: airlines, certainly, but airports and customers at large as well. If we had a request for a route to a regional airport that was not possible under present arrangements, we would also look carefully at that region's interests in considering what to do, but we would probably suggest a wider opening up of opportunities through liberalisation.
1066
We are concerned to see that international services to and from regional airports continue to develop strongly. The Government intend to play their part, in opening up scope for fair competition, by making sure that the necessary opportunities are there, but a characteristic of liberalisation is that it opens up opportunities before airlines are ready for them. There could be services to Manchester from Japan, New Zealand and Malaysia, for example, to add to those introduced in the last year or so from Hong Kong and Pakistan.
Perhaps the airlines have not wanted to take up these opportunities, but there is a challenge here for Manchester and other regional airports: to go out and try to interest the airlines concerned, British and foreign, in starting new services. Officials in the Department of Transport are, of course, ready to help—in advising on what is already available and in opening up new opportunities that look desirable.
My hon. Friend referred to a rumour about Stansted. It is a matter for the United States authorities whether they come forward with proposals for additional route rights to Stansted and/or new rights involving regional airports. The Government's negotiations will have to take account of what is proposed, but we do not envisage acting outside that negotiating framework.
My hon. Friend also referred to the fraught issue of duty-frees. So far, the European Commission has not brought out any specific proposals to end intra-Community duty-free shopping, but that termination would indeed be a side effect of the current technical proposals for VAT and excise control systems after 1992. The matter has not yet been discussed in Brussels, but the Government recognise that the duty-free trade is important to the United Kingdom industry and economy, and we are very aware of the concerns of all involved.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Manchester airport rail link. I understand that British Rail fully intends that the rail link will be operational by planned completion date of May 1993. Work is well under way and, although contracts for some of the infrastructure and rolling stock are still to be placed, the management of BR's regional railways see the link as a high priority. That link will greatly improve access to the airport and generally boost the economy of the north-west because, for the first time, passengers will be able to travel by train direct not only from central Manchester but from as far afield as Blackpool, Leeds and Hull. There has been fine co-operation between the passenger transport authority, BR and Manchester airport company.
It is not just Members of Parliament or Ministers from the regions who can understand the importance of Manchester airport. I have often used it and found its facilities very useful. There is no doubt that it has a valuable role to play in future, provided that that role is not undermined by the sort of trade union irresponsibility to which my hon. Friend referred.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Security
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the 1990–91 annual report of the Chief Inspector of Transport Security.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am today placing copies of this report in the Library of the House.

  Shipping Accidents
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what systematic assessment is made of human error in casualty investigations for shipping accidents.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 9 July 1991]: Inspectors carrying out investigations into marine accidents are fully alive to the human factor in all its forms. Their inquiries, therefore, as a matter of course, include examination into the possibility of error and, where it is found, an assessment both of its cause and its effect.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answer of 2 July, how many accidents listed have been attributed to human error for each year 1981 to 1990 involving United Kingdom registered vessels, and 1989 to 1990 involving United Kingdom ferries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 9 July 1991]: The majority of accidents have several contributory factors and cannot be attributed to one specific individual cause. A list such as that asked for therefore cannot be provided. However, human error is considered to be at least one factor in some 80 per cent. of accidents; this applies to vessels of all types including ferries.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and to publish the annual report of the Serious Fraud Office for the year 1990–91.

  The Attorney-General
  The report has today been laid before Parliament. I have caused a copy of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Treaties
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs if he will list those treaties that have been signed by Her Majesty's Government but have not yet been ratified, giving for each treaty the date of signing.
  354
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs if he will make a statement on the process by which treaties are ratified by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Before ratifying a treaty Her Majesty's Government must ensure that they have the necessary statutory powers to enable them to give effect to its provisions and, if not, that the necessary enabling legislation is made. The text of the treaty is then laid before Parliament for a minimum of 21 parliamentary sitting days before it is ratified in order to give Parliament the opportunity to debate its provisions.

  CFE Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs when he expects Her Majesty's Government to ratify the conventional forces in Europe treaty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We expect to do so this autumn.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs (1) whether his Department has evaluated what effect withdrawing a regular Royal Navy presence in Antarctica could have on the United Kingdom's current and future association with that area;

  (2) what assessment has been made of the impact of the withdrawal of HMS Endurance on the study and understanding of the Antarctic continent and protection of United Kingdom interests in that region.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  HMS Endurance carries out hydrographic surveys and provides support for the British Antarctic Survey's science programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is aware of the role of HMS Endurance in supporting Her Majesty's Government's commitment to British interests in the area.

  Romania
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were last made to the Romanian authorities about anti-semitism.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We take every suitable opportunity to press the Romanian Government to ensure that the rights of all members of the Jewish and other minority communities in Romania are fully respected. We have asked Her Majesty's ambassador in Bucharest to monitor closely certain recent expressions of anti-semitism in Romania.

  Mr. Peter Nadin
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with reference to his correspondence with the hon. Member for Islington, North, if he will ask the British embassy in Athens to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death or the hon. Member's constituent Peter Nadin while in police
  355
  custody; and if he will meet the hon. Member for Islington, North to receive representations on behalf of the deceased's mother.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British consular officers have no investigatory rôle. Mr. Nadin's death was investigated by the Greek authorities in 1984. They concluded that he committed suicide. The Greek authorities reviewed the case in 1985 at our request. They reached the same conclusion. In the absence of new evidence we have no grounds to ask them to reopen the case.

  In the circumstances, there is little to be gained from a meeting about this sad case.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  INWARD
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what proportion of moneys allocated to INWARD for industrial promotion in the north-west of England is allocated for the promotion of Cumbria;

  (2) if he will state on what county justification basis moneys are allocated to INWARD for the industrial promotion of the north-west of England.

  Mr. Leigh
  For the current financial year, 1991–92, INWARD received from the Department of Trade and Industry grant-in-aid of £900,000. This grant is allocated to INWARD on the basis of an agreed business plan for the promotion of overseas inward investment into the north-west. However, within the broad thrust of promotion of the region it is for INWARD to decide the most appropriate allocations of emphasis, including that to individual counties such as Cumbria, to meet its business objectives.

  The principal objective is to provide information on all parts of the region in response to investors inquiries. Many of these are relayed to INWARD from the Invest In Britain Bureau as a result of the latter's promotional activities on behalf of the UK. Another objective is to service such investors, on behalf of IBB, when visiting the region. These activities are funded 100 per cent. The DTI through IBB, also funds 50 per cent. of INWARD's own promotional activity overseas, and it is free to attract additional funding from local sources to supplement this activity or for other regional activities in which the Department has no direct involvement.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will monitor the use of moneys paid to INWARD for industrial promotion in the north-west to ensure that each county that is a member of INWARD receives its fair share of industrial inquiries.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department of Trade and Industry closely monitors the activities of all the regional development organisations, including INWARD, to ensure that the grant is spent to the best effect. An important function of an RDO is to provide a "one-stop shop" where all the potential sites in the region can be accessed by an investor. In responding to inquiries from industry the prime concern of RDOs must be to supply what industry needs, which will include fulfilling locational requirements as closely as possible. Although I have no doubts that all RDOs make every effort to ensure that all 356
  local authority members have a chance to respond to suitable inquiries, relations with members are principally a matter for the respective RDO board.

  Sound Diffusion Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department has taken following his inspectors' reports on Sound Diffusion Ltd.

  Mr. Redwood
  Following the receipt of the inspectors' report, consideration is being given to the possibility of application to the court under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. A copy of the report has also been provided to the Institute of Chartered Accountants for it to consider the conduct of its members.

  Investment Brokers Act 1977
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to review the scope and contents of the Investment Brokers Act 1977.

  Mr. Redwood
  I assume that the hon. Member is asking about the Insurance Brokers Registration Act 1977. I have no plans to review it.

  Ernst and Young
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions since 1988 his Department's inspectors have criticised the performance of Ernst and Young and its predecessors.

  Mr. Redwood
  Three reports of Companies Act inspectors published since 1 January 1989 contain criticisms of the firms which now form Ernst and Young:

  Name of company

  Date of publication of report

  Name of firm criticized

  Alexander Howden

  Holdings plc

  29 August 1990

  Arthur Young

  Minet Holdings plc/WMD Underwriting Agencies Limited

  29 August 1990

  Arthur Young

  Arthur Young

  Sound Diffusion plc

  1 May 1991

  Ernst and Whinney

  Insurance Selling
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations exist to ensure capital adequacy, creditworthiness and sound financial reporting by sellers of insurance not covered by the Investment Brokers Act 1977.

  Mr. Redwood
  As regards insurance intermediaries not registered under the Insurance Brokers Registration Act, those selling insurance which comprises an investment product are regulated under the Financial Services Act regime, and those selling general insurance come under the Association of British Insurers' code of practice for non-registered general insurance intermediaries.

  Space Consultative Committee
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the consultative committee with companies active in space last met; and when it will next meet.
  357
  Mr. Leigh
  The space consultative committee was wound up in 1987 following the formation of the British national space centre and the introduction of new consultative arrangements with the space industry. The British national space centre regularly consults companies active in space through its advisory committees and other consultative procedures.

  Medicines
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) of 1 July,Official Report, column 19, how many generic manufacturers made representations; and how many of these actually manufacture in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 9 July 1991]: The represenations received from the manufacturers of generic medicines have come through their representative bodies,

  Central Government (a)

  Local Authorities (a)

  Health (c)

  Year

  £ million

  Percentage of GDP

  £ million

  Percentage of GDP

  £ million

  Percentage of GDP

  1960

  6,678

  2·63

  2,266

  8·9

  861

  3·4

  1970

  14,396

  28·3

  6,522

  12·8

  1,979

  3·9

  1980

  75,877

  33·3

  28,323

  12·4

  11,633

  5·1

  1990

  156,286

  28·9

  56,416

  10·4

  1n.a.

  2n.a.

  1 1989 = £25,332 million.

  2 1989 = 5·1 per cent. of GDP.

  Central Government expenditure includes health expenditure given under (c). Money GDP figures, used as the denominator for the calculation of the percentages, have been adjusted for the distortion arising from abolition of domestic rates.

  Advisory Committee on Advertising
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the membership and, where appropriate, the employment, of the Advisory Committee on Advertising in 1980 and the changes since then.

  Mr. Maples
  Members of ACA in 1980 were:

  Mr. G. C. Draper

  Director, Commercial Operations, British Airways

  Mr. K. Jacobs

  Marketing Manager, Birds Eye Ltd

  Mr. W. B. Morrell

  Ex Vice-Chairman, Westminster Press Ltd

  Mr. B. Nicholson1

  Head of Public Affairs, Lloyd's of London

  Mr. H. Thomas

  Chairman, Thames Television International Ltd

  Mr. B. H. Silverman

  Marketing Manager, Food Division Co-operative Wholesale Society

  Mr. J. S. McClean

  Managing Director, Women's Magazines Group IPC Magazines Ltd

  Members who have served since 1980 are:

  Mr. R. Halstead (1981)

  Chairman, Beecham Products

  Mr. B. Downing (1983)

  Deputy Chief Executive IPC Magazines Ltd

  Mr. P. Gittoes (1983)

  Head of Advertising Services, Barclays Bank plc

  Mr. D. Hughes (1984)

  Head of Public Relations, Thorn EMI plc

  Mr. M. Samuel (1984)1

  Environment Affairs Manager, J. Sainsbury plc

  Mr. J. Mellon (1984)1

  Chief Executive, IPC Magazines Ltd

  Mrs. A. Ferguson (1986) 1

  Head of Group Communications, ICI plc

  Mr. C. Auld (1987)1

  Group Managing Director, Intercraft Designs Ltd

  358
  the European generics forum and the standard formulary medicines register of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. I do not have details of the source of the products of the companies they represent, either as active ingredients or in the finished version.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of(a) central Government expenditure, (b) local government expenditure and (c) national health service expenditure for each of the years 1961, 1970, 1980, 1990 and at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will show each figure as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information required is as follows:

  Mr. H. Turner (1987)

  Managing Director, Television South West

  Mr. E. Walsh (1990)

  Marketing Director, Birds Eye Wall's Ltd

  Mr. N . Phillips (1990)1

  Director General, Institute of the Practitioners of Advertising

  Mr. R. Spelman (1990)1

  General Manager, Marketing, Halifax Building Society

  Mr. E. Nicoli (1991)1

  Chief Executive—European Operations United Biscuits (Holdings) plc

  1 Current Committee members

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each agency nominated for the first time since 1985 by the Advisory Committee on Advertising, whether it applied or whether it was appointed to be considered.

  Mr. Maples
  No records are kept of when advertising agencies, nominated by the Advisory Committee on Advertising to take part in competitions for Government work, were nominated for the first time.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the agencies nominated in each year from 1985 by the Advisory Committee on Advertising.

  Mr. Maples
  The advertising agencies nominated by the Advisory Committee on Advertising to compete for Government campaigns from 1985 are listed in the table.

  1985

  Abbott Mead Vickers/SMS

  Bartle Bogle Hegarty

  Boase Massimi Pollitt

  Butler Dennis and Garland Kenyon and Eckhardt

  CDP Waterhouse

  Collett Dickenson Pearce and Partners

  Davidson Pearce

  FCO Ltd.

  Gold Greenles Trott

  Leo Burnett

  359

  Lowe Howard-Spink

  Saatchi and Saatchi

  TBWA

  J. Walter Thompson

  Waldron Allen Henry and Thompson

  White Bull Holmes

  Wight Collins Rutherford Scott

  Yellowhammer

  1986

  Abbott Mead Vickers/SMS

  Boase Massimi Pollitt

  BSB Dorland

  Collett Dickenson Pearce and Partners

  First City

  Harrison Salinson

  J. Walter Thompson

  Lowe Howard-Spink

  Ogilvy and Mather

  Portland

  Poster Media

  Poster Publicity

  Posterlink

  Saatchi and Saatchi

  Waldron Allen Henry and Thompson

  Wight Collins Rutherford Scott

  Yellowhammer

  Young and Rubicam

  1987

  Abbott Mead Vickers/SMS

  Ayer Barker/Charles Barker

  Baillie Marshall

  BBDO

  Benton & Bowles Recruitment

  BSB Dorland

  Butler Dennis & Garland CDP Financial

  CDP Waterhouse

  Cogent Elliott

  Collett Dickenson Pearce & Partners

  Davidson Pearce

  Dewe Rogerson

  Doyle Dane Bernbach

  Faulds

  FCO

  Gold Greenlees Trott

  Hall Advertising

  J. Walter Thompson

  Leo Burnett

  Lintas

  Northern Communications

  Ogilvy & Mather

  Saatchi & Saatchi

  Slaymaker Cowley White/BDG

  Still Price Court Twivy D'Souza

  Waldron Allen Henry & Thompson

  Wight Collins Rutherford Scott

  Woolward McCanns

  Yellowhammer

  1988

  Abbott Mead Vickers/SMS

  Ayer Barker

  BMP Davidson Pearce

  Boase Massimi Pollitt

  Butterfield Day Devito Hockney

  Cogent Elliott

  Collett Dickenson Pearce & Partners

  D'Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles

  Davidson Pearce

  DDB Needham

  Delaney Fletcher Delaney

  Dewe Rogerson

  FCO

  Gold Greenlees Trott

  J. Walter Thompson

  360

  Leo Burnett

  Lowe Howard-Spink

  Ogilvy & Mather

  Saatchi & Saatchi

  Slaymaker Cowley White/BDG

  TBWA

  Waldron Allen Henry & Thompson

  WCRS Mathews Marcantonio

  Yellowhammer

  Young & Rubicam

  1989

  Abbott Mead Vickers/SMS

  Ayer Barker

  Benton and Bowles Recruitment

  BMP Davidson Pearce

  Butterfield Day Devito Hockney

  Cogent Elliott

  Collett Dickenson Pearce and Partners

  Concord and Posterlink

  D'Arcy Masius Benton and Bowles

  DDB Needham

  Delaney Fletcher Slaymaker Delaney and Bozell

  FCO Ltd.

  Gold Greenlees Trott

  Harrison Salinson

  J. Walter Thompson

  Leo Burnett

  Lowe Howard-Spink

  Ogilvy and Mather

  Portland Outdoor Advertising

  Poster Publicity Ltd.

  Publicis

  Riley

  Saatchi and Saatchi

  TBWA

  Waldron Allen Henry and Thompson

  Yellowhammer

  1990

  Allen Brady and Marsh

  Baillie Marshall

  Bridge/Alliance

  Butterfield Day Devito Hockney

  Collett Dickenson Pearce and Partners

  The Creative Business

  D'Arcy Masius Benton and Bowles

  Delaney Fletcher Slaymaker Delaney and Bozell

  Dorland Business Communications

  Faulds

  Gold Greenlees Trott

  Hall Advertising

  IPS Advertising

  J. Walter Thompson

  Laing Henry Hill Holliday

  Leagas Delaney

  The Leith Agency

  Leo Burnett

  McCann-Erickson

  Media Audits

  Ogilvy and Mather

  Saatchi and Saatchi

  TBWA

  WCRS

  Yellowhammer

  Young and Rubicam

  1991

  Abbott Mead Vickers/SMS

  B & B Bernard Hodes

  Barkers LBW

  Bartle Bogle Hegarty

  BMP DDB Needham

  Butterfield Day Devito Hockney

  CIA Billett & Company

  Cogent

  Collett Dickenson Pearce & Partners

  361

  Colman RSCG

  The Creative Business

  D'Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles

  Delaney Fletcher Slaymaker Delaney & Bozell

  FCO Ltd

  Gold Greenlees Trott

  Golley Slater

  Hall Harrison Cowley

  Laing Henry Hill Holliday

  Leagas Delaney

  Leo Burnett

  Lowe Howard-Spink

  Media System

  Miller and Leeves WHAT

  MSL

  Ogilvy & Mather

  PA

  Riley

  RS/Alliance

  Saatchi & Saatchi

  Local authority net capital expenditure in Scotland on functions outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland by function

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Transport

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Local authority net capital expenditure in Wales which falls outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales by function

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Transport

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Law, order and protective services

  9

  10

  13

  12

  17

  7

  Total

  10

  10

  13

  12

  17

  7

  Note: Figures have been independently rounded therefore, some individual figures do not always equal the total shown.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the breakdown for the years 1985–86 to 1990–91 of the entry for current grants to persons as given in the analysis of 15 April,Official Report, column 130, of

  Local authority current grants to persons in Scotland on functions outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland by type of grant

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Rent allowances

  56

  72

  89

  85

  105

  143

  Rent rebates

  229

  263

  296

  315

  351

  385

  Total

  285

  335

  386

  400

  456

  528

  Note

  Figures have been independently rounded therefore, some individual figures do not always equal the total shown.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an analysis, comparable with table 5.8 of Cm. 1520 showing(a) that local authority expenditure in Scotland which falls outside expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, tabulated not by function but by departmental programme and (b) that local authority expenditure in Wales which
  362

  WCRS

  Yellowhammer

  Young & Rubicam

  Zenith

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an analysis, parallel to that given by the Chief Secretary on 23 May,Official Report, columns 583–4, of (a) local authority capital expenditure in Scotland which falls outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland tabulated by function and (b) local authority capital expenditure in Wales which falls outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested, consistent with that given in the statistical supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement (Cm 1520), is given in the tables.

  local authority expenditure in Scotland on function outside the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested, consistent with that given in the statistical supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement (Cm. 1520), is given in the table.

  falls outside expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales tabulated not by function but by departmental programme.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested for local authority current expenditure, consistent with that given in table 5.8 of the statistical supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement (Cm. 1520), is given in the tables.
  363

  Local authority current expenditure in Scotland on functions outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland by department.

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Intervention Board

  School milk and meals

  3

  4

  4

  3

  3

  8

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Consumer protection

  5

  5

  6

  7

  7

  8

  Department of Employment

  Help for unemployed people

  3

  4

  3

  8

  6

  7

  Department of Social Security

  Rent rebates

  229

  263

  296

  315

  351

  385

  Rent allowances

  56

  72

  89

  85

  105

  143

  Housing benefit administration

  13

  14

  19

  19

  21

  25

  TOTAL

  299

  349

  404

  419

  476

  553

  TOTAL

  311

  362

  417

  437

  492

  576

  Note: Figures have been independently rounded therefore, some individual figures do not always equal the total shown.

  Local authority current expenditure in Wales on functions outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales by function.

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Intervention Board

  School milk and meals

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Consumer protection

  5

  5

  5

  6

  6

  7

  Department of Employment

  Help for unemployed people

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Home Office

  Courts

  9

  10

  11

  11

  13

  15

  Probation

  8

  9

  10

  10

  12

  14

  Police

  134

  145

  160

  176

  197

  217

  Civil defence

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Fire

  36

  37

  41

  45

  49

  54

  Electoral registration

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  TOTAL

  189

  204

  225

  246

  275

  304

  Department of Education and Science

  Student awards

  45

  46

  49

  53

  60

  75

  Department of Social Security

  Rent rebates

  128

  134

  135

  148

  155

  152

  Rent allowances

  40

  49

  49

  53

  59

  74

  Housing benefit administration

  6

  7

  9

  8

  8

  14

  TOTAL

  174

  190

  192

  209

  222

  240

  TOTAL

  416

  448

  475

  518

  568

  631

  Note: Figures have been independently rounded therefore, some individual figures do not always equal the total shown.

  Unemployment Costs
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he makes of the average weekly cost to the Exchequer for each unemployed person taking into account benefit paid, staff costs for administering the benefit agency, costs of job clubs, jobcentres, restart schemes and associated costs.

  Mr. Mellor
  The cost to the Exchequer for each unemployed person will depend on the person's family and other circumstances, contribution record, any tax liability, and the administrative costs of assessing and paying benefit and helping find new employment. An estimate of 364
  the benefit element of this is given in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94: Social Security" (Cm 1514), page 11, table 8.

  Advertising Agencies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham of 2 July,Official Report, columns 87–88, what list the Advisory Committee on Advertising maintains of agencies considered suitable for nomination to work for government.

  Mr. Maples
  The Advisory Committee on Advertising has wide knowledge and experience of many advertising agencies but does not maintain a standing list of agencies considered suitable to compete for Government work.
  365
  Consideration of suitability for nomination is made to meet the circumstances of each separate competition.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria are used by the Advisory Committee on Advertising to decide whether an agency may be nominated for Government business.

  Mr. Maples
  Advertising agencies are nominated to compete for Government business by the Advisory Committee on Advertising when the Committee considers that the agency's competence, experience and performance match the requirements of a particular competition.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total revenue foregone to the Exchequer over a financial year of(a) individual contributions to pension funds being tax free for (i) standard rate payers and (ii) higher rate payers, (b) the income and capital gains of pension funds being tax exempt and (c) the facility open to an individual of taking up to a quarter of their accrued pension rights as a lump sum payment free from tax.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest available estimates for 1990–91 are as follows.

  Relief for

  £ million

  Employee contributions to occupational pension schemes1 2

  2,200

  Investment income of occupational pension schemes1 3

  4,900

  Lump sum payments to pensioners1

  1,000

  Contributions to personal pensions (including retirement annuity premia and FSAVCs) 4 5 1,100

  1 The total cost of tax reliefs for occupational pension schemes cannot be calculated by adding together the cost of individual reliefs as this would imply a considerable degree of multiple taxation.

  2 It is not possible to provide a reliable breakdown of the total cost of relief between basic rate and higher rate taxpayers.

  3 Assuming relief at the basic rate of income tax.

  4 Including income tax relief on employers' contributions to personal pensions on the basis that under present arrangements employers' contributions are not taxable as a benefit in kind of the employee.

  5 It is not possible to provide reliable estimates of the cost of exemption for investment income and lump sum payments related to retirement annuity contracts and personal pensions.

  London Allowance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rate of London allowance for civil servants in support and executive grades respectively since 1987; if he will make it his policy to submit requests for adjustment to arbitration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is as follows.

  London weighting allowance

  1 April 1987 £

  1 July 1988 £

  Inner

  1,527

  1,750

  Intermediate

  876

  1,000

  Outer

  641

  725

  London weighting for civil servants has not been increased since 1988. However, since 1988 London pay points worth between 4 per cent. and 7 per cent.,
  366
  depending on grade, have been introduced for most civil servants in London, along with local pay additions worth up to £1,000 a year targeted at locations with severe recruitment and retention problems.

  Over the past two years, over £87 million a year has been spent enhancing London pay in this way, in addition to national pay increases. This represents an increase of over 50 per cent. in the London element of the pay bill. Unlike London weighting, London spine points and local pay additions are targeted to ensure that public money is used most cost-effectively. Over the past two years, recruitment and retention rates in London have improved very significantly.

  The Government's policy is that pay should be based on what is required to recruit, retain and motivate within what is affordable. The Government's intention is to continue to set London pay in accordance with that policy and, where appropriate, to target increases in the London element of pay to ensure that they produce the best value for money for the taxpayer.

  Successive Governments have reserved the right not to go to arbitration on issues which raise policy considerations. In previous years London weighting claims have raised policy issues in respect of public expenditure control and the targeting of pay increases to secure best value for money on which arbitration would not have been appropriate.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what formal proposals have been made by him to European colleagues to protect the export of Scotch whisky to the Community; what further discussions he intends to hold with EC colleagues on the implications of an EC indirect tax scheme for Scotch whisky exports to the rest of the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At the ECOFIN Council on 24 June, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer successfully argued against the proposal to set a minimum level of spirits duty post-1992 which would have unacceptably increased discrimination against Scotch whisky in the southern member states. As a result, no minimum rate was agreed and at my right hon. Friend's request the Commission will be examining possible distortions in the alcoholic drinks market and reporting later this year. Further discussions on the minimum rate will take place on the basis of that report.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total annual value accruing to the Treasury of(a) domestic and (b) international sales of Scotch whisky.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information available relates to the VAT and excise duty yield from domestic sales of whisky which in 1990 is estimated to have been £1 billion. International sales do not produce excise or VAT revenue.

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out his current assessment of the effect of a single currency on the annual gross domestic product of the European Community.
  367
  Mr. Maude
  It is too early to predict what the effect of a single currency would be on Community GDP. Potential benefits might accrue from reductions in transactions costs and exchange rate risk, and lower inflation. But compared to existing ERM arrangements, a single currency does not of itself guarantee lower inflation or reduced exchange rate risk against non-Community currencies, and the transactions cost advantages are unlikely to be large. Moreover, the success of any move to a single currency would depend on Community economies first having achieved sufficient sustainable convergence in terms of inflation rates, interest rates, budget deficits and market flexibility. Otherwise there would be adverse effects on Community GDP and unemployment.

  Sterling M3
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 567, if he will provide the information requested for sterling M3 for the relevant periods prior to cessation of the publication.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  12-month growth rates of sterling M3

  Financial year

  Percentage change

  June 1979-March 1980

  19·9

  1980–81

  17·9

  1981–82

  14·7

  1982–83

  11·8

  1983–84

  8·0

  1984–85

  11·5

  1985–86

  16·7

  1986–87

  18·8

  1987–88

  20·9

  1988–89

  20·2

  1 Change between June 1979, and March 1980, at an annual rate.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Economic and Finance Council of the European Community met in Brussels on 8 July. The Minister for Corporate Affairs and I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council held a discussion of economic convergence within the Community as part of the regular multilateral surveillance of the economies of member states. The Council agreed that greater progress towards economic convergence was desirable and that, where necessary, member states would submit medium-term economic programmes to promote convergence. The Council's conclusions have today been placed in the Library in accordance with article 8 of the 1990 convergence decision.

  The revised annual economic report was adopted, a copy of which is also in the Library.

  Over lunch there was a brief procedural discussion of EMU in which it was agreed that the next ministerial meeting of the IGC would be held on 9 September.
  368
  The investment services directive was again discussed, but without further agreement. The Minister for Corporate Affairs continued to argue for a liberal and market-sensitive directive.

  Lending outside the Community by the European investment bank was also discussed. The Council agreed to return to the technical and financial aspects of this question in the autumn on the basis of a report by the Commission and the EIB. It was agreed that in the meantime the bank could consider extending loans to countries with which the Community had a co-operation agreement on a case-by-case basis in accordance with its existing statute.

  The agreement by the European Council to offer a balance of payments loan to Algeria was discussed, but no agreement was reached as to the amount or details of such a loan.

  It was agreed that a loan guaranteed by the Community of up to 375 million ecu should also be offered to Romania provided that each tranche was matched by equal contributions from members of the G24 outside the Community and other countries.

  The Council also adopted a declaration on the Commission's report on countering fraud against the Community budget in 1990, setting out additional objectives for the year ahead; and the United Kingdom made a brief statement stressing the importance of this issue and the need to monitor results, and welcoming the agreement to review the scope of the Commission's 45-point action plan in the light of experience.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  ODA Budget
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent from the Overseas Development Administration budget for each of the past 10 years, in terms of 1991 prices, on construction and infrastructural projects in developing nations, where a United Kingdom company was the only or main contractor.

  Mrs. Chalker
  ODA projects are classified by recipient country sector for records purposes. Details of construction and infrastructure projects where a United Kingdom contractor was involved could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Aid
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid is given by the United Kingdom to(a) Benin, (b) Burundi, (c) Comoros, (d) Equatorial Guinea, (e) Ghana, (f) Guinea, (g) Kenya, (h) Liberia, (i) Madagasgar, (j) Malawi, (k) Mali, (l) Mauritania, (m) Mozambique, (n) Myanmar, (o) Niger, (p) Sao Tome and Principe, (q) Sierra Leone, (r) Somalia, (s) Sudan, (t) Tanzania, (u) Togo, (v) Zaire, (w) Zambia, (x) Guinea-Bissau, (y) Guyana and (z) Nigeria.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom's gross bilateral aid during 1989, the most recent year for which figures are currently available, was as follows:
  369

  Country

  £ 000s

  Benin

  331

  Burundi

  152

  Comoros

  7

  Equatorial Guinea

  84

  Ghana

  50,206

  Guinea

  456

  Kenya

  53,941

  Liberia

  613

  Madagascar

  316

  Malawi

  43,114

  Mali

  1,156

  Mauritania

  152

  Mozambique

  22,431

  Burma

  699

  Niger

  281

  Sao Tome and Principe

  —

  Sierra Leone

  2,808

  Somalia

  5,295

  Sudan

  31,436

  Tanzania

  38,056

  Togo

  278

  Zaire

  728

  Zambia

  19,711

  Guinea-Bissau

  41

  Guyana

  6,561

  Nigeria

  62,963

  Development aid programmes to Sudan and Somalia were suspended in 1991. Aid to Burma was suspended in 1988 and the amount shown for 1989 covered residual payments and ongoing costs of trainees already in Britain.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the maximum salary payable to the chief executive of the Natural Resources Institute, including performance-related element, and the length of time of the chief executive's contract.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The chief executive of the Natural Resources Institute is paid as a grade 3 in the civil service. Currently the London rate is £51,300 with a salary range up to a maximum of £59,000 including performance-related pay. The present chief executive was appointed for two years in the first instance ending 31 March 1992.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Natural Resources Institute and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The present chief executive of the Natural Resources Institute has a first degree in economics from Cambridge university.

  Agency

  Date

  Aircraft

  Tonnage

  Destination

  ODA

  6 May

  1 × Boeing 707

  6

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  16 May

  1 × Boeing 707

  19

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  ODA

  18 May

  1 × Boeing 707

  30

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  ODA

  20 May

  2 × Boeing 707

  60

  Diyarbakir, Turkey

  ODA

  24 May

  1 × Boeing 707

  38

  Tabriz, Iran

  ODA

  27 May

  1 × Boeing 707

  12

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  1 June

  2 × Boeing 707

  23

  Diyarbakir, Turkey

  ODA

  2 June

  1 × Boeing 707

  16

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  2 June

  1 × Boeing 707

  11

  Diyarbakir, Turkey

  ODA

  4 June

  1 × Boeing 707

  11

  Diyarbakir, Turkey

  ODA

  5 June

  1 × Belfast

  19

  Diyarbakir, Turkey

  ODA

  6 June

  1 × Boeing 707

  13

  Diyarbakir, Turkey

  ODA

  9 June

  1 × Belfast

  19

  Diyarbakir, Turkey

  370
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of the Natural Resources Institute as an executive agency; and whether the cost was borne by the parent department or the new agency;

  (2) how many staff were in post on the date that the Natural Resources Institute was established as an executive agency; and how many staff are in post now;

  (3) if he will list the new forms of alternative working patterns introduced into the Natural Resources Institute since its establishment as an executive agency; and if he will give a breakdown by grade of the numbers of staff taking up each new working pattern;

  (4) what appointments from the private sector have been made to the Natural Resources Institute at grade 7 or above since its establishment as an agency; and if he will list the post, grade and maximum salary payable, including performance-related element;

  (5) if he will list the quality of service performance indicators adopted by the Natural Resources Institute since its establishment as an executive agency identifying separately those quality of service performance indicators already operative prior to agency status;

  (6) if he will list those new facilities for staff including nurseries and healthcare schemes, which have been introduced in the Natural Resources Institute since its establishment as an executive agency;

  (7) what group bonus schemes are in operation in the Natural Resources Institute; and if he will state the cash amount per person awarded in the last year for which figures are available, and the conditions attached to its award;

  (8) when the last annual report for the Natural Resources Institute was published; and when the next one is due.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have asked the chief executive of the Natural Resources Institute to write to the hon. Member.

  Kurds
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his written answers to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East on 25 April,Official Report, columns 507–8, 2 May, Official Report, column 288, and 15 May, Official Report, column 192–94, if he will update the information supplied concerning aid to the Kurds.

  Mrs. Chalker
  (a) As of 10 July, the Overseas Development Administration has provided a further 293 tonnes of relief supplies as described in the table:
  371

  Agency

  Date

  Aircraft

  Tonnage

  Destination

  ODA

  3 July

  not known

  3

  Tehran, Iran

  ODA

  10 July

  not known

  13

  Tehran, Iran

  In addition, the British Red Cross Society and the voluntary organisation British Aid for the Kurds have provided the following further information about their relief supplies:

  Agency

  Date

  Aircraft

  Tonnage

  Destination

  BRCS

  29 April

  1 × Boeing 707

  41

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  1 May

  1 × DC8

  38

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  3 May

  1 × DC8

  38

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  5 May

  1 × DC8

  38

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  7 May

  1 × DC8

  38

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  9 May

  1 × DC8

  39

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  11 May

  1 × DC8

  39

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  17 May

  1 × DC8

  40

  Baghdad, Iraq

  BRCS

  22 May

  1 × DC8

  39

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  24 April

  1 × Boeing 747

  75

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  25 April

  1 × Boeing 707

  133

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  26 April

  1 × Boeing 747

  88

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  1 May

  1 × Boeing 747

  50

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  8 May

  1 × Boeing 747

  44

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  10 May

  1 × Boeing 747

  165

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  15 May

  1 × Boeing 747

  60

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  22 May

  1 × Boeing 747

  30

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  29 May

  1 × Boeing 747

  5

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  5 June

  1 × Boeing 747

  27

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  12 June

  1 × Boeing 747

  not known

  Tehran, Iran

  BAK

  3 July

  1 × Boeing 747

  147

  Tehran, Iran

  1 Denotes ODA charter.

  (b) The aircraft carrying the supplies described by British Aid for the Kurds on 25 April, 10 may, 22 May and 3 July were chartered by the Overseas Development Administration.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the regulations and controls that over the export or re-export of wild birds; and, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) of 26 June,Official Report, column 498, how many of the imported wild birds are subsequently re-exported.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973, as amended, lays down a number of general measures designed to safeguard the welfare of a wide variety of animals, including captive birds, during their transportation to, from or within Great Britain.

  Animal health conditions for the export or re-export of captive birds are laid down by the veterinary authorities of the countries of destination and it would be impracticable to publish in the Official Report the numerous export health certificates which exist.

  Controls under CITES and the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  The Ministry has no information on the number of imported captive birds which are subsequently re-exported.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many white-fronted Amazon 372
  parrots were imported into the United Kingdom in 1988; and what proportion died either in transit or while in quarantine;

  (2) how many crimson seed-cracker species of wild bird were imported into the United Kingdom in 1988; and what proportion suffered mortality either in transit or while in quarantine.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on mortality in birds imported into Great Britain is given in the Ministry's publications "Importation of Birds—Mortality Statistics from Quarantine Returns", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  In 1988, 489 white-fronted Amazons (Amazona albifrons) were imported, of which 376 were dead on arrival or died in quarantine. The figures for crimson seedcracker (Pyrenestes sanquineus) were 20 and 19 respectively.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the veterinary investigations service concerning the importation and quarantine of wild-caught birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The veterinary investigations service is not directly involved in advising on the health conditions under which captive birds are imported and quarantined. Its role in this respect is to report to the state veterinary service the outcome of tests on the carcases of birds submitted for post-mortem examination as required by the terms of import licences.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total volume and value of exports of Scotch whisky to(a) Europe, (b) the United States of America and (c) Japan at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1990, exports of whisky to the destinations specified were as follows:

  £ million

  Million litres of pure alcohol

  European Community

  631

  89

  United States of America

  276

  47

  Japan

  178

  21

  Note: Includes small quantities of Northern Irish whiskey, Bourbon and immature plain cereal spirits.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total volume and value of exports of Scotch whisky in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Curry
  In the past five years, exports of Scotch whisky were as follows:

  £ million

  Million litres of pure alcohol

  1986

  1,070

  236

  1987

  1,136

  240

  1988

  1,289

  246

  1989

  1,470

  242

  1990

  1,712

  238

  Note: The figures include small quantities of Northern Irish whiskey.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total agricultural land in environmentally sensitive areas is subject to ESA agreements; and what percentage of ESA target areas is covered by such agreements.

  Mr. Curry
  In the 10 ESAs in England there are 115,960 hectares covered by agreements. This represents 45 per cent. of the potentially eligible agricultural land. The schemes do not target particular areas of eligible land, but as an indicator of the success of uptake, targets were set of 75 per cent. of eligible grassland and 10 per cent. of eligible arable land. The area covered by agreements represents 92 per cent. of these targets.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 75, if he will list the commencement date and duration of each publicity campaign.

  Mr. Curry
  MAFF's touring exhibition, currently taking consumer information to major shopping centres and agricultural shows, commenced its programme on 20 May 1991 and is scheduled to finish on 5 October 1991. The revision of the Department's range of publications on food is still in hand.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage change in the number of administrative and clerical staff in the national health service in Scotland between September 1979 and the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The percentage of all personnel in the national health service in Scotland who were classified as administrative and clerical for statistical purposes was 10·9 per cent. in September 1979 and 12·9 per cent. in September 1990: the corresponding percentages for medical and nursing personnel were 53.8 per cent. and 59·6 per cent. respectively. The figures for administrative and clerical staff include staff engaged in clinically related work and the 1990 figures also include general and senior management grades which contain a number of professional and technical staff.

  Careers Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent through the careers service strengthening scheme in Scotland in each year since 1979, expressed both in current prices and in actual sums spent.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Actual expenditure

  Expenditure at 1990 prices

  1979–80

  544

  1,176

  1980–81

  723

  1,321

  1981–82

  937

  1,561

  1982–83

  1,329

  2,067

  1983–84

  1,645

  2,446

  1984–85

  1,664

  2,355

  1985–86

  1,697

  2,278

  1986–87

  1,791

  2,323

  1987–88

  1,887

  2,324

  1988–89

  2,034

  2,331

  1989–90

  2,205

  2,376

  1990–91

  2,247

  2,247

  Hospital Waste
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 713, what studies have been undertaken into the possibility that waste from NHS hospitals in Scotland could enter into water supplies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am not aware of any specific studies into this subject area. However, all public water supplies are monitored by the water authorities and no reports have been received of any problems of this sort.

  Fisheries (Restrictions)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will introduce changes in the administration of the eight-day tie-up regulations to prevent discrimination against smaller ports with limited repair facilities;

  (2) what changes he has considered in the implementation of the eight-day tie-up regulations; and if he will make a statement.
  375
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This Government must administer the eight-day tie-up scheme in line with the terms of EC regulation No. 3926/90. However, we are always prepared to consider specific administrative changes in the application of the eight-day scheme provided that they do not conflict with that responsibility. Each case brought to our attention is considered individually and arrangements are made where possible.

  Local Authority Usable Receipts
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate for local authority usable receipts in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: In Scotland, all local authority receipts are usable in the year in which they are generated. My right hon. Friend's estimate of local authority housing receipts in 1991–92 is £248 million. He has, as yet, made no estimate of housing receipts for 1992–93. He has made no estimate of non-housing receipts for either year.

  British Steel
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he received on 4 June concerning the plate mill review in British Steel; what subsequent representations were made by the Scottish Office; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will detail the meetings he, his junior Ministers or his officials have had with the chairman or officials of British Steel from the beginning of June 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: My right hon. Friend and I last met the chairman of British Steel on 4 June, when we were told in strict confidence of the company's decision to invest in new plate facilities at Teesside.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what statements he has made to the British Steel chairman about his policy on the plate mill closure;

  (2) what public statements he has made on the future of plate-making facilities at Dalzell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: It would not be appropriate to disclose details of my right hon. Friend's discussions with the chairman of British Steel which are bound by commercial confidentiality. But we have consistently pressed British Steel over a long period, publicly and in private, to give full consideration to the case for investment at Dalzell.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  International Investments Ltd.
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what representations have been made to the Government of the Irish Republic and the United States Government regarding the collapse of International Investments Ltd., Gibraltar, (in liquidation);

  (2) what action has been taken to date by the Royal Ulster Constabulary regarding the collapse of International Investments Ltd., Gibraltar, (in liquidation);
  376
  (3) whether he will seek assurance from the Government of the Irish Republic that the persons responsible for misappropriation of moneys invested by United Kingdom citizens in International Investments Ltd. will be made amenable to prosecution.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  International Investments Ltd. was a company registered in Gibraltar and not in the United Kingdom. The liquidation is therefore a matter for the authorities in Gibraltar and the responsibility for making representations to other Governments regarding International Investments Ltd. does not lie with Her Majesty's Government.

  Further to the RUC investigation into allegations of fraud by the principals of International Investments Ltd., the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has directed that one person be charged with conspiracy to fraud. The investigations are still continuing.

  Stormont Talks (Expenditure)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the remuneration and expenses agreed for the chairman of the second strand of the talks at Stormont, Sir Ninian Stephen; and what proportion will be contributed by(a) the Government of the Republic of Ireland and (b) Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made in the House on 3 July 1991 at columns 319–20.

  As the talks which were held on the basis of my statement of 26 March 1991 have now concluded without the second strand having commenced, these questions do not arise.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hospitals have been closed in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: The information is:

  Year

  Number

  1974

  —

  1975

  —

  1976

  1

  1977

  1

  1978

  —

  1979

  —

  1980

  —

  1981

  2

  1982

  2

  1983

  1

  1984

  —

  1985

  1

  1986

  9

  1987

  1

  1988

  8

  1989

  2

  1990

  2

  1991

  1

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to publish any regulations on local government finance prior to the summer adjournment.

  Mr. Key
  Subject to final decisions, my Department expects to lay three statutory instruments covering amendments to the non-domestic rating transitional arrangements and the payment of interest to ratepayers, and minor amendments and consequential repeals under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outline financial settlement for local authorities for 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  When he is ready to do so.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which areas of central Government support to local authorities are calculated on the basis of(a) the electoral roll and (b) OPCS calculations.

  A table showing population figures on the same basis as those used to calculate per capita standard spending assessments OPCS mid-year estimates

  Local authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  resident population 1

  resident population 2

  resident population 3

  resident population 4

  resident population 5

  Total England

  47,111,701

  47,254,459

  47,406,652

  47,536,278

  47,689,395

  Regional summary

  Northern Region

  3,085,700

  3,080,242

  3,076,779

  3,071,318

  3,073,112

  North West

  6,386,300

  6,734,334

  6,370,079

  6,364,162

  6,379,723

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,902,600

  4,899,285

  4,900,232

  4,913,298

  4,940,355

  East Midlands

  3,896,900

  3,919,918

  3,942,254

  3,970,599

  3,999,063

  West Midlands

  5,183,000

  5,181,243

  5,197,687

  5,207,000

  5,215,960

  East Anglia

  1,964,700

  1,991,600

  2,013,680

  2,034,639

  2,044,577

  South West

  4,500,780

  4,543,254

  4,588,374

  4,634,235

  4,652,426

  South East

  10,424,300

  10,489,393

  10,547,132

  10,605,020

  10,627,779

  Greater London

  6,767,421

  6,775,190

  6,770,435

  6,736,007

  6,756,400

  Community Charge
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans any measures to improve the ability of local councils to collect the outstanding community charge sums.

  Mr. Portillo
  We believe the enforcement powers now available to local authorities should enable them to collect the charge effectively. We are proposing some minor changes to the attachment of earnings process.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to take measures to ensure that armed forces personnel within the United Kingdom pay their community charge, and that those serving overseas may be exempted.

  Mr. Key
  Members of the armed forces are subject to the community charge and its enforcement procedures in the same way as everyone else. Although we do not intend specifically to exempt armed forces who serve overseas, those who do so and move their sole or main residence from this country will not be liable to pay the community charge.
  378
  Mr. Key
  The electoral roll is not used directly in the provision of central Government support to local authorities. However, the annual mid-year estimates of the resident population produced by OPCS are based partly on changes in the electoral roll from year to year. These estimates, along with census data and other indicators, are used to calculate the standard spending assessments and hence the level of revenue support grant appropriate to each local authority.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish population figures for each standard region in England for the years 1981–82 to 1991–92, on the same basis as was used to calculate per capita standard spending assessments in his written answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 10.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is shown in the table. There is a lag of nearly two years before the mid-year population estimate is available for inclusion in standard spending assessments. The year shown at the head of the columns refers to the year of the calculated standard spending assessment.

  Rents to Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to extend the areas where council tenants may turn their council rents into mortgages; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  This is a possibility that we shall want to keep under review as the pilot schemes progress.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the work and funding of the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Trippier
  The NRA is continuing to develop its role as a powerful and independent regulator and guardian of the water environment. It has been very substantially helped to do so by our making available a 28 per cent. increase in grant-in-aid in the current year compared with previous provision. It will also have available an estimated £25 million from the scheme of charges in respect of discharge consents which is now being implemented and extra income from abstraction licence holders.

  Public Sector House Building
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for public sector house building; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest estimates of public sector house building in England, mainly by local authorities, show 12,000 completions in the year to May 1991, of which 2,400 were in the latest three months.

  Housing associations are becoming the major providers of new subsidised rented housing and their output is forecast to rise significantly over the next three years.

  Full details of house building by sector are published monthly by the Department in an information bulletin.

  Humberside
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the publication of the final report from the Local Government Boundary Commission on the future of the county of Humberside.

  Mr. Key
  The report was published on Wednesday 3 July.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Between April 1979 and March 1991, about one and a quarter million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to make changes to the system for setting the levels of standard spending assessments for local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have no proposals for any major changes to the SSA methodology, although information from the 1991 census will be incorporated into SSAs as soon as it is available for all authorities.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the water company chairmen to discuss the quality of their services.

  Mr. Trippier
  I met the chairmen of the water companies only last week. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will meet the chairmen of the water and sewerage companies later in the year. The topics for discussion naturally include the unprecedented investment programme the industry is carrying out to improve the quality of its services.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about further progress on tackling the problem of greenhouse gases.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom remains fully committed to the negotiation of an effective framework 380
  convention on climate change in time for it to be opened for signature at the June 1992 UN conference on environment and development. Reasonable progress towards this objective was made at the second meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee which took place in Geneva last month.

  Local Authority Publications
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the powers of the district audit regarding the political content of local authority publications.

  Mr. Key
  The powers of the auditor in respect of illegal expenditure on political publications are the same as those which apply to any item of illegal expenditure. We believe that the auditor's powers in this area are sufficient and have no plans to review them at present.

  Local Government (Employment)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on employment in local government.

  Mr. Key
  The total number employed in local government in England has fallen by 4 per cent. since 1979.

  That there has been an overall reduction is in large part due to Government action in abolishing the metropolitan counties and GLC, removing bus and airport companies from local authority control, and later removing polytechnics from local government.

  The Government's policies both in encouraging councils to make use of the private sector through competitive tendering and in encouraging greater efficiency in the delivery of services should exert a strong downward pressure on staff numbers.

  Dog Wardens
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authorities employ dog wardens; and how many prosecutions they have instituted.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am advised by the National Dog Warden Association that some 200 dog wardens are employed by local authorities, but some authorities employ more than one warden and others share a warden. Local authority dog wardens are responsible for enforcing a variety of dog control measures, including "poop scoop", dog ban and dogs on leads byelaws. There are no central records of the number of prosecutions.

  Beach Pollution
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of Anglian Water plc to discuss beach pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend and I maintain regular contacts with the Anglian Water Company about progress on the bathing water improvement programme.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.
  381
  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), earlier today to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

  Council Housing
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the quality of the management of council housing; and what information he has on the latest position with regard to(a) rent arrears, (b) empty properties and (c) council house sales.

  Mr. Yeo
  In 1989 the Department published a report by the centre for housing research, Glasgow university, entitled "The Nature and Effectiveness of Housing Management in England", which evaluated the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities and housing associations as landlords.

  A follow-up study on the effectiveness of housing management under the new financial regimes for local authorities and housing associations is currently being carried out by the centre for housing studies, York university, and is due to report in 1992.

  The latest available information on council tenants' arrears relates to the position at the end of March 1990. Estimated total rent arrears for all English local authorities at that date were £360 million.

  The latest available information on empty council dwellings in England relates to 1 April 1990. At that date some 99,400 were vacant.

  Some 1·3 million English local authority or new town properties have been sold into owner-occupation between April 1979 and March 1991. In addition 16 local authorities have transferred their remaining stock to housing associations or to private companies.

  Short-term Leasing
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the value for money of short-term leasing of properties by housing authorities to accommodate the homeless as against bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  My assessment is that leasing is usually preferable both on social and cost grounds to the use of bed-and-breakfast hotels in accommodating homeless families.

  Water Quality
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the changes in the level of quality of Britain's highest grade rivers since 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  The National Rivers Authority intends to publish later this year the results of its 1990 river quality survey.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what progress has been made in setting water quality objectives under section 105 of the Water Act 1989;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to include in future water quality objectives for inland waters provision for
  382
  designation of contact water sport areas and to require such designated areas to meet the provisions of European Community directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water;

  (3) which organisations have been asked to give their views on the new statutory water quality objectives;

  (4) if he will make it his policy to publish the new water quality objectives before May 1992.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have asked the National Rivers Authority to advise the Department on the establishment of the new system of statutory water quality objectives provided for under the Water Act 1989. Discussions on this are continuing and proposals will be issued for public consultation in due course. The new arrangements will be consistent with the requirements of the relevant EC directives.

  Discharges
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that all environmentally sensitive discharges with numeric limits should include absolute limits that may not be exceeded at any time.

  Mr. Trippier
  Last year the National Rivers Authority issued for public consultation its reviews of the discharge consent system. This covered a wide range of issues relating to consent setting and compliance, including the use of absolute limits. The NRA is currently considering the comments it has received.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases there have been of unauthorised discharges into the River Lea, Limehouse Cut, Hertford Union canal and Regents canal in the last 10 years, giving details of the source of the discharge and the quantities involved.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on unauthorised discharges since 1989 is held by the National Rivers Authority, Thames region.

  No information is available for the years prior to 1989.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for the last available year, the percentage of (i) paper, (ii) cardboard, (iii) ferrous metals, (iv) non-ferrous metals, (v) sump oil, (vi) mercury and (vii) cadmium recoverd as a percentage of consumption in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each of the other European Community countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available figures are as follows:

  (i) and (ii) the figures for 19891 are:

  Percentage

  Belgium

  35·2

  Denmark

  33·2

  France

  34·4

  Germany

  43·0

  Greece

  n/a

  Ireland

  n/a

  Italy

  25·7

  Luxembourg

  4

  Netherlands

  49·0

  Portugal

  39·1

  Spain

  38·7

  United Kingdom

  30·4

  383
  The figure for the United Kingdom in 1990 was 33 per cent.

  (iii) the available .figures (for domestic supply of scrap as a proportion of consumption of finished steel) for 19882 are:

  Percentage

  Belgium

  84·4

  France

  79·6

  Germany

  69·6

  Italy

  44·9

  Netherlands

  86·3

  Spain

  56·8

  United Kingdom

  74·7

  (iv) the United Kingdom figure for aluminium is 42 per cent.3, excluding the use of imported scrap.

  Sources:

  1 British Paper and Board Industry Federation.

  2 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

  3 Warren Spring Laboratory.

  4 Included with Belgium.

  The other figures are not held centrally and so cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Domestic Rates
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total amount of domestic rates remaining uncollected in April of each year since 1979 in Tower Hamlets.

  Mr. Key
  Information is available only for gross rate arrears, domestic and non-domestic combined, for the years since 1980.

  Gross rate arrears at 1 April for Tower Hamlets

  £ 000s

  1980

  2,015

  1981

  1,723

  1982

  2,911

  1983

  3,147

  1984

  3,400

  1985

  3,680

  1986

  3,448

  1987

  2,942

  1988

  5,443

  1989

  4,240

  1990

  6,709

  Watercourse Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the comparative deleterious effects of the discharge of(a) cream, (b) alcohol and (c) raw sewage into fresh watercourses from processing and manufacturing plants.

  Mr. Baldry
  The control of discharges to freshwaters is a matter for the National Rivers Authority. In general discharges of cream, alcohol or raw sewage would be expected to have a deleterious effect on freshwaters and would therefore not be permitted.

  Guest Houses
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many guest houses are registered to pay uniform business rates.

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

  House Building (Leicester)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in the private and the public sector were completed in the years 1979 and 1990, respectively, in the city of Leicester.

  Mr. Yeo
  The figures for 1979 are shown in table 4(b) of "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales", No. 59 (November 1981) and, for 1990, in table 1(a) of No. 97 (April 1991). Copies are in the Library.

  Litter
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many litter abatement orders have been obtained and how many litter abatement notices have been served under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in the three months since 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information not held centrally by my Department.

  The number of orders made or notices served is not necessarily an indicator of the success, or failure, of the legislation. They are designed primarily as deterrent measures. We would expect aggrieved citizens to exercise their powers to seek litter abatement orders only as a last resort. In most cases, we envisage that the litter or refuse which is the subject of the complaint would be removed without the need for action in the courts. Similarly, we expect local authorities to use their powers to serve litter abatement notices only where persuasion to clear the litter or refuse in question has failed.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set out the basis for selection of the local authorities to be invited to submit bids in the second round of city challenge and the criteria he will use to assess the bids submitted.

  Mr. Portillo
  Our present intention is that those authorities which currently have urban programme status will be eligible to participate in the second round of city challenge. We shall draw on the experience gained in this year's pacemaker exercise to determine the criteria for assessing the bids in the second round.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will provide details of the sources of funding for the city challenge scheme in subsequent years and set out the impact of these funding arrangements on the existing urban programme administered through local authorities, as a whole, and on the individual allocations of local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  No decisions have yet been taken about the extent and timing of future competitions, beyond the present intention to hold a further competition in 1992 and so to distribute more of the Government's resources for inner cities on a competitive basis.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to increase the number of inspectors within the planning inspectorate.
  385
  Mr. Yeo
  Yes. We are currently taking on an additional 45 planning inspectors to deal with forecast workload in the coming years.

  Satellite Dishes
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when revised permitted development rights for the installation of satellite dishes will come into force.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have today laid before the House the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1991. This order will come into force on 31 July. It will:

  (a) introduce stricter permitted development rights for the installation, alternation and replacement of satellite dishes:

  (b) allow factory/warehouse extensions built as permitted development to be used for social or welfare purposes for employees, including creche facilities for their children;

  (c) introduce permitted development rights to enable licensed operators of driver information systems to instal the necessary equipment, subject to size limitations; and

  Capital expenditure on schools at 1990–91 prices1

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Clwyd

  5·7

  6·8

  6·1

  5·0

  4·6

  4·6

  5·1

  5·8

  6·4

  5·0

  5·0

  Dyfed

  3·0

  4·2

  4·2

  5·4

  5·8

  4·2

  3·3

  4·4

  6·5

  5·5

  3·0

  Gwent

  7·5

  7·9

  4·7

  5·8

  6·9

  6·4

  6·3

  5·9

  6·9

  7·5

  6·6

  Gwynedd

  2·0

  3·6

  2·5

  1·7

  1·7

  1·7

  2·3

  2·0

  2·6

  2·5

  1·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  7·1

  7·9

  9·0

  8·2

  8·2

  7·3

  3·9

  5·5

  7·3

  6·7

  6·6

  Powys

  1·3

  1·8

  2·2

  2·5

  2·3

  1·5

  0·6

  2·5

  2·1

  1·3

  1·5

  South Glamorgan

  3·7

  3·7

  2·3

  3·4

  2·0

  2·8

  1·9

  2·8

  2·3

  4·2

  5·3

  West Glamorgan

  3·2

  7·2

  6·0

  6·1

  4·2

  3·1

  4·3

  4·8

  5·8

  5·7

  6·4

  Total Wales

  33·6

  43·2

  36·8

  38·2

  35·8

  31·6

  27·6

  33·8

  40·0

  38·3

  36·4

  1 Includes expenditure on acquisition of land, existing buildings, new construction and works excludes expenditure on plant machinery and equipment. The GDP deflator has been used to reprice to 1990–91.

  Oral Health
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what incentives his Department employs to encourage everyone to visit a dental practitioner every six months.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The frequency of examination appropriate for maintaining oral health will vary from individual to individual depending on clinical circumstances. Both the new continuing care arrangements for adult patients and the capitation arrangements for child patients allow dentists the flexibility to give specific advice to patients to accommodate individual clinical needs.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department has issued to schools in Wales regarding the effect of milk consumption on oral health.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None. However, general nutritional advice is issued by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health authorities in Wales currently provide dental screening for(a) all pre-schools playgroup children, (b) primary and junior school children twice a year and (c) secondary school children annually.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally. However, district health authorities are required
  386

  (d) include a statement of property owners'/agricultural tenants' rights on the certificates which an applicant for planning permission is required to serve on those who own or have an interest in land for which the application is made.

  My right hon. Friends have also made the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) Order 1991, which places dry-cleaning establishments, but not launderettes, in the shops use class (Al) of the order. This order will also come into force on 31 July.

WALES

  School Buildings Expenditure
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give, in 1990 prices, by local education authority, the level of capital spending on school buildings for each of the financial years since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is given in the following table. Figures for 1990–91 are not yet available.

  by WHC(89)28 to arrange and provide adequate resources to undertake the screening of the teeth of children in state-funded schools at least three times in each child's school life. In areas of poor dental health and where availability of general dental services is poor, such screening may need to be more frequent—where necessary, annually.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of funding his Department is making available in the current financial year for research into ways of improving the oral health of Welsh children and adults.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  During the financial year the Department has made available a total of £89,000 specifically for research into oral health in Wales. In addition, all district health authorities are currently funding oral screening and epidemiological studies.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to add fluoride to potable water supplies in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None.

  The 1985 Water (Fluoridation) Act provides for fluoridation of water supplies at the request of health authorities after a thorough publicity and consultation process. The Government believe it to be right that decisions should continue to be taken, as they have over

  387
  the past 30 years, at a local rather than national level. In the final analysis it is the task of the district health authority to determine the benefit.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the British Dental Association.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  As Minister with responsibility for health matters in the Principality I met representatives of the British Dental Associations General Dental Services Committee for Wales on 24 May. In addition, our officials are in regular touch with BDA representatives in Wales. The BDA also participates in the Welsh Dental Committee, which is the statutory advisory committee to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the information that his Department holds on the epidemiology of the dental health needs of children and adults in Wales both on an all-Wales basis and on specific geographical areas within Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The latest available data on adult dental health, prepared from surveys carried out by OPCS on behalf of the Health Departments, are published by HMSO in the document "Adult Dental Health 1988 United Kingdom." Annual reports on child dental health are published in the journal "Community Dental Health": the latest results appeared in vol. 8, No. 2, July 1991. These studies are co-ordinated by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry and are carried out by the staff of district health authorities' community dental services as part of their responsibility under circular WHC(89)28.

  Standardised small district data are not held centrally. However, data are held by DHAs for assessing local health needs and it is intended that these should be published by districts as part of the report by their director of dental public health. The first reports are due to be prepared by September 1991 to inform the annual review meetings of each DHA.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each health authority in each of the past four years the funding for oral surgery that his Department has undertaken as part of the waiting list initiative.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is given in the following table:

  District health authority

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  1,240

  —

  Gwynedd

  6,500

  13,880

  16,600

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  11,400

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  7,300

  —

  TOTAL

  17,900

  13,880

  25,150

  —

  No other health authority has received funding under the waiting times initiative for oral surgery in the last four years.

  HIV
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department has issued to dental practitioners regarding the treatment of patients infected with HIV hepatitis B.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is as follows:CDO(86)3 drew the attention of dental practitioners to AIDS booklet 3 "Guidance for Surgeons, Anaesthetists, Dentists and Teams".
  CDO(88)1 "Cross infection control".
  HP 119/34/2 (1988). "AIDS infected health workers: report by the expert advisory group".
  WHC(88)38 "AIDS Control (ACT) 1987" instruction to report on staff training regarding AIDS.
  "Guidance for Clinical Health Care Workers: Protection Against Infection with HIV and Hepatitis Viruses", Issued January 1990 (issued under PSM(9)3).

  Sports Fields
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the number of acres of school sports fields that have been sold by local education authorities since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The provision of adequate land to meet the needs of schools is the responsibility of local education authorities. Information about disposals of school sports fields by these authorities is not held centrally.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 55–6, if he will list the commencement date and duration of each publicity campaign.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The 1991–92 Enterprise Wales and road safety campaigns started in April 1991 and will continue until March 1992.

  Drug and alcohol misuse publicity is planned to commence in October 1991. A completion date for this activity has not yet been determined.

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers of(a) nursery and primary schools, (b) middle schools and (c) secondary schools by size, according to the group sizes defined in the school teachers' pay and conditions document.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 4 July 1991]: The information as at January 1991 is given in the following table. There are no middle schools in Wales.

  Group sizes

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1

  935

  —

  2

  759

  —

  3

  77

  10

  4

  —

  59

  5

  —

  133

  6

  —

  28

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the average numbers of teaching staff
  389
  in (a) nursery and primary schools, (b) middle schools and (c) secondary schools for each size of school, according to the group sizes defined in the school teachers' pay and conditions document.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 4 July 1991]: The information in respect of the average number of full-time qualified teachers as at January 1991 is given in the following table. There are no middle schools in Wales.

  Group sizes

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1

  4

  —

  2

  9

  —

  3

  16

  23

  4

  —

  37

  5

  —

  54

  6

  —

  78

PRIME MINISTER

  Pension Age
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the President of the European Commission regarding the Barber judgment and the extent to which retrospection will be limited when the judgment is applied; and if he will place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  I have written to President Delors twice on this matter; first to express my concern about the financial and economic implications of the European Court of Justice's judgment in the Barber case; and then to inform him about the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 26 June at columns 997–1006.

  The extent of the retrospective effect of the judgment is one of the aspects on which clarification is being sought from the European Court. We shall argue before the court that the judgment does not apply to benefits based on service before the date of the judgment.

  It is not my usual practice to publish correspondence of this kind.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage of men aged 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 years are not in regular employment.

  Mr. Jackson
  Estimates from the 1990 Labour Force Survey are shown in the following table:

  Men not in employment—Great Britain

  Age

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  60

  111

  40·7

  61

  123

  46·2

  62

  124

  48·4

  63

  154

  55·1

  64

  169

  62·6

  65

  210

  82·0

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 72, if he will list the commencement date and duration of each publicity campaign.

  Mr. Jackson
  [pursuant to his answer, 1 July 1991, Official Report, column 72]: Press advertising for career development loans is planned to start in late July and run until September. Press advertising for the national training awards winners announcement is due to start on November 30 and to run for one week.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the last annual report for each agency in his Department was published; and when the next ones are due;

  (2) what is the maximum salary payable to the chief executive of each agency in his Department; and what is the length of their contracts;

  (3) if he will list the new forms of working patterns introduced into each agency in his Department since its establishment; and if he will break down by grade the numbers of staff taking up each new working pattern;

  (4) how many staff were in post on the date that each agency in his Department was established; and how many staff are in post now;

  (5) whether any appointments from the private sector have been made to any agency in his Department at grade 7 or above since its establishment;

  (6) what is the first degree obtained by the chief executive of each agency in his Department; and from which institution;

  (7) if he will list those facilities for staff which have been introduced in each agency in his Department since its establishment;

  (8) if he will list the quality of service performance indicators adopted by each agency in his Department since its establishment; and if he will identify those quality of service performance indicators already operative prior to agency status;

  (9) whether a group bonus scheme is in operation in any agency in his Department;

  (10) how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of each agency in his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The chief executives of our agencies—the Passport Agency and the Forensic Science Service—will be writing to the hon. Member about this. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Dog Attacks
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of attacks on people by dogs have been recorded by the Metropolitan police in Tower Hamlets in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Metropolitan police have kept records of incidents involving dangerous dogs only since November 1989, but there are no figures relating solely to Tower Hamlets. However, I am informed that, in the force area which includes Tower Hamlets, 38 incidents involving dogs have been noted since records began.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 4, if he will list the commencement date and duration of each advertising campaign.

  Campaign

  Start date

  Duration

  ELECTORAL REGISTRATION

  General Registration

  Mid September 1991

  Approximately 1 month

  Absent Voting

  When a general election is mounted

  2–3 days

  CIVIL PROTECTION MAGAZINE

  Every quarter

  Throughout the year

  POLICE RECRUITMENT

  Graduate

  1 September 1991

  4 months

  Ethnic

  1 April 1991—Continuation from campaign which started in March 1991.

  3 weeks

  POLICE

  Special Constables Recruitment: Tactical

  31 July 1991

  3 months—11 selected force areas—Part of a month per force.

  Awareness

  1 April 1991—Continuation from campaign which started in January 1991. There is a range of print material available both during the Campaign periods and throughout the year.

  1 month—Post campaign research will determine whether further advertising will be required in this financial year but this will not take place before November 1991.

  Crime Prevention

  1 April 1991

  This comprises a range of publicity material that is generally available year-round.

  Fire Prevention and Safety

  1 April 1991

  A full range of publicity material is available all year-round.

  Fire Safety Week

  14 October 1991

  5 days—Specific print material will be made available in support of National Fire Safety Week.

  Passports

  September/October

  Not confirmed.

  Prison Service Recruitment

  Autumn

  Up to 3 months.

  I will take this opportunity to correct an error in the table covering non-television publicity campaigns in the answer of 1 July at column 4. The figure for fire prevention and safety should be £1,064,000 and not £2,064,000. The other £1 million is accounted for by the television fire safety advertising mentioned above the table.

  Emergency Planning Review
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the review of emergency planning which was announced on 16 October 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My predecessor said in his statement on 16 October last year that he had received a report from Mr. David Brook, his civil emergencies adviser, on the role of local authorities in peacetime emergencies; and that he would be considering the report in conjunction with a review of the options for the future of our civil defence arrangements in the light of developments in east-west relations. This would enable us to consider whether a more coherent approach to emergency planning for the protection of the public in both peace and war could be achieved.

  The Government's commitment to civil defence remains firm. For our civil defence arrangements to continue to be relevant and effective the planning assumptions on which they are based must reflect the
  392
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Officials are working on proposals for the next crime prevention and fire safety television advertising campaigns. Timing and duration will depend on our assessment of what time of year offers the best value for money.

  Plans for non-television advertising publicity campaigns costing more than £100,000 are as follows:

  realities of international relations. Current civil defence planning concentrates on the effects of a major nuclear attack on the United Kingdom. The Government have decided that in future such civil defence plans should be maintained in such a state that they could be brought to full readiness within a period of three months. Essential plans should be capable of being put into effect within seven days. These assumptions will be kept under regular review.

  This change has to be viewed in the wider context of an international situation that remains troubled and far from risk-free. With the now reduced risk of nuclear conflict the Government believe that the time is right to develop more flexible civil defence arrangements. This approach will require a closer correlation between contingency plans for civil defence and peacetime emergencies.

  In his report Mr. Brook, the civil emergencies adviser, points to a number of shortcomings in local authority arrangements for dealing with peacetime disasters. Some local authorities are effective in their planning; others less so. Mr. Brook has identified particular problems of inadequate planning and co-ordination in some metropolitan areas. He has recommended to me that there should be new legislation on civil protection which would include a statutory duty on local authorities to plan, train and exercise for their role in mitigating the effects of peacetime disasters.
  393
  I am placing a summary of Mr. Brook's report in the Library.

  It is clearly unacceptable that some local authorities should be inadequately prepared to deal with a major peacetime emergency and I agree with Mr. Brook that the shortcomings that he has identified must be rectified. However, while I do not rule out the possibility of legislation in the longer term, there are obvious difficulties in introducing legislation affecting the duties of local authorities at a time when local government reorganisation is in prospect. I propose therefore to seek improvements in peacetime planning in the first instance by measures which are open to me under existing legislation. These changes will also bear positively on our arrangements for civil defence.

  It is against this background that I have taken the following decisions.

  I will seek to achieve improvements in local authority planning for emergencies in peace and war through a package of measures. These will include the issue of central guidance on the handling of peacetime emergencies; a review of the organisation of emergency planning within metropolitan areas; and a more flexible use of civil defence grant for local authorities to ensure a more broadly based planning. Mr. Brook already has the first of these measures in hand. On the second I will be asking officials to consider how arrangements in metropolitan areas can be improved within the existing statutory framework. The aim would be to involve the metropolitan districts and London boroughs in the planning process more than is sometimes the case at present.

  Local authority civil defence planning will in future be based on the more flexible approach I have already described. Its aims will be to ensure that all local authorities are able to continue to deliver the services for which they are responsible in peacetime in a wide range of possible civil defence emergencies. It will therefore be more relevant to peacetime disasters. I also propose to encourage local authorities to take full advantage of the provisions in existing legislation which permits the use of civil defence resources to carry out planning for peacetime disasters, provided that the Home Office is satisfied that they are making reasonable progress with civil defence planning.

  This approach should secure better value for money from civil defence grant to local authorities and, provided that this is forthcoming, I shall give a measure of protection to the grant within what will inevitably be a diminishing total expenditure on civil defence. But I shall expect local authorities to continue to make a contribution to emergency planning from their own resources; and I will be ready to withhold grant from any local authority which is inefficient in its use of grant or seeks to evade its civil defence responsibilities.

  A new system will be developed to monitor the changes in local authority planning, for which new objectives will be set. Local authorites will be given guidance in due course.

  I have concluded that while there is a continuing need for protected local authority emergency centres, the existing requirement for two such emergency centres in each county and one in each district is no longer realistic. I therefore intend to set a new minimum requirement of one protected centre per county.I shall give further
  394
  consideration, in consultation with local authorities, to the future of existing protected centres above this new minimum.

  The new civil defence planning assumptions, and the more flexible approach to civil defence which I wish to see developed, will require the further development of the emergency communications network. I am now prepared to extend the network to district council offices and to county council offices in those places where the protected emergency centre is remotely located. The rate at which this can be achieved will depend on the availability of resources.

  I have also looked at the role of the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation, including the Royal Observer Corps, taking into account changing civil defence requirements. I have decided that the arrangements for monitoring details of nuclear bursts and radioactive fall-out in wartime must be restructured. Certain of UKWMO's functions in this area will be carried out by central Government and integrated with existing local authority plans and responsibilities for monitoring in the field. We will be discussing with local authorities the implementation of these proposals.

  I have therefore concluded with regret that the Home Office can no longer justify the continued use of the ROC and Home Department volunteers for the monitoring task.

  It has therefore been decided, following consultations between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, who share responsibilities for the ROC, that the Corps will be stood down in its operational role.

  I must take this opportunity to pay tribute to the loyal and dedicated service the full-time officers and volunteers of the ROC have given over 36 years. The considerable time and effort invested by the members of the Corps is a measure of their commitment and professionalism. I should also recognise the dedication and hard work of the Home Office volunteers who have been involved in monitoring. I did not take lightly the decision to dispense with their, nor the ROC's, services. I am aware that they have all earned our gratitude and respect.

  My officials are currently reviewing the arrangements for warning taking into account possible peacetime needs and costs. I hope to make a further announcement soon.

  Since more time will be available in future to activate civil defence plans the level of day-to-day police and fire service war planning can be reduced. Preliminary discussions have already been held with the relevant police and fire service committees to work out how this is best achieved.

  These new arrangements will provide a major opportunity to improve arrangements for the protection of the public in peace and war. They will be developed by my Department in full consultation with those responsible for putting them into effect within the broad framework that I have set out in this statement.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing and Community Charge Benefits
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing, with columns for English regions and England, Scotland, Wales and
  395
  Northern Ireland an analysis of those elements of table 2 of Cm 1514 which are included within the housing and community charge benefits totals in table 3 of Cm 1514.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Figures in Cm 1514 relate to Great Britain; information concerning Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  £ million

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 estimated outturn

  Rent rebates:

  England

  1,864

  1,940

  1,986

  2,137

  2,265

  2,561

  Scotland

  225

  258

  291

  313

  349

  383

  Wales

  127

  134

  134

  148

  155

  152

  Rent rebates discretionary:

  England

  11

  11

  15

  4

  11

  10

  Scotland

  4

  5

  5

  1

  1

  2

  Wales

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Rent allowances:

  England

  781

  875

  888

  911

  1,089

  1,389

  Scotland

  55

  71

  89

  85

  104

  142

  Wales

  40

  49

  48

  53

  59

  74

  Rent allowances discretionary:

  England

  3

  3

  4

  1

  5

  4

  Scotland

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Housing benefit local authority administration:

  England

  136

  154

  193

  216

  233

  179

  Scotland

  13

  14

  19

  17

  20

  14

  Wales

  6

  7

  9

  8

  8

  8

  Community charge benefit local authority administration:

  England

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  139

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Other:

  England

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  —

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Total local authority expenditure

  3,268

  3,521

  3,682

  3,902

  4,304

  5,076

  Note: Figures may not sum to Cm 1514 Table 2 totals due to rounding.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table reconciling for the years 1985–86 to 1990–91 the figures for England, Scotland and Wales for housing and community charge benefits, as given in table 3 of Cm 1514, with those for housing benefits, as given in the Official Report, 28 March, column 516.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not possible to publish such a table because the information given in column 516 of the Official Report for 28 March was taken from the 1989 public expenditure White Paper (Cm 621), and is based on local authority returns which are subject to adjustment. The information given in table 3 of the departmental report (Cm 1514) is more recent and therefore includes subsequent adjustments.

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Rent rebates in new towns:

  England

  27

  28

  27

  27

  25

  19

  20

  21

  23

  396
  All benefit elements of table 2 of Cm 1514 are included within the housing and community charge benefit totals in table 3 of Cm 1514, and the administration elements of table 2 are included in the grand total of social security spending line of table 3. Information about English regions could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; the requested information for England, Scotland and Wales is in the table.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing, with columns for English regions and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an analysis of social security expenditure consistent with table 3 of Cm 1514.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Figures in Cm 1514 relate to Great Britain; information concerning Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  The information requested is not available except for housing benefit (transitional payments excepted) and community charge benefit. For rate rebate and community charge benefit I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 3 June 1991 at columns 113–14. The information for rent rebates and rent allowances is set out in the table.
  397

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Scotland

  34

  43

  47

  50

  50

  53

  58

  61

  64

  Wales

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Other rent rebates:

  England

  1,875

  1,951

  2,001

  2,140

  2,276

  2,571

  2,816

  3,011

  3,192

  Scotland

  229

  263

  296

  315

  351

  385

  438

  463

  482

  Wales

  128

  134

  135

  148

  155

  152

  195

  209

  217

  Rent allowances:

  England

  784

  877

  891

  913

  1,094

  1,393

  1,540

  1,732

  1,942

  Scotland

  56

  72

  89

  85

  105

  143

  128

  144

  161

  Wales

  40

  49

  49

  53

  59

  74

  83

  94

  105

  Note: Figures may not sum to Cm 1514 table 3 totals due to rounding.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the last annual report for the Resettlement Agency was published; and when the next one is due;

  (2) when the last annual report for the Information Technology Services Agency was published; and when the next one is due;

  (3) when the last annual report for the Benefits Agency was published; and when the next one is due;

  (4) when the last annual report for the Contributions Agency was published; and when the next one is due.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The chief executive of each of the Department's executive agencies will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. McAnion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the quality of service performance indicators adopted by each agency in his Department since its establishment as an executive agency; and if he will identify separately those quality of service performance indicators already operative prior to agency status.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The targets set for the Department's four executive agencies—the Benefits Agency, Contributions Agency, Information Technology Services Agency and Resettlement Agency—are set out in each agency's business plan, copies of which are in the Library.

  We have for some time set quality of service targets covering many aspects of the service that we provide for our customers. Since their establishment, a new customer satisfaction target has been set for the Benefits Agency, and the Contributions Agency has been set new targets for the registration of personal pension applications and for the handling of inquiries from employers and contributors and about personal pensions.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are refused family credit because at the time of their claim they are receiving statutory sick pay and are therefore not deemed to be undertaking remunerative work.

  Mr. Jack
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that during the quarter to the end of June 1991 18,057 claims for family credit were disallowed on the grounds that no member of the family was engaged in remunerative work. Separate information is not available as to how many of those were cases where people were receiving statutory sick pay.

  Attendance Allowance Unit, Blackpool
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will take steps to ensure that his Department's attendance allowance unit, North Fylde Central office, Norcross, Blackpool FY5 3TA, responds with expedition to correspondence from members of the public; and if he will ensure that an acknowledgement card is sent at an early date;

  (2) what is the average wait a member of the general public experiences before a reply is received from the attendance allowance unit, Department of Social Security, North Fylde central office, Norcross, Blackpool FY5 3TA.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information office.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what regulations govern the payment of family credit to families where the breadwinner is receiving statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Jack
  The relevant regulations arise out of the basic qualifying condition for family credit in section 2015)(b) of the Social Security Act 1986 that a person must be "engaged and normally engaged in remunerative work". The circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated as engaged or normally engaged in remunerative work are prescribed in the Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987, as amended, including the requirement in regulation 5(1) that a person shall be treated as engaged in remunerative work only if he carries out activities in the course of his work for not less than 24 hours in the week of the claim or in either of the two weeks immediately preceding the week of the claim, and he is employed at the date of the claim.

  Section 20(6) of the Act provides that family credit awards last for 26 weeks and are unaffected by changes of circumstances during that period, so that if a person who is already receiving family credit becomes sick, his award will continue unchanged to the end of the 26-week period irrespective of whether statutory sick pay becomes payable.

  Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what other benefits families unable to claim family credit because the breadwinner is off work sick are able to claim.
  399
  Mr. Jack
  Employees who are off work sick may be entitled to statutory sick pay from their employer. If there is no entitlement to SSP, or title has run out, sickness/invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance, including dependency additions where appropriate, may be claimed. Subject to the family's circumstances, there may also be entitlement to income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Income Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support in each Newcastle social security office have arrangements for (1) direct payment of housing costs, (2) attachment of community charge, (3) direct re-payments to the social fund, (4) direct payments to the electricity companies and (5) direct payments to British Gas.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements exist to ensure that items for which social fund loans or grants have been made are not subject to distraint by bailiffs seeking community charge arrears.

  Mr. Scott
  After they have obtained a court order to recover arrears, local authorities may ask the Department to make deductions from income support, which most social fund applicants receive. Distraint is one of the other options available to local authorities, and bailiffs will be guided by the general law on distraint.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints have been received from members of the public in respect of the low-level aerobatic display performed by a Tornado F-3 aircraft at Royal Air Force Leeming on 26 June.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  One.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of complaints received from members of the public within a 25 mile radius of Royal Air Force Leeming since Tornado squadrons have been stationed by year since 1988 to the latest date he has available for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Central records are not maintained in a form that would enable the information sought to be provided.

  Service Men (Executions)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and locations of each execution of British service men since 1961, with the offence in each case; and if he will make a statement.
  400
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No British service men have been executed since 1961.

  Aerobatic Display, Whitby Regatta
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that the Royal Air Force Red Arrows aerobatic team should provide a display for the regatta in Whitby, North Yorkshire as a duty engagement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Requests for displays by the Red Arrows are considered on an annual basis. The Red Arrows are scheduled to appear at the Whitby regatta on 10 August 1991, but no commitments can he made regarding future years.

  Injured Grenadiers
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated present value equivalent award of the sum he gave to the House in the Adjournment debate on 3 June,Official Report, column 136, assuming death occurs at age 25, 35, 45 and 55 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated present value equivalent awards would be as follows:

  £

  Death occurring at age 25

  17,700

  Death occurring at age 35

  73,000

  Death occurring at age 45

  110,000

  Death occurring at age 55

  134,000

  Anglo-French Co-operation (Training)
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military service personnel are studying in French defence colleges; and how many French military service personnel are studying in British defence colleges.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This year four British service personnel and four French service personnel are attending courses at defence colleges in France and the United Kingdom respectively.

  ASLP Missile System
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department is having with the French Defence Ministry about the development of the ASLP missile system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are studying both United States and French systems as possible replacements for the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb. The ASLP missile is being considered in this context, and we are maintaining contact with the French Ministry of Defence as necessary.

  RAF Boxer Network
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the total cost of the RAF Boxer network.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The estimated cost of the RAF Boxer network, including all associated works services, is £230 million at 1991 economic conditions.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to how many local planning authorities he has
  401
  submitted notices of proposed development in respect of the Boxer network; and if he will publish a list of those authorities.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has submitted notices of proposed development to 92 local planning authorities in respect of the Boxer network. I am unable to provide a list of these authorities for the reasons I gave to my hon. Friend in my reply of 12 June 1991,Official Report, column 606–7.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 82, if he will list the commencement date and duration of each publicity campaign.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Royal Navy
  Production of a television recruiting advertisement and television advertising campaign—planned for four weeks in September-October 1991.

  Army
  Television recruiting campaign–24 June to 15 July 1991.
  Cinema recruiting campaign—3 August to mid-October 1991.
  Press campaign in support of above—mid July for two months.

  Territorial Army
  Combined TV-Press recruiting campaign highlighting the range of week-end activities in the Territorial Army—four weeks in October 1991 and in February 1992.
  A press campaign to recruit specialist personnel—four weeks in October 1991 and in February 1992.

  Tri-service
  Press campaign to thank employers for releasing Volunteer Reserve Forces personnel during the Gulf crisis —18–23 June 1991.
  Campaign to increase public awareness of Volunteer Reserve Forces and employers' support for them—four weeks in November-December 1991.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to establish further city technology colleges in Stockton, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans for the establishment of further city technology colleges in Stockton, Middlesbrough or Hartlepool. However, he would be willing to consider such proposals on their merits. In the meantime Macmillan college Teesside provides an excellent example of the benefits of a CTC education for pupils in Cleveland.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider alternative methods by which schools applying for grant-maintained status may become city technology colleges.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 3 July, we intend to create a new kind of school by enabling existing LEA-maintained and grant-maintained schools to apply to become grant-maintained technology schools and colleges. These will 402
  incorporate the key characteristics of city technology colleges. They will focus on technology in relation to any area of the curriculum and receive financial support from private sector sponsors.

  Territorial Officials
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of territorial officers in his Department, together with their location, grades, the territories they cover and their total cost; and if he will make a statement on their duties.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of 189 officers in the Department from grade 7 downwards have duties organised wholly or partly on a territorial basis. Their duties vary with the nature of the post, but broadly consist of liaison on a range of matters with a number of authorities or institutions in a specific geographical area. The estimated total cost is £3,250,000 per annum.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of local education authorities which are operating policies of minimal statementing with regard to pupils who may have special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  We have no evidence that local education authorities are operating policies of minimal statementing irrespective of the needs of individual children. Where a child's needs are so assessed and the outcome of that assessment leads the local education authority to conclude that they should determine the special educational provision to he made for him they must make a statement of his special educational needs.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any action has been taken against any local education authority with regard to its implementation of those parts of the Education Act 1981 which refer to children with special needs.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend receives appeals under sections 5(6) and 8(6) of the Education Act 1981 and complaints under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 in relation to the discharge by local education authorities of their duties under the Education Act 1981. He has powers of direction under both Acts which he uses in appropriate cases.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many complaints under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 he has received since 1 April 1983 in respect of local education authorities refusing to undertake assessments of children's needs under section 5 of the Education Act 1981; and in how many cases he has found in the complainant's favour and instructed the local education authority to undertake formal assessment.

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

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many complaints under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 and appeals under section 8 of the Education Act 1981 he has received since 1 April 1983 in relation to local education authorities' failure to
  403
  specify in sufficient detail the provision to be made under section 3 of a statement to meet a child's special educational needs; and in how many of these cases he has instructed local education authorities to redraft the relevant section 3.

  Mr. Fallon
  Between April 1983 and December 1990 there have been 246 appeals in England under section 8(6) of the Education Act 1981. Decisions have been reached in 168 cases. In 44 of these cases the Secretary of State has amended the special educational provision specified in the child's statement.

  Information about the number of complaints received under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many appeals he has received in each year since 1983 relating to section 5(6) of the Education Act 1981 against a local education authority's decision not to issue a statement of special educational needs; and in how many of these cases he has upheld the parents' appeal and instructed a local education authority to issue a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Between April 1983 and December 1990 there have been 259 appeals in England under section 5(6) of the Education Act 1981. The following table lists by year the number of appeals received and the number of cases where the Secretary of State directed the local education authority to reconsider its decision not to issue a statement of special educational needs.

  Year

  Appeals received

  LEA directed to reconsider

  1983

  4

  1

  1984

  19

  0

  1985

  21

  0

  1986

  28

  3

  1987

  36

  2

  1988

  37

  6

  1989

  50

  2

  1990

  64

  12

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he treats as learning difficulty as set out in legislation; and what he treats as special educational needs which can be met from provision ordinarily available in schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The term learning difficulty is defined in the Education Act 1981. A child has a learning difficulty if he has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age; or he has a disability which either prevents or hinders him from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided in schools, within the area of the local authority concerned, for children of his age; or he is under the age of five years and is, or would be if special educational provision were not made for him, likely to have learning difficulties as just described when over that age.

  It is for individual local education authorities to decide which special educational needs can be met from provision ordinarily available in their schools.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what advice his Department gives on the role of parents in contributing to and challenging the outcome of non-statutory assessment procedures for children's special educational needs;
  404
  (2) what guidance he gives on the form of non-statutory assessment of children with special needs for whom section 5 assessment is not thought appropriate.

  Mr. Fallon
  The procedures for non-statutory assessments, including arrangements for the involvement of parents, are the responsibility of local education authorities. The Department is currently funding a project called "Partnership in Assessment". The project is being undertaken by the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children and is intended to identify good practice for parental involvement in the assessment of children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the schools in which observations of work with pupils with statements of special educational need formed the basis of the comment which accompanies the table in annexe A of his Department's circular No. 11/90.

  Mr. Fallon
  The table at annexe A of DES circular 11/90 is derived from observations made by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools of classroom work which they saw as promoting effective learning and care for various groups of pupils. Account was taken of group size, availability of staff and to some extent the total intensity of demand made upon staff by the group as a whole. These observations were gathered from many school inspections carried out over a number of years.

  Court Judgments
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the criteria on which his Department decides which court judgments to publicise via the circulation of letters to chief education officers.

  Mr. Fallon
  Letters relating to court judgments are sent to chief education officers in cases where there are important implications for local education authorities' future practice.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to prevent the language in the national curriculum report from being used in teacher-training and other educational establishments.

  Mr. Eggar
  Language in the national curriculum materials should be used only in the context of in-service training programmes, where materials can be discussed and challenged. They were not designed for and are not for use in the classroom.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the principal authors and institutions with which his Department contracted in respect of the language in the national curriculum project and report, together with the sums paid to each.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's contract for the production of the training materials and the central co-ordination of the training programme was placed with the university of Nottingham, at a cost of some £120,000. The project is under the direction of Professor Ronald Carter, who took full editorial responsibility for the training package.
  405
  The LINC project itself included a central Government grant to support LEA expenditure of £21 million over three years. These funds were provided under the education support grant programme to assist the introduction of the national curriculum.

  1991 Public Expenditure Survey
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will publish the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils relating to the 1991 public expenditure survey;

  (2) whether he has received the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils relating to the 1991 public expenditure survey; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received from the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils concerning publication of the board's advice relating to the 1991 public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend received the Advisory Board for the Research Council's advice on this year's public expenditure survey on 8 May. He intends, as last year, to treat the advice on a confidential basis, in common with the corresponding advice which he receives from the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. He has received no representations from the chairman of the ABRC about publication of the board's advice on the 1991 survey.

  Contracts (Quality Requirements)
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department inserts quality requirements into contracts awarded to academic institutions which would enable him to recover moneys spent on inadequate work.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department uses a standard form of contract for education research projects which includes appropriate forms of protection for its interests and the use of the taxpayer's money. These include the specification of the work to be performed and its timing; provisions for inspection and steering of the work; control over the product of the study; and arrangements for early termination when needed. Payments are usually made in arrears depending on progress made.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 43–44, if he will list the commencement date and duration of each advertising campaign.

  Mr. Eggar
  The teacher recruitment campaign was launched on 1 July. Television advertising for this campaign will last for a period of three weeks and advertisements in the national press for four weeks. In addition, in the autumn, advertisements will appear in the national press for four weeks and in cinemas in sleeted towns during six alternating weeks. The exact dates for these have yet to be decided.

  It is unlikely that the publicity campaign to provide parents with information about changes in the education system will include any paid advertising. The timing and duration of this campaign has yet to be decided.
  406
  The professional, industrial and commercial updating (PICKUP) programme does not involve advertising.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future organisation of the National Curriculum Council.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As the National Curriculum Council moves into the next phase of its work, I see advantage in separating the roles of chairman and chief executive. Mr. Duncan Graham has himself seen this stage of the process as a time for change and he will retire from the NCC with effect from 19 August. From that date I am appointing Mr. David Pascall as part-time chairman of the National Curriculum Council. The appointment will be for one year in the first instance, renewable thereafter. Mr. Pascal] is manager of BP Exploration Control and Business Simplification Programmes. He has been a member of the council since August 1990. It will be for the council to appoint a full-time chief executive, with my approval, under the provisions of schedule 2 to the Education Reform Act 1988.

HEALTH

  Discharge Arrangements
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken in monitoring the implementation of health circular 89/5 on discharge arrangements.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is for regions to ensure that district health authorities implement the procedures for discharge set out in health circular 89(5), a copy of which is available in the Library. Action by special health authorities is being followed up by the Department through the quality control and business planning process.

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in hospitals by the national health service in 1961 and in 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The method of collecting in-patient case statistics changed in 1988–89. Until that date statistics were collected on discharges and deaths from hospital. From 1988–89 they were collected as "finished consultant episodes" and included well babies who had formerly been excluded. The relevant figures are:

  Cases treated in NHS hospitals

  Discharges and deaths

  Finished consultant episodes

  1961

  4,035,000

  —

  1988–89

  6,586,000

  7,335,000

  1989–90

  —

  7,477,000

  AIDS
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to publish statistics on the spread of AIDS in inner cities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The spread of the human immunodeficiency virus which is the cause of AIDS cart be
  407
  monitored through voluntary confidential reports on AIDS and HIV infection received by the Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre. CDSC is currently analysing this by inner-city areas and such information should be available during the autumn of this year.

  The first results from the anonymised HIV surveys, published on 17 May, indicated that the overall prevalence of HIV infection in women attending certain ante-natal clinics in inner London is one in 500. Among people attending certain sexually transmitted disease clinics in inner London prevalence is one in 500 among heterosexual women, one in 100 heterosexual men and one in five for homosexual-bisexual men. Further results will be published as they become available.

  Life Expectancy
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current estimate for the life expectancy of males and females at birth for each district health authority; and what was the estimate for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tower Hamlets
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths and discharges there were from national health service hospitals in Tower Hamlets with the principal diagnosis relating to alcohol for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list hospital and ward closures in Tower Hamlets for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. Richard Brew, the chairman of Tower Hamlets health authority, for details.

  Senile Dementia
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each district health authority in London the number of people suffering from senile dementia aged(a) up to 65 years of age, (b) 66 to 75 years, (c) 76 to 85 years and (d) over 86 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  Artificial Limbs
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued by his Department to district health authorities on their responsibility to provide artificial limbs and appliances for those people who need them.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Our planning guidance to health authorities over the last three years has drawn attention to these services as they transferred from central management to local control. We have emphasised the importance of maintaining them by ring-fencing their budget until April 1993. We also announced last week the setting up of an advisory group on rehabilitation: one of its tasks will be to monitor this area.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations have taken place since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table. The total does not include figures for 1987–88 as reliable data for this period are not available centrally. The figure for 1988–89 is estimated and may be revised following further analysis.

  Estimated number of principal operations performed. Ordinary admissions and day cases, NHS hospitals. England 1979 to 1988–89

  All patient's total hip replacement and other arthroplasty of hip

  Number

  1979

  28,788

  1980

  31,660

  1981

  32,775

  1982

  33,171

  1983

  36,232

  1984

  36.926

  1985

  36,539

  1986

  41,000

  1988–89

  41,947

  Total

  319,038

  NHS Trusts
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans exist for monitoring standards of care within national health service trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  District health authorities and fund-holding GPs, as purchasers of services, will set quality standards as part of their contracts with hospitals and other units, whether NHS trusts or directly managed units. Community health councils will continue to have access to trusts within their area of responsibility.

  Continence Services
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the report of the review of continence services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have now received the report. "An Agenda for Action on Continence Services", and have placed copies in the Library. The report sets out information on the current state of continence services. It concludes that while there are examples of well-planned and co-ordinated local services, their availability is patchy. It identifies the key features of an effective local service and recommends that these should form the basis of planning and service delivery in all health districts and local authority areas in accordance with established departmental guidelines. It also recommends central action over the next few years to promote greater professional and public awareness of continence problems and the scope for tackling them, and to commission and disseminate the results of research to evaluate selected service patterns.

  Copies of the report will be sent to health service managers and directors of social services with a letter emphasising the key messages for local service planning and provision.

  We will take steps to implement the report's recommendations, for example—research on cost effectiveness and extending the training of nurses and other health professionals.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards establishing his Department's medicines control agency as an executive agency.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am pleased to announce that the Medicines Control Agency will be established as the second executive agency of the Department of Health on 11 July. The agency's role is to act on behalf of Ministers, the licensing authority, to safeguard public health by controlling medicines. It does this through a system of licensing, classification, monitoring and enforcement which ensures that medicines are of acceptable standards of safety, quality and efficacy. The agency's detailed aim, objectives and functions are set out in a framework document, copies of which will be placed in the Library. In accordance with next steps principles, the agency will be free to propose further adaptations to it if changing circumstances make this appropriate.

  The chief executive has been set a number of key performance targets for 1991–92, These cover:

  —standards of safety and quality;

  —standards of service

  —standards of financial control and efficiency.

  A copy of the agency's business plan, in which the targets are detailed, will be placed in the Library.

  Over the coming years, I will be setting the agency a range of performance targets to ensure that it continues to deliver improvements in the quality and efficiency of its work in the interests of the public health.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those district health authorities which currently provide an occupant-controlled powered outdoor wheelchair to disabled people who require one; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A pilot study in northern and north western regions during 1989–90 confirmed the obvious value of powered indoor-outdoor wheelchairs for those able to benefit from them. We expect district health authorities, which have the responsibility for meeting the health needs of their populations, to extend their introduction wherever priorities allow. We do not collect the information centrally.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from learned societies in dentistry and anaethesiology regarding the appropriateness of out-patient general anaesthesia in dental practice outside hospital; if he will place both the representations he has received and his response in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Darrell
  The 29 learned bodies listed in the table submitted comments on a report to the standing dental advisory committee by an expert working party in general anaesthesia, sedation and resuscitation in dentistry. The report recommended that, while the use of general anaesthesia should be avoided wherever possible, it should continue to be available outside hospitals, provided certain standards are maintained. This principle was generally endorsed by the learned bodies which commented, as were many of the detailed recommendations.
  410
  The report was issued as a consultation document. It is currently being considered in the light of the 138 responses received.

  Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. British Dental Association.

  BDA East Midland Branch.

  BDA—Northern Ireland Office.

  BDA Wessex Branch.

  British Medical Association.

  British Postgraduate Medical Foundation—Institute of Dental Surgery.

  British Paedodontic Society.

  British Society for Dentistry for the Handicapped.

  College of Anaesthetists and Faculty of Dental Surgery.

  Dental Sub-Committee of North West Regional Medical Committee.

  General Dental Council.

  General Dental Practioners' Association.

  General Medical Council.

  General Medical Services Committee.

  Joint Consultants Committee.

  King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry. King's College, London.

  National Association of Administrative Dental Officers.

  North Western Administrative Dental Officers Group.

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.

  Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Department of Anaesthetics.

  Society for the Advancement of Anaesthesia in Dentistry.

  The Association of Dental Anaesthetists.

  The Royal College of General Practitioners.

  UMDS Guy's Hospital Dental School, Department of Orthodontics and Dentistry for Children.

  University of Manchester, Turner Dental School.

  University of Sheffield, Charles Clifford Dental Hospital.

  University of Wales College of Medicine Dental School.

  Wessex Region Postgraduate Dental Education Committee.

  Duromine
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is satisfied with the safety of the drug Duromine; and what evidence he has of adverse short-term side effects among patients taking it.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Following the introduction of licensing of medicinal products, the safety of Duromine, an established product, was reviewed and a reviewed product licence was issued in 1984. The licensed use is restricted to short-term administration as an adjunct to the treatment of moderate to severe obesity of some patients for whom close control and supervision should be provided. As the product is a prescription medicine, it would be used only after the prescriber had weighed the expected benefit against the possible risks to the particular patient. I am satisfied that the product, when used in accordance with the licensed particulars, should not expose the patient to an unacceptable level of risk.

  Potentially, any drug may cause side-effects which may be minor or more serious. The established side-effects that are associated with a licensed medicinal product are detailed in the licence and are provided to prescribers in the data sheet distributed by the company marketing the product. The Committee on Safety of Medicines encourages prescribers to report serious adverse reactions which they suspect may have been due to an established drug and all reactions to new drugs. In the case of Duromine, there have been 61 reports of suspected adverse reactions since 1966; reactions are not classified into long and short-term effects. The report of an adverse reaction does not necessarily imply a causal effect. Information on adverse effects to Duromine is also to be found in published medical literature.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the specific assistance provided by his Department for people suffering from epilepsy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities have a duty to assess the health needs in their areas and to make provision. They provide a range of services for people with epilepsy; these are complemented by local authority social services. Responsibility for providing services rests with these local bodies rather than directly with the Department.

  Trading Agencies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost, both capital and revenue, of moving the Northern regional health authority engineering design group trading agency to new premises.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the Northern regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Carr, the chairman of the Northern regional health authority, for details.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to health authorities covering the conflicts of interest both of organisations and individual staff where non-national health service agencies assume the management responsibility for national health service trading agencies; and whether these non-national health service agencies are subject to the scrutiny of the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Management responsibility for national health service trading agencies rests with the national 412
  health service. Where officials have been seconded to NHS trading agencies from the private sector they are accountable to senior NHS management.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 54, if he will list the commencement date and duration of each publicity campaign.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Current phases of the publicity campaigns listed in my reply to the hon. Member of 1 July at column 54 began in April 1991 and are all ongoing with the exception of "The Health of the Nation" Green Paper campaign which will end by 31 October 1991.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)Official Report, 27 June, column 547, for what reason Yorkshire Water ceased to supply fluoridated water on 31 October 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 July 1991]: Yorkshire Water informed Huddersfield district health authority on 18 April 1989 that it was withdrawing from the agreement to fluoridate water supplied by the Longwood and Holmbridge/Digley water treatment works because at the time agreement had not yet been reached with Government about the wording of a suitable guarantee/ indemnity against any costs or liabilities which water undertakers might incur. Subsequently the water industry accepted the form of indemnity which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was empowered to provide under the Water Act 1989.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Bishop of Peterborough.
Viscount De L'Isle— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

UN Weapons Treaty: Ratification
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have not ratified the United Nations convention on the prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects which they signed and presented to Parliament in 1981; and why they signed it, if they had no intention of ratifying it.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Answer is still the same as that which I gave to the noble Lord on 19th June. We have every intention of ratifying when our consideration is complete.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain to the House why after 10 years of consideration the Government have not ratified the convention? Is he aware that a large number of nations, including France, the Soviet Union and China, have done so? What on earth is the cause of the 10-year delay? When the convention was presented to this House by the Government there was no suggestion that 10 years later it would remain unratified.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that too is a remarkably similar question to the one asked by the noble Lord on 19th June. The answer is exactly the same. We are considering the matter in the light of the recent Gulf war.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, that is not a satisfactory answer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the consequences of the Gulf conflict must be a factor in the Government's deliberations on the matter, can the noble Earl say what progress has been made in assessing Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, considerable progress has been made on that specific and detailed issue. We wish to progress the matter to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this country has a well-earned reputation among well-earned people for not signing conventions that it does not intend to implement? In that way Britain
1390
distinguishes itself from a large number of other countries. Would it not be a pity if we allowed our standards to slip?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We must be careful and check precisely all the details of any convention that we intend to ratify.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister may be interested to know that some of us believe that at the time of Saddam Hussein and all that he stood for, it was good that we had the necessary weapons utterly and completely to destroy him.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we pay enormous tribute to all those who handled the weapons and are grateful for the services we have available.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, mentioned some countries that have ratified the treaty. Will the Minister confirm that, of the 54 countries that signed, fewer than half have ratified it? It has not been ratified by the NATO alliance, with the exception of two of its members. The Question tabled by the noble Lord implies that we are in some way alone. Will the noble Earl confirm that we are not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that we are certainly not alone. As I said on a previous occasion not long ago, the United States is still considering ratification, so also is Germany; France has ratified only two out of the three protocols. As the noble Lord rightly says, discussion is continuing within NATO.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl could help some of us. I do not know what weapons are encompassed in the Question. Do they include napalm and phosphorus? If so, can he say what considerations the Government have in mind when considering whether to ratify the convention?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that phosphorus and napalm are two of the weapons being considered. It is probably not the right time to tell him exactly the considerations being taken into account, save to say that we want the minimum possible loss of life in the event of those weapons having to be used.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, while the noble Earl may not wish to give the House the exact details of why the matter has been held up for 10 years, can he give us some idea why this country—unusually as far as we are concerned—has failed to ratify the convention? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, put the matter before the House 10 years ago. If he were here today he would probably express surprise that 10 years later it remains unratified. Can the Minister give us a little more information?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I explained fully the reasons why there has been a delay in the considerations undertaken at the moment. The Gulf

1391
conflict is one of the areas that we are looking at. We are also discussing the matter with our partners in NATO.

Eastern Europe: Pollution
2.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they are helping East European nations to reduce industrial pollution.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have provided advice and assistance to the Polish and Czech environment Ministers, and to officials from these and other East European countries. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment attended the Environment for Europe conference of East and West European environment Ministers in Czechoslovakia last month and announced that £5 million would be made available to support environmental regeneration in Eastern Europe.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, including the announcement of the figure by the British Government. For years factories in Eastern Europe have been allowed to emit noxious pollution. Although the United Kingdom has the expertise, has agreement been reached on how the costs—and in future they will be extensive—will be borne for modifications and renewals, which will also improve conditions in parts of Western Europe?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the important point is that we must be in a position to help these countries to help themselves. One of the conclusions of the conference was that the East European countries would be best served by a democratic political system, with free market economies, where governments set high environmental standards and industry provides the economic growth and the investment necessary to meet those standards. We are also giving Eastern Europe multilateral assistance through the various EC funds, the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and also through the Government's know-how fund.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, although we welcome the announcement about the £5 million, can the noble Viscount tell us the priorities that have been set within that sum? I know that all the money is to be spent on environmental advice, but can the Minister say how it is to be prioritised? He referred to the Foreign Office know-how fund. Can he tell us why that particular fund does not include any money for environmental advice, although it includes a whole list of other things? As regards the money which we give through the PHARE programme can the Minister say how that money is allocated? Although we have general figures, we have very little idea how the money is spent.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the programme involving £5 million announced by the Secretary of
1392
State will be over three years. It will contribute to improving environmental management through institutional building at government level by training in and exposure to British expertise in a number of environmental fields. These will include environmental legislation, industry, pollution control, monitoring, environmental audit, nature conservation and the organisation of the environmental sector. As regards the know-how fund, that is bilateral assistance. I cannot be specific on how much of it will affect specific environmental matters. However, we spent £15 million on Eastern Europe in 1990–91. The commitment has doubled to £30 million for 1991–92. The Soviet fund has been allocated £20 million over two years, beginning in April 1991. As regards the EC, we believe that more than 20 per cent. of the 1990 budget of £360 million was spent in the environmental field. The budget for 1991 is about £595 million, and £700 million is foreseen for 1992.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the noble Viscount appreciate that effective pollution control cannot be achieved by any simplistic measure and that it requires the involvement of Western industrial technology throughout the productive process? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government give serious consideration to the Polish suggestion, which I raised in this House on 3rd June, regarding the exchange of equity in Polish industry for external debt? That would thereby involve British firms intimately throughout the productive process and give us something in return for the debt.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the environment Ministers of the Czech Republic and Poland visited this country late last year. Through the Department of Trade and Industry we support British companies with advice and consultation for the work that they can do in those countries. The suggestion that the noble Lord has made is a general and interesting one, but it is not purely a matter of the environmental issue.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that we need the correct combination of stick and carrot in this context? He has outlined the proposals which provide the carrot, but what about the stick? There should be no entry to the EC until solid beginnings and results have been shown for the reduction of pollution.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Earl makes an interesting point. We have a substantial programme offering carrots at almost every turn of the corner. We shall want to see how that works before we start looking at the stick.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the once golden sands of the north-east coast of England are now black from deposits of coal waste? Although I concede that the North East of England is not Eastern Europe, can the noble Viscount give me one good reason why the same help should not be given to our own country as now applies to Eastern Europe?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have a substantial programme of environmental protection in this country which is much greater than that which we are offering to any country in Eastern Europe.

HMS "Endurance": Future
2.48 p.m.
Lord Shackleton Lord Shackleton asked Her Majesty's Government:
When, in view of the leading role of the United Kingdom in the Antarctic Treaty and current negotiations to agree a protocol regarding minerals exploitation, they will announce their decision on the future of HMS "Endurance" and on the procurement of a modern replacement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, HMS "Endurance" has entered her routine maintenance period on return from the Antarctic. She will have an extensive structural survey during this period and a decision on her deployment this winter will clearly depend on the results of that survey. The requirement for a replacement is being considered and no decision has yet been taken.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware of the reply given in another place in which doubts were expressed particularly with regard to the metallurgical examination of a plate; yet the vessel had a full and extensive survey before she went south in 1990. What has now happened to cause the doubts on the part of the Government with regard to HMS "Endurance"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I have just said, HMS "Endurance" entered a docking period last month. This is a routine docking period to prepare her for deployment this winter. Since the collision with an iceberg in 1989 it has been normal practice for annual docking to include a detailed survey of the structure and metallurgical condition of the hull. That is now going on. I cannot therefore give an absolute assurance that she will be deployed this winter. HMS "Endurance" is an elderly ship by any standards and is used in very demanding conditions. I am sure your Lordships agree that the safety of the ship and her crew must be paramount and we must therefore await the results of the survey before we can take final decisions.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, in that case why did the Minister send down HMS "Endurance" in the last season: A structural survey has been completed and now there has to be a metallurgical examination of one of the plates. What has happened? Why was it not done be fore? It is very curious in view of the expressed doubts on the part of the Government about the future of HMS "Endurance".
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, when the survey was conducted last year she was found to be seaworthy and that is why she was again sent down to the Antarctic.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend give an assurance that if the repairs on this ship are not effective she will be replaced by a similar ship with a similar role?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot give that assurance because we have to see precisely what is the result of the structural survey. Until then, no decision can be taken.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in view of the noble Earl's last reply, do the Government agree that we should continue to show the flag in the Antarctic?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the noble Lord is particularly referring to the Falklands, the situation has now changed. We have a larger naval presence and also a bigger air strip in that area.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, can the Minister say whether this shilly-shallying about HMS "Endurance" or her replacement is down to the intervention of the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office or the Treasury? Will the Minister bear in mind that the previous Prime Minister would never have allowed such nonsense and apparent wavering towards betraying a vital British interest by not having a replacement for HMS "Endurance"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards the final decision, obviously there will be close consultation between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, apart from the importance of Antarctica and the protocol, and the current condition of HMS "Endurance", does not the Minister feel that within the British Navy there should be just one ship which can withstand the pressure of ice?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that all such considerations, one of which he just outlined, will be taken into consideration.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, does the Minister understand—and do the Government understand—that in saying, first, that he cannot undertake that HMS "Endurance" will return and, secondly, that he can give no undertaking that a ship will replace her, he is repeating the folly that led to the invasion of the Falklands in 1982? Although that is not likely to happen now will the Government please realise that those kinds of words that are used by government spokesmen are studied with great care in Argentina? No inference must be drawn of any sort that the United Kingdom is losing any interest in that part of the Antarctic or in the Falkland Islands. Will the Minister please indicate that the Government are determined to preserve sovereignty in that area?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the strength of feeling in your Lordships' House on this matter. I hope that I have not misled the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, either in the past or now. I understand the very serious point that he is making. Such a point will obviously be taken into very profound consideration before a decision is taken.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, on the question of the ultimate decision, is the indecision arising from possible doubts on the structure of HMS "Endurance" itself, or the difficulty of getting what is called a modern replacement?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, a very serious structural survey is now being undertaken. As I have already said, no decision can be made until the results of that survey are available.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the answers he gives from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government create serious doubt in the minds of your Lordships, and elsewhere? Is it not time that the Government took a firm decision that if the existing ship—and we agree she is old—cannot sail to the Antarctic, a support ship for the British Antarctic Survey is necessary not only for the Antarctic survey but for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams, very clearly on this but, as I have just tried to indicate to your Lordships, such possibilities are, and will be, taken very carefully into account before a conclusion is reached.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, can the Minister comment on reports that part of the delay in this decision is caused by the problem of deciding upon which vote HMS "Endurance" should be carried? There are arguments about whether it should be there for the Antarctic survey, for Foreign Office purposes or for Ministry of Defence purposes. If there is anything in this report, is it not time that somebody knocked some heads together?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, obviously a decision as regards the future of HMS "Endurance" will be taken as soon as possible. As I have already said, full consultation will take place between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands are very keen that either HMS "Endurance" or a ship of similar calibre should be in the South Atlantic?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am certain that the feelings of the islanders will also be taken into consideration in this matter.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am not sure that the question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was answered specifically. It required a straightforward "yes" or "no". Either HMS "Endurance" will endure or, if not, will the noble Earl kindly indicate that she will be replaced by a ship that will endure?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have to make clear to my noble friend that no decision has yet been taken on a replacement.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that it is now public knowledge that two leading departments of the Government disagree on
1396
this matter, as they did in 1981? Does he agree that it really is necessary to avoid any further embarrassment both nationally and internationally and that it is time for the Prime Minister to intervene and sort out the matter, as ultimately had to happen in 1982?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have to say to my noble friend, as I have already said many times, that full consultation will take place between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, to raise a new point: does the Minister agree that the purpose of HMS "Endurance" and our influence in sovereignty in the Antarctic would be clearer if she were to be described in future as the British Antarctic territory's patrol ship instead of merely as an ice patrol ship?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is certainly an interesting suggestion.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question to which he may or may not have an answer? Is he aware that a perfectly suitable ship, at a reasonable price—the "Polar Circle"—has been offered and is available? Has the Admiralty or Ministry of Defence considered that possibility? I can give the Minister the details as I have them here. It is a very suitable ship and very much better than HMS "Endurance". What has happened to any consideration of that vessel?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am aware of that offer, but I can certainly say that the Ministry of Defence has not processed that particular option. However, we are aware that it does exist.

Libraries
2.59 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support any plans by local authorities to transfer public libraries to private enterprise.
Lord Hesketh: No, my Lords.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am not sure whether it will reassure old people in particular, for whom the public library is in some cases almost a lifeline when they lose their mobility. Does he feel that the Government are fulfilling their obligation under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to maintain an efficient and comprehensive service? If there is a move towards transferring public libraries to private enterprise, will the Government be able to fulfil that obligation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Viscount has in some ways anticipated my reply. In the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 this issue is sacrosanct. The reality is that, if there is a possibility of competitive tendering to increase efficiency and to provide more funds elsewhere, the Government

1397
support it. However, as he rightly pointed out, the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 clearly sets out the statutory responsibilities of local authorities.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is one of the most reactionary suggestions made in the House for some time? Is it not an insult to Carnegie and other public spirited people who provided these libraries which have served the community for so long and will, I hope, continue to do so for many years to come?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in truth it would be fair to say that there can be no more capitalist or privatised library than any Carnegie Library founded by the great man.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in intervening I must declare a financial interest as the recipient of a tiny income through the admirable Public Lending Right Act. It seems to me that the Minister might go a little further. What worries many people is reports of councils which find that they are trespassing into the private field by engaging in activities such as hiring out videos, whatever they may be, and other similar activities and neglecting what the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, pointed out is their historic purpose of making serious reading available without charge to every man, woman and child in this country.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is to an extent hypothetical because it assumes in some ways a compulsory obligation with regard to competitive tendering which is not the case. Perhaps I may put it in this way. Even in your Lordships' House we have recently appointed a new head of the Library, for the first time using competition among the parameters. The interest of the Government is in providing better opportunities and better services. If they can be improved by allowing competition, we shall provide more opportunities for those who use the libraries—in other words, the consumer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the competition of which he has just spoken has been going on in public libraries for years? I was chairman of a public library for nearly five years. There was competition among the various people who applied to the library for posts. Therefore, what the noble Lord said is not new. Furthermore, does he not agree that the public library service librarians and staff are probably the most beloved staff members of any local authority? Their relationship with education is very important too. They can bring to ordinary people copies or wonderful paintings. By and large the public library service is something to be preserved and assisted, not just sold off.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am thrilled that the noble Lord should feel that novelty is not a requirement at the Dispatch Box. Furthermore, I am thrilled that he should endorse the policy of competition. I have to assure him that there is no intention of flogging off anything.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. However, have we not heard it before in relation to other matters? We have to be a little wary. Is it not true that one of the most important features of the British public library scene is the interlending facility? Where a client cannot obtain a book from a local library, the library can get it from another library. With 65,000 new titles being published every year, contracting out would considerably weaken interlending.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Baroness may be unaware that her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady David, came to see me on this very issue when I had the honour of having responsibility for these matters in the Department of the Environment. She may also he aware of the fact that Part V of the 1989 Act has still not been implemented.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can we have an assurance that even Westminster, which manages to sell the homeless and the cemeteries and to close the schools, will not do the same thing to the public libraries?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is well aware, Westminster council was unable to get a tender. The policy is to provide an opportunity for competition to be seen. If there is no competition and there is no desire for someone to provide the service at a cheaper price, all well and good.
Earl Russell: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I must declare an interest. Is the Minister aware that, as university libraries are under pressure, the dependence of university students on the public library service has very much increased? Therefore, any decline in that service or any shift in the direction of market forces could constitute a risk to the standard of the British degree. When the Minister speaks of efficiency, can he tell me what he means by it? I am not sure he means the same as I do.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, one thing of which the Minister is aware is that the Question on the Order Paper has absolutely nothing to do with university libraries.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for remembering our visit to him and for his sympathetic reception on that occasion. Is there any intention to implement Part V of the 1989 Act?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government's intention is, as always, to try to be accommodating. Whether that means that there will be a hasty or a less hasty implementation of Part V, I cannot judge.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, does the Minister who is responsible for these matters agree with me that it is a matter of grave concern that libraries are being shut for days in the week or are open for fewer hours due to cuts in local government expenditure? Does he not deplore that?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that again is the responsibility of the local authorities involved and not the Government.

1399
Perhaps I may interject against myself and make a business statement.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have risen and have made a decision. I am going to make a business statement.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I—
Noble Lords: Order!

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am going to make a business statement. I see from the clock that Questions have taken 30 minutes.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Dangerous Dogs Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for one hour and that during this adjournment the North Hull Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1991 will be taken.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
This was a particularly important meeting of the committee. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I draw attention to one or two of the matters in the report.
The first and perhaps most important matter is the size and membership of the Offices Committee. Noble Lords will recall that the House has agreed to the reorganisation of our committee structure with a thinned down Offices Committee and four subcommittees. Now the Offices Committee is recommending, first, that the Offices Committee itself should consist of up to 30 members, with a Back-Bench majority and the normal party balance arrangements; and, secondly, that the new subcommittees should have not more than 11 members each and that greater weight should be given to expert knowledge and relevant experience rather than to strict party balance in appointments to the sub-committees.
The second item in the report refers to the "Director of Works". I can tell your Lordships that Mr. Henry Webber has been appointed as Director of Works for the Palace as a whole; that is, for both Houses. He will take up his duties from 29th July. As regards the fourth item of the report, we have been very fortunate in obtaining the services of Miss
1400
Deborah Williams, who is on secondment for two years from Price Waterhouse, as our Financial Adviser.
Item No. 5 concerns the Refreshment Department. I believe that your Lordships are well aware that certain difficulties have arisen in finding accommodation for counsel at lunchtime. The difficulties have been such that the only way we can carry on for the moment, when we return after the Summer Recess, is to make available to them up to 20 places in the Peers' Guest Dining Room. That is not an ideal solution because, of course, it will reduce the number of places available in that room: but, on the other hand, every other suggestion has met with considerable opposition and we are now seeking to make plans, so far as we can, with further consultation, to see whether we can find a better solution.
Finally, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to Item No. 6 in the report which refers to the Library. Mr. Roger Morgan CBE is retiring. I am sure that noble Lords would like to express their appreciation of his services. He is to be succeeded by his present deputy, Mr. David Lewis Jones, who is, happily, another Welshman.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. SIZE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE OFFICES COMMITTEE
In its second report (13 March, H.L. Paper 36) the Committee agreed that from the beginning of the next parliamentary session its membership should be reduced in number, while retaining a majority of backbenchers, and that the present sub-committees should be replaced by four sub-committees with new responsibilities, as follows —

(i) Finance and Staff Sub-Committee;

(ii) Administration and Works Sub-Committee;

(iii) Library and Computers Sub-Committee;

(iv) Refreshment Sub-Committee.

In order to implement that decision the Committee now recommends that—

(a) the Offices Committee should consist of up to 30 members;

(b) the Committee of Selection should choose the members of the Offices Committee to produce a backbench majority and the usual considerations of party balance should apply;

(c) the Offices Committee should choose the members of the sub-committees;

(d) power to co-opt to sub-committees should be reserved to the Offices Committee;

(e) the new sub-committees should have not more than 11 members each;

(f) in deciding the membership of the sub-committees greater weight should be given to expert knowledge and relevant experience than to strict party balance;

(g) the Committee and its sub-committees should be empowered to hold joint meetings and exchange papers with their House of Commons equivalents and to adjourn from place to place and appoint specialist advisers.

2. DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The Committee was informed of the appointment of a Director of Works for the Palace of Westminster and the parliamentary estate. The Committee approved a Memorandum of Understanding for agreement with the House of Commons on the funding of works and the terms of reference and employment of the Director of Works. The Committee has agreed that initially 40 per cent. of the Director's salary and staff and operating costs should be paid by the House of

1401
Lords. This percentage will be reviewed by the two Houses after the space audit of the Palace of Westminster and outlying buildings, which is now in progress, has been completed.
3. STAFF OF THE HOUSE
A report from the Staff of the House Sub-Committee was made to the Committee, which agreed—

(a) to the creation of an additional personal secretary post to provide secretarial support for the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Financial Adviser,

(b) to the creation of a new post of Chef Supervisor with management responsibilities for the day to day operation of the House of Lords Staff Restaurant,

(c) that the two temporary Hansard word processor posts be made permanent,

(d) to the extension of the temporary post of Specialist Assistant to the Science and Technology Committee for a further period of one year,

(e) to a temporary clerical officer in the Sound Archive Unit for a period of up to four months,

(f) to the extension for a further period of six months of the temporary appointment of one additional clerical officer, the temporary upgrading of one executive officer to higher executive officer and of one senior clerical officer to executive officer, and to the payment of the special allowance payable to a higher executive officer during the introduction of a computer in the Accountant's office.

4. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee was informed of—

—the secondment for two years of Miss Deborah Williams from Price Waterhouse as Financial Adviser to the House of Lords,

—the promotion to Chief Clerk with effect from 17 May 1991 of Mr. D. F. Slater at present serving on secondment as Private Secretary to the Leader of the House and Chief Whip,

—the appointment with effect from 9 April 1991 of Mr. J. B. Ingram as a temporary Clerk in the Committee Office,

—new arrangements for the management of the Parliamentary Sound Archive Unit to transfer responsibility for the Unit from the House of Lords Record Office to the office of the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting.

5. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
A report from the Refreshment Sub-Committee was made to the Committee.
The Committee approved a Statement of Accounts for the financial year 1990–91.
The Committee agreed to temporary lunch-time arrangements for Counsel appearing before committees of the House: up to 20 places should be set aside in the Peers' Guest Dining Room.
6. LIBRARY
A report from the Library Sub-Committee for 1990–91 was laid before the Committee.
The Committee was informed of the impending retirement of Mr. R. H. V. C. Morgan CBE as Librarian and expressed its appreciation of the manner in which he had carried out his duties and of his valuable years of service to the House.
7. REFRESHMENT FACILITIES FOR MEPs
The Committee recommends that for an experimental period until the end of the next parliamentary session British Members of the European Parliament should be entitled to buy drinks in the Peers Guest Room.
8. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Committee authorised a revised subsistence allowance for delegates to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union.
9. INSURANCE FOR LORDS
The Committee approved an increase in the personal accident cover for Lords whilst on parliamentary duty.
10. OFFICIAL TELEPHONE CALLS, FAX MESSAGES AND MAIL TO EUROPE
The Committee has approved arrangements to enable peers to make free official telephone calls and to send free official fax messages direct to certain European institutions. The Committee has also
1402
approved the introduction of pre-paid envelopes for peers writing on parliamentary business to addresses in European Community member states.
11. COMPUTERS FOR LAW LORDS
The Committee has approved the acquisition of portable personal computers which are to be allocated on loan to the Law Lords.
12. PRIVATE BILL FEES
The Committee recommends that with effect from the beginning of the next parliamentary session the following Table of Fees shall apply to bills for which petitions are deposited, Provisional Order Confirmation Bills presented, and Hybrid Instruments and Special Procedure Orders laid before Parliament.
Table of Fees to be charged at the House of Lords agreed to by the House, 2 July 1991
[Referred to in Standing Orders 202, 215 and 217]
I—FEES TO BE PAID BY THE PROMOTERS OF A PRIVATE BILL
On the First Reading of the Bill £2,500.
Following the Third Reading of the Bill £2,500.
The promoters of Personal Bills may be charged one-twentieth of the preceding fees.
The promoters of the Bills relating to charitable, religious, educational, literary or scientific purposes whereby no private profit or advantage is derived, and of Bills other than Bills promoted by local authorities from which the promoter appears unlikely to derive substantial personal or corporate gain, may be charged one-quarter of the preceding fees.
II—FEES TO BE PAID BY PETITIONERS AND MEMORIALISTS
On presentation of any Petition relating to a Private Bill or any Memorial complaining that the Standing Orders have not been complied with, provided that no Petitioner or Memorialist shall be charged more than once under this head in respect of any one Bill £20.
III-FEES TO BE PAID BY APPLICANTS FOR AND PETITIONERS AGAINST A PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
On the Second Reading of a Bill to confirm one or more Provisional Orders, other than a Bill to confirm an Order or Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, the applicants shall be charged a fee of £2,500.
On the deposit of each Petition £20.
IV-FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER
On appearance before a Joint Committee on a Special Procedure Order, an applicant (other than a Minister) shall be charged a fee of £1,250.
On the deposit of each Petition or Counter-Petition, or copy of either £10.
V—FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A HYBRID INSTRUMENT
For a hybrid instrument on which an applicant other than a Minister appears before the Hybrid Instruments Committee or a select committee of the House £1,250.
On deposit of a petition against a hybrid instrument £20.
VI—FEES TO BE PAID ON THE TAXATION OF COSTS ON PRIVATE LEGISLATION
For each £100 of any Bill of Costs allowed by the Taxing Officer £1.
13. CANCER SCREENING FOR WOMEN PEERS AND STAFF
The Committee has agreed that an on-site cancer screening programme for women peers and staff should take place jointly with the House of Commons and has approved the necessary expenditure.
14. WORKS OF ART—TEN YEAR RULE
The Committee has resolved that no portrait, bust or other representation of any living person or of any person deceased less than ten years shall normally be accepted for exhibition within the precincts of the House of Lords. A waiver of this rule requires the approval of the Offices Committee.
15. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee confirmed the application of the following civil service memoranda to staff of the House of Lords—

(a) CM/954—Pay for the Senior Open Structure.

1403

(b) DEO letter dated 13 March 1991—Remuneration of college based sandwich course students.

(c) DEO letter dated 2 April 1991—Local Pay Additions.

(d) CM/956—Pay of Clerical Grades and Proficiency Allowances.

16. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee was notified of the following awards made under the House of Lords Staff Pension Scheme—

(a) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. W. J. Reid, Assistant Editor, who retired on 3 January 1991.

(b) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. D. V. R. Sharp, Cleaner, who retired on 23 March 1991.

(c) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. M. Jobson, Cleaner, who retired on 29 March 1991.

(d) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. Jones, Cleaner, who retired on 20 April 1991.

(e) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. Davey, Cleaner, who retired on 23 May 1991.

17. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends that a Questionaire be circulated by the Lord Chairman to establish what demand there is for services of the kind provided or planned by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST).
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, speaking as a Back-Bencher in this Chamber, I must say that the report contains some extremely important items to which it behoves every Member of your Lordships' House, whatever exalted or less exalted degree he or she may occupy, to devote very considerable attention indeed.
As regards the noble Lord's point about the necessity for providing accommodation for counsel, I cannot see why this must be done. They have been without lunch accommodation here for some considerable time. They draw very considerable, and probably very well deserved, remuneration. While I am, as a matter of courtesy, all for accommodating them as much as we possibly can, I do not think that your Lordships should agree to this arrangement without assessing the result on Members of this Chamber. The matter needs further consideration.
On the question of parliamentary delegations, I observe that Item No. 8 of the report refers to the fact that the committee has authorised,
"a revised subsistence allowance for delegates to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union".
I should be glad if the Chairman of Committees could inform us of the daily rate which will be allowed in this respect, preferably expressed in pounds and not in ecu. Perhaps he could also give some indication as to whether the Select Committee considered another type of delegation from your Lordships' House; namely, the delegations which from time to time go from your Lordships' Select Committees. Members of our Select Committees are sometimes bound to visit the EC and other countries. Therefore, are the delegations from your Lordships' House to the EC, and those in connection with other EC business, to be granted facilities and a subsistence allowance, bearing in mind the fact that the daily subsistence allowance as at 1989 for European Members of Parliament amounted to no less £113 per day? If such allowances are to be made to Members of your Lordships' House, surely they ought to be made on a comparable basis.
I observe also from Item No. 10 of the report that the Committee has,
1404
"also approved the introduction of pre-paid envelopes for peers writing on parliamentary business to addresses in European Community member states".
However, does the term "European Community member states" include the United Kingdom? If it does, it will be most welcome to Members of this House, many of whom have very considerable correspondence indeed on parliamentary business within the United Kingdom.
My final question relates to the matters set out in Item No. 3 of the report concerning the "Staff of the House". One is glad to see that the House has been able to obtain extensions to the staff which are sorely needed. However, I wish to make a special plea in this respect for the staff to the Select Committees of your Lordships' House. They form an extremely important arm of the whole of the activities which are conducted in this Chamber. From time to time a degree of financial stringency, presumably enforced by the Treasury, becomes evident whenever, for example, Members of a Select Committee are required to travel abroad. Such allowances that they receive are quite miserable and fractional, compared with those allowances which are given away by the Treasury on the nod to members of the European Parliament, and others. In my view, we really ought to consider whether concerted representation should be made by the Government and the Opposition to the Treasury in order to see whether the financial resources available to your Lordships' Select Committees, in terms of travel funds and research facilities, ought to be increased.
I apologise to the House for having dealt with these matters at some length, but, as a Member of your Lordships' House who has a very warm regard for its activities, I felt bound to raise them. I hope that noble Lords will grant me some indulgence for having gone on for so long.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees replies, perhaps I may say, on behalf of all those noble Lords who use the Writing Room, how grateful we are to members of the Offices Committee that they rejected the outrageous proposal that the Peers' Writing Room should be divided in order to make a dining room for counsel. Many of us do not agree that your Lordships' House has an obligation to counsel to provide a dining room. But if it is felt that there is such an obligation, it must not be dealt with at the expense of the already inadequate accommodation for your Lordships.
I believe that we are very badly done by in the way of accommodation in this House; nothing should be done to worsen the situation. Therefore, while I express gratitude to the Committee, perhaps I may also express the hope that it will never again entertain any proposal to take the Peers' Writing Room, or part of it, for counsel.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, should not a report such as this, containing the amount of detail which has been mentioned, be debated by the House before we are asked to approve it? I should have thought that the report ought to be subject to such

1405
detailed examination before we give it the credence and the support required to bring the proposals into being.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the Offices Committee must have about 60 or 70 members from all sides of the House. It is a very representative body of your Lordships. The debate which took place on at least one of the items in the report was one of the only debates that I have ever heard take place in the committee. However, there is no doubt about it, the matter was fully debated. I believe that the committee reached the right conclusion.
Therefore, it does not seem to me that we need to debate such detailed matters in the House. Most noble Lords do not have the facts in front of them at present so as lo make such a debate worth while.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as a member of the committee, perhaps I may make one point. I do not think that I have played a very full part in the debate, but the position of counsel in this House is in the service of your Lordships' House. It involves the appellate work of your Lordships' House: the one Court of Appeal common to all three parts of the United Kingdom. There is given to counsel about an hour in which to have their lunch. It is quite impossible to conduct the work of the Appellate Committee—and I speak from my own experience —if counsel are not accommodated within the House. They have always been so accommodated—I can speak from personal knowledge again—since my father was Lord Chancellor as long ago as 1928.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, are we to set apart 20 places every clay, to be occupied or not occupied, for counsel, or will they be able the previous day to say that they would like a seat in the Dining Room?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will allow me to say so, we seem to have had a substantial debate. He is answered by what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said. He said that the committee is large and representative of the House. We covered the ground extensively. Any noble Lord who wishes to attend the committee is welcome to do so, and some did on this occasion. I know that noble Lords cannot vote, but it is open to your Lordships to attend.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised a number of points. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that counsel play an important part in the constitutional functions of the House, and we haw; to find them, as we always have, somewhere to have a decent meal at lunchtime. The difficulties are enormous, and they have been outlined. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, mentioned the difficulties involving the Writing Room. My impression is not that the committee turned down the proposal regarding the Writing Room, but that it did not adopt it. The committee is anxious to consider all the possibilities. Everything is open for discussion. If your Lordships have any suggestions to make, the committee would be glad to hear them.
The daily rate for delegates to the Council of Europe is now £104. It has increased in conjunction
1406
with all the arrangements made by the Council of Europe and another place. I take note of the point made by the noble Lord about other delegations. That matter is within the purview of the Committee of the House that has been set up, and it will consider it. I shall ensure that it is considered.
I have to disappoint the noble Lord and tell him that pre-paid envelopes will not be available for use within the United Kingdom.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the noble Lord a simple question. Who will choose the people to be selected for their relevant experience? What do they know about their relevant experience?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, members of the sub-committees of the Offices Committee will be chosen by the Offices Committee itself, which will obviously work with the assistance of the usual channels.
Baroness David: My Lords, I was going to ask the question that my noble friend Lord Ardwick asked, but which the Chairman of Committees did not answer. If counsel do not want to use the places in the Dining Room being allocated to them—which will mean that there will be fewer places for Peers and their guests—could they, like Peers, book their places the day before or a few days before so that if they are unwanted, Peers will be able to take advantage of the spaces?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for not answering his question. I am sure that that will be possible. We shall not have 20 empty spaces every day. We shall do our best to find out how many counsel will need some food. It is the opposite side of the coin to using the Writing Room. We must find somewhere for counsel. Your Lordships will no doubt be greatly inconvenienced by having fewer places in the Dining Room, as opposed to those noble Lords using the Writing Room, who for the moment at any rate will have full use of the Writing Room.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm and clarify the position in respect of the Writing Room? Is it correct that the committee froze any further action, plans or work in connection with the Writing Room pending an alternative solution? The committee's view is that the matter is in effect to be put on ice.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I believe that I am out of order for the fourth time when I ask your Lordships' permission to speak again. Yes, no final solution has been reached. We must put up with a solution that is in no way good—it has grave disadvantages—until we find something better.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, perhaps I may say how pleased we are at the selection of the new Chief Librarian. I express our gratitude and affection for all the work that he has done.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, did I understand the Chairman of Committees to say that Members of your Lordships' House who wish to visit Europe will

1407
be able to do so at no greater disadvantage than Members of another place? Will Members of the House be able to visit Europe on the same financial basis?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in general, the arrangements for intercommunication with Europe that we are making follow those made by another place. Perhaps I could discuss the details with the noble Lord later.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dangerous Dogs Bill
3.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Dogs bred for fighting]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: In introducing the amendment perhaps I may be permitted to make a few comments about the nine amendments that I have tabled. The Bill deserves far more attention than it has received from what I believe to be a constitutional point of view. My amendments are intended to deal with the injustices caused by the Bill's provisions which detract from the liberty of the subject. I make no claim to be a fighting Peer. I have not been born, bred or trained for fighting, but I feel deeply about a Bill which changes the civil rights of the individual. Panic measures are being taken to deal with a situation which has been whipped up into an emergency and which is nothing of the kind.
In dealing with Amendment No. 1, we have a classic example of how the Bill will proceed. The Japanese Tosa is included in the Bill with pit bull terriers. It is believed that there are about 10,000 pit bull terriers in the country, but there can be no doubt that there is only one Tosa in this country. It was in quarantine until April of this year. It has never bitten anyone; no one has been frightened by it; and no savagery has been committed by it. It has been a law-abiding dog, and so have the owners, who are not domestic owners but in business in kennels and pet shops.
That dog is to be banned, along with pit bull terriers, without having committed any misdemeanours. The case for including that dog in the ban is based wholly on its repute elsewhere. We have had no experience of it ourselves. I wonder about banning a breed of which there is only one dog in the country. How could one dog have committed any crimes which would justify a legal ban? If it was intended to keep out dogs which might come in and which were
1408
undesirable because of their fighting propensities, breeding traditions or whatever, that might be a point. However, I understand that the proposal is linked to the ban which was imposed on the entry of the dogs as an entirely separate matter from the treatment of the dogs under the Bill.
Apparently banning a dog from entering the country interferes with import freedom. That can be justified under the regulations—presumably those of the EC—only if the dog to be banned is prohibited for domestic purposes, use or ownership. So the dog is banned at home in order to justify banning the importing of dogs from elsewhere. That is how the Tosa is fixed at the moment. It is swept up in the general provisions of the Bill dealing with dangerous dogs solely because it happens to be here and finds itself on the wrong side of the line after its arrival.
Can we do anything sensible in order to remove the injustice imposed on the dog's owners? I do not necessarily wish to interfere with the provisions of the Bill to ban the Japanese Tosa, but I feel that an injustice is being done to a dog and to a breed which has not yet been seen in the country to the extent which would justify banning it.
I do not know whether a provision later in Clause I would enable the Home Secretary to prescribe special conditions for the dog while its future is being considered. It is a male dog; no females are to be imported for it. It was intended as a show dog and, had it been allowed to remain, would have been a pioneer in the entry of a new breed of show dogs. However, there must now be a question over its future. It is an expensive dog to bring over; it took a lot of time and it will take more time and expense to return it, if that is to be its future.
Anyhow, the immediate problem is to protect the Tosa from causing serious loss and difficulty to its owners. I hope that the noble Earl can offer a suggestion. For the sake of the record, I shall read to the Committee the assessment of the dog by the Japanese Embassy in London. A letter from them to me states that,
"there is no reason to believe that the rate of incidence of attacks by Tosa dogs on humans is any higher than that of any other dogs. Local authorities in Japan classify certain animals (for example, crocodiles and tigers) as 'dangerous animals' and apply certain restrictions to their possession. There are, however, no local authorities in Japan which attach this description to the Tosa dog. There are approximately 2,000 Tosa dogs in Japan at present".
The letter further states that,
"As in the case of other dogs, the owner, under the law, is obliged to have the dog injected against rabies, and to get a dog licence. There are no other special legal requirements".
That letter does not imply that there is an animal of serious fighting qualities in the country. However that may be, common sense must be used. Can we consider the dog as a dog and not rest upon it all the penalties which would otherwise apply to the breed under Clause 1? That is the plea that I make. Is it possible to prescribe special conditions under which the dog may remain here, at least for the time being, unmutilated, but complying with other requirements about being kept on a leash at all times, so that the public is safeguarded from attack or harm?
If the Home Secretary feels able to take action under the permissive paragraphs in Clause 1, it would be worth seeing how far we could go in arranging, between the Home Secretary and the owners of the dog, the dog's future and to facilitate that future if possible. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: As a matter of information, can someone please inform the Committee of the size of the dog? I understand that the breed can grow as large as 17 stone and that they are bred as fighting dogs. That does not sound like the description that the noble Lord has just given us.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: I may have misunderstood the amendment but I was under the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, wished to eliminate the Japanese Tosa from the type of dog that is regarded as dangerous. If I have misunderstood him, I apologise.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on size, the dogs can grow to the size of a small pony, up to 16 or 17 stone in weight. The acute observation of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the Japanese Tosa, which he apparently knows well—he says it is a jovial creature, a little like himself—illustrates the point that he has decided that this friendly creature is a member of one of the dangerous breeds of dogs that have been described.
The point is that not all dangerous dogs are dangerous. With proper care and attention they can be acceptable. Nevertheless, that observation overlays the mare important fact that the so-called dangerous breeds of dogs are much more likely to act in a dangerous manner than all other types. With careful ownership and training even the most dangerous animals can be kept as domestic pets. There is an Act on dangerous animals which permits them to be kept, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned. One has to be licensed to keep them; they are owned, admired and revered by various people.
However, the Japanese Tosa is a dog that has been bred for fighting purposes. It is very large indeed. Some of us are familiar with the situation 20 years ago when the pit bull terrier was initially imported into the country for the purpose of dog fighting. It was illegal, of course, but nevertheless they were brought in. Certain bodies, including the British Veterinary Association, were concerned and issued a warning that there should be some control over the importation of such dogs. No control was placed on them and 20 years later there are 20,000 in the country. Many people think there are probably more because they are "underground" dogs and not declared. Let us not make the same mistake again with regard to the Japanese Tosa. The House may decide to follow the route suggested by the noble Lord and exempt this one animal. However, I believe it would be dangerous to remove this breed of fighting dog from the list of fighting dogs. If we do so, in 20 years' time we may be in the same position with that breed as we are now with other breeds. We may have hundreds, if not thousands, of those dogs in the country causing
1410
great problems. That situation may result in the kind of legislation that we are considering today. Perhaps if we had acted with greater caution 20 years ago we would not need to discuss this legislation today.
Baroness Strange: I hope we shall not be overrun by Japanese Tosas as we have been by Japanese knotweed. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, told me that he has been in correspondence with the owners of the Japanese Tosa named Ish. He suggested to the dog's owners that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should visit the dog. I believe that the noble Lord has seen the dog. Perhaps he can tell us more about this dog.
Lord Addington: We must remember that the Japanese Tosa is a dog that is bred for fighting. It is a huge dog. Any dog that is maltreated is liable to attack people. Unfortunately there is a cult of owning aggressive dogs. These aggressive dogs are liable to attack people. Therefore we must try to eliminate those dogs which have been deliberately imported for fighting purposes. I should like the Bill to go a little further and include all the other breeds of fighting dogs which exist throughout the world. Nearly every country has a specialist fighting dog. We should have named all those breeds of dog at the beginning and thereby saved ourselves a lot of trouble later on.
Lord Richard: I have considerable sympathy with the speech of my noble friend Lord Houghton. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, I do not have much sympathy with the terms of the amendment. It makes a clear distinction in the way we treat one individual dog. Apparently, according to my noble friend Lord Houghton, that dog is amiable and well disposed to the human race. That was certainly the case when my noble friend saw the dog. It is one issue to talk about an individual dog and how we keep it in an amiable state and in conditions of relative safety for the rest of its life, but to remove the Tosa from the list of fighting dogs frankly seems to me to be an act of the most extraordinary rashness.
I do not agree with the argument expounded by my noble friend when he said that the dog had not committed any bad acts at the moment. That is hardly surprising as it has been here for only three months, and there is only one dog of this breed in any case. My noble friend said that as the dog had not done anything bad we could not justify including it on the list of fighting dogs. I far prefer that we should take action before we have to deal with the difficulties that might arise from having another breed of fighting dog in our midst. This single Tosa that is in Britain at the moment may be of a friendly disposition and it may now be in responsible hands, but if those dogs are to be imported into this country it does not follow that all the owners will be responsible or that all the dogs will be friendly. I shudder to think what might happen in 10 years' time if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted. I cannot support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, warned us on Second Reading that he was going to be the champion of the Tosa. He has started the Committee stage in just that spirit. He pulled out all the stops in defence of this animal. He said that by banning it we should be detracting from the liberty of the subject and changing the civil rights of individuals. I thought that that was going a little too far. The noble Lord added that this whole situation had been whipped up into an emergency when it was nothing of the kind. But that is exactly what it is. The Bill is the result of an emergency situation in which a lot of people are being viciously bitten by dogs. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, shakes his head but he would be nearer the truth if he nodded.
The Bill was introduced in the first place because of the emergency situation we are in. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that the Tosa in this country has never bitten anyone and that it is a law-abiding dog. I do not know how one decides whether a dog is law-abiding, but we can all use our imagination. The noble Lord stressed that there was only one Tosa in this country and said that we should not ban something that most of us had not seen or had any experience of. According to the noble Lord, the evidence we would need to be able to ban the dog is evidence of the dog having bitten someone. I believe that that is an experience we can happily do without.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked what kind of an animal this was, as he had thought it weighed 17-stone but the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did not seem to marry with that concept. I did not think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was describing a dog which had been bred for fighting. My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swafffiam Prior said that when the first pit bull terrier puppies were imported into the country in the mid-1970s people regarded them as nice cuddly little dogs. They appeared to be loveable little creatures. No one would have thought, looking at those two little dogs, that they were capable of the kind of vicious and sustained attacks which we are still reading about in our newspapers.
One of the RSPCA's most senior and respected inspectors was left alone with those two puppies when they first entered this country. He has said that if he could turn back the clock he would have had them put down there and then. My noble friend Lord Soulsby is distinguished in the realms of veterinary practice. He also has said that if we had had those pit bull terrier puppies put down when they first entered the country we might not be discussing this legislation today. The fact is that we do not want any more of these fighting dogs in our country, particularly dogs which can attain a weight of 17-stone. That is the size of a small pony, as my noble friend said.
The steps which we have taken in imposing a ban on the import of the Tosa and in seeking in this Bill to prohibit its ownership are sensible and humane. There is not a large number of the dogs in this country to put down. But by taking the action now that we propose to take we shall prevent the problem occurring. No dog will suffer other than the dog which the noble
1412
Lord, Lord Houghton, has befriended. If that dog stays in this country, it will have to be neutered. However, I am told that the dog, sensible and law-abiding as it is, has moved to France. If the government of the day had taken this step in respect of the pit bull terrier when they had the opportunity to do so in the 1970s I doubt whether we should be discussing this Bill today. I urge the Committee to keep the Tosa in the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: That was a disappointing answer. I do not think the Government can come before the Chamber full of virtue and confidence in this matter as previously they have denied that any such problem existed. The then Parliamentary Secretary in the Home Office, Mr. Douglas Hogg, said in June 1989 that a ban on the import of dogs was not on. He said the difficulties were too great. He discounted any idea of solving the problem by preventing dogs entering the country.
In March 1990 the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory would not accept various proposals that had been made to him for dealing with the problem of dangerous dogs. The answer given to all demands for action was that the matter of dangerous dogs had been completely taken care of by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. That Bill was introduced in this Chamber by none other than the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The truth of the matter is that the Government have not introduced any Bill on dog control since 1906 and prior to that no Bill on this matter had been introduced after 1871. The Government have not been interested in the problem of dangerous dogs. They have denied that there is any problem and they insisted that any problem that may have existed in this area had been taken care of in the Bill that I introduced in this Chamber. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Dame Janet Fookes. We were assisted in the preparation of that Bill by the Home Office. It was not entirely our own work but it was thought in 1989 to be adequate to deal with the dangerous dog problem.
In the Government's own discussion document of August 1989 entitled Action on Dogs and the later publication, an illustrated, blue-covered discussion paper called The Control of Dogs, of June 1990 proposals for the control of dogs were put forward in response to pressure from both Houses of Parliament to have dog registration written into the Environmental Protection Bill. There is no record to support the Government's present anxiety, although it may be that they want to do what the same Government failed to do earlier.
When I put down the amendment, I did not know that to take the Japanese Tosa out of the Bill would undo the ban which has already been imposed on the import of more of that breed. I can understand the desire to retain the ban on imports of dogs of that and other breeds. However, if we are prohibited from dealing with that particular dog separately from other dogs by the undertakings which have been given to link import with prohibition at home that is a parlous position. I should have thought that there was scope in later subsections of Clause 1 relating to the

1413
permitted retention of dogs under certain conditions, especially if awaiting export to another country, to accommodate the case of that particular dog while leaving the Bill intact.
I can only ask the noble Earl whether he can give me any encouragement to submit proposals to him to that end so that I can withdraw my amendment and we do not have to discuss amending the Bill to deal with one particular dog. That should provide adequate protection. The regulations have caught one dog and one dog only. There is no experience of the breed having caused any problem in this country. The dog is an innocent party and has been caught by the change of the law after its arrival in this country. The owners are seriously incommoded by having a dog which, if it were to undergo the treatment which it may be required by law to undergo, will be very much reduced in value. The dog came from America and may well have to return there. The notice which has been given to the owners leaves them with very little opportunity to dispose of a dog of such unique build and characteristics and which involved them in considerable expense in bringing it here. If there is anything that the noble Earl can do to meet the suggestion that we might have an exchange of views about the use of sub-paragraphs in Clause 1, I believe that we can dispose of the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that we can dispose of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked whether we can have a discussion and whether I can offer him any help. I am bound to tell the noble Lord _hat I cannot for the simple reason that we do not want any Japanese Tosas in the country. That is the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord said that there is only one poor little dog in this country and asked what harm it had done. If there were 100,000, the noble Lord would say that one could not possibly do away with 100,000 dogs, and think of all the people who have those lovely dogs. It does not matter what the figure is, we do not want dangerous dogs—of which the Japanese Tosa is one —in this country.
Therefore, I cannot suggest to the noble Lord that even if he were to come to me and use his beguiling charm I should be able to say anything other than that we do not want the Japanese Tosa in this country. Therefore, I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: The Bill refers to a dog which appears to be bred for fighting. Can my noble friend tell rn2 whether dog fighting is going on in this country? I hear that is so. Is that being stopped? What action has been taken? How many people have been prosecuted for dog fighting in the past 12 months?
Earl Ferrers: The Japanese Tosa is bred for fighting and is apparently used for fighting in Japan. Other dogs such as the pit bull terrier are used for fighting. I understand that that is done in some parts of the country; but of course it is illegal.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Despite the lack of enthusiasm in the noble Earl's reply I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I still feel that some exchange of view may be possible about the
1414
future of that particular dog, even if it is only an extension of the time that it can stay here until it can go elsewhere. That might be a reasonable proposition for a dog of this kind and value. I shall have to do the best I can.
The Government's record on dangerous dogs is appalling. They are now introducing measures which are authoritarian in character and objectionable in principle in many respects. However, we shall operate within them as best we can and do all we can to accommodate the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 2 is agreed, to I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to delete paragraph (c). That paragraph provides that:
"any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose"
may be added to the list of prohibited dogs.
Is the purpose of paragraph (c) to add to the list dogs which have not yet arrived in this country, or is the purpose to add to the list dogs which are already here and belong to breeds which are not at present included in the prohibited list in Clause 1?
I ask that question because the Secretary of State said in the other place on 22nd May (at col. 945 of the Official Report):
"I emphasise that the ban will initially apply only to those breeds of fighting dogs,"—
those mentioned in Clause 1—
"but it is clearly important to prevent new and dangerous breeds coming in to replace dogs which have been banned from domestic ownership. I understand that there are three other possible breeds in the world today".
That suggests that the purpose of the paragraph is to enable the Home Secretary to ban dogs from coming into the country which are not already here if they seem to him to be fighting dogs or to have the characteristics of fighting dogs. However, if it means bringing into the list fresh categories of dog which are already here would that include Alsatians, Dobermanns, Staffordshire bull terriers and other breeds which come close to the description of fighting dogs?
Is the paragraph intended to allow the Home Secretary to add to the list Alsatians, for example, or any other breed which in his opinion appears to be bred for fighting? It is important to know definitely whether that is a safeguard against new entrant fighting dogs or a means of extending the list of prohibition to include dogs in the canine population at the present time which are not included in the list. If the latter is the case, it is a serious matter if the Home Secretary is to be given powers to add other breeds of dogs, which may affect hundreds of thousands of citizens throughout the country merely on his say-so.

1415
We cannot possibly allow that. I should be glad to know what interpretation is to be placed on paragraph (c). I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I do not intend to vote for my noble friend's amendment if he presses it to a Division. I have received—I cannot be alone in this—some menacing and unpleasant letters from people who purport to be in favour of dogs. One letter even suggested that, if I paid £10 to the writers, I would not be known as anti-dog. I could not care less whether I am known as anti-dog. I should be much more worried if I were known as anti-human beings.
If their menacing correspondence is anything to go by—I have met those breeders—they are not the kind of people about whom we should worry too much. They breed those dogs to make money. That is what they do it for. They often breed them in the most unsuitable conditions. I love animals as much as my noble friend, but, listening to him speak on the last amendment, I began to wonder whether, as a Leo according to my stars, I could perhaps import a nice, little lion and say that it is not really difficult unless you annoy it. There is just about as much logic in that. If a dog is bred to be dangerous, it will be dangerous. Only those people who have the worst motives will want those dogs.
Like many other noble Lords, I have received a letter from the Union of Communication Workers, a group for which I have great respect. It says that the number of attacks on postmen by dogs last year rose to 7,400. That figure included some particularly vicious attacks. Are those the kind of people about whom we are worrying? Dangerous dogs should not be able to do that. We must have a clause of this kind because there will always be another new breed from which people will want to make money.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment. The inclusion of Clause 1(1) (c) is totally reasonable and proper and is wholly essential to the type of control envisaged by the Government, which is necessary. The problem arises later. The reference to the words "to him" in the second line of the paragraph, which must be construed against a statutory presumption in Clause 5(5), would create a substantial hardship and injustice. I shall deal with that matter when I move Amendment No. 5. However, the structure of Clause 1(1) (c) is wholly correct and proper, subject to the matters that I have mentioned, and is essential to the Bill. It is for those reasons that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Addington: We must have this type of wording in the Bill if we are to restrict dangerous dogs. We must stop new breeds being brought in and the designation of breeds which have effectively been perverted by breeding. A fighting dog is in effect an example of the application of the oldest form of genetic engineering—in other words, selective breeding—which is used to make it more savage. The common ancestor of the dog is the wolf which did not
1416
attack or slaughter its own pack to any great extent. We must include the provision. We should also bear in mind the fact that fighting dogs primarily kill other dogs. When a pit bull terrier comes across a smaller terrier on the street, it will probably kill it because the small terrier will not back down either. For every fighting dog, X number of ordinary domestic pets are placed in danger and will invariably be torn apart by it.
Lord Richard: As I understand the scope of Clause 1, if the Home Secretary concluded that there was in the country a dog of a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting, he would be entitled to apply the same provisions in relation to that dog as are at present applied by the Bill to the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa. I imagine that it is therefore an insurance policy, so to speak, to enable the Home Secretary to deal with situations which are not at present envisaged.
As I understand it—other Members of the Committee know far more about the matter than I —the pit bull terrier is itself a relatively new innovation, not just in terms of coming into the country, but in terms of being a cross-breed. It is not even designated a breed for the purposes of categorisation. If that is so, I shudder to think what would happen if someone attempted to produce a cross-breed from some of the more vigorous dogs in the country at the moment, for example, a special strain of Rottweiler which as yet does not exist and which was bred specifically for the purpose of fighting. In those circumstances the Home Secretary should have the power to look at the dog. If he concluded that it was bred for fighting, that same provision should apply to it as applies to the pit bull terrier and the Tosa. I would not be in favour—I agree with my noble friend to this extent—of using Clause 1(1)(c) to designate an existing breed with which this country has now lived for some time as a fighting dog within the definition of Clause 1. It may be a dangerous dog under other parts of the Bill, but that is a separate issue. If the Government have in mind what I anticipate they have in mind, I support them and not the amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: One might consider for a moment why people want to have dangerous dogs. I can think of three reasons: protection of the home; having one over the neighbours; and for fighting. None of those desires is particularly reasonable and, on the whole, we should not support them. People should therefore be careful as regards which dogs they buy or train. In the long run, therefore, the amendment is essential.
Earl Ferrers: I am trying to work out the conclusion of the noble Viscount's remarks because I thought that he intended to say that the amendment was not therefore desirable. I was surprised that he concluded that it was desirable.
Lord Richard: I thought the noble Viscount said that the clause was desirable.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that h;, thought the noble Viscount said that the clause was desirable. I thought the noble Viscount said that the amendment was desirable.
Viscount Hanworth: I apologise. I was wrong. I should have said that the clause was desirable.
Earl Ferrers: I thought that I had misheard the noble Viscount and my mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion were unnecessary and misdirected. I apologise.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was quite right when he drew a distinction between a fighting dog and a dangerous dog. Under Clause 1(1)(c), the Home Secretary can take action to apply by order the criminal offences in Clause 1 in respect of a named type of fighting dog. It also contains the power which, had it been available in the mid-1970s, would have enabled the Home Secretary of the day to take precisely that action against pit bull terriers. It is therefore an important power.
It is by no means certain that new fighting dogs, perhaps dogs even more horrible than the pit bull terrier, will emerge in the years to come. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned at Second Reading that the RSPCA had a number of dogs specifically in mind. If those kind of fighting dogs emerge, or are likely to emerge, in this country, we need to be able to take quick action to ban their ownership, breeding and sale. If they emerge overseas and there is a risk that they might be imported into this country, the Government need to be able immediately to ban their import. In order to do so, we should need an equivalent ban on domestic ownership in order to meet our international obligations. The power to ban would not be available without Clause 1(1) (c).
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked whether the provision will refer to dogs which are already in this country or dogs which come from overseas. The answer is that we believe that the Bill as presently drafted covers the fighting dogs that are known to be in this country; namely, the pit bull terrier and the Tosa. They are different from the Alsatians or German shepherd dogs, Dobermanns and Rottweilers which may be guard dogs but which are not specifically dogs bred for fighting. We propose at present to bring in an order under this clause which would ban the ownership and allow us to ban the import of two more fighting dogs: the Dogo Argentine and the Fila Braziliera. The Committee will be glad to know that they are not at present resident in this country. However, they are fighting dogs and we may wish to take order making powers against them.
If this particular clause is not available, we shall be powerless to take effective action against new types of fighting dogs. I hope that the Committee will realise that this is an important power and do not accept the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am not sure whether I fully understood the importance of this amendment from the statement just made by the noble Earl. There is a provision in Clause 2(4) which states:
1418
"In determining whether to make an order under this section in relation to dogs of any type".
It seems that that again refers to other specially dangerous dogs which people may seek to bring into the country. If the noble Earl wishes to stop these dogs from coming into the country, I am completely in agreement with him. However, a great fear exists among many dog owners today, especially owners of dogs in the classifications which years ago were the source of much public concern. The Alsatian had a poor reputation some years ago and the Rottweiler has been a matter of prime concern. In fact, when the Home Office discussion document was issued in the middle of last year indicating the range of dangerous dogs, it did not put the pit bull terrier at the head of the list. That dog was fourth on the list. I do not know whether it is fourth in degree of dangerousness. It is very important to know whether the Home Secretary seeks powers under the Bill to extend the categories of dogs to be brought within the scope of the Bill—dogs which are already here, which are already classified and which, if they are in a classified category, should be in the Bill now.
Many people fear that this measure is the thin end of the wedge and only the beginning of the new canocide. They fear that the Home Secretary will be able to extend merely by a statutory instrument the area of banning and criminality. We have to allay the fears of owners of Alsatians, Rottweilers and other dogs in this country. They should know that they are not in danger of having their animals brought within the scope of this Bill and that if any attempt were to be made or thought to be necessary to include them, primary legislation would be required to do it. It is most important that the matter should be clearly understood. I hope that we receive a clear answer from the noble Earl.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I shall do my best to help the noble Lord. Perhaps I may say that he has a very vivid imagination to regard this Bill as the Government's permission to indulge in canocide. Perhaps his confusion arises from Clause 2, which we have not yet discussed. It carries reserve powers, powers which will enable the Home Secretary by order to put certain dogs on a list which means that they may have to be muzzled or kept on a lead. Those dogs could be—I do not say that they will be—Alsatians, Rottweilers or any of the other dogs which happen to be in this country. All sorts of restrictions will apply before that happens and I do not want to come on to that topic now. But that is the effect of Clause 2.
Clause 1 bans the import of these animals. That is the reason why Clause 1 refers to fighting dogs which are not in the country at the moment but could arrive. Under Clause 1 it would be possible to create a ban. Clause 2 refers to the reserve powers which deal with muzzling and keeping on a lead dogs which may not be fighting dogs but nevertheless might still be quite dangerous dogs.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: That is fairly clear. It is an important statement to make. It will remove the fears of a great many people about the possible use of

1419
this Bill to include one breed to start with but then to begin a creeping extension of the range of prohibition on dogs which, though perhaps not bred for fighting, as a breed might be regarded as dangerous. If that is not to happen under the Bill, we know where we stand.
In those circumstances there is no need for me to press my amendment to remove paragraph (c). That is intended to stop imports. I do not wish to amend that provision. I merely say that the wording of the amendment is not perhaps ideal from the point of view of statute law. I should not have thought that the characteristics of a dog bred for the purpose of fighting are easily distinguished from another condition of a dog. However, I am not unduly bothered about that. I am anxious to have a clear understanding of what the noble Earl said. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor moved The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("fighting") to end of line 11.
The noble Earl said: I shall speak briefly to this amendment but before doing so I should like to say that I agree entirely with those who have already spoken in this debate, not least my noble friend Lord Ferrers, that paragraph (c) is of great importance, as indeed are the first two paragraphs of Clause 1(1). I do not want in any way to disturb the idea that unpleasant fighting dogs might be brought into the country, bred in the country or should appear here in any way.
In reading Clause 1, I noticed that the strictures put on such dogs are very rightly immensely severe. They amount to a phasing out of those unpleasant animals that are in existence or may come into existence in this country. It seems perfectly reasonable, as is stated in paragraph (c), that the provision applies to:
"any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting".
The sentence should end there. But, unless I construe the sentence completely wrongly, it goes on to say:
"or to have the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose".
Taking the sentence as a whole, it implies that the first part is concerned with fighting dogs—those are the important dogs, the nasty dogs that we are after —and the second part of the sentence is an alternative. It concerns dogs which look like or have the characteristics of fighting dogs but which in fact are not fighting dogs. When the time comes I should be interested to learn whether my noble friend can tell me if my interpretation of the grammar is right or wrong.
When considering the characteristics of a fighting dog, there are already immense differences in size. The pit bull terrier is a reasonable size; the Tosa is obviously a quite unreasonable size. What are the characteristics of a fighting dog? They are its strong teeth, strong jaw, good spread of rib to carry a big heart and lungs, strong quarters, and so on. Are not those the characteristics of almost any dog except the poodle, the pug and a few others which have had those characteristics bred out of them years ago? I believe that the latter part of Clause 1(1) (c) is at best superfluous and at worst thoroughly dangerous.
If I am right, such a provision extends to the whole canine field the dogs that might be designated. I hope that my brief amendment, which seems reasonable, will prove acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. What are the characteristics of a dog bred for the purpose of fighting? How does one define "for the purpose of fighting"? All we know is that under the structure of Clause 1(1) (c) it is a composite set of characteristics which appear to a Secretary of State to have that quality. An amendment that I shall move later refers to what I consider to be the evil of the Bill. Let us consider Clause 5(5). It provides that,
"If in any proceedings it is alleged by the prosecution that a dog is one to which section 1 … applies".
I leave out the reference to Section 2 for the moment. Clause 1 refers to any dog of the type which appears to the Secretary of State to have the characteristics of a dog bred for the purpose of fighting. Clause 5(5) continues:
"it shall be presumed that it is such a dog unless the contrary is shown by the accused".
That is an oppressive and intolerable situation with which I shall seek to deal when I move my amendment. If my amendment were carried, it would mitigate the problem to which my noble friend Lord Radnor has referred.
However, my amendment does not deal with my noble friend's second point: what does the provision add? Is it not sufficient in this structure that it is a dog of a type which appears to the Secretary of State to be bred for fighting? One does not need the surplusage of a dog which appears to the Secretary of State to have the characteristics of a dog bred for the purpose of fighting. One comes round full circle. What are the characteristics of a dog which appears to the Secretary of State to be a dog bred for the purpose of fighting if it does not appear to the Secretary of State to be bred for that purpose? It is a little abstruse. Perhaps the draftsman was not doggy minded; I do not know. It does not seem to make much sense. I support my noble friend's amendment and the spirit in which it was moved.
Lord Addington: I understood the wording to cover cross-breeds and mongrels which may have the strain of a fighting dog in them. When the Minister replies perhaps he will clarify that that is why the words are included. If so, I suggest that the wording remains in that form because there is the problem of a feral dog which has a strain of pit bull terrier, Tosa or any other fighting dog in it. We should not overlook that danger.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I have great experience of dogs. I have kept many dogs. We seem to have forgotten about the human being who owns and controls the dog. He can either teach the dog to be savage or extremely gentle. About 100 years ago the miners in Staffordshire used to keep Staffordshire bull terriers. Presumably they taught them to fight. Now they are kept as family dogs. My children have them; they are charming dogs.
Let us consider the Alsatian. My daughter has kept three Alsatians. Your Lordships may think that she is mad but she is not; quite the contrary. Appalling

1421
crimes occur in this country. Therefore the Alsatian used to guard her children when she was in a flat in London. If anyone had tried to harm the children that Alsatian could have killed such a person, yet one could not have had a more gentle dog.
I realise that the Secretary of State has advisors. However, some Secretary of States may never have kept a dog in their lives. To judge a dog's suitability or otherwise for breeding from its fierce appearance is utter nonsense.
Let us consider greyhounds which race on the track. Many greyhounds are taught by men to race. Perhaps they get them excited by rats or cats. However, some greyhounds do not race instinctively. I believe that dogs are having a bad time and that it is unfair.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I agree entirely with what the noble Viscount said. Dogs are the property of human beings. Whether the dog is vicious or tender is a reflection of the character and mannerisms of the owner. One has to consider also the manner in which the dog is kept. Will it be locked up in a little shed all day or will it be looked after properly?
I do not believe that reference has to be made to the Secretary of State in relation to every provision. Such monitoring should be more local. For example, the local district council has to allocate a vet to inspect the premises and conditions under which horses and donkeys are kept. Similar monitoring should apply with regard to dogs. The location in which a dog is kept should be inspected by a vet on behalf of the local district council.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Like others of your Lordships, I have given very deep thought to this important matter. Like others, I have enormous, profound, almost unlimited, admiration for the intellectual qualities and powers of perception of all Secretaries of State. But having paid that unqualified tribute to them, I have to admit that the possibility occurs to me that even such intellectual giants, as they undoubtedly are, might be ever so slightly puzzled and embarrassed in the performance of the duty laid upon them by this clause:
"any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting".
He might manage that, but I do not know how he would judge,
"or to have the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose".
The judgment which the Secretary of State will be called upon to exercise will be of a highly subjective order. It might possibly provoke some measure of disagreement and argument. I can see such an argument going on almost without end. Greatly as I admire all Secretaries of State —indeed, I am swept away by admiration for them—I find it possible to sympathise with them in the difficulty which would confront them in calling such an argument to an end. Only weariness would be on their side.
1422
For those reasons, and because I wish to relieve Secretaries of State of embarrassment and do not wish them to be in any danger of revealing mere human limitations, I support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Strange: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment for exactly the same reasons. The matter is very wide. After all, dogs fight with their teeth. Nearly all dogs have teeth, which would mean that all dogs would be banned and that any dog which had prominent teeth would immediately become banned. In fact, the only dog that has ever bitten me was a Pekinese, and it had the greatest difficulty in doing so.
Lord Borthwick: I too should like to support the amendment, but I should like some clarification. First, what is a fighting dog? Terriers are bred for fighting but I am sure that they are not meant to be included in this blanket cover; they are a different type, small and harmless. I have had terriers, but unlike the noble Lord opposite I usually find the terrier looks after me rather than the other way round. Many dogs are like that: if their owner is attacked, the attacker finds himself in trouble. The dog cannot be blamed for that. He is looking after where his food comes from.
We should look further into the wording of the clause and not make it so general, and omit terriers from it if possible.
Lord Morris: One can only assume that the reason why the Bill is silent after the word "fighting" on the question of fighting what, is that it presumably means bred for fighting other dogs. It is silent on the matter, so presumably it is quite clear to everybody that a dachshund deliberately bred to fight and kill badgers and a foxhound deliberately bred to fight and kill foxes come within that ambit. I am not sure about this but, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, suggested, the last part of the subsection raises considerable difficulties.
Lord Richard: This is a wondrous place where one learns facts daily. I had no idea that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, felt that way about Secretaries of State. I can only say that in the decade that I observed him performing in another place his admiration was exceedingly well controlled.
Coming to the amendment, I am wondering whether there is some legal justification for the last qualification,
"or to have the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose".
If the Secretary of State were to be challenged—which, as Lord Peyton would say, heaven forfend—on the basis of designating a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting, he might not be able to say that it appeared to be bred for fighting but he would be able to say that it had the characteristics of a dog bred for fighting, in which case he would have the legal protection which would otherwise be denied him. Perhaps I am being unduly complicated in looking at those words but, the admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for Secretaries of State is undimmed, so I am bound to say is my admiration for parliamentary draftsmen. On the whole, if something is in a Bill there is usually a reason for it, and with my somewhat

1423
suspicious mind it seemed to me that those words gave a Secretary of State additional protection in law which he might not otherwise possess.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, surely that cannot be the reason if one looks at the form of statutory presumption in Clause 5(5). If one construes the Bill as a whole, that cannot be the effective reason. I see the noble Lord is nodding. So if there is no effective reason, and that is the only effective reason that has been suggested, perhaps my noble friend the Minister might be able to take some advice on the matter.
The Earl of Selkirk: The whole of the first clause deals with dog fighting. Dog fighting is illegal. Therefore, why does the Home Secretary, with the immense powers which we have heard he already has, not prevent dog fighting? If he does not have power to do that, would he ask for it? I believe that the whole Committee would support him in taking strong powers to enable him to prevent that obviously undesirable practice taking place. If he did that, he would no longer need to be in a position to define what the dogs were wanted for. If this aspect plays a major part in the consideration, it should be stopped. I believe that my noble friend would agree with that.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Could the definition "bred for fighting" be taken to include bred for hunting?
Earl Ferrers: I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil when he says that he had much sympathy with all Home Secretaries because when they had this problem to consider the argument would go on and on. I think that that has happened. If I may say so with the greatest respect, this is out of all proportion.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, said that dogs are the property of human beings and on the manner of their keeping depends the nature of the dogs. That may be so as to the character of dogs, but dogs are bred for different purposes in the same way as cows are bred for different purposes. A cow bred to give milk and one bred to give beef are two different animals. A dog bred for fighting is a specific description of an animal.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked whether fighting can mean hunting. One might just as well ask whether hunting can mean going to do the shopping. Fighting means fighting and does not mean hunting.
All we are doing in Clause 1 is to list the types of dog which can be banned from this country. Clause 1(1) (a) refers to the pit bull terrier; (1) (b) refers to the Japanese Tosa; and (1) (c) refers to any dog which the Home Secretary may designate by order,
" being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose".
There is no precise way to define a fighting dog. Some, like the pit bull terrier, will clearly be dogs that are bred for fighting. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is quite right; others will be cross-breeds. Although they may not have actually been bred for fighting, nevertheless they will show all the characteristics of a
1424
fighting dog. Those are the kinds of animals that may be brought into the country, and if they were, they would represent a considerable danger to the public.
It is necessary to take action to prevent the import of further undesirable types of dog so that we do not end up with the problem that we face in regard to the pit bull terrier, which itself is not a breed but a cross-breed. To support an import ban there needs to be a power to ban the ownership in this country of dogs of the same type.
It may be that some Members of the Committee fear that a future government would use the reference to these characteristics to take action to ban the ownership of dogs which are not fighting dogs. But the Bill is clear in the distinction which it makes between, on the one hand, fighting dogs and those with fighting characteristics and, on the other hand, other dangerous dogs. Clause 2 specifies the conditions which the Secretary of State could impose on other especially dangerous dogs which constitute a serious risk to the public. The power to take action against a type of dog which displays all the characteristics of a dog bred for fighting, even though it may not specifically have been bred for fighting, is an important element in protecting the public. I hope the Committee agrees with that.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked why the Government do not take action against dogs bred for fighting. That is precisely what we are doing. We do not want to see dogs bred for fighting being brought into the country. Whether it is done legally or illegally, we do not want dog fighting taking place or the types of dog which do that to be allowed to direct their energies to human beings.
The Earl of Radnor: That was an interesting debate and went on a great deal longer than I expected. My speech had the merit of probably being the shortest one of all. We have ranged over the subject of my amendment and indeed other subjects as well.
I do not feel that I received a proper answer to my question of whether the final part of the subsection is superfluous or dangerous. All dogs have similar characteristics to fighting dogs. The nearest I came to hearing a good reason for the provision was from the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Having had the matter so thoroughly aired this afternoon, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take it back to the Home Secretary or to the people who drafted the Bill. Perhaps they will examine what I thought was a matter of semantics as much as anything else to see whether a danger exists. Meanwhile, I shall read what has been said and reserve my position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) Any person who disputes any designation of a dog under this section shall have the right of appeal to an independent person with knowledge of breeds of dogs nominated by the Secretary of State and whose adjudication shall be final for the purposes of this section.").
The noble Lord said: I presume that the only dogs which are to be subject to the Bill at present are those mentioned in subsection ( I ). Any further dogs to be added to the list will be dogs which are not in this country but which we should stop coming into the country. If that is so then no other change in the scope of the Bill regarding dogs already here could be undertaken without an amending provision. That is what I need to be clear about. I am still doubtful whether it is as clear as I believe it to be.
Amendment No. 4 can apply at the moment only to dogs classified as pit bull terriers. It is under that classification that we intend to ban around 10,000 dogs. We hope that that situation will not arise again —that never again will 10,000 dogs be allowed into this country which should have been banned from the beginning. As the noble Earl said, the Government had the opportunity of banning pit bull terriers 10 years ago but they did not do so. That is why we are faced with the grievous situation of dealing with dogs already here by the thousand. We are to convert them into prohibited dogs and make their owners criminals if they fail to comply with the coercive terms of the Bill. That is bad luck on them. That is probably the main principle and mischief of the Bill to which serious objection can be taken.
A dog owner who has not committed any offence under the existing law may find himself having the custody of a prohibited dog. If he does not comply with the provisions of the Bill he is open to a criminal charge and severe punishment for keeping that prohibited dog. That is the heavy burden which many good Jog owners and dogs have to bear. They are converted from law-abiding citizens and dogs into criminals; the dog is prohibited and the owner turned into a criminal if he hangs on to it.
If I am clearly stating the present position, let me come to the case of the pit bull terrier owner who has a dog which he claims is not a pit bull terrier. There is no provision in the Bill for a possible dispute to be resolved. It is certain to arise in some cases. I have only to quote from the speeches made by four Ministers on the subject to give chapter and verse of the difficulties they foresaw regarding identification of a dog. There are mongrels about; they are not pure bred. What is a pit bull terrier? What antecedents does a dog need to have to be a pit bull terrier? I do not know how the matter will be approached. However, I know that we require some machinery to resolve the situation.
An owner may say, "My dog is not a pit bull terrier and I want to obtain a judgment on the matter. I know its pedigree. It is an English bull terrier", or he may say that it is a Staffordshire bull terrier. I understand that problems of differentiation arise because all these dogs come from common stock. The bull terrier is a mastiff and the English terrier a cross-breed. That is how it began. They went to America in that shape and there began lot of cross-breeding. However, it is basically an English dog. Where does the owner go who says, "My dog is not a pit bull terrier and I refuse to give him up on that ground", for his right of appeal?
The amendment provides that an independent person with a knowledge of the breeds of dogs nominated by the Secretary of State should adjudicate
1426
on whether the dog is a pit bull terrier. Otherwise, how does a man know whether he is within the law? Who is to say that a person has a pit bull terrier when the owner says that he has not? Who is to decide who is right? There is the possibility of serious trouble. There is a packet of trouble in the Bill for the individual, with the prospect of potential violence and scenes in homes and streets. We want to keep clear of such situations. There must be an opportunity for people with grievances resulting from the Bill to get them resolved when there is doubt whether they are within the law.
I leave the matter of the Tosa dog at the moment because he is not involved in the dispute on classification. We are talking about the pit bull terrier. That is the most difficult classification of all and it has to be settled somehow presumably for an individual dog and not for the breed. If it is claimed that the dog is not of that breed then the owner can say that it is not covered by the Bill. I hope that I have put the point over and that we are clear as to where the remedy lies if there is a dispute over the identification of a particular dog. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment. It is not a question of grievances but disputes as to designation. There is machinery under Clause 5(5) to which I propose to object when I move my Amendment No. 52. However, under the Bill as drafted there is full provision, using the statutory presumption, for disputes as to designation. Therefore the amendment cannot fit in with the Bill.
Lord Renton: I hope that the Committee will oppose the amendment. I do not think that it is necessary because the courts will be able to decide the issues that the noble Lord has mentioned. I am sure that the public, especially those who may have been alarmed by these dogs, would much rather the courts decided the matter than a person designated by the Home Secretary under the terms of the amendment and whose decision should be final. In any event such a procedure would lead to unnecessary delay and uncertainty.
There is a further problem. It is not absolutely clear whether in the amendment the noble Lord is referring to subsection (1), paragraph (a) and (b) only or whether he is also referring to paragraph (c), where the Home Secretary will have to take various decisions before making an order. The noble Lord did not quite express the matter in this way, but if he is anxious that the Home Secretary in taking such decisions, should get advice from experts who know about breeds of dogs, then it is much better that he should simply get that advice rather than nominate somebody to take a decision which may be contrary to that which he had intended to take and which would, in effect, overrule him.
For these and other reasons which one could mention, I suggest that the amendment should be opposed. Above all, it should be opposed because it is best to leave these matters to be decided, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, by other provisions in the Bill. Above all, these matters should be decided by the courts.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I am fascinated by the idea that the American pit bull terrier is pure-bred. If only a few more people would listen to the noble Lord, Lord Addington. He has said again and again that the best American pit bull terrier is a cross-bred animal. If we look back in our history books we see that the Staffordshire bull terrier was exported to the United States in the early part of this century specifically to be crossed with dogs with fighting temperaments because in the United States that was not illegal. The dog returned to this country and we crossed it many times in order to bring into being a positively vicious animal, as the press has told us on several occasions.
I say to the Secretary of State that I wish to ease the burden on his shoulders. If he can designate to the local authority or the district council the task of appointing various people such as vets, wardens or other authorities to designate the characteristic of a dangerous dog and not necessarily a fighting dog, then we will not have the massive number of appeals that has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
There is another way out, if the noble Lord does not mind. I understand that there are about 10,000 pit bull terriers in this country. Rather than go to the expense of an appeal the owners could send the dogs to his house and they could stay there.
Earl Ferrers: I shall deal first with the point raised at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I believe that he asked whether he was right in saying that the clause refers only to dogs coming into the country. That needs clarification. Subsection (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), refer to the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa, both of which are at present in this country. Paragraph (c) refers to any other dog which may be added by the Secretary of State by order after approval by both Houses of Parliament. That is likely to include dogs which at the moment are not in this country. The present discussion concerns what happens to a person who is in possession of what is considered to be a prohibited dog, which both the pit bull terrier and the Tosa will become if and when the Bill becomes law.
I believe that there are enough safeguards in the Bill to render the noble Lord's amendment unnecessary. My noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton are right. It is a job for the courts. That is the right place for a person to have his complaint or dispute settled. Perhaps I may tell the Committee what it is proposed shall be done.
All police forces and other relevant bodies will be issued with detailed guidelines on how to recognise pit bull terriers and other types of prohibited dogs. That should ensure that very few incorrect designations are made in the first place. If there is any doubt in the mind of the police as to whether the dog is of a prohibited type, they will of course check with the veterinary surgeon before they proceed with a prosecution.
If a case comes to court because a person is in possession of a prohibited dog, expert witnesses can be called to advise on the designation of the dog. The court is just the place where the evidence of an expert who has knowledge of breeds will be most useful. I
1428
envisage that the court will be looking to the expert for guidance when there is a dispute as to whether a dog is of a prohibited type. If a defendant wishes to appeal against the decision of the court he is perfectly entitled to do so. The case would then be heard on appeal in a higher court. There would be fresh consideration of the evidence. Therefore, I believe that there is plenty of opportunity for a person to say, "My dog is not of the kind that I am accused of having. I believe that it is a different dog". He can bring witnesses to support his case.
All that would ensure that the owner has every opportunity to prove that his dog is not a pit bull terrier or another type of prohibited dog. The fact is that veterinary surgeons can say with some certainty that a dog is not a pit bull terrier. However, it cannot be said with the same certainty that a dog is a pit bull terrier. That is the reason why the Bill is drafted in the way that it is. I do not think that we need to provide separate appeals procedures which the amendment proposes. There are sufficient procedures to allow for justice in the Bill as it is at the moment.
5 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My assessment of the Bill might require some revision in the light of some of the statements made by the noble Earl. The interpretation of the Bill has certainly been taken further than I have been able to take it. I see here the difference between an independent adjudicator and a court—that seems to be the difference. The court is apparently available to a person who says, "I have a dog which is not a pit bull terrier. Therefore I don't surrender him to anybody. He is outside the scope of the Bill". If someone then says that the dog has all the characteristics of a pit bull terrier, the question will then have to be decided by the court as to whether it is a pit bull terrier for the purpose of the Act. That I presume to be what the noble Earl has just said. It may be an expensive business to go to the court to get classification of a dog; but that is more satisfactory than having no recourse to the right of appeal at all.
There are a great many questions still which must be asked about this matter. It will be very difficult for us to complete all stages of the Bill without being given a glimpse of the regulations to follow. There is much here that could be settled when we know what the guidelines will be; for example, instructions to the police as to how they are to recognise a pit bull terrier, and so forth. It is vitally important because the classification determines whether the man has a prohibited dog. Possession of a prohibited dog is a criminal offence. There is criminality in the background of everything connected with the Bill. The mere fact of possession is enough to make someone become a member of the criminal classes. The Bill could widely extend the area of the criminal classes, especially if there were more dogs brought into the country. That is still a fear that may lurk in the minds of people. However, I gather from what the noble Earl has said that we can be quite clear that the dogs identified in the Bill are the ones in the Bill and that no more breeds will be added until the Secretary of State is of the opinion that some that want to come in

1429
should be stopped from coming in and any in that classification that have crept in will be covered by the ban. At least the Bill will not extend widely in the range of existing dogs of different breeds that are not classified in this Bill as fighting dogs. If that is clear then a good deal of the fear and objections to the Bill begin to disappear. So far as I am concerned on this amendment I shall take what the noble Earl has said about recourse to the courts, as that is where a dispute might ultimately have to go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord does so, I wonder whether I can help him. He is still worried about this matter, and I want to clear his mind about it. The position is that those dogs which will be banned are the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa. If any others are banned it will be under an order produced by the Secretary of State which will be put to both Houses of Parliament and which has to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament. That will refer to fighting dogs only. As all the fighting dogs that we know of in this country are already included in the Bill, any other fighting dogs which might be included under this ban will be those which are not at present in the country. I hope that will lay the noble Lord's anxieties to rest.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. It completely clears the situation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 12, after ("person") insert ("knowing, suspecting, or having cause to suspect that the dog has been bred for fighting, or has the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 5 which stands in my name irrespective of whether in due course it may have to be amended as a result of Amendment No. 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Radnor. With the leave of the Committee, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 52 which are in effect consequential.
At the outset, as we are concerned with an important point of construction and interpretation, I should like to thank the Minister for the explanations that he has given in the debate and for his interpretation of the provisions which fortunately square with my own, so we start on entirely common ground.
The object of this set of amendments is to mitigate the severity of the statutory regime proposed by the Bill by excising the statutory presumption in Clause 5(5), particularly Amendment No. 52 and by these amendments, to restore the traditional process of a criminal trial where the burden of proof rests upon the Crown, and excise totally the concept of an absolute offence in which a statutory presumption serves as an aid to conviction. The absolute offence is as set out in Clause 1(2). The statutory presumption used to serve as an aid for conviction of the absolute offence, which seems to me to be the same type of offence as riding a bicycle without a rear light, is in Clause 5(5).
The key amendment is Amendment No. 5 to which I speak and which, as it stands, creates a series of five
1430
statutory absolute offences. The effect of the amendment is to require the Crown to prove that the accused knew, suspected or had cause to suspect either that the dog had been bred for fighting or had the characteristics of a dog bred for that purpose. Never mind about the drafting. The Committee will know that I am no draftsman, and I have had no assistance. I am trying to produce a form of words which makes it necessary to establish as in the ordinary process of a criminal trial that the accused had guilty knowledge, or a culpable state of mind. That is what I am seeking to do—and this as an essential ingredient of the offence. If this amendment were carried, it would affect I think prosecutions for breach of muzzling and abandonment of other types of dangerous dogs under restrictions to be imposed by the Secretary of State by order under Clause 2. If one is going to have guilty knowledge as an essential ingredient in Clause 1, it would be reasonable and consistent to follow that pattern in Clause 2, but not necessarily in other parts of the Bill.
The initiative of government is much to be welcomed. It is only the form it has taken which, I respectively suggest to the Committee, warrants very careful examination. The Committee may well think that Clause 1(2), together with the presumption in Clause 5(5), constitutes an overreaction which is not requisite to deal with a serious problem and could work a measure of oppression against the innocent who had no guilty knowledge.
Amendment No. 5, with its sister amendments which stand in my name, has been tabled only to engender discussion and debate and to canvass the opinions of Members of the Committee. It would not be my intention to divide the Committee on the amendment unless there were a very wide margin of apparent consensus. If there were no such apparent consensus I would wish to consider everything that Members of the Committee had said. If in due course, by leave, Amendment No. 5 were to be withdrawn, it would not be the intention to move either of the sister amendments, Amendments Nos. 16 or 52, but I would reserve the right to return to Amendment No. 52 at a subsequent stage of the proceedings on the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: In my opinion, and with respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, Amendments Nos. 16 and 52 deserve to be considered on their own merits and quite independently of Amendment No. 5, which I do not regard as a necessary paving amendment for either of the others. I make no further comment on Amendment No. 5. However, I greatly sympathise with what my noble friend said about Amendments Nos. 16 and 52. I should like briefly to comment on them.
Amendment No. 16 proposes to leave out some words which are very unusual in a statute. They presuppose that somebody can be convicted of an offence for which normally, under the Bill, imprisonment or a fine would be possible. However, in this case the Bill states that on conviction the person shall not be liable to imprisonment. That might be all right but for the fact that the burden of proof which

1431
brings about that situation rests upon him. I really do not see why it should do so. I agree with my noble friend to that extent.
With Amendment No. 52, which proposes to leave out subsection (5) of Clause 5, we have a very much more serious proposition. There we are dealing with a presumption on the question of innocence or guilt. The presumption is entirely placed upon the accused person. We even find it stated that the accused shall not be permitted to adduce evidence of a certain kind, as mentioned earlier, unless he has given the prosecution notice of his intention to do so not later than 21 days before the trial. In the circumstances likely to arise in such cases, that is an onerous condition anyway quite apart from the fact that it places the burden of proof on the accused. I earnestly hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will consider this subsection again. It does not necessarily fit into the Bill. It is certainly unusual and does not fit into our normal methods of conducting criminal trials.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton to the extent that I am not sure that Amendment No. 16 does not sit somewhat uneasily with Amendment No. 5. However, I am quite happy to take them together as that is what my noble friend Lord Campbell wished.
I have some sympathy with the first amendment which seeks to protect people who unknowingly happen to own a prohibited dog. We intend to publicise widely the provisions of the Bill before they come into force and to suggest to those who are not sure whether their dog is a Clause 1 dog that they should take expert advice. This will enable people to know whether or not their dog is of a prohibited type. Most people know that already. But by the time the offence of possessing a prohibited dog, as set out in Clause 1(3), comes into force in November, I do not think anyone will be in a position honestly to say that he had no idea or had no cause to suspect that his dog was a pit bull terrier. I do not see the value of inviting the court to spend its time listening to arguments along those lines which would be the result of my noble friend's amendment.
The second related amendment suggests that the burden of proof should be shifted back onto the prosecution so that it would be for the prosecution to prove that the dog in question was a Clause 1 dog. I know that the burden of proof normally rests on the prosecution, but there are good reasons for setting aside that general principle in this case. We are not dealing with a complex series of actions and assertions, as is often the case with court hearings. Here all that is at issue is whether or not the dog is of a prohibited type.
In most cases that question will have been settled before the case even comes near the court. The owner of a dog which is not, say, a pit bull terrier will provide evidence to the police from a veterinary surgeon or from some other expert that his dog is not a pit bull terrier. If that is so, no charges will be brought. However, if the police or the prosecuting authorities
1432
say, "Despite what your veterinary surgeon says, our veterinary surgeon says it is a pit bull terrier and you ought not to have it", then the matter will go to court. If the burden of proof were on the prosecution, and if they were expected, whenever the accused pleaded not guilty, to call expert witnesses to testify that the dog was a pit bull terrier, that would be difficult. It would be an opportunity for unscrupulous defendants to lengthen court cases unnecessarily. It would be far better to allow that the dog is assumed to be of a prohibited type unless the defendant can produce evidence to prove that it is not. That still gives the accused plenty of opportunity to make his point if he believes that a mistake has genuinely been made without requiring expert witnesses to be called when there is no real question as to the dog's type.
My noble friend referred to Amendment No. 16. It removes the protection for publishers which has been carefully drafted into the Bill. It seems only reasonable to us that a distinction should be drawn between the person who tries to sell, exchange or give away his dog by means of an advertisement and the person who, without helping to draft the copy, actually prints the advertisement. I accept that the latter person is guilty of the offence of advertising a prohibited dog. However, it seems only common sense that the offence which he has committed is not as serious as that committed by the owner who is trying to get rid of his dog. That is why we propose that, if found guilty, the publisher may be fined but not imprisoned.
To take the matter a step further, it is only fair that a publisher should not be liable to be convicted at all if he prints an advertisement which he genuinely had no idea referred to a prohibited dog. I understand that much jargon and obscure language are already used in advertisements to describe the fighting prowess of pit bull terriers. I gather that if you state that it is a "heroic dog" it means that it has had one fight; if you describe it as "especially heroic", that means that it has had at least two or possibly more fights; and, finally, if you refer to its "gameness", you are referring to its propensity to fight. There is a kind of coding in some of these advertisements.
I imagine that in the future that practice may develop to such an extent that such coding will evolve to a greater extent. It would not be sensible or fair to prosecute a publisher for printing such an advertisement if he were able to show that he had no reason to know to what it really referred. The burden of proof would be on the publisher to show that he had no reasonable cause to suspect the real purpose of the advertisement. That is only right. We would not want publishers to be able to print illegal advertisements with impunity. However, as it stands, the provision allows the genuinely innocent party a chance to escape conviction.
For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will agree that the Bill as drafted would be preferable to having my noble friend's amendments incorporated in it.
Lord Monson: Does the Minister agree that the Government have precedent on their side in the matter of absolute offences? Does he agree that for many years it was an absolute offence for anyone in this

1433
country to be in possession of gold coins, whether or not they knew or had any reason to know that such gold coins were in their possession, possibly because they were in the bottom of a trunk in the attic which once belonged to some remote member of their family?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord has the advantage on me. Without advice, I have not the slightest idea what the position was as regards handling or possessing gold coins. However, if he believes that what he says is comet, I have no doubt that it is.
Lord Airedale: During part of his argument the Minister said that the amendment would give accused people the opportunity to waste the time of the court. However, when that happens they usually cop it when it comes to the pronouncement of sentence. Therefore, I do not believe that that part of the noble Earl's argument was his strongest point.
Earl Ferrers: I was merely trying to point out that, when such a case comes to court, if the burden of proof was on the prosecution it would have to reply every time the accused pleaded not guilty. In other words, as soon as the accused says "Not guilty", you have to wheel in all the arguments to prove that he is guilty.
We are suggesting that the person should have to prove that what he is accused of having is in fact not what he is accused of having. That is a much simpler way to deal with it and would greatly expedite the work of the courts. I should not care to speculate on whether the accused person would "cop it", as the noble Lord so graphically put it, by pleading not guilty and then being proved guilty; that would be a matter for the court in each case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am extremely grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. Certain questions have been raised and, to some extent, noble Lords may think that the answers still remain somewhat open. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for the measure of support he was able to give to this set of amendments. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his sympathy, which is always welcome. However, his attitude on the reversal of the burden of proof is frankly neither understood nor so far as I am concerned accepted.
The Crown in practice—and I ask my noble friend to consider what would happen in practice in a criminal trial—will send a veterinary deposition to the defence which says, "This dog is a prohibited dog". But 99 times out of 100 we now have, or have had for the past 10 years, a process of making formal admissions in criminal trials. Moreover, 99 times out of 100 in such cases the defence will write back to say, "We admit that the dog is a prohibited dog on the basis of your deposition". It is only in the very rare case where there is something adrift that the defence will not admit. In such circumstances, the Crown should he required to prove the case in the traditional way.
I should like to have the opportunity to consider with great care everything that has been said by
1434
Members of the Committee. I especially wish to consider whether I am mistaken in seeing the nexus between these three amendments. It is open to any noble Lord to move Amendment No. 16 or Amendment No. 52 in Committee, if so advised. For example, if my noble friend Lord Renton wishes to do so, I should be honoured and delighted. However, I shall not do so.
I still, perhaps mistakenly, see a consistency between the three amendments in the set and a requisite nexus. I should prefer to study the matter and reserve my position until the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. On that occasion I may move these amendments together or separately. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("owner") and insert ("keeper").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 27, 42 to 44, 51 and 56. Amendment No. 56 contains the text which is perhaps the most explicable in terms of what is proposed. In general terms, the purpose of these amendments is to make it clear beyond all reasonable doubt, in what, after all, are criminal proceedings, who will be subject to the criminal sanctions in the Bill.
There are no fewer than seven references in the Bill to an "owner" but nowhere is there any definition of the word. While that was not a problem in the days when the Dog Licences Act 1959 was in force, the absence of such clarity in this Bill will make it virtually impossible for the enforcement of its provisions to succeed. I am bound to say that the definition as it appears at present in the Bill will provide a field day for members of my profession who will find themselves defending dog owners or dogs.
The amendment follows the rule at common law that responsibility for an animal's acts depends on ownership or possession of it. It is in the same form as the eminently sensible provisions of the Animals Act 1971 which sets out with clarity the liability for other "dangerous animals" and which makes clear parents' responsibility for their children's pets.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to Amendment No. 56 which concerns Clause 8. Here I am seeking to say that for the purpose of the Act a person is a keeper of a dog if,

"(a) he owns the dog or has it in his possession; or

(b) he is the head of a household of which a member under the age of 16 owns the dog or has it in his possession".

The amendment continues to state:
"If at any time a dog to which this Act applies ceases to be owned by or to be in the possession of a person, any person who immediately before that time was a keeper thereof by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection continues to be a keeper of the dog until another person becomes a keeper".
The object of the last provision is simple: it is to prevent people abandoning pit bull terriers and thereby escape liability.
Without the main provisions of the amendments, the procedure under Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, which is preserved in the Bill, would be wholly ineffective. Courts have said that in civil proceedings

1435
under the 1871 Act no order can be made against someone who was the owner of a dog when it was dangerous but who bona fide transferred the dog to someone else before the hearing, and that such an order can be made against the new owner provided that he or she can be identified. That is a patent shortcoming in the 1871 Act which would be removed by the amendment.
The general point that is sought to be made is simple. As there is no definition of an owner in the Bill, there is a legal loophole which needs filling. The definition that I propose in Amendment No. 56 refers to the "keeper of a dog". That is a much more graspable—if I may use that word—legal definition than the somewhat fuzzy one that we have at the moment. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Morris: The Committee should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for raising this important and difficult point. It is not just a dry drafting point. I can illustrate how difficult the position can be. I am ashamed to say that a few years ago I once rounded, pompously and aggressively, on a woman who had allowed her dog to defecate fulsomely and unattractively on a beach in South Cornwall which was populated at the time by mothers and children and, much more importantly, by me. She disarmed me by turning round and saying, "But it is not my dog". In practice, establishing the ownership, custody and control of a dog is difficult.
The problem with the Bill is clear. Clause 1(2) (d), to which Amendment No. 6 relates, refers to:
"the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge",
and yet the Bill's Long Title refers to "possession or custody". "Possession" and "custody" can be construed differently from "ownership" and "being in charge". For that reason the noble Lord, Lord Richard, seeks to improve the Bill. I ask my noble friend to consider the point carefully, because it is an important one.
Viscount Mountgarret: I echo the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Morris and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on raising this important point. I am sure that there are many people like myself who have staff and employees who by the nature of their employment are required to have dogs. Although I have given them the dogs I am still the legal owner. They are the keepers of the dog. The definition should be the one that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has proposed, and I hope that my noble friend will take that point on board.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is right to draw attention to the fact that it is important for this legislation to cover the keeper of the dog rather than confine itself to the owner. Difficulties in enforcement have occurred under previous legislation which was framed solely in terms of the owner. That is why the Bill is already framed in such a way as to cope with that difficulty. Repeatedly throughout the Bill provision is made for both the owner and for
"the person for the time being in charge",
1436
of the dog. It could be argued that the term "keeper" proposed by the noble Lord is already included in the Bill in the phrase,
"the person for the time being in charge of the dog".
That covers the "keeper". Under the amendment, a person is the keeper if he owns the dog or has it in his possession.
There are significant advantages in staying with the term,
"the person for the time being in charge of it".
If the dog that I happen to be taking for a walk slips its lead and gallops across the meadow, there can be little doubt that I am the person for the time being in charge of it, but it may be more open to argument whether I possessed it at the time—as it slipped its lead, presumably I did not possess it—or whether the person who possessed it was the owner, and he may be a different person from me.
The strength of the noble Lord's argument is that where a young person is involved, his parents cannot sidestep their responsibilities by claiming that the dog is both owned and kept by the youngster. There might be an advantage in that argument.
I should like to consider the noble Lord's argument and those put forward by my noble friends. My impression is that the notion of,
"the person for the time being in charge of the dog",
is probably the preferable definition. I shall come forward on Report with an amendment which will pick up the point about the head of the household where the owner of a dog is a young person. I am happy to consider the points that the Committee has made.
Lord Richard: In view of the Minister saying that he will study the definition point to decide whether the notion of keeping a dog is sufficiently covered by the Bill and consider possession of a dog by someone under the age of 16, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) allow such a dog of which he is the owner to be kept in insecure conditions in and around the place where the owner is residing;").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment attempts to deal with a point which most Members of the Committee will agree is fundamental to the Bill, which was introduced as a result of tragic attacks on people, some young and some old. Those attacks were dangerous, distressing and sometimes fatal. The Bill goes a long way towards dealing with the dangers caused by dogs specified in this part of the Bill.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that we want so far as is possible to prevent those tragic accidents. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that dogs are kept in secure conditions although the wording provides that the person shall not,
"allow such a dog of which he is the owner to be kept in insecure conditions".
The intention is that the permit enabling someone to own a pit bull terrier, the main type of dog that we are considering, should contain a distinct condition which the owner should fulfil that the dog should be kept in

1437
secure conditions. Secure conditions may be many and various depending upon the particular case, but a responsible owner would in any event seek professional advice. What is more important, if a dog warden or a police officer saw that a dog was being kept in unsatisfactory conditions, with fences that were too low and with insufficient space available to the dog, or in insecure conditions, the permit could be withdrawn. That is the aim of my amendment. I am advised that in the United States there is a body of literature published by animal welfare organisations entitled The Long-Term Care of Aggressive Pit Bull Terriers. It stresses the serious and difficult problems invoked in providing genuinely secure conditions for such dogs.
Obviously, responsible owners will have no problems with this. They will find the best way in which to provide the ideal secure surroundings for their dogs. Others will not. However, if my amendment is accepted, it will go a long way towards giving power to the professionals, like the dog wardens or others, who are responsible, to make sure that the dogs are not a danger to the public because of the conditions in which they are kept. That would be of great help. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: I support the amendment. It seems to me that if one looks at the way in which Clause 1(2) is framed, it contains a series of prohibitions on the part of any person who owns a dog of the type known as a pit bull terrier. Subsection (2) (d) states that a person shall not:
"allow such a dog of which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead".
It seems to me that the amendment is designed to take that prohibition one stage further. Even if the dog is not in public place, nevertheless it should be kept in secure conditions. That is for two reasons. First, the definition of a public place is somewhat imprecise. One could have a situation where a dog is being kept in a private place but where it is nevertheless terrorising the immediate neighbourhood. Secondly, it seems to me that an obligation to keep one of these dogs in secure conditions is a good way of preventing it escaping. If it escapes another offence may be committed but the damage will have been done. The Bill is not designed to enact legalities, it is designed to make a practical contribution to how the dogs shall be looked after. I support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I support my noble friend. At Second Reading I mentioned that the police had told me that they had gone to arrest people who they knew had committed offences. When they went to the estate they could not get near the front door because people had quite deliberately obtained dogs which were not friendly. Someone asked earlier how one would know; I do not think that there is much doubt: if a dog bares its teeth at you it is not exactly saying hello.
There is a real problem on these estates because people have even been using the dogs to prevent rents
1438
being collected. All kinds of other horrific things are going on and this would be an answer to the problem. It applies not only to a public place but to any where,
"in and around the place where the owner is residing".
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this important and vital amendment. Unless it or something similar is accepted, Clause 1 will be incomplete and the Government's laudable objectives will be only half achieved. So important is the amendment that two days ago I added my name to it. I was in the Public Bill Office when my name was written down and I can only suppose that a printer's error omitted it from the Marshalled List. I mention that in order to convince my noble friends on these Benches, if they need convincing, that this is by no means a party political amendment. It can and should be supported by Members in all parts of the Committee.
When I am in the country I live only four miles from where not long ago Mr. Frank Tempest, the bakery worker, was horribly attacked by a pit bull terrier while walking home from a night shift. He suffered terrible injuries, of which Members of the Committee may have seen photographs which he bravely allowed to be published in the national press. He was not attacked by a dog in a public place but by one which had jumped over an insecure fence.
If the Bill had been enacted two years ago with the inclusion of this amendment, there is a good chance that that appalling incident would never have occurred. Mr. Tempest's face would have remained intact and he would not have to suffer the misery which he will suffer possibly for the rest of his life. If the Bill had been enacted minus the amendment the attack could well still have taken place during any time up to the year 2015 or however long it takes for these breeds to become extinct. It would not prevent these dangerous animals being kept in insecure private premises. The dogs can easily escape from them and attack men, women and children who may be playing in an adjoining garden.
Unless this amendment or something similar is agreed to either today or at the next stage, there will be a gaping hole in Clause 1 through which hundreds of dangerous dogs will—literally as well as metaphorically—be able to escape, possibly at the expense of hundreds of innocent men, women and children.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I have great sympathy with the objectives of the amendment. However, I am not sure whether it or the Bill itself is likely to achieve the degree of security that I am sure the Committee wishes to see. I do not believe that either the Bill or the amendment defines precisely what "secure" means. I accept that it is difficult. We have all heard stories, which we have been told are correct, where pit bull terriers have eaten their way through heavy doors. They have managed to eat away fences, getting through or over them. If that were to occur, the person would then be able to say, "But this was a secure fence or a secure door for almost any type of dog but not for a pit bull". That is not prescribed in the Bill, nor is it fully defined in the amendment.

1439
There are other cases where secure premises are provided for such dogs but a child or some other person in the family may leave a door open a chink. Then one of these dangerous dogs may escape through it while someone is passing. Is that covered? The premises would be secure; they would only be temporarily made insecure by the action of a child. Who would be responsible? Would it be the owner? If my noble friend can clarify these points, I shall listen with great interest.
Earl Ferrers: Like other Members of the Committee, I have a great deal of sympathy for the motivation behind the amendment of the noble Viscount. However, for the reasons which I propose to give the Committee, I do not believe that it is necessary.
Clause 1(2) (e) of the Bill provides that no person shall allow his prohibited dog to stray. Anyone who kept his dog in insecure conditions would be bound to fall foul of this provision. That would act as a powerful incentive to those who wish to retain the dogs, to ensure that they are securely kept.
My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes asks, "What about pit bull terriers who eat their way through doors and protected places?". Although it will be for the courts to interpret this, not me, my interpretation is that if a dog escapes from a building which is supposed to be secure, it obviously is not secure. Therefore the person would be guilty of the offence of not keeping the dog in an adequately secure place.
We have tabled a new amendment to Clause 3. Amendment No. 28 would apply the provisions of the offence in Clause 3(1) in the case of an owner who lets his dog go onto private property on which it is not permitted and where that dog subsequently becomes dangerously out of control. I believe that that covers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who has temporarily disappeared. Perhaps she has been eaten by a Rottweiler. However, I am sure she will reappear in due course.
The Government's Amendment No. 28 states quite clearly that if an owner allows his dog to:
"enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there—

(a) it injures any person; or

(b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so, he is guilty of an offence".

I believe that means that the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control could be committed if the dog were in a next door neighbour's garden. That is another strong incentive for owners to ensure that their dogs are securely controlled.
Furthermore, Clause 3(4) of the Bill ensures that anyone who is concerned that a particular dog is dangerous and is not being kept under proper control may request a court order specifying how the dog should be brought under control. A dog does not have to have caused injury for that to be done. A person can take his neighbour to court if the person fears his neighbour's dog might cause injury. It would be quite within the court's powers to order that the owner should keep his dog in secure buildings or in any other specified manner. The court may even order that the
1440
owner has to build a lock-up safe for his dog and put the dog in it, if the court feels such a step is appropriate. I hope that if people have any doubts about whether a dog is being kept securely, they will not hesitate to use that power. I hope I have covered the concerns of the noble Viscount. I and other Members of the Committee share those concerns, but I believe they have been met in Amendment No. 28.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Earl sits down, I hope I may ask him whether allowing a dog effectively to jump out of a private garden or house into the road, where two minutes later it severely injures someone, constitutes straying in law. Straying surely presupposes that a dog is loose for a considerable period of time.
My next comment follows from what the noble Earl has just said. Even if it is the case that the incident that I have just described constitutes straying in law, and even if the Government's amendment—I agree that Amendment No. 28 is certainly a great improvement on the Bill as it first came to the Chamber—is agreed to, the Government are still effectively shutting the kennel door after the pit bull terrier has escaped. The amendment of the noble Viscount would prevent these terrible incidents taking place whereas the Government's amendment would simply allow people to be prosecuted after the incident had taken place. Surely prevention is better than a penalty.
Earl Ferrers: With regard to the first point made by the noble Lord, if a dog escapes onto the road it is straying. As regards the noble Lord's second point, obviously a person will be prosecuted after an offence has occurred. One cannot prosecute him before it has occurred. All one can do is to make provisions in the Bill which state that if an owner keeps his dog in a manner which contravenes the terms of the Bill, he is committing an offence and he will be prosecuted.
Lord Richard: Before the noble Earl sits down, I hope I may revert to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. There is a distinction between keeping a dog in a secure place and allowing it to stray. One could keep a dog in an insecure place but on a lead. If the dog breaks its lead, the lead slips or the lead is not sufficiently strong, the dog can perfectly well stray if the place in which it is kept is insecure. If the place is secure, the dog is penned in whether or not it is on a lead. However, under the terms of the Bill the dog should be kept on a lead, and I totally accept that. The noble Earl asked us to look at the Government's Amendment No. 28 to Clause 3. That amendment states:
"If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be".
If the dog is at home with his owner, it is in a place where it is permitted to be. It is not in a place where it is not permitted to be. I support the amendment of the noble Viscount because it provides that if someone were to be permitted to own a pit bull terrier or a fighting dog, he should keep it in a secure place so that it does not get out or stray and possibly injure people as a result.
Earl Ferrers: If a person keeps a pit bull terrier inside his house, the dog is permitted to be there. However, if the pit bull terrier then jumps over the garden fence and sits in a next door neighbour's garden, he is in a place where he is not permitted to be. That is the offence we are discussing.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is concerned about this matter, but the Bill contains provisions to protect any person who is concerned about a particular dog. I received a letter from a lady the other day who was very worried. She said that she could not leave her house because of her next door neighbour's pit bull terrier. She said the neighbour would not do anything about the dog and she was petrified by it. That person can go to court under the terms of the Dogs Act and ask for an order to be made against the dog concerned. However, the Bill we are discussing permits a court to state what the dog's owner must do to bring his dog under control. Therefore I believe that point is covered in the Bill. The concern of a person who believes a dog may attack him, even though it has not yet done so, is also covered. I believe that the Bill offers reasonable protection in this regard.
The Earl of Limerick: I did not intend to intervene as I have sympathy with the substance of the amendments. However, I was prompted by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to make a point about drafting. Amendment No. 7 states that an owner must not allow his dog to be kept in insecure conditions,
"in and around the place where the owner is residing".
A garden constitutes a place that is around a house where a dog's owner is residing. That garden may have an eight foot fence which is perfectly secure, but if an intruder climbs that fence and the dog is in the garden—dogs enter gardens regularly for obvious reasons—and the dog bites the intruder, that would seem to pose a problem as regards the drafting of the amendment. I do not believe it was intended to create a difficulty, but a difficulty is created by the drafting of the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that that constitutes a drafting problem. It may constitute a problem for the person who is climbing an eight foot fence. If he is eaten by a dog, that serves him jolly well right.
Lord Airedale: If a dog is chained up in the garden of its owner's house and it breaks the chain and bites the postman, the dog has not strayed and it is still confined within its own garden. Nevertheless a tragedy has occurred. I do not think that the noble Earl's argument about straying has any relevance to that situation. I believe that we need a provision along the lines suggested by my noble friend's amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Obviously if a person has a dog on a lead and the lead is insufficient to hold the dog, the dog is not secure. That is one of the reasons why my right honourable friend may bring in an order under the reserve powers to state the type of lead or muzzle that must be provided for the dog that is the subject of the reserve powers. There is no virtue in saying that a dog must merely be put on a lead if that lead is 100 yards long. Equally there is no virtue in restraining a
1442
pit bull terrier with a lead that one would use to take a Pekinese out for a walk. That is why my right honourable friend has the power under the terms of this Bill to bring in an order which states the type of lead that is required to keep the animal concerned under control.
Lord Richard: I am sorry to intervene again. The noble Earl looks a little apprehensive. There appears to be nothing in the Bill which states that one must keep a pit bull terrier secure. The word "secure" does not appear. One is under an obligation not to allow it to stray, but that is an entirely different proposition. I should also point out that Clause 3 applies not only to fighting dogs but, as I understand it, to any dog which may be dangerous or dangerously out of control. The Government are not in effect placing a specific obligation on an owner of a pit hull terrier. The obligation imposed under Clause 3 may apply to an Alsatian, a Rottweiler or to any other dog, even to a corgi if it were sufficiently incensed. The important point is that nowhere in this Bill is there an obligation to keep a pit bull terrier secure. That is what we trying to introduce.
Baroness Seear: I apologise for arriving late for this debate. Am I to understand that the law will allow a dog to be kept in a permitted place, which would include the garden of the owner's house? What about the children or the domestic help, if the owners are lucky enough to have one? However, I do not suppose that the domestic help would stay if there were a pit bull terrier about. If the dog is allowed to be in the garden there is nothing to stop it savaging children who go out there or the domestic help who pops out to hang the tea towels out to dry. Is there any protection then?
Earl Ferrers: It may help the Committee if I reply now to the noble Baroness's question. We are talking about an exempted dog whose owner has the right to keep it. The owners are entitled to look after that dog in whatever way they wish. If their children are there, that is perfectly all right.
There is nothing which says that the dog must not stray. However, one commits an offence if one does not keep the dog in secure conditions and as a result damage could occur. It is also an offence to keep a dog in such a way as to cause other people to fear for their lives or their safety. That is where the sanction lies.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am gratified that there was so much support for the general drift of the amendment. It has been an interesting debate. I had a clear idea of what I thought were secure surroundings for a dog of this kind but I am not quite so sure following the debate. For that reason, and because various points have been put forward by the noble Earl and by other Members of the Committee which I should like to consider, perhaps I may return to the matter later.
I take the line of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the difference between allowing a dog to stray and not keeping a dog in secure surroundings is an important one. I should like to see such an onus placed upon owners of pit bull terriers, although that is very

1443
difficult to enforce until an offence has occurred. It will become clear only after a period of time and with experience, which one hopes will not be an unhappy experience as a result of more people being attacked by such dogs. However, I believe that there is a need for the Bill to impose an obligation to provide secure surroundings for the dogs.
I should like to take the amendment away, read carefully in the Official Report what has been said and perhaps return to the matter at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
6 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("or").
The noble Viscount said: In speaking to Amendment No. 9 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. The amendments are concerned with those people who for one reason or another are looking after or keeping a fighting dog of the kind specified in the Bill either for veterinary treatment or because the local authority or police have taken charge of the dog until such time as the owner appears in court. For example, if a dog is seized by the police at a dog fight the animal will be needed as evidence and may be kept for some weeks before the offender comes to court.
The amendment attempts to protect such keepers of unexempted fighting dogs from the implications of the Bill. They will normally be the police, local authorities or veterinary surgeons. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: The effect of the noble Viscount's amendment is, or should be, very marginal. After November this year when Clause 1(3) comes into effect, there should be no unexempted pit bull terriers or other Clause 1 dogs which will need veterinary treatment.
Equally, the provision which the noble Viscount proposes in his paragraph (d) is unnecessary as existing paragraphs (a) and (b) already provide what he seeks. Where a dog is being held pending further criminal proceedings, that would surely fall under either paragraph (a) or (b). I am not, therefore, persuaded that there is a problem which the amendment addresses.
The only possible effect of the amendment would be to enable veterinary surgeons to treat illegally held, unexempted dogs. If someone wants an illegally held pit bull terrier to be treated by a veterinary surgeon he should have it exempted rather than try to compromise the veterinary surgeon by asking him to treat a dog which would clearly be in breach of the law. I am sure that the noble Viscount did not intend his amendment to have that effect, and I urge the Committee to reject it.
The Viscount of Falkland: I note what the noble Viscount says. Here again I should like to study his remarks in the Official Report and consider the
1444
implications of what he said. Perhaps I may return to the matter and discuss it further at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 11:)
Page 2, line 8, after ("shall") insert ("by order").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 11 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 17 and 19. The Committee will be aware that we hope that an agency will deal with most of the day-to-day running of the compensation and exemption schemes. We issued an invitation to tender a couple of weeks ago and are now sifting through the 30 or so tenders we have received. We expect to be able to announce to whom we have awarded the contract by the end of next week.
As the Bill stands there is no provision for the Secretary of State to delegate or contract out the administration of the schemes. The amendments make the necessary changes to Clause 1 so that an agency may be appointed to do the work.
The Committee may wish to know that the draft of the compensation and exemption schemes order has been placed in the Library for information. It outlines in more detail how the schemes will operate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("destroy them, or").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was originally put down by the Opposition in another place. It is a good suggestion for which we ourselves take no credit.
We would not wish an owner who had destroyed his dog by inhumane means to be able to claim compensation and the cost of the dog's destruction. As it would not be practicable to determine in every case whether an owner had destroyed his dog humanely, it seems right that only owners who arrange for a vet or other responsible organisation to put the animal down can claim compensation.
The amendment was not debated in another place because of lack of time. I hope that the Committee will support it. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: We are grateful to the Minister for having taken on board the suggestion made in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) A scheme under subsection (3) or (5) above may provide for specified functions under the scheme to be discharged by such persons or bodies as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) Any person requested by the Secretary of State to undertake the administration of any scheme of exemption under subsection (5) above shall, before commencing the

1445
operation of such a scheme, consult such persons as may appear to be concerned, including persons representative of chief constables of police and of local authorities.").
The noble Baroness said: The clause seeks to ensure that the person or agency operating the exemption scheme consults other organisations with expertise in the care and control of dogs. Both the police service and local authorities are well placed to respond to consultations of that type. It is true that the police service has for many years been responsible for the welfare of dogs, particularly in emergencies. In addition, it uses dogs for operational purposes.
Furthermore, local authorities, either directly or indirectly, have access to expertise and kennelling facilities. The AMA survey conducted in response to the Action on Dogs proposals identified that more than 70 per cent of authorities in its membership directly employed animal welfare or dog wardens. Taken together, therefore, the police and the dog warden service of local authorities should be able to advise and assist in the formulation of policy on exemptions and, where appropriate, offer support in any enforcement measures required.
The question of who would implement the exemption scheme was raised on Second Reading by a number of noble Lords. The Minister explained that the agency had not yet been chosen and that the matter was therefore still under consideration.
This is an important clause because it is clear that all the expertise will be necessary and that whatever charity or agency is responsible for the scheme could well do with that expertise. It is essential to the success of the Bill that the scheme should be administered well. If it is not, it will weaken the working of the Bill. I cannot therefore believe that the Government will reject the amendment, which simply seeks to ensure that all available expertise will be at the disposal of the agency running the exemption scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: Towards the end of the amendment the Committee will see the phrase:
"consult such persons as may appear to be concerned".
The amendment does not state to whom the word "appear" applies. I suspect that it is intended to mean "appear to the Secretary of State", but there appears to be a small lacuna at that point.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that a scheme of the type proposed by my right honourable friend should not be put in place without proper consultation. However, I find it difficult to go along with the amendment for three reasons. First, it is for the government departments concerned to hold those consultations, not for the agency itself. Secondly, we need to get the scheme in operation quickly and, given the way the amendment is framed, it would introduce a significant delay. Thirdly, although it is clearly important that the police and local authorities should be consulted, the sequence of doing so may not in all circumstances follow that set out in the amendment. For instance, in the scheme as proposed by my right honourable friend at the moment local authorities will not be playing a major part, partly because they have asked not to do
1446
so and partly because we see major advantages in organising the scheme relating to pit bull terriers on a national, rather than a local authority, basis.
There are only a relatively small number of pit bull terriers, so some local authorities may have only a handful. It does not make sense for each local authority to have to establish its own procedures. I agree with the noble Baroness that, next April, after the provisions relating to dog wardens in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 come into force, local authority dog wardens will have a larger part to play. We shall be in touch with them about this role well before then.
In asking the Committee not to accept this amendment, I can assure Members that consultations have already taken place with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers for Scotland. Their views have been taken closely into account in the formulation of the scheme, the way it will operate and the involvement of the police. Consultations have also taken place with a number of other organisations, including in this instance the Association of British Insurers, as the need for third party insurance for exempted dogs is an essential part of my right honourable friend's proposals. Consultations like those are part and parcel of the machinery of government and there is no need for them to appear on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness on that point.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am grateful to the Minister for having answered so fully. I accept that there has been consultation, as there should be, but the agency that will administer the scheme has not yet been named and it should have the benefit of all the consultation that it needs. I am not sure whether I agree with the Minister that that would be too long a process. It is important that the Bill should contain the right conditions. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his assurances and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("and a scheme").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("(1) or").
The noble Lord said: I admit that the amendment is a complete shot in the dark. I do not know what the exemptions are intended for. As I understand the position, the owner of a prohibited dog will have to comply with the conditions of neutering and muzzling on a lead but will nonetheless not be in lawful custody of that dog after the appointed day unless he has a permit. What is this permit business? Is it an exemption? If so, to whom are owners to go? Who will issue the permits? We have had a great deal of informal information to the effect that someone will

1447
run the show and issue exemptions. I am in the dark as to what the exemptions are for. Can some light be thrown on the position.
Baroness Nicol: I rather think that my noble friend may be speaking to Amendment No. 13, which was called while he was out of the Chamber. We are now discussing Amendment No. 18.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Have I missed Amendment No. 13?
Baroness Nicol: My noble friend has missed Amendment No. 13. We are now on Amendment No. 18, which has again been tabled by my noble friend.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord should be speaking to Amendment No. 18.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I was away for a few minutes and something happened in my absence. This amendment is concerned with the authority that will be necessary for regulations made under Clause 1. The proposal is that an order shall be:
"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
That is called the negative procedure. That is quite different from the affirmative procedure, which requires the positive assent of both Chambers. For the purpose of this provision, the order will be subject to what is called the negative procedure.
I am rather sorry about that. In debating the Bill, my purpose is to safeguard so far as is reasonable and possible the interests of the people who will be deprived of their property. That is what I am trying to do. That property is not only property in a legal sense but ownership of a dog to which they may be strongly attached. I am told that some outside agency will be given the job—the scheme will be trailed around and put out to tender. We ought to know more about this.
When an entirely new authoritarian scheme of this kind is introduced, whatever is done under it by regulation should be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is not difficult. My experience in another place is that it is difficult to have an annulment Motion debated in the House of Commons. The sanction of the Whips has to be obtained. If they are busy and do not want the Motion to be called, it is not debated and one is put off again and again. I know that such an annulment Motion is easier to obtain in this Chamber. I have had personal experience of this situation in the past.
One also has to bear in mind that the Bill has not been discussed at any meaningful Committee stage in another place, which had to swallow it whole at three o'clock in the morning, having spent much fruitless time debating the registration scheme and little else. So we have not had the benefit of a viewpoint expressed by another place. When new types of Bill contain measures unprecedented in the history of dogs and man in this country they ought to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Otherwise such Bills should be the subject of primary legislation.
Let us remember our discussions last week on the questions: What is a badger sett? What may people do about a badger sett? What may the hunt do about a
1448
badger sett? These measures are all set out in statute law and there are no regulations involved. It was desirable when introducing new conditions on badger protection that the law should be clear. When introducing new conditions which relate to how people stand under this Bill, those provisions should be subject to affirmative procedure. I feel strongly about this matter. I feel that that is the only right way to proceed. We cannot give too much away to secondary legislation in a matter of this kind.
I have kept in a very temperate frame of mind up to now in the debate, but one must realise that what we are now discussing was not the first choice of the Secretary of State. To begin with he blurted out a very different proposition. This is a modified form of his intention to deal with the problem in a dramatic fashion.
I believe that every safeguard against secondary legislation affecting a person's rights under the Bill should be put in the Bill. On whether he has exemption may depend whether or not he can keep his dog. If he cannot keep his dog, he has to get rid of it. So far as he is concerned, that is the ultimate decision. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: The Bill has two levels of parliamentary process. The order-making powers in Clause 2 are tightly circumscribed by consultation as well as parliamentary process, and rightly so. But the Secretary of State needs to be able to act much more quickly in making an order under Clause 1. There may be a particular need for speed. There is certainly a need for speed in implementing this Bill. We want to ensure that the criminal offences come into force quickly during the Recess in order to stop the proliferation of the pit bull terrier and adding to the problems that we already have. The need to go through the affirmative resolution procedure on the orders made under the Bill, particularly when we have spent so much time debating the issue of principle, would delay matters considerably.
There may also be a need for quick action in the future to ban from the country new and dangerous types of dog by order. Making the orders subject to the negative resolution procedure, as we have done, does not stifle debate. It is still possible to pray against the order—I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that one has 40 sitting days in which to do so—and then have it debated. There seems to be no good reason why the desire for debate should rule out quick action by the Secretary of State if it is needed, as it might be. I ought also to point out to the noble Lord in case he was not in the Chamber at the time, that the draft of the compensation and exemption scheme order has been placed in the Library. I hope that noble Lords will not support this amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: In order to keep my options open, I shall withdraw the amendment. One must wait for a later stage in the Bill to find out the true position. I am tolerant. I shall give way until the next time round. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("a scheme") and insert ("an order containing a scheme under subsection (3)").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Other specially dangerous dogs]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert:
("; and he shall by order require the owners or keepers of dogs of that type to apply for a permit to keep such a dog.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would only come into effect in the unfortunate circumstance that the Home Secretary decides that it is necessary to put restrictions on keeping a type or breed of dog other than those detailed in Clause 1. I should much prefer that the Home Secretary should not be given this power at all. I shall be interested to hear what the Committee has to say when my noble friend Lord Radnor suggests removing the whole clause. However, as it stands, Clause 2 gives the Home Secretary those powers, so I suggest that we should try to make sure that they are technically possible to enforce. That is the purpose of the amendment.
The amendment would ensure that any breed or type of dog that the Home Secretary by order decides to control under Clause 2 would, exactly like the dogs in Clause 1, be obliged to have a permit. The Bill demands that all dogs mentioned in Clause 1 must have a permit if the owner wishes to keep them. Therefore it is only logical that any new breed or type of dog which the Home Secretary decides to classify as what I would call Clause 2 dangerous types should have the same controls and need to be identified by having a similar permit 'to those in Clause 1.
If this provision is not made, for the life of me I cannot see how the powers in subsection (2) (d) and (e), to which they would become subject, can possibly be enforced. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is on the point where he wishes to have a permit for those animals. That is one step away from registration. We are introducing a scheme under Clause 1, not to register dogs, but to keep a list of clogs to which something has happened and in respect of which certain action has been taken.
Clause 1 dogs, which have been exempted, are distinguished from any other Clause 1 dogs by the fact that they have been neutered, marked and—for which evidence has been provided—have third party insurance in force. We need that database to distinguish those exempted Clause 1 dogs from other dogs which are covered by Clause 1 and which are not exempted and which are therefore being held illegally.
The database distinguishes between the legal and the illegal dog. It is quite different from the situation under Clause 2 to which my noble friend's amendment applies. If the Secretary of State were to make use of the reserve powers under Clause 2, following the necessary consultation—for instance, to require a
1450
particularly fierce kind of poodle to be muzzled and on a lead when in a public place—there is no need to add to that a requirement that someone somewhere should keep a list of those dogs. We know because of the nature of the powers under Clause 2 that all such poodles should be wearing a muzzle. The need for a computer list does not arise and it would be quite pointless.
I hope that my noble friend will not feel strongly about the amendment because I do not believe that it would be suitable.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench was skating on very thin ice. He suggested that I was trying to register my Clause 2 dogs. I thought that the word "register" was forbidden in this Chamber. I certainly never used it. I simply said that they should have the same restrictions as the Clause 1 dogs. My noble friend has already said that they will not be registered; they have only a permit. I did not mention the word "register"; only my noble friend did so.
I regret that he cannot understand the point I seek to make: that if such dogs are, regrettably, placed on a dangerous dogs list—that is what the Home Secretary will have to do—they come into the same category as Clause 1 dogs and should therefore have the same restrictions. I do not intend to press the amendment. However, my noble friend could have given me a better answer than to try to lead me down that horrible path of registration which I certainly would not wish to go down. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 8, leave out from ("with") to end of line 11 and insert ("an advisory body appointed by the Secretary of State composed of an independent Chairman and eight other persons who appear to him to have relevant knowledge or experience of animal welfare, veterinary science and practices or breeds of dogs, and two lay members representative of the opinions of the public at large".).
The noble Lord said: It is about time that the Home Secretary received better advice on what to do on matters within his jurisdiction. I do not know whether the proposed advisory committee would cover more than Home Office responsibility. I believe that it might well do so. When a Minister is saddled with continuous problems when deciding matters of administration or classification, which may be contentious and may raise issues of public importance, he needs shelter. He needs someone to advise him.
The noble Earl is fully aware of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Committee. It was set up under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It is a statutory committee which is very representative. It presents advice and can be consulted by the Secretary of State on matters relating to the treatment and use of animals in laboratories.
There is also a Farm Animal Welfare Council. It is now a much bigger and more important committee. The agriculture Acts are littered with enabling legislation which deals with marketing and care of animals, and varies the conditions under which

1451
animals may be kept especially with regard to intensive husbandry, and so forth. The Farm Animal Welfare Council deals with such important matters as slaughter and ritual slaughter. It reported on both those subjects. The Government were not able to accept its advice in all areas, but I do not deal with that aspect at present. At least there is a competent advisory committee, knowledgeable in all matters on which the Minister has to decide, which can give him advice. The Government can then decide what has to be done.
The procedure that we have gone through recently with regard to the Dangerous Dogs Bill is deplorable. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Consider how long the Secretary of State has taken before introducing a Bill on dog control. Under previous Home Secretaries, every discouragement has been offered by his department to those who wished to embark on reform. That position should not be repeated.
I raise another matter which emphasises the need for something to be done. What explanation can anyone offer as to why successive governments regard dogs, animal welfare and related matters as suitable matters for a Private Member's Bill procedure? On Friday I shall move another Bill on dogs under the Private Member's Bill procedure. It has come from the Commons under the Private Member's Bill procedure. It was drafted by the Home Office. Bills have been planted for years. I have introduced more Bills on dogs than the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, or anyone who preceded him. The Government have not introduced legislation on dog control since before the noble Earl's time in your Lordships' House. This Bill now brings matters—which hitherto the Government regarded as suitable for the Private Member's Bill procedure—into the realm of government responsibility and legislation. Legislation on the control of dangerous dogs was unaltered from 1871 to 1989. When it was altered it was under the Private Member's Bill procedure in both the House of Commons and this Chamber.
It is not good enough to regard such issues as birds, animals, bees and butterflies as suitable matters for the Private Member's Bill procedure. The Government have either regarded a subject as so trivial that they cannot be bothered with it, or have considered that it raises controversial issues which may be left to the strategems and manoeuvres that obstruct and destroy Private Member's Bills. More millions have been wasted in this Parliament on fruitless Private Member's Bills than on any other matter. That is because such a procedure has been allowed to take the responsibility for legislation in a particular sector. That has certainly been the case with regard to dogs. With regard to animal experimentation, that too was the case until after consultation between all concerned a Bill was brought forward which we could recommend to the Government. If they adopted it—which they did after discussion—we were then able to guarantee to deliver it. The Government have been
1452
afraid of Bills which might give rise to Divisions on the Floor of the House relating to matters of conscience, emotional issues and so on.
The Dangerous Dogs Bill is part of that procedure. It is time that the Home Secretary had someone to guide him. Otherwise, without such information, one never knows what he will say next. Consider, my Lords, what he said and the advice given to him after consultation. One cannot legislate like that. This Bill is the product which has come out of that mess, and it is disgraceful. The Government should consider the need for a well informed advisory committee which can steer them through all the pitfalls of dog controls, dog welfare and dog law. Then we should be on the way.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: In case my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby thinks that this Front Bench has deserted him, I hasten to rise to support him in this amendment. The Labour Party supports the amendment, and would like to see a dog advisory committee. This also has the support of the RSPCA.
This question was discussed at Second Reading and it was generally thought that a dog advisory committee on the same lines as the farm animal advisory committee would be a good addition to the Bill. Moreover, it is essential that the areas within the domain of the Department of the Environment relating to dog welfare and control are also examined by such a body. After all, many of the issues are intertwined.
It is also evident that the control of dogs will continue to be an area of developing public policy. The arguments which my noble friend Lord Houghton has put forward for the need for the Government to have a committee which would be responsible for that movement of policy about animal welfare are highly relevant. So I very much hope that the Minister will listen carefully to my noble friend's arguments and agree with what he has said.
Lord Addington: The idea of some sort of council looking at dog welfare would seem to be very sensible. Whether or not this is the right vehicle may be a matter for some discussion, but certainly there is a very strong case for dealing with the problem of dogs, which arises from having an animal sitting under the control of man in predominantly urban areas where it is patently at some disadvantage, and where the contradictory interests of dog and man will always be difficult to reconcile.
Earl Ferrers: We seem to have needled the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and that always grieves me. He says that he has produced more Bills on animals than I have, which is perfectly true, and that we have produced none on dog control. Now that we have produced one on dog control the noble Lord castigates us for it. He says that we have done nothing about control of animals. I think he must have let his memory slip temporarily and have forgotten the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which we introduced and which put all sorts of restrictions on birds,

1453
butterflies, natterjack toads, coots and moorhens, only leaving out the wasp and the greenfly. The Government have done a certain amount.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Some of the Bills which the noble Earl has mentioned were Private Bills, not Government Bills.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The Wildlife and Countryside Bill was very much a public Bill. I took part in it and remember the hoo-ha created by it.
The noble Lord is concerned to achieve some form of consultation with experts on animal welfare, and I think I he noble Lord, Lord Addington, was in favour of that too. One must remember that this is basically a Bill on dangerous dogs. I do not think it would be appropriate to produce in this Bill organisations that would have the welfare of all animals as their task.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, proposes consultation with experts on animal welfare, veterinary science and veterinary practice, on breeding and the training and handling of dogs. I think he has in mind the need for the Home Secretary to seek advice from bodies such as the RSPCA, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and others. Of course we consulted all those bodies during the preparation of the Bill. There was frequent consultation between our officials in the Home Office and those organisations. It was a very constructive and helpful consultation.
Clause 2(4) recognises the need for consultation on a specific issue—that is, the issue of what types of animal should have the reserve powers used upon them, and the question of bringing in an order specifying restrictions on a particular type of dog. The way in which Clause 2(4) is drafted shows that we have in mind consultation on that point with the very same group of experts as those the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, obviously has in mind. His amendment would make the process of consultation rather more bureaucratic in establishing the expert persons and bodies as a statutory advisory body which would have to have an independent chairman. The noble Lord proposes that there should be two lay members of the committee representing the views of the general public.
We regard the powers in Clause 2 as reserve powers. We do not see any need at present to use the Clause 2 powers. Therefore, there is no likelihood of our needing to consult the persons or bodies specified in Clause 2(4) in the near future. They would be consulted only about the specific issues of whether a type of dog should be made the subject of certain conditions under the powers in Clause 2, and, if so, what those conditions should be.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would make those persons and bodies into a formal committee. As the role which the Bill would give to those eminent people is a specific and limited one it would he a little strange to have them formally constituted as a statutory body which might then never have to look at anything at all.
1454
As to the need to take into account the views of the general public, there is no danger whatsoever of our overlooking the views of the general public. The subject of dogs and animals attracts one of the largest postbags of any of the issues which are covered by the Home Office. We have had something like 5,000 letters about the pit bull terrier alone. One can practically weigh them rather than count them. So I do not think there is much chance of our losing the views of the general public on that matter.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will think it unnecessary to pursue the amendment and set up a great big advisory body for something which may not be required.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for that. I agree that I am under the disadvantage that we are dealing with a dangerous dogs Bill and it is difficult to latch on to that. An advisory committee would have to have much wider terms of reference. The issues arising under this Bill alone would be too narrow for a committee of the kind in question, but I am sure that Ministers do not disregard the value of advisory committees when there is a variety of subjects to be dealt with at different times.
Various small Bills have come my way, two of them on dog fighting, on advertisements, on spectators, as well as the Dangerous Dogs Bill, and on the selling of pets in open markets. My line of business in Private Member's Bill procedures is getting longer every year, and more opportunities than I welcome come my way because the House of Commons is becoming increasingly conscious of issues under that heading. Therefore I shall withdraw the amendment and see whether I can get it in a more suitable context. I really urge the Home Secretary to look after his backside, if I may put it that way, because there is no department which is subject to so much vilification. What the Home Secretary had to suffer during a very short period must have been almost unbearable. That is why he went off his head and had to return to the matter again.
Earl Ferrers: Did the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, say that my right honourable friend went off his head? Perhaps I misheard him.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I will not go into whether he lost his head for very long. He certainly came out with a boisterous remedy for the situation which obviously could not last for more than 10 minutes.
I wish to make one further comment. The noble Earl reproached me for having forgotten the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In fact I had not. But I thought that most of the animals dealt with in that Act were endangered species and dogs did not come into it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Radnor: When I first read the Bill I quickly became convinced that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill. Nothing that I have heard in the

1455
debate today has done anything to change that view. I am still of the same mind for one large and a number of smaller but equally important reasons.
Earlier in the debate my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, in response to a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that the Bill had been introduced to deal with an emergency. Indeed, it was an emergency. We all know what it was. These vicious dogs were doing a great deal of damage and their performance was being abused in many ways; they were being used for fighting and so on. They had created and were going to create an even greater danger in the future.
The Government moved with sensible speed to deal with the situation. I never felt that they moved by way of panic or anything like that; they moved in a sensible way to deal with these vicious so-called fighting types of dogs. That is dealt with extremely efficiently under Clause 1. The restrictions and prohibitions to which such dogs will be subjected are there for everyone to see. Apart from one small point that I raised earlier in the debate that is satisfactory and sensible.
Clause 3 stipulates that any dog that is dangerously out of control makes the owner or keeper culpable. The punishments contained in the Bill are considerable. Clause 3 must be considered a severe deterrent. I am convinced that Clauses 1 and 3, with all the attendant clauses that follow afterwards, have the makings of an efficient Act to deal with the present situation and indeed any situation that is likely to arise for quite a long while.
With regard to the detail of the matter I do not like Clause 2 in any way. To put it bluntly, it gives far too much power to the Secretary of State. He can point his finger at any dog he likes—or dislikes—and impose restrictions. He must seek the help of an advisory panel chosen by himself which appears to be suitable. In this clause many things have to appear to be something or other to the Secretary of State, and that in itself I find unsatisfactory.
Many people are worried about the types of dogs that the Secretary of State will have in mind and what dogs he may be advised to prescribe to come under Clause 1(2) (d) and (e) which, although not such violent restrictions, would be serious ones if applied to a great number of dogs—and most breeds number many.
Perhaps my noble friend will say that there are exceptions and under an order they are allowed for. But what are the exceptions? We should see them specified on the face of the Bill. It is wrong that that should be left in any doubt. I received a letter from my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding who sends his apologies for not being able to be here to speak today. He voiced a serious worry about guide dogs for the blind and the fact that blind people rely so much upon the German shepherd dog. They are worried; no doubt the police, the RAF, the Customs and Excise officers who use sniffer dogs and all the rest are also worried. My noble friend may say that those are exceptions. However, if the clause is to be included at all, those exceptions must be specified on the face of the Bill for everyone to see.
1456
Subsection 3 contains one of those wonderful catch-all phrases about supplementary or transitional provisions. I know that it is usual to include them in the Bill but it makes the clause look even worse. It puts even more power into the hands of the Home Secretary and vagueness into the clause.
When the Secretary of State makes up his mind, as we have heard, or tries to make up his mind about which dogs to legislate against, he must choose suitable people to advise him. It is incredible that the Bill does not contain precisely who those people should be. It is merely said that they should come from various sections of society and various professions which appear to him to be suitable.
Finally, it is all done under an order which comes before both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has already dealt adequately with that question. I believe that I am right in saying—no doubt my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—that orders cannot be altered; they can only be thrown out, but I believe that that very seldom takes place.
All in all the individual receives no further protection by the inclusion of Clause 2 in the Bill. In a way it is an undemocratic clause which will offend many people and worries many people even now. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Earl has just said. I see no conceivable need for a provision of this kind. Why have we introduced this legislation in the first place? It is because some alarming colour photographs appeared in tabloid newspapers following attacks made by pit bull terriers. Parliament has been able to legislate in a matter of weeks to deal with the situation.
Why should any Secretary of State be given a power of this kind to introduce provisions similar to those in regard to what are described as Clause 1 dogs, to cover any other breed over which the Secretary of State feels like imposing controls? I do not see a need for legislation of this character.
The noble Earl will no doubt say that there is a need to introduce the legislation on some form of emergency basis. Putting aside the interests of the present Government, we are talking about legislation which will form a permanent part of the statute book in this country. It is extremely easy to envisage a situation where some tabloid newspapers direct their attention to some other breed of dog. In circumstances of that sort some politicians are stronger than others, but I fear that there will be a temptation to give in to vigorously exposed views in tabloid daily newspapers. Parliament and particularly this House should look with the utmost caution at giving Ministers powers of this kind where no possible justification for them exists.
7 p.m.
Lord Richard: I had not intended to say a word on clause stand part until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I totally disagree with him. As regards dogs which present a serious danger to the public, for the life of me, if that is

1457
proven, I do not see any reason why the Home Secretary and the Government of the day should not order that in a public place they should be kept muzzled and on a lead. That is an extraordinarily mild restriction on the liberty of the Rottweiler or the Dobermann.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that as far as I am concerned the Government can take the measures concerning the Dobermann and the Rottweiler at any time and I would support them. I see no reason at all why dogs that have caused injury to so many people over a period of time should not be muzzled and kept on a lead in a public place.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Surely the Home Secretary can do that under Clause 3, can he not?
Lord Richard: I do not know whether he can or he cannot However, since we are adjourning at seven o'clock I shall be able to give the noble Lord the answer at eight o'clock. Whatever the position may be, as regards dogs which pose a serious danger to the public, under Clause 2 the Secretary of State,
"may by order impose in relation to dogs of that type restrictions corresponding",
to those in Clause 1. When one looks at the provisions in Clause 1, subsection (2) (d) provides that the dog should be muzzled and kept on a lead. As I have declared before in the Chamber, I have a cowardly and very timid dog. Each time it goes for a walk it wears a muzzle. That is not because it is a danger to anybody but because it insists on eating everything it can find and therefore makes itself ill. It has now got to the stage where the sight of the muzzle is a great enjoyment to the dog because it knows that it is about to be taken for a walk. Those who oppose the clause in the sweeping and orotund phraseology that we have heard tonight can have no conception at all of what it is like to own a small dog and to walk it in a public park in London.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sorry that the noble Lord has such a cowardly dog. However, I was dealing with rat her broader issues than that. Apparently the noble Lord has made a statement of policy on behalf of the Labour Party as regards Dobermanns and other dogs which I am sure we shall all bear in mind during the rest of the debate. A serious example was given by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, involving the German shepherd dog. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Richard, intends to make a policy pronouncement on that dog as well.
Lord Richard: If this is a private fight, before anyone else joins in perhaps I may say that if the Labour Party wishes to make a public pronouncement no doubt it will. I prefaced everything that I said with the words "in my view".
Lord Mancroft: Like all Members of the Committee on this side of the House, I am delighted to see the Labour Party at the throat of the Liberal Democrats before the dinner hour.
I support my noble friend's argument. The first part of the Bill relating to fighting dogs was brought forward because of a problem which has occurred in the past few years. The fighting dogs involved are new
1458
breeds in Britain. They are not of the old established breeds. The purpose of parts of the legislation is that, should a new breed be brought in (I believe that two South American breeds have been mentioned), the legislation can be extended to cover them. It is not intended to classify as fighting dogs breeds which have existed in this country for many years and which are perfectly safe here.
Obviously dogs bite and no amount of legislation will stop that happening. If the Government have the intention to muzzle Dobermanns, Rottweilers or Alsatians under pressure from the tabloids or anyone else and to move them into the category of fighting dogs, let them say so and the issue can be debated now. If they do not wish to do that, let us remove the clause because it is unnecessary. Let us not hide the problem and have the provision slip through as secondary legislation at a later stage. If there is a discussion to be heard, it should be dealt with under primary legislation in the Chamber.
Earl Ferrers: I am not surprised that the small dog belonging to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is cowardly and timid. If I were that dog, I am sure that I should be too. His speech was music to my ears. It was magnificent. I encourage him to keep on in that sound vein.
My noble friend has raised an important subject. He has displayed considerable anxiety, as has the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is right that we should consider the point. People are concerned and the Government should give their reasons for Clause 2. My noble friend said that any Secretary of State could set his sights against specific breeds: that is a paraphrase. I do not think that that is so.
The test in Clause 2 which would need to be satisfied before the powers could be used is very clear and tough. The Home Secretary could take action under Clause 2 only if it appeared to him that a type of dog—that means the whole type or breed—represented a serious danger to the public.
In keeping with the theme of the Bill, the test relates to danger to people and not to animals. If a future Home Secretary were sufficiently bizarre to take the view, for example, that foxhounds constituted a danger to the public, before taking any action he would be obliged by law to consult the bodies and the persons specified in Clause 2(4). He could not make an order until he had done so. Although he would not be bound by the view which they expressed, it would be very difficult for any Secretary of State to proceed with a course of action in direct opposition to the views of the expert opinion which he had been obliged to consult. He certainly could not hope to keep the views which they expressed to himself. It would quickly become clear that the expert opinion did not support the action which the Home Secretary was proposing.
Even if he persisted in the attempt to impose conditions under Clause 2, he would then have to have the relevant order debated and voted on in each House of Parliament. That would be the opportunity for Members of the Committee and those in the other place who felt that the action proposed was inappropriate to say so. If the order were eventually made, the Home Secretary of the day would still be

1459
liable to judicial review for the action which he had taken because that is secondary legislation. If he had no evidence to suggest that the type of dog on which he had imposed conditions did satisfy the test in Clause 2 that it appeared to,
"present a serious danger to the public",
he would be in trouble.
In both this Chamber and the other place we have been careful to describe the power set out in Clause 2 as a reserve power. We do not think that there is a case for taking any action under Clause 2 at the present time. But it is important that there should be this power. We might face a situation in a few years' time in which a type of dog which was not a fighting dog was responsible for a number of serious attacks on people.
It is very difficult to predict these things, but it might be that a particular type of dog emerged as being a breed far more dangerous than others. In those circumstances, the Government might wish to take action to protect the public. The Government could not use Clause 2 powers to ban a dog; they could simply impose conditions such as muzzling and keeping on a lead. It might be decided that dogs of a certain type should be kept on a lead at all times in public. It might be decided that dogs of a certain type should be muzzled at all times in public. The powers in Clause 2 would enable the Home Secretary of the day to take that action. He would either have to take one of those options, both of them, or others. The Home Secretary would still have to consult the expert bodies and have the relevant order approved by both Houses of Parliament.
We believe that the Clause 2 power is an important reserve power which would enable the Government to provide proper protection to the public if there were a number of serious incidents involving a particular type of dog. These are important safeguards. There are important safeguards in the requirement to consult and in the requirement to obtain the approval of each House of Parliament. There is the requirement to show that the type of dog in question constitutes a serious danger to the public. If that is so, I do not think that it is excessive to suggest that the Home Secretary should have those powers, subject to Parliamentary approval. I hope that the Committee will agree that Clause 2 is appropriate and should be kept in the Bill.
The Earl of Radnor: I believe that I have the right of reply. I am going to make it as short as I can. My noble friend has tracked through the arguments which of course he must track through. However, so far as I am concerned, the safeguards are just not good enough. The clause itself adds nothing to the Bill. A human being is perfectly well protected under Clauses I and 3. We see that if we read them carefully. But to me Clause 2 still represents an abuse of the democratic system. I hope that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.
7.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 38.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Howe, E.

Arran, E.

Huntly, M.

Astor, V.

Jeger, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Auckland, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Barber, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kitchener, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Limerick, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Birk, B.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mansfield, E.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Byron, L.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mersey, V.

Carter, L.

Milverton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Morris, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colwyn, L.

Newall, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Norrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

David, B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Desai, L.

Plumb, L.

Darmand of Easington, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Dundee, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pym, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Effingham, E.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Richard, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandys, L.

Flather, B.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gainford, L.

Sherfield, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stockton, E.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanson, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hertford, M.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Waddington, L.

Hood, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

1461

Whitelaw, V.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Wigram L.

Wolfson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Middleton, L.

Clinton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Radnor, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Savile, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Seear, B.

Gray, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Southborough, L.

Hampton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harris o f Greenwich, L.

Strange, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Swansea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimball, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Knutsford, V.

Tordoff, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tryon, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage of the Dangerous Dogs Bill begins again at 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

North Hull Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1991
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, housing action trusts are about the difficult and complex task of regenerating our worst council housing estates—some of which are judged to be beyond a local authority's capacity. The FIAT provides government, tenants and local housing authorities with a fresh approach to the development and management of such difficult estates.
The essence of the HAT is a good working relationship between all interested parties. Tenants have to vote for the proposal to set up a HAT before one can be established by parliamentary order. The role of the local authority in fostering tenant support is also clearly critical during the pre-ballot consultation, but in the final analysis the HAT is the tenants' choice. In North Hull the city council and the shadow HAT chairman put the interest of the tenants foremost and the tenants voted resoundingly in favour of the HAT. The North Hull result is very gratifying for the Government, Hull City Council and not least the people of the area. It reflects a good deal of consultation with residents in general and confirms the view that sometimes a special ad hoc body with the support of central and local government and the residents may be the best way to proceed.
The proposed HAT area forms part of the North Hull estate and contains a total of 2,436 dwellings, of which 2,109 are council owned and 327 are owner-occupied through the right to buy. There are two distinct areas totalling approximately 80 hectares with a population of approximately 7,000. Detailed maps have been laid before the House and a sketch is provided at the hack of the order.
The houses and environment have received virtually no investment for 60 years, and this is reflected in the level of disrepair and lack of basic modern facilities. The potential of the area as Hull's economic base gradually diversifies is an important factor. The HAT will establish strong links with the Orchard Park and North Hull local economic initiative, which the city and Humberside County Council have set up to create new economic activity, jobs for local people and improved quality of life.
Hull City Council saw a HAT as the only vehicle which would ensure regeneration of the estate before the spiral of decline accelerated out of all control. The council therefore took the initiative in producing a feasibility study and approaching the Government. Between November 1990 and January 1991, Ministers and the council agreed a policy framework. The council then intensified its consultation with residents. The council and Tenants' Residents' Association agreed that the Secretary of State should hold a ballot during late March.
Ministers supported this effort by appointing a full "shadow board" before the ballot. This comprised Mr. David Liggins, Managing Director of York Consulting Ltd., as chairman designate; Councillor John Black, Hull City Council housing committee chairman, as deputy chairman designate, and nine other members, of whom five were nominated by the department and four by the council and tenants. Mr. Liggins played a major role in the preparation for the ballot of tenants, attending several public meetings, where he was assisted by other shadow board members. The successful outcome of the ballot reflected the spirit of partnership and teamwork between tenants, council, shadow HAT and the Government.
A community planning weekend—the first of its kind in the region—was sponsored by the shadow HAT in May 1991 to start the process of open discussion among residents, the city council, shadow HAT and providers of other local services on all relevant issues which affect the North Hull estate. The resulting report, The Next Six Months, sets out the issues and opportunities and recommended an action programme.
The debate on this order in another place made clear that this is an important juncture in the development of the HATs policy. Two points were raised there on which I should perhaps comment now. Both relate to the terms on which the trust may transfer property and the role of tenants in determining who their future landlord will be. The Housing Act 1988 provides that in disposing of any land a housing action trust will require the Secretary of State's consent, and will be subject to any directions he may give. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

1463
State has already indicated in another place that the Government's consent would not be forthcoming if the trust's proposals did not properly take account of tenants' wishes. Furthermore, if any property is left for disposal when eventually the trust comes to be wound up, the trust has to put its proposals to the Secretary of State. I mention this only to remove misconceptions that may have arisen. There is no doubt about the general intentions of both the shadow board of the Hull trust and the Government. Both have made clear to tenants their policies of consulting tenants about their wishes and giving them a real and effective choice of landlord after the trust—whether that would be a tenants' co-operative, housing association or return to the council, or encouraging them to exercise their right to buy.
That is backed up by statutory requirements that, before a trust applies to the Secretary of State for consent to transfer tenanted housing, the trust must first consult the local housing authority and then individually consult each secure tenant of the housing concerned. That consultation is in addition to any other forms of consultation which the trust may decide to undertake with tenants about their wishes which might, for example, be done with tenants collectively and with their representative associations.
Finally, if HAT tenants wished, they could still use tenants choice procedures to choose a landlord, which could include a tenant co-operative approved by the Housing Corporation under Part IV of the Housing Act 1988. All that provides considerable reassurance for tenants. However, when we have had experience of the first few HATs in operation we will review the legislation, and that would include the question of enshrining in law tenants' rights additional to those they already have.
That interest in the HATs option is growing fast, has been clearly demonstrated by the support in principle now coming from Liverpool City Council and, today, the Bow neighbourhood of Tower Hamlets.
My honourable friend the Minister for Housing has today announced in another place guidelines for future HAT proposals, and will invite local authorities to submit bids. That invitation will also extend to areas which have previously proved unwilling to implement HAT proposals. All the resulting proposals would be considered alongside one another on their merits in the light of the available public expenditure provision. But I must emphasise that existing commitments to fund the proposals in Hull and Waltham Forest—if Waltham Forest tenants vote in favour later this month—will be unaffected. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation of the order. He has certainly filled in a good many of the blanks. I start from the premise that many of the areas that have deteriorated into potential HAT areas would not have so deteriorated but for the massive
1464
cuts in the finances allowed to local authorities. Local authorities have not even been allowed to use their own money. For instance, £33 billion was raised by the sale of council houses. The Government reneged on their promise, made when the Bill introducing the mandatory sale of council houses was going through Parliament, that the money would be available to local authorities to build new houses and for improvement and maintenance schemes. It is a sad fact of life that that did not take place. Local authorities are allowed to spend only a small part of the capital raised. There is no point in the Minister saying that some of the money is raised in areas where housing need is not great. I believe that where there is housing need and there are capital receipts, the council should be allowed to use them. That is my first point.
However, it has become obvious that the sums of money originally required were cut. I believe that the estimate was that, had the system of financing of local authority housing remained the same as it was at the end of 1979, we would have had 500,000 more houses in the public sector to let. However, that is not an option; it, too, has gone.
I was interested to hear the Minister speak about resources. I have a copy of the Statement that the Minister for Housing and Planning, Sir George Young, made today in another place. I have referred to the fact that massive resources were taken away. While HATs may seem attractive to local authorities, I believe that that is only because it is the only choice open to them: they either accept these HATs, or the houses will deteriorate.
I do not intend to refer at length to the Statement made by the Minister in another place. I have no doubt that we shall return to the situation when other areas proposed for HATs are discussed. I believe that local authorities have accepted the proposal because it means an increase in money, although they will not really be allowed to use it. Nevertheless, it may solve some of their worst problems. I believe that they are faced with what can only be described as Hobson's choice.
I was glad that the Minister spoke of the two specific answers given in the Statement in another place. I refer to the fact that the Secretary of State will operate certain powers in certain circumstances if he thinks that it is in the interest of the tenants. I hope that the tenants' interest will always be paramount in any action taken by the Secretary of State.
Before I conclude, can the Minister say whether the money mentioned in the Statement today is new money—I believe that it is about £240 million—or money which has been creamed off from somewhere else and which is being reprocessed on the basis of funding an increased HAT programme? I gave the Minister notice about an area which I have in mind of which I have personal knowledge, although not in as much detail as I should like. I refer to a large overspill estate on the north—side of Manchester known as Langley. The Member of Parliament in another place for that area—namely, the constituency of Heywood and Middleton—Mr. James Callaghan, who is a friend of mine, has fought an unceasing battle on behalf of the people who live on the estate. It is in a

1465
very serious situation. In fact, only last week Mr. Callaghan brought a delegation to London to meet Mrs. Virginia Bottomley to discuss the social problems on the estate. They are indeed immense.
I have read through the Statement which was made today in another place. On looking at the suggested criteria which the Minister loosely explained—of course, one has to wait and see what it really means and hew these new guidelines can be applied—it seems to me that Langley would meet every one of them. I believe that this is an outstanding case. It was an overspill estate built after the war when housing was certainly not of the standard to which we aspire today. As I slid, the deterioration has been pretty graphic and, according to my information, the estate is in very poor condition.
Can the Minister say what effect the Statement made in another place today will have on the prospects of the tenants on the Langley Estate? Will it mean that their estate will be updated so that the quality of life they will enjoy will be commensurate with that of other people living on better council estates and in other owner-occupier areas? I single out this particular estate because I know about it and I know of the unrelenting battle that Mr. Callaghan has fought on behalf of those who live in the area. If there is anything that the Government can do to assist his campaign to improve the quality of life on that estate, I am sure that it would be well received.
Having said that, I have no further comments to make. However, I shall watch the development of events with interest. As I said, I am still of the opinion that the HAT scheme is being accepted because almost every other alternative has been removed by the Government's policies.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for his welcome to the order. It has been supported not only by the Member of Parliament for the area but also by the local council, which, I am disappointed to say, is what one may describe as "overwhelmingly" in opposition to the Government. However, they have both supported the proposals.
The HAT scheme is not about new houses; it is about existing houses which have suffered from a very long—term lack of investment. It is not a recent occurrence. Such lack of investment goes back over many years. Obviously we are trying to improve the situation.
The noble Lord raised two points. He asked first about money. The provision for HATs is about £70 million per annum. That is not new money but it is separate local authority provision. Therefore, it is not, so to speak, "creamed off- from elsewhere. Moreover, Ministers will consider whether additional resources for HATs should be provided in the light of applications which come forward under the guidelines announced today by the Minister.
The noble Lord mentioned the Langley Estate in Rochdale. We are not aware of any suggestion of a HAT scheme for the Langley Estate. However, I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that we are currently considering proposals for the first phase (costing £18 million) of a £30 million estate action
1466
scheme submitted by Manchester City Council. Obviously, it is up to any local authority to apply to the department with such proposals as it may have.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister saying that if the Government acquiesce in the proposals submitted by Manchester City Council—it is, in fact, the landlord—it would remain with the council to decide whether Langley received the priority that I think it should have?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am saying that Langley has not made any suggestion to the Government about a HAT scheme. It is up to those concerned to consult the Government and say that they wish to discuss such proposals as they may wish to put forward. I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister will consider the matter. I should point out to the noble Lord that we are indeed looking at proposals in that area at present. Therefore, consultations are taking place.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the point I am trying to make is that, unless this is done by a HAT scheme, it seems to me that there is very little chance of money being processed through to that particular area. Although it is the only money available, it is still a second choice.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can only tell the noble Lord that we are considering proposals involving a large amount of money for the estate action scheme submitted by the council. That is not an inconsiderable amount of money.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene yet again. However, can the Minister tell me the sum of money for which Manchester is negotiating?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am happy to do that. We are considering proposals for a first phase, costing £18 million, of a £30 million estate action scheme submitted by Manchester City Council.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 8.20 p.m.]

Dangerous Dogs Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 [Keeping dogs under proper control]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): I have to state that if Amendment No. 23 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 24.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("in a public place").
The noble Viscount said: On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who is detained abroad today on European duties, I wish to move this amendment. He

1467
would like me to declare his interest as a parliamentary consultant to the police federation. He has asked me to move three amendments on his behalf, of which Amendment No. 23 is the first.
The amendment seeks to remove the four words, "in a public place" from the Bill. The police federation is well aware that the amendment it has proposed does not necessarily leave the Bill in a satisfactory state. Nevertheless, as I pointed out at Second Reading, police officers throughout the country are increasingly concerned about the confrontations they have with dangerous dogs when they enter a house or premises for the purposes of a drugs raid and they are met by dangerous dogs as defined in the Bill. In recent days I read of a case in the London area where a pit bull terrier kept police officers at bay and prevented them from carrying out their duties.
That is the basis of the concern behind the amendment, so that with a dangerous dog in what is not generally recognised as a public place, the police will have some redress. I understood from my conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Bethel], that he had discussions with the Home Office on the subject. He anticipates an interesting response from the noble Earl when he replies. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: I understand that Amendment No. 24, to which I wish to speak, is to be taken with Amendment No. 23. It slightly widens the scope of Clause 3(1) so that it would apply to a dog which was dangerously out of control not merely in a public place but,
"in any other place where it has, or is likely to become, a danger to a member of the public".
I believe I need do no more than read out the amendment in order to make the point. It widens the definition of "in a public place" in Clause 3(1). Merely to confine the wording to that phrase, as the Bill does, is too restrictive. In many situations a dog can be dangerously out of control in a place other than a public place where it is or is likely to become a danger to a member of the public. That should be covered by the Bill as well as a dog dangerously out of control in a public place.
I am encouraged not to say any more on the amendment by the temptation that has been dangled in front of us, that we are to have an interesting reply from the Minister. If he is in an interesting condition, who am Ito prevent him giving birth!
Earl Ferrers: I find the information that I was going to give an interesting reply quite fascinating. I thought that all my replies were interesting and no doubt this will be no exception.
The noble Viscount has drawn attention to the definitions of "a public place" and how widely the criminal offence in Clause 3(1) should apply.
The first point to make is that the discussion is solely about the criminal offence in Clause 3(1). The Dogs Act 1871, which is extended under the provisions of Clause 3(4) applies everywhere, both in public and in private places, even inside a house. That
1468
means that under the Dogs Act 1871 effective action can be taken against a dog which is dangerously out of control anywhere.
That is different from the criminal offence. The criminal offence in Clause 3(1) is limited to a place to which the public has access. As noble Lords pointed out at Second Reading, that does not cover the event of a dog jumping over a garden fence and savaging a neighbour in his own property. Nor does it cover the eventuality of a dog which is being walked in a public place, or along a street, but which escapes from the owner or the keeper's control, enters a school playground and attacks a child.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, would cover both of these circumstances, but would go wider still so that it would include an accident in the home. That is, if, as unfortunately commonly happens, a dog were to attack a child and bite it so as to cause injury in the home, the parent would have committed an indictable criminal offence. I think that is going too far. Reprehensible as those circumstances are, to make them subject to criminal proceedings in that way would not be right.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, does not reach so far, but may not work because a policeman, a postman or even someone sitting in his back garden may not, in certain circumstances, be properly regarded as a member of the public.
We have tabled an amendment in my name, Amendment No. 28, which I believe will cater for both these difficulties. It introduces into the Bill the notion of an escaping dog, a dog which has entered a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be.
I hope that we have been able to respond to the amendment and to the concerns which Members of the Committee have expressed.
The Viscount of Falkland: I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, will be happy with the reply that has been given by the noble Earl, so far as it goes. He will carefully read in Hansard what was said. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Richard Lord Richard had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 16, after ("place") insert ("or in any other place where it has, or is likely to become, a danger to a member of the public").
The noble Lord said: In the circumstances, after the Minster's previous reply I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("causes injury to") and insert ("injures").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 26, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32A, 58 and 59. Amendment No. 59 stands in the name of my

1469
noble friend Lord Radnor. On Second Reading there was much discussion about the offence in Clause 3(1) of having a dog which is dangerously out of control.
Some noble Lords expressed the fear that, as drafted the offence might catch the owner of a dog which ran into the road and caused a traffic accident in which people were injured. They argued that the use of the expression "causes injury" in line 19 of page three of the Bill, would have that effect. It was always our intention in drafting this Bill that the offence in Clause 3(1) should apply to the owners of dogs which bit people or put people in fear of being bitten or injured by the dog. It was not our intention to catch the owners of dogs which frightened cyclists or made them fall off their bikes. The theme of this Bill is that of the dog which bites or mauls people.
We did not consider that the drafting would have the interpretation which some Members of the Committee fear. We are nevertheless happy that the expression used in Clause 3 and in other parts of the Bill should make the Government's intention perfectly clear beyond peradventure. The amendments which we have tabled will do this. My noble friend Lord Radnor clearly shares the aim of the Government in making the target of the Clause 3 offence clear. He has, however, gone about it in a slightly different way by pro posing that the reference in Clause 8(4) to "cause injury to" should be changed to "attack". Understandably, I prefer my own wording. Whether a dog has injured somebody or put that person in fear of injury—Clause 8(4) covers that—is a very much simpler test than whether the dog in question has attacked or put somebody in fear of an attack. It would not always be clear when an attack had taken place. I f the test were to be physical contact between the dog and a person, there would be a certain element of subjectivity in judging whether the physical contact amounted to an attack. Most of us can recall occasions on which a dog has run up to us and jumped up while we were out for a walk. Its owners usually say words like, "He is only being friendly", as the dog tries to put its paws on one's shoulders.
One might wonder whether that action constituted an attack. Some would consider that it did. If such an action were taken by the Tosa with which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is acquainted, I would consider that to be an attack. It would be even more difficult to say whether a person had a reasonable apprehension that the dog in question would attack him or her.
In short, I believe the words in the Government's amendments are a better form of words. The form of words is simpler and more direct. I hope that my noble friend Lord Radnor will take the same view. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I must admit that the word "injures" is much better than the phrase "causes injury to". However, I am not sure whether the word "injures" is perfect in this context. One can think of strange situations, particularly a situation such as that described by my noble friend Earl Ferrers where a friendly dog puts its paws on one's shoulders. If that person i 3, like me, not too steady on his feet, he could, for example, fall into a canal, and if he is unable to
1470
swim he may drown. I wonder whether in that case the dog is considered to have injured the human being. I may be splitting hairs. We all prefer our own wording. The word "attack" is completely simple. It refers to a dog that sinks its teeth into a person. There is no problem in identifying that as a nasty act.
However, I am not unhappy with the new way that my noble friend has proposed for approaching this problem in both parts of the Bill that we are discussing. I hope he will respond to the situation where a friendly dog approaches a person and the person suffers some injury as a result. For example, he may fall over. I can imagine that in a court of law the question of whether an injury had been caused by the dog would be tightly argued. I believe it would make matters simpler for the courts if they could consider whether an attack had taken place.
Lord Monson: As the co-sponsor, as it were, of Amendment No. 59, I feel even more dubious than the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, as regards the Government's proposed alternative to Amendment No. 59, which is Amendment No. 58. Let us suppose some toddlers are playing on a beach or in a park and a large totally friendly dog approaches them and enters the area where they are playing. With good reason, the mothers of the toddlers may worry that the dog might leap up to lick the children and knock them over or may even knock them over by wagging its tail. The mothers may well have grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog may cause injury to the children quite without malice. I think it is wrong that a dog should automatically be regarded as being dangerously out of control in such circumstances.
Lord Mancroft: I hope I may add my pennyworth to what has been said. I wish to thank on behalf of the Government the noble Lord for tabling his amendment. It undoubtedly improves the Bill and it makes the position much clearer. However, as my noble friend Lord Radnor has pointed out, there is still a grey area where a dog may knock a child or an elderly person over; and that person may then knock his head on a stone, for example. In an age where people are going to have their dogs insured, one can see that we might encourage a litigious society if we are not careful. People may be tempted to go to court because they know they will gain a certain amount from that.
We know that the purpose of this wording is to legislate against dogs which attack by using their teeth. It is not about boisterous dogs knocking people over. My noble friend's amendment deals adequately with the problem of the dog that runs into the road and causes an accident; but there is still a grey area where a dog may knock someone over and that person may be injured as a result. In that case, dogs may still fall foul of the law; but we know that the purpose of the law is not to deal with that kind of incident.
Earl Ferrers: It is always difficult to give cast iron reasons why one form of wording is better than another. I believe, however, that it is simpler to refer to a dog having injured someone or having put a person in fear of injury than to use the word "attack".

1471
As I have said, "attack" implies a specific act. It implies that a dog has to attack a person. Clause 8(4) states:
"a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension".
The grounds for reasonable apprehension are the apprehension that one will be injured or that the dog will cause injury. I believe that expression is easier to understand than the word "attack".
I return again to the example of the Japanese Tosa with which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, became acquainted. The noble Lord was quite happy for that dog to put its paws on his shoulders and to lick him. If that had happened to me, I would have regarded that action as one that caused injury or was likely to cause injury. I would be scared stiff of such a dog. However, I do not believe that such behaviour constitutes an attack. I shall be happy to consider the views that the Committee has expressed; but I believe that on the whole the word "attack" would be too strong and would be more difficult to identify in law than the words I have suggested. However, I am happy to consider the matter further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert:
(2A) If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there—

(a) it injures any person; or

(b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so,

he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 28 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 40 and 41. Amendment No. 28 stands in my name. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has tabled two amendments concerning that amendment and with the agreement of the Committee I should like to deal with those amendments as well. The purpose of the noble Viscount's amendments is to apply all the offences in the Bill which concern a dog which is dangerously out of control to a dog which injures or causes reasonable apprehension that it will injure a domestic animal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will recall, the Bill is emergency legislation which is designed to deal with a particular problem—that of dogs which attack people. It does not pretend to be comprehensive legislation on dogs. The amendments in the noble Viscount's name would greatly extend the offence of having a dog which is dangerously out of control by making it cover the dog which attacked another animal as well as the dog which attacked a person.
Incidents in which dogs yap, snarl and growl at each other are very common indeed. The noble Viscount's amendment to Clause 8 would mean that the owner of any dog which gave reasonable apprehension that it would injure another dog would be committing an offence with a very tough penalty. I do not think that it is reasonable that the law should
1472
apply to such incidents, of which there must be hundreds every day, some of them committed by dogs owned by people who look after their dogs very well and exercise good control over them.
Curiously, the noble Viscount's amendment would not affect the owner of the dog which caused injury while dangerously out of control, but I imagine that that is an oversight. Extending the offence to cover dogs which injure other dogs would be a major step. I do not underestimate the nuisance which aggressive dogs can cause, particularly to smaller dogs. Nor do I underestimate the shock and anger which having one's dog injured by another can cause. But having said that, no incident in which a dog injures another dog can be regarded as being as serious as that in which a dog injures a person.
The dangerously out of control offence which we have proposed in Clause 3(1) carries a tough penalty, including a sentence of up to two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine for the aggravated offence in which injury is caused. Those who accept that tough penalty in relation to owners whose dogs attack people would find it very difficult to accept for dogs which simply nipped or scratched other dogs. I am sure that we are all aware of incidents in which dogs attack cats. Those of us who are cat lovers would find such incidents most distressing, but I do not think that it would be reasonable for the owner of a dog which ate a cat to face imprisonment, as he would if the noble Viscount's amendment were accepted.
It is right that the Bill as presently drafted encourages all dog owners to exercise control of their dogs when they are in a public place. It is also right that the law should penalise those irresponsible dog owners who do not take steps to control their dogs and whose dogs become dangerously out of control and frighten or injure people. However, to apply the dangerously out of control offences to situations in which a domestic animal is injured, as the noble Viscount proposes, is going too far. I hope that on reflection he will think so too. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, Amendment No. 29:
Line 7, after ("person") insert ("or domestic animal").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 29 perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 60. The noble Earl has already answered some of the points raised by this amendment. During his explanation of his amendment the noble Earl seemed not to make any connection between attacks on domestic animals and attacks on humans. However, the anxiety of animal organisations and people who have been attacked by fierce dogs when they have attempted to protect their own domestic animal has been a powerful force behind the amendment.
Some dogs can become persistent cat killers. In some areas dogs are encouraged by their owners to pursue cats. That is not a pleasant pastime but unfortunately it is a fact of life in some areas. One hopes that the tendency will not grow. Small dogs are

1473
often attacked by a larger dog. When intrepid owners try to come between their dog and the attacking dog that may result in injury to the owner.
However, I appreciate the remarks made by the noble Earl and shall not seek to divide the Committee on the amendment. But I believe that it is a subject which needs to be aired. There are many people who live in urban areas who are increasingly nervous about taking their dogs into the streets or into parks because of the likelihood of their being attacked. They are extremely nervous about whether or not they should intervene. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining his amendment, to which I referred in my opening remarks. I am grateful to him for saying that he understood the point of view which I put forward.
The amendment in my name introduces into the Bill the notion of an escaping dog—a dog which has entered a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be. It makes it an offence for that dog to have injured any person or to have given grounds for apprehension that it would do so.
As the Committee will have noticed, the drafting of the amendment is slightly different from that of the existing clause, which is an absolute offence. We feel that the public should be protected by the absolute offence. In the case of the much wider range of circumstances in which offences take place not in a public place or a place to which the public have access, there must be evidence that the owner of the dog or the person for the time being in charge of it allowed the dog to injure someone or to give reasonable apprehension that it would do so.
We have to keep a balance in these matters. I hope that the noble Viscount will consider that our amendment is suitable and will not press his amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: The improvements brought about by the Bill will give some heart to the owners of domestic animals. I hope that they will take encouragement from my words and that that will be borne out in the fullness of time when the legislation comes into effect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 28 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 3, line 26, after ("subsection ( 1 )") insert ("or (2A)").
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("either of those subsections").
The noble Earl said: These amendments were taken with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert:
("(3A) A person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection (1) who thereafter has any dog in his possession or custody is guilty of an offence except where that person has obtained a permit to keep a dog in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State.
1474
(3B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(3C) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would apply only when a dog's owner had been convicted by a court of having a dog dangerously out of control. That dog will almost certainly have attacked someone and the court may well have sentenced the owner for up to six months' imprisonment, as is permitted in Clause 3(3). We are therefore talking about a dangerous dog owned by an irresponsible person. In order to make sure that neither the dog nor the owner repeats such an offence, I hope that my noble friend will agree that provision should be available to the court to make that owner obtain a permit before keeping a dog again. I am sure that noble Lords will not wish a person who has been convicted of owning a dangerous dog, to become an owner of yet another dangerous dog. The amendment would allow the court to stop an irresponsible person again owning a dangerous dog. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Under the Bill, as in previous legislation, the courts have clear powers to disqualify offenders from having further custody of a dog. The courts understand those powers and the procedures for dealing with those disqualifications are by now fairly common practice.
My noble friend's amendment introduces a novel concept of a permit. There is no need for that. Disqualifications are applied by the courts at present and are enforced. Those who breach the injunctions face the penalty. Under Clause 4(8), anyone who has custody of a dog while disqualified is guilty of an offence and is liable to a level 5 fine. That is a pretty substantial fine. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that is sufficient and that there is no need for the complications of a permit.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am pleased by my noble friend's remarks. My amendment would give the courts a little more latitude in certain cases, but I understand my noble friend's point. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I now call Amendment No. 32A, which is printed as the second Amendment No. 32 on the Marshalled List. I call the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("caused injury to") and insert ("injured").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 26. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 34.
The purpose of these two amendments is to find out whether the word "otherwise" in subsection (4) (b) means that a court would have the power, if it wished, to order a dangerous dog as described in the clause to be neutered or spayed. I hope that that is what it means because the court should have those powers. Again, it does not have to use them, but, as the Committee knows, most attacks by dogs involve breeds other than the American pit bull terrier. Most are carried out by breeds that are usually docile but the particular dogs have developed vicious tendencies. The courts should be given powers to neuter or spay such strains so as to ensure their eventual elimination. I beg to move.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. It is true that, if a dog is neutered, it becomes much more docile. Any vet will tell any owner that and I am sure that the RSPCA agrees. I support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend's amendment would enable a court considering an application under Clause 3(4) to require that a dog complained of should be neutered or spayed. That would be in addition to the other measures that it could take for keeping the dog under proper control which are set out in Clause 3(4) (b).
The amendment was tabled only this morning and we have therefore had only a limited time in which to consider it. The amendment is probably technically deficient. I know that that is not helpful to my noble friend, who is making a point of substance, but the power set out in Clause 3(4) is a clarification of an existing power in Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871. The Committee will notice that the first line of Clause 3(4) states:
"It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt".
Clause 3(4) helpfully makes it clear that the courts can impose specific conditions and that they can impose them on a dog which has not so far injured someone. It could not be said that the Dogs Act of 1871 gave the courts the power to require neutering and spaying already. It could not therefore be said that the inclusion of the proposed paragraph (c) would be for the avoidance of doubt.
Although we could not accept the amendment in its present form, I should like to ask my noble friend for a little more time to consider it. I can see that there might be occasions on which it would be appropriate for the courts to require that a particular dog should be neutered if it had been causing a nuisance. There is some evidence that neutering of male dogs can in some cases render a dog more docile, but it is difficult to see that, if a dog has been aggressive towards a human, neutering it would be the appropriate penalty. Spaying or neutering is quite a serious step. In the limited time available to us we have not had a chance to discuss the amendment with the RSPCA or other experts to find out their views. It is only fair that they should be allowed to have their say. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and allow me to look at it further.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps I may reminisce for a moment. I thought about this amendment only when I was fishing last week. That was why it was tabled so late. The inspiration came to me.
Lord Kimball: Did my noble friend catch anything?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Yes, I did. I apologise for the cross-examination by my noble friend Lord Kimball.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for considering this serious matter. I take his point that neutering does not stop the dog attacking human beings, but it probably stops—my noble friend Lord Kimball knows more about this than I do—the dog attacking other dogs and it will stop it perpetuating its strain. I am grateful to my noble friend for his consideration. I shall withdraw the amendment if he will consider it between now and Report stage.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, I should point out that he has let the cat out of the bag when he said that neutering stops a dog from attacking other dogs. That is not the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to stop dangerous dogs attacking human beings. I shall consider his amendment, but I recommend that he does not go fishing too often.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My main aim is to eliminate that strain of dangerous dogs. That falls in line with the aims of the Bill. If one neutered that strain, one would eventually get rid of it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw—
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may leap to his defence using another argument. If neutering prevents a dog from attacking another dog, it indirectly helps humans. It is human nature to try to intervene to prevent two dogs tearing one another to pieces. Humans are quite likely to be injured in the process of separating two dogs. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment would have a beneficial effect so far as concerns human beings as well as animals.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He has made an absolutely valid point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 43 at end insert:
("( ) A person shall not keep a dog unless there is in force in relation to the keeping of the dog by that person such a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks.
( ) A person shall not cause or permit any other person to keep the dog unless there is in force in relation to the keeping of the dog by that other person such a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks.".
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to extend compulsory third party insurance to all breeds of dogs. This subject was discussed at Second Reading. The amendment has the support of both the

1477
RSPCA and the Union of Communication Workers. Perhaps I may rehearse the main reasons why we should like this amendment to be accepted.
To begin with, we believe that it is quite logical to extend third party insurance to all breeds. Surely it is illogical to make it compulsory for some dogs but not for others. That does not happen with motor cars and one could draw out the likeness to this case.
Secondly, we think that it would be a good move to extend the insurance to cover all breeds because that would also cover the specially dangerous dogs of Clause 2. It would mean that there was a power in the Bill to impose the third party insurance.
Thirdly, the insurance clearly would establish a link between the clog and the owner—something which for those of us who no longer dare to mention registration was one of the objectives of registration; namely, to establish the link between owner and dog.
Fourthly, a very important reason is to provide against damage owing to accidents caused by dogs. One must not forget the number of road accidents which Are caused by stray or loose dogs which run into the road. The driver of a vehicle instinctively tries to avoid the dog and can thereby cause an accident or injury to a person. Third party insurance would cover such cases. 1t must be remembered that all dogs, however small or big, have the potential to cause an accident.
Lastly, this amendment is put forward from the point of view of the postmen and postwomen. The statistics showing the number of postmen and postwomen who suffer dog attacks are astounding, the more so in that the numbers are rising. In 1985 there were 5,500 attacks and in 1990 there were 7,500 attacks. Clearly it is a serious and continuing problem.
It would give some consolation to postmen and postwomen to know that there was compulsory insurance on dogs. It would offer some certain financial redress in the event of an attack on them which took place on private property as well as on a public footpath.
I commend this amendment to the Committee and hope that the Minister will understand and accept the arguments that I have put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, repeats the most logical recommendation for the most assured public safeguard arising from the debates on this Bill. All dogs, including dangerous dogs, reflect the mannerisms of their owners. Despite the Minister's comments earlier, they reflect the mannerisms of their owners and keepers. One must expect them to express their exuberance, nervousness and even cruel behaviour on certain occasions, just as children do and as we ourselves do. It is sad that the Minister restricts this legislation to dogs that attack and injure people by direct assault.
At the Second Reading of the Bill it was made clear that dogs' behaviour can result in traffic accidents. We have just heard that argument again. There can be direct attacks on human beings which are sometimes fatal, the worrying and killing of farm livestock, and mangling of other more fragile members of the canine or feline world.
1478
Responsible car owners insure their vehicles, which cost more than dogs and certainly are more costly to repair. This Bill is not an excuse for party political insistence. Rather, it is an opportunity to further personal and property insurance. Irresponsible drivers cause accidents and crippling injuries which sometimes prove fatal. Irresponsible dog owners cause deaths and injuries. A responsible government would insist—as do most dog clubs already—on third party insurance cover for all dogs, as a separate insurance policy from household contents cover. To give some incentive they could offer financial assistance, along with, let us say, the Kennel Club.
The Kennel Club receives an enormous amount of money. Perhaps I may read out to the Committee certain so-called facts, which I am sure people can double check. The Kennel Club is paid £6 to register a pedigree pup. When the pup is sold, the Kennel Club is paid another £6. Therefore within seven to nine weeks the Kennel Club will receive £12. In order to have a prefix for a particular breed one has to pay the Kennel Club £45. Those are two instances by which income from the Kennel Club could help—just as the Government could help—to establish this sensitive and caring provision that all dogs should be covered by third party insurance. I support the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: I strongly support the amendment and make no apology for returning to the case of Mr. Frank Tempest of Lincoln who, as the Committee will recall, lost his nose in its entirety and half of one ear, as well as sustaining many other terrible injuries, as a result of an attack by a pit bull terrier.
Most commendably, the local newspaper, the Lincoln Echo initiated an appeal for the victim. Most commendably, the people of Lincoln and the surrounding district have, as of three o'clock this afternoon, raised a total of £18,100 for him and his family, which will be extremely helpful. However, the Committee cannot deny that had the owner been covered by an insurance policy the amount paid to the victim would be at least three times greater, if not a great deal more. If this terrible attack had occurred in the United States, the victim would have received at least 1 million dollars, if not 2 million dollars. We do not go to the opposite extreme in this country. But I think the Committee will agree that, while the amount raised by public subscription is extremely welcome and to be praised, it is not right that victims should have to depend on this form of compensation for the terrible injuries that have occurred. It seems quite wrong that there should not be a substantial sum of compensation for the terrible injuries, which will persist so far as one can tell for the remainder of the victim's life. For that reason I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Addington: On these Benches, we support the idea of third party insurance for all dogs, especially large and dangerous dogs.
Earl Ferrers: I know that this is an issue about which many noble Lords feel strongly and I understand why. I accept that on the face of it

1479
compulsory insurance for all dogs seems an attractive proposition. However, there are a number of drawbacks. To begin with, compulsory insurance requirements are highly unusual. I am advised that other than in the case of motor car insurance, our proposed insurance for Clause 1 dogs, making insurance compulsory, is virtually unheard of in this country. That is because the Government have preferred, at least in this area, to allow market forces to work in the realm of insurance services.
Our decision to impose a compulsory insurance requirement for Clause 1 dogs was made in the most exceptional circumstances and in the knowledge that they will have died out within 10 to 15 years. We thought it imperative to ensure that until we rid ourselves of the menace of those dogs all of them should be covered by insurance. That is because recent incidents have shown that pit bull terriers can attack ferociously and without warning and we wanted to make sure that owners of such animals faced up to the full responsibility of keeping their dogs.
However, compulsory insurance for all dogs is quite another matter. It would, as I have mentioned, break new ground in introducing a requirement across the board for anything but a car. In addition, it would in many cases be unnecessary as many dogs are already more than adequately covered by their owners' household policies. Moreover, to be effective it would involve the creation of a new structure for monitoring compliance and implementing enforcement procedures where necessary. Otherwise we should be in the position where, as usual, only responsible owners complied with the requirement and the very dogs which might be most likely to injure others would still not be covered.
For those reasons I am not persuaded that compulsory insurance for all dogs is the right way to tackle the underlying problem of dogs which injure. The proposed solution would just bring a new set of problems to the surface. I hope that with all the recent publicity about how dangerous dogs can be, responsible owners will check to see whether their dog is insured and will take steps to insure it if it is not. Other than in case of fighting dogs, which are covered by Clause 1, where there is good reason for making insurance compulsory, this is a matter best left to the individual owner to decide.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I ask your Lordships to look back at what was said on the 25th of last month. With regard to motor insurance, we have been told that there were 25,000 cases last year of people being paid compensation when they suffered injury as a result of a vehicle accident when the other party, who was to blame, had no insurance. We have been talking for almost the whole debate about people. It is essential that we have insurance cover. Surely it must be understood by the Minister that there must be insurance cover against an accident caused by any dog.
Lord Morris: Public liability insurance is included in most people's household contents insurance. If it is not, an additional small premium on the policy would
1480
cover the circumstances. I sincerely believe that the Minister is right in pointing that out and that this provision is not necessary.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is aware that not everybody has a household insurance policy. That is the trouble. It is the irresponsible, not the responsible, people whom we are trying to get at.
Earl Ferrers: I fear that they are precisely the ones whom we shall not get at. Of course we are concerned with people. There is a misapprehension here that provided you are covered by third party insurance you are all right. That is not so. What one needs to do is to stop the dogs which bite people, and the best way to do that is to get rid of fighting dogs. That is what we are doing. Therefore, we say that those people who continue to keep fighting dogs should cover themselves by insurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, said that everyone should have insurance cover on their dogs. With the greatest respect, that is a totally different matter. This Bill is solely in respect of fighting dogs. To invite everyone who has a poodle, a dachshund, a chihuahua or anything like that to cover themselves automatically with insurance is taking it too far. I see the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, shaking his head. He is entitled to do so—but I would prefer it to go up and down instead of sideways.
Who will check this? The good people who would comply are probably covered under their house insurance anyhow, as my noble friend Lord Morris said. It is the people who do not have cover, the people who do not bother, who are probably the people who keep the bad dogs. One would then have to set up a regime to monitor whether people had their dogs insured.
I can only come back and ask your Lordships to address your minds to the problem. We are dealing here with fighting dogs; we are not dealing with all types of dog.
Lord Richard: I am sorry, but the Minister slightly provokes me. Clause 3 of the Bill does not deal only with fighting dogs. That is precisely what it does not deal with. Clause 2 of the Bill does not deal with the fighting dogs covered in Clause 1. It specifically gives the Government power to enlarge the coverage. Under Clause 3 one could perfectly well have a dangerous chihuahua out of control in a public place. Why should that not be insured?
Earl Ferrers: That is perfectly true. What the noble Lord is saying, if he is going along with the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh—it would surprise me if he did—is that all dogs should be compulsorily insured. I am trying to persuade your Lordships to realise that that is quite foreign to British law. Other than in the case of motor cars it does not happen. In the majority of cases people have their dogs insured anyhow. But to try to make this compulsory would not be the best way forward.
Lord Monson: Can the Minister say exactly where Clause 1 requires the owners of dangerous dogs, which the clause covers, to take out insurance? I have looked through the clause several times and cannot find it.
Lord Borthwick: I should like to talk about insurance. We have had trouble in Scotland on some housing schemes. Some of the housing schemes we have on the edges of Edinburgh were full of dogs. They were worrying sheep and causing a lot of trouble, particularly at lambing time. We complained to the police and they could not do anything about it because they were not there to catch dogs. We could not even shoot them. The killing went on for a long time. They turned out to be wild dogs living in the village, being fed by the people but not belonging to anybody. We have got rid of them now, but it took a long lime. I do not know how one would handle that situation in regard to insurance.
The other point is that if you have a dog which likes you and you leave it to guard the front hall and an intruder breaks in—the dog will attack him because it is the dog's property; it is his territory and he must protect it. Will insurance cover that situation? How will the system work? Dogs will attack if strangers come into their private property.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Perhaps I may utter a word of caution to my noble friend. One cannot press an important matter such as this in this Bill and at this hour. We are dealing with fighting dogs; we are not dealing with all dogs. We must be careful how far we go.
There is no doubt that the Bill already contains a packet of trouble. Enforcement will be a nightmare because there will be so much resistance. Let us deal with this dangerous dog business first. If we are to consider a universal insurance of dogs and other matters relating universally to the dog population in our midst, then we shall have to consider wider issues relating to 7 million participants and their way of life. That requires careful consideration as to the burdens we intend to place upon them.
Universal compulsory insurance is a form of taxation. We must be concerned about the impact on large sections of the community who own dogs. We must hear in mind that there are two kinds of people who own dogs who cannot be ignored. We must treat them with great respect. One is the elderly who want company. Our social services have created more elderly, lonely people in Britain than ever before. They have never lived alone before. They have always had to live with other people—friends and relatives who would take them in. There are more old people living independent though lonely lives today than ever and we must concede them the right to have a companion dog and not load them up with obligations to the rest of the community.
The other section of the community to which we must pay regard is those who are afraid. There is now a fashion in this country of fear of dogs. The fear of dogs varies according to the amount of publicity that certain grievous occurrences produce. There is not the slightest doubt that when a baby's or child's face is shown on television with grievous injuries and stitches
1482
galore people do not think it is one child in millions; they think it is millions of children. The impact of television with spectacles of that kind is terrific.
Members of the Committee must realise that we must take care of those who are afraid. Many people say, "I must get a dog; not one of these fancy things but one that can defend me". That means that they will obtain a dog which has teeth. It is no good going on like this. We will soon have a reaction. The Government are in a parlous condition already as regards their prospects of being returned to office. They are worsening those prospects every day. I can tell them for sure that there are no votes in this Bill. In those circumstances we should let them off and consider universal insurance on another more suitable occasion.
Earl Ferrers: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was speaking some very wise words. Unfortunately he corkscrewed downwards into the dust towards the end of his speech when I thought his words were less sound than usual.
The noble Lord was saying that enforcement will be a nightmare. I agree with him; if this provision were to be included in the Bill enforcement would be a nightmare. It is a wonderful idea and a wonderful concept but it must be enforced. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would not be the first to accede to the expression that,
"Politics is the Art of the Possible".
One must do what is possible.
It is right that we should make those who own pit bull terriers insure them. To go further than that would be going too far. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that the provision is not on the face of the Bill, and that is perfectly true. It would be part of the exemption scheme. If a dog is exempt from being put down, various things have to be done, one of which is to neuter it and the other is to take out third party insurance. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the prospects of the Government are rising higher every single day. I am quite sure that the Bill will raise their prospects even higher.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am sure that the Minister was grateful for the rather unusual support which he had from my noble friend Lord Houghton. Nevertheless, what he said about the problems involved was true. I do not believe that he responded to some of the important points that were made in favour of compulsory third party insurance, the main one concerning accidents. The number of accidents is quite frightening. They are created by non-dangerous dogs just as much as by dangerous dogs. I believe that the Bill would have been a perfectly good framework in which to bring in this extra security against accidents.
Nevertheless, it is true that enforcement would be difficult. It has been made quite clear by the RSPCA and Pet Plan insurance, who say that it would be perfectly simple to provide cover, but the enforcement could only come through dog registration and dog wardens. Perhaps this is a matter that will have to be deferred until there is a better framework in which to place it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 43, at end insert:
("(4A) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without lawful excuse, he interferes with the control of or attempts to exercise control of a dog in the charge of another person.
(4B) It shall be a defence in any proceedings under subsection (4A) above for an accused to prove that his interference with the control of a dog in the charge of another person was accidental.
(4C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4A) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment brings forward a new offence. It is designed to make unlawful the activities of hunt saboteurs who deliberately set out to interfere with the proper control of hounds. An offence would be committed by any person who,
"interferes with the control of or attempts to exercise control of a dog in the charge of another person".
Safeguards have been built into the offence to ensure that justifiable accidental interference with somebody else's dog will not be unlawful. The offence specifies that interference must be without lawful excuse. A defence is allowed for any person who can show that his interference was accidental. For instance, if a person tries to rescue a dog from another person who is beating it or who mistakenly distracts another person's dog when walking in a park, it is highly unlikely in either case that an offence will be committed. The offence is only triable summarily and with a maximum fine of level 4 on the standard scale.
For some years the level of violence in opposition to hunting has been rising. One of the methods that hunt saboteurs use is to blow hunting horns. In a pamphlet put out by the hunt saboteurs, they recommend:
"To confuse and distract the hounds by using whistles and calling the hounds by name. Pretend you have seen the fox and 'hollow'. This will often bring … the hounds over. Use a hunting horn to bring some or all of the hounds over to you and away from the huntsmen. Used in conjunction with hunting calls … this is often very effective".
The only reason for blowing a horn while out hunting is to call the hounds. Inevitably on occasions a few hounds, not realising that it is not the huntsman who is blowing the horn, go to the sound. More often than not the hornblower is standing on the verge of a road and thus hounds are called onto the road which risks their lives and can cause accidents. Hunts have in fact lost hounds in this way. But do not think that motorists have been injured. Out of the 250,000 injuries caused on our roads last year not one was caused by hunting.
In the event of an accident, even though it was not caused by the owner of the dogs, the owner is liable. It will be of comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, to know that all hunts have third party insurance and have had for many years. These incidents do happen not infrequently. There were 425 incidents in the past year and there have been 15 incidents of a similar nature since 1st May of this year with the mink hounds, which are the only hounds hunting at the moment. During the course of the last season, apart from the usual abuse, trespass and general rowdy behaviour, there were arson attacks,
1484
bomb attacks and assaults. Last season and for the first time, there was a death when a saboteur fell from the top of a moving vehicle and under its wheels. This is not a rarity: it has occurred, as I have said, 425 times out of the 21,400 times that hounds were out last year. It averages 15 demonstrations every single Saturday. It may or may not be a coincidence that the only day when that average lowered to one demonstration was on 31st March. That was the day of the poll tax riots. Presumably the saboteurs were occupied elsewhere.
Having said all of that, the amendment is not about whether one agrees or disagrees with hunting; it is about using dogs as a method of making one's point; it is about an attempt to exert one's influence over somebody else's dog in a way that is potentially harmful and certainly frightening to the dog and could cause accidents on the roads and to innocent bystanders. The amendment makes (I quote from the Long Title of the Bill):
"further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes".
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said earlier this afternoon that there is criminality in the background of every part of this Bill. There is criminality in attempting to interfere with somebody else's control of their dog. I hope that the Government and the Committee will support this amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Kimball: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Mancroft in this amendment. It may be that when he comes to reply my noble friend will say that the amendment is not correctly drafted. That is as may be. The whole point about this amendment is to seek assurance from the Government that they understand the problem which was raised at Second Reading that we do not want to give the hunt saboteurs another weapon with which to beat the hunting community. Our anxiety is that without this amendment we are giving them this weapon. I hope my noble friend appreciates, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft has already said, that these people are set to make it impossible for the hounds to go out. One has only to read Archangel (the magazine of the Animal Liberation Front) to make it perfectly clear that its main aim is to seek the disbandment of all the packs of beagles in this country. They are rapidly making it nearly impossible for some packs to go out. In Surrey and around the London perimeter there are violent demonstrations every time the hounds go out. On many occasions it is essential that the children who are out have to go home because the whole situation becomes so violent and extremely unpleasant.
I do not think it is the intention of my noble friend Lord Mancroft to press this amendment. However, we seek an absolute assurance from my noble friend the Minister that he understands the problem and our anxiety; and that he will bring forward at Report stage an amendment to meet the point.
Lord Boardman: I support the amendment, and not because I happen to support the practice and sport of fox hunting. It is in the interest of public safety alone that I support the amendment. The amendment provides that if someone tries to usurp control over a

1485
pack of hounds and thereby causes injury, it should not be the nominal owners of the pack of hounds, but those who usurp their control who should be responsible. I believe that all the arguments that have been given by my noble friends are valid and right. I hope my noble friend will be able to give encouraging remarks in support of the amendment.
Lord Richard: As I understand the position, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, raised the point, which was dealt with by the government amendment earlier, as to the difference between "injures" and "causes injury". That was the real thrust of his argument. He was then confident that the Government would take that point on board. Indeed, judging by what has emerged this evening, they have taken that point on board.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has nothing to do with the Bill. Perhaps I may make two points. If ever there was a Bill in which it was not appropriate to raise the issue of hunting or not hunting or, so to speak, to bring up the issue of whether people should be allowed to attempt to prevent the hounds from going out and whether that should be an offence, this is that Bill. To bring that into this arena is totally inappropriate.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Is it seriously suggested that blowing a trumpet should become a criminal offence in this country which will render someone liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale? With great respect, the suggestion is absurd. One could go on about this issue. The point I really want to make to the Committee is that hunting and its pros and cons are not appropriate matters for this Bill. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, say that his noble friend Lord Mancroft intended to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment is aimed at those who disrupt hunting. If one wishes to protest about hunting one should do it by peaceful and reasoned debate and not by strong-arm tactics or by attempting to interfere with the activities of the hunt or its dogs—
Noble Lords: Hounds!
Earl Ferrers: Hounds, hounds, hounds! That only goes to show how irrelevant hounds are to a dangerous dogs Bill. That is why I had the word "dogs" on my mind.
I have no brief for the hunt saboteurs. Their actions are quite intolerable. They go out to disrupt life. They go out to disrupt other people's sports. It is total humbug because in many cases they give people a sum of money and a free lunch and tell them to go out and have some good sport by disrupting other people's sport. That is intolerable and I sympathise wholly with both my noble friends for trying to "squizzle-in" an amendment to protect hunts from that anxiety.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that such matters are not appropriate to this Bill. He is of course quite right, but then he slightly dismissed the whole issue by asking whether people would really be fined for blowing a trumpet. Well, quite frankly, if one
1486
blows a trumpet with the deliberate intention of messing up somebody else's sport and of diverting hounds in an unacceptable way, perhaps one should not do so. However, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, cannot dismiss it by saying that someone innocently blowing a trumpet in his back garden could find that a whole lot of effects which he never expected suddenly came about. That is slightly naive.
One must accept that the Dangerous Dogs Bill is emergency legislation. It deals with a particular and urgent problem —dogs which attack and viciously injure people. I do not think that this is the time—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard—or the place for a specific amendment which is intended only to protect dogs, or hounds, which are used in connection with hunting, and not to protect the public.
During the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Kimball mentioned that hunt saboteurs tried to lure packs of hounds across motorways and thereby cause accidents. He went on to say that incidents on the road were rare. I am sure that all Members of the Committee would think that any incident like that in which a hunt saboteur tried to lure a hound into danger was utterly irresponsible and totally unacceptable.
The amendment would not apply only to foxhounds. As drafted, it would apply to all dogs. There might be situations in which interference with someone's control of a dog would be a good thing. If it appeared that a vicious dog was about to attack a child because its owner was not exercising sufficient control of it, the public spirited citizen would be quite right in making an attempt to bring the dog under control himself rather than to risk injury to a child. My noble friend's amendment would make a complication for that kind of public-spirited bystander.
The real point is that we have agreed to vary the phrase "cause injury" to "injure". Therefore, any need for this additional provision is removed. I would not suggest for one moment that foxhounds, however diverted, injure people directly. Moreover, I do not think that my noble friend would make such a suggestion. However reprehensible the circumstances in which they are enticed onto a roadway, the behaviour of the hounds would not give rise to an offence under the Bill.
I understand the wholly legitimate concern of my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Boardman about the activities of hunt saboteurs. However, I do not think that this is an appropriate part of the Bill to be amended in the way suggested.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: During the past hour, at least 12 matters have been discussed which could have been referred to my advisory committee that never was. Here we are, yet again, trying to go into much detail on the wider issues concerning dogs. In my view it is a mistake to get away from the subject of dangerous dogs. We have been drastic enough with them. We should be careful that we do not stray too wide from the main point.
The point being made now is a good one, but I doubt whether this Bill is the place to deal with it. The

1487
noble Earl pointed out a moment ago that, as we have deleted the words "causes injury" and replaced them with the more positive word "injure", we are now in a weaker position for dealing with this matter. I wish there was a different way to deal with this movement against hunting. I believe that it is another topic for another day, when I am sure we shall have to discuss these other matters.
We have much to consider in connection with the use of the countryside. It is coming upon us rapidly. My home is now surrounded by about six new golf courses which are all disturbing badger setts. This golfing business is a nightmare; it is now replacing agriculture. A new area of opportunity and anxiety is about to come upon us. We should wait for that time. We should not, at present, enjoy all the fruits of future discussions.
Lord Mancroft: I am, as always, most interested to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I agree with him that his advisory council does not yet exist. Therefore, we are stuck with the Committee of this Chamber. In reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about blowing a trumpet, I must admit that it does, on the face of it, sound a bit ridiculous to stop people blowing trumpets. However, perhaps I may refer him to an article which appeared in the Essex Chronicle on 6th January 1989 and which read:
"A hound was killed after being attracted onto a road by the horns of anti-hunt protesters during a New Years Eve hunt. It ran into the path of an oncoming car, and was badly injured … a vet put it down … An anti-hunt protester said: 'The hounds arc the responsibilities of their owners. They have not got them under proper control.'"
That is the offence of blowing a trumpet; that is where it gets you.
On a more serious note, I should stress the fact that the amendment is not about hunting; it is about law and order and about controlling dogs. I thank my noble friend for his sympathy in this area. However, he, too, said that the proposed provision is somewhat wide of the parameters of the Bill. Perhaps I may draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the second part of the Long Title, which states that one purpose of the Bill is,
"to make further provisions for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes".
My amendment reads:
"A person shall be guilty of an offence if, without lawful excuse, he interferes with the control of or attempts to exercise control of a dog in the charge of another person".
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend the Minister may think that that is outside the parameters of the Bill. However, after very careful consideration, parliamentary counsel told us very clearly that it was within the parameters of the Bill. It is, indeed, a very far-reaching piece of legislation. The amendment is about control and the Bill is about control.
I believe that it is worth pointing out on a side note —as we seemed to become a little frivolous earlier—that we are talking about the largest group of large dogs in the United Kingdom. It is a group of dogs which has been the subject of a voluntary registration system for almost 100 years; which has been identified
1488
for almost 100 years; by which an attack on an individual has never been recorded; but the dogs are treated by some illegal groups as toys to be played with and creatures to be manipulated to the extent that, as the Committee will remember from what I have just read, they are killed on the roads. That is why we are asking for the amendment to be accepted.
My noble friend the Minister rightly said that that behaviour was unacceptable. Unfortunately we are forced to accept it, because as yet the Government have been unable to bring forward legislation to prevent those public order offences—riots almost. One of the reasons my noble friend gave for not liking the amendment was that it might leave open to prosecution someone helping a child who is about to be attacked by a dog, or something of that nature. The amendment makes it clear that:
"It shall be a defence in any proceedings under subsection (4A) above for an accused to prove that his interference with the control of a dog in the charge of another person was accidental".
The first subsection provides that the person will be guilty of an offence if he interferes with a dog without a lawful excuse. Saving a child from being bitten would probably amount to a lawful excuse. To stand by and allow the child to be bitten might be unlawful.
We have had an interesting short debate. My noble friend did not give a satisfactory answer. He gave the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Richard—that the amendment was wide of the Bill. I do not agree with that. I accept the view of parliamentary counsel that it is within the Bill's parameters. He has given no reason why the amendment is not acceptable in principle. I shall therefore read carefully what my noble friend has said. I may return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) Where a dog causes personal injury to human beings in a public place the owner of the dog is strictly liable for the damage done notwithstanding the provisions of the Animal Act 1971.").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment seeks to introduce strict liability where a dog causes injury to human beings. It makes the owner strictly liable for the damage done, notwithstanding the provisions of the Animal Act 1971. As most Members of the Committee will be aware, a higher degree of protection is given to livestock than to human beings in the event of an attack. An attack on a human being is actionable only under Section 2 of the Animal Act 1971. The plaintiff has to establish the keeper's liability by showing that the animal has abnormal characteristics which are known to the keeper; in particular, that the dog has a predisposition to commit aggressive attacks. That is generally known as the "first bite" concept and has nothing to do with the seriousness of the attack.
Until strict liability for dog attacks is established in law, the cost of third party insurance will remain low, even for fighting dogs, because compensation

1489
payments will not often be made and when they are they will be low. That is obviously why insurance companies have said that they are willing to insure Clause I dogs. They expect that major pay-outs, as in the tragic case when a young actors face was damaged appallingly, will be infrequent.
With strict liability for dogs introduced, owners will be we11 advised to take out third party insurance, whether or not it is compulsory. The concept that dogs are a non-dangerous species will be proved by the level of premiums set by insurance companies. If they agree that (logs are a non-dangerous species the premiums will be low. and, as was mentioned on a previous amendment, will probably be included with household insurance. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will agree that the introduction of strict liability fits into the Bill. It throws light on the subjects discussed under Amendment No. 35.
I hope that the noble Earl can tell me whether this meets with the approval of the Government or whether it is too complicated. I do not intend to press the amendment at this hour. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I appreciate the worry of the noble Viscount; but the Bill is confined to the control of dogs and certain criminal offences. I do not believe that it is the vehicle to vary the complex law on civil liability.
I can assure the noble Viscount that we have looked carefully at this issue. It is full of complications and I am advised that, for instance, in so far as home contents policies generally cover damage caused by domestic pets, liability under them presumably will arise only on the basis of the current law, which is the Animals Act 1971. It must be doubtful whether existing contents policies would therefore cover damage caused without fault on the part of owners, if the la x were to be changed to provide for this, as envisaged in the amendment. If we wished to go down this route, we would need something rather more elaborate than the noble Viscount's amendment.
I am not persuaded that it is necessary. After the Bill becomes law, the dogs about which we are most concerned, fighting dogs like pit bull terriers, will all be muzzled and the risk of accident or injury must significantly decrease. To change the law in relation to all other dogs seems to me to be going too far at this stage.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Earl for his remarks, I agree with much of what he said. I wish to re-examine it when I read Hansard and will come back to it if necessary at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) No proceedings under subsection (1) shall be commenced where the dog was a police or military dog in operational use and in the charge of its designated handler.").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment deals exclusively with dogs used by the police or military personnel. As the Committee is aware, these dogs are usually—indeed always in my experience—well disciplined, since I have seen them operating under
1490
quite severe circumstances. However, it has been noted by animal organisations and others that in riot or difficult crowd control situations the most well-trained dog can become over-excited or fearful and even attack its own handler, let alone members of the public.
Obviously, the police take great care to ensure that the animals are trained to the highest standards, and such incidents would be treated seriously. In the previous amendment I dealt with strict liability, and the prospects of paying out substantial compensation, regardless of the prosecution of the individual dog handler, would be an incentive to avoid such accidents which have a damaging public relations effect for the police. This is an area which gives rise to anxiety. Again, I do not seek to press the amendment but I look forward to hearing the remarks of the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I fully understand the noble Viscount's anxieties. His amendment confers a kind of Crown immunity on operational dogs. There is nothing wrong with that. No one is suggesting that a dog which apprehends someone who is seeking to avoid arrests should, if it injures someone, give rise to a criminal charge against his handler. That would clearly be nonsense.
There are I think two main points for the police. The first is, as the noble Viscount has said, their worry about possible prosecution. Although that may appear to remain a theoretical possibility without a specific exemption for them in the Bill, there are straightforward and well known procedures for preventing vexatious prosecutions from succeeding.
The second anxiety of the police is that if a prosecution were to succeed, however unlikely that may be, because the destruction of a dog is mandatory following conviction of an aggravated offence, the cost to the police could be considerable. The investment in training in a single dog can be as much as £10,000, and all this would be wasted if a prosecution were to succeed and the dog had to be put down. But, as I have said, we regard that as most unlikely.
I note the noble Viscount's points. As I have said, I do not consider that under this Bill there is a specific need to exempt dogs used by the military, the prison service and the police.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Viscount for those helpful remarks. I shall carefully read his comments and I am sure those who are worried about this area will also read them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Right to claim compensation
. Persons who suffer injury from dogs dangerously out of control, whether in a public place or elsewhere, and whose injuries are attested to by a general medical practitioner or other suitably qualified medical person, and a police officer, shall where the owner of such a dog cannot be identified or

1491
traced, be eligible for compensation upon application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of such injuries and damage.").
The noble Lord said: In a sense this amendment represents the other side of the coin from the issue we debated a few amendments ago; namely, whether there should be compulsory third party insurance in respect of dogs. The Government have said that there should not be such insurance in respect of dogs. That is the Government's position and we understand it. We hear it but we do not agree with it and we may return to the matter at some stage in the future. But there still remains the matter of a person who has been severely injured by a dog that is dangerously out of control.
The amendment that stands in my name on the Marshalled List is narrowly and, I hope, carefully drawn. It is not designed to give an automatic right of compensation to everyone who is injured by a dog that is dangerously out of control. It is only designed to give compensation where the owner of such a dog cannot be identified or traced. In those circumstances, I propose that there should be recourse to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of such injuries and damage.
The scheme that is administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board allows people, under paragraph 4 of the scheme, to apply for compensation if they sustain personal injury that is directly attributable to a crime of violence. At the moment we are talking about a dog that is dangerously out of control as a result of which injury has been caused. One can also apply to the board for compensation if one sustains injury while one is trying to stop someone from committing a crime. One can imagine circumstances where a dog that is seriously out of control may be attacking someone or is engaged in a dog fight. Someone may intervene to stop that in the same way as one may try to stop another person committing a crime. The thrust of the rules of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board seems to me to be perfectly capable of accommodating this limited right of compensation which is contained in Amendment No. 39.
I do not think that the strictures which were levelled at those of us who proposed third party insurance can apply to such a modest proposal as that contained in Amendment No. 39. We are not here considering a grandiose scheme for third party insurance for all dogs or anything of that kind. We are merely saying that people who have been injured in the circumstances I have described should have recourse to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I hope that the modesty of that proposal will appeal to the Minister and that he can give us an accommodating reply. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Monson: I strongly support the amendment, all the more so because, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has pointed out, it is evident that the Government are determined to resist any revival of Amendment No. 35 in any form.
1492
As the noble Earl told the House in reply to a Starred Question of mine, criminal injuries compensation legislation can already take effect if someone is attacked by a dog as a result of the dog being provoked by its owner to do so. There is also a grey area where, for example, a farmer whose sheep are attacked by dogs, which is itself a criminal offence under existing legislation, tries to drive the dogs away and is attacked by those dogs.
The further extension of the criminal injuries compensation legislation, as suggested by the amendment, would not involve any appreciable increase in calls upon public funds since the criminal injuries compensation legislation is very strict. One has to be quite badly injured to benefit. The unfortunate postman who is nipped on the leg by a corgi when delivering a letter would not be able to benefit from the amendment.
Perhaps I may return briefly, for the third and final time today, to the case of Mr. Tempest of Lincoln. The plastic surgeon who treated his injuries reported to the press that the victim's injuries were the worst he had come across in 21 years as a plastic surgeon. Either he or another doctor at the same hospital said, as someone who had practised in the East, that the injuries received by the unfortunate man were consistent with the injuries received by the victim of a tiger attack rather than of a dog attack. In such a tragic, but happily comparatively rare, case acceptance of the amendment would help.
I said at the outset that I support the amendment in principle. Now that Amendment No. 35, proposing compulsory insurance for all dogs, is not to be accepted in any form it is essential to delete from this amendment the qualifying words:
"where the owner of such a dog cannot be identified or traced".
Unless that is done, people who are badly injured by a dog belonging to an identifiable but impoverished owner—a man of straw, in popular parlance—will not receive any compensation whatever. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is wrong and undesirable. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will not press the amendment to a Division this evening but will come back with a revised version next time, bearing in mind that there will be no revival of Amendment No. 35. I should like to see the amendment enlarged to include not only those who are attacked by dogs whose owners cannot be traced but also those who are attacked by dogs whose owners can be traced but who have no funds with which to compensate the unfortunate victim.
Earl Ferrers: I have every sympathy with the wish to see people who are injured by dangerous dogs properly compensated for their injuries. I agree with the implication of the new clause that when the owner or person in charge of the dog can be identified it is right to pursue him for damages. Although I understand the wish to provide a fall-back where that remedy is not available, I see serious objections of principle and practice to trying to extend the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the way proposed.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is not yet on a statutory footing. There are provisions in the

1493
Criminal Justice Act 1988, but we have not yet brought them into force while the board is striving to tackle its backlog. It would be better to avoid further statutory provision at present.
What is proposed in the new clause is not compatible with the present scheme. The essential basis for compensation is a crime of violence. Dog attacks will already he covered if they fall within that description—for instance, if the person in charge of the dog sets it on to someone intending to cause injury, or if he is criminally reckless. The scheme is not designed to cover crimes which may cause injury but where the crime itself is not violent. If we were to go down that path, it would mean that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board might be expected to pay compensation when, for example, an employee was injured because his employer had been criminally negligent in the way in which he ran his factory, or to someone who suffered injuries in an accident caused by dangerous parking. The scheme is intended to benefit the victims of violent crime, not the victims of crime generally.
I invite the Committee to consider also the practical implications. Medical evidence may show that an injury is the result of attack by a dog. However, unless the police happen to witness the incident, which will be rare, how will they be able to say whether or not the injuries were caused by a dog dangerously out of control? It would be difficult for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or for anyone else to decide the question except by going through something like a court process and hearing evidence. The outcome would be that the CICB, which is just beginning to master the very large and increasing number of claims made upon it, would be deluged by many new claims arising, from dog bites in private and public places which would be difficult to assess fairly, and which might well lead to a decision that the injuries were not so serious as to warrant an award above the lower limit of £750. The outcome in these cases would often be unsatisfactory and the effect of trying to cope with them would be to delay other applications from victims whose entitlement under the scheme is not in question. For those reasons the amendment would not be a good addition to the Bill.
I might add that the drafting of the clause appears to be defective. It refers, first, to compensation for injury, but then to compensation for both injury and damage. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble Earl sits down. If the Government are determined to reject both Amendment No. 35 in any form and this amendment in any possibly revised form, and subsequently people are not simply injured but severely injured by dogs whose owners have no resources whatever, what redress are the unfortunate victims to have?
Earl Ferrers: For the reasons that I have given I do not think that it is suitable for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to take into account that kind of matter because it is not designed for that. It is designed to deal with crimes of violence and not with all crimes.
1494
I understand the point that the noble Lord has in mind, but this amendment would not be the right way out.
Lord Richard: That was the thinnest explanation that the noble Earl has given us during our proceedings on the Bill. The noble Earl is entitled to take my comments in the spirit that they are offered.
You start off on the basis that you rule out totally any third party insurance as regards dogs. You then make it a specific crime, as Clause 3 does, to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. You then say that it is an aggravated offence if the dog that is dangerously out of control in a public place injures someone. Then, having said all that, you say, "We're terribly sorry. We do not think that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is appropriate". For the life of me, I do not see why. The board is admirably suited to dealing with that narrow class of crimes, because they are crimes. They may not be crimes of violence in the sense of violence against the person, but under Clause 3 it would be a crime to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public place and it would be an aggravated crime if the dog injured someone. The Government do not say, "But that is neither here nor there. The fact that someone has been injured does not give rise to a claim under the CICB". It does not do so at present, but it should do so in the limited circumstances of the clause. I am disappointed that the Government cannot at least move some way towards accepting the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may just encourage the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I should like to do so at this hour of the night. For the reasons I gave—I believe that they are genuine reasons—the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board would not be the right avenue, but the courts are entitled to make compensation awards and that will he discussed later in Amendment No. 46.
Lord Richard: The court is entitled to make compensation awards if it can find the owner. Under the Dogs Act of 1871 it is the owner of the dog who is liable. We have already discussed this point in the course of the debate. The problem is that, if someone owns a dog and at the time when the dog is dangerous he is the owner but at the time when the case comes to court he has disposed of it, then the court cannot do anything against the original owner. The court has to look around and find the person who is the new owner in order to try to make some kind of order against him. So the 1871 Act does not provide for a proper civil claim.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was set up specifically to deal with a situation in which there might not be a valid claim for compensation or damages by going through the civil courts, particularly if one ended up with a claim against a defendant who was totally insolvent at the end of the day.
My proposed amendment, which has offended the noble Lord, Lord Monson (I can understand why) does not go even that far. It provides that in circumstances in which one cannot in fact find the

1495
owner and where the whole matter is in limbo, there ought at that stage to be some claim on the CICB. I say again that I am very disappointed with the answer.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to prolong this discussion. The noble Lord has made a genuine point. I should like to consider it and see whether there is any way of getting round the problem. I cannot at the moment say whether in fact there is such a solution, but I am prepared to look at the matter.
Lord Richard: I shall write to the noble Earl. In the circumstances that is a handsome concession. I look forward to seeing what emerges from his further consideration. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Destruction and disqualification orders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers: moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert ("or (2A)").
Page 4, line 3, at end insert ("or (2A)").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("above") and insert ("shall be recoverable as costs via the court making the order").
The noble Viscount said: This is the second amendment which I move on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. It deals with the problem of costs which are incurred when dogs are destroyed. I understand that the Police Federation is concerned that these costs will be pursued as civil debts and think it would be better if they were dealt with as court costs. That is the sum total of the matter. I beg to move
Viscount Astor: The Government are obviously at one with the noble Lord's argument that the costs resulting from court proceedings should be paid by the defendant. That is why we included in the Bill the formula which has been followed a number of times previously in animal legislation; namely, that the costs should be recoverable as a civil debt.
However, we accept that the formula currently in the Bill is not ideal and that, for reasons of enforcement and handling, it would be preferable to allow these costs to be recovered as if they were, in effect, a fine. This is in the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment and, if the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will agree to withdraw this amendment, we will come forward with the appropriate words at Report stage, including the proper formula to cater for the slightly different position of the courts in Scotland.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Viscount for those encouraging remarks. I look forward to Report stage as I am sure does the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) A magistrates' court shall be empowered to make a compensation order against the owner of a dangerous dog for any injury or consequential costs.").
The noble Viscount said: This is the last of the amendments which I move on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. It is a means of giving a magistrates' court the power to make compensation orders against the owners of a dangerous dog for an injury or consequential costs. We discussed the matter at some length on Amendment No. 37. I look forward to any further comments the noble Viscount may have on Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: I welcome the amendment so far as it goes. It enables the postman about whom I spoke earlier on Amendment No. 39 to recover the cost of his torn trousers and so on. That is welcome. It is thoroughly desirable to compensate people for the cost of minor injuries.
However, the amendment does not help badly injured people. There are few people with the financial resources to compensate those who are badly injured. I refer to the issue once more to show how defective the Bill will be if it does not include some provision for compensating those who are badly injured. I do not refer to those who are slightly injured; such provision is thoroughly to be welcomed. However, there are relatively few dog owners who, without insurance, can afford the thousands of pounds necessary to compensate those who are badly injured. That gap in the Bill needs to be rectified. But I welcome the noble Viscount's amendment so far as it goes.
Viscount Astor: It is right that the courts should be able to make compensation orders if they consider that appropriate. By virtue of Section 104 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, following any criminal conviction, including therefore any under this Bill, courts are required to consider compensation orders in any appropriate case. The noble Viscount's amendment would, therefore, add nothing to the current position and I can reassure him that he does not need to press it.
The Viscount of Falkland: I accept the noble Viscount's assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Seizure, entry of premises and evidence]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("authorised officer of a local authority") and insert ("officer of a local authority authorised by it to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection").
The noble Viscount said: I speak also to Amendment No. 54.
These are technical amendments seeking to specify more clearly which local authority officials may exercise the powers set out in Clause 5. I understand that the form of words currently used in the Bill ties the definition of authorised officer to Section 149 of

1497
the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As this section has not yet been brought into force, the form of words consequently has no meaning in law. The amendment gets round the difficulty by defining local authority official without reference to the section in the Environmental Protection Act. Consequently there should be no confusion as to which officers will have powers of seizure under Clause 5. I hope that the Committee will feel able to agree to these drafting amendments which do not alter the substance of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am concerned about the amendment. Indeed I am concerned about involving any officer of the local authority in this distasteful and dangerous job. I do not know whether the provision has been cleared with the National Association of Local Government Officers. It is not an entry to see whether people are paying their poll tax but it order to seize a dog on a warrant. Will a warrant be given by a magistrate to a civilian officer of the local authority to go in and seize a dog; and with what consequences?
Let us consider my Amendment No. 50. The Committee will understand my fear. It is that there will be a very rough house in many cases if a constable, and still more so a civilian official, seeks out a dog to seize it. Local authorities already have their plate full with resistance. People will not pay the poll tax and no attempt is being made to compel them to do so. The remainder of us have to pay the deficit in the poll tax.
What will the relations between local authorities and their citizens be if they are given such a task? It is the most distasteful task in the business. I urge recons deration of exactly what "entry" will mean.
There are some people who will refuse to give up their dogs, and to seize them force would have to be used. I should like to know how they are going to be seized. The defaulting citizen will say, "I am not going to deliver my dog. If you want to get that dog you can get it from here and I am not going to help you; you may get badly mauled in the process". Then somebody will say, "But we have brought a dog catcher with us. We have all the equipment ready to get hold of your dog and take it out". He will say, "You are not going in there". How is that situation to be met? And while this is happening all his loyal friends on the housing estate will come round and say, "Shame! This dog has done nobody any harm. You are bursting into our pal's house and we are not having it. Go home". Then there is a row.
I doubt whether the Government have seriously considered the social consequences that can arise from a Bill such as this. They may think that it will be easy going, but it will not be. People do not easily give up their dogs, whether or not they are alleged to be dangerous. So if one gives a warrant to anybody to go in and seize a dog, it must be to a constable and not a civilian, who has no power of arrest. A constable might feel that it is his duty to arrest if there is assault or obstructing the police. Is there such an offence as obstructing the authorised officer of the local authority? If not, how does he proceed with his business? —because people will stand in the way and say, "You are not coming by here".
1498
I ask the noble Earl and particularly those who have moved the amendment to consider this. A lot of what we have been dealing with tonight will be unenforceable. Some local authorities will not appoint an officer to do this, and nobody can compel them. As far as I know, there is no statutory duty on local authorities that they must appoint an authorised officer to go in and seize dogs.
The Government have already had a strike by the local authorities, and they have had a strike by the police. Yet they still wish all this onto somebody. Who will it be? It is necessary to reconsider the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, can tell us when we had a strike by the police? I think I missed that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I believe that was on another matter. Very soon, when we come to Amendment No. 49, a little probing will be necessary into where the resources are coming from, but I ask your Lordships to be careful.
Viscount Astor: This provision has been in the Bill since it was first introduced. This is purely a technical change. As I said before, it had no meaning because the section of the Environmental Protection Act had not been brought into force. It is obviously right that under the Bill some enforcement will fall to local dog wardens, but they will not enter houses or homes. That will quite properly be a matter for the police.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("to") and insert ("of").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment seeks to correct a grammatical error which has found its way into the Bill. It does not change the substance of the subsection at all. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 29, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall within three months of the coming into effect of this section (and in each of the three financial years thereafter), lay before Parliament a statement that he is satisfied that the resources available in that financial year to police authorities and local authorities are sufficient to secure the effective implementation of subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 49 seeks to ensure that sufficient funds are made available to police and local authorities to enable them to carry out their tasks under Clause 5(1). It relates to the seizure, entry of premises and evidence which has just been discussed.
Local authorities are concerned about the additional resources required. They point out that under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 new responsibilities were laid on local authorities and the police service to ensure that the public were protected from dangerous dogs. The Bill adds to that responsibility and the consequent costs.
A survey by the AMA revealed that significant additional expenditure is expected by local authorities in the financial year 1992–93. They believe that that expenditure will be needed if they are to meet the new obligations placed upon them. A preliminary analysis

1499
of the result suggested that an additional £4 million would be needed by the metropolitan authorities. The ADC authorities also made an estimate and they see a requirement of £11 million.
By asking the Government to bring forward a statement on resources on Clause 5(1), Parliament has provided the opportunity for a review of police and local authority activity in controlling dangerous dogs. It will focus both on the work set out as a joint responsibility and also on dog control measures which are set out in the earlier legislation. They stress that the two need to be looked at together from the point of view of the resources required.
It is of enormous importance that the fears of the local authorities are heard. They are clearly convinced that the funds offered at present will not be sufficient. The amendment is a good way of ensuring that the resources they need will be provided. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: I just want to say that I support what the noble Baroness has said. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places new responsibilities on local authorities in regard to dogs and this legislation will add to that burden. There is anxiety, and the noble Baroness mentioned the estimates given by the metropolitan and district council authorities. It is obviously something that needs to be looked at extremely urgently.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am sorry to delay the Committee for a moment. At the same time as he examines the resources necessary to administer and enforce the Bill, perhaps the noble Earl will do something about the organisation of his own department. It too needs resources.
For the past 18 months or two years the work concerning dogs has been carried out by a staff which also looks after the complicated machinery of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The report of the procedures committee, which was scheduled for publication this month, has apparently been deferred because the staff are not available. They are working on matters connected to dogs and will be doing so indefinitely.
That is the problem with the Home Office. So much work is thrust upon it; it is a jack of all trades. It must shift staff around. There is a curious combination of duties at the Home Office which links dogs with, for instance, butter control—not exactly butter control but certainly with incompatibles. It believes that as one matter surges up work on the other will reduce in intensity. I am told that the procedures committee set up under the 1986 Act is seriously in arrears with its work. This week its secretary is doing work concerning dogs and last week was doing work which related to badgers. It is becoming a matter for serious concern. I have two friends on the procedures committee and they are most anxious about the work situation. I believe that they are making representations to the chairman about it. It is a matter which has to be watched. The Home Office cannot continue taking additional work at this level—there is a great deal of it—without doing something about the staff.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: That is always a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is quite right when he says that the Home Office is inundated with work of all sorts and varieties and from all quarters. I mentioned earlier today the 5,000 letters about pit bull terriers. The actual business of opening the letters is a tremendous task. If one does not take that on, the work which has to be done cannot be done. We believe that it is right to produce the Bill, and because of that we receive a great many representations about it. I am grateful for the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I cannot guarantee that the Home Office will take on a great number of extra people because once that is done, the public expenditure costs are wrong. We do the best that we can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, was worried about the finances as they affect local authorities. The cost of this legislation has been declared in the Financial Memorandum at £250,000. I do not believe that that is a significant amount, but then one would not expect it to be. As regards pit bull terriers, we do not know how many owners will wish to continue to keep them as pets. I doubt whether there will be very many of them. There will be relatively few; probably about 5,000. That number can only diminish as time passes. It will not be long before there are only about 2,000 of such dogs. If there are 375 local authority areas, that represents between 10 and 20 dogs per area.
At every stage of the scheme the Government have endeavoured not to make it bureaucratic, but to make it simple, effective and to keep costs down. In terms of local authority and police finance, the scheme for the control of pit bull terriers is a relatively small item. As regards the other dogs, the costs of enforcement are likely to be no more than slight. There should be relatively few unexempted or unmuzzled pit bull terriers to be apprehended under Clause 5(1) (a). We view the powers under Clause 2 as reserve powers so it is not sensible to attribute costs to Clause 5(1) (b) at this stage.
The only remaining costs covered by the amendment are under Clause 5(1) (c) which is the seizing of dogs which are dangerously out of control in a public place. That is a task which is not a new one. It is already performed under existing legislation. We all hope that incidents like that will decrease in frequency in future. That is one of the principal purposes of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill should greatly simplify the task of the police and, in time, that of the local authority dog wardens as well, in controlling any incidents involving dogs. The Bill does not give rise to very significant foreseeable expenditure. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content with that thought.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I do not believe that the local authorities and the police will be very content with the Minister's response because their forecast of the resources needed is very different from that of the Minister. It is important to stress, as they have, that the resources needed under the Environmental Protection Act and this Bill should be seen together.

1501
That makes it very much more significant than the Minister has made out. It is a pity that he did not give an assurance that he will think about the matter a little more. It seems very sensible that each year there should be a way of checking the needs and resources and amending them accordingly. As my noble friend Lord Houghton said, the enforcement of the Bill is extremely important. The authorities are going to carry out a very delicate aspect of the Bill. Therefore it is disappointing that the Minister has given us no possible hope. We shall think about this and discuss it with a view to bringing the matter up again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 52 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Muzzling and leads
(".—(1) In this Act—

(a) references to a dog being muzzled are to its being securely fitted with a muzzle sufficient to prevent it biting any person; and

(b) references to its being kept on a lead are to its being securely held on a lead by a person who is not less than sixteen years old.

(2) If the Secretary of State thinks it desirable to do so he may by order prescribe the kind of muzzle or lead to be used for the purpose of complying, in the case of a dog of any type, with section 1 or an order under section 2 above; and if a muzzle or lead of a particular kind is for the time being prescribed in relation to any type of dog the references in subsection (1) above to a muzzle or lead shall, in relation to any dog of that type, be construed as references to a muzzle or lead of that kind.
(3) The power to make an order under subsection (2) above shall he exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: The new clause is aimed at ensuring that dogs covered by Clause 1 and any which might be the subject of orders made under Clause 2 are securely and humanely controlled when they are in public.
First, in subsection (1) (b) we have added a requirement that a person must be 16 years or over to have charge of a Clause 1 dog in public. My noble friend indicated at an earlier stage that we were considering this change. I hope that Members will welcome it. I think it would be most undesirable if we allowed a situation to arise in which young children were able to take exempted pit bull terriers for a walk. They could not possibly keep such dogs under proper control or act with sufficient speed or physical endeavour to rein in the animals if they started to misbehave.
The second thing which this new clause does is to enable the Home Secretary to make an order specifying types of muzzle or types of lead to be used on Clause 1 or Clause 2 dogs. Clearly the principal requirement, which is recognised in subsection (1) (a) of the new clause, is to ensure that the muzzle is a secure one which prevents a dog from biting people. We also wish to ensure that dogs are muzzled in the most humane way.
Giving the Secretary of State the power in subsection (2) will enable him to specify the best type
1502
of muzzle for a particular dog. Certain types of dog require a specific kind of muzzle in order to ensure that they can drink or pant. It is clearly right for humane reasons that such a muzzle should be used. In deciding this point, the Secretary of State would of course consult the experts before taking any action.
The new clause therefore provides an additional element of protection for the general public and gives the Home Secretary the power to ensure that any muzzling or leashing requirement is exercised in a way which takes the welfare of the animal fully into account.
I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: This is a very interesting statement to make. I thoroughly approve of what has been said with regard to the age of the individual. The age of 16 years is perfect—just as long as that 16 year-old is fit and able. I am sure the noble Earl will agree. That is an essential point. It is no good a person in a wheelchair for instance, whether he is 16 or 26, taking a dangerous dog out on a lead.
The correct muzzling of a dog—I understand a certain amount of research has been put into this—is not done just so that the dog can drink, but so that it can breathe. According to certain vets it is essential that the dog's snout is not cramped to such an extent that its breathing is impeded. The muzzle must be designed to prevent the dog biting anybody and at the same time the holes in the muzzle should be too small to allow people to put their fingers through and have them bitten.
A further point which ought to be raised is that, if there is a ring at the nose of the muzzle, there must also be a check chain—it used to be called a choke chain. Dogs with heads of a certain shape or with smooth skins and small ears can very easily pull off such a muzzle. I know that some research has been put in to determine the correct type of muzzle, but if a muzzle were to come off there would at least be a check chain. That will be a perfect way of ensuring that that dog will not get away from the 16 year-old. I beg that some consideration be given to ensuring that check chains as well as muzzles are used on dangerous dogs.
Lord Richard: On this side of the Committee we support the new clause. It is sensible to have the age restriction of 16 years. The Committee will recall that Amendment No. 56, which we discussed earlier, also included an age limit of 16 for someone who owns a dog or has it in his possession. I understand that the RSPCA is greatly concerned that muzzles and leashes should be adequate on animal welfare as well as on safety grounds. I am grateful for what the Minister said in his speech about that. There is a worry that inappropriate and possibly home-made muzzles and leashes may be used to conform to the permit requirements. I hope that the powers which the Secretary of State is taking under Clause 2 of the Bill will be used in an effective way.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Clifford, for their remarks. I

1503
said that we shall take the welfare of the animal fully into account. The Secretary of State will consult with experts before taking any action.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 6, leave out lines 26 to 28.
The noble Viscount said: This was spoken to with Amendment No. 47. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert ("and includes the common parts of a building containing two or more separate dwellings.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was taken with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 6, line 38, leave out ("cause injury to") and insert ("injure").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("This Act shall come into force on") and insert ("Except for section 6, this Act shall not come into force until").
The noble Viscount said: This is largely a technical amendment to do with the fact that it is desired to extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Avon Weir Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders—
That the Promoters of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend
1504
proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That the Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Midland Metro (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspection) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  SARDAR SAROVAR DAM PROJECT
  SARDAR SAROVAR DAM PROJECT
  SPACE ACTIVITIES: SAFETY
  SPACE ACTIVITIES: SAFETY
  TRANSPORT SECURITY: CHIEF INSPECTOR'S REPORT
  TRANSPORT SECURITY: CHIEF INSPECTOR'S REPORT
  CONTINENCE SERVICES
  CONTINENCE SERVICES
  AIRFIELDS ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
  AIRFIELDS ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, SECTIONS 53 AND 54: INTERPRETATION
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, SECTIONS 53 AND 54: INTERPRETATION
  CLOSED SCHOOL PROCEEDS: USE FOR BENEFIT OF THE LOCALITY
  CLOSED SCHOOL PROCEEDS: USE FOR BENEFIT OF THE LOCALITY
  BRITISH CITIZENS ABROAD: VOTING RIGHTS ADVERTISING
  BRITISH CITIZENS ABROAD: VOTING RIGHTS ADVERTISING
  EMERGENCY PLANNING
  EMERGENCY PLANNING