Sitting of 6 June 1991

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

  KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL. [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 13 June.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 13 June.

  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 13 June.
  Mr. Speaker: The remaining Bills have blocking motions. With the leave of the House, I shall put them together.
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently imprisoned for non-payment of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Prison service central records do not show this information on a daily basis and may, therefore, be incomplete. But we are aware of three people currently in prison as a result of refusal to pay after a means inquiry established that they were able to pay their community charge.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) asked me to make a statement. My only statement can be that people who can pay, should pay.
    Mr. Brown: Whatever the numbers, clearly those people are political prisoners—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member must put his question in his own way.
    Mr. Brown: As I said, this is a political issue because yesterday at Margate, Mrs. Ruby Haddow was imprisoned, along with her husband, simply because she had not paid her poll tax. If that had happened in South Africa or eastern Europe there would have been a public outcry. It is disgraceful that there is no public outcry. More important, let us remember that that would not happen in Scotland because the law is different. It is a north-south issue. If we are talking about the Government being even-handed, why can people in England and Wales be gaoled when people in Scotland cannot? Surely it is now time for an amnesty for everyone who has not paid the poll tax, particularly for those in gaol.
    Mr. Patten: Those who can pay, should pay, and that applies as much north of the border as south of the border. The hon. Gentleman might spend his time more profitably trying to persuade his local authority, Lothian regional council, which has a disgraceful record on collecting community charge payments, to do as well as Labour-controlled Fife region. South of the border, the hon. Gentleman might speak to a few Labour authorities, such as Lambeth, Newham and Islington, which failed to collect their community charge payments in exactly the same way as they failed to collect their rates.
    Mr. Tracey: The figure that my right hon. Friend has given will be read with some interest. It is viewed with interest by me, because I drove past Wandsworth prison last weekend and saw a crowd of people protesting against such imprisonment. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there is and will be no question of an amnesty for those people who have not paid, because such failure to pay is viewed with disgust by all right-thinking members of society?
    Mr. Patten: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), whose question I welcome, that under a Conservative Government there is no possibility

    391
    whatever of any amnesty ever being declared for anyone who breaks the law. Rather than people waving banners outside Wandsworth prison, perhaps one day we shall see outside magistrates courts ordinary decent people who pay their community charge waving banners that say, "Those who can pay, should pay."
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that there are five such people in prison and that the sixth person was Mrs. Ruby Haddow of Ramsgate? She was the first woman to be gaoled for failure to pay and she is in Holloway. She has three daughters. Her only income is child benefit. Her husband came out of prison on Friday. He is an electrician and was made redundant in October last year. They have no income to pay the poll tax, yet she is serving 14 days and is being punished for her poverty. As not even I believe that this Government seriously contemplate gaoling the 16 million people who have not paid all of last year's poll tax, why do they not follow the logic of abolishing the poll tax and abolish the enforcement procedures that are putting people in prison for poverty?
    Mr. Patten: No, certainly not. For people who do not pay their community charge bills, there is an exhaustive procedure which magistrates courts must follow and it includes a means inquiry. Courts alone decide who goes to gaol, not Ministers.

    Burglaries
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the proportion of domestic burglaries which do not involve forced entry.
    Mr. John Patten: In 1990, 26 per cent. of domestic burglaries in the Metropolitan police district involved no forced entry. Figures released today by the Metropolitan police show that that figure has increased. Comparable figures for the whole of England and Wales are not available for 1990, but 18 per cent. of burglary victims interviewed for the 1988 British Crime Survey said that their homes had not been left secure when they went out.
    Mr. Brown: Does not that reply clearly show that people can do much to secure their homes? From the statistic that my right hon. Friend quoted, it seems that roughly one in four or five burglaries occurs as a result of the fault of the individual householder not securing the property. Is there not a way round that by giving much greater support to neighbourhood watch schemes? Is it not outrageous that some Labour local authorities refuse to allow neighbourhood watch scheme stickers and posters to be displayed on street furniture?
    Mr. Patten: Alas, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I normally perform later at night when you are not in the Chair. Alas, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is perfectly true that by joining a neighbourhood watch scheme and taking simple precautions, such as property marking and ensuring that good locks are fitted to doors, people can do a great deal to prevent burglary. It is impossible to make a home 100 per cent. safe, just as wearing a seat belt—something everyone should do—cannot make the wearer absolutely safe in a road accident. However, as my hon. Friend said, neighbourhood watch performs a valuable function. It is very sad that the Labour party nationally has not been
    392
    able to persuade some Labour-controlled local councils, such as Cleveland, to take the neighbourhood watch movement and support of it more seriously.
    Mr. Sheerman: The British public are sick to death of the Government trying to shuffle off responsibility for rising crime rates on to the victims. Of course there is an element of carelessness among the public and we want people to be more security conscious, but we have had 12 years of astounding rises in crime. The Government cannot shirk the responsibility for that or for underfunding crime prevention initiatives. Why do the Government not once in a while back the police instead of stopping the police doing their job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The police are crying out for resources to help neighbourhood watch, but will not get them from this Government.
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman can do joined-up shouting, but he cannot do much joined-up thinking, as his question showed. When I gave him the opportunity, he lamentably failed to respond to my point about the need to talk to Labour authorities which do not back neighbourhood watch schemes. This Government have given more resources to the police than any other Government this century. There has been a 52 per cent. rise in resources for law and order under this Government. Finally with regard to crime prevention, according to the Labour party's policy document, Labour intends to give responsibility for crime prevention to local authorities. Tell that to the people of Lambeth and Liverpool.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of crime prevention week.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The objective of crime prevention week was to raise national awareness of the need for positive crime prevention in our community. As such, we believe that it was successful. There were more than 6,000 local events involving many organisations and individuals and, I am glad to say, in many cases many young people. It attracted a great deal of positive press and broadcast cover.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the staff of Crime Concern, an organisation located in my constituency, on their success in helping to organise the week? Will he also take this chance to congratulate the private sector, which responded in full measure to the call on its generosity to support the week? Will he ensure that Crime Concern continues to have the resources to enable it to do its important work?
    Mr. Baker: Crime Concern has been a successful initiative undertaken by the Government. During crime prevention week it raised over £300,000. In addition, the Home Office secured support from businesses of over £1 million. Businesses throughout the country contibuted upwards of £5 million to support initiatives in schools, youth clubs and probation services. That is an involvement and commitment of business, with the police, in fighting crime.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is the Secretary of State aware that during crime prevention week the crime prevention panel in Calderdale met? I have here the headline that resulted from that meeting. It says that there are 66 crimes every day in Calderdale. There has been a massive increase in every reportable crime. When will the Home Secretary fund West Yorkshire police force and the other police forces properly so that we can have community policemen and the public can be protected from such horror stories?
    Mr. Baker: I remind the hon. Lady that in the past 12 years we have increased the resources of the police by more than any previous Government. The increase in expenditure has been some 53 per cent. We have increased the size of police forces in Britain by 27,000. We took over from a Government who held back police recruiting and who left a police force that was under establishment by several thousand.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if people were less careless and locked the doors of their houses and cars, crime figures would come down?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. and learned Friend is right. The figures announced today and those that were announced earlier show that many burglaries take place on private property where doors and windows are unlocked and that in a quarter of all car crimes doors have been left unlocked. The obvious message is that people must look after their property better. That is a sensible message to put across.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary properly and rightly congratulated Crime Concern on its work. Neighbourhood watch is also important in the prevention of crime. Does the Home Secretary agree with Crime Concern that what is holding back neighbourhood watch is inadequate resources from the Home Office for the police?
    Mr. Baker: There has been an increase to more than 19,000 neighbourhood watch schemes. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is a late convert to them. I hope that he will ask all Labour authorities to put neighbourhood watch leaflets and pamphlets through doors and posters on street furniture. I sometimes wonder why the right hon. Gentleman is so half-hearted in his support for the forces of law and order.

    Right to Silence
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to change the right to silence for an accused person.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The opportunities available for an accused person to state his position and how far the courts may draw proper inferences from his failure to take advantage of them will be among the matters to be considered by the royal commission on criminal justice and we should await its findings.
    Mr. Riddick: May I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has set up the royal commission and that it will be able to consider this issue, especially as the police are becoming increasingly worried about the way in which criminals abuse the right to silence? Is it not the case that the right to silence helps suspects who have something to
    394
    hide? Should not courts and juries be able to draw an inference from the fact that a defendant is not prepared to say what he was doing or where he was at a given time?
    Mr. Baker: There are many views about the right to silence. Some representations that we have had claim that it should be kept as it is, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the police believe that the right to silence is being abused in certain cases. Courts cannot draw to the attention of the jury the fact that, in excercising his or her right to silence, the accused may not be answering any questions during the whole process of the investigation. Nor can the court make any comment on that. The royal commission will have to address those matters and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall draw his question to the attention of the royal commission.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary accept that an abridgement of the right to silence would be an attack on the presumption of innocence which, for a very long time, has been the foundation of the criminal law and the protection of the individual in this country?
    Mr. Baker: The royal commission must address that issue. There are two clear views about it—the hon. Gentleman's and that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should be deeply ashamed that although the right of silence in England has properly been subject to detailed scrutiny before any consideration has been given to taking it away, in Northern Ireland it was taken away without proper discussion or inquiry under the Order in Council procedure?
    Mr. Baker: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland explained, the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 was introduced to meet the urgent and special circumstances of Northern Ireland. I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue must be considered, and it is right that the royal commission should do so.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Home Secretary recall that when the right to silence was modified in Northern Ireland under the legislation to which he referred, an undertaking was given that parallel legislation would be introduced speedily in England and Wales? Has any study been made of the effects of the modification of the right to silence in Northern Ireland? I am confident that if such a study were made, it would show that the modification has not had the alarmist effects that have been mentioned, but has proved to be a modest and useful measure. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the longer equivalent legislation for England and Wales is delayed, the more opportunity there will be for ill-intentioned people to suggest that some major, unacceptable change has been made in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Baker: We have certainly observed what has happened in Northern Ireland and I agree with the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has drawn from the practice there. As I said, this is a matter for the royal commission and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to its attention.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the 1967 royal commission report recommended the amendments that have now been made in Northern Ireland. His predecessor commissioned a report on the right to silence and possible alterations to it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot wait for the commission's report and that it is time that victims of rape giving evidence in the Crown court should not be confronted with allegations of consent from an accused who refused to say anything in the police station when questioned six months earlier?
    Mr. Baker: That is one aspect, and an example of the way in which the right to silence can be abused. Another is that the accused can simply stare at the wall and refuse to answer any questions of any sort for months on end, yet that fact cannot be drawn to the attention of the court. Those are matters of concern and are covered by the terms of the royal commission. I shall draw to its attention the views of my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in the matter for some years.

    West Yorkshire Police
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to meet the chief constable of West Yorkshire police to discuss the reduction in the number of police officers in West Yorkshire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has no present plans to meet the chief constable.
    Mr. Lofthouse: That is most regrettable. The Minister will be aware that to avoid being poll-tax capped, West Yorkshire police have fixed their budget in accordance with the tender criteria of the Department of the Environment. Is he aware that as a result, now, only two months into this financial year, there are vacancies for 66 police officers, 15 traffic wardens, 95 civilian staff and one assistant chief constable in that force and that those vacancies cannot be filled? It is anticipated that by the end of the financial year, there will be a staff shortage in that force of 500, both police and civilian. Considering the 27 per cent. increase in crime last year and an anticipated similar increase this year, surely the Home Secretary has an obligation to intervene and assist that authority in attempting to avoid a breakdown in law and order in West Yorkshire.
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my noble Friend the Minister responsible for the police gave the various metropolitan authorities written advice that they should maintain their police strength at the authorised establishment level. Even if the resultant budgets had then exceeded the provisional capping criteria, it would not have led to automatic capping. Each budget is examined on its merits and West Yorkshire would have been capped only if there were scope for savings or greater efficiency in other areas of its operation. That clear message was sent from my right hon. Friend with the full agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I am sorry that the West Yorkshire authority did not take heed of that advice.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that I have in my possession a letter from a superintendent of the West
    396
    Yorkshire police, in which he says that staffing difficulties facing the police may have had a bearing on the difficulties that arose in the investigation of a crime referred to me in a complaint by a constituent? Is he further aware that the letter also states that unless action is taken to resolve the financial difficulties of West Yorkshire police as a matter or urgency, the situation can only get worse? Is it not indicative of the seriousness of the situation that a police superintendent puts such comments in a letter to a Member of Parliament? When will the Minister act on this issue and treat it as seriously as it deserves?
    Mr. Lloyd: Obviously, I am not aware of that letter, as the hon. Gentleman did not send it to me. There may be cases in West Yorkshire where there are problems caused by a manpower shortage because the authority did not heed the advice of my right hon. Friend to bring the numbers up to the level of the establishment that he recommended.

    Drugs
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he intends to take with respect to drugs sales and abuse.
    Mr. John Patten: As I announced last month, we will plough back drugs money confiscated here under international agreements into the fight against drug misuse. We intend to establish more local drug prevention teams, including teams in Salford and Manchester, as part of the drugs prevention initiative. The first priority of the new national criminal intelligence service is to be drugs.
    Mr. Lloyd: In welcoming that statement, may I add that the ultimate victims of drugs in our society are not only those who use and abuse them, but communities whose areas are blighted by drugs and associated crime? Does the Minister accept that the view of many people in the areas that supply drugs is that drugs are not being given the priority that they should have by the Government and society in general? Even this week, the Secretary of State for Health told the House that drugs were not a priority for health initiatives. Will the Minister assure us that drugs are central to the Government's thinking and that they must have priority not only in the Home Office but throughout the Government, so that the attack on them is consistent and sustained? If drugs are not given such a priority we shall simply not begin to push back the scourge that they are causing in those communities.
    Mr. Patten: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I know of his long-standing interest in those issues, which he had the chance to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 30 April. We wish to do all we can to ensure that drugs policy has a proper standing in all Government Departments. I also want people in the Manchester area to be helped, which is why we intend to try to set up in the area one of our new drugs initiative teams concerned with prevention. However, that requires the co-operation of the local community, which I know concerns the hon. Gentleman. Any help that he can give me in working with local people to find the right place to put those drug prevention teams would be welcomed, and I shall be happy to discuss the issue with him.
    Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Home Office initiated an international conference on drug prevention which resulted in many initiatives and improved the co-operation of the police and customs, not only within the United Kingdom but outside it? That, in turn, has led to an increase in drug seizures. Will not that welcome development in suppressing that evil trade benefit our residential communities?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is quite right. I saw the United Nations drugs commissioner, Signor Giacomelli this morning to discuss precisely these issues. What alarms him as much as it alarms me is the evidence of the increasing amounts of drugs—heroin, for example—coming from the Golden Crescent and reaching western Europe. We are also worried about the development of new routes—notably a Baltic route through the western USSR into the Baltic countries and thence into western Europe. This just shows how important international co-operation is.
    Mr. Duffy: The Minister will know of my profound concern about drugs misuse, notably in South Yorkshire. I have conveyed that concern to the Home Department over many years and I am corresponding with the right hon. Gentleman about it. He will therefore understand my anxiety about the advance report of Judge Pickles' contribution to the BBC1 "Byline" series this coming Tuesday night, in which he is reported as saying that the struggle against drugs is now futile and has become hopeless. Has the Minister seen an advance report of Judge Pickles' remarks?
    Mr. Patten: The learned judge has retired—
    Mr. Duffy: Not yet; he retires next month.
    Mr. Patten: In that case I had better bite my tongue and speak in generalities. Suffice it to say that I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regard legalising cannabis in this country as entirely wrong. It would be the single most damaging step that we could take to stoke up the fires of drug misuse among our young people and in our cities.

    Prisons (Family Visits)
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to extend family visits in prisons.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: From 17 June, instead of one visit a month, prisoners will be entitled to two visits a month. At Holloway, mothers can now have all-day visits from their children at least once, and often twice a month. That has been very successful. We are encouraging other establishments, wherever possible, to set up similar schemes.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that prisoners are often put in prisons a long way from their homes? Could that matter be looked at? Could they be put in prisons nearer their homes so as to assist visits from their families and help them to keep stable relationships with them?
    Mr. Baker: Whenever possible, prisoners are placed as close to their families as possible. In some cases, particularly those of dangerous criminals, it is not possible. When I visited Reading prison in my hon.
    398
    Friend's constituency, there were a large number of short-stay local prisoners. The same applies in nearby Oxford. In the Oxfordshire and Berkshire area, a new prison, Bullingdon, is being built. So my hon. Friend's part of the country is well covered in this respect, but I agree in principle with what he said.
    Miss Lestor: First, I congratulate the Home Secretary on increasing the number of family visits and on the experiment in Holloway of bringing children into prison. Allowing them to spend time with their mothers is to be welcomed—if we are to continue to put women with children in prison, the success of which I doubt, but that is another matter. It is certainly a good move to allow them to have their children with them for longer periods.
    I wish to stress the length of time that families spend travelling to visit prisoners. Many of my constituents—and, I am sure, many of the constituents of other hon. Members—will spend three quarters of the day trying to get to a prison for a very short visit and then have to drag their children back home again after spending very little time with the prisoner. However much the Home Office may be trying to ensure that prisoners are placed near their homes, it is by no means being successful.
    Mr. Baker: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), we try to do that whenever we can, but it is not always possible. The hon. Lady knows, because she follows these matters, that assistance with travel costs can be obtained in certain circumstances.
    I was grateful for the hon. Lady's welcome for the proposal, which is a sensible one, because when prisoners leave prison they have to resume their family responsibilities and they are often worried in prison about the break-up of their families. Anything that we can do to ease that problem is for the better.

    Charities
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had towards implementation of the Woodfield report on charities.
    Mr. John Patten: A wide range of charities and other interested bodies and individuals made helpful comments on the Woodfield report. The Government took account of those comments when preparing the 1989 White Paper and are continuing to do so in preparing forthcoming legislation.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Woodfield report, which addresses the proper administration of charities, has gathered dust for far too long? Does he further agree that recent allegations about misconduct in well-known charities does enormous damage and undermines the confidence and thus the generosity of the British people's charitable giving?
    Mr. Patten: We want to sustain charitable giving in this country at its present record level. The British people are very generous, but my hon. Friend is right to say that nothing undermines that generous streak in the British character more than the fact that money is not reaching the right target or the right people or that political agitation is linked to charitable activity.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister confirm that the complaints against Oxfam are focused on its support for the use of sanctions against the apartheid system in South Africa and on its opposition to international support for the murderous Pol Pot who threatens a new holocaust in Cambodia? Why is it too political for charities to put the needs of the poor before self-serving power politics in the west?
    Mr. Patten: That is not a matter for Ministers. Under British law it is entirely a matter for the charity commissioners.

    Custody Time Limits
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposals for custody time limits.
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposals for custody time limits.
    Mr. John Patten: Custody time limits have been introduced in stages following the successful pilot project in 1986. I am glad to announce today that we shall extend them by the end of this year throughout England and Wales.
    Mr. Favell: That is very good news. My right hon. Friend may know that I am a lawyer. Within the privacy of these four walls I should like to let him into a lawyer's secret. No lawyer, whether he is a judge, a magistrates court clerk, a solicitor or a barrister, does today what can conveniently be put off until tomorrow. If they say that they cannot get the job done now, we should not believe them.
    Mr. Patten: I shall treat my hon. Friend's information entirely confidentially. I note what he has said and I shall certainly not believe them.
    Mr. Stevens: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Does he agree that long periods of custody are undesirable not only because they cause uncertainty and difficulty for prisoners and their families, but because holding people on remand wastes prison service resources? There is also the cost of transferring prisoners between the prisons and the courts.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a great deal happening in addition to what I have announced. For example, 100 new bail information schemes and 1,000 new bail hostel places will come into being in the next year or so. My hon. Friend is right to imply that we should examine the technology and the economic feasibility of creating direct links between magistrates courts and remand centres in order to speed up remand hearings.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that at the beginning of the week a prisoner from Frankland prison in my constituency, who is serving 14 years for armed robbery and for holding a prison officer hostage, was given a free pass for a private operation in a London hospital? He was allowed to go unescorted and has absconded. Will the Minister set up an inquiry to see what happened in that case and to ensure that it cannot happen again, because many of my constituents are deeply worried about it?
    Mr. Patten: I understand and share the fears of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I am advised by the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who is responsible for prison issues, that we are aware of the case and that an investigation is under way. I shall make entirely sure by letter that the hon. Gentleman is kept up to date with the progress of that inquiry.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received about reform of the law on Sunday trading.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Since my reply on 25 April to a question from the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), up to 4 June we had received some 150 further written representations broadly in favour of greater Sunday trading and some 130 against.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation is absolutely anarchical and makes it quite impossible for local authorities such as mine, the borough of Beverley, to enforce the law, whatever it may be at the moment? That being so, will my right hon. Friend tell the House when proposals will be brought forward for reform, bearing in mind that no one wishes the issue to be rushed?
    Mr. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sure that he is aware that I am conducting consultations with all the interested parties in the hope that it will be possible to find some measure of agreement between them and to bring proposals before the House. The measures that are brought forward will have to be agreed, workable and enforceable, and carry general support.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that part of the problem is that there are those who will not enforce the law, which leads to further discrediting of it? Is the right hon. Lady aware that many of us throughout the country want to maintain the peace and quietness of our Sabbath day?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The Government take the view that the law should be enforced and we stand four square behind those who enforce it. There are many who prefer Sunday to be at least a different and special day.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Sunday about 60,000 shops will be open, many of them selling goods illegally? May I have an assurance that during the discussions my right hon. Friend will not give the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign a right of veto over Government policy?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall give no one the right of veto over Government policy. It is a matter for the Government to decide and we are consulting to ensure that what ensues carries broad support throughout the country.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that there is concern about the extent of the law-breaking that is taking place? Is she aware also that recent court rulings have seriously weakened the enforcement powers of local authorities and

    401
    have made enforcement extremely risky? Will the right hon. Lady have a word with the Attorney-General with a view to encouraging him to use his extensive powers to restore law and order? I ask the right hon. Lady to do this without delay.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am interested also to know whether the Labour party is moving towards some change in the Sunday trading laws. It is clear to me that the hon. Gentleman shares my view that matters need to be resolved and that the law must not continue to be broken. We must have a sensible resolution of these matters which is enforceable.

    Immigration
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has been notified of any directives stemming from the EC which are designed to affect the way in which Her Majesty's Government controls and manages its admission and immigration policies.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I have not been notified of any such directive, though we are considering with our EC colleagues an intergovernmental convention on external frontiers. We have made the importance of our immigration frontier controls clear to our EC partners.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that a convention on the mutual recognition of visas could have devastating consequences on the ability of the United Kingdom Government to control entry into this country? Given the great importance of that, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if hon. Members were told what was involved in the convention and had an opportunity to discuss it and vote on it before the Government agree to undermine our control of visitors?
    Mr. Lloyd: The House will have an opportunity to know what is in the convention before the Government sign it. I emphasise that it deals not with entry for settlement but with short-term visitors. We are insisting on the safeguards that are necessary to ensure that our frontier controls are as effective as we know that they should be.
    Mr. Darling: The Minister must know that there is a spate of proposals from Europe which will have a radical effect on frontier controls in Europe—including, possibly, the United Kingdom. More than that, the proposals will radically affect the right of certain people living in Europe, including the United Kingdom, to move around the EEC after 1992. Does he agree that a statement by the Home Secretary is essential and that there should be a debate in Government time so that all of us can have a chance to express our concerns and views before the Government reach a deal in secret on any intergovernmental convention or enter into any secret deals as a result of Trevi or Schengen discussions? Will the Minister give the undertaking for which I have asked? If he does not, he can be assured that there will be a great deal of concern both inside and outside the House.
    Mr. Lloyd: It would be silly to have such a debate until the Government have a clear view of what is on offer and know what they think that they can sign. The hon.
    402
    Gentleman is quite right—there are a number of issues under consideration. They deal with the visitors from outside the Community, not those coming for settlement, and with easier movement of those from the minorities settled in EC countries who wish to move around the Community. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and even his noisy hon. Friends, would support that.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Banks: Will the Prime Minister join me in sending best wishes to Prince William for a complete recovery — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is the nice bit—
    Mr. Speaker: And it is just about in order.
    Mr. Banks: Did the Prime Minister see the article in yesterday's Daily Mirror—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question is the ration.
    Mr. Banks: Did the Prime Minister see the article in yesterday's Daily Mirror stating that the scanner used on the prince at the Royal Berkshire hospital was bought from the proceeds of jumble sales and sponsored walks? Is the Prime Minister aware that the ambulance which brought the prince to London was from a service that is actually breaking down in Greater London and that Great Ormond Street hospital, which looked after the prince so well, is turning away sick children because of the pressures on its services and has been kept open only by public begging? What sort of society is it that can find all the money in the world for weapons of death and destruction, but when it comes to keeping hospital wards open and buying vital medical equipment, has to use sponsored runs, flag days and jumble sales?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House and the country will join the hon. Gentleman in sending best wishes to Prince William. We all hope that he will make a full recovery as speedily as possible.
    The Government found £33,000 million for the national health service, which is four times as much in cash terms as any previous Government have ever found. The private collections and private donations which go towards providing equipment such as scanners show, above all that the people of this country, including the Conservative party—in fact, often led by those in the Conservative party—care sufficiently for the national health service to cherish it and provide extra resources for it.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend is aware of the tremendous support among Conservative Members for his views on economic and monetary union—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Come on, please.
    Mr. Gill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those same views, clearly articulated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the "Today" programme this week, command the support of the majority of British voters, as evidenced by a recent opinion poll showing that 63 per cent. oppose the single currency?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that. It is becoming increasingly recognised in this country and the Community that moves towards economic and monetary union which did not reflect proper convergence would be damaging, not only for this country, but for the whole of the Economic Community. That has been our position since the beginning of the negotiations and it remains our position, together with our constant intention to preserve the prerogatives of this House.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us what in concrete terms he intends to do to ensure that further harm does not come to small businesses as a result of the high interest rates being imposed upon them?
    The Prime Minister: The principal damage and difficulty that small firms have faced in recent years has been the collapse of demand not only in Britain but abroad as a result of a general downturn in trade and inflationary problems. Inflation is now falling rapidly, and that is a matter of the greatest concrete concern to small businesses, as they have repeatedly testified.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is obvious from that answer that the Prime Minister is not going to do anything in concrete terms. Is it not obvious that high interest rates are the policy of the Government and that the banks' behaviour is the result of financial deregulation, also the policy of the Government? Why does not the Prime Minister change the policies, as he should, or will he remain the betrayer of small businesses?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, having other things on his mind, has clearly not noticed that inflation is falling rapidly and that interest rates have fallen by 3·5 per cent. in recent months. That will make a dramatic difference to individuals' prospects and, most particularly, to prospects for small and large firms.
    Mr. Kinnock: Small businesses which used to have arrangements to pay 3 per cent. above base rate on their overdraft facilities are now paying as much as 17 per cent. —[Interruption.] Oh yes, they are. Conservative Members should talk to some of the people who run the businesses which are paying that kind of money. How can such huge charges contribute to fighting inflation or to sustaining the small business sector?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the gasp of frank disbelief at what he said a few moments ago. I hope that he will provide clear illustrations, not an isolated example, of what he has just said. What is necessary for the future health of Britain is, first, to ensure that we bring inflation down to a low level; secondly, to keep it there; and, thirdly, so as to ensure that that happens, never again to have a Labour Government.
    Sir John Wheeler: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read about the dreadful events taking place in Labour-controlled Hackney—[Interruption.]—where council officials have been racketeering on the backs of the homeless and illegally renting out properties? [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a scandal, and will he condemn the empty properties that Hackney, Lambeth, Islington and Liverpool have that could be brought into use?
    The Prime Minister: In so far as I could hear the question over the chanting from Opposition Members, I believe that it concerned Hackney borough council. Anyone who wanted an example of the Labour party in power could only have seen it in recent years in local government in places such as Hackney, and I do not believe that they will have liked what they have seen. Labour repeatedly feigns concern for the homeless, but Hackney has more than 2,000 properties empty.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Reverting to the important question of a single European currency, has the Prime Minister yet had a chance to study the important speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) last night? Am I right in thinking that the Prime Minister's personal opinion is that a single currency may be a good thing eventually, but not yet and not for the foreseeable future? Does he not think that that "yes-maybe" approach to the question is now so hedged about and qualified as to be almost devoid of any meaning? When will he come to the House and tell the country what he thinks is the right course of action for Britain to take in this fundamentally important economic issue?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening over the past two years, because we have done it repeatedly. We have made it plain to the House and to our European partners that we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome which would bind us to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by this party, by this Government and by this Parliament.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member who represents the constituency where I was educated—the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—on exercising his right of parental choice under the Education Reform Act 1988—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility. He has no responsibility for that.
    Mr. Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parental choice in schools is a major Conservative policy,

    405
    and would it not help if more senior members of the Opposition parties joined Conservatives in supporting parental freedom of choice?
    The Prime Minister: I am always pleased to see support for Conservative reforms, especially from Labour Front Benchers. I wish that they would not say one thing in opposition and practise something else in there own lives.
    Q5. Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Adams: The question that I am going to put to the Prime Minister is a simple one and it has been put to him twice at Prime Minister's questions in the past few weeks, but he has refused to answer it. Following his last refusal, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Lady, who is new to us, that preambles take up much time? Will she ask a question, please?
    Mrs. Adams: Is the Prime Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen wrote to him putting that question yet again? He is still awaiting a reply. Will the Prime Minister answer today, because the question deserves a serious answer—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a chance to ask her question—please.
    Mrs. Adams: If the Conservatives should win the next general election, will the Prime Minister give an absolute guarantee that he will not raise value added tax—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: When the Conservative party has won the next general election, the hon. Lady will see, and will perhaps have learnt by then, that no Government at any stage give categorical assurances—none have, and none will. But I can say to the hon. Lady that we have no present plans whatsoever to increase value added tax.
    Mr. Moss: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read a report published yesterday by the respected City firm, Goldman Sachs, which concludes that a minimum wage policy would destroy jobs, increase inflation and lead to a
    406
    reduction in output? Does he agree that it is totally irresponsible of the Labour party to continue peddling that policy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I have seen that report and it shares the views of the Government, the Fabian Society and many others. A minimum wage would have devastating effects for people. It would encourage others to seek to raise the general level of wages. It would raise inflation and unemployment, and a National Institute estimate—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen, because this would affect people and their jobs, about whom they claim to care. The institute estimates that a statutory minimum wage would raise price levels by 3·5 per cent. at the end of three years, and would reduce the level of gross domestic product by 0·5 per cent. That is the likely cost of a Labour Government.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Why have not the problems of a minimum wage that the Prime Minister just outlined caused difficulties in West Germany?
    The Prime Minister rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I was unable to hear the hon. Gentleman's question over the noise being made by Opposition Members. If you, Mr. Speaker, will allow the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question, I shall endeavour to respond to it.
    Mr. Bennett: I asked why the problems of a minimum wage that the Prime Minister outlined have not been evident in West Germany.
    The Prime Minister: West Germany has in no sense in recent years had many of the attendant difficulties created by trade unions and others—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is now a stack of people, the Fabian Society—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: We have seen the way the Opposition behave and it is not unlike Hackney borough council writ large.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us what will be the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 JUNE—Timetable motion, followed by proceedings on the Dangerous Dogs Bill.
TUESDAY 11 JUNE—Progress in Committee of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE—Conclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill.
THURSDAY 13 JUNE—Opposition Day (13th allotted day).
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion described as "The Impact of the Government's Recessionary Policies on Business".
FRIDAY 14 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 17 JUNE—Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 12 June to consider Document No. 6033/90, relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products.
[Relevant documents:
Wednesday 12 June
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document 6033/90 Medicinal Products (Legal Protection)
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 11-xxv ( 1989–90) and HC 29-xxii (1990–91)]
Dr. Cunningham: Why are the Government introducing a timetable motion on the Bill to control dangerous dogs, which the Opposition do not intend to oppose? Is it not a ridiculous state of affairs that the Government want to guillotine the debate on a Bill which, broadly speaking and in principle, the Opposition welcome? That will force debate and decisions on the Bill into the middle of the night and early hours of the morning when, with proper agreement across the Floor, the House could have a far more sensible debate on that very important problem—and almost certainly reach far more sensible decisions. It must be unprecedented for a Government to cut short debate on a Bill that the Opposition support in principle. Is not the Government's real problem that they want to timetable the Bill to prevent their own supporters from causing difficulties when they rightly intend to vote for a dog registration scheme—which we will certainly support, and which, as all the evidence shows, has the overwhelming support of the public.
Mr. Roger Gale: Why did not the Opposition support one in the past?
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman, who bellows at me from a sedentary position, must have a short memory. We have consistently supported a dog registration scheme, and we will do so again.
408
I invite the Leader of the House to arrange with the Government Chief Whip a free vote on that issue—with which we would also co-operate—to ensure that the House genuinely reaches an honest decision on whether Britain should have a dog registration scheme.
I know that the Leader of the House has not been able to find time for a debate about European Community affairs next week. May I impress on him the urgent need for such a debate, given the important developments that we have seen throughout Europe—not just in the Community? Can the debate be held before the European summit that is to take place in Luxembourg towards the end of the month? I believe that there would be widespread support for it. Given the current interest in European developments among Conservative Members, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to satisfy the wishes of his right hon. and hon. Friends as well as helping the Opposition.
Why are we to spend next week debating yet another Local Government Finance Bill, which, by definition, will perpetuate the existence of the poll tax for another two or three years? Why cannot a proposal to abolish the poll tax immediately be embodied in a simple clause, or group of clauses? The Opposition would co-operate fully in order to remove this abysmal, capricious tax from the statute book at the earliest opportunity.
When do the Government intend to arrange a debate on their own White Paper on the environment, "Our Common Inheritance", which was published with great fanfares nine months ago but has now disappeared without trace? Are the Government now putting important decisions about environmental policy on the back shelf because the environment is no longer considered to be politically opportune or fashionable? A debate on the White Paper would be in the interests of the House and the country.
Mr. MacGregor: I believe that the House and the whole country think it important for us to put the Dangerous Dogs Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible—
Dr. Cunningham: We have already co-operated to accelerate its progress.
Mr. MacGregor: I am explaining why we are tabling a timetable motion. It is important to get the Bill on the statute book, not only to protect innocent people who may be subjected to the behaviour of fighting dogs but to ensure that the breeding of such dogs is stopped so that matters go no further. I believe that, if we are to do that as quickly as possible, it will be necessary to take the Bill through the House in the way that the Government suggest. I also believe that that is what the House wants.
If the Opposition do not wish to oppose the Bill, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said—and I was very pleased to hear him say it—they will no doubt assist us in accelerating the debate. We are taking steps to ensure that the Bill gets through, but—as hon. Members will see when the timetable motion is tabled later this afternoon—we are allowing as much time as possible for the Bill to be debated on the one day allotted to it. I think that the House will want to get it through in a day, and the guillotine motion will ensure that that happens.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are allowing plenty of time for sensible debate. Let me point out that we shall have even more time if we debate the guillotine motion briefly: then we can get on to the Bill quickly. That would

409
suit me as much as it would suit the hon. Gentleman. He will see when he reads the motion that we are allowing plenty of time for debate on the dog registration issue.
I agree that Europe is a very important subject, and I hope to arrange a debate in the near future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will take place before the European summit in Luxembourg. I am not sure that I am helping the Opposition in arranging the debate, as it will certainly expose the divisions in their ranks, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for it.
The reason why we have not introduced a single clause to this effect in the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is that it would then be necessary to replace the community charge with an alternative system. The council tax that we propose deals, in a way that the Opposition's proposals would not, with all—or virtually all—the defects of both the old domestic rating system and the community charge. I defy the Opposition to propose a single clause to cover all the alternatives to the community charge.
Dr. Cunningham: I did not say that.
Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, he is demonstrating once again his naivety by suggesting that we can leave in limbo the question of local government finance. It was ridiculous to suggest a single clause.
As for the White Paper on the environment, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have frequently discussed environmental matters in the House and have pursued many of the action proposals in the White Paper, which are being followed up. I hope to be able to arrange a debate on the environment because I agree that it is an important subject. I should be only too delighted to have a progress report on all that has been done to follow up the White Paper, but there is a difficulty in fitting it in, given the fact that we have a heavy legislative programme.
Mr. John Marshall: Would my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on homelessness in London? Is he aware that today there are more than 20,000 vacant council houses in London, which represents 20 houses for every person sleeping rough in London tonight? Is that not a scandal on which we should have another debate?
Mr. MacGregor: Certainly I think that other reports have drawn attention to the fact that a number of Labour authorities have many vacant houses which have remained vacant for a long time. I agree that it is right that attention should be drawn to that fact.
Mr. James Wallace: Where does the Leader of the House expect any opposition to the Dangerous Dogs Bill to come from? Does he not think imposing a guillotine means there is more chance of us getting the legislation wrong than if proper consideration were allowed?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, his right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor introduced important provisions earlier this week for civil legal aid, which seem to restrict greatly the right of ordinary citizens to appear before the courts. When will the House have an opportunity to debate those proposals?
Mr. MacGregor: Let me be clear on the first point. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the House will agree and
410
that the Bill will go through quickly, that will be ideal and admirable, and it is what I should like to see happen. However, there are quite a number of amendments to the Bill, so we want a proper timetable to get it through as quickly as possible, because we all agree that it is urgent.
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways—he cannot say that we do not need a timetable to ensure that the Bill is properly considered and also say that it will go through quickly. We are trying to get the Bill through the House as quickly as possible, concomitant with sufficient debate to get it right. I believe that we have it right, but it is right to allow time for the amendments to be discussed.
As far as the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he has an open mind especially on the main option but also on others canvassed in the paper, and has allowed until 31 October for consultation. We have a crowded programme, so I do not know at this stage whether we shall have the opportunity to have a debate in the House before the end of the consultation period or afterwards, but I note the hon. Gentleman's request.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when he carries through the experiment that he announced in written questions yesterday dealing with the Procedure Committee's recommendations on Lords amendments, which one hopes will make it simpler for the House to carry through and understand the way in which Lords amendments are dealt with, there is a notice on the Order Paper so that hon. Members have the new procedure drawn to their attention? Perhaps the House would attend during the Lords amendments to ensure that the new procedure works to their benefit.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to his Committee for the proposals for dealing with Lords amendments. I am also grateful for the opportunity to draw to the House's attention the written answer which shows how we propose to proceed. At this stage, it is still experimental, and in a sense it is a dummy run to see whether the suggestions by my hon. Friend's Committee will benefit the House and be advantageous in considering Lords amendments. Once again, it is an example of the constructive work done by my hon. Friend's Committee; I pay tribute to him and make it clear that, once again, the Government are responding positively.
Mr. James Lamond: On the question of an early end to the poll tax, is the Leader of the House aware that my constituents who, I think are fairly typical, are now complaining because they are confused and misunderstand the different schemes to rebate the poll tax and subtract £140—to such an extent that the council in Oldham is now receiving complaints at twice last year's level? That is likely to continue until the poll tax is ended.
Is there not some way in which we could debate bringing forward the ending of the poll tax? At least that would help the Government, if nothing else.
Mr. MacGregor: There is absolutely no confusion about the switch of the £140 from which the hon. Gentleman's constituents are greatly benefiting. I hope that he will draw to their attention the benefits that they are getting from it.

411
On our alternative—the council tax—as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting for just over another week. The Government will then come forward with proposals. We are moving very fast on this matter—as fast as is practicable. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals that we shall make are much more beneficial to his constituents than the proposals of his own party.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement next week on the plight of those British subjects whose careers were shattered and possessions plundered during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait? Will he ask his ministerial colleagues to consider whether it would be fair to compensate them out of the Iraqi assets that are frozen in this country?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate on the point that my hon. Friend raises, but I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If we can prove conclusively that the Iraqi Government have breached United Nations resolution 688 and have resumed oppression against the Kurdish peoples, would that be sufficient to warrant a statement from a Minister?
Mr. MacGregor: There is no evidence that there is any systematic or widespread repression of the Kurds at present. We are in close contact with other joint force members to agree ways of providing reassurance to the Kurdish population if and when forces are withdrawn.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I wanted to make that point absolutely clear. On his hypothesis, clearly in that situation we would obviously consider making a statement to the House, and I can give him that assurance.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Given that plans are afoot for the imposition of an expensive additional layer of regional government, which in our case would be run from Newcastle, not Teesside, and given that the development corporations and many of the Government's presently active inner-city initiatives will be scrapped, would it be possible for us at an early opportunity to debate the Labour party's proposals for the northern region and other English regions?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early opportunity in Government time, but I am sure that he will be able to find opportunities in the House for making the cogent criticisms that I am sure he would wish to develop.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Given the Prime Minister's stated wish to raise the political profile of Edinburgh by holding a European Community meeting there, why is the Leader of the House undermining that wish by not holding even one Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland's capital city?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that several Scottish Grand Committee meetings are coming forward in the immediate future— [HON. MEMBERS: "Not in Edinburgh."] That is a matter that I would obviously have to look at.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: My right hon. Friend will know that the Secretary of State for Defence made a far-reaching and important statement on the future of the armed forces, particularly as regards the size of the Army. That will affect many of our constituents. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that we will be able to debate that matter well before the White Paper is introduced, so that we can put our concerns to the Secretary of State and also show up the disastrous review that took place in the 1970s and 1960s when the Labour party was in power?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance as to the exact timing of any debate, because there is a great deal to be fitted into the programme at the moment, but I can assure him that there will be a number of occasions in the comparatively near future when we will be able to debate these matters.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on the rules governing Ministers—which, as he knows, are based on the principle that Ministers should order their affairs so that there is no conflict between their public duty and their private interests? Will he make a statement about the four Cabinet members who are members of Lloyd's, at a time when Lloyd's members are organising a campaign to obtain tax concessions which will directly benefit Lloyd's members, including the four members of the Cabinet? How can that conflict of interest be maintained? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement making it clear that Ministers should divest themselves of those private financial interests?
Mr. MacGregor: The rules relating to Ministers' interests are very clear and, I am sure, are being wholly abided by. I do not see any need for a statement on that matter next week.
Mr. Richard Holt: Earlier this week, I may have inadvertently misled the House when I referred to changes in the rules relating to people who suffer from diabetes which seem to have been introduced by an order without any debate or discussion in the House. I distinctly remember the announcement that those who suffer from diabetes would receive their medication free. Earlier, I misled the House into believing that those who suffer from diabetes but do not take medicine as their diabetes is controlled by diet would no longer receive their medication, testing equipment and other things free of charge. I have since learnt that the position is worse than that. Only those on insulin will have their medication free. The House and the country have been misled. There should be a statement in the House at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know about that matter, so I will have to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that Question 13 to the Home Secretary was not reached? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement about free television licences for old-age pensioners? It must be wrong for old-age pensioners on one side of the street to receive free television licences while those on the other side of the street do not. Some pensioners in the same warden accommodation do not

413
qualify for free television licences while others do. Some pensioners who have been in such accommodation for five years qualify, while those who have only just arrived do not. The Prime Minister talks about a classless society. Let us see that put into practice and have less talk. There should be free television licences for all old-age pensioners.
Mr. MacGregor: I did not notice that Question 13 had not been reached, but I assume that it was tabled by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and that he has just found a way of making his point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, that is not the correct use of business questions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover will, with his usual persistence, table his question again.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: In the light of the interesting speech by Mikhail Gorbachev in association with his Nobel prize, would it be possible next week or the week after to debate the bipartisan amendment to early-day motion 891, which is linked to the plea that the British dependants Maria and Anna Gordievsky and their mother Leila should be allowed to join their father in this country after being separated for six years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the best way to show that there is a new USSR and not one that is still controlled by the KGB?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot arrange a debate on that in Government time next week. However, in relation to early-day motion 891, the Government welcome the programme link-up between the United Kingdom and Soviet Parliaments broadcast on 5 June. We entirely agree that the Gordievsky family should be allowed to be reunited in Britain without any further delay.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the mounting concern in Britain about what could happen to the Kurds if the allies decide to leave northern Iraq, surely it is necessary for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to at least tell us the allies' intentions? Do the allies intend to leave or not? Why should the Kurds be at the tender mercy of Saddam Hussein and his thugs? We need a statement as quickly as possible so that we can know precisely what the allies intend to do.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said something about that in reply to an earlier question. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. As I said earlier, no doubt at an appropriate time, information will be made available to the House.
Mr. Michael Grylls: As the former and very successful Minister for small businesses, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate at the earliest opportunity on the conditions of bank lending to smaller firms? My right hon. Friend will agree that it is not an issue that can be dealt with sensibly in superficial questions at Question Time. It is a deep subject. It is not an easy matter, but it would be right for the House to debate it at this time.
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for encouraging and helping small businesses. He and I have done many things together in that regard. He will be aware of the comments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on Tuesday on the matter and of the discussions that my right hon. Friend
414
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having at present. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on the matter next week, but I continue to take a close interest in everything to do with small businesses. At an appropriate time, I should be delighted to have a debate on the subject.
Mr. John Garrett: The Leader of the House knows that the Government's response to the Procedure Committee's report on Select Committees places the status of the Comptroller and Auditor General in jeopardy. Why did the Leader of the House allow that response to be published when clearly it had not been thought through? When will he make a statment on the subject?
Mr. MacGregor: It was thought through. I know that there are different views in the House, but the Government's position on the matter was thought through. I discussed it with several people. I hope to be able to introduce new Standing Orders on some aspects of the report—those on which it is for the Government to act—shortly.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does not my right hon. Friend recall that this Parliament of all Parliaments has imposed more curtailments of free speech through the device of the guillotine? The sophistry that my right hon. Friend wove in responding to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), did not address the question why, when the House seems to accept that the curtailment of dogs with dangerous tendencies for the sake of the general public has great support in the country, the Government whom I support insist on imposing yet another of these wretched guillotines to deny free speech. Does not my right hon. Friend remember that we legislate in haste and repent at leisure?
Mr. MacGregor: It is because I believe that many people in the House, as in the country, want us to take action on the matter as quickly as possible. If my hon. Friend is right that there is agreement, clearly we shall get the Bill through well within the terms that we have set down in the guillotine.
Mr. Cryer: Not without proper debate.
Mr. MacGregor: If there is general agreement, that is what will happen. If, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) seems to suggest, there is great opposition to the Bill, that makes it desirable to put the Bill through quickly. In the timetable motion we shall allow plenty of time for what is after all a short Bill, which the whole House apparently supports. We shall allow plenty of time for the issues to be debated.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a short debate to deal with the traumatic problem faced by the families of Scottish people who have been found dead or murdered on the streets of London? The families are having immense problems in bringing the body back home so that they can deal with it in their own fashion. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Secretary knows about the problem and can help prevent Scottish families from suffering such a traumatic problem?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, he will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will examine it immediately.
Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity to debate the minimum import price into the European Community of raspberries? [Laughter.] Hon. Members find it amusing, but Tayside in Scotland grows more than 80 per cent. of the raspberries grown commercially within the European Community. That product is at risk, because the minimum import price runs out at the end of July, in the middle of the picking season. It must be extended and the European Community must be made to realise that the industry, which receives no public support and is a great asset to Scotland and the United Kingdom, could be put at risk. We will not accept the minimum import price being negotiated away to allow eastern European imports into the European Community.
Mr. MacGregor: I know well, knowing that part of Scotland well, of the importance of that industry to that part of Scotland. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I had on a number of occasions at this time of year to deal with the alleged dumping of raspberries, when the real difficulty was getting the evidence. I assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of attention is paid to the issue. I am sure that he has already drawn the matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I shall do so as well.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Some months ago, I raised with the Leader of the House the question of British hostages. At that time I reminded him that, rightly, diplomatic activity should have considerable priority. As no progress seems evident, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate so that our voice may be heard? Alternatively, will he arrange for a statement to be made to update the House on what is happening?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know of the considerable efforts in relation to hostages that the British Government, in particular Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have been making. In connection with one group, the Minister of State at that Department hopes to make a visit soon. I assure the hon. Gentleman that constant efforts are being made. If and when it is appropriate to make a statement, I shall make sure that one is made.
Mr. Barry Porter: May we have a debate in the near future on the progress of the talks in Northern Ireland? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the House to show its total support for the efforts that are being made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? That would show those who are at present involved in slaughter in Northern Ireland that hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the country, in every constitutional party, are in favour of reaching some sort of accommodation. That message should be spelled out clearly by the House at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the whole House will welcome the news that agreement has now been reached on the outstanding procedural points and that the four political parties taking part in the talks
416
have decided to begin plenary sessions on 17 June. We hope that the painstaking preparatory work conducted during the last five weeks—I pay warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in that respect—will have laid a firm foundation for substantive negotiations. There will be other opportunities before the House rises, not only during Question Time, to discuss Northern Ireland issues.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have a debate on the 17th report of the Committee of Public Accounts entitled "National Health Service: Patient Transport Services"? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Committee unanimously considered it unacceptable that many services in our major cities are not meeting the minimum emergency standards? Does he know that, in many cities, such as Leicester, the ambulance services are overworked and are having the greatest difficulty meeting the needs imposed on them by a growing and aging population? When shall we debate that other defect in the national health service?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are procedures for dealing with Public Accounts Committee debates and for selecting the topics. I cannot tell him at this stage when the next debate will be.
Sir Ian Gilmour: Apart from the important question of principle raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), may I ask my right hon. Friend to explain what possible excuse there can be for guillotining a Bill that the whole House supports?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that the need is for speed. We are giving a great deal of time for the Bill to be dealt with, and if there is such great agreement, perhaps we shall finish the debate well within the timing of the guillotine.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement to be made by the Government about the serious situation facing Post Office Counters, where management are refusing to go to arbitration to settle a serious dispute on the basis of a 7 per cent. pay offer which is way below the operative retail prices index, and which represents a 1.2 per cent. cut in living standards? Is he further aware that it is the lowest public sector pay offer at present under way? Do the Government agree with the management in making that offer, when another public sector worker, the Governor of the Bank of England, has received a 17 per cent. pay offer, repressenting an increase of £22,500, which is double the rates of maximum pay received in a whole year by a Post Office Counters worker?
Mr. MacGregor: Those are matters for Post Office Counters management and the unions. I see no opportunity for a debate next week.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House consider an urgent debate on the re-emergence and growth of Militant Tendency within the Labour movement and the Labour party so that we can demonstrate to the British people that the Labour party have not been successful, in any whit, regard or particular, in eliminating that problem from the ranks of the Labour party and the Labour movement?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend Other events, including a by-election, may show that Militant Tendency is still alive and kicking in the Labour party. However, my hon. Friend must find other opportunities—as I am sure he will—to raise the matter next week.
Mr. David Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on Gibraltar before the summer recess so that the House can discuss the worrying harassment of British citizens by the Spanish at the border crossing? We could then also consider the controversial Brussels agreement—the ill-conceived airport agreement—which is doing much to wreck the potential commercial viability of the colony, and the European Community dimension as it affects Gibraltar.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate specifically on that issue. But he mentioned the European Community dimension and, as I have already told the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I hope very soon to announce a debate on European matters, at which that subject could be raised.
Mr. Ian Bruce: For some months now, hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asking for a debate on the "Options for Change" implications for the Navy, particularly naval bases. My right hon. Friend will know of my concern and that of my constituents who are based in the royal naval base in Portland, the research establishments and sea systems controllerate. Will he organise a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence next week to tell us what is going on—I understand that decisions have already been made—and an early debate so that we can discuss how we should organise our Navy in the 1990s and the year 2000?
Mr. MacGregor: It is unlikely that there will be a statement next week, but I shall look into the matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend. There will be opportunities in the coming weeks to debate service matters further.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: During Tuesday's debate, will the Secretary of State for the Environment make a public confession that, according to recent parliamentary replies on local government statistics, the total cost of administering and collecting the poll tax is now well over £1,000 million? That makes the poll tax one of the biggest and most expensive blunders in the history of any Government. If local councillors were responsible for misspending even a tiny fraction of that amount, they would be surcharged and banned from office. Does the Leader of the House agree that the entire Cabinet should be collectively surcharged and that the people should now have the opportunity to kick them out of office?
Mr. MacGregor: That will not be relevant to Tuesday's debate. Without question, one of the causes of the greatest uproar and grievance to the public is the fact that some people have not paid their community charge.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it not an alarming fact that the number of foreign citizens now claiming political asylum in this country, and therefore being allowed to remain for up to four years, has risen from 100 a week to 1,000 a week? Is not the pressure that is now building up on housing, social security and education in the areas of London in which those people must be settled so great that it is threatening to undermine the social fabric of the
418
region? Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate or, failing that, a statement from the Home Secretary about how we could restrain, sensibly and with good judgment, that breakaway activity, which is threatening to become worse?
Mr. MacGregor: I fully recognise the importance of the point that my hon. and learned Friend raises, and I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when it might be discussed in the House.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the decision by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to withdraw support from many countries, including the Soviet Union? Is he aware that Germany, by contrast, is increasing support to the Soviet Union, thus helping the long-term interests of its industry? Is it not time the Government started helping manufacturing instead of harming it?
Mr. MacGregor: We offer a great deal of assistance for exports, as the hon. Lady knows, and large sums are involved. She could pursue this matter at Question Time with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when I am sure he will give a robust response.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will there be time next week to debate what is happening in the city of Liverpool, which is a matter of great concern if not to Members on both sides of the House at least to Conservative Members—my elderly mother, for example, still insists on living there? The rubbish is piling up on the streets, the buses are not running, council staff are on strike, and the Labour party in control seems completely to have lost its head when it comes to trying to run Militant out of town—it seems to be failing. Opposition Members who represent the city will not raise the issue; one or two of them are part of the problem; and the Liberal Member does not appear to have raised the issue. So it looks as though we shall have to raise it, and I beg my right hon. Friend to give us the opportunity to debate it.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that one of the reasons why Opposition Members do not raise the matter is that they are part of the problem. It is clear that Militant Tendency is still very alive in Liverpool—as we shall see shortly. I must leave it to my hon. Friend—as she has done effectively this afternoon—to draw attention to these matters in the House and elsewhere.
Mr. Max Madden: May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the case of Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal, whose plight is outlined in early-day motion 828?
[That this House expresses concern that Karamjit Singh Chahal, a British citizen settled in the United Kingdom since 1974, has been detained in Bedford Prison since August 1990; notes Mr. Chahal is detained subject to a notice of the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 for reasons of national security and other reasons of a political nature; calls for Mr. Chahal to be released immediately pending his being allowed to appeal, with legal representation, against refusal by the Home Secretary to grant political asylum in the United Kingdom; expresses concern that if Mr. Chahal is deported to India he is likely, in the

419
view of Amnesty International to be subjected to torture, disappearance or extrajudicial execution; recalls Mr. Chahal, when visiting India in 1984, was arrested and detained at Mehta police station for nine days, during which he was beaten and otherwise ill-treated and that he was transferred to a police station in Amritsar and held for another 10 or 11 days, during which he was subjected to torture, including severe beatings and electric shock treatments and regrets that a number of Mr. Chahal's relatives have been tortured or ill-treated while held in police custody, that two relatives have recently been killed by security forces, allegedly in fake encounters and that another relative, Kulwant Singh Nagoke, died in police custody.]
Will the Leader of the House press the Home Secretary to intervene before Mr. Chahal is heard on Monday under the discredited "three wise men" deportation procedure? If he has committed any security offences in Britain, why is he not being dealt with by the British courts? If he has not, why has he not been allowed a full, open, independent appeal, with the right to legal representation, so that all the facts can be brought out and his case can be properly defended?
Mr. MacGregor: I reject the view that this is a discredited procedure, and I repeat what I told the hon. Gentleman recently: the Home Secretary will review the case fully in the light of the advisers' recommendations.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a growing sense of unease on both sides of the House about the case of Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray which was raised in an Adjournment debate by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) the other evening? Although the case involved only three people, the House should be concerned about their fate. The explanations given so far have been appalling, implying that the men were digging a trench for their own benefit and fun.
Such men have to go into places that are sometimes dangerous, and if we do not protect them, the attitude of the Government to looking after those selected to serve in the armed forces will be discredited. The sums of money involved are small when set against the sacrifice and service that we demand of such men. So will the Leader of the House rescue the Government from what will be an increasingly embarrassing problem and see that justice is done for those who serve under the Crown on behalf of the people of this country?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is aware of this case and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recall that, on every occasion when this country has taken up arms, ever since the Crimean war, through the Jameson raid to the Falklands, the House of Commons has had a serious debate in the aftermath of each conflict?
Before the so-called victory parade on 21 June, should we not have a proper debate on the extraordinary answer that I received on Tuesday from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces? Cancer of the order of 20 cigarettes a day in the short term is in the long and medium term a serious matter in the Kuwait oilfield. Should we not discuss the situation in Kuwait and take the opinion of
420
some of my hon. Friends about the Kurds? Is it not a disgrace that the House can find time for many matters but not for this one?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have to find time for a great many matters at present. For example, three days next week will be taken up by urgent legislation, and I am sure that that time will be fully used. It is, of course, open to the Opposition to use one of their days for this matter. As I said earlier, when we are debating defence matters, it may be possible to raise some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the current brutality in Lithuania and Armenia, the monitoring of the conventional forces agreements and the potential trade credits likely to be given through the Group of Seven to the Soviet Union, could my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on east-west relations and, in particular, on relations with the Soviet Union?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noticed what my hon. Friend says. I cannot promise a full day's debate specifically on the matter that he raises, but I am sure that in the coming weeks there will be opportunities to raise it.
Mr. Tony Banks: As I understand it, the Leader of the House was one of those advised to stay in bed today because of the juxtaposition of the planets. I do not know whether that was good advice, or what sort of day he has had. Next week's sleeping arrangements concern us. Will the Leader of the House give some indication of the timetable for the Dangerous Dogs Bill? It would be absurd for him to insist on forcing it through in one day because legislation on the hoof, or perhaps I should say on the paw, will probably be bad legislation. Can we at least have a guarantee that we will be allowed to speak through the night on the Bill, because a day has 24 hours?
Mr. McGregor: I understand that the point about me in today's Guardian relates to my horoscope and the month in which I was born. I see from the newspaper that the critical time was 2.56 pm, which time has already passed. I read the advice for today, which was, "Just go slow, don't rush, and don't expect to achieve a great deal." That sounds like the House of Commons on a bad day. I hope that Monday will be a good day, and that we will not have to rush. I hope that we will achieve a great deal. We have allowed almost two days for the debate, because the guillotine will operate until 4 am.
Mr. Michael Brown: My right hon. Friend will recall being challenged by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), at business questions on 2 May. The hon. Gentleman said:
"Ministers in the Welsh Office are writing letters to hospitals pressurising them to opt out of the NHS … as a Minister in the Welsh Office has done recently."—[Official Report, 2 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 439.]
I was perturbed to learn that my colleagues in the Welsh Office were doing that. I challenged them about it, because the House knows that it is impossible for hospitals to opt out of the NHS. All my colleagues in the Welsh Office assured me that they had written no such letter. They told me that they had invited the hon. Gentleman to produce the letter that they are alleged to have written, but that he has failed to do so. Will my right hon. Friend make a

421
statement about the matter or at least invite the hon. Member for Copeland to withdraw the allegation, which still stands on the record?
Mr. MacGregor: I well recall the matter being raised during business questions on 2 May, and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales has written to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the letter, challenging him to produce it. The hon. Gentleman is always courteous, and I am sure that he will now arrange for a retraction of his statement, because I gather that the letter does not exist.
Mr. John Battle: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 919, which is supported by more than 80 hon. Members?
[That this House notes with concern the action of Lewis's Group Ltd. of Leeds, who have raided the company's pension scheme to purchase a property from a subsidiary and to provide the company with a loan at cost of approximately £2 million, including interest to the pension scheme; believes that any surplus should have been used for the beneficiaries of the pension scheme and not to run the business; understands that despite the sacrifice of the workers who had taken a cut in wages of 7·5 per cent. in order to keep the company afloat, unscrupulous employers were able to raid the scheme because of the Government's changes to the pension regulations; and calls on the Government to change the law so that it cannot happen again.]
The company has raided the pension funds of the people who work for it to buy property for development. At the same time, it has asked those workers to take a pay cut of 7·5 per cent. This has happened because the Government have changed the regulations on pension schemes. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this as a matter of urgency? Will he draw the matter to the attention of the Chief Secretary, and ask him to amend the Finance Bill, which is now being considered in Committee, so that the practice does not continue?
Mr. MacGregor: I can tell the hon. Gentleman straight away that the Government, as he knows, have already taken action to protect the interests of pension scheme members. No payments may be made out of the resources of a pension scheme unless annual increases are guaranteed. We shall shortly introduce regulations to restrict self-investment by pension funds. We have taken the powers to ensure that pension increases will be the first call on funds' surpluses, although no final decision has yet been taken on when this will be introduced.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could my right hon. Friend allow us a debate on the mechanics of lending to small businesses? In some obscure corners of the House there is misunderstanding of the meaning of margins and the base rate of lending. There was a perfect example this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition showed his ignorance of these matters.
Mr. MacGregor: If we had to have a debate every time the Leader of the Opposition displayed his ignorance of financial matters, I would be filling up the time of the House with a great deal of debate.
Mr. David Clelland: The Leader of the House may be aware that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave the clear impression on Tuesday, during
422
defence Questions, that the long-awaited and long-overdue decision on the Challenger 2 tank would be made before the end of the month. Is the Leader of the House aware that this morning the Ministry of Defence was already back-tracking on the assurance and is now saying that that may not be the case? This intolerable situation could well lead to the loss of jobs and damage the livelihood of hundreds of people in the defence industry. Can we have a statement on the matter next week to clear up the issue once and for all?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made it clear earlier in the week that we recognise the concern that the decision should not be delayed unnecessarily. We cannot be drawn into a discussion of detail now, but it is the intention to make a further announcement before the end of the month.
Mr. Conal Gregory: With the withdrawal of the conciliation service by the Association of British Travel Agents, saving the association about £700,000, is my right hon. Friend aware that the major means of enabling a person who has booked a holiday either in this country or abroad to seek an appropriate grievance procedure has been removed? With the withdrawal of the service, greater pressure will be placed upon trading standards officers throughout the country. Would it be possible at an early stage to debate the matter, bearing in mind the fact that Britain's fastest growth industry is tourism and that inevitably there will be difficulties between now and the end of the summer? The greatest amount that families spend regularly after the purchase of a motor car is on their holidays, yet ABTA has withdrawn a key element of its service.
Mr. MacGregor: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in tourism matters. I suggest that he might raise the matter to which he has drawn attention in the ways that are available to him in the House.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill on the true effect of the bombs that were dropped by the coalition forces in the Gulf war? The conflict was presented as a clean war, but it was fought with dirty little weapons. It is clear now that only 7 per cent. of the bombs dropped were precision weapons, and that most of those missed their targets. Will he arrange for a statement to be made so that the House can make a judgment on the future use, sale and deployment of fuel-air explosives, cluster bombs and daisycutter bombs, which are weapons of mass slaughter and high-tech barbarism that should be included in the inhumane weapons protocol of 1981?
Mr. MacGregor: It would not be appropriate for me in business questions to be involved in the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that he is missing the point of the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, which will take place on Monday 17 June. It would not be relevant to raise on that occasion the matters to which he has referred.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention early-day motion 921, which stands in the names of 28 right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, on the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas.

423
[That this House believes that the Gurkhas have a unique record of service in the British Army and loyalty to the British Crown, that their qualities of adaptability and devotion to duty will still be required in the defence of Britain's interests in an uncertain world in the future; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to confirm that the Gurkha Brigade will continue to have a worthwhile and viable future in the British Army as previously declared by the Right honourable Member for Ayr, the former Secretary of State for Defence on 22nd May 1989.]
Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make an early statement to confirm that the brigade has a viable and worthwhile future in the British Army? Unlike the county regiments, it does not have constituency Members to represent it: it looks to all those who are Members of this place to secure its interests. After all, the members of the brigade have with their blood served the British Crown with loyalty, courage and dedication. They deserve that we reciprocate in full measure by ensuring that they have a good future in our Army.
Mr. MacGregor: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the fine record of the Gurkhas, and associate myself with his remarks, as I am sure the whole House would wish to do. In setting out the way ahead for the future role and size of the Army, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear on June 4 that consultations were taking place in the Army on the future structure of regiments and corps. I know that my hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible to make statements about the future of individual units before that process is complete.
Ms. Joan. Walley: Is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread concern throughout the country about reports of human rights violations in Kashmir? Having been there last week and seen some of the evidence, may I urge the Leader of the House to find time before the summer recess to arrange for a full report or a debate, so that we can see how we can contribute to finding a peaceful and lasting solution to the problems that clearly exist in Kashmir?
Mr. MacGregor: I certainly do not think that I can promise such a debate in Government time, but I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend other ways of saying something on the issue raised by the hon. Lady before the House rises.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that, when the Secretary of State for Defence made his announcement about massive cuts in defence manpower earlier this week, he did not do so in the form of a statement, and there was no debate following the announcement? Therefore, the House has been given no opportunity to hear the Secretary of State explain the changes in our national strategy or the changes in the roles or tasks of the armed forces that justify those defence cuts. May we have not only a debate but an urgent debate on this matter before people get the impression that the Government no longer view defence as their prime duty?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend must know perfectly well that his last comment is totally invalid. It is clear that we give strong priority to defence matters. My right hon.
424
Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear some of the changes that will have to be considered in relation to "Options for Change" as a result of the changing world scene. I make it clear to my hon. Friend that we are talking about a consultation document, and I assure him that there will be opportunities to debate such matters in the House at the appropriate time.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to come to the House next week to sort out the conflicting policies pursued by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Defence, given that, at the same time that the Transport Secretary was saying that we should transfer goods from road to rail, at the central ordnance depot at Donnington, in my constituency, the Secretary of State for Defence was arranging that rail should no longer be used as a means of transport from Donnington and the goods should be transferred to road? He said that the rail link from COD Donnington to the main line would therefore be redundant. If the Government believe in rail transport, is it not time that they at least ensured that the rail links to Ministry of Defence depots are kept open?
Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, each specific issue must be looked at in detail, and I do not know the details of that case. Obviously, there will be different solutions to different problems. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the disturbing reports of apparent housing racketeering in the London borough of Hackney, and the suggestion that it may be going on in other boroughs. In view of the shambles in housing in Hackney, where there are empty houses and millions of pounds of uncollected rents, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to initiate an urgent inquiry and come back to the House with a statement on what is going on?
Mr. MacGregor: The department of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is in touch with Hackney council, and I shall discuss with him the possibility of his reporting to the House when investigations are complete. We already know that Hackney's housing management is very poor. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, there are a large number of vacant properties and disgraceful delays in processing the right to buy for tenants—an aspect about which we already know. For people who have forgotten what it is like to live under a Labour Government, this matter is yet another example of what would happen if Labour were in power. It shows the excessive and unnecessary spending of so many Labour councils. That is one aspect that my hon. Friend the Minister will address.
Sir Ian Lloyd: How much respect does my right hon. Friend think that the Government will earn not only from both sides of the House but from sensible people throughout the country as a result of his recent announcement that we shall have to stay here until 4 o'clock on Tuesday morning to discuss whether an important but simple matter affecting dogs should be decided in the way that he hopes it will be? We all have our own order of priorities. I just happen to have read the extremely important debate in the upper House on three Select Committee reports on science and technology, a

425
subject that we have not discussed for five or six years. Yet we have to stay here until 4 o'clock in the morning to discuss this important but quite extraordinary matter. Is there no alternative?
Mr. MacGregor: Science and technology is frequently discussed in the Chamber, but I believe that there will be great respect in the country both for the speed with which the Government have acted to introduce the Dangerous Dogs Bill and the speed with which the House will act on the matter. This is a matter of great urgency. The general view from the House this afternoon seems to be that it is a straightforward and relatively simple Bill, and if that is the case I hope that it can he enacted quickly so that we can protect innocent people from the dangers that exist.
If it transpires that there is general agreement, we may end the proceedings well before 4 am. I am trying to achieve a balance between dealing with the matter quickly, as I think the country wants, and giving sufficient time for the Bill to be properly debated.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend find time shortly for a debate on the citizens charter whereby citizens can expect a decent service and if they do not get that they get compensation? Was it not left to the Conservative party to give parents, council tenants and trade union members their rights? It seems that it will be left to the Conservative party yet again to give the ordinary person in the street his rights.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. Giving choice, opportunity and rights to citizens, whether they be patients, parents or trade union members, is a theme which has run strongly through so many of our policies, and it will continue to do so. It will therefore be a theme of many of our debates in the months ahead.
Mr. David Nicholson: May I support the request by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) for an early debate on transport strategy, because Conservative Members have good cause to welcome the change of emphasis and the excellent speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for
426
Transport to the Financial Times conference last week—particularly the emphasis laid on transporting more freight by rail. Is my right hon. Friend aware that that would enable me to make the point that Taunton Cider in my constituency, despite the withdrawal of British Rail's Speedlink, should be enabled to transport its freight by rail and not clutter up the roads?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point already.
Mr. George Walden rose—
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman here for the statement?
Mr. Walden: No, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Then it is difficult for him to ask a question on it.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Ordered,
That the Matter of Scottish higher and further education, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.
That the Matter of local government structure and finance in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.
That the Matter of constitutional issues in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Boswell.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, if the Dangerous Dogs Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Dangerous Dogs Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Orders of the Day
  School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill
    New clause 2

      RESOURCES FOR REMUNERATION AWARDS
      '( )—(1) Sections 2(1) and 2(5) above shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.

      (2) Any order made or issued under sections 2(1) or 2(5) above in respect of the remuneration of teachers shall be accompanied by a statement that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the resources available to local education authorities in the financial year concerned are (or, in the case of a subsequent financial year, will be) adequate to enable each such authority to make payment to school teachers in that financial year in accordance with section 2(6)(a) above without consequential diminishment of resources available to it for other expenditure.

      (3) Where an order in respect of the remuneration of teachers made in accordance with sections 2(1) or 2(5) has effect in more than one financial year, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a further statement otherwise in accordance with subsection (2) above in respect of each such year before the start of that year:.'.—[Mr. Fatchett.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.33 pm
      Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We debated the Bill at some length in Committee and now on Report, as a matter of normal procedure, the Bill carries the words "As amended in Standing Committee A". It is difficult to recall any amendments that were made to the Bill in Committee or any arguments to which Ministers were prepared to listen in Committee. It must be extremely worrying for people outside, who initially may have warmed to the idea of a pay review body, to discover that Ministers refused to listen to the arguments that were advanced in Committee, especially those on the conditions attached to its work.
      The Secretary of State has returned from his visit to Japan. He spoke this morning on the "Today" programme about his pay review body. The way in which he warmed to the National Union of Teachers was an interesting new phenomenon, or was it just in contrast to how he feels about the British Medical Association? It may have been the latter.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried hard to sell the notion of the pay review body, perhaps not so much as a principle but in terms of the possible or promised outcomes. On hearing that, I thought that he would warm to new clause 2. I was not aware that he would respond to the debate, but my premonition was well founded because not only has he warmed to new clause 2 but I assume that he will show his ministerial colleagues that concessions can be made on the back of a sound argument. As always, a sound argument will be advanced for the new clause.
      New clause 2 deals with the funding of pay review body awards and aims to ensure that local government does not find itself in the untenable position of having to meet an award that is not fully funded by the Government. The problem changes substantially as a result of the creation of the pay review body. The Secretary of State will recall the
      428
      Green Paper that was published in October 1987, when the Government opposed a pay review body. Paragraph 7.18 said that the other groups covered by pay review bodies differ from teachers as,
      "For all these groups, the Government is the employer or direct paymaster."
      That is not true of teachers. The direct employer may now be a school, and the local education authority. The paymaster will be the local education authority and, for a few grant-maintained schools, the Department of Education and Science.
      New clause 2 aims to avoid the pay review body facing one or two problems, or perhaps both. The pay review body may make an award higher than the financial support that is made available to local government under the revenue support grant system. If so, local government faces a problem: does it pay teachers in full—presumably it has a statutory responsibility to do so—and be forced to cut other services, including education? That is one consequence.
      The other consequence has worried many teachers and their organisations. Under the Bill, it is possible for the Secretary of State to impose conditions on the way in which the pay review body works. Will one of those conditions be preset in terms of the revenue support to local government? If so, the notion of a free and independent pay review body does not bear close examination. The pay review body would be similar to the interim advisory committee, and it would operate in a financial envelope. It may have come as no surprise to teachers and their organisations when the Minister of State—I think that it was a slip of the tongue but nevertheless a not unimportant one—referred in Committee to the pay review body following on and being similar to the interim advisory committee, which worked with a pre-determined financial envelope. In that event, there is danger that the pay review body will not be independent and be able to make the same kind of expansive commitments that the Secretary of State seemed to hint at in his radio interview this morning. Instead, the pay review body will be constrained and limited.
      A further cause for concern is the Government's record, if one takes the interim advisory committee as the model. They may say that that is not a fair model, but the Conservative party's own brief asks its Back Benchers to sell the pay review body on the basis that it was developed from, and is a continuation of, the IAC.
      It is clear that the Government have not been prepared fully to fund pay awards recommended by the IAC. In 1988, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), replied to a written question of typical originality from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). It asked the Secretary of State when the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions would be published. With his usual perception, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth just happened to arrange for his question to appear on the day that the report was about to be published.
      Mr. James Pawsey: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper for yesterday, he will see that I tabled no fewer than eight specific and individual questions, all relating to teachers' pay—a matter in which Conservative Members display considerable interest.
      Mr. Fatchett: It is not my intention to criticise the hon. Gentleman's diligence. I was merely praising his ability to plant questions at the right time, to ensure that they receive the right answers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman in that way performs a very valuable service to the machinery of Government.
      The Secretary of State's reply to that written question set out the details of the IAC report, and stated in paragraph 7:
      "Nor is it intended to revise the RSG"—
      that is, rate support grant—
      "settlements for 1988–89 on account of the proposals set out in paragraph 2 to 6 above."—[Official Report, 19 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 398.]
      In other words, the IAC's recommendations were not met in full. There was a 10 per cent. overload in the money going to local government, which had to be met by cutting education and other services.
      A year later—and this must have been a mistake on the part of the Department—a question came from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am sure that the relationship between him and the Government is not so good that his question was planted, but in any event it received a reply from the then junior education Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). It stated:
      "The salary Bill for school teachers in England will rise by some £440 million in the financial year 1989–90. This is £80 million above the England element of the original limit proposed."
      He added that the effect of the
      "reduction in the cost of employers' contributions to teachers superannuation will be to reduce the school teachers salary bill by about £25 million. The remaining £55 million to be borne by local education authorities represents less than 0.4 per cent. of local authority education provision."—[Official Report, 16 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 127.]
      As in the previous year, the award was not met in full by the Government and could be honoured only by cuts in local authority expenditure.
      In the subsequent two years, the Government adopted a new tactic—not one that has excited teachers tremendously. Instead of meeting the award in full—or at least ordering its payment in full—they have said that it should be phased in over the financial year. That means teachers do not receive the full amount. The Government may argue that the rate support grant covers the full amount of the two phased increases. If that is the case, it has been done at the cost of teachers and their salaries. If—as local authorities would argue—that is not the case, it is at the cost of the jobs of teachers and others, and of services.
      We need to know what are the Government's intentions in respect of funding pay review body awards. Do they intend to meet those awards in full, or simply to tell local government, "This is what teachers should be paid—but we are not prepared to make the full amount available."? If that is all that the Government can offer, it is a very bad deal for teachers. They will have a legitimate right to feel concerned about their security, their jobs, investment in the education service and its future, and about other local government services. There is no point in having a pay review body if teachers have to pay the cost, and suffer the consequences, of the awards that it makes. I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to confirm that it is the Government's intention to meet the full cost of any future pay review body award.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: My question arises out of some of the changes to the structure of education announced by the Government in recent weeks—though I recognise that the relevant legislation has yet to be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked about the Government's plans for funding review board pay awards. What will be the position in respect of teachers in sixth form colleges or in the sixth form of a high school—in which case they may also teach in lower forms as a result of the changes of recent years. In the case of someone working at a tertiary college that is run directly—and I accept that there are to be trusts, and all the rest of it—will the title "teacher" still be used generically, and refer also to those who are paid as lecturers at grades I and II, and at all the other grades that exist in sixth form and tertiary colleges?
      Mr. Michael Carr: New clause 2 draws attention to a serious problem confronting local authorities and the governing bodies of locally-managed schools. Many governing bodies in my own county of Lancashire and in many others throughout England and Wales face serious decisions because the salary budgets for their schools do not allow them to meet the full cost of paying their existing staff. That will inevitably result in redundancies, have a consequent effect on the schools' curriculums, and further seriously damage teacher morale—which is already at a low ebb, and which has been caused entirely by Conservative Administrations.
      It is essential that any future pay award recommended by the review body should be sanctioned and met in full by the Secretary of State. It should be fully funded by the Government, and not left to LEAs or to individual school governing bodies to make teachers redundant so that they can balance their books.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will agree this afternoon to fund in full any pay increases recommended by the statutory review body. I wholly support the sentiments behind new clause 2, though its wording may leave a little to be desired in achieving the desired effect.
      Mr. George Walden: I do not think that the new clause is necessary. I have great confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when it comes to the appropriate treatment of teachers. Having said that, however, I want to pick up one of the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
      The hon. Gentleman talked of the danger that any future need for the fulfilment of a pay obligation on the part of local authorities might lead to a reduction in the number of teachers. That leads me to the question of class sizes. We do not merely need better-paid teachers of higher quality—although the head of the National Association of Head Teachers has recently drawn attention to the current poor quality of teachers, judged by academic standards We also need a lower teacher-pupil ratio.
      I am familiar with the figures, and I know that they do the Government credit. My constituency and many others, however, contain primary schools with classes numbering more than 30 pupils. We shall not be able to fulfil the requirements of the national curriculum with classes of

      431
      that size; nor shall we be able to raise educational standards throughout the country to match some of those on the continent.
      I hesitate to give Opposition Members any crumb of comfort. As I have said, I have abounding confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend, and entirely recognise that he cannot buy a pig in a poke and announce that the Government will meet whatever requirements the pay review body may come up with, regardless of the economic contingencies. He is bound to wish to maintain reserves, as would the Labour party if—God forbid—it were in government.
      Our record on class sizes is good, but it must become much better. Certainly there must be no question of larger classes resulting, however inadvertently, from the operation of the pay review body.
      Mr. Edward O'Hara: I support new clause 2. Knowsley had to cut its budget by £4 million this year to contain its poll tax within the cap, thus ending up with a budget £7 million lower than—according to its calculations—was necessary to maintain services at the appropriate level. Obviously, given the proportion of the budget that is allocated to education, the cuts fell heavily on that service.
      The education cuts resulted in 100 teacher redundancies, including a number of enforced redundancies, and cuts in schools' delegated budgets. Schools now cannot afford experienced staff, and are forced to hire the cheapest teachers whom they can find—which is not necessarily the best way of supporting the curriculum. As schools shed staff, classes become larger; at the same time, increasing demands are made on teachers in connection with testing. Non-teaching staff numbers are also being cut, which removes the necessary classroom support from the hard-pressed teachers who remain.
      Knowsley has an excellent record in nursery provision, but the nursery schools can no longer be staffed. Swimming lessons are, I trust, high on the Government's agenda, but the authority has had to close one learner pool, and another is under threat. I understand that "parents in partnership" and community education are also high on the agenda, but Knowsley's programme, into which it has put considerable effort and resources, is now in jeopardy.
      The youth service has been decimated, and instrumental music provision is also in danger. A school of which I am a governor has had its peripatetic music-teaching allocation cut by 50 per cent. Knowsley, although a disadvantaged authority, has a proud record in instrumental music: its youth orchestra and choir annually fill the stage of the Liverpool Philharmonic hall to overflowing, and fill the auditorium to capacity with supporters. The Knowsley youth orchestra and choir are the only such pair to have been invited in recent years to perform at the National Festival of Music for Youth, and the youth orchestra is one of the few to have been invited a second time this year.
      That proud programme is now jeopardised. I understand from correspondence that I have received this week that the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales is to include Knowsley in
      432
      a group of authorities that it will examine closely to assess the affect of school budget cuts on instrumental music teaching.
      Cuts in school building maintenance have also been made. I believe that there is a national shortfall of £4 billion in maintenance funds; according to the professional estimate, £8,397,000 is needed to maintain Knowsley's school buildings, but the authority can afford to allocate less than £2·5 million.
      Knowsley could not cope with a shortfall in rate support grant funding without doing further serious damage to education. If the Government believe that the extra money could be raised through their sanctioning a levy of poll tax revenue, I can only say that the Secretary of State should read some of the correspondence that I am now receiving from my constituents, who ask me how on earth they can be expected to pay their bills.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) began by saying that he had done me the courtesy of listening to what I said on this morning's "Today" programme. Although I am flattered to learn that he may have paid some attention to my remarks, I realise that he did not switch on his radio to listen to me. To prepare his case on new clause 2—and, no doubt, his case on the whole Bill—he listened, dutifully and attentively, to the words of Mr. Doug McAvoy, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, who was sitting opposite me. I hope that the hon. Gentleman dutifully stood to attention as Mr. McAvoy's dulcet tones went over the air.
      Mr. McAvoy is of course the real opposition spokesman on the Bill; it has nothing to do with the official Opposition. When we observe the extraordinary spectacle of Opposition Members trying, on Report, to find arguments such as those contained in new clause 2 to justify their continued opposition to the idea of a review body, we realise that they are completely in the pocket of the NUT. That is the only explanation for their continued advocacy of the right to take industrial action, the right to engage in free collective bargaining, and all the trappings of industrial relations to which they still adhere—contrary to the advice of the other five teachers' unions and, I believe, that of most sensible members of the public.
      The Opposition's scratching around for reasons to oppose the review body proposals is becoming rather pathetic. This morning, I discussed with Mr. McAvoy the extraordinary advertisements that the NUT has decided to use. It appears to think that pictures of me walking down the steps will sell newspapers. That is very nice of the union, but it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Similarly, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central has had to table new clause 2, and has had to scrape the bottom of the barrel in his search for arguments to justify his continuing resistance to the Government's resolve to give teachers proper professional status, and to settle their pay in a sensible fashion by heeding the advice of an independent review body unless there are clear and compelling reasons not to do so, which is what Governments have always recommended.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that he has so far not referred to the new clause. I very much hope that he will get to it soon.
      5 pm
      Mr. Clarke: I have referred to the new clause in exactly the same terms as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). If I may, I will continue to deal with the arguments that you earlier ruled in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The hon. Gentleman's first argument was to raise again the idea that the new clause was needed because of the pre-determined financial envelope within which the review body might have to operate. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—because we said so in our first announcement and on Second Reading and it was said repeatedly in Standing Committee—that one of the principal differences between the interim advisory committee and the new review body is that the new body will not operate within a predetermined financial envelope. To raise that argument yet again is to return to a wholly failed and false argument and to try to arouse people's suspicions of the review body proposals.
      Mr. Jack Straw: Does the Secretary of State understand this point? It is not a question of challenging directly the veracity of the words that he used. Those of us who have been on the Opposition Benches for some time—a time that will shortly come to an end—have had too much experience of being promised from the Dispatch Box things which are then not delivered or are overturned by successive Ministers.
      I give two examples. The first involves a categorical undertaking given during the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988 that no grant-maintained school's character could be changed within five years. The Minister said that there was no need to accept amendments when the Government had given an undertaking in the House that a provision would not be changed. The second example involves the statement made this time last year on the Floor of the House by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), about the students' vacation hardship allowance—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Straw: I am illustrating a point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Chelsea said that the Government justified the withdrawal of housing benefit—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about grant-maintained schools and housing benefit. There is no reference to them in the new clause.
      Mr. Straw: That undertaking was also broken. My question to the Secretary of State is this: given the track record of Ministers giving undertakings to the House and then breaking them, why should we accept his undertaking now without it being written in the Bill?
      Mr. Clarke: On Second Reading the hon. Gentleman did not once mention the words "pay review body". Surely he cannot have come here again merely to launch into a series of interventions and speeches not remotely related to the subject that we are discussing. He is ashamed of opposing the Bill and he does not want to talk about it. He will not dare to give his opinion on a review body for teachers, but he is backing up his hon. Friend's feeble efforts to find reasons for undermining a policy that he
      434
      knows is popular with teachers. He knows that the Bill states plainly that the review body will not operate within a predetermined financial envelope.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, Central said that I was misleading the House by suggesting that teachers might do quite well under the new arrangements and he wished to challenge that claim. Of course, no one can predict what the independent review body will recommend. The Government are submitting themselves to the objective judgment of a body which will recommend the right pay, terms and conditions for teachers.
      We are moving towards the review body from a background where the funding of education and teachers has already done very well under this Government. During the lifetime of the Government, funding for pupils has increased by 40 per cent. and teachers' pay has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms. During the lifetime of the last Labour Government, it increased by 6 per cent. in real terms. During the lifetime of this Government, the 30 per cent. real terms increase in teachers' pay has been significantly exceeded by that of doctors and dentists as the Government have acted on the recommendations of the review body for those professions. The same has happened for nurses and midwives as the Government have acted on the recommendations of their review body. On that basis, some teachers—those in shortage subjects, those with good classroom performance and those who commit themselves to a life-long career in teaching—have every reason to be confident in their expectations about the recommendations that a review body would make.
      The new clause suggests that the recommendations might somehow be jeopardised by the failure to certify that express sums of money should be made available to finance an award of which the Government approve. The new clause deals with that in a curious way. There is no such thing as a hypothecated revenue for any particular part of local government expending. At no time do the Government separately identify a sum of money which is available only for teachers' pay and nothing else. However, the Government now identify each year in the standard spending assessment that part of the block grant for local government which they believe should be made available for education. Within that, there are many variables which those responsible for managing schools at the moment—mainly the local authorities—must take into account. Expenditure on staff costs is only a part of the total costs in education and those responsible must judge the priorities among staff, buildings and other services.
      Although new clause 2 is not relevant to local government spending as it is now organised—there are no such hypothecated sums—I shall deal with the fear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that underfunding may set back yet further his proper desire to see a reduction in class sizes in primary schools. I shall also deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) about cuts in Lancashire and that made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) by explaining what happened this year. This year has not been mentioned by any of the members of the Opposition who have spoken so far except in terms of cuts and difficulties.
      This year's standard spending assessment total for the forthcoming financial year will be increased by 16 per cent. compared with that for 1990–91. That is in a year when inflation, as we know, is falling rapidly. We are talking about inflation of approximately 5 per cent. during the

      435
      course of the year, so the increase in real terms will be about 10 per cent. When that standard spending assessment was set, I do not think that it was clear to what extent inflation would fall by the end of the year, but the Government set it to reflect what we properly anticipated would be the salary costs of teachers.
      The assessment was set to allow for three elements. First, it was set to allow for a pay award reflecting the remit given to the interim advisory committee last September. The decision that we have taken in the light of the advice given by the IAC is within that remit. Secondly, there was an element for pay discretions on which the Government are very keen—we allowed £140 million for expenditure on discretionary pay awards in England. Thirdly, there was an element for the follow-through costs of last year's pay award, which was phased. An allowance was built into the standard spending assessment to cover the full year's costs of an end-loaded settlement last year.
      It is quite clear that there is no question of any authority not being able to afford the consequences of the Government's decision to fund the IAC's recommendation.
      Mr. Fatchett rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
      This is not the occasion to start debating the individual problems of schools in Knowsley or Lancashire, or even the prospect of reductions in class sizes in Buckingham. However, it is absolute nonsense to recite, as two members of the Opposition did, a litany of complaints this year and to imply that they have something to do with a failure to increase the standard spending assessment to cover teachers' pay. If there are difficulties in some areas—I realise that there are some in Knowsley—it is a reflection on the capacity of councils to manage their education budgets, and the consequences of past overspending in areas other than education. It is a red herring to say that the Government do not finance their own decisions.
      Of course, it is implicit in our proposals that, given that it will be the Prime Minister's review body, the Prime Minister will receive advice, consult with his Cabinet colleagues and then make a decision. Of course the Government must take decisions for which they know that resources are reasonably available in a well managed authority to be able to provide for the consequences of that decision.
      Mr. Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the standard spending assessment for 1991–92, as against the budget for 1990–91 for local authorities, shows an 8·8 per cent. increase? The interim advisory committee's report recommendation for teachers' pay for 1991–92 shows an increase of 11·3 per cent. Will the Secretary of State now give the real figures to the House?
      Mr. Clarke: The comparison with the budget, which is about 9 per cent., I do not accept. That would be to accept that the overspending contained within many of those budgets—for education and a wide range of other matters—is absolutely fixed. We all know that within an education budget there are a wide range of variables. The figures that I have given are accurate. It is simply not the case that the Government's funding of local government has failed to match the Government's decisions on the interim advisory
      436
      committee. If local authorities have recklessly drawn on reserves, overspent in the past and taken decisions which have nothing to do with teachers' pay, it is complete nonsense, in a year when SSAs are up by 16 per cent., to say that the cuts that they are now imposing on their schools because of their incompetence are a result of a Government decision and a result of the independent advisory committee's recommendation.
      Mr. Fatchett: The logic of the Secretary of State's argument is that he is supporting imposed cuts in local authority budgets and expenditure on education. The reality is that the increase as against budgets is only 8·8 per cent. In the circumstances, the Secretary of State's only resort is to argue that local authorities are overspending on education. If that is his argument and his case, he should spend more time talking to thousands of parents who see the shortage of funding in our schools. He should spend a little time talking to his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham who, with some ministerial experience in the Department of Education and Science, understands the shortfall in education expenditure and the implications of it.
      Mr. Clarke: The relevant figure is the 16 per cent. that I have described. I shall give an example which I know well because it has been raised with me. In Derbyshire, councillors are making serious cuts in their education provision this year. For some curious reason, they are cutting out the county orchestra. They are cutting staff numbers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Labur party in Derbyshire is freezing school meal prices at their 1981 level. If it were to go back on that daft decision, it would be able to afford most of the cuts that it is making in its music provision and in staffing levels.
      Warwickshire is increasing its spending on education—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. Warwickshire is increasing its education spending by £1 million. I have been over this matter with the chief education officer of Warwickshire. The situation is presented in the most obscure way by county councils when they present their figures. They are switching spending from some heads to spending on other heads. They have created difficulties for themselves by drawing heavily on reserves in the past without knowing whether they would be replaced in future, and what they are switching money from is now described as a cut. It is not a consequence of the implementation of the interim advisory committee's recommendations on pay.
      My own county of Nottinghamshire made a tremendous performance of making cuts of £7 million. After trying for seven months, I have been able to discover what the million reduction is. Nottinghamshire is increasing its real terms spending on education, admittedly by a small amount. It is switching from one head to another and it is describing what it is cutting as cuts. Again, on the back of a 15 per cent. to 16 per cent. increase in the standard spending assessment, that has nothing whatever to do with an alleged underfunding of the teachers' pay settlement.
      The Labour party advocates with more vehemence than I sometimes do the principle of local authority control of education. If we are to have local authority management of education we should have proper accountability. People should actually take responsibility for their decisions. It is quite pathetic that, every time one county council or another makes an extraordinary decision to cut parts of its

      437
      teaching profession, the official Opposition give credibility to the crazy claim that it is something to do with teacher's pay not being funded by central Government. That is not the history. If in future the review body were to make recommendations which had not been anticipated by the Government, the Government would have to face the fact that when a Government take a decision, particularly on the authority of their Prime Minister, that Government must consider carefully whether that decision can properly be funded. Normally, I would expect the standard spending assessment to cover it, but it might not. One then must ask whether efficiencies in other areas are reasonably possible. One may have to phase the award, or the Government may have to face the fact that it is reasonable to make extra provision above that originally planned in order to provide the necessary funding which the Prime Minister has authorised.
      5.15 pm
      The very act of setting up a review body, as we have shown in other services, is a commitment by the Government to take independent advice unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary. It falls to the Government to find the major part of the funding for those decisions. Now that we finally have the local government contribution down to a smaller proportion of the overall cost of local government, and have committed ourselves to keeping the community charge and, ultimately, the council tax share down to a lower proportion, the Government must of course have regard to the funding consequences of decisions. However, for the reasons that I touched on earlier, we do not need this new clause or anything like it to give effect to that.
      If any undertakings need to be given about implementing review bodies or about funding consequences, they should be made by the Opposition. As we set up the review body, we still do not know whether the Labour party is committed to it or whether it would repeal it. Could teachers be allowed to know whether a Labour Government would abolish the review body or, if they would not abolish it, whether they would fund its recommendations in full? Do Labour Members reject the constant reserve that clear and compelling reasons justify a Government modifying it? Frankly, the Labour party will not come to power if it plays the games that it has played in relation to the review body so far and commits itself to backing a policy being forced upon the National Union of Teachers by all the militants at the conference at Easter and forced upon the Labour party—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how those matters can conceivably arise under the new clause. The Secretary of State will stick to the new clause.
      Mr. Clarke: I always have the greatest respect for your decisions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my remarks seem to have some bearing on resources and the funding of awards, which is what new clause 2 is all about.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State talked about the policy of the Labour party. That subject does not arise under the new clause. It might be relevant on Third Reading. Perhaps he will defer it until then.
      Mr. Clarke: On the condition that, if I am making good progress, you will still declare me to be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There will be no conditions. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now address the new clause.
      Mr. Clarke: I think that I am entitled to ask. Mr. Deputy Speaker, within the terms of new clause 2, in exactly what way the Labour party is putting it forward and what commitment it has behind it. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central has been advocating that the new clause is required to oblige the Government to fund their decisions. I have explained how the Government have funded decisions in the past and will fund their decisions reasonably in future. The only time the review body system has been in serious difficulties of a kind relevant to the new clause was not in this Government's period of office. In 1970, the doctors' and dentists' review body resigned when the then Government refused to implement its recommendations and referred the matter to the then pay policy body—or whatever it was called, which I cannot remember. This Government have implemented in full the review body recommendations. People have received the benefits because the funds have been available to pay them. The Labour Government reneged on a review body arrangement and broke their word to the doctors. For that reason, on Third Reading the Opposition should clarify their policy and, as they continue to oppose a review body, they should explain what they would put in its place.
      Mr. Fatchett: It is always clear when the Secretary of State has a weak script and a weak argument because the quantity of red herrings increases and the volume of the bluster increases at the same time.
      I want to correct the record in respect of three points made by the Secretary of State. First, he came out with his normal red herring about the right to take industrial action. Anyone who served on the Standing Committee or who has had more than a passing knowledge of or interest in the Bill will realise that there is no reference to industrial action in the Bill. It is a shame that the Secretary of State has not had time to read his own Bill.
      Secondly, the Secretary of State said that the Labour party was stuck in a position of supporting collective bargaining. The Secretary of State has a very short memory. Only a few weeks ago, he brought a Bill to the House that was based on the principles of collective bargaining. He said that that was the best way to make progress. He was either right then, in which case he has now shifted his argument, or he was wrong and was misleading the House about his views. The simple fact is that back in November he told us that he supported collective bargaining. On that same evening, he proudly announced that each of the candidates for the Tory party leadership also supported the principle of collective bargaining for teachers.
      Finally, the Secretary of State tried to shift the argument on to a predetermined financial envelope for the review body. That was not the argument. As I made clear, the argument was about funding local authorities so that they can pay teachers.
      The Secretary of State's most interesting comment was that the standard spending assessments may not cover all the costs of the pay review award. That is the message that will go to local government from this debate.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No.
      Mr. Fatchett: That is what the Secretary of State said.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My recollection is that I said what the Government would have to do if we found that the previously determined set of SSAs did not meet the costs and I described a variety of options. I have made it clear that a Government who take decisions must have regard to the funding of those decisions. I stuck to that throughout my speech. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) did not say what decision the Opposition would take on any of those aspects.
      Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State is again trying to shift his ground. We were not arguing that Governments do not have to take account of financial considerations. The Secretary of State can check the record. He said that there will be occasions when the SSAs might not cover the full cost of the pay review award. He did not make it clear that the Government would meet the difference. The message to local government and teachers from this debate is that there is absolutely no guarantee that the Government will meet the costs of a pay award from the pay review body. That is worrying.
      That is the record of the IAC and the record that has led to the problems in educational expenditure to which my right hon. and hon. Friends referred. Those problems were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden).
      We realise that the new clause does not and cannot persuade the Government to fund to local authorities the full extent of the pay award. We needed a short debate to discover the Government's intentions. We have done that and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      ESTABLISHMENT OF REVIEW BODY TO CONSIDER STATUTORY CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL TEACHERS
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 5, after 'shall', insert
      `after consultation with those representing the interests of local education authorities, school teachers and governers,'.
      The amendment has the merit of being simple, brief and overwhelmingly convincing. Indeed, it is not a planted amendment, an allegation that I understand was made in my absence about a sophisticated question that I tabled some time ago.
      Mr. Fatchett: That was meant to be praise.
      Mr. Hughes: I am always grateful to receive praise from the hon. Gentleman.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the purpose of the amendment. It is intended to ensure that a consultation process is written into the Bill before the pay review body is established. As the pay review body is set up, the various bodies with obvious interests should be consulted and those should involve local education authorities, teachers and governors. I must point out that the spelling of "governors" on the amendment paper is not my responsibility. It is inaccurate and I fear that it is a printer's error. It is not the fault of the draftsmen.
      I have heard many Government replies to amendments like amendment No. 5 and I can anticipate the Minister's reply. He may say that this is not something that needs to
      440
      be written into the Bill. He may also say that the composition of the review body is set out in the schedule and that is true. He will say that there are regulations about the procedures of the review body in the schedule and that is also true. He will also say that there is enough guidance for the review body set out in clause 1 to ensure that it does its job properly.
      As the Minister will understand—and this point will be raised again when we consider amendment No. 9—everyone interested in this subject and those affected by it are concerned about the independence of the review body. They can express their views most forcefully about that by writing in a consultation clause. I hope that the overwhelming and unequivocal merit of the amendment will commend itself to the Government and that they will prove to be conciliatory and supportive of those in the profession. I hope that we can end this debate in a few minutes without a Division or acrimony.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): I welcome the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to our debate, even at this late stage. I apologise for having to give him the reply that he anticipated.
      The review body is not a negotiating committee, as I am sure he is aware. It is not constituted from nominees representing the various interested parties. The members of the review body will be chosen by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as the people best fitted to give him independent advice. We have made it clear all along that we intend the school teachers' review body to operate on exactly the same basis as the other review bodies, which are not and have never been constituted of representatives of different parts of the profession whose pay they determined. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey may be interested to know that the health service review bodies specifically exclude representatives of those involved in the health service professions whose pay they determine.
      There has never been a suggestion that the other review bodies have not been sufficiently informed or understanding about the professions involved. I am not aware of any doubts that have been raised about their competence. The amendment may be intended to ensure that the interested parties can put forward names for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to consider. If that is the case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to learn that they will be free to do that. However, to write in a requirement to consult along the lines suggested in the amendment would be contrary to the principle of an independent review body.
      It might follow from the amendment that appointments should be made only if all or a majority of interested parties are content with a particular name. That would clearly be unworkable as each party would want to see its own interest represented. As I have said, the intention is to establish not a representative body but an independent one. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make appointments to the new review body, exactly as he does to the existing review bodies. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, having reflected on that, will withdraw his amendment. If not, I must advise my colleagues to reject it.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's and the Government's line is predictable. The answers do not address the specific point. The best that the civil servants could do was to address the answers to a related point. The amendment suggests that there should be consultation before an independent body is set up. I do not ask that there should be representatives of interest groups on the review body. I understand that it is an independent review body.
      One matter which the Minister might well anticipate that the people listed in the amendment might have as their interest is whether the body is really independent. In the debate on amendment No. 9, we shall debate whether the
      body will be serviced independently. The Minister said something that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) may have heard—that this review body would be like all the others. One way in which it does not yet appear that it will be like all the others is that it will have an independent secretariat serviced by the Office of Manpower Economics. If this body is to be like all the others, one factor that the people listed in the amendment will want to ensure before it is set up is that it will have that independence.
      I hear what the Minister says, but I do not find it satisfactory. The people who will be affected by the body will not find it satisfactory either. The Prime Minister will receive advice. The list of the great and the good will be trawled. Why cannot he also receive advice from the people most affected?
      Mr. Fallon: He will.
      Mr. Hughes: Then that is fine. They have been told by the Minister that they can submit names. But we also ask that they be consulted. The Minister said that the Government were not willing to write that into the Bill or to undergo a consultative process before setting up the review body. That is sad. The other place may find it sad and may be able to deliver the votes to make sure that the proposal goes through. It is often amendments such as this which are accepted in the other place, as the Minister well knows.
      Hoping, as we often have to do, that the other unelected House will come to our rescue, I am willing, although reluctantly, to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that amendment No. 1 is not to be moved. Therefore, we come to amendment No. 9.
      Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 8, line 11, at end insert—
      'Secretariat

      4A(1) The Chairman may appoint one or more employees as he thinks fit to perform all or part of the functions of an independent secretariat to the review body.

      (2) The Chairman shall pay to his employee or employees such remuneration and allowances as he may determine.

      (3) The employee or employees shall be appointed on such other terms and conditions as he may determine.

      (4) A determination under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above requires the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury.

      4B(1) Notwithstanding paragraph 4A above, the Chairman may commission any person, body or organisation to perform all or any remaining part of the functions of an independent secretariat.

      442

      (2) The Chairman shall pay to any person, body or organisation commissioned under sub-paragraph (1) above such fees as he may determine.

      (3) A determination under sub-paragraph (2) above requires the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury.

      4C Any expenses arising under paragraphs 4A or 4B above shall be met by the Secretary of State.'.

      I was interested to hear what the Secretary of State had to say. I welcome him back from Japan. He has obviously missed the fact that the majority of teaching unions are unhappy with the pay review body as it is currently proposed, and with the Bill. Unless the amendment is accepted, we shall be confident that the majority of organisations are against the Bill and support opposition to the Bill.
      The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): So the hon. Lady opposes the Bill.
      Ms. Armstrong: The Minister of State is very impatient. I do not want to raise his blood pressure any more today. Perhaps it would help if he simply listened a little.
      The other interesting thing about the speech of the Secretary of State was that he kept reminding us of the value of other pay review bodies, as did his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). But, of course, one of the major problems with this pay review body, as the hon. Member for Southwark, and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, is that it is not like other pay review bodies. It gives the teachers' organisations no confidence that the body will be able to act with the independence and determination that other pay review bodies have had. It is in the light of that that I move the amendment.
      With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to take hon. Members through the amendment. It starts by saying that
      "The Chairman may appoint one or more employees as he thinks fit."
      That would put the pay review body in line with other such bodies. The interim advisory committee was serviced by members who were seconded from the Department of Education and Science. Valuable and worthwhile as their work was—I am sure that as individuals those members were honourable and upright and strove to sustain their independence—teachers do not have confidence that a similar method of servicing the new body would sustain its independence, whatever the nature of the Government in power.
      The amendment specifically seeks to give the pay review body power to determine the nature of its secretariat and from where it seeks its support in developing, seeking and compiling the additional information on many matters which we—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—wish it to examine. I am sure that the body would need to examine issues such as the London allowance. Indeed, the IAC has said that the new body would have to examine such issues.
      The amendment would give the new body power over the new secretariat and the power to commission additional work to support the work of the secretariat. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how critical we, arid both employers and teachers, believe the amendment is. It worries me that the Government have not tabled a similar amendment. They never accept the wording of our amendments. They are always happy to tell us that our

      443
      wording is not perfect. In those circumstances, I hoped that the Government would table amendments today. However, I hope that, in the absence of that, they will reassure us that they will table amendments in another place.
      The Under-Secretary responded to requests from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in Committee, as reported in column 87 of Hansard. He recognised that it was important that the secretariat was perceived to be independent. His answer referred back to the practice of the IAC. The answer was not acceptable, certainly to the Opposition. Neither is it acceptable to the National Association of Head Teachers or the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. Neither of those organisations is happy with the Bill proceeding without a guarantee of the power to fund independent advice, knowledge and support through an independent secretariat.
      We have heard many blandishments from the Secretary of State today and outside the House. We have heard blandishments from junior Ministers about their wish to enhance through a teachers' pay review body the professional status of teachers. They will remain blandishments if the Government do not give the pay review body the independent status which teachers and employers seek. The Government cannot say, "Yes, we want you to have professional status, but we are not prepared to let you outside the clutches of the DES for the nature of your information and your secretariat." That is not to say anything wrong about the DES.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady keeps saying how critical the amendment is and how blandishments will remain blandishments unless we give the undertaking she seeks. If she were satisfied that the review body would have an independent secretariat, would the Labour party change its mind about its opposition to the review body? Is the matter that critical?
      Ms. Armstrong: I might be a new Member, but I am not that new or green. We would need to see the nature of that independence and the wording before we gave assurances —[Interruption.] Conservative Members like to wind me up and I care so passionately about education that I often let them get away with it. Even so, I will not fall into the trap that the right hon. and learned Gentleman sets for me.
      We want from the Government a sense of sanity and reasonableness. Even in my darker moments, I like to believe that everyone, including members of the Government, act with the best of intentions. While I want to believe that they do, we must have evidence from them about the Government's commitment to the independence of this body, and to do that they must ensure that it has the same powers as other pay review bodies, none of which has the type of secondment arrangement that the Bill proposes for the secretariat. All other such bodies have power to decide how their secretariats shall be employed, and they all use the Office of Manpower Economics.
      The pay review body applying to teachers should have the same powers. In particular, it should have power to commission research and studies from other organisations and have information-gathering abilities. The Government must show that this body will have the ability to live up to what they are claiming for it, and that is the purpose of my amendment.
      Mr. John Bowis: In Committee, we enjoyed many examples of the thinking of the Opposition. On the whole, it was a great debate, featuring the hon. Members for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) versus their hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), about the rights and wrongs of shackling teacher unions and pay bargaining.
      There followed what might be called a rough coming together of the Opposition, under the banner of the National Union of Teachers, in stout opposition to the other five teacher unions. I am delighted that, in the meantime, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West seems at least to have listened to the voices of some of the other teacher unions.
      It is extraordinary that the Opposition have raised the issue today because, as the hon. Lady rightly said, not one member of the Opposition raised the matter in Committee—although she had the grace to say that I broached the subject. I did so because, like my hon. Friends, I had been listening to the teachers in the schools and to their union representatives. It became clear that the overwhelming majority of them supported the Bill and wanted to see it enacted.
      Even so, they wanted one element of reassurance to underscore their support for the measure. That reassurance related to the independence, perceived and actual, of the secretariat. It was clear that that was necessary if they were fully to support the review body. They were right to raise the point, and that is why I raised it in Committee.
      The most effective way to show independence of intent is to have independence of research in the secretariat that supports the review body. That is why it was important for us to consider the possibility of the Office of Manpower Economics being the body which would support the review body. In no way is that a criticism of the work of the Department of Education and Science or the interim advisory committee.
      The Office of Manpower Economics has great experience of comparable pay review bodies, and that enables it to assess technical data, to obtain evidence, to give guidance and to fill the gaps in research as they appear. I gave in Committee an example linked to nurses which might relate to areas of teacher shortage, where such a body would possess the experience to fill in the gaps of such a review body.
      5.45 pm
      When responding to that debate in Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary fairly said not just that the existing machinery for the interim advisory committee had worked well but that the Office of Manpower Economics had also worked well for those other bodies. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West was neither generous nor accurate in recalling my hon. Friend's reply on that occasion, when he promised to give further consideration to the suggestions that I had made.
      I reiterate my request to the Government to look carefully at the need for the teaching profession to be reassured about the real independence of the body and to examine whether the sort of formula that can be provided by the OM E should be the way forward. I feel sure that the Minister has looked into the matter, and I hope that, in the light of my comments, he will respond favourably to my request.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment and will answer the question that the Secretary of State put not to me but to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). He asked what she would do if the Government accepted the amendment. I—and my hon. Friends, who will be here when the Third Reading is put to the vote—would happily support the Government in that event. Indeed, the position that my hon. Friends and I take will depend on what the Minister says when replying to this debate.
      I was not aware before entering the Chamber that the Secretary of State had just returned from Japan. It could turn out to have been a more dangerous journey for him than he thinks, if he has returned more like a tosa dog than when he went. Members concerned with education appear to be travelling far and wide these days. The only reason why I am taking part in the debate—as a recycled environmental educational stand-in, as it were—is that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is on his way home after attending his brother's wedding in America. And the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has recently travelled all the way to and from Westminster in search of education.
      The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) put his case fairly and moderately. I gather that his main point was not a matter of controversy on Second Reading or in Committee, but it is now clearly an issue of concern. I hope that the Minister, who I have known well for a long time, will take on board the fact that the teachers' associations which support a pay review body believe that the argument for an independent body, independently serviced, is paramount for them in deciding whether they can support the Bill.
      Opportunities to get everybody on board—or nearly everybody in this case since the NUT is excluded—are rare. The Minister has an opportunity in the coming half hour or so to get on board all the teachers' unions and associations—as I say, apart from the NUT—and to achieve the support of all hon. Members, apart from Labour Members. It is all his for the taking. So I encourage him to be generous, farsighted and statesmanlike and to do something to win the confidence of all those in, and the many who represent, the teaching profession.
      May I add to the points made by the hon. Member for Battersea? First, the Minister knows—there were meetings I understand only this morning on this very issue—that the teachers' associations, including the National Association of Head Teachers, and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, now say that they cannot support the Bill without an independence provision. Secondly, it appears that Ministers have equivocated on the matter because the original intention seems to have been to have a body on all fours with the other pay review bodies, which are well-respected because they are well serviced by the Office of Manpower Economics. Thirdly, if the members of a pay review body are all appointed by the Prime Minister—I accept that that is the position in the other pay review bodies—so that they are there by power of patronage, they must be seen to be doing their job independently. To do so, they must be able to draw on an independent, professional group of people to advise them, look elsewhere for statistics, and make comparable studies. It is important that that secretariat is independent of the DES and the Treasury. They must be seen to be giving credibility to the pay review body.
      446
      If the pay review body is not independent, it will give the impression that it is like the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions. It must therefore have a small, manageable back-up secretariat. The other pay review bodies and the professions that look to them for their pay have less of their workings dependent on the direction of the Secretary of State. All the other pay review bodies use the Office of Manpower Economics and there is no logical reason why teachers should not do so too.
      The conclusion of the message that has been put to the Minister is that there will be an enormous opportunity for this issue to become relatively impartial and apolitical, as the pay of civil servants, doctors and nurses has now become, because an authoritative body speaks out. That will not be possible if the pay review bodies do not have the support mechanisms to do their job properly. Therefore, the Minister has it for the asking. It is important to the profession that he gives a generous response. I hope that, despite the impression given at the last meeting with representatives of the associations and unions concerned, the Government will agree that an independent secretariat, along the lines of the amendment, will be acceptable.
      The Minister of State for Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is always a pleasure to join in the debate with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), even when he is standing in for the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I hope that the hon. Member for Truro has had an enjoyable wedding, even if it was his brother's.
      The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) was less than charitable to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) says that it is uncharacteristic, and I bow to his judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea was the only person to raise the issue during the debate. There was neither a cheep nor a chirp from the Labour party, who did not recognise the importance of the issue. The reason is obvious—Labour Members had been reading only the National Union of Teachers' brief and were worried only about their relationship with the hon. Members for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). We all miss the hon. Member for Hillsborough, as it is unusual for him to be absent during an education debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said, the debate in Committee took place—much to our enjoyment—between the Labour Front Bench and the Labour Back Bench. It was a question of how they could keep their members under control.
      The hon. Member for Durham, North-West is, yet again, trying to scratch around to find excuses to oppose the Bill. That has been going on for the 19 or so hours in which we have been debating the Bill. The Opposition still do not know whether they oppose or support a pay review body.
      Mr. Straw: We do know!
      Mr. Eggar: I shall willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he is still reluctant to make clear his position on the Bill. I fear that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may become somewhat restless if I do not turn my attention to amendment No. 9.

      447
      The pay review body must have an efficient, independent and knowledgeable secretariat. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), said in Committee, two broad options were available: the option that everyone has accepted worked well for the interim advisory committee—neither the unions nor the Opposition have impugned the independence of the secretariat that was provided by the IAC—and the option that operates for the other pay review bodies, where they rely on the OME. We have had to consider which of those two options was the most appropriate. In so doing, we paid attention to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and noted the views of the professional associations, as put forward by hon. Members.
      I am not sure who was meeting who this morning, but I assure the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that I met no one. However, the views of two of the associations have been made available to us and we have taken account of those. We have also had to take account of the fact that the secretariat needs the right kind of expertise to advise the chairman and members of the review body and carry out the work that the review body thinks appropriate. The chairman must be able to direct the work of the independent secretariat on behalf of the review body. However, there is no need for the chairman personally to employ the staff in the secretariat, as that would go beyond the strict requirements.
      The Department of Education and Science will do all it can to ensure that the OME has access to the relevant knowledge and data within the Department. Some of the Department's information would not normally be available to the OME. My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the review body's secretariat should follow the pattern of the other review bodies and the secretariat should be provided by the OME. Thus, the review body will receive the support and advice of the same kind and quality, including support on statistical and technical matters, from the same independent source as the other review bodies.
      Obviously, the secretariat will be answerable to the review body and will work under the review body's direction, specifically under the direction of the chairman. The independence of the secretariat and of the review body will therefore be fully guaranteed.
      6 pm
      The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) sought an assurance in a throwaway line—my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea also raised this point—that the OME would be able to conduct independent research should it be required to by the review body. Hon. Members will be aware that the OME regularly conducts independent surveys of nursing vacancies, for example, and of the workload and responsibilities of hospital consultants, in its role of helping other review bodies. In addition to that work, the OME has also commissioned special surveys from consultants in the private sector when requested to do so by the review bodies. I am happy to confirm that the OME will be able to provide exactly the same service as it is felt appropriate by the teachers' review body. Furthermore, that body, through its secretariat at the OME, will
      448
      naturally have access to the relevant data collected by the DES, and it will receive every possible assistance from the DES in the work that it sets out to do.
      For my part I could not have been clearer in what I have just said. I have accepted that the OME will provide the secretariat for the review body and I have done so as a result of consideration of the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. Now it is up to the Opposition to be clear in their turn. Will they support the Bill or not? Will they give the assurances that teachers want? Will they state categorically that they accept a pay review body for school teachers?
      Ms. Armstrong: I understand that we are still dealing with amendment No. 9. This is an historic occasion. I do not believe that I have ever before moved an amendment which the Government have accepted in spirit even if they did not want to include it in the Bill. I therefore claim an important victory for the amendment—[Interruption.] This is, after all, our amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      6.2 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: As no one else seems to want to speak yet, I will go first.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) explained on Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats support the idea of a pay review body as a much better alternative to the IAC. While I was education spokesman, of course, we argued for a return to negotiations. Now that we have had a clear answer to the question about the independence of the secretariat supporting the chairman of the pay review body, this proposal appears far better than the present IAC arrangement. The Secretary of State knows that, now that that matter has been clarified, this proposal is supported by all the professional associations, with the exception of the National Union of Teachers.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) will return before the end of Third Reading because he can confirm that his professional colleagues—for instance, at the school where he taught until earlier this year—overwhelmingly support the idea of a pay review body as a better offer—naturally, in the hope that there will be enough funding to meet the body's recommendations in full. Any professional body would naturally wish that the Government will automatically fund its review body's recommendations.
      I, too, await with some interest the revelation of the position to be adopted by Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen. I missed out on the fun in Committee—
      Mr. Eggar: It was not fun.
      Mr. Hughes: In any event, I missed the developments in Committee—the quiet running battle between members of the Labour party. We wait to hear from them in a moment.
      My party will vote with the Government on Third Reading. My offer to the Minister was unequivocal; this has been one of those occasions in which people can be persuaded to debate—
      Mr. Eggar: We have not changed our minds.
      Mr. Hughes: That is a bit unfair. Originally, the Government offered no guarantee of an independent

      449
      secretariat. Now they have said that they will guarantee one, so they have been persuaded to change and not to allow the DES to service the secretariat. I welcome that.
      Teachers will be pleased by today's developments. I hope that they will be pleased with a pay review body that now has an independent secretariat. That is a far better arrangement than what we have at present, and the sooner teachers have their pay independently examined and the sooner they are given a pay structure that provides them with the status and objective evaluation of their needs that they require, the better. I hope that all three major parties in the House will endorse that.
      6.6 pm
      Mr. James Pawsey: Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I missed the fun in Committee, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were generous. He has unequivocally committed his party to the support of this Bill. I was also pleased to hear the tribute that he paid to the Minister of State. Unfortunately, the Labour party has not been able to bring itself to joining in with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I thought that Opposition Members were very slow to respond to the repeated challenges from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the issue of whether they support the Bill. I certainly hope that they will make their position clear towards the end of this debate and that they will support the Government.
      I welcome this Bill. It is markedly different from the original version presented to the House some months ago. Given the Prime Minister's commitment to education, this Bill is a major step forward—[Laughter.] The old jokes are often the best. The Bill will be widely welcomed not only by most of the teaching profession but by all those who are more generally associated with education, including parents and those in industry.
      For a long time, teachers have been concerned about their status and about how they are viewed by society. Much of the responsibility for the decline in their position in society lies with them. Only recently, we saw one teachers' union at its annual conference urging industrial action in pursuit of a pay claim. Hon. Members on both sides of the House find that abhorrent. Doctors, lawyers and accountants do not take strike action in pursuit of pay claims, and calls for such action bring the teaching profession into disrepute—especially in the eyes of the parents whose children should be receiving education.
      The Bill represents a genuine step forward, and I hope that it will come to be accepted by all the teaching unions, including—who knows?—by the NUT. There is of course a quid pro quo: in return for the introduction of the review body, the unions must undertake not to take strike action against their employers in pursuit of pay claims. But employers are only part of the equation, because when teachers strike they take action against the nations' children, and all hon. Members must deplore that.
      For a long time, I have argued in the House that the majority of teachers are committed to their profession and to the children in their charge. The Bill gives teachers an opportunity to confirm that view and it is an important step in improving the esteem in which teachers are held. As some of my hon. Friends have said, teachers are not Government employees. Their pay is not directly financed by the Exchequer, and for that reason the review body
      450
      should be statutory and should cover conditions as well as pay. To use the words of a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, Sir Keith Joseph, teachers' pay must be good enough to enable the profession to recruit, retain and motivate teachers of good calibre.
      Since 1979, there has been a real increase in teachers' pay of about 30 per cent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that in his speech. There is considerable virtue in comparing the proposed review body for teachers with the review bodies for doctors and nurses in the national health service. Significantly, since the inception of their review body about six years ago, nurses have received a pay increase of some 63 per cent. In real terms, that is an increase over the rate of inflation of 22 per cent. If that precedent is anything to go by, teachers can look forward to a substantial improvement in their pay over the next few years. That increase in nurses' pay was not at the expense of jobs, because the number of nurses has considerably increased during the period of the review body. I hope that that answers the point of an Opposition Member, who said that there might be teacher redundancies.
      One of the problems which has to be faced is the intransigence of some teacher unions. They and their apologists in the House have long argued that they should be absolutely entitled to take industrial action in pursuit of pay claims, notwithstanding the impact and effect of such action on the nation's children. I am optimistic that wiser counsels in the teacher unions will now prevail. I think that the review body will be widely welcomed by teachers, if not by all their trade unions, and in that I am delighted to have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler).
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already said that the review body recommendations will be implemented unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. I have some difficulty in visualising such reasons. I am pleased to see that the Bill, like its predecessor, provides for schools to decide rates of pay according to their perceived needs, taking into account prevailing local conditions. Grant-maintained schools will be able to make their own arrangements, as was proposed in the original Bill. That will be widely welcomed, at least by Conservative Members.
      I am pleased to see that clause 3 requires governors in grant-maintained schools to consult teachers before applying for exemption from the national pay and conditions system. That matter was discussed at some length in Committee when it considered the original Bill. I received representations on the issue, and was pleased to support them.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Pawsey: Given the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill, I am tempted to call him my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Hughes: That would be going too far.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke about the opt-out provision for grant-maintained schools. My colleagues and I are still unhappy about that, but we intend to vote for Third Reading.
      Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to hear the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remark. I shall not seek to press the point lest I open a divide between myself and the hon. Gentleman.

      451
      Clause 5 empowers the Secretary of State to make an order defining payments or benefits that are to be regarded as remuneration, and what is, or is not, part of a teacher's professional duties. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to decide the conditions of employment that should be regarded as statutory.
      At present, non-statutory conditions of employment are set out in what is known as the Burgundy Book under
      "Conditions of service for school teachers in England and Wales."
      That book is produced by all the education trade unions, with one marked exception, the Professional Association of Teachers. That is an unfortunate and, I believe, unintentional omission, and I urge Ministers to ensure that all nationally recognised teacher trade unions are party to the negotiations on non-statutory conditions of service. Plainly, it is unfair that one specific union should be excluded. The Professional Association of Teachers brings considerable restraint to the negotiating table, and that should be actively encouraged. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for their support on that point.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: Powerful support.
      Mr. Pawsey: I acknowledge that point by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
      I was pleased to see that His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales said in his speech on education:
      "The announcement on a new pay review body for teachers could go a long way to encouraging more first rate people to choose teaching as a career."
      He is, of course, right and I was delighted to hear his cheerful support. It is the first time that I have been able to quote His Royal Highness in an education debate, and perhaps in future he will take even more interest in education. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
      I have never been able to understand the argument that pay negotiations are good only if they are sanctified by a trade union agreement. Negotiations by teachers for teachers at individual schools must have value at least equal to that of a trade union. Once that idea and the concept of greater individual freedom are accepted by teachers they will find it extremely beneficial. Teachers in grant-maintained schools will be able directly to negotiate with their employers, and substantial benefits will flow from that.
      Almost by definition, teachers are a particularly articulate group, and should have confidence in their ability to negotiate pay and conditions without recourse to the machinery of a trade union. Teachers need the crutch of a trade union less than most, and that point is further underlined when one remembers that much of the decline in teachers' status has occurred over the past 11 years, when their unions were at their most militant. I suspect that teachers would have been better served by their unions if they had been less inclined to act like a militant shop floor.
      There is a persuasive argument that the teaching profession should act more like other professions, such as lawyers, doctors and accountants. Significantly, those professions do very well without the benefit of a central negotiating body. They are well able to negotiate their pay
      452
      and conditions with individual employers and companies. Their status, their pay and their conditions do not suffer as a result of individuals negotiating individual arrangements.
      I support the Bill, and I hope that it will enjoy the full-hearted support of us all, including the official Opposition.
      6.20 pm
      Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The speech of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was the greatest load of claptrap to which I have had to listen during my time here, which is almost four years. I never heard so much rubbish.
      Never could a Bill have emerged from consideration in Committee with so few changes. The Government refused to offer any concessions in Committee, although Opposition Members worked hard to try to get them to do so. It is not surprising that the Government adopted that approach. Indeed, we expected nothing else. The concession by the Government this afternoon will have not one iota of practical effect. The majority of the amendments before us today were irrelevant in any event.
      The fact is that teachers have lost their right to negotiate with their employers. As many hon. Members have said, the teachers' rights will not be restored to them, at least under this Government. They have lost their fundamental right for their unions to be able to negotiate their pay and conditions.
      Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Steinberg: No. The hon. Gentleman had long enough to express his views. I am not giving way.
      Mr. Pawsey: Give way.
      Mr. Steinberg: I shall not give way. Sit down.
      Teachers lost some of their rights when the interim advisory committee was introduced in 1987, and they will continue to lose them. In effect, teachers' negotiating rights came to an end in 1987. I cannot perceive any difference between the IAC and the pay review body that we shall have to accept this evening.
      Sir Norman Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the concept of a pay review body, why does he think that doctors, nurses and consultants support their review bodies and would be horrified if it were proposed that they should lose them?
      Mr. Steinberg: First, the review bodies that were set up for the doctors, nurses and others were established after consultation with representative organisations. The teachers were not consulted about a review body. Secondly, the review bodies that have been established for doctors and nurses do not determine conditions of employment. The teachers' review body will determine pay and conditions of service, and that is unacceptable.
      On Second Reading, I asked the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), the Liberal Democrats' education spokesman, to explain the difference between the IAC and the pay review body. The hon. Gentleman said that he would explain it in Committee. I put the same question to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, and he said that he had already answered it. It was hardly a conclusive answer, and certainly not an answer that I could readily accept.

      453
      In fact, there is no difference between the IAC and the pay review body. Indeed, I would be prepared to argue that the proposed review body will probably be worse than the IAC, because it will not be independent.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I have checked the Official Report to see what was said on Second Reading, but I have not had time to check whether my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) gave a full answer to the hon. Gentleman's question in Committee. I suggest that there may not be that much difference between the two bodies in practice. It may be that one difference will be the existence of an independent secretariat. The majority of teachers are in favour of the review body, because in general they had a good experience under the IAC.
      Mr. Steinberg: That is a matter of opinion. Statistics show that, in 1974, the average pay of teachers was 136 per cent. of non-manual earnings. After the IAC had come to an end, or even during its reign to 1990, the average salary of a teacher was 104 per cent. of non-manual earnings. Teachers did not do very well out of the IAC.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Steinberg: I shall not give way. I must continue. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to choose the chairman and members of the review body. He can decide what it should discuss. He will be able to amend its recommendations or ignore them and implement what he wants in his own way. When he was interviewed on a radio programme this morning, he denied that and said that he will not have such powers. The Bill's provisions make it clear that he wil have the powers that I have described. The Secretary of State is either misleading the House or he is being economical with the truth.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
      Mr. Steinberg: Just one moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had a fair say this afternoon; he should let me have my say.
      Clause 1(1) states:
      "The Prime Minister shall appoint a body"
      and adds that matters
      "may from time to time be referred to the review body by the Secretary of State."
      Can anyone other than the Secretary of State submit anything to the review body? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to answer my question. In Committee, the hon. Member for Truro tabled an amendment that provided, in effect, that it should be the duty of the review body to have regard to any views expressed to it by any organisation representing teachers on matters bearing on the professional status of teachers. The Government rejected it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said on the wireless this morning that anybody could make submissions to the review body, but it was not true.
      The Secretary of State told us this morning that he would not be able to overrule the pay review body. However, clause 2(1) states that the Secretary of State may make provision
      "by order giving effect to the recommendations of the review body, with or without modification, or making such other provision with respect to the matters referred to the review body as he thinks fit."
      454
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that he will not be able to overrule the pay review body, but the Bill makes it clear that he will be able to do that and will be in a position to implement anything that he thinks fit.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
      Mr. Steinberg: I shall give way when I have mentioned a third discrepancy.
      Clause 2(5) tells us:
      "the Secretary of State may make a pay and conditions order by virtue of this sub-section if—
      (b) it appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient to make the provision in question."
      The Secretary of State will be able to do whatever he likes. He will be able to ignore the review body and implement his proposals as he thinks fits. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain to us why he said during an interview broadcast on the radio this morning that he would not be able to overrule the review body, when the Bill states clearly in three different places that he will be able to take such action.
      Mr. Clarke: The Bill makes it clear that the pay review body is under a statutory duty to consider matters referred to it by the Secretary of State, but it will be able to consider anything else that is put to it by any other body, including the National Union of Teachers, for which the hon. Gentleman speaks. The Bill makes it clear that, if the Secretary of State wishes to make a substantial modification to the review body's recommendations, he can do so only by obtaining Parliament's consent so to act. All these matters were considered in Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, but the reality is far removed from the NUT's advertisement. The hon. Gentleman has been a clear, passionate and consistent opponent of the idea of the review body, but will he vote against Third Reading?
      Mr. Steinberg: I am not satisfied with that answer. Frankly, the Secretary of State has been economical with the truth. Furthermore, I am not speaking on behalf of the National Union of Teachers. I have no connection with the NUT other than that I am a member. I am not a consultant for the NUT. I am a member of another union as well, and I am entitled to speak my opinion; the NUT does not rule me. I have some principles; perhaps the Secretary of State does not. I speak from the heart arid nowhere else.
      Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Steinberg: No.
      Mr. Pawsey: How will the hon. Gentleman vote?
      Mr. Steinberg: I shall vote against the Bill.
      In his answer to me, the Secretary of State virtually told us to trust him and trust his actions. Would hon. Members and people throughout the country trust the present Secretary of State for Education and Science? My answer would be no. Those in the health service did not trust him, the teachers do not trust him, and I certainly do not.
      When we debated the Education Reform Act 1988, we were told to trust the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he now?"] One may well ask. He is probably out with the dogs or in his kennel or just being got at by a rottweiler. We were told to trust the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, who

      455
      said that the character of schools that opted out would not be changed within five years. Then the present Secretary of State comes along, and that is forgotten. I do not trust him, and many others will not.
      The Secretary of State originally said that he would give the teachers a pay review body only if they gave up their right to take industrial action, but that never appeared in the Bill. The impression he gave was that teachers were militant and were constantly on strike and causing disruption. But if we look carefully at the statistics during the past 20 years—from 1971 to 1991—we see that 1 million days have been lost in the teaching profession through industrial action. Who were the Government in power while all those days were lost? We all know that the Conservative Government were in power—it is they who have antagonised the teaching profession from 1971 and who continue to do so.
      It is the democratic right of all people to withdraw their labour, but the pay review body prevents that. The Secretary of State has not made it clear what he will do if teachers take industrial action. Will he abandon the pay review body or use powers to dictate a settlement? He will do the latter. It seems clear that the teachers' unions are not all that much in favour of the pay review body. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers said in its recent document:
      "The pay review body proposed is far from perfect on the question of composition. It will be appointed by the Prime Minister, although the Association would prefer to have some say on the nominations. Our preference would be for an independent chair with representation split evenly between government on one side and unions on the other."
      If that is not a negotiating body, I do not know what is. The NASUWT does not like the pay review body, but wants negotiations like everybody else.
      The Bill is an abomination. It takes away the rights of teachers to negotiate pay, and I shall vote against it on Third Reading.
      6.36 pm
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I think that someone in the House should tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that he is much trusted in education. We in the profession appreciate the stand that he has taken to achieve this legislation, which will profit teachers as they have not been helped for many years.
      The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, almost with pride, that 1 million days were lost through teacher strikes, but that is to the shame of teachers, not their credit—[Interruption.] I am choking after listening to the hon. Member for City of Durham for so long; I have now regained my voice.
      Anyone who has been in the profession as long as I have—23 years—would be amazed to hear that the five unions—the Secondary Heads Association, the Professional Association of Teachers, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the National Association of Schoolmaster/Union of Women Teachers and the National Association of Head Teachers—speak with one voice. What is remarkable is that they do so in welcoming the legislation.
      We are not surprised, but sorry, that the National Union of Teachers has not come on side—and I believe that it will rue the day. Members of the NUT up and down
      456
      the country will welcome the legislation when they see the pay review body in action and begin to profit from it, as they will. I think that they will press the NUT to change its view and it will have to do so—[Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for the glass of water he is offering me and for the light relief that it is providing to the House.
      I welcome the pay review body as a suitable replacement for the IAC and particularly as a long-term replacement for the Burnham committee. Having been a member of the profession when it came entirely under the auspices of the Burnham committee, I know, as do other hon. Members, that something new and different was needed to replace it. Under that body, eight of the last 12 efforts to produce agreements ended in strikes and difficulties right across the country. The value of the new organisation that we are to have is that it will provide a suitable mechanism for a time of great change in education at all levels, particularly in schools.
      I remember taking part militantly in a battle for higher pay when Lord Eccles was Secretary of State for Education and Science. We called our action "More shekels, less Eccles". We should remember that the Labour party so often speaks with two voices on education; I should like to hear what it thinks about the pay review body and whether it supports it.
      I remember standing with a group of teachers when Barbara Castle was Secretary of State for Employment and Anthony Crosland was Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1969. The teachers were striking and Barbara Castle said to the group, "Good luck to you all, I hope you win." She then went back to the Cabinet and voted against rises for teachers. That is the sort of thing I mean—I do not say that unkindly, but factually: the Labour party too often speaks on education with a forked tongue, and teachers do not forget that.
      I hope that, as a result of the Bill, there will be a no-strike deal. That would be good for education, teachers and children.
      Ms. Armstrong: That is not in the Bill.
      Mr. Greenway: I did not say that it was in the Bill. If the hon. Lady listened, she would hear what I say. I said that, as a result of the Bill, I hope that we shall see a no-strike deal, because that would benefit everyone involved in the well-being of our children.
      The pay review body will facilitate suitable differentials, and more of them, within the profession. More thought needs to be given to that; that will be one of the early tasks of the body when it is established.
      I particularly hope that teachers with heavy responsibilities will get the differentials they should have to reward them for the work they do. But even more than that, I hope that good teachers will get increased differentials and that they will not be lured from teaching full time at the chalk face and into administrative jobs and so on. One of the absurdities of the teaching profession is that, the better one is at it, the less teaching one does, because good teachers are promoted to administrative jobs. I believe that the Bill will overcome that.
      It is particularly important to say that we need to pay and retain good teachers in secondary schools, and particularly in primary schools. Primary schools are not

      457
      receiving all the encouragement they should in the form of differentials, and I hope that the new body will bring them more.
      No one should imagine that the pay review body will be a means of depressing teachers' pay. I believe that teachers' pay will rise substantially. We as a society need to accept that, face it, know that it will happen and encourage it to happen.
      6.41 pm
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) referred to the relative position of teachers' pay in the mid-1970s and the IAC days. In the pre-IAC days of the early 1980s, teachers' pay had dropped even lower than that. Many members of my association and many teachers generally were very unhappy pre-IAC—not that they were over-enamoured of the IAC.
      Mr. Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Carr: No. I shall keep my remarks brief.
      The Burnham committee was a monumental disaster in its latter days. It did not result in any reasonable settlements and was part of the reason for the industrial action. It was not the only reason; the major reason for the industrial action was the fact that the Government refused to pay teachers properly. However, I leave that aside.
      We have some reservations about the powers remaining with the Secretary of State in relation to the pay review body. We would have preferred to see fewer powers of direction. Nevertheless, I am happy to join my colleagues in support of the Bill.
      Mr. Fatchett: Colleague.
      Mr. Carr: There will be more.
      I am happy to support the Bill, since the majority of teachers support the introduction of a pay review body. We have reservations about the terms of the pay review body, and we hope that our reservations will be noted, but in general the majority of teachers and Liberal Democrats support the introduction of the pay review body.
      6.43 pm
      Mr. Straw: Conservative Members have demanded an explanation of the Labour party's position on review bodies. 1 am constantly surprised by that phoney demand because our position on the principle of review bodies is clear. We are in favour of review bodies where they are agreed by the parties concerned and operate in an independent way.
      I am also surprised that the Secretary of State's advisers have not briefed him on what I said in the House a year ago today when I was asked by the then Secretary of State what the Labour party would have done. I replied:
      "We would have ensured that there were negotiations between teachers and employers . . . to have allowed free negotiations between teachers and their employers, or had a review body".—[Official Report, 6 June 1990; Vol. 173, c. 740.]
      We have supported review bodies for the doctors, dentists, nurses and many other groups.
      I hope that the Secretary of State, leaving aside the insults to which he usually resorts when he has a weak case, does not try to tax the credibility of the House with a claim that he has been completely consistent on the issue of review bodies and that they are some litmus test of support either for the education service or for the running
      458
      of a public service. If he does he will have some rather difficult questions to answer, one of which is why he refused a proposal from the unions and the Labour party for a review body for the ambulance personnel—
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, I did not.
      Mr. Straw: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did—I have the cuttings here—perpetrating havoc in the ambulance service.
      The other question is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman turned down the idea of a review body in the House on 27 November 1990 during the debate on the first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he would commit himself to a review of teachers' pay because the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who was a candidate for the Conservative leadership, was going round the House saying that there would be a review of teachers' pay if he was elected.
      This very Secretary of State sat here, who now says that he has always believed in a review body for teachers since he was at school and has never departed from that belief, who is now claiming that as the most consistent principle in the whole of his political existence, and who, when asked by my hon. Friend about the review body, said:
      "However, I do not believe that we shall embark on a fresh review of pay arrangements when the Bill"—
      the first Bill, which he now opposes—
      "contains excellent arrangements that should be enacted and put into force."—[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 751.]
      He then went on to recommend that Bill.
      The job of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is always to read out whatever brief is put in front of him, and he does it elegantly. I understand that that is his job, and I hope that he will get preferment for it. He can live in hope and expectation. I think that he is a good man. But he has tonight made a speech in support of the No. 2 Bill when only six months ago he was making a speech against it in support of the first Bill. He said:
      "I welcome the Bill, because I believe that, over time, it will help to raise teacher morale."
      One of the things that the hon. Gentleman commended about the previous Bill was that there had been substantial consultations—which is not the case on this Bill—between the Government and teacher unions, as well as employers and local education authorities. On and on he went, and at the end he said:
      "This measure is one way in which we can show our support for teachers and direct more money towards them." —[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vol. 1981, c. 781–4.]
      The Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman have experienced an interesting conversion.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Does that mean that we are all agreed on the ssue—that the Labour party are in favour of the pay review body and that if, God forbid, there were a Labour Government, they would not go back on the review body?
      Mr. Straw: I am coming to that. I am certainly in favour of review bodies. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is here, because he experienced a personal conversion when he chaired the private Conservative seminar in January on the future of Conservative education policy. I have been sent a copy of the report, which says:

      459
      "There is a crisis of confidence amongst teachers of such growing magnitude that it now threatens the entire spectrum of the Government's educational reforms."
      I am not surprised that, for the first time since he gave up Cabinet office, the right hon. Gentleman has come to our debates, no doubt to learn from the Labour party's policy how it would deal with that crisis of confidence.
      Sir Norman Fowler: What is the answer to my question?
      Mr. Straw: The answer to the question is this. On Second Reading we put down a reasoned amendment. By the way, the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of it. That reasoned amendment, apart from objecting to the way in which the Secretary of State had treated the House and members of the Standing Committee by suspending the previous Bill without explanation, spelled out our three conditions for supporting the review body.
      We said that we declined to give a Second Reading to the Bill, first, because it contained no proposals to raise teachers' professionalism by the establishment of a general teachers council; secondly, because the policies of the Government had led to a serious decline in the morale, motivation, recruitment and retention of teachers and in their relative pay; and thirdly, because it gave unacceptable powers to the Secretary of State to issue directions to the pay review body. Those were the tests.
      I am grateful for what the Minister said about an independent secretariat under the Office of Manpower Economics. There is no cavilling about that; we are grateful to him. However, the conditions that we set out on Second Reading have not been satisfied. I spoke at length on Second Reading about the issue of powers.
      Mr. Barry Porter: Will Labour vote against the Bill?
      Mr. Straw: We shall vote against the Bill. It is the Opposition's job to scrutinise legislation. It is not enough for Ministers to say, "Trust us." As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, why on earth should we trust the Government when they have broken their word time and again? They have told us, "There is no reason to accept the amendment; you need only trust us." That is what they said about the five-year period before grant-maintained schools could change their character. When they abolished housing benefit, they said "Trust us, there is a vocation hardship allowance," but they have now abolished it.
      The Bill, unlike the arrangements for any other review body, gives the Secretary of State the power to issue directions to the review body in advance. It is an unqualified power, and there is no reason for it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have joined him many times in criticising Government policy. He has heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) say that we are unhappy about the powers. He rightly said that we voted for the Labour party's reasoned amendment, but the problem is that this is our last chance to vote on the Bill. The issue, surely, is whether the proposals on offer—with all the disadvantages that we have mentioned—are better or worse than the present system. I find it difficult to believe that the Labour
      460
      party does not think that they are an improvement, and therefore feels that it must vote against the Bill. I do not understand.
      Mr. Straw: It is a most extraordinary proposition for a member of the Opposition to advance, that we should give the Government the legislation. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will vote for the council tax, because it can be argued that it is marginally better than the poll tax. If the hon. Gentleman reads the reasoned amendment, for which he voted only a few weeks ago, and the Bill, which has been unamended on the principal provisions to which we objected, I should be surprised if he joins the Government in the Lobby.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Every now and again, the hon. Gentleman gets near to his case. For the first time, he has revealed that he will vote against the Bill. Therefore, he is voting against a review body. He is trying to throw it out, either to return to the interim advisory committee or, more likely, to Burnham. The only reason he can give for that is one line in clause 1(4), which says:
      "The Secretary of State may give directions to the review body as to considerations to which they are to have regard."
      Is that the reason? Does the hon. Gentleman expect us to believe that, on that basis, the Labour party is flatly against a review body for teachers?
      Mr. Straw: Yes. Clause 1 is the operative clause of the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State unprecedented powers to give directions to the review body, but Ministers have no such powers to give directions to other review bodies. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now say that he accepts our arguments, we will not vote against the Bill.
      We are discussing the machinery for settling pay. Anybody would think that we were discussing the record of a Government who had been beneficence itself and had paid teachers properly. Despite the Secretary of State's flim-flam, since 1987 teachers have had no pay increase; their pay, relative to other groups, has declined. In this pre-election year, the Secretary of State may be trying to screw from his colleagues in the Treasury some real-terms increases for this year, but were the Government re-elected, which they will not be, they could not increase investment in education because of their prior commitment to cut taxation to 20p in the pound. I am sure that the Secretary of State will not say that that is being abandoned.
      We want agreed machinery for the settlement of teachers' pay and a Government who are committed to paying teachers properly. We have neither from the Government, and we will vote against the Bill.
      6.55 pm
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: At quite an early stage of our 19 hours of debate on the Bill, I accused the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of using weasel words on the principle. Any self-respecting weasel would blush with shame at the policy that has been advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
      Most of this evening's debate has been conducted in an atmosphere of considerable hilarity, despite this being an extremely serious subject. At times, we have resembled a good-natured school debating society rather than the usual atmosphere of the House. The reason is not only the bonhomie of the participants in the debate—there is a good-natured selection from the three parties—but

      461
      because the position of the official Opposition is farcical. I have never heard a sillier attitude to a Bill that is popular with the profession at which it is directed.
      We have had 19 hours of debate, at the end of which the denouement is that the official Opposition will vote against the review body. In the last year before an election, that means that, if they were elected, they would get rid of the review body. They would use some other method of negotiating teachers' pay that ensured the right to strike, on which the hon. Member for Blackburn laid so much emphasis when we first debated the Bill. It is all of a piece with their commitment to industrial action, which they have demonstrated when teachers have taken it in the past.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State want to take it away?
      Mr. Clarke: Certainly.
      Mr. Cryer: By law?
      Mr. Clarke: Not by law. No law takes the right to strike from nurses or doctors. No law will take away from teachers the right to strike. Those professions, which have a review body, are stopped from taking industrial action by their commitment to their pupils, to their patients, to the general public and to the services on which they lay such value.
      At times, Labour Members have behaved like delegates in the halls and corridors of the NUT conference at Easter, and have passionately defended the right to strike. In the past, they have shown their enthusiasm for industrial action in schools. It is not farcical but deeply tragic that the Labour party still espouses such views on a great public service like the education service because it cannot think of a reason for taking that view that they dare state clearly in public.
      We have had 19 hours of debate, but most of the speeches of Labour Members were on aspects of education that had nothing to do with the settlement of pay. They said anything they could think of to keep the debate going while they sustained that attitude. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has been wholly consistent. The same can be said of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). On this issue at least, they are on the left of their party, and are wholly committed to the idea of industrial action in the state education service, when necessary.
      The members of the Opposition Front Bench cannot think of any sensible reasons for opposing the Bill. The nearest we got to hearing one was when the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) moved an amendment emphasising how critical it was that the review body should have an independent secretariat, as all the others have. She made the case for the Office of Manpower Economics, and cited the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the National Association of Head Teachers, and two other unions, who had begun to express reservations about the review body that they had first supported, when they thought that the Office of Manpower Economics might not be providing the secretariat.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in a perfectly straightforward speech, said that that aspect was important and that they might go with the NAHT if we did not satisfy them on that point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who took the Bill
      462
      through Committee with great skill and industry, explained that there would be a secretariat like that of the OME.
      It is interesting that that point, which determined whether the Liberals would vote for the Bill on Third Reading, and which was critical to the attitude taken by Labour, was not raised by either party until this stage in our 19 hours of debate. Neither of them had thought about it before. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) who in Committee urged that the OME should serve as the secretariat—and who received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary an undertaking that it would.
      The only reason that Labour has for opposing the Bill is that which the hon. Member for Blackburn came very near to admitting. It is that the National Union of Teachers is dictating to the Labour party what its position should be. Anyone who reads the NUT's full-page advertisements in the morning newspapers and compares them with the Government's policies and the contents of the Bill knows that the NUT cannot think of any reasons in reality for opposing the Bill. The NUT's stated reasons are based on a totally inaccurate representation of the proposition that we have put forward.
      The NUT is driven forward by its constitution, which enables some extremely left-wing teachers to attend meetings at seaside towns, at which they impose on their union a ridiculous policy that is contrary to the opinions of most of the NUT's members—and which says that the union is against a pay review body and in favour of militant industrial action and the use of industrial muscle in the classroom instead.
      The nearest that the hon. Member for Blackburn came to admitting the real reason for his opposition was when he said that Labour's views on review bodies are clear—that it is in favour of them, when they are agreed to by the parties concerned. The NUT does not agree to a review body. The Labour party cannot agree to a review body. The Labour party is about to vote against a review body and commit itself to a policy on the state education service that is dictated by a wholly militant and unrepresentative minority.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr), who is himself a former teacher, rightly said that the majority of teachers welcome the establishment of an independent review body, and look forward to having their pay determined in the way that doctors and the clinical professions have enjoyed for many years.
      The Government have brought forward the review body because we believe that not only the teachers but the public support the idea of giving that professional status to teachers. If one has any commitment to education, it makes obvious common sense that there ought never to be industrial action in the classroom. It does mean asking teachers to make the sacrifice of giving up the possibility of taking industrial action, and therefore it is right that the Government should offer to submit themselves to the independent advisory review body, which will enable us to make proper provision for teachers in future—perhaps of the generous kind anticipated by my hon. Friend the Minister of State—without the risk of industrial action returning to the classroom.
      I described Labour's position as farcical. It is positively damaging. It reveals that the allegedly new-style Labour party, with all the advice that its leaders have taken from their image-makers as to their clothes, costumes and

      463
      presentation, is bereft of independent action when it comes to a serious conflict of opinion with one of the more militant trade unions in the public service, the National Union of Teachers.
      If Labour ever returned to government, presumably it would—as its vote tonight suggests—repeal the review body. If it were returned to government, who would ever believe that it would face up to one of the white-collar professional trade unions whenever it was confronted by a challenge over any significant issue? Who believes that Labour would have the courage to resist industrial action, and would not deal with any crisis in a damaging way?
      Farcical is how I have described Labour's attitude. Disgraceful is what I could call it. I invite Labour to go ahead with its vote. I has taken Labour Members 19 hours to reach the stage at which they should creep with shame to the Lobby that they intend to enter, where they will show their true colours by voting against one of the most welcome and important Bills that the education service has seen in a generation.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 172.

      Division No. 159]

      [7.05 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Carr, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Amos, Alan

      Cash, William

      Arbuthnot, James

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Chope, Christopher

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Baldry, Tony

      Colvin, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Conway, Derek

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

      Beggs, Roy

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Beith, A. J.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Couchman, James

      Bellotti, David

      Cran, James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Curry, David

      Benyon, W.

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

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Devlin, Tim

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      Boswell, Tim

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bottomley, Peter

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bowis, John

      Eggar, Tim

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Evennett, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bright, Graham

      Fallon, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Favell, Tony

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

      Fearn, Ronald

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Burns, Simon

      Forman, Nigel

      Butler, Chris

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Butterfill, John

      Forth, Eric

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Franks, Cecil

      464

      Freeman, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      Madel, David

      Gale, Roger

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mans, Keith

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Maples, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Marlow, Tony

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Gorst, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gregory, Conal

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Grist, Ian

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Ground, Patrick

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Grylls, Michael

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hague, William

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neubert, Sir Michael

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Norris, Steve

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hayes, Jerry

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hayward, Robert

      Page, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Paice, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hill, James

      Pawsey, James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Holt, Richard

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

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

      Price, Sir David

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Redwood, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Irvine, Michael

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Jack, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Jackson, Robert

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Janman, Tim

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Kennedy, Charles

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shersby, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Speller, Tony

      Latham, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stern, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Sumberg, David

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Summerson, Hugo

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maclean, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      465

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Whitney, Ray

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tracey, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Trippier, David

      Wilshire, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Wood, Timothy

      Walden, George

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Yeo, Tim

      Wallace, James

      Waller, Gary

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Watts, John

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Anderson, Donald

      Darling, Alistair

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dewar, Donald

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dixon, Don

      Barron, Kevin

      Dobson, Frank

      Battle, John

      Doran, Frank

      Beckett, Margaret

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bell, Stuart

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

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

      Eadie, Alexander

      Blair, Tony

      Eastham, Ken

      Blunkett, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Boateng, Paul

      Fatchett, Derek

      Boyes, Roland

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Bradley, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Derek

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Foulkes, George

      Caborn, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Clelland, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cohen, Harry

      Gordon, Mildred

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Graham, Thomas

      Cousins, Jim

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Cox, Tom

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Crowther, Stan

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cryer, Bob

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cummings, John

      Hain, Peter

      466

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Patchett, Terry

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Pendry, Tom

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Pike, Peter L.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Prescott, John

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Radice, Giles

      Hood, Jimmy

      Randall, Stuart

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Redmond, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Hoyle, Doug

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Richardson, Jo

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Robertson, George

      Illsley, Eric

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Ingram, Adam

      Rogers, Allan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Rooney, Terence

      Lamond, James

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rowlands, Ted

      Leighton, Ron

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Loyden, Eddie

      Short, Clare

      McAllion, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Soley, Clive

      McLeish, Henry

      Spearing, Nigel

      McMaster, Gordon

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stott, Roger

      Madden, Max

      Strang, Gavin

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Straw, Jack

      Marek, Dr John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Turner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Vaz, Keith

      Meacher, Michael

      Walley, Joan

      Meale, Alan

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wilson, Brian

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Winnick, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Worthington, Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Murphy, Paul

      Nellist, Dave

      Tellers for the Noes:

      O'Hara, Edward

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Prisoners of War (Compensation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
7.18 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: On 21 July 1988, I drew the attention of the House to an early-day motion which had attracted a large number of signatures. It stated:
"That this House, in welcoming the growing friendship between Japan and the United Kingdom, believes that this friendship will not fully blossom until the wrongs done during the Second World War to Allied prisoners are fully accepted by the Japanese Government and due reparation made."
The response of the Minister of State was strangely ambivalent. He conceded that a debt of gratitude was owed to all who had fought and suffered in world war 2, but a Labour Government had signed the 1951 treaty with Japan and their Conservative successor had ratified it. That treaty, said the Minister, was binding on us all, and was a full and final settlement. It was nothing of the kind. British service men who survived Japanese cruelty and neglect—I emphasise the word "survived"—received the pitiful sum of £76·50, and civilian internees received £48·50 from the proceeds of Japanese assets seized here at the outbreak of war. That was all. Worse than that, the treaty ignored all the established international conventions governing the laws of war and the treatment of prisoners.
Ironically, although I have never heard anybody say it, the treaty spat in the face of the third Geneva convention of 1949 to which we had put our signature two years earlier. The House may like to know what that convention stated. Article 129 provided that persons who committed "grave breaches" should be brought to account. Article 130 defined grave breaches as
"wilful killing, torture and inhumane treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing grave suffering and serious injury to body or health."
Moreover, Parliament and the nation were not ignorant of what had happened to our service men and civilians who had had the misfortune to fall into Japanese hands. On 28 January 1944 the House had listened in silent horror —as one of our great national newspapers said at the time —to a statement by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Anthony Eden. Speaking in a low voice, as the newspaper described it—one can imagine the atmosphere in the House because we were still at war with Germany and with Japan—he said:
"I fear I have grave news to give to the House."—[Official Report, 28 January 1944; Vol. 396, c. 1029.]
He then gave details of the appalling ill treatment of thousands of British and Commonwealth prisoners.
I had the good fortune, one might say, of serving on the personal staff of Admiral Lord Mountbatten, supreme allied commander in south-east Asia. I went straight there after the general election in 1945 and I saw for myself the condition of some of the pitiful survivors of Japanese cruelty then coming out of prison camps. It was a moving experience, although by that time we all knew what to expect as the war came to an end.
I will set out the stark facts. In 1946 Parliament was told in Command Paper 6832 that of the total number of British prisoners of war who fell into enemy hands in Europe and in the middle east, 5·5 per cent. died in capitivity. That was not an excessively large figure because it must have included many who, when captured, were already grieviously wounded. Of those who fell into
468
German hands, 5·5 per cent. died in capitivity, but the proportion who died at the hands of the Japanese in a shorter period was four to five times greater.
Mr. Eden said in his statement that the Japanese
"had violated not only the principles of International Law but all canons of decent and civilised conduct."
He continued:
"Let the Japanese Government reflect that in time to come the record of their military authorities in this war will not be forgotten."—[Official Report, 28 January 1944; Vol. 396, c. 1032–3.]
I wish to remind hon. Members, many of whom were not even born at that time, that that record should never be forgotten. Down the ages, civilised nations—but not the war-time Japanese—have waged war under rules governing the treatment of prisoners, the sick and the wounded. One of our greatest commanders, Field Marshal Slim, who led the 14th army down through Burma to Rangoon driving the Japanese before him, recorded much later what his troops found in the final stages. The prisoner-of-war camps that they uncovered were
"little more than barbed wire enclosures in which wild beasts might have been herded together."
He described the Japanese gaolers
"almost without exception as being callously indifferent to suffering, or at the worst, bestially sadistic. The food was of a quality and a quantity barely enough to keep men alive, let alone fit them for the hard labour that most were driven to perform. It was horrifying to see them moving slowly about these sordid camps, all emaciated, many walking skeletons, numbers covered with suppurating sores and most naked apart from the ragged shorts they had worn for years or loin cloths of sacking. The most heart moving of all were those who lay on wretched pallets, their strength ebbing faster than relief could be brought to them."
Such deliberate cruelty and utter indifference to suffering had been characteristic of the Japanese from the start of hostilities. As so many hon. Members were children or not even born at that time, it is necessary to spell that out. I cite the case of my friend Bill Holtham, who lives not very far away from me in Essex. He was wounded in the last stages of the fighting in Singapore and was taken into the Alexander hospital which, as the Japanese advanced, was soon in no man's land. As the Japanese closed in, they stormed the hospital, killing the doctors and hospital staff and savagely bayoneting the sick in their beds. Holtham was one of the very few eye witnesses of their barbarity. He managed to escape—but not for long. He was re-captured and sent to labour on the infamous Siam-Burma railway, where our men were to die like flies.
I cite the case of the 1,080 British prisoners shipped out on the Singapore Maru for slave labour in Japanese-occupied territory; 23 desperately ill men were taken off before the ship sailed, 63 died on the voyage and their bodies were thrown overboard, 280 sick men were left aboard the vessel at the port of arrival, six weeks later, 127 of them were dead.
Try, if you can, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to imagine the sadistic games that the Japanese guards played in the camps—for example, binding a man with barbed wire, forcing water down his throat through a hosepipe and then jumping on him in sheer delight, or tying men to trees in full sight of their comrades, without food or water in the burning heat by day and the bitter cold by night, screaming in agony at first and then, as their lives drained away on the second or third day, falling silent.
Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, imagine any greater depravity than what happened at a camp for British slave

469
labourers at Saigon docks? On three Saturday evenings in succession, leading Japanese dignitaries in the area and their womenfolk were invited to a drinks party in the camp compound. Tables were set out, food was laid, and the saki flowed. Guards then dragged out a prisoner chosen at random. There was no warning—the guards seized a prisoner, dragged him out, bound him to a pole in the middle of the compound and slowly beat him to death in front of the invited guests, who applauded ever more loudly in their intoxication.
Spare a thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for those who came home later, but whose suffering continues to this day. I shall not name any names, but in every case that I cite an affidavit has been made. There is the case of a young prisoner who was beaten repeatedly by Japanese rifle butts and then thrust into a small bamboo cage in the full sight of his fellow prisoners and kept there for several days without food or water. When the war ended and he came home an absolute wreck, did his release end his suffering? Not at all—he was to spend the next seven years in and out of Roehampton hospital, Guy's hospital, and the hospital for tropical diseases.
Let us reflect on the agonies of another survivor who is still alive today. In his years of captivity he suffered in succession chronic enteritis, dengue fever, bacillary dysentery, amoebic dysentery, tropical ulcers, pellagra, Weil's disease, pulmonary tuberculosis, beri-beri and rheumatic fever. On capture he weighed 11 stone, but on release he weighed four and a half stone. Despite his condition, he was repeatedly beaten by his gaolers. Since his return home, broken in health, he has lost the sight of one eye.
Let me tell hon. Members exactly what that man has experienced since his return home. He had rheumatic fever in an RAF hospital in December 1945. In 1952 he had an appendectomy. In 1973 he had a toe removed. In 1978 he had a prostatectomy, three operations in 20 hours, intensive care for five days and a transfusion of 26 pints of blood. In 1981 he had a massive detachment of the retina of his left eye. At that time he had glaucoma in his right eye. In 1982 he had a second detachment. I have the names of the distinguished surgeons who attended him. In June 1983 he had a third detachment, and in September of that year he had a fourth detachment.
In December 1984 he had a large cyst removed from his left testicle. That was at Luton and Dunstable hospital. In June 1985, he had an orchidectomy on the left side. In April 1986, his left eye was removed by an eye surgeon. In February 1988, he had a total replacement of his right knee. In 1990 he had a coronary artery bypass grafting.
We now come to the present year. In January, resulting from all that had gone before, he had an incisional hernia —his sternum had failed—and last month he had a freezing and destruction of haemorrhoidal tissue. I should like to know how, in heaven's name, that poor devil still lives—a life-long victim of Japanese cruelty.
Try to grasp if you can, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact that many of the survivors of that cruelty have had nightmares ever since. Men have told me how they wake up sweating and fearful, usually followed by bouts of depression. In such cases—I know of one—that has led to severe heart conditions. Thus the price of being a wartime guest of the Japanese is still being paid by many of our men 45 years later.
Yet that is only a tiny fraction of what has been suffered by men still living. Some of them will be known to hon.
470
Members on both sides who have connections with ex-service men's organisations. They will know perfectly well what I am talking about. All these cases were set out in affidavits that were signed and witnessed and checked at the Ministry of Defence. If there is any sense of honour in today's Japanese, they should make generous recompense without further delay—as the second richest nation on earth, they can well afford it.
They will have to face the issue anyway, whether they like it or not. For in 1988, I told the House that the Canadian defenders of Hong Kong had lodged a claim for compensation with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, based on resolution 1503 of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. That was done under the inspired leadership of a remarkable Canadian, Clifford Chatterton. He had not been a prisoner of the Japanese, but he had been severely wounded in the war. The Canadian claim had the full support of a number of leading international organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross the International Committee of Jurists, the World Veterans Federation, the International Commission of Health Professionals and Amnesty International. The Minister who replied was totally unaware that the Canadians had raised the matter in that way. The Canadian case was founded on details of the medical sequelae of what had happened to the victims of Japanese barbarism, and it called for compensation for gross violation of human rights.
Since then, I am glad to say that there have been impressive developments. The Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association of Great Britain is well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who sits for a constituency that I once represented. That association, led superbly by Bill Holtham, whose experience I have already described, has submitted its own detailed case to the United Nations commission. Similar representations have been made by veterans' organisations in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the Netherlands. The Dutch are deeply involved, because there were many Dutch people in south-east Asia.
I do not know what the response will be. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights gave Japan six months in which to provide an answer and that period is nearly over. My information is that there is a stirring of conscience in Japan especially among the younger people. Yesterday's Daily Telegraph, commenting that
"the Japanese, the world's greatest face savers are learning to say sorry".
stated that the Japanese Prime Minister had apologised during an official visit by the Canadian Prime Minister. According to another newspaper account, Prime Minister Kaifu told Prime Minister Mulroney that Japan is trying to build on the lessons of the war. He said:
"we have shown our contrition. We feel very rigorously contrite about the unbearable sufferings and hardships that were brought upon the peoples of the Asian Pacific by the acts of the Japanese state."
At a news conference a little later, Prime Minister Kaifu said:
"I expressed this feeling very candidly to Prime Minister Mulroney. By saying that I expressed my apologies for the unbearable sufferings and the pains that were caused by the Japanese state against the Canadian people who experienced such sufferings in the Asian Pacific at the hands of the Japanese state."
Yet so far the Japanese Government have refused to offer compensation to second world war prisoners of war on the

471
ground that the peace treaties signed in 1951–52 terminated Japan's obligations. That was what I was told by the Minister who answered my Adjournment debate in 1988—that the matter was concluded by the peace treaty signed in 1951 within a few short years of the ghastly happenings that I have described.
If we are talking solely about apologies, what about apologies to the other five nations whose men suffered grievously? The pleas of veterans of six nations were received by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. What about an apology to British, American and Australian veterans? Incidentally, a higher proportion of American and Australian prisoners than British in the far east died at the hands of their captors. What about an apology to New Zealand and Dutch veterans? And while we are about it, what about an apology to the civilians of all six nations who had the misfortune to fall into Japanese hands?
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply to this debate that what the Japanese did was in defiance of all the normal usages and conventions of war. They disgraced themselves before the world. I do not want to hammer them now—I want them to respond and to show that they are civilised. I expect the Governments of the six nations whose ex-service men have appealed to seek such a response from the Japanese. There are subtle ways of showing our intense displeasure to the Japanese Government, but this should be done.
As I understand it, the Japanese Prime Minister is to attend an economic summit meeting in London next month. May we therefore expect a similar apology here? I should state right away that apologies are not enough when we consider the agonies endured by the survivors, and by the widows and the children of those who did not return. Apologies—the Japanese Prime Minister must be joking, and if so, it is a joke in the worst possible taste from him or from any Government. Or perhaps he is sincere —if so, we shall see. Many of the victims are still alive today. Their families and friends cry out for justice.
It must be said, however, that in regard to today's Japanese, we are dealing not with a brutal military dictatorship responsible for the monstrous crimes against humanity that I have described, but with a people who have embraced parliamentary democracy, whose inventiveness and industrial efficiency have made them rich and respected. We must be fair about this. The opportunity is there for them to make a generous recompense and to demonstrate that today's Japan is a truly civilised and responsible member of the world community.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will not, like his predecessor, say that the matter was closed by the signing of the 1951 treaty. It was not closed then, and it is not closed now. This is a grave issue about which not only the victims are still understandably bitter, but many people in our country and in five others. There cannot be one hon. Member of this House who has not encountered in his constituency someone who went through that bitter experience or met a widow of someone who did not return.
Mr. John Greenway: I have been listening intently to my right hon. Friend and I congratulate him on
472
securing this Adjournment debate and on the way in which he has presented his case. I am one of those to whom he referred who was born after these atrocities occurred.
I do not for one moment suggest that the boot could ever have been on the other foot, but were it on the other foot I have no doubt that hon. Members of this House would have responded generously in the way in which my right hon. Friend is suggesting that the Japanese Government should respond. I have constituents who have been caused to write to me to speak of the suffering that my right hon. Friend described so graphically to us tonight. They experienced that suffering. They express great support for his efforts.
The Japanese Government gave substantial support to the effort in the Gulf earlier this year. Substantial sums of money were paid. Does my right hon. Friend agree that some similar response is desirable and appropriate, bearing in mind that this year we were dealing with the horrors of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, and we now have to put right the need for recompense for the horrors of what happened in the early 1940s?
Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous reference to what I have said. I agree wholeheartedly with him. It is true that the Japanese, like other nations, made a contribution to the efforts of the coalition—which, incidentally, included some Arab nations—to deal with Saddam Hussein. That is not the subject of this debate, but it is a great tragedy that in the brilliant military operation against the world's fourth largest army—an army equipped with sophisticated weapons by nations which should have thought twice about it—hostilities were called off when just a few short days more would have allowed Saddam Hussein to be dealt with. One of the most tragic events is what happened then to the Kurds in northern Iraq. I understand that that subject may be raised later this evening, and I am glad that that is so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) put his finger on it. As more and more people become aware of the details of what our men went through, they will become more and more angry. My hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind that many people in Britain and in the other five countries are deeply concerned. I give a warning—that if the Japanese choose to ignore the action taken by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, public opinion around the world will react.
My next point may sound like a diversion, but it is not. I ask the Minister to recall the extraordinary happenings in eastern Europe in the past two years. People power exerted itself successfully against cruel tyranny. A distinguished British observer, who happened to be in Berlin when the wall came tumbling down, and in Budapest and Prague at the crucial time in those cities, said of the peaceful revolutions which took place:
"no Bastilles were stormed, no guillotines were erected and lamp-posts were used only for lighting the streets."
We still do not fully comprehend the extraordinary developments that took place as communism tumbled in eastern Europe. I know some of the countries well, yet I never thought that the end of communist tyranny in eastern Europe would come so soon.
Dr. Michael Clark: My right hon. Friend has already acknowledged my interest in the far east prisoners of war from south-east Essex, where we both

473
live. My right hon. Friend is coming to the end of his speech. Is he aware that time is not on the side of the people to whom he refers? Many of the men whom we both know were strapping young chaps of 20 in 1941. They are now 70. While it is a miracle that they have survived at all, they are entering the twilight of their lives and if action is not taken speedily it will be too late for them to benefit from anything that my right hon. Friend is attempting to achieve. For all the men who were 20, there were others who were 25, 26 or 27, who had wives in Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Holland or America. Many of those women were widowed and never married again. Many of them brought up their children or led their lonely lives without any assistance from anyone. They were five or six years older and are now in their mid 70s. Time is important for them, too. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is urgent that any action that is taken should be taken immediately?
Sir Bernard Braine: I entirely agree. That is what I have been saying for years. I said it soon after the end of the second world war. I was out there and saw some of the suffering as our men came out of Japanese prison camps. It is not to me but to Governments that my hon. Friend's question should be put. That is the purpose of raising the matter on the Adjournment today.
I am perfectly well aware of the advancing years. If I was a youngster when I joined the Army at the beginning of the second world war, I am not exactly a youngster now. None of us knows how much time we have. The reason why I listed the injuries and sufferings of a small number of the people who were prisoners of the Japanese was that I wanted to make people realise, not only in the House but in the nation as a whole, that the men who survived all that are walking miracles. When one knows someone as I do, and has listened to that person's private griefs and sorrows and witnessed his sufferings, it brings tears to one's eyes.
Not I but Governments must be impressed—and that means the Governments in Britain and in Canada. I should like to know what Canadian veterans intend to ask Prime Minister Mulroney. What response did he make to the Japanese Prime Minister? I understand that they are already asking that question. The same will happen in the Netherlands, the United States, and certainly in Australia and New Zealand. It is not to me that the questions should be addressed. I do not have to be convinced—all my political life I have fought against injustice wherever I have found it, and I have found it sometimes in Britain. The purpose of an Adjournment debate is to bring to the attention of Parliament wrongs that have been done and not put right by the authorities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and I know where his heart lies on this matter.
My hon. Friend interrupted me—I do not mind because it was a perfectly valid point—when I was saying that we have witnessed in Europe in the past two years people power being exercised against the authorities. If there is not a response by Governments—and first of all by the Japanese—that anger will be reflected by public opinion in the countries concerned. This is a democracy and people cannot be prevented from learning the truth. There is anger in the constituencies on this subject and I hope that, as a result of this debate, many more people will start asking why we have had to wait all these years for something to be done.
474
I hope, therefore, that when the Japanese Prime Minister comes to London for the economic summit, he will apologise to us, too. If an apology can be made to Canada, it can be made to the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands. That will be the beginning, however, not the end—we want not just words of contrition, but generosity of spirit and practical compensation. If the Japanese, now the second richest nation on earth, could make a contribution while others did their fighting for them in the Gulf, they can find the money to make decent reparation to men who have suffered long years of ill health and deprivation as a result of the treatment that they received from the Imperial Japanese army.
I trust that the Minister appreciates that this grave matter will not go away and that there are many people in the House and vast numbers outside who will weigh his every word.
8.1 pm
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I support and endorse much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said. I wish at the outset to express a personal, family interest. The Burma Campaign was my campaign in which my father, brothers and cousins were deeply involved. I never quite forgave the British Government for not acknowledging VJ day in the way in which they acknowledged VE day. Our army was the forgotten army—the 14th Army—and one of my cousins had the misfortune to be imprisoned by the Japanese.
People may say that it happened a long time ago. To me, in my lifetime, it was not all that long ago. The Cambridgeshire regiment suffered particular misfortune, and there were not too many survivors. Unlike my right hon. Friend, I do not feel any real vindictiveness over what happened to my family, although, in a way, the survivors never really survived, even if they survived physically. The damage was very deep, lifelong and permanent.
Neither I nor my father nor my brothers had any feeling of hatred against the Japanese people. Even so, the rules of war—there is a thin veneer separating barbarism from the notion of civilisation—were cruelly broken and people and their relatives were deeply injured. An outrage was committed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point asked for an apology. I was in Canada in recent weeks when an apology was given to the Canadian people. I do not think that such an apology is necessarily right. I should have thought that my Japanese friends, recognising the enormity of what was inflicted, would respond generously to the few survivors of that agony and would, in doing so, not only want to wipe the slate clean on an unhappy past but would wish to represent to a new generation the thought that things have changed, that there is a new Japan and that there is a new relationship between our people.
8.4 pm
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: In his inspiring and excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) referred to the captivity experienced by many civilians in the far east. In October 1988 I had the privilege of attending a reunion of 350 people in my constituency. The gathering was held

475
there because a remarkable lady named Mrs. Renee Cumberbatch, who herself suffered incarceration, organised the event. I met people who had come from various parts of the world and whose spirit and resilience were magnificent.
Mrs. Cumberbatch was 22 when she was sent with her five-month old baby daughter to a camp by the Japanese. She had been forcibly separated from her husband. In the camp—she wrote these details later in a report—sanitation was poor, daily meals comprised a bowl of Japanese-style porridge, thin stew, black bread and gruel and she emerged after less than a year weighing about six stones, despite being nearly 6ft tall.
One could cite many examples of that type of suffering. I am anxious to put on record the fact that, in addition to the appalling suffering experienced by our military prisoners of war, there were, in terms of the British—and many others from other nations—about 8,000 people caught up in those appalling events. We should remember them in supporting what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point has asked for tonight.
8.6 pm
Sir Antony Buck: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for raising this topic. I was a schoolboy aged 11 when war broke out. My mother was chairwoman of the Prisoners of War Relatives' Association. As the House knows, a substantial part of the Cambridgeshire regiment went straight to Singapore and was immediately captured, having hardly any opportunity to fight.
Throughout my childhood years during the war our family house was full of parcels destined for that area. Only a relatively small number of parcels got through, but my recollection as a teenager is of the walking very tall, emaciated, rather yellow British men of the Cambridgeshire regiment who came to thank my mother. Although she was only part of the team, her name was on the parcels, being the chairwoman of the organisation. They came to thank her because, although only a relatively small proportion of parcels got through, they had saved a considerable number of lives.
We cannot go on living in the past. We must look to the future. That is why I hope that, with the enormous prosperity that Japan enjoys—because of the hard work, assiduity and skills of the Japanese people—that country will respond with magnanimity to the representations that have been made in the House. Then we can get away from the past and start looking to the future. The Japanese have great wealth and large numbers of them have great generosity of spirit. If we can get rid of this problem of the past once and for all, a great service will have been achieved for the civilised community.
I hope that the Minister will echo that sentiment when he replies to the debate. I hope that we can get rid of that aspect of the past by a generous response from the Japanese. In view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said, hopefully we can put it all behind us and look to the future by co-operating in making the world a better and more prosperous place.
8.9 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for having raised this subject on the Adjournment and for the passion and sincerity of his speech.
He and I jointly launched a book a few years ago on the experiences of a south-east Essex man as a Japanese prisoner of war. My right hon. Friend is also aware of the other books on the subject that have been written. I have just finished reading a book by John Cosworth entitled "Line of Lost Lives" which details clearly the privations suffered by the Cambridgeshire regiment, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). Many members of the Cambridgeshire regiment were captured at that time and suffered terribly at the hands of the Japanese.
Three years ago, a constituent of mine published a book called "Tamajo" which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I launched. Its author, Mr. Ernest Warwick, suffered badly at the hands of the Japanese and came out of a Japanese camp, as my right hon. Friend has described, broken in health. But the remarkable thing about such men is that they were not broken in spirit and managed to survive because their spirit was not broken. They received as much help as possible from the medical services of this country when they returned.
As a boy of 10 or 11 years old, I remember having my first post-war holiday on the Lincolnshire coast when my father returned from the war and seeing those gaunt, skeletal men trying to feed themselves back up. They spent no more than a half an hour in the garden before they were fatigued and would return to the house to try to sleep and to get more food.
My constituent and many others like him, who returned to this country in the late 1940s and had fine medical treatment, are often denied the compassion that they deserve when they go before medical boards and are declared 5 per cent. disabled. They are severely disabled from the privation that they suffered in Japan.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that substantial compensation will be made by the Japanese? We, too, need to be more compassionate in medical and social security terms to those who have suffered, and not just dismiss their complaints as the aches or pains of old age. They are far more serious than that—they are the aches and pains of suffering, anguish and of seeing their friends die. I hope that, as well as expecting the Japanese to make compensation, we shall show more compassion than we have in the past to our fellow country men and women who suffered incarceration by the Japanese for a number of years.
8.12 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am among the last to rise because further speeches are superfluous and I am not sure whether anything could improve on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). However, it struck me as he spoke that there has been little pressure in this country for the cause that he so well espoused. At first sight, that is surprising. I then recalled my uncle, who is the sole survivor of a squadron. He is alive and well—more or less—and in his 70s. He has written and contributed to two books and there is an

477
account of his war years in the Imperial War museum. I have never heard him ask me, as a Member of Parliament, "Please will you do something?"
As the sole survivor of a squadron, my uncle can recount crossing the sea by a boat on which hundreds of people were packed, knowing that by the time it arrived, very few would be alive. He, too, was beaten and had his nails pulled out and he escaped more than once. Moreover, he has had all the diseases. At the end of the war, he left Japan with a man who went mad. People who have been through such experiences do not complain or besiege Members of Parliament morning, noon and night, asking for help. The aspect that I remember most about my uncle is that, despite all the terrible traumas that he has endured, he does not complain. Those who died all around him cannot complain.
There is a new mood of reconciliation between countries throughout the world. We hear today that the Bulgarians have admitted the deliberate killing of Mr. Markov in the Strand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point is responsible for great work with the Soviets, trying to get them to admit to the most awful crimes perpetrated in modern history. Last week, I was in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, and I know that Germany is remorseful about the atrocities of the second world war and the holocaust. Perhaps the time has come for the Japanese to show similar remorse. It is not too late and they should not be misled by the fact that the clamour has not been enormous in this country because of people like my uncle, who have not been inclined, out of concern for their lost friends and because so many people are not here to raise that clamour.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who will no doubt meet Mr. Kaifu when he comes shortly, will pass on the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend and the depth of feeling that exists in the House and in the country among those of us who know of or are closely related to those who suffered so grievously at the hands of a nation. I hope that Japan will wish to purge its wrongdoing by making further recompense as is now requested by the House.
8.18 pm
Mr. Alan Amos: I, too, add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for raising this issue again and for keeping it before the House. He was absolutely right to say that the issue will not go away. Clearly, I was not in the war—I was not even born when it finished—but my father was. He was in Burma but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, although he suffered he never complained. He does not talk about the war and asks for nothing. Such people should be given compensation by the Government and the nation.
The issue will not go away because my generation, too, will keep the issue alive. Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that when the Japanese Prime Minister comes to this country he will raise with him the issue of unit. 731, which committed hideous, outrageous and evil experiments on prisoners of war? Members of that unit knew what they were doing and their actions were deliberate and evil. Moreover, the perpetrators are alive and living in Tokyo, and the Japanese Government know who they are. Some of them have been honoured for work in various fields. I find that deeply offensive.
478
The House in its wisdom has decided to proceed with war crimes trials. I disagree with that decision; but in order to be consistent, if we are prepared to deal with men whose actions 50 years ago were so appalling that we believe it right to act on their consequences now, it is no good saying at the same time that actions that took place in Japan or Asia 50 years ago should be forgotten. If the House is to be consistent and respected, we must treat war crimes in the same way whether they were perpetrated by Lithuanians living here or by Japanese living in Tokyo. The principle is the same.
If we are to believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) told the House, that there is a new Japan, let us look for a genuine act of contrition and repentance by the Japanese Government and people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said, a sincere apology is not enough. We want generous financial compensation—and from Japan even generous is not enough in my opinion. We must judge whether there is a new Japan by its actions and attitude. If the Japanese Prime Minister still cannot offer an apology or compensation, we must draw the conclusion that there is no new Japan—that for some extraordinary reason the Japanese are denying their crimes still and are not prepared to face up to the horrors of what they did. That in itself would be a shame and a sham.
8.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Towards the end of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said that the purpose of an Adjournment debate was to raise matters of this kind. I wholeheartedly agree. It is one of the strengths of our democratic procedures that these Adjournment debates should exist. I am sure that they do not exist in every other democratic country, but in our system they mean that issues of the sort that my right hon. Friend has brought before us, in a speech which inspired eight colleagues to speak in his support, are debated in the House.
Before I comment further on my right hon. Friend's speech, I want to mention what my other hon. Friends had to say. Many of their comments were based on family experiences in one way or another. I was born in 1943. All of us of my age know from relatives and friends and other contacts of the suffering that so many people endured in the Japanese camps. I was impressed by the family experience recounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) in a speech that was quiet and gentle, and without bitterness.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) mentioned civilians, a group who should not be forgotten in these tragic stories. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) spoke of his childhood experiences and of the Cambridgeshire regiment. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) made a point about disability boards and the compassion that should be shown in these cases. I offer him this guarantee: I shall report his comments to my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Social Security.
We were all moved by the contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who spoke of his uncle. He pointed out the remarkable fact

479
that people who have suffered such great traumas have survived and found their lives made more easy by showing a quiet courage without complaint. I sense that they derive some comfort from not complaining because it is easier for them to live their lives if they do not remember too much about the dreadful suffering that they saw and endured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) referred to constituency interests, and there were two interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Rochford.
We were all shaken by the facts about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point reminded us. People who are as young as I am have read of these stories, and anyone in his late forties, like me, will have had an upbringing of roughly the same experiences. Quite apart from the graphic detail provided by my right hon. Friend, I was not properly aware before of the fact that for so many of these wretched and unhappy people the horrors that they suffered continue even today.
My right hon. Friend is assiduous in many cases about which he feels strongly, and he has been assiduous in this one for a number of years. I fear, however, that it will be no easier for me than it was for my predecessors to give him a more encouraging reply, but I can at least deal with the matter rather more fully than if we had had a mere half-hour in which to deal with it. I can touch on some of the recent developments of importance that have arisen since this matter was debated in 1988.
If my comments appear inadequate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that that does not mean that the Government are unaware of or insensitive to the feelings of those whose suffering has given rise to this debate. I would not dissent from what my right hon. Friend said about the dreadful experiences of those who had the misfortune to be taken prisoner by the Japanese. We have said many times—I make no apology for repeating it tonight—that we must never forget the appalling conditions under which they were incarcerated or the fact that it was their sacrifice and service which allowed us the privilege of discussing their plight in a free Parliament.
The courage and selflessness shown and the awful hardship suffered by these men and women are indelibly marked on all our memories. My right hon. Friend has first-hand experience of the relevant period of the war, but for his generation and mine alike, the events that he has described tonight are a powerful reminder both of the heights of bravery and of the depths of cruelty of which man is capable. That is why I have profound sympathy with the distress and anger that many survivors of that terrible period continue to feel.
Letters from those who lived through that time or from their relatives are regularly received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They convey in graphic terms the physical and mental suffering which many people continue to endure. The fact that Japan, which inflicted such suffering, is now a successful and prosperous country must add to the bitterness of those people. I completely understand and respect their strong conviction that the additional compensation for which my right hon. Friend has eloquently argued should now be made available.
I shall set out again the settlement reached in 1951 in the peace treaty with Japan. I do not suggest that it is a tidy
480
bureaucratic solution to the problem and brooks no opposition, but simply set out the historical facts of the matter. As my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members know, the peace treaty signed in San Francisco on 8 September 1951 contained a specific provision for compensation for former prisoners of war. We had insisted on that provision, which had not been included in the original treaty, because we thought it important that the treaty should recognise the cruel and barbaric treatment to which allied service men in the far east had been subjected.
The negotiations leading to the treaty were heavily influenced by the moving debate in the House in May 1951, with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point is familiar. That debate helped to develop the Government's policy and negotiating position as the treaty was drawn up. No one could dispute that the issue of compensation was crucial and it was the only aspect of the treaty on which a debate was held prior to its signing. The 1951 treaty ended the state of war between the United Kingdom and Japan.
I shall briefly outline the provisions that are relevant to the debate. I know that I am repeating some of the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he replied to the 1988 debate on this subject. Article 14 of the treaty recognised
"that Japanese should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war".
The treaty gave the allied powers the right to seize and dispose of Japanese property within their jurisdiction. Article 14(b) concluded:
"Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the War".
Article 16 is central to the matter, because it provided specifically for the compensation of prisoners. It states:
"As an expression of its desire to indemnify those members of the armed forces of the Allied Powers who suffered undue hardships while Prisoners of War of Japan, Japan will transfer its assets and those of its nationals in countries which were neutral during the war, or which were at war with any of the Allied Powers or, at its option, the equivalent of such assets, to the International Committee of the Red Cross which shall liquidate such assets and distribute the resultant fund to appropriate national agencies for the benefit of former Prisoners of War and their families on such basis as it may determine to be equitable."
From the disposal of Japanese property within its jurisdiction, the United Kingdom received just over £3 million. The United Kingdom's share of the £4·5 million that the Japanese Government placed at the disposal of the International Red Cross in accordance with article 16 of the treaty was just over £1·6 million.
It was agreed in a minute between the Japanese and the allied powers that the payment of the £4·5 million would be recognised as a full discharge by the Japanese Government of their obligations under article 16 of the peace treaty. As is well known, and as my right hon. Friend has said, the sum of £76 paid to service men or to their dependants was unbelievably small. No British Government have ever denied that. In the debate on the peace treaty before its ratification, a Government spokesman said that he would have preferred to be able to offer greater compensation. I am sure that all members of the Government and the Opposition at that time shared that wish. As my right hon. Friend knows, the treaty was signed by a Labour Government and ratified by their Conservative successors.

481
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's contention that the settlement was unsatisfactory but, as my predecessors have said, the provisions of the treaty remove any possibility of the British Government claiming further compensation or reparations from the Japanese Government. That is our best understanding of our legal obligations, although I hear with respect my right hon. Friend's different views.
We are not alone in that understanding. We have been in touch with our missions in the countries that my right hon. Friend mentioned to ascertain the position of their Governments. Other allied powers share our view that the question of compensation was settled by the 1951 peace treaty. However inadequate the terms may appear now or appeared at the time, it was accepted that the Japanese had fully discharged their obligations.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I am not surprised at anything that he has said so far, because he is basing his reply on legal considerations. In 1951, Japan's economy had been affected by the war and by Japan's defeat. The pitiful compensation was paid out of assets that we had seized when, without declaring war, Japan attacked the United States, the British, French and Dutch in the far east.
Forty years on, we are not talking about a defeated nation but one which is the second richest in the world. Down Whitehall, every third or fourth car is Japanese. Japan is doing very well out of the free world. I am arguing not on purely legal grounds but on moral grounds. If the Japanese have any honour, they will recognise that, since 1951, thousands of ex-service men have endured 40 years of suffering. I am talking not about the dead, although they are not forgotten, but about men who, since the signing of that peace treaty, have lived in agony arid are sleepless at night. God knows how many of them continue to live.
We are talking about 40 years on. The Japanese put up their hands and say, "We signed the peace treaty all those years ago and that is the end of it", and my hon. Friend says that that is the legal position and that is what we must accept. That is not good enough.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have been describing the 1951 peace treaty. I shall say something later about the change in Japanese circumstances since the war. I reiterate that I was describing the 1951 peace treaty, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that that does not mean that the Government will impede or obstruct in any way the private attempts of any group to obtain further compensation. The Government could not directly associate themselves with such attempts, but we have every sympathy with their aim.
I should not give my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that the chances of success of claims for further compensation are likely to be good, but I shall touch upon a recent development to the claim lodged with the United Nations Commission for Human Rights by the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association. It was lodged under a procedure known as resolution 1503, on which my right hon. Friend made comment.
I shall go into a little detail about the procedure. It is a confidential system that is designed to establish, on the basis of personal petition, whether there has occurred a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights by
482
states rather than to adjudicate on individual complaints. There is no obligation on the Japanese Government to pay compensation to complainants under the procedure.
It gives me little comfort to refer to what must be regarded as cold legal technicalities. Indeed, my right hon. Friend intervened to make that very point. I can say, however, that I hope very much that the Japanese Government will respond to the petitions as sympathetically as possible.
I referred earlier to the bitterness that many must feel to see the country that was guilty of such cruelty and oppression two generations ago now so successful and prosperous and a member of the world community. The world has changed. That makes it even harder for the wounds inflicted at the time, for which, perhaps, no compensation can ever be entirely adequate.
It is important to understand the way in which Japan has changed, which my right hon. Friend has generously acknowledged, and why it has changed. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me one more quotation from article 14 of the 1951 treaty. The contents of the article are not always remembered now. The passage states that:
"it is also recognised that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations."
That was stated in 1951 because the negotiators of the treaty were acutely conscious of the terribly dangerous precedent that had been set after the first world war by the onerous burdens of the treaty of Versailles.
Of course, the negotiators had conflicting obligations. They had as far as possible to ensure an equitable settlement of manifest wartime injustice; they had to ensure also that the circumstances that led to the war were prevented from recurring. There may have been no very happy medium between the two responsibilities, but I do not think that we can easily ignore the imperative that lay behind the words that I have just quoted.
Japan is prosperous and successful and plays a constructive and responsible role in the affairs of the world, because the negotiators of the peace treaty were far-sighted enough to recognise the awful dangers of squeezing Japan as Germany had been squeezed after the first world war. In the 1930s and 1940s, Japan was a terrifying and brutal force in the region. As my right hon. Friend has rightly conceded, Japan is now democratic and peaceful. Its military strength once laid nations waste, but its economic strength now definitely contributes to their welfare and prosperity.
Sometimes, Japan is criticised for not making more contribution in terms of personnel and resources, as well as money, to the protection of the world order in which she herself has grown and prospered. That has been touched upon, for example, in terms of the recent crisis in the Gulf. However much it is right to encourage Japan to play a role in such affairs commensurate with its economic strength, we must recognise that the pacifism and self-restraint that holds it back from doing everything that we like to see was born of a determination among the Japanese never to allow themselves again to be seduced down the path of totalitarian oppression and aggression overseas. We welcome that commitment to peace and justice and must remember that it owes its strength to the spirit of magnanimity and conciliation that infused the treaty of peace that was signed 40 years ago.

483
My right hon. Friend said that there is a growing recognition in Japan of some of the harrowing truths which he has described. I believe that a growing sense of contrition is being expressed in Japan for the atrocities which were committed. Most Japanese today were born after the end of the second world war. Many others were too young at the end of the war to have played any substantial part in it. It is right that the new generations should know enough of the evils of the past to ensure that they are never repeated. It is equally right that we should never forget our debt to the generation which, as my right hon. Friend recalled, defended our freedom in that war.
It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that I am prevented from giving a more positive response to the questions that my right hon. Friend raised. I have tried to explain the Government's views of the underlying principles that bear on the issues. These are not questions that can be debated in terms of political expediency. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that my response, however discouraging it must seem, is meant to convey a spirit of great respect for the memory of the men and women whose almost unimaginable suffering we have been discussing.
Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend concludes his reply—has he done so?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall respond to my hon. and learned Friend—
Mr. Lawrence: I think that we were waiting to hear from my hon. Friend, even to the very end of his reply, that he would do his best to ensure that one of our Ministers will raise the debate and the tenor of it with Mr. Kaifu and his team when they come to London in the near future. I agree that there may be some legal justification for Japan saying, "That was the agreement, that is what we were bound to and we can or will go no further." However, is
484
not true remorse something that prompts one to do something that is over and above that which the law requires to be done? It would be most heartening to us—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. and learned Member has already addressed the House once. Interventions must be brief.
Mr. Lawrence: I will be, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We are asking that my hon. Friend the Minister will say to Mr. Kaifu and his team that true recompense means doing more than the law requires.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose—
Sir Bernard Braine: I shall be very brief and very much to the point.
We are to have a visit from the Prime Minister of Japan. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to go into any detail on what the Japanese Prime Minister should be told, but common sense and common justice demand that the intense feeling that exists in this country, especially among those who know what happened, should not be disregarded, and that what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said a moment ago will be taken to heart. The Japanese Prime Minister should be told in a discreet but determined way that there is a debt to be paid.
I do not care a damn about the legalities of the matter: I am concerned about the way in which, in 1951 when the Korean war was upon us and various other pressures were coming into play, a treaty was signed whereby our Government took upon themselves the responsibility for waiving claims against Japan in future—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that this is a serious matter, and I do not question the right hon. Gentleman's depth of feeling, but other hon. Members are waiting to address the House.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend was helpful enough to say that he did not expect me to reply in any detail, but I can assure him that his points have been noted.

Kurdish People
8.53 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to have the second Adjournment debate this evening, and it follows in a timely fashion from the previous debate. It is chilling that both debates are about war and the outcome of war, and many of the discussions appear to be the same —for instance, the desirability of war reparations, which is also being discussed in relation to Iraq.
The moving debate that we have just heard clearly demonstrates man's inhumanity to man writ large—horrors, cruelty and indifference to suffering on a horrendous scale. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said that it was necessary to spell out those horrors, and that we must not forget. I wonder whether we ever learn anything from history, or whether the only lesson we learn from it is that we do not learn anything at all.
Wars are catastrophic. The right hon. Gentleman detailed the long-term effects on people's' lives produced by the second world war. We clearly understand that the consequences of war, including the war with Iraq, have already destroyed many lives and will continue to make many suffer, not least the Kurds, who have been persecuted by Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Governments over many decades. The situation continues to deteriorate.
The plight of the Kurds in Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein may no longer feature every night on our television screens, but no one should be fooled into believing that their plight has eased or improved. Safe havens—the Prime Minister's idea to encourage Kurds off the mountainsides away from the horrendous experiences and tragedies that unfolded at the end of the war with Iraq—should not lead us to believe that all Kurds are safe and back in their homes, their safety guaranteed by allied troops.
The impression created is that the Kurds have gone home, but alas that is far from the truth. They have moved to districts, many where there is a presence of allied troops, where they believe that they will be safe, but they have not necessarily returned to their homes. Half a million or more Kurds are in the no man's land on the border between Turkey and Iraq, and there are a million or more either in Iran or on the Iran-Iraq border. All those Kurds are unprotected and without aid.
There is a chronic shortage of aid, both in Iraq and Iran, to support and help the Kurds. We have seen and heard horrific reports from Iraq about the lack of medical supplies. We have heard of operations being conducted by doctors who are unable to wash their hands between operations and where flies hover over patients and settle on open wounds. There have been detailed reports of the lack of electricity and vital clean water, not to mention the lack of food and supplies that people need to live. The tragedy is truly appalling and the suffering is great.
Today, I spoke to the Iraqi relief co-ordination group, which works closely with the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and regularly receives information from a range of groups including Oxfam, the Red Cross, the Refugee Council, Medical Aid for Iraq, Kurdish Relief, the Kurdish Cultural Centre and the Islamic Cultural Centre, to name but a few. They all say that they consistently receive reports from camps and districts where the Kurds are living in Turkey, Iran and Iraq where United
486
Nations aid supplies are simply not getting through to those who desperately need them. Supplies of aid still fall desperately short of what is needed. For the Kurds in the south, nothing, or next to nothing, is getting through. The Kurds are not certain where the aid is going, but believe that it is being redirected—or intercepted—by Saddam Hussein.
The Kurds also say that their latest information is that in the next two days the supplies of chlorine left in Iraq will be exhausted. That means no clean water. Cholera, typhoid and other appalling infectious diseases are already widespread and many people do not have access to clean drinking water.
Worse still, the Kurds now fear a new genocide—a new war initiated by Saddam Hussein. I am deeply concerned that the signs and messages sent by the allies to Saddam Hussein are leading him to believe that he will soon be able to continue his appalling persecution of the Kurds unthwarted. The political background is complex, but we know that the only lasting solution to the problem that the Kurdish people face is a political one. I am told that in the past two weeks 60,000 Iraqi troops have amassed in the Sulimaniyah area, accompanied by 60 tanks from Kirkuk. That arises directly from comments made by the allies and it demonstrates clearly what Saddam Hussein's intentions are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intends to contribute to the debate if he is able, and he will detail the appalling record of the resumption of Saddam Hussein's oppression of the Kurds and others in Iraq. The signals are that a new wave of atrocities is on its way to Kurdistan. The truth is that Iraqi Kurdistan may well now be on the precipice of a new period of oppression which is now building up.
The Kurds have made it clear that they want to see a democratic Iraq and, within that, an autonomous or confederated Kurdish area negotiated directly within a democratic Iraq. They are not looking for an independent Kurdistan.
At present, negotiations have been continuing in Baghdad between Kurdish representatives and the Iraqi Government and it had been hoped that an agreement would be reached with the Iraqi Government which would later be ratified internationally in some way, perhaps by a resolution through the United Nations which would specifically guarantee that the Kurds would be able to live in a democratic Iraq free from repression and in security. But the United Nations appears to have sent the wrong message again. It said in July last year through its ambassador to Saddam Hussein that an invasion of Kuwait would be an Arab affair and nothing to do with the UN—and we know how that situation unfolded. The UN is now saying that it must withdraw its troops by 15 June, and the number of troops in the area has already declined from 22,000 on 21 May to 20,000 now.
Saddam Hussein has seen that as an opportunity to drag his feet in negotiations with the Kurds so that the agreement will not be reached before the allied forces have left. Then he will no doubt terminate the discussions and move heavily against the Kurds. Negotiations have been caught on three main areas. There is the question of geographical boundaries for a Kurdish area and the question of guarantees and security for that area. There are also problems in relation to the constitution involving the apportionment of oil revenues. Perhaps more importantly, there is also the question of the Arabisation

487
that has gone on in Kurdish areas, where once-Kurdish towns have been cleared and populated by Arabs. The Iraqis have refused to include them in the debate. The Government need to go to the United Nations for more international pressure to be applied to Saddam Hussein to negotiate seriously and to make progress on the agreements with the Kurds for the establishment of a democratic Iraq.
As I have said, a solution is not possible unless it is a political solution. A political agreement must be achieved and the comments made by the United States representatives and forces of withdrawal have not helped that political process. Indeed, they may plunge the Kurds into persecution and another war, as I have outlined.
Let us not forget that it is not only Iraq which persecutes the Kurds. The Turkish president was in Paris yesterday lobbying and applying for membership of the European Community. In Turkey, the Kurds are not allowed to speak their own language except in the privacy of their own homes. They are not allowed to sing in their own language except at private parties. Education and publishing in the Kurdish language are banned, and there is an enforced 15-mile zone on the Turkey-Iraq border where forced removal of Kurds occurs, with no resettlement plans, so as to break the links between the Kurdish communities in Turkey and Iraq.
The Kurds are talking of returning to the mountains because they fear what Saddam Hussein plans for them. An article in The Independent earlier this week quoted American troops in the region. It said:
"'See that man in my car over there?' the American colonel asked … 'I've tried to help him but I can't. When the Iraqis come back in here, they're going to kill him. But I can't get him out.'"
Thousands of people face that prospect under Saddam Hussein.
We plead with the Government that the Kurds, despite the absence of their plight from our television screens, must not be left with no protection against Saddam Hussein. Pressure must be applied through the United Nations and internationally to ensure that Saddam Hussein negotiates seriously on a political settlement. We need immediate and unequivocal undertakings that Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey will not be abandoned and a detailed strategy to ensure that massive aid gets through to those who need it.
There has been much talk of building a new world order. The previous Adjournment debate was on the consequences of a war 50 years ago. Surely we must have learnt that a new world order cannot be based on or grow from the horrors, indifference, persecution and slaughter of the Kurds in Iraq. I press the Minister as hard as I can to send a clear message from the House that we shall not desert the Kurds and that they will be supported positively and continuously in their struggle to establish a free, democratic Iraq.
9.7 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on securing this Adjournment debate. It could not be more timely to have a debate on the plight of the Kurds, because the history of the past 70 years shows that
488
there has been a profound lack of discussion by the House of Commons and successive British Governments of the situation facing them.
I am not a newcomer to the subject as I have been heavily involved in issues affecting Kurdistan since I became a Member of the House. Many Kurdish people from Iran, Iraq and Turkey who have sought asylum here have made their homes in my constituency. The way in which the Kurdish people have been treated is one of the great injustices of the century. We witness on television, which was not available to earlier generations, the horror of life for many Kurdish people, such as the easy death of so many young Kurds, the abject poverty in which many of them live and the profound ignorance of the rest of the world of their plight.
The Kurds should be living in an area the size of France, but their population of more than 20 million is largely ignored by the rest of the world. The Ottoman empire collapsed at the end of the first world war, and the Kurdish people, mainly through accidents of geography and topography, enjoyed a semi-autonomous existence.
The Kurdish people have brought much learning to the world. Saladin himself was a Kurd. Kurdistan produced many other heroic people. At the end of the first world war it was hoped that the Kurdish people would receive justice. The treaty of Sévrres, which was signed in 1920 but not ratified, contains three crucial articles. Article 62 made reference to a commission sitting in Constantinople, composed of three members appointed by the British, French and Italian Governments, to determine the boundaries of Kurdistan.
In article 63, the Turkish Government agreed to accept and execute the decisions of the commission mentioned in article 62 within three months of their communication. Article 64 dealt with the recognition of that arrangement by the then League of Nations. That treaty was the source of some hope and provided an opportunity for the Kurdish people but, tragically, it was never ratified. Instead, Mustafa Kemal led the development of the modern state of Turkey, and the British Government decided to back modern Turkey rather than the aspirations of the Kurdish people. The RAF undertook chemical bombardments of the Barzani-led Kurdish separatists in 1922. Britain has very bloody hands in the history of Kurdistan and of the Kurdish people.
The treaty of Lausanne, which was ratified in 1923, expunged from the record anything to do with Kurdistan or the Kurdish people. Kurdistan was obliterated from the modern political map.
There is something very tragic about Kurdish history and the way in which national movements developed in each of the countries in which Kurdish people lived—Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. In every case, there has been manipulation of the Kurdish people. Iranian Kurdish people are backed by Iraq. Iraqi Kurdish people are backed by Iran. Turkish Kurdish people are backed by Iraq, and so on. The awful circle continues. The Kurdish people are the losers every time.
There have been notable assassinations, including that of Dr. Ghasamlou, the leader of the Kurdish people in Iraq, who was disgracefully murdered by Iranian agents while trying to negotiate on behalf of his people in Switzerland. Many others died in the same cause.

489
I hope that even now, in the midst of the horrors of the aftermath of the Gulf war, it will be recognised that a tragedy that has occurred repeatedly over the past 70 years must not arise again in the coming months and years.
It is deeply moving to talk to Kurdish people. One finds Kurdish people in almost every city in the world. They say, "Yes, 1 am a Kurd. I do not have a country, I do not have a language and I do not have a literature that the world recognises." But when Kurdish people come together to hear the singing of Sivein Perver, a marvellous entertainer if ever there was one, who attracted 3,000 people to Kensington town hall for an nueroz celebration, which I attended, one realises the spirit and strength of the Kurdish culture, and the determination of the Kurdish people.
Many Kurds have been compelled to migrate to the cities, to do the dirty jobs that no one else will do. Many have sought political asylum in this country, as in others. Often, they have not been well treated. In 1989 Siho lyuguven took his own life rather than be deported back to the horrors of the fascist regime in Turkey. I could cite many other examples.
I hope that, in the aftermath of the Gulf war, we will look again at the way in which the Kurdish people are treated. I was one of the Members of Parliament—and others are present in the Chamber tonight—who did not support the Gulf war in any way. We did not see that it would solve any of the problems of the region. One now sees oil wells on fire in Kuwait, marshal law imposed on the streets of Kuwait, destruction throughout Iraq, and the carnage of the Kurdish, Shia, and Syrian peoples, and many others, throughout Iraq. The scenario is one of a managed instability in the region.
The United States and Britain, having fought a war for the liberation of Kuwait, are making no discernible efforts to bring democracy to that city. They say that they are supporting the Kurdish people, and then withdraw; at no stage have they said that they recognise the Kurdish people's right to self-determination, although that is now a clear and necessary demand.
Both Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talebani have visited the House several times, and I have come to know Mr. Barzani quite well over the years. Both are at present negotiating in good faith in Baghdad—attempting, on behalf of the Kurdish front and the Kurds who wish to unite, to achieve a solution that would give autonomy to Kurdistan within Iraq. Their crucial need is for aid and recognition; but aid is in short supply, while recognition is in no supply at all.
In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's forces are preparing once again to deal with what they describe as the Kurdish problem—that is, to impose Arabisation on Kurdish villages, just as the Turkish army has imposed "Turkification" on the Kurdistan villages in eastern Turkey, and just as Iran has done at various times in the past.
This is a tragedy of immense proportions. It has happened so many times before; now it is happening yet again. I hope that the Minister will recognise the justice of the Kurdish people's case, and will accept that there can be no peace in the region until the rights and demands of the Kurds are recognised internationally. Those who have died in the mountains—including the children who never came down from them—and those who are now dying of disease in the cities and camps in Iraq are victims of the whole awful process. They are victims of the carve-up of
490
1920; they are victims of the greed of oil companies and military powers; and they are victims of the latest Gulf war.
Those people need and deserve as much aid as can be conveyed to them. I am glad to say that aid is getting through to various parts of Iran and Iraq, and, to some extent, to Turkey, but it is not reaching all the Kurds. They are dying of preventable diseases, while the world watches on television screens and through television camera lenses. Something must be done, and action must be taken in the long term to prevent a repeat of this tragedy. I believe, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, that that will indeed be prevented if the importance of the current Baghdad negotiations is recognised and the United Nations ratifies them after their completion.
Instead of snuggling up to the Turkish Government, as they have done so many times, the British Government should recognise that the treatment of the Kurds in Turkey is nothing short of abominable. The cosmetic changes to the laws that the Turkish Government have introduced in the past few months do not absolve them of responsibility for such a large Turkish army presence in Kurdistan. People whom I have met in villages on the Iraq-Turkey border have been arrested on a whim; their villages have been razed to the ground and their families moved miles away, because they have been deemed to threaten national security. That is not a civilised way in which to treat a people; there must be something better than that—something more.
I am not advocating a new Gulf war. I am advocating recognition of the Kurdish people, which would make it harder for any Iraqi Government to behave in this way —including the Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussein, which was consistently opposed by some Opposition Members even when the Government were lending it money and allowing arms to be sold to it through the use of foreign currency.
I hope that tonight the Government will acknowledge the needs of the Kurdish people, who have suffered so tragically in the past 70 years. Their suffering must end; they must be able to live in peace and harmony with their own history and culture, which have contributed so much to the world.
9.19 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has a long history of involvement in this problem. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for taking the initiative in calling this debate in rather curious circumstances.
I want to bite deeply into what I consider to be at the heart of the whole affair—statements made by American and British politicians and by representatives of the American Administration, and the United Nations resolutions, how they interlock and how they should resolve the crisis in Kurdistan.
The principal resolution that we should consider tonight is resolution 688. It demands that
"Iraq as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region immediately ends this repression."
That resolution was carried shortly after the mass movement of population from the towns and cities of Kurdistan to the boundaries of Turkey and Iran. It

491
followed a statement by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in America, Mr. Colin Powell, on 31 March, in which he said:
"It would not be in the interests of the Government in Baghdad to return to this area in an aggressive way which would threaten these people"—
he was referring to the Kurds—
"and cause them to fear for their lives again. The Iraqis should not doubt America's resolve."
I believe that, at that time, that statement was a sign that the United States Administration understood the problem, that it would press for the United Nations resolution—which was pressed for and secured on 5 April —and that there would be subsequent resolutions to enforce resolution 688 in the event that the Iraqis breached the principle of no repression. However, that has not been the case.
I was further fortified in my view that action might be taken when, on 21 May this year—only a few weeks ago —the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), said to the Arab Research Centre that
"no-one can ever feel secure while Saddam Hussein remains in Baghdad—any more than we in Europe could have felt secure as long as Hitler survived in Berlin".
They are the words of a British Foreign Office Minister to an Arab audience in London, yet tonight I can refer to innumerable breaches of resolution 688 which have been ignored, and indeed denied, by the Government as late as today. During business questions, the Leader of the House said:
"There is no evidence that there is any systematic or widespread repression of the Kurds at present."
That is from a statement made by the Leader of the House today from a written brief. He continued:
"We are in close contact with other joint force members to agree ways of providing reassurance to the Kurdish population if and when forces are withdrawn."
I want to draw attention to the breaches which the Leader of the House says are not taking place, but which all the evidence suggests are taking place. I begin with what happened on May 13, when Iraqi forces fired on a United States helicopter and on British Marines inside the protection zone. Ministers were informed of that by field commanders. They know that it happened, and they know that the forces in question were involved in humanitarian aid relief efforts and in the protection of populations in the area. That is an example that has been denied today by a Minister at the Dispatch Box.
On 19 May, 570 people were rounded up and summarily executed in Babylon in a Shia area of the south. I ask the Minister to check the allegation that I make tonight. On 20 May, Iraqi forces attacked a Kurdish aid centre, killing and injuring Kurds. On 22 May, reports stated that up to 500,000 refugees were trapped by Iraqi army road blocks in the region of Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk. Could my allegations be checked? May we have an assurance from the Dispatch Box tonight?
On 23 May, whole areas of Kirkuk were levelled by the Iraqi army as part of its Arabisation programme. Kurdish lives were lost. That matter needs to be checked by Ministers. I was told today by the Leader of the House that, if I can prove or if it can be proved conclusively that the Iraqi Government breached United Nations resolution 688,
"we"—
492
that is the Government—
"would obviously consider making a statement to the House, and I can give him that assurance."
I am putting the evidence to the Minister. He can test the evidence, and when it has been substantiated perhaps we can have a Government statement on the matter.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I have been listening extremely intently to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House will be shocked but not surprised by the catalogue of atrocities that he has recounted. In a sense, was not that catalogue inevitable, when the allied high command decided not to force the unconditional surrender of Iraq, and particularly that of the leader of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein? The Minister of State drew the parallel with Hitler. In that instance, the allies rightly demanded the unconditional surrender of the Nazi regime. Should we not have done the same with Iraq? The future of the Kurds, the Shias and others would have been much brighter than it is today.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That would have been one solution, but not one that I would necessarily have supported. There are other ways—for example, a further United Nations resolution with the threat of force at a later stage, which would have had precisely the same effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South referred to 60,000 Iraqi troops. I understand that the Republican Guard are now located in the town of Salumaniya. I understand that they were used with tank forces to quell protesters. On 3 June, in Dahuk, Kurds were shot and killed by Ba'athist security party members. On 4 June—only a few days ago—United Nations relief officials reported that Kurdish refugees returning to Irbil had fled back to the Iranian border after Iraqi troops fired on a Kurdish crowd. Innumerable examples of aggression are being reported every day.
I draw the attention of the House to the house arrest and imprisonment of religious leaders, which were reported extensively in the western media and by Reuters on 9 May. I understand that they were Shias. I refer also to the desecration of holy places, the rounding up of clergymen, teachers and their families, and reports of secret police operations in Safwan, which I understand have been brought to the attention of the United Kingdom Government.
There have been reports of abductions in all areas where there is an Iraqi Government presence, and reports of the systematic destruction of Dahuk before the Americans went in. I understand that in that case the Americans were able to witness the damage after they arrived. This week, we have reports of Iraqi forces being deployed in the area of the southern marshes, near the town of Alamara. I understand that those forces have been deployed there with a view to the removal of the population currently living in very temporary conditions in the marshes.
Those incidents are violations of United Nations resolution 688. The Kurdish people are entitled to know what the Government's response will be. We certainly have an undertaking today that there will be a statement in the event that they can be substantiated.
I now refer to sanctions. I want the Government to know that there is a statement on the record to which many of us will hold the Prime Minister. It is a statement that he made on 10 May to the Conservative party conference in Scotland:

493
"Today at this conference I can give the country two assurances. First, Britain with veto any UN resolution designed to weaken the sanctions regime we have set in place for so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power."
We want to be absolutely sure that there will be no weakening of that statement.
I understand that the Prime Minister's statement has been reinforced by statements in the United States. Marlin Fitzwalter, a White House spokesman, said on 21 May:
"The United States Government wants the Iraqi people to negotiate a new political compact. It"—
that is to say, the United States Government—
"will exert all possible sanctions against Baghdad until Saddam Hussein is removed from power."
That statement was qualified further by Robert Gates, who is an adviser on national security affairs. He said:
"Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new Government in Baghdad."
Those are clear statements. We do not expect Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box in the weeks or months to come and, while Saddam Hussein remains in power, say that, in light of the problems in Iraq, it is necessary to ease oil sanctions. That sanction is the Kurds' only hope of securing a democratic Iraq without Saddam Hussein at the helm.
That principle should be reaffirmed from the Dispatch Box. That will signal to the Kurds the resolve of the British Government and, together with the discussions that have been taking place in Washington—in which some of us participated when we visited that city recently—it will clarify the position for the Kurds and strengthen their resolve.
There has been discussion of an international guarantee. While Saddam Hussein is in power, it is utterly impossible for the Kurds to return to their towns and cities, without an international undertaking guaranteeing their future security. The Minister might wish to comment on that aspect of the affair tonight.
9.32 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) referred to the lack of aid for the Kurds and gave some harrowing examples of the present position. However, without denying that, I want to talk about the generosity of the British people in supplying aid to the Kurds—a generosity which has not been matched by the Government on behalf of the British people and has not been adequately assisted by the Government in terms of the organisation and resources that the Government could have offered to the voluntary organisations.
I am not referring to the Simple Truth concerts that were held seven weeks after the crisis emerged, although they were very praiseworthy. I want to stress the spontaneous and immediate response of the British people which occurred as soon as they witnessed the harrowing scenes of the Kurds going into the mountains in Turkey. In towns, neighbourhoods and villages up and down the land, without being asked, mobilised or organised by anyone, apart from one or two people who took initiatives in their own communities, people began to collect the kind of things that they felt the Kurds required. That happened from the beginning of April as soon as those scenes were broadcast on our television screens.
By 4 April, British Aid for the Kurds, one of the largest groups and voluntary organisations to assist the Kurds, had been established. It was established by Lorraine
494
Goodrich from Devon, who had run an organisation called Parcels for the Gulf. She has received recognition for the work that she has done with Parcels for the Gulf. For example, she is included in a visit that is to take place to Buckingham Palace shortly in recognition of the role that she played. However, she cannot receive any mention from the Government or any recognition of the work that has been done by British Aid for the Kurds. When it came to supplying parcels to the troops, she was a heroine, but when it came to supplying aid to the Kurds, she was an embarrassment to the Government.
Parcels for the Gulf was a straightforward operation. Those who wanted to send materials out to troops carefully parcelled them up, organised them and contacted United Carriers, which said that it would handle the parcels free but in the event charged £2 for collecting up to 15 items, which were then transported. The Ministry of Defence had enough planes going out to the Gulf to be able to take the materials out there.
British Aid for the Kurds collected masses more material than Parcels for the Gulf, but it had massive logistical problems and needed assistance from the Government. It collected foodstuffs, blankets, medicines—which were supplied in response to lists drawn up by the Iranian embassy—and clothing. There is a myth around, which the Overseas Development Administration tends to perpetuate, that all the British Aid for the Kurds did was to collect clothing which turned out not to be needed. That is not the case. The clothing has been trans-shipped and is of value and in use, but the organisation has been involved in sending many other items. It collected tons and tons of material and then had to face the logistics of transporting it.
Transport was initially supplied free within Britain by the National Courier Service. Then Track 29, which works with British Rail and publicises its activities as a private haulage organisation linked with the railways, began to move the bulk of the material. According to Lorraine Goodrich, it was brilliant in the work and the organisation in which it was engaged.
However, it was not simply a matter of moving goods about Britain. As the goods could not be moved quickly, there were massive storage problems. People gave storage facilities. They included businesses, councils, individuals and in some cases, although not very often, the ODA. As it was taking time to ship goods, storage presented great problems. People who had made storage facilities available needed them back. They expected to hand over their facilities for only a week or so. The great problem became the movement overseas of the material that had been collected.
It was not until 24 April, 20 days after the organisation began its activities, that the first material was shifted out of Britain through Iran Air. Iran Air has a regular flight into Heathrow and a 747 was loaded full of material and sent out. Iran Air paid the landing fees for the Heathrow exercises. Although, after protests, the fee was lifted for special flights, the standard flights each Wednesday which have carried masses of material from British Aid for the Kurds have been subject to landing fees.
Only two ODA flights, or flights paid for by the ODA, have been provided for British Aid for the Kurds, but it was not recognised by the ODA that the material was from British Aid for the Kurds. A 707 flight went from Belfast. A 747 Iran Air flight from Heathrow was paid for by the

495
ODA. That was held to be material collected by the Iranian embassy. In fact, it was British Aid for the Kurds material.
I tabled parliamentary questions in an effort to discover what the Government and the ODA thought had been done by British Aid for the Kurds, but I got virtually a nil return, as though British Aid for the Kurds did not exist. I received a letter from Lord Belstead on behalf of the Northern Ireland Office showing that the material sent from Belfast had been collected under the aegis of British Aid for the Kurds, but that fact does not seem to have been recognised by the ODA.
There have been eight other Iran Air flights. The significance of those is that Iran Air has large 747s, whereas the British Government tend to hire only the smaller capacity 707s when material needs to be sent to such areas. There have been two overland trips with material, one to Turkey in mid-April and one to Iran on 25 April, paid for by the ODA.
In all, 527 tonnes of material has been sent from this country. A further 200 tonnes is at Heathrow and elsewhere. It could readily be moved by Track 29. British Aid for the Kurds believes that if it had not had to put the brakes on because of the difficulty of shifting material it could, without any problem, have collected three times more material, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South said, that material is urgently required in the area.
Next week, British Aid for the Kurds hopes to send out —through Iran, but for northern Iraq—a prefabricated building which will house a 40-bed hospital, with 40 lockers, 200 blankets, 400 sheets, 100 pillow slips, 100 towels and 100 sets of clothing, plus appropriate medicines that are urgently required. The organisation has had to engage in a special financial appeal—it had not previously been involved in collecting money—and has £5,000 from the Welsh organisation Kurdish Relief (Wales), which acts under its umbrella.
Judy Stubbs, of Cutthorpe in my constituency, a northern organiser for British Aid for the Kurds, wrote to the Prime Minister on 17 April offering the Government masses of materials free which they could ship to the Kurds. No answer has yet been received to that letter, although she was writing on behalf of that organisation.
The scale of the operation is revealed in parliamentary written answers to me. Up to 15 May, Save the Children had sent out 207 tonnes of material, Oxfam 143 tonnes and the Red Cross 290 tonnes—all valuable material which had been specifically purchased for special purposes, and I am not decrying that contribution. British Aid for the Kurds had by then sent out 478 tonnes of material. That was done with little publicity. There was no national publicity—the media blackout set me wondering whether a D notice had been applied to the organisation's activities —and only a limited amount of regional coverage.
I have tabled five early-day motions and several written questions about British Aid for the Kurds. In addition to questioning Ministers when statements have been made, I made a short speech in an Opposition day debate on the work of the ODA. There has been no public recognition by the Government of the work of British Aid for the Kurds, despite links with the ODA, to which I shall come.
496
The ODA has acted in the only way it can act, given the way it is established and the finances available to it, and that is in an ad hoc and limited fashion. That is no fault of the dedicated staff of the ODA disaster unit. Under pressure from the Labour party, the number of staff has risen from four at the start of the disaster to six. When the Bangladesh crisis arose the number rose to nine, and the latest figure of which I am aware is 12.
The Overseas Development Administration has a hangar containing collections of material to be sent to disaster areas. When disasters such as earthquakes occur, it sends out a couple of 707s and purchases food in the nearest local market. That is its usual contribution to disasters, but it has had on its hands three massive disasters for which it has special responsibility. Although the ODA has been trying to handle the problems by increasing its staff, it finds that the problems are beyond it because it is seriously underfunded and there is a lack of political will at Cabinet level to assist it. The ODA even has to pay the Ministry of Defence to take materials to Kurdish areas in the middle east.
The Government are terrified to be seen to have provided insufficient aid. On 9 May, I asked the Minister for Overseas Development for a meeting with British Aid for the Kurds but I have not yet received a reply to my letter. It took until 5 April for the first of the two usual 707 disaster relief flights to leave for Turkey. Not until 8 April did the first 707 fly out to Iran. By 27 April, only four 707s, taking out 35 tonnes each, had flown to Iran. It appears that nothing has ever been sent to Syria, although some 100,000 refugees found their way into that country.
The Prime Minister's initial response to the crisis was his famous remark that he did not recall anyone asking the Kurds to rebel. He then had to react against that statement and suggested a safe havens policy. It may be as well that he did, or the safe havens policy might not have emerged so quickly. The initial safe havens policy did not provide sufficient water, food, medical supplies and other necessities required by the Kurds. We were defending the Kurds, who were then dying from lack of food, supplies and cover in the most abysmal circumstances—in massive contrast with the facilities and organisation provided for the Gulf war, which destabilised Iraq and led to the problems.
When I wrote to the Prime Minister about those problems, I claimed that the Government's response was "tawdry". I do not know whether it was in response to that comment, but he then wrote to the United Nations claiming that its response was "tardy". The difference is that "tawdry" means showy, but worthless, which is exactly the Government's position, while "tardy" means slow to act, move or happen. Those are the definitions given in the Oxford reference dictionary.
The Government's response to the plight of the Kurds has been inadequate. They have tried to pretend that they have done something dramatic, but they have not met the basic humanitarian needs of the Kurds—and when people have moved to meet the needs, the Government have been embarrassed and have attempted to downgrade those actions.
It is not only the Government who have failed to make the necessary statements. To their great discredit, the mass media of this country have failed to pick up the fact that the British public were involved in these humanitarian acts. The British public are ready to respond to disasters

497
and they expect the Government to act automatically on their behalf and to help the organisations seeking to assist the Kurds and others involved in disasters.
Lorraine Goodrich's letter concludes:
"We have now also started an account for Africa after requests to do so from many of our contacts throughout the Country. We shall be taking the ODA's advice and United Nations' … on what they would like done with the money as and when the time arises."
This time, cash is to be collected to try to move matters along because it was found impossible merely to collect materials and goods and to rely on the Government then to move those goods.
9.50 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on choosing this subject for debate. She has chosen an opportune moment to talk about this subject. When I returned from the Iran-Iraq border in April and told the House what conditions were like at that time, I did not think that I would be talking about the plight of the Kurds again some two months later. I thought that the message would have got across to the Government by then and that, instead of depending on the Opposition—[Interruption.] I hope that the Minister is listening, as it is important that he replies to some of my points. It is not enough just to have a Whip on the Front Bench.
It is amazing that it is left to the Opposition to discuss in this House the plight of the Kurds. I congratulate my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). They have all in turn touched on points of importance, and I ask the Minister to answer them this evening.
The plight of the Kurds is a matter of some anxiety to those of us who have a long record of discussing in this House the human rights of the Iraqi people. For seven years, I have chaired this country's Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq, and since I entered the House almost seven years ago, I have continually raised the matter in this place. Most of the time, my remarks have fallen on deaf ears. Even after the tragedy of Halabja, the Government continued to double export guarantees to Iraq. All that is water under the bridge, and I hope that our Government and other Governments have learnt from their experiences after 2 August.
Let us face it: until 2 August Saddam Hussein was one of this country's best friends. Whatever we said about violations of human rights in his country was ignored by the Government. It was all very well to make weak protests after the tragedy of Halabja; but to behave as though Saddam Hussein was a person to be trusted and whose friendship was to be valued was little short of a disgrace.
It is not good enough for the Government to wash their hands of the plight of the Kurds. It is amazing that we were given statements on the Gulf war almost every other day. It is surprising that the Government have not seen fit to make a statement about the Kurds. I do not recall any statements since the debate that we initiated a week before the recess on the way that the Government had dealt with the three major tragedies which had confronted them and the Overseas Development Administration. The response to those tragedies was completely inadequate. I would
498
welcome an immediate statement on what the Government propose to do to secure the safety of the Kurds who have returned, those who are returning, and those who are still on the borders of Turkey and Iraq and Iran and Iraq.
There has been much coverage of the plight of the Kurds on the Turkey-Iraq border but little about the plight of those on the Iran-Iraq border. Perhaps it has escaped the notice of many people, since the pictures have disappeared from our screens and the cameras are concentrating on other issues, that there are still 1 million Iraqi refugees in Iran. This week the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concern for those people, and spoke particularly about what would happen to them if they returned to their homes. There has been little talk about what will happen to those people who do not even have access to the safe havens that are available to some people on the Turkey-Iraq border.
Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who attempted to leave Iraq during the Kurdish refugee crisis when they fled from the wrath of Saddam Hussein are trapped in a no-man's land between Iraq and Iran. They have not reached the Iranian border and are still on the borders of Iraq. They are staying in what can only be described as huge gipsy encampments on the rubble of some of the towns and villages that Saddam Hussein destroyed in 1987.
Those people are not in receipt of international aid either inside Iraq or on the borders. That is because they are not covered by any of the aid agencies and no aid, apart from that provided by people who have returned to the country, is available to them. Some of them are not able to return to their homes because the Iraqis have blocked the accesses to towns and villages. The Minister must address the problems of those people.
Apart from the necessity to increase aid and to meet the requirements of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other UN agencies that are calling for assistance, the Government must foresee what will happen when the allies leave the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington has documented the violations of the various resolutions that were passed by the Security Council. What do the Government intend to do to enforce those resolutions?
On 30 May I wrote to the Foreign Secretary asking him to say what date, if any, had been set for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraqi Kurdistan. I said that reports of an imminent allied withdrawal had caused grave anxiety among Kurdish refugees who had strong grounds to fear for their safety if allied protection were removed without the strongest possible international guarantees for their security. I have not received a reply to that letter. As many of my hon. Friends have said, we need tonight from the Government a clear and unequivocal statement that British troops will not be withdrawn from Iraqi Kurdistan until the safety of the refugees is guaranteed. It would help to reassure the refugees, speed up the process of resettlement and so enhance the prospects of an early withdrawal of British troops in the proper circumstances.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Mrs. Clwyd: Such a statement would discourage Saddam Hussein from deliberately stalling the talks with the Kurdish leadership in the hope that allied troops will

499
eventually be removed before a satisfactory agreement on autonomy is reached. That is the fear of us all who have been in close contact with the Kurdish negotiators. It is felt that it is a deliberate tactic of Saddam Hussein to slow down the peace talks until the allies have left the country so that he can resume his repression of the Kurds and other groups within Iraq. Those of us who follow events closely believe that that is the tactic that he is following.
When I was in Iraq at the beginning of April I had a conversation with Jalal Talabani, who said that the Turkish leaders would be negotiating for autonomy for the Kurds within Iraq and for democratic elections for the whole of Iraq. The Kurds believe, as does everyone else, that there will be no safety for them, no peace and no stability—for them or any of the other oppressed groups of Iraq—unless there is democracy within the country. They would most of all like to see the removal of Saddam Hussein. That is true of those who are negotiating with him as well as of many of the other Iraqi opposition groups within Iraq. They feel, of course, that the rest of the world has let them down in their attempts to achieve that end.
Over the past six months I have attended many international conferences in Stockholm, Paris and Washington. I have no doubt that the Kurds were given a nod and a wink and much else besides, especially by the Americans, to go ahead and fight the forces of Saddam Hussein after the end of the Gulf war. It is to the shame of the west that it was not able to secure the safety of the Kurds when they were fighting the airpower of Saddam Hussein.
The Kurds are under no illusion that if they conclude an agreement with Saddam Hussein without international guarantees, and without ensuring that there are free and democratic elections for the whole of Iraq, they can never be secure in an Iraq in which Saddam Hussein remains. I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to the questions which have been raised.
I have no doubt that if the allies pull out of Iraq in the next few weeks, as it is believed they will unless the Minister can tell us otherwise, Saddam Hussein will resume his oppression and persecution of the Kurds and of other people within his country who are opposed to him. I mention especially the Shi'a, who are in particular difficulties, the Assyrians and many others who over the years have opposed Saddam Hussein within Iraq. They should not be forgotten because we are talking about the plight of the Kurds. I am certain that, unless we get assurances from the Minister tonight, this will signal the go-ahead for a new wave of repression, torture and killing in the country where so many people have suffered under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
Over the years I have raised these issues in the House. At times I did not believe some of the horror stories coming out of Iraq. I asked some of the people who came to me with those horror stories to check them out, but now I have no doubt that what they told me was an understatement of what was happening inside Iraq. It will be to our shame if we fail to heed what has happened in the past and do not ensure the protection of those persecuted people in Iraq in the future.
10.6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on raising this important and interesting subject, which has occupied many hon. Members from both sides of the House—for obvious reasons. It is a complicated matter which has already developed a considerable history during the past few weeks and months. I shall try to do justice to the contributions of Opposition Members, but I have some of my own comments to make, and I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that I should be entitled to do that in the time available to me.
As is well known, with our allies in the United Nations, we reacted swiftly to seek the backing of the whole international community in demanding that Iraq should stop the repression of its people and allow the humanitarian relief effort to proceed unhindered. The Security Council adopted resolution 688 on 5 April to do exactly that. The resolution condemned Iraq's repression of its civilian population, the consequences of which threatened the
"international peace and security in the region"
and demanded access by international humanitarian organisations. It went on to ask the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq, using all the resources at his disposal, and appealed to all member states to contribute to his efforts.
The hon. Members for Bristol, South, for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) talked about the aid levels. Since 4 April—during the past two months—the British Government have provided £62 million-worth of aid. Since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August, the total amount of aid given amounts to £81 million. That involves 100 United Kingdom volunteers working on the Turkish border, 510 tonnes of relief supplies flown to the Turkish border and 625 tonnes flown to Iran. I do not see how the hon. Member for Bristol, South can describe our response as lacking in substance.
Ms. Primarolo: The Minister will know that we contributed about £2·5 billion to £3 billion to the war and the liberation of the Kuwaitis, of whom fewer than 1 million were resident in Kuwait. He will also know that we are talking about considerably more Kurds than that. When I talked about the lack of aid, it was in comparison to, first, the level of need and, secondly, the resources that we were able to deploy in the war against Iraq over Kuwait.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I listen to what the hon. Lady says, but I think that, on any reasonable judgment, our contribution has been immense.
It is our wish to ensure that the objectives of Security Council resolution 688 are effectively achieved. On 8 April, as we know, the Prime Minister put to his European collegues in the special European council in Luxembourg a proposal to establish the safe havens. The proposals received the enthusiastic backing of our European partners, and in the days that followed there were intensive discussions with our friends and allies about that.
On 16 April President Bush announced that the United States, the United Kingdom and France would send

501
troops to northern Iraq, but it was made clear at the time that the deployment was a temporary measure to meet an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian need and to allow the refugees to return to their homes in conditions of safety.
The aims of the deployment were fully consistent with what had gone before. On 18 April, the Secretary of State for Defence spelled out in a statement to the House what British forces would be committed.
The logistical and practical problems faced by the military and the humanitarian relief organisations deployed in northern Iraq have been formidable. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the remarkable skill and dedication shown by all involved in so effectively meeting the needs of the refugees. The progress since the deployment took place has been truly remarkable.
As many as 2 million Kurds, Christians and Turcomans may have fled their homes in fear at the end of March. Military and non-governmental organisation personnel on the ground have not only provided the conditions of security which have allowed many of the refugees on the border with Turkey to return home, but have helped to feed them, establish sources of clean water, dramatically improve hygiene and provide medical services.
Here I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the Governments of Turkey and Iran, in contrast to what was said earlier. They have responded to the need on a huge scale, and we have provided assistance to both Governments as best we can.
The humanitarian needs of the refugees from Iraq have now largely been met.
Mrs. Clwyd: No.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Let me develop my point; then I will accept an intervention.
The airlift of the remaining refugees from the last camp at Cukurca began earlier today, and by the end of the week they should have been relocated in longer-term accommodation in Turkey. It has been agreed—it is important that I refer to this—that the United Nations should take over responsibility for the refugee operation from coalition forces from 7 June. Those of our troops who have been engaged in providing humanitarian relief to the refugees have finished their job and will be brought home.
But there remain the other troops in Kurdish Iraq. The House will, I hope, agree that coalition forces cannot remain in northern Iraq indefinitely. Their deployment was intended as a temporary measure to meet an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian need. It is right that that responsibility should now be passed to the United Nations, but we would be failing in our duty if we were to ignore the situation of the Kurds, and we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the callous persecution that they have suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein does not happen again.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister believe that Security Council resolution 688, as it relates to the repression of the Kurds, has been breached?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry, but I shall deal later with the allegations that the hon. Gentleman made.
First among the measures to be taken will be the deployment of United Nations relief workers. The
502
memorandum of understanding between the Iraqi Government and the United Nations provides for the establishment of United Nations humanitarian centres throughout Iraq. The presence of UN personnel, whose task will be to work among refugees, should pro vide considerable reassurance. We hope that a significant UN presence will soon be in place throughout northern Iraq.
Prince Sadruddin, the Secretary-General's executive delegate, whom my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met in London earlier this week, is well aware of the need to get UN staff on the ground quickly. The UN relief effort will be complimented by the presence of up to 500 United Nations field services officers, drawn from the ranks of the UN security force in new York and Geneva and other sources. We see their task as being to monitor the situation in Iraq—I beg the hon. Member for Workington to listen carefully—and they will be able to report any abuses to the Secretary-General, who will be free to take them up with the Iraqi authorities and, if necessary, the Security Council. Some 47 field service officers and 162 United Nations personnel are already in Iraq and more will be sent shortly.
The hon. Member for Workington made some greatly exaggerated allegations. The field service officers will report abuses to the Secretary-General, who will be in a position to take them up, if he feels it appropriate, with the Security Council. That is the appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
We do not expect the Iraqi Government to hinder the relief operation. We and our allies would view any attack by the Iraqis as completely unacceptable, and there have been only minor isolated incidents so far.
Ms. Primarolo: Is it correct to summarise the position by saying that the UN will monitor the atrocities, whereas the task of the allied forces is stop them occurring? If so, does the Minister accept that it would be better to stop them occurring rather than to monitor them?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have explained the position. The hon. Lady knows that our actions in the conflict with Iraq and in establishing the safe havens in northern Iraq have been consistent with, and derived support from, United Nations resolutions. We have operated on that basis.
I recognise the fear of the Kurds, which the hon. Member for Bristol, South mentioned. We recognise the justice of the Kurdish case, in which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has much interest and experience going back many years. We have made clear our support for autonomy for the Kurdish people and our respect for human rights, and I am happy to repeat that. That is what the Kurds want; they are not calling for a separate Kurdish state.
We hope that a satisfactory agreement between the Kurdish leadership and the Iraqi Government will be reached. Sadly, Saddam Hussein gives the impression that he seeks to drag out negotiations in order to buy time. He should realise that the only way to resolve the problem, which has given rise to considerable international condemnation of his regime, is to respond generously to the legitimate aspirations of the Kurdish people.
In our contacts with Kurdish leaders, we stressed the importance of reaching an early agreement. However, the Kurds' suspicions of the Iraqi regime have been amply

503
justified by its past actions. We shall be working to ensure that any agreement is properly underpinned by the United Nations.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley suggested that, before 2 August 1990, Iraq was a country with which we were best friends. Does she not remember the condemnation that the British Conservative Government expressed four or five years ago after the appalling use of weapons at Halabja? That incident was raised in the UN Security Council by the British Government. Is that the act of a country with which one can say we were in friendship? That is an absurd proposition.
Mr. Corbyn: I recall the British Government's condemnation of the Iraqi Government in 1988 following their chemical attacks on Halabja. However, I recall also that, less than a month later, a substantial export credit loan was given to British companies to allow them to trade with Iraq, on top of all the other loans that had been made available. Does the Minister accept that the problem of the Kurdish people must be dealt with, and that requires pressure from other Governments in the region, including Turkey, if the awful horrors of the past few months are not to be visited upon the Kurdish people again in the future?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept that. I certainly cannot accept that there was any degree of friendship between the British Government and the Iraqi Government before 2 August last year.
An agreement between the Kurds and the Iraqi Government would be a great step forward, but it cannot be a precondition for the withdrawal of coalition forces. We must look at other ways of providing the Kurds with the assurance that they need. We are discussing with our allies what arrangements might appropriately be made to
504
deter Saddam Hussein from further aggression—perhaps by the stationing of military forces in the region but outside Iraq.
I want to make it clear that, if the Iraqi Government were to embark on a further round of repression, the Government would not hesitate to have recourse to the Security Council, to seek a further resolution authorising action to halt it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not saying anything particularly new, but if it gives satisfaction to the hon. Member I am most pleased. I am more than happy to underline and endorse the Prime Minister's commitment to the recent Conservative party conference.
The British Government's response to the refugee crisis in Iraq has been swift, decisive, and effective. Now that the immediate humanitarian needs of the refugees have been met, we are moving into a new phase. It would not be right for coalition forces to remain in northern Iraq indefinitely, but the Government will work actively to create the climate of security and reassurance necessary to allow the Kurds to rebuild their lives and to ensure respect for their fundamental human and political rights.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Is the Minister giving way?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have finished, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has sat down.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Landlord and Tenant Legislation
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Government will implement the recommendations contained in the Law Commission's report on landlord and tenant distress for rent (Law Com. 194).

  The Attorney-General
  Having considered this report the Lord Chancellor has decided that it would be right to invite views on the conclusions reached by the Law Commission and in particular on the question whether, if the case for abolition is in general made out, the remedy of distress for rent should nevertheless be retained for business tenancies.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning his payments to stockbrokers for services rendered in the course of privatisation of the electricity supply industry of England and Wales.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Secretary of State has received one representation on the payment of selling commissions in respect of the regional electricity companies' share offers. The process of making the relevant payments is under way.

  Refuse-to-energy Plant
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what representations he has received to date about the proposed refuse-to-energy plant in Belvedere;

  (2) if he will institute a public inquiry to investigate the proposed refuse-to-energy plant in Belvedere.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has directed Cory Environmental to advertise its application for his consent to construct a waste-fired power station at Belvedere and a period up to 6 June 1991 has been allowed in which objections from the public can be made to him. In addition the local planning authority has until 12 August 1991 by which to make its views on the application known to him.

  Until he has seen all such objections and has received the views of the local planning authority, it is too early to say whether a public inquiry will be necessary. However, if the local planning authority objects to the application there is a statutory obligation to call for a public inquiry to be held.

  To date, my Department has registered over 50 objections to the application.

  European Energy Council
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on issues discussed and decisions taken at the European Energy Council meeting in Brussels on 31 May.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Council adopted the directive on transit of gas, concluding the package of proposals introduced by the Commission in July 1989 as a first step towards liberalising the Community's energy market. The United Kingdom fully supports that process and looks forward to the introduction of further measures by the Commission to increase competition and open markets in energy.

  In the field of energy efficiency, a political agreement was reached on the SAVE programme, which the Commission introduced at the Energy Council in October 1990. SAVE is intended to provide a framework for co-ordinating member states' own programmes of efficient energy use. The way is now clear, once the European Parliament has given its opinion, to adopt the decision.

  The Council also considered the Commission's proposals on oil crisis measures and contingency oil stocks. The Council recognised that the Community's existing provisions needed review, but did not agree that the Commission's proposals were appropriate, especially in relation to the International Energy Agency. The Commission will reconsider its proposals.

  The Council also briefly discussed the proposed European energy charter.

  "Energy, Looking to the Future"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he published his pamphlet, "Energy, Looking to the Future"; how many copies have been printed; at what cost; and to whom the pamphlet is being distributed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I published the pamphlet "Energy: Looking to the Future" on 1 May when it was announced via a Department of Energy press release. Initially 1,000 copies were printed at a cost of £1,238. Demand has been such that another 500 copies have been printed at a cost of £658. The pamphlet has been and continues to be distributed to energy and Lobby journalists and to interested parties in the United Kingdom and overseas.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Benefits and Allocations
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people claiming(a) one-parent benefit and (b) the widowed mother's allowance who are taxpayers.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1991–92 it is estimated that 280,000 taxpayers will claim one-parent benefit and 35,000 taxpayers will claim widowed mother's allowance.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further progress has been made to enable Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to operate fully on next steps lines.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 13 February
  271
  the publication of a framework document for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, and of the first three in the series of executive unit framework documents which describe the responsibilities, freedoms and accountabilities in individual units within the Department—Official Report, columns 480–81. Customs and Excise have now published framework documents for each of the remaining executive units, comprising:

  Accountant and Comptroller General's Office

  Belfast Collection

  Birmingham Collection

  Dover Collection

  East Anglia Collection

  Edinburgh Collection

  Enforcement Divison

  Glasgow Collection

  Information Technology Divisions

  Internal Audit Unit

  Investigation Division

  Leeds Collection

  Liverpool Collection

  London Airports Collection

  London Central Collection

  London North and West Collection

  London Port Collection

  London South Collection

  Northampton Collection

  Northern England Collection

  Reading Collection

  Solicitor's Office

  Southampton Collection

  Gas

  Electricity

  Liquid fuel

  '000 therms

  £'000

  '000 kWh

  £'000

  '000 litres

  £'000

  Consumption—1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  Government Offices, Great George Street, London SW1 (311,500 sq ft)

  204·0

  42·9

  3,375

  193·0

  42·4

  8·7

  Chessington Computer Centre, Surrey (86,600 sq ft)

  —

  —

  935

  42·6

  248·0

  27·0

  Riverwalk House, London SW1 (72,200 sq ft)

  68·1

  18·1

  1,328

  81·5

  —

  —

  Consumption-1 January 1989 to 31 December 1989

  Government Offices, Great George Street, London SW1 (331,500 sq ft)

  169·0

  41·6

  3,341

  189·6

  42·0

  4·4

  Chessington Computer Centre, Surrey (86,600 sq ft)

  1·0

  0·3

  935

  42·8

  97·0

  11·3

  Riverwalk House, London SW1 (72,200 sq ft)

  57·0

  14·8

  1,449

  79·0

  —

  —

  Note: All figures rounded.

  Figures for years before 1989 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Taxation
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the extra yield in a full year if income tax were unified with national insurance contribution at a rate of 34 per cent. assuming(a) no change to higher rate income tax and (b) higher rate income tax at 49 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 June 1991]: At 1991–92 income levels, it is estimated that the net yield of increasing the basic rate of income tax to 34 per cent. and of abolishing national insurance contributions for employees and the self-employed would be about £0·8 billion. This yield would increase to about £3·8 billion if
  272

  South Wales and Borders Collection

  South West England Collection

  Tariff and Statistical Office

  Training Services Division

  Copies of each of the documents have been placed in the Library. This is an important step towards the full operation of Customs and Excise on next steps lines, and is accompanied by continuing progress on the action programme annexed to the framework document for the Department.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by the Treasury, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: The hon. Member was given the consumption figures for 1989 in cash terms in the answer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) on 14 May 1990, in column 274. The information at 1990–91 prices, which covers major offices only, is as follows:

  the higher rate of income tax were increased to 49 per cent. These estimates ignore any behavioural effects which might result from such changes.

TRANSPORT

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name
  273
  of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for which the contract was carried out.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Expenditure in the financial year 1990–91 was £3·055 million. Contracts awarded were as follows:

  JMP Consulting

  Routine Maintenance Management System data capture device

  WS Atkins

  CHART/DEFLEC/CHAPS programme maintenance

  CACI Ltd

  NIS training

  EASAMS Ltd

  NIS maintenance

  TPA

  ARCADY/OSCADY programme maintenance

  TPA

  ROADWAY programme maintenance

  Wootton Jeffreys

  COBA9/QUADRO2 programme maintenance

  SIA Ltd

  NIS core data

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd

  NIS scheme monitoring

  CACI Ltd

  NIS IHMS2/3

  KPMG

  RMMS logical maintenance

  Mott MacDonald

  HRM maintenance

  Dunsmore Data and Information

  PANDEF programme development

  PA Consulting Services

  NIS distribution study

  PA Consulting Services

  NIS stage 1 + PIR

  LOGSYS

  QIS programme development

  P&P Corporate Sytems

  Consultancies on LANs

  Hoskyns/RAL

  Capacity planning at DVOIT

  SERCO Systems

  Automatic Core Traffic Census software conversion

  Wootton Jeffreys Consultants Ltd

  London Area Transport survey

  Pinpoint

  LATS Address Coding Office

  Quantime

  NTS tabulation

  Forvus

  NTS editing

  Quantime

  NTS parameterisation and patching

  DMR Group

  Aviation reservation consultancy

  Caltronic Systems

  Feasibility study

  Sapphire

  DataEase consultancy

  WordPerfect UK

  Review of agencies WP facilities

  SWK Pavement Engineering

  Pavement design

  PA Consulting Services

  Review of Project M

  PA Consulting Services

  Project management Seq 1

  PA Consulting Services

  PGT practice review

  WS Atkins

  Preparation of 7th edition of "Specification for Highway Works" and associated documents

  Howard Humphreys and Partners

  Highway construction details

  Andrew G. Blyth

  To establish suitable parameters for defining characteristics of craft of lightweight construction

  ARUP Economic Consultants

  International comparison of city environments

  Mindworks

  Call-off contract for business analysis support

  MSG Business Systems

  Software advice

  PA Consulting Services

  Support on "Choice" review

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  Office systems consultancy

  Comshare

  Fault analysis—Agency DSA

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Updating the Management Account Model—Agency DSA

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Writing new accounting procedures—Agency DSA

  Walker International

  Designing financial software—Agency DSA

  IBM

  Technical advice and support—Agency DVLA

  274

  Software AG

  Technical advice and support—Agency DVLA

  Compass Ltd

  Management consultancy or. computer operations—Agency DVLA

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Management consultancy analysis and advice—Agency DVLA

  Presidium Ltd

  Technical advice and support—Agency DVLA

  KPMG Management Consulting

  Quality assurance review—Agency DVLA

  Price Waterhouse

  Middle Management development training—Agency DVLA

  AC Manning

  Stress seminars—Agency DVLA

  The Industrial Society

  Team briefing training—Agency DVLA

  Institute for International Research

  Customer service training—Agency DVLA

  Institute for International Research

  Customer service training—Agency DVLA

  Wyndham Leigh

  Sale of Marks—Agency DVLA

  Hinton and Higgs

  Health and Safety Review—Agency VIEA

  Oxford Development Group

  Support for leadership course and management development—Agency VIEA

  PA Consulting Group

  Leadership and specialist skills for corporate planning seminar—Agency VIEA

  Road Tax Evasion
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans any new initiatives to combat evasion of road tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  With the co-operation of the police, the Department has recently run successful campaigns against road tax evaders in the London and Strathclyde areas. In June, a regional blitz has been launched covering the north-east of England and more are planned during 1991. Such action is very effective both in deterring potential evaders and in catching offenders who have failed to heed the warnings given.

  Railway Crossings
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many accidents there have been involving motor vehicles at railway crossings with barriers(a) in Wales and (b) in Britain in each year since 1985–86;

  (2) how many accidents there have been involving motor vehicles at open railway crossings (a) in Wales and (b) in Britain in each year since 1985–86.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested in respect of Britain as a whole for the years 1985–89 is set out in the table. Details for 1990 are not yet available, but will be published in the Health and Safety Executive's annual report on railway safety later in the year. Separate information for Welsh crossings is not readily available.

  Crossings with barriers

  Year

  Number of accidents

  1985

  11

  1986

  10

  1987

  6

  1988

  8

  1989

  3

  275

  Open crossings (includes those with and without traffic signals)

  Year

  Number of accidents

  1985

  16

  1986

  11

  1987

  15

  1988

  20

  1989

  10

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the approximate capital cost and annual service costs for installing and running crossings with barriers.

  Mr. Freeman
  Installation costs range between £100,000 and £135,000, depending on the type of crossing. Annual running costs for crossings with automatic half barriers are about £12,000. Running costs for manually controlled crossings depend on the level of manning.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress being made in introducing barriers at open railway crossings.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the accident at an automatic open crossing at Lockington in 1986, Professor P. F. Stott was appointed to carry out a review of safety at this type of crossing. He recommended that safety at some crossings might be improved either by providing half-barriers or by a reduction in the speed at which the train approaches the crossings.

  All proposed speed reductions at crossings have now been implemented. Under the Stott recommendations 126 crossings were to be converted to half-barriers. Of these, 38 crossings have been converted to standard automatic half-barrier protection and six have been converted to automatic barrier crossings locally monitored by the train driver.

  BR's target for completion of this work is late 1992. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is keeping the programme under review and regularly monitors progress.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway crossings are open crossings and how many have barriers(a) in Wales and (b) in Britain.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of automatic open railway crossings and automatic crossings with barriers are as follows:

  auto open crossings

  auto barrier crossings

  (a) In Wales

  29

  10

  (b) In Britain

  190

  370

  Note:—(b) include (a)

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have been killed in each year since 1985–86 in accidents involving(a) open railway crossings and (b) crossings with barriers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information for 1985–89 is as follows; that for 1990 is not yet available.
  276

  Year

  Fatalities at crossings with barriers

  Fatalities at open crossings1

  1985

  3

  2

  1986

  5

  211

  1987

  2

  2

  1988

  2

  2

  1989

  —

  2

  1 Includes those with and without traffic signals.

  2 All fatalities in one accident at Lockington.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the approximate capital cost and annual service costs for installing and running open railway crossings.

  Mr. Freeman
  For automatic open level crossings the average installation cost is £73,000 and the annual running costs are about £12,000. Figures for open crossings with no lights are not readily available.

  Motor Cycle Licence
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current cost of a motor cycle licence; when it was last increased; and what was the cost before the increase.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is:

  Current £

  Previous £

  Motorcycles not over 150cc

  15

  10

  Over 150cc up to 250cc

  30

  20

  All other motorcycles

  50

  40

  The last increase was in 1985.

  Decca Navigation System
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made a decision on extending the life of the Decca navigation system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering a revised offer put forward by Racal Electronics plc to extend the life of the Decca navigator system into the next century. He expects to reach a decision shortly.

  Driving Licence Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the organisations which have shown reasonable cause as outlined in section 15(1) of the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971 to receive personal data from the DVLA; whether he has discussed the DVLA's disclosure procedures with the Data Protection Registrar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Regulation 15 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971 requires the Secretary of State to provide, free of charge from the vehicle register, names and addresses of vehicle keepers to the police and local authorities for use in connection with an offence. The information must also be made available to others who can show reasonable cause for their inquiry. There is no list of organisations which have shown reasonable cause as each request is dealt with on its merits when it is received.
  277
  The advice of the Data Protection Registrar has been sought on a number of occasions about DVLA's disclosure procedures, most recently on 15 April 1991. He has expressed himself satisfied.

  Train Doors (Accidents)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss fatal accidents concerning train doors.

  Mr. Freeman
  After I have received the report of the study now being carried out by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on what action is to be taken by the railways inspectorate following the examination of a door which revealed a fault in its slam-shut locking mechanism during an investigation into the death of a passenger who fell from the Birmingham to London InterCity train on 3 December 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  At the coroner's inquest into this fatality at Carpenders park, an open verdict was returned. No evidence was available to show from which door, or in what circumstances, the deceased had fallen from the train. I understand that when BR examined the train later, a hinge on one door was found to be faulty, but not unsafe.

  The Health and Safety Commission announced on 3 May that Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, and other specialist resources within the Health and Safety Executive, will undertake an investigation into the pattern of falls from passenger trains and whether, or the extent to which, they could be attributable to the design of doors or locks. The results of the investigation, which is now under way, will be published.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to discuss the inquiry into fatal falls from British Rail trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to discuss the current investigation into train doors. He plans to meet Dr. Cullen shortly to discuss railway safety generally.

  Policy Proposals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional resources he is making available to support his policy proposals on transport announced on 28 May.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Any additional resources needed for transport will be discussed in the public expenditure survey in the usual way.

  Dornoch Firth
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the creation of a rail bridge across the Dornoch firth.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. It would be for British Rail to bring forward any such proposals.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now introduce regulations to revise the orange badge scheme for disabled drivers in conformity with the views of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and other disabled person's organisations.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 21 March at column 212.

  Rail Electrification, Scotland
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to reply to correspondence from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North regarding investment criteria governing rail electrification in Scotland.

  Mr. Freeman
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 3 June.

  Speedlink
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the annual volume of freight traffic to be transferred from rail to road if the closure of Speedlink is proceeded with.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is still in consultation with customers about the alternative rail options for Speedlink traffic and it is not possible to estimate exactly how much freight traffic will transfer from rail to road when the Speedlink network closes on 8 July.

  I understand that British Rail expects to retain well over half the 3 million tonnes of domestic freight currently carried. Wagonload traffic lost to rail is likely to amount to some 1 per cent. of total rail freight.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will issue directions to British Rail that the Speedlink rail freight service should continue to operate.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The Speedlink wagonload network has losses of well over £30 million a year on a turnover of £45 million. To compete with road, rail has to be efficient, competitive and commercial. British Rail plans to develop train load freight services rather than individual wagon services.

  Turbo-trains
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has discussed further orders of BREL network turbo trains for regional British Rail lines with the chairman of British Rail.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Six such vehicles have been ordered for the Oxford-Worcester service to complement the order for 59 vehicles for Paddington services, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State approved on 28 March. The chairman has made no further proposals on other routes.

  Track Gauge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans for the introduction of continental gauge track for the carriage of freight between the United Kingdom and the continent.
  279
  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has no such plans. Its commercial judgment is that low-platform wagons offer the most cost-effective means of conveying continental-size containers and swap bodies on the British rail network.

  Class 158 Trains
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the incidents involving potential safety risks reported to his Department since the introduction of class 158 trains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Railways (Notice of Accidents) Order 1986 (SI 1986 No. 2187) categorises accident types and specifies the circumstances in which accidents should be reported. The following list shows all accidents, together with causes, involving class 158 trains since their introduction which have been reported to the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate in accordance with the order. The details for 1991 should be regarded as provisional:

  21 January 1990

  Upper Leigh/Newton

  Unit struck animal on track

  24 November 1990

  Aberdeen (Clay Hills)

  Buffer collision in sidings

  24 November 1990

  Balloch

  Unit struck animal on track

  26 November 1990

  Falkirk High

  Small fire on DMU

  29 November 1990

  Portlethen

  Unit struck animal on track

  3 December 1990

  Edinburgh Waverley

  Coupling failure

  8 December 1990

  Glasgow Queen Street

  Coupling failure

  13 December 1990

  Cadder

  Unit struck trespasser—fatality

  Electricity KWh (millions)

  Gas Therms (millions)

  Liquid fuel Litres (thousands)

  Solid fuel Tonnes

  1985–86

  (a) £ thousands at cash prices

  1,832

  588

  624

  11

  (b) £ thousands at 1990–91 prices

  2,459

  789

  838

  15

  (c) Units of consumption

  39

  2

  3,599

  171

  1986–87

  (a) £ thousands at cash prices

  1,906

  616

  410

  12

  (b) £ thousands at 1990–91 prices

  2,472

  799

  532

  16

  (c) Units of consumption

  41

  2

  3,865

  187

  1987–88

  (a) £ thousands at cash prices

  1,773

  623

  138

  11

  (b) £ thousands at 1990–91 prices

  2,183

  767

  170

  14

  (c) Units of consumption

  39

  2

  1,440

  176

  1988–89

  (a) £ thousands at cash prices

  1,761

  496

  76

  6

  (b) £ thousands at 1990–91 prices

  2,018

  568

  87

  7

  (c) Units of consumption

  33

  2

  660

  108

  1989–90

  (a) £ thousands at cash prices

  1,865

  525

  81

  7

  (b) £ thousands at 1990–91 prices

  2,010

  566

  87

  8

  (c) Units of consumption

  35

  2

  701

  126

  280

  2 January 1991

  Inverness

  Unit struck animal on track

  31 January 1991

  Urmston

  Unit struck road vehicle (not at a level crossing)

  5 February 1991

  Aberdeen

  Derailment of empty coaching stock

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects direct passenger services to operate between Scotland and the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail awaits proposals from the manufacturers on the delivery and cost of trains for through day services between places north of London and the continent, and do not expect these trains to be ready before 1994. British Rail still plans to run through night services from the opening of the channel tunnel.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for each available year from 1978, the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1990–91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer Monday 3 June 1991]: Energy consumption figures for the Department of Transport are set out in the following table. These show that between 1985–86 and 1990–91 total annual expenditure at constant prices has been reduced by approximately £1·4 million. During this period the Department of Transport estate remained broadly constant in size. In 1990–91 the Department occupied 3·66 million sq ft of accommodation.
  281

  Electricity KWh (millions)

  Gas Therms (millions)

  Liquid fuel Litres (thousands)

  Solid fuel Tonnes

  1990–91

  (a) £ thousands at cash prices

  2,128

  426

  102

  0

  (b) £ thousands at 1990–91 prices

  2,128

  426

  102

  0

  (c) Units of consumption

  39

  1

  730

  0

  Notes:

  1. Separate Department of Transport statistics on energy consumption and expenditure are not available before 1985–86. Before then the Property Services Agency managed matters centrally.

  2. The breakdown by fuel for 1989–90 is estimated by applying the 1988–89 breakdown to the total expenditure for 1989–90.

  3. 1990–91 figures are based on estimated outturn.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Comptroller and Auditor-General
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what was the total number of staff of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in 1961, 1970, 1980 and 1990; and how many were qualified accountants in each of those years.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The number of staff employed by the Exchequer and Audit Department and its successor body, the National Audit Office, are shown below together with the numbers of qualified accountants. It should be noted that the role and responsibilities of the National Audit Office as set out in the National Audit Act 1983 are significantly enhanced from those of the Exchequer and Audit Department.

  Total staff

  Trained Accountants

  Qualified Accountants

  1961

  536

  364

  3

  1970

  585

  383

  5

  1980

  689

  398

  15

  1990

  911

  161

  278

  Before 1975, all recruits to the audit grades has to pass external examinations following a three-year training programme specially designed to meet the Department's needs but not leading to a recognised accountancy qualification. Since 1975, all audit staff recruits have been required either to possess a recognised accountancy qualification or to study for one.

  In addition, at 31 December 1990, 240 staff were at various stages of training towards a professional qualification.

PRIME MINISTER

  Military and Defence Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements exist between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry for conducting trials for military and defence contracts for foreign sales.

  The Prime Minister
  In the case of technical or operational trials of defence equipment, arrangements for trials are normally made between the customer country and the United Kingdom company involved. On occasion, the Minister of Defence can assist in such trials on a repayment basis. If the conduct of a trial requires equipment to be taken overseas, the DTI would consider any application for an export licence in the normal way.

  Cabinet Structure
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now list his Cabinet committees and sub-committees and specify any changes made in Cabinet organisation and committee structure since November 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  There continue to be four standing committees of the Cabinet: a defence and overseas policy committee and an economic affairs committee under my chairmanship; a home and social affairs committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal; and a legislation committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. Sub-committees of the standing committees will be continued or established as appropriate. Membership and terms of reference of the standing committees and their sub-committees will remain confidential.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters he discussed during his meeting with the President of Zimbabwe.

  The Prime Minister
  President Mugabe and I discussed the situation in South Africa and the prospects for the October Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting as well as developments in Zimbabwe, including the structural adjustment programme for Zimbabwean economy.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the middle east arms control and non-proliferation initiative announced by President Bush on 29 May; and whether Her Majesty's Government have made any response to the United States Government on the initiative.

  The Prime Minister
  We warmly welcome President Bush's imaginative initiative to combat proliferation and the unrestrained spread of conventional weapons in the middle east. We look forward to taking his proposals forward, together with our own ideas, at the forthcoming meeting of the five leading arms exporters in Paris, and thereafter at the London economic summit.

ENVIRONMENT

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management
  283
  and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for which the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The total spent by my Department, excluding PSAS, on management and computer consultancies was £9·1 million.

  The contracts let were:

  Consultant and Project

  Action Based Learning

  Teamworking/leadership course

  Action Resource Centre

  Private Sector secondments to City Action Teams

  Allan Jones Associates

  Representations to Cheshire Structure Plan

  Allot and Lomax

  European Construction Code

  Almondhall Computer Staff

  Business Model: Planning Inspectorate

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Grant Redemption Fund

  BIS Applied Systems

  North Sea Database

  Blackwater Valley Training

  Stress Management

  Bradshaw, Buckton and Ton

  European Construction Codes

  Building Construction Information Service

  Tender price indices

  Centre for Transport Studies

  Review of transport [Building Research Establishment]

  Chapman Hendy

  Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust

  Computer People (St. Albans)

  Bookshop system [BRE]

  Comshare

  Local authority statistics

  Consultants in Environmental Sciences

  Cleaning agents; coastal discharges

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  PSA privatisation

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Uniface

  Debenham, Tewson and Chinnocks

  Regents Park Zoo

  Denis Mills Associates

  BSI building code

  Denis Walker Associates

  Human resources development [Historic Royal Palaces Agency]

  Develin and Ptnrs

  Positive resource management [BRE]

  Edmond Shipway and Partners

  City grant monitoring

  Electoral Reform Society

  Hull shadow Housing Action Trust

  Elmcroft Consulting

  Accounting support: Property Holdings

  Elvendon Press

  Wood preservatives

  Ernst and Young

  Local authority and housing association management and maintenance grant

  Flint Neill Partners

  BSI building code

  Food Service Associates

  Office restaurant

  Hanlon Computer Systems

  Inter-departmental urban database

  Healey and Baker

  Disposal of New Town assets

  Hull City Council

  Housing Action Trust team

  ICL

  Estates database

  Imperial War Museum

  Staff inspection of the Royal Armouries

  Infodoc

  BSI building code

  Infologistix

  Translation service; software evaluation

  ISMA Consultants

  Computer risk analysis

  Jonathan Coates and Associates

  Time management course

  John Knapton Engineers

  BSI building code

  Kermon Management Consultants

  Network infrastructure project

  Kidson Impey

  Local authority waste disposal companies

  King's College, London

  Design improvement controlled experiment

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Recruitment of professional staff to HMIP

  284

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Review of Housing Corporation

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Performance measurements

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Management accounting systems [HRPA]

  Land and Urban Analysis

  Employment densities

  Logica

  Shellware: HMIP

  Logica

  Technical assurance: local authority statistics

  Management Development Consultants

  Financial training [BRE]

  MCP Management Consultants

  Organisation and staffing of QEII conference centre

  Mindworks

  Financial monitoring system

  MORI

  Barriers against uptake of unleaded petrol

  Mouncey and Partners

  IT strategy: Property Holdings

  Mouncey and Partners

  Systems analysis: HMIP

  NIFES Consultancy

  Energy Conservation [BRE]

  Orchard Partners

  BSI building code

  PA Consulting

  Royal Armouries investment appraisal

  PA Consulting

  Neighbourhood renewal manual

  PA Consulting

  Network infrastructure project

  PA Consulting

  Security review of INFORM system [BRE]

  Parker Bowers

  Teambuilding course

  PE International

  IT support to the Government Car Service

  Peter Peregrinus Ltd.

  Register of research

  Phronesis Consulting

  IT advice to senior management: Property Holdings

  PIC Services

  Southwark Housing Action Trust

  Price Waterhouse

  Performance measures

  Price Waterhouse

  Finance training

  Price Waterhouse

  Management accounting system

  Price Waterhouse

  English House Condition Survey

  Price Waterhouse

  Estates database

  Ray Hullcoop Associates

  BSI building code

  Rofe Kennard and Lapworth

  Technical audit of water companies

  Safe Neighbourhood Unit

  Estate Action

  Saxton Bamfylde

  Executive recruitment

  Shanklan Cox

  Rural recycling

  Signal UK

  Database archiving for Private Office

  Smith Associates

  Climate change parameters

  Softlab

  SSADM training: Planning Inspectorate

  Spicer and Oppenheim

  Management of INFORM [BRE]

  Technical Advisory Service Standards

  European Construction Code

  Touche Ross

  Accounting study: Property Holdings

  Touche Ross

  Interface study: Property Holdings

  Touche Ross

  IT accountancy: Planning Inspectorate

  Tropix Photography

  Estate Action photography

  Tuffin, Ferraby and Taylor

  Works and maintenance services [HRPA]

  Turner and Townsend

  City Grant monitoring

  University of Newcastle

  BSI building code

  VNG

  Conversion of local office systems: Property Holdings

  Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board

  Certificate of Technical Competence

  Watson Hawksley

  Technical audits of water companies

  Women's Self-Defence Association

  Self defence for trainers

  World Systems

  Training for HMIP

  Worthy, K

  Management accounting system

  285

  W S Atkins

  Parliamentary works information management

  W S Atkins

  Fuel branch IT

  W S Atkins

  Specification for replacement computer systems: Property Holdings

  W S Atkins

  Business assurance: HMIP

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage an increase in the availability of rented accommodation suitable for older people.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Housing Corporation is now the major provider of new subsidised housing for rent. Its capital programme is set to rise significantly—from £1·1 billion in 1990–91 to over £2 billion in 1993–94.

  Both the housing needs indicator, by which the Housing Corporation distributes resources to housing associations, and the generalised needs indicator, by which the annual local authority housing investment programme allocations are made, take into account the housing needs of the elderly.

  My Department has recently commissioned an independent study of the housing needs of the elderly, to help review the provision of subsidised specialised housing for elderly people.

  Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has made, under section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act 1981, on improvements of access provision for people with disabilities, since the Act was first introduced.

  Mr. Yeo
  No such reports have been made.

  As an alternative to implementing section 6 of the Disabled Persons Act 1981, new building regulations were laid before Parliament on 2 April 1985. These became operational in August 1985. They required that new offices, shops, single-storey factories, educational and public buildings should be made accessible to disabled people.

  Further building regulations were laid before Parliament on 20 August 1987 recasting these requirements into functional form. At the same time, an approved document giving practical solutions for meeting the access requirements was published.

  Public consultation took place earlier this year on proposals to widen the application of access requirements to all storeys in new non-domestic buildings, to certain alterations and extensions, and to introduce provisions aimed at reducing risks to people with impaired sight and helping those with impaired hearing. The results of the consultation exercise are being considered by my Department and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. It is proposed to lay regulations before Parliament later this year, which will aim further to improve access requirements for disabled people.

  Dogs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet representatives of the RSPCA to discuss a national registration scheme for dogs.
  286
  Mr. Baldry
  We have regular discussions with the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, which includes RSPCA representatives, on matters relating to responsible dog ownership and to the implementation of the package of dog control measures contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We will introduce the dog control measures next year. They include a duty on local authorities to enforce the requirement that dogs wear a collar and identification tag when in a public place and to ensure that stray dogs are collected up. We believe that the measures will provide a practical and effective solution to the problems caused by irresponsible owners. We remain of the view that registration would be bureaucratic, expensive to operate and ineffective.

  Litter
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations from British Rail about provisions for clearing litter under the Environmental Protection Act.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department had a number of meetings to discuss the litter provisions with British Rail, during the passage of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 through Parliament. British Rail was represented on the advisory group which drew up the code of practice on litter and refuse. My Department was also in frequent con tact with British Rail during the formulation of the Litter (Statutory Undertakers) (Designation and Relevant Land) Order 1991, made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under subsections (6) and (8) of section 86 of the Act.

  Noise
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been undertaken by his Department concerning the evaluation of nuisance caused by noise.

  Mr. Baldry
  During the past five years the following studies have formed part of my Department's environmental noise research programme:Survey of numbers and types of complaints made to environmental health officers about noise from domestic premises.
  Survey of types of noises heard by people in their homes.
  Survey of satisfaction with sound insulation in converted flats.

  Studies currently taking place within the programme are:
  Survey of levels of amplified music in dwellings.
  Survey of attitudes to noise.

  Proposed studies within the programme are surveys of disturbances caused by industrial noise, low frequency noise and transportation noise.

  Ivory
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current policy on the ivory trade.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government remain fully committed to maintaining the current ban on commercial trade in ivory for as long as it is necessary to ensure the survival and recovery of elephant populations. We would not support any proposals to permit trade to recommence unless we were fully satisfied that the conditions for a resumption of trade, drawn up at the seventh conference of the parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species (CITES) had been met.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the preparation of the guidance to Departments on incorporation of environmental considerations in their policy-making process.

  Mr. Baldry
  The guide will be published later in the year.

  Housing (Elderly People)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the housing needs of elderly people in the north-west.

  Mr. Yeo
  Both my Department and the Housing Corporation take account of regional needs in their distribution of resources to housing associations and local authorities.

  The housing needs indicator, on which the regional distribution of the Housing Corporation's capital funds is based, and the generalised needs index, which the Department uses in making housing investment programme allocations, are statistical indexes of relative housing need made up of a number of indicators, one of which is concerned with "elderly needs". These indexes are regularly reviewed.

  On a national basis, we have recently commissioned an independent study of the housing needs of elderly people to help review the provision of subsidised specialised housing for this group. This will provide representative estimates of unmet need on a regional basis.

  Environmental Grant Fund
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an announcement on who will receive funding under the new environmental grant fund.

  Mr. Trippier
  Offers of funding totalling £650,000 have today been made to 36 voluntary organisations for projects which will help take forward the policies set out in our White Paper "This Common Inheritance".

  There was an overwhelming response to the new fund. I would like to thank all those who applied for getting this first year of the fund off to such a good start and wish those who were unsuccessful this time well for next year when a total of £1 million will be available.

  I am especially glad that the new fund is supporting innovative projects and groups new to environmental work, ranging from a Law Centres Federation project to promote awareness of environmental law, through work on environmental awareness among young people organised by the Girl Guides in the south-west, to a project from the Bat Conservation Trust to help Church authorities with the guests in their belfries.

  I am also pleased that we have been able to support projects throughout England, including ways of resolving disputes over domestic noise in Bristol; work with the handicapped in Staffordshire; community projects in east London; and environmental networks in the west midlands and Merseyside.

  A list of the groups which have been offered support is as follows:

  Age Concern

  288

  The Bat Conservation Trust

  The Bridle Gate Project

  Bristol Recycling Consortium

  British Dragonfly Society

  British Trust for Conservation Volunteers

  Community Land and Workspace Services

  Council for Environmental Education

  The Council for Occupational Standards and Qualifications in Environmental Conservation

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  The Environment Council

  Farming and Wildlife Trust

  Forum for Initiatives in Reparation and Mediation

  Friends of the Earth

  The Garden History Society

  The Girl Guides Association (South West)

  Groundwork Foundation (South Leeds Groundwork Trust)

  Henry Doubleday Research Association

  The Institute of Business Ethics

  Kennet and Avon Canal Trust

  Law Centres Federation

  Marine Conservation Society

  Mersey Basin Campaign Voluntary Sector Network

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Neighbourhood Energy Action

  Pedestrians' Association

  Recycling City Ltd.

  The Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  Royal Society for Nature Conservation

  Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds

  Tower Hamlets Environment Trust

  The Tree Council

  The Victorian Society

  Waste Watch

  West Midlands Environment Network

  Youth Clubs UK

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in(a) cash terms and (b) 1990–91 money terms.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Information on my Department's investment in improving energy efficiency prior to 1989–90 is not available. Expenditure on energy efficiency measures for 1989–90 is estimated to have totalled £120,000 which in 1990–91 money terms is £130,000. Expenditure for 1990–91 is estimated to be £140,000. These figures exclude energy conservation work carried out by Property Holdings on behalf of other Government Departments.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: A total of eight energy audits of offices and specialised sites in London and the regions carried out by external consultants have been initiated in my Department within the five-year period ending March 1990. Since then the Department's energy management unit has carried out five short in-house energy audits in specialised sites and three lighting surveys have been carried out in regional offices. The majority of recommendations resulting from both major and minor audits have recommended various no-cost or low-cost energy conservation measures. These have been, or are in the process of being, implemented where practicable.
  289
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in his Department and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: My Department's energy management unit is staffed by four officials whose total effort on energy management represents an approximate total of 1·5 person years. An additional 0·4 person years is dedicated to energy management in the Building Research Establishment.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much grant aid has been provided for Nicaragua since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The available figures are:

  Year

  Total grant aid

  Disaster relief

  of which Technical cooperation

  United Kingdom's attributable share of EC aid

  1979

  236

  93

  142

  —

  1980

  1,757

  66

  61

  1,630

  1981

  1,201

  7

  84

  1,110

  1982

  1,139

  13

  36

  1,090

  1983

  1,114

  34

  30

  1,050

  1984

  2,549

  —

  9

  2,540

  1985

  2,196

  100

  16

  2,080

  1986

  1,286

  83

  3

  1,200

  1987

  1,780

  —

  —

  1,780

  1988

  2,740

  180

  —

  2,560

  1989

  61

  61

  —

  —

  In addition, grant expenditure under the joint funding scheme—available only by United Kingdom financial year—was:

  £thousand

  Up to 1985–86

  162

  1986–87

  24

  1987–88

  58

  1988–89

  39

  1989–90

  89

  1990–91

  223

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what intentions Her Majesty's Government have to aid the Nicaraguan Government in their attempt to strengthen the country's educational system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are looking into the possibility of providing English language training.

  European Development Council
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed at the European Development Council on 27 May.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We discussed a number of important issues, including human rights, democracy and development and tropical forests. We adopted resolutions on 290
  non-governmental organisations and counterpart funds. We also reviewed the special programme of food aid to Africa, during which I announced an additional 60.000 tonnes of food aid for Africa at an estimated cost of £ 16·5 million. This was widely welcomed by my fellow Ministers and by the Commission.

  Biological Diversity
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government has taken to fulfil the commitment given in the White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", in September 1990 to do more to conserve biological diversity in developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  On 5 June—World Environment Day —I published "Biological Diversity and Developing Countries: Issues and Options", which summarises the ODA strategic studies announced in "This Common Inheritance". The document sets out a range of further measures which we will take. I have placed copies of the document in the Libraries.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government intend to re-establish the British Council in Managua, Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British Council has no plans to open an office in Managua.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to improve diplomatic relations with the Nicaraguan Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We enjoy close and friendly relations with the Government of Nicaragua. I received Sr. Enrique Dreyfus, the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, when he visited the United Kingdom last December and we held further talks in March when I visited Nicaragua to attend the San Jose VII meeting of EC and central American Foreign Ministers. The visit also enabled me to visit some of the projects carried out under our bilateral aid programme.

  Somaliland
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government plans to establish diplomatic relations with the Somaliland Republic.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have no plans to do so.

  PHARE Programme
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what moneys are being made available by the United Kingdom and channelled through the PHARE—Poland and Hungary Assistance for Economic Restructuring—programme for
  291
  the purpose of sending specialist advisers selected and approved by the west to provide information, advice and technical assistance to eastern European countries;

  (2) how much money is being devoted under the PHARE programme for direct use in the creation of an infrastructure to support the development of democracy.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The EC's PHARE programme committed some 500 mecu in 1990 and is worth 850 mecu in 1991 and 1 billion ecu in 1992. Our contribution is some 18 per cent., or approximately £63 million, £107 million and £126 million respectively. The PHARE programme promotes economic restructuring in the countries of central and eastern Europe thereby underpinning the newly created democracies. The programme includes the financing of western specialist advisers in these countries, and training in member states.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions the United Kingdom Government impose on the use of moneys under the PHARE programme in terms of the type of end use to which resources can be applied or as to locations from which services can be brought in.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The operation of the PHARE programme is governed by European Community regulations. The British Government are represented on a management committee which oversees disbursements and considers the Commission's proposals. The regulations stipulate that only EC member states and the countries of central and eastern Europe may tender to provide services for projects wholly financed by the PHARE programme.

  Algeria
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the status of the Algerian nuclear programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Algeria possesses one working nuclear research reactor which has been placed under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. We understand that with Chinese co-operation Algeria is building a second reactor at Ain Oussera. At a press conference on 29 April a spokesman for the Algerian Ministry of Scientific Research said that this second reactor was for research purposes and the production of radio-isotopes, and Algeria intended to submit it to IAEA inspection. Chinese spokesmen have publicly confirmed this. We welcome these assurances, and hope the Algerian Government will invite the IAEA to inspect the facility as soon as possible.

  Disarmament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent visit to the United Kingdom of Soviet military inspectors under the intermediate nuclear forces agreement verification protocols; and what has been the cost to date of implementation of the 1987 intermediate nuclear forces agreement in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The most recent visit to the United Kingdom by soviet inspectors under the intermediate nuclear forces treaty took place on 28 May 1991; RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth were 292
  inspected. Treaty implementation costs in addition to the normal operating costs of the MOD are estimated to have been less than £40,000 since the treaty came into force.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation the United Kingdom had at the United Nations conference on disarmament issues; and whether his Department will be assisting in the distribution of material arising from the conference.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the United Nations conference on disarmament issues which took place in Kyoto, Japan from 27–30 May. A senior official of the Ministry of Defence attended, in a personal capacity. We have taken careful note of his report of the discussions at the conference. The public distribution of material arising out of the conference is a matter for the United Nations.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to provide help to Sierra Leone in dealing with intruders along its frontiers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Sierra Leone Government have made a non-specific request for military aid to deal with intruders from Liberia to which we are responding.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will provide details of the Sierra Leone request for aid in dealing with Liberian intruders along its frontiers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are supplying a quantity of non-lethal defence equipment to the Sierra Leone army.

  Non-Government Organisations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 23 May,Official Report, column 579, to the hon. Member for Newport. West on the meeting of 14 May with non-government organisations, if he will list the matters raised in rank order to the proportion of time spent on them, without making direct reference to those parties who initiated the discussions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The discussions at this meeting were off the record. It would not be appropriate to specify how much time was devoted to each of the many topics raised.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Marina Services
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to refer Marina Services to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State and I are concerned about the allegations we have heard of possible anti-competitive practices in marinas on the south coast. We have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to look into the allegations and see what the evidence shows. We are still considering this matter.

  The Secretary of State has powers to refer the supply of marina services to the Monopolies and Mergers

  293
  Commission and would use these powers if evidence emerged which justified a reference. Any evidence of monopoly abuse or anti-competitive practices to provide the basis for a reference should be brought to the attention of the Director General.

  Emergency Telephone Service
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure a comprehensive emergency telephone service under the Government's policy for telecommunications.

  Mr. Redwood
  All public telecommunications operators including BT, Mercury Communications and the two cellular operators, Cellnet and Racal-Vodafone, are obliged under their respective operating licences to provide an emergency call service to the public free of charge—the "999" service—enabling them to notify emergency organisations (police, fire and ambulance services) of' emergencies.

  Exit Strategies
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1)) further to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 39, on exit strategies, if he will list how much of the £1 million annually for the support of projects is for (a) salaries and (b) administration in each of the task forces;

  (2) if the £1 million is for capital projects or is minus the salaries, rent and administration of the task forces themselves.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 5 June 1991]: The quoted figure of about £1 million per annum refers to project expenditure alone; this may be capital expenditure, project running costs (including salaries and administration), or both.

  The task forces' own running costs of salaries, rent, administration and associated expenditure are not included.

  Textiles
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to include all children's clothing in legislation covering fire retardant materials in the same degree as presently covers furniture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 5 June 1991]: No. It would not be reasonable for clothing to meet fire resistance requirements to the same degree applicable to the covers of upholstered furniture. Such fire resistant treatments are not suitable for most of the lightweight fabrics used in summerwear, and in the limited range of fabrics where it might be possible the comfort of the garment would be severely affected.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to extend existing regulations under consumer protection legislation to include shell suits and similar fashion wear in respect of fire resistant materials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 5 June 1991]: We have no present plans to extend the scope of the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations to daywear garments for children. However,
  294
  section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the general safety requirement, makes it an offence to supply consumer goods, including articles of clothing, that are not reasonably safe having regard to all the circumstances.

  My Department has recently advised the British Standards Institution of its support for the development of a flammability specification that could be applied to children's daywear garments. In the interim, the Department is supporting the enforcement authorities in their discussions with the clothing industry on a voluntary scheme for flammability labelling of childrenswear. We shall continue to monitor developments closely.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Higher Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many universities have applied to be renamed as polytechnics.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None, yet.

  Veterinary Schools
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he expects the Universities Funding Council to announce a decision on capital grants to veterinary schools;

  (2) what representations he has received from veterinary schools for capital grants to develop the student facilities; and if he will discuss such grants with the Universities Funding Council.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Universities Funding Council's capital allocations for 1991–92 were set out in circular letter 7/91, a copy of which is in the Library. My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any representations from veterinary schools on the allocations; nor would he expect to do so since, under the Education Reform Act 1988, it is for the UFC to determine the distribution of funding between individual institutions.

  Data Protection (Schools)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools there are in the United Kingdom; what proportion have computers used for administrative purposes; what steps he has taken to satisify himself about the propriety of personal data held by the governors, head teachers and parent teachers' associations on these computers; whether he has held meetings with local authority associations about the cost of registration of schools under the Data Protection Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The number of schools in the United Kingdom is 34,958. Information is not available on the number of schools with computers used for administrative purposes. The control and use of personal data by data users is a matter for the office of the Data Protection Registrar. No meetings have so far been held with local authority associations specifically to discuss the cost of registration, but draft guidance for schools on data protection was circulated widely to the associations and others at the end of October 1990. Discussions are still taking place with the office of the Data Protection Registrar on the scope of registration by schools and guidance will be issued when these are complete.

  List 99
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science why the personal information associated with List 99 is not kept on computer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information held in relation to a decision by my right hon. and learned Friend to exclude a person from teaching or work with children or young persons on grounds of misconduct and add his or her name to List 99 could not easily be converted to a computer record.

  Further Education
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many persons aged 19 years have followed non-advanced education courses in schools and colleges in the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of full or part-time students aged 19 years in schools and on further education courses in publicly funded colleges is as follows:

  Thousands

  Schools

  Further education

  Total

  1985–86

  13

  89

  92

  1986–87

  3

  88

  90

  1987–88

  3

  83

  85

  Secondary Reorganisation proposals involving the establishment of Tertiary Colleges

  Proposal Date

  LEA

  Decision Made

  Decision Date

  13 July 1984

  Staffordshire

  Approved

  15 February 1985

  15 November 1984

  Gloucestershire

  Rejected

  24 March 1986

  30 November 1984(also Sixth Form College)

  Gloucestershire

  Rejected

  24 March 1986

  9 January 1985(also Sixth Form College)

  Wolverhampton

  Rejected

  25 November 1985

  22 April 1985

  Bury

  Approved

  15 April 1986

  6 September 1985

  Oxfordshire

  Approved

  17 September 1986

  30 September 1985

  Sunderland

  Approved1

  3 November 1986

  14 October 1985

  South Tyneside

  Approved

  9 October 1986

  24 October 1985

  Sheffield

  Approved1

  23 December 1986

  16 May 1986

  Essex

  Approved

  27 October 1987

  30 May 1986

  Avon

  Rejected

  27 January 1987

  23 October 1986

  Dudley

  Rejected

  5 August 1987

  22 January 1987

  ILEA

  Rejected

  27 November 1987

  23 January 1987

  Derbyshire

  Approved1

  30 November 1987

  5 March 1987

  Northamptonshire

  Approved

  3 December 1987

  23 September 1987

  Gloucestershire

  Rejected

  20 May 1988

  18 March 1988

  Shropshire

  Approved

  22 March 1989

  6 April 1988

  Cornwall

  Approved1

  25 May 1989

  13 April 1988

  Rochdale

  Approved1

  28 July 1989

  29 April 1988

  Essex

  Approved1

  23 October 1989

  29 April 1988

  Essex

  Approved1

  30 January 1990

  5 May 1988

  Wirral

  Rejected

  21 December 1988

  I June 1988

  Knowsley

  Approved1

  16 June 1989

  9 June 1988

  Sefton

  Approved1

  10 May 1989

  17 June 1988

  Derbyshire

  Approved1

  13 October 1989

  15 July 1988

  Derbyshire

  Approved

  25 August 1989

  7 April 1989

  Barnsley

  Approved1

  7 December 1989

  Secondary Reorganisation proposals involving the establishment of Sixth Form Colleges

  Proposal Date

  LEA

  Decision Made

  Decision Date

  5 April 1984

  Essex

  Approved

  4 April 1985

  10 September 1984

  Avon

  Rejected

  9 May 1986

  14 September 1984

  Waltham Forest

  Approved

  28 June 1985

  19 April 1985

  Cumbria

  Rejected

  25 February 1986

  30 January 1986

  Stockport

  Approved

  2 December 1986

  6 February 1986

  St Helens

  Approved

  22 October 1986

  24 April 1986

  Hampshire

  Approved

  6 November 1986

  29 October 1986

  Wirral

  Approved

  14 September 1987

  12 February 1987

  Cheshire

  Rejected

  19 January 1988

  296

  Schools

  Further education

  Total

  1988–89

  3

  82

  85

  1989–90

  3

  82

  86

  1 Includes adults in Special Schools.

  Notes:

  Numbers may not add to total because of rounding.

  Age is at 31 August at the start of the academic year.

  Adult Education Centres have been excluded.

  Schools Reorganisation
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of each proposal for a reorganisation or closure of schools involving the transfer of sixth form provision to(a) a sixth form college or (b) a further education or tertiary college, with name of area, and local education authority and colleges concerned, the approximate number of pupil/students involved, the decision of the Secretary of State, and date, for each year since 1979 for which data are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The full information requested could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. Those proposals decided by the Secretary of State which involved the establishment of tertiary or sixth form colleges from 1984 onwards include the following:
  297

  Proposal Date

  LEA

  Decision Made

  Decision Date

  9 March 1987

  Shropshire

  Approved

  10 December 1987

  12 June 1987

  Merton

  1Approved

  11 July 1988

  18 June 1987

  Humberside

  Approved

  6 January 1988

  17 July 1987

  Lancashire

  Approved

  23 June 1988

  22 July 1987

  Hampshire

  1Approved

  23 May 1988

  18 September 1987

  Leeds

  Approved

  28 June 1988

  22 April 1988

  ILEA

  Approved

  15 February 1989

  27 May 1988

  Havering

  1Approved

  14 August 1989

  20 April 1989

  Newham

  1Approved

  26 April 1990

  1 May 1990

  Oldham

  1Approved

  3 December 1990

  1 Proposals approved with modification

  Students
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing the numbers and percentage of the total of students aged 16 to 18 years

  Full-time 16 to 18-year-olds

  Further education

  Sixth form colleges

  Other schools1

  Total

  Number (000)

  Percentage

  Number (000)

  Percentage

  Number (000)

  Percentage

  Number (000)

  Percentage

  1978–80

  237

  40·9

  48

  8·3

  294

  50·8

  579

  100

  1980–81

  228

  37·5

  54

  8·8

  327

  53·7

  609

  100

  1981–82

  262

  38·9

  60

  8·8

  353

  52·3

  675

  100

  1982–83

  294

  41·2

  64

  8·9

  355

  49·8

  712

  100

  1983–84

  279

  41·1

  62

  9·1

  338

  49·8

  679

  100

  1984–85

  271

  41·4

  61

  9·3

  323

  49·3

  656

  100

  1985–86

  274

  42·0

  64

  9·7

  315

  48·2

  652

  100

  1986–87

  272

  42·6

  63

  9·8

  304

  47·6

  639

  100

  1987–88

  282

  43·3

  62

  9·5

  308

  47·2

  652

  100

  1988–89

  282

  42·0

  70

  10·5

  319

  47·5

  671

  100

  1989–90

  302

  43·1

  74

  10·6

  324

  46·3

  699

  100

  1 The data for "other schools" are all 16 to 18-year-olds in schools (including special schools), whether or not they are in the sixth form. Data for sixth form students aged 16 to 18 are not available centrally.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the numbers of (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) full-time equivalent students in

  Higher education full-time and part-time students in Great Britain

  Thousands

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Universities

  Full-time

  292·7

  298·7

  300·2

  295·4

  291·7

  290·6

  295·5

  301·3

  305·4

  317·6

  334·5

  Part-time

  30·0

  32·0

  33·2

  33·5

  34·6

  36·0

  37·1

  39·4

  40·7

  44·5

  47·9

  Full-time equivalent

  303·2

  309·9

  311·8

  307·1

  303·8

  303·2

  308·5

  315·1

  319·6

  333·2

  351·3

  Polytechnics and colleges

  Full-time

  217·4

  221·7

  241·3

  257·7

  273·4

  282·7

  288·0

  294·7

  303·3

  308·7

  335·9

  Part-time

  168·1

  181·1

  185·8

  188·5

  195·3

  195·1

  210·0

  228·4

  232·7

  247·5

  259·4

  Full-time equivalent

  276·2

  284·5

  306·3

  323·7

  341·8

  351·0

  361·5

  374·6

  384·7

  395·3

  426·7

  All students

  Full-time

  510·1

  520·4

  541·5

  553·1

  565·1

  573·3

  583·5

  596·1

  608·7

  626·3

  670·4

  Part-time

  198·1

  213·1

  219·0

  222·0

  229·9

  231·1

  247·1

  267·8

  273·4

  292·0

  307·3

  Full-time equivalent

  579·4

  594·4

  618·1

  630·8

  645·6

  654·2

  670·0

  689·7

  704·3

  728·5

  778·0

  Sources: Universities Statistical Record.

  Further Education Statistical Record.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the total numbers of full-time equivalent students in higher education aged 18 to 21 years in each year since 1979; and what percentage of the same age group they represented.
  298
  in full-time education in (a) school sixth forms, (b) sixth form colleges and (c) further education, including tertiary, colleges for each year since 1979 for which data are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  (i) universities, (ii) polytechnics, (iii) other higher education institutions and (iv) (i) plus (ii) plus (iii), for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information is given in the table:

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is given in the table:
  299

  Home undergraduate students on first year courses of higher education—aged under 21

  Academic years

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Full-time

  117·4

  123·3

  130·2

  136·4

  135·4

  137·9

  136·8

  136·6

  138·6

  141·2

  157·8

  Part-time

  29·6

  35·6

  36·7

  35·3

  33·6

  32·8

  33·0

  32·5

  34·4

  35·8

  35·9

  Full-time equivalent

  127·8

  135·8

  143·0

  148·8

  147·2

  149·4

  148·4

  148·0

  150·7

  153·8

  170·4

  As percentage of 18 and 19-year-old population

  14·6

  15·2

  15·6

  15·8

  15·6

  16·3

  16·6

  16·8

  17·4

  18·1

  20·2

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the proportion of (i) 16-year-olds, (ii) 17-year-olds, (iii) 18-year-olds and (iv) 16 to 18-year-olds in receipt of(a) full-time education, (b) full-time training, (c) (a) plus (b), (d) part-time training and (e) a full-time or part-time education or training, in each year since 1979.

  Percentage of population in:

  Age

  Full-time education(excluding YTS)

  YTS

  Full-time education YTS

  Part-time education

  Total full-time and part-time education and YTS

  16

  53

  22

  75

  11

  86

  17

  38

  20

  59

  11

  70

  18

  21

  2

  23

  16

  38

  16–18

  37

  14

  51

  13

  64

  Age as at 31 August at the start of the academic year.

  Columns may not add up to totals because of rounding.

  Examinations
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the number of entries to and passes in the advanced supplementary level and advanced level examinations for each year since the introduction of AS-level; and what percentage the number of entries to, and passes in AS-level was of the number of entries to and passes in A-level in the same years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of leavers attempting at least one AS examination as a proportion of those who attempted A-level examinations was 5·3 per cent. and for passes the proportion was 3·6 per cent.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to collect data on the number of national vocational qualifications levels 2 and 3, or equivalent qualifications or ones of a similar standard obtained by 16 to 19-year-olds in all types of institution and training.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are undertaking a pilot survey, jointly with the Employment Department, of information held by the main bodies responsible for awarding vocational qualifications. The aim is to extend the survey to cover virtually all vocational qualifications. We will also be consulting shortly about proposals for FE colleges to publish their results and send copies to the Department.

  Recreation and Sports
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to promote training and educational opportunities in recreation and sports for ethnic minorities.
  300
  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested for the academic years 1978–79 to 1988–89 is given in the Department's statistical bulletins 2/87, 9/90, copies of which are in the Library (these show part-time education for 1979–80. 1981–82, 1983–84, 1987–88, 1988–89). Figures for 1989–90 will be published in a new statistical bulletin 13/91 shortly and are as follows:

  Mr. Atkins
  We have made physical education a foundation subject in the national curriculum for all pupils aged five to 16, including those from ethnic minorities. In addition, the Sports Council, which this Department funds, is chairing the Industry Lead Body for Sport and Recreation which is working to produce a structure of national vocational qualifications in the area of sport and recreation. These will be delivered on an equal opportunity basis.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn on 8 May 1991 at column 469, how long the thorough internal review of the structure and role of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools will take; whether and when its conclusions will be published; and whether there will be a period of public consultation before decisions on the review are made.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The internal review got under way immediately following my reply of 8 May 1991 at column 469 to the hon. Member. I have asked it to report at the beginning of July. I do not expect to publish the review itself which will take the form of confidential advice to Ministers. I shall wish to consider how to act on the conclusions of the review once I have received them.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will be inviting evidence from outside his Department in the course of the review of the structure and role of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.
  301
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The review team will not formally invite or receive evidence. However, the team is seeking views from a wide range of people and bodies within the education world and beyond it.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the names, grades and posts of those conducting the internal review of the structure and role of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The internal review is being conducted by a team consisting of three officials in the Department and a member of the inspectorate. Their grades are as follows:

  Assistant Secretary—DES-team leader

  Staff Inspector—HMI

  Higher Executive Officer (Development)—DES

  Personal Secretary—DES

  Following normal practice, I do not intend to disclose the names of individual officials who are preparing advice for Ministers.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn on 8 May 1991, at column 469, whether, under any new arrangements for the inspection of the education service, it is his intention that the head of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools should continue to publish annual reports independent of, and unamended by, Ministers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I would expect any inspectorate to be free to publish annual reports independent of and unamended by Ministers. I am looking to the review to offer advice on this and any other related matter if the team wishes but I have no complaints about the present arrangements for HMI so far as reporting is concerned.

  Government Scientists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what involvement Government-employed scientists have had with the system for the analysis research and training programme operated by the international geosphere-biosphere programme of the International Council of Scientific Users.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No Government-employed scientist has been involved with the international geospherebiosphere programme global change system analysis research and training (START) initiative, but a member of staff of the Natural Environment Research Council attended, in a personal capacity, the workshop in Bellagio, Italy at which the main objectives and the proposed implementation strategy of START were established.

HEALTH

  Cancer
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table indicating the death rate from cancer for the United Kingdom and for each of the other members of the European Community.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A table listing death rates from malignant neoplasms, all ages for members of the European Community follows. The most recent data available for Spain is 1985, and for Belgium 1986. Data for 1987 are the 302
  latest available for all other members, with the exception of the United Kingdom, which is 1989. 1987 data for the United Kingdom are however also provided for comparison purposes.

  Deaths from Malignant Neoplasms

  Country

  Year

  Rate per 1000 population

  Spain1

  1985

  1·72

  Belgium2

  1986

  2·24

  Denmark1

  1987

  2·87

  Federal Republic of Germany1

  1987

  2·73

  France1

  1987

  2·43

  Greece1

  1987

  1·86

  Ireland1

  1987

  1·95

  Italy1

  1987

  2·44

  Luxemborg1

  1987

  2·76

  Netherlands1

  1987

  2·39

  Portugal1

  1987

  1·64

  United Kingdom3

  1987

  2·80

  United Kingdom3

  1989

  2·51

  1 Source: Eurostat.

  2 Source: WHO Statistics Annual.

  3 Source: OPCS.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from City hospital, Nottingham regarding NHS trust status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  An application for NHS trust status from April 1992 has been received from the City hospital, Nottingham and is currently the subject of a three-month public consultation exercise conducted by Trent regional health authority.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations has he had from University hospital, Queens medical centre, Nottingham regarding NHS trust status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The University hospital, Queens medical centre, Nottingham expressed an interest in becoming an NHS trust from 1 April 1992. The unit subsequently decided to defer its application.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on answering written parliamentary questions relating to NHS hospital trusts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) on 30 October 1990 at column 445.

  Low Income
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will consider extending the valid period of certificates issued under the health benefits low-income scheme from six to 12 months;

  (2) if he will introduce a formal right of appeal for late claims for refunds of costs incurred for dental, optical and prescription charges.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer,Official Report, 22 May, column 530, if he will make a statement on the remit of the review of the health benefits low income scheme.
  303
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The review of the low income scheme will be wide-ranging. It will examine all aspects of the administration of the NHS low income scheme, particularly the amount of information intending claimants are asked to provide, the adequacy of existing forms, leaflets and publicity, and current procedures for assessing entitlement under the scheme. In addition, we shall examine current exemption arrangements, including the present six-month period for which certificates are valid, the time limits for obtaining refunds for charges incurred and the scope for improving existing review arrangements.

  As my earlier reply made clear we aim to produce proposals for change by the end of 1991.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has conducted to establish that glasses are available at a cost not exceeding the full value of vouchers issued under the low income scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department undertakes surveys each autumn to monitor the effectiveness of the voucher scheme.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the health benefits low income scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently received a report from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) concerning the NHS low income scheme. This detailed report is most welcome and particularly timely in light of the Department's review of this scheme. As the review is taken forward officials will be discussing with NACAB the issues and recommendations which they have made.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will extend the period during which a person may apply for a refund of dental and optical charges under the health benefits low income scheme;

  (2) if his review of the health benefits low income scheme will examine the cost-effectiveness of replacing the health benefits low income scheme by transferring the costs to the national insurance contribution scheme.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the provision of leaflets and claim forms for the health benefits low income scheme in languages other than English.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Present arrangements already allow for refunds of most dental and optical charges to be made up to one month after payment of the charge and beyond that time if there is good cause for the claim being delayed. The review of the NHS low income scheme will provide a fresh opportunity for the question of time limits for refunds to be reconsidered.

  Government policy on NHS charges are based primarily on the principle that those who can afford to
  304
  make a contribution should do so, whilst those who have difficulty in paying the charges should be protected. There are no plans to change this policy.

  The provision of leaflets in languages other than English will be considered as part of a more general examination of the low income forms and leaflets.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now reply to the letter sent to his Department on 9 April by the hon. Member for Gower regarding a constituent resident in Mumbles, Swansea.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replied yesterday.

  HIV
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has given to inquiries from legal representatives of patients who have been infected with HIV through national health service blood transfusions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have placed in the Library a copy of a reply which I have sent to Mr. Graham Ross of J. Keith Park and Co.

  General Practitioners
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in Great Britain bought added years (old style) pension rights in 1975; how many of those general practitioners were under 43 years old in 1972; what were the figures for general practitioners aged under 44 years in steps of £500 based on average updated earnings to October 1972; and how many of the general practitioners are still paying for the added years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In England and Wales, approximately 30,000 general medical and dental practitioners took advantage of the NHS pension schemes (old style) added years provisions. The majority of these have since retired with benefits from the scheme.

  Further information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information about parallel schemes in Northern Ireland and Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance to general practitioner fundholders on how they should respond to inquiries from hon. Members representing their area on matters of policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no plans to do so. If an hon. Member has a concern about the activities of a GP fundholder I would suggest he raises it with the relevant family health services authority.

  Rabies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list incidents of rabies in humans recorded in Britain in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Cases reported were as follows:

  Number

  1975

  2

  1976

  1

  1977

  2

  1978

  1

  1981

  1

  1986

  1

  1987

  1

  1988

  2

  No cases were reported in the remaining 13 years between 1970 and 1990 inclusive.

  Health Benefits Scheme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what obligation there is on opticians and dentists to provide information and advice on claiming under the health benefits low income scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The National Health Service (General Ophthalmic Services) Regulations 1986 require opticians to display prominently a notice showing possible entitlement to vouchers under the low income scheme. Dentists are required by their terms of service (set out in the National Health Service (General Dental Services) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1990) to display prominently a notice, indicating NHS charges which are payable under general dental services and entitlement to exemption from and remission of NHS charges.

  Mobility Needs
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the mobility needs of adults with arthritic and rheumatic diseases.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is a matter for health authorities to assess the need for health care of their resident populations including help with mobility, and to make appropriate provision. Individual assessment is a matter for clinical judgment. Mobility allowance is also available, from the Department of Social Security, to assist with long-range mobility needs.

  Local Authority Service Provision
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what areas of local authority service provision for which he has responsibility payments are required to be made to individuals who are not employees(a) in the form of a grant or one-off payment and (b) on receipt of paid invoices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no requirement on local authorities to make any such payments.

  Private Ambulance Services
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what conditions govern the issuing of operative licences to the proprietors of private ambulance services;
  306
  (2) if the applicants for licences to operate private ambulance services are vetted for details of previous criminal convictions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Private ambulance services are not subject to any vetting or licensing procedures.

  Preventive Health Care
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to include sections on maternal, child and mental health in the imminent Green Paper on preventive health care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The health of pregnant women, infants and children and mental health, together with suggested objectives and targets, is discussed in the Green Paper "Health of the Nation" which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published on 4 June.

  Social Services
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision his Department has made to each county for social services(a) in 1991–92 and (b) the previous year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Provision for the main part of personal social services revenue expenditure is determined through standard spending assessments. Figures [or the English counties for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are shown in the DOE standard spending assessment handbooks for 1990–91 and 1991–92 respectively, copies of which are in the Library.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many copies of his departmental report No. 39 on nuclear accident countermeasures have been printed; at what cost; and to whom copies have been distributed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A total of 1,500 copies of this report were printed. The costs of printing and publishing were borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which I understand aims to recover them from sales revenue.

  Copies have been distributed to: regional and district health authorities; family health services authorities; local authority county emergency planning officers; members of the United Kingdom working group on stable iodine prophylaxis; and Government Departments with responsibilities for nuclear emergency planning. A copy is also available in the Library.

  Disability
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of adults is visually impaired;

  (2) what percentage of the population has impaired hearing;

  (3) what percentage of disabled people is receiving 24-hour help.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the prevalence of different types of disability, and such information as is available centrally about the proportion of disabled people who receive 24-hour help, is given in the reports published in 1988–89 in the survey of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Copies are available in the Library.
  307
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of adults are registered as disabled in Britain.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At 31 March 1990, approximately 3·2 per cent. of people aged 16 years and over were registered with local authority social services departments in England as being physically disabled. Equivalent figures relating to Wales and Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the number of residential care places in Britain.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Decisions about the amount of residential care provision required for people seeking public financial support must be based on the assessment by each social services authority of the needs of the population it serves.

  Moves made under our community care policy towards increasing the amount and range of day and domiciliary services enable a greater proportion of people to remain in their own homes.

  Social Work
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social worker posts remained unfilled in local authorities in England and Wales on the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally. Estimates of the number of full-time vacancies among field workers will be included in the "Social Services Employment Survey", due to be published shortly by the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Local Government Management Board, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of cases referred to local authority social services in England and Wales that remained unallocated on the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Gross capital expenditure on refuse disposal 1984–85 to 1989–901

  District

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Alyn and Deeside

  71

  41

  33

  73

  81

  51

  Colwyn

  26

  38

  69

  2

  8

  0

  Delyn

  0

  0

  154

  341

  24

  5

  Glyndwr

  33

  16

  3

  64

  99

  83

  Rhuddlan

  46

  68

  0

  22

  28

  37

  Wrexham Maelor

  197

  170

  0

  100

  225

  116

  Carmarthen

  123

  14

  83

  25

  18

  31

  Ceredigion

  12

  29

  77

  57

  163

  315

  Dinefwr

  18

  25

  5

  0

  1

  53

  Llanelli

  9

  37

  24

  51

  52

  31

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  217

  404

  36

  20

  21

  36

  South Pembrokeshire

  82

  38

  125

  95

  28

  0

WALES

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the projected investment costs forecast to be incurred in 1991–92 and 1992–93 for landfill sites by each listed waste disposal authority in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available centrally. This is a matter for the waste disposal authorities.

  Teachers
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of women head teachers in each local education authority in Wales in(a) primary schools in 1985 and 1990 and (b) secondary schools in 1985 and 1990.

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

  (a)Primary Schools

  1984–85

  1990–91

  Clwyd

  80

  77

  Dyfed

  114

  133

  Gwent

  110

  112

  Gwynedd

  42

  48

  Mid Glamorgan

  139

  153

  Powys

  33

  37

  South Glamorgan

  74

  75

  West Glamorgan

  64

  65

  Wales

  656

  700

  (b)Secondary Schools

  1984–85

  1990–91

  Clwyd

  0

  2

  Dyfed

  0

  0

  Gwent

  1

  4

  Gwynedd

  1

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  4

  Powys

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  2

  4

  West Glamorgan

  2

  1

  Wales

  9

  16

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the amount of capital invested on landfill sites in Wales by each waste disposal authority in Wales since 1985.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on capital invested on landfill sites is not available centrally. However, the figures for capital spending on refuse disposal, which includes landfill, are given in the table.
  309

  District

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Blaenau Gwent

  95

  71

  91

  155

  11

  10

  Islwyn

  45

  56

  106

  24

  0

  43

  Monmouth

  218

  47

  201

  47

  44

  55

  Newport

  33

  129

  65

  184

  83

  615

  Torfaen

  86

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Aberconwy

  40

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Arfon

  48

  164

  6

  4

  10

  9

  Dwyfor

  287

  1,052

  426

  68

  30

  32

  Meirionnydd

  59

  0

  73

  24

  109

  53

  Ynys Môn

  48

  727

  769

  402

  197

  38

  Cynon Valley

  94

  38

  26

  228

  90

  50

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  1

  105

  127

  1

  11

  Ogwr

  0

  44

  0

  16

  0

  0

  Rhondda

  71

  1,284

  2,365

  525

  192

  124

  Rhymney Valley

  56

  64

  132

  178

  344

  90

  Taff-Ely

  1

  73

  112

  205

  241

  577

  Brecknock

  21

  77

  15

  16

  32

  0

  Montgomeryshire

  7

  38

  47

  34

  84

  187

  Radnorshire

  67

  18

  9

  9

  90

  162

  Cardiff

  187

  399

  729

  166

  173

  65

  Vale of Glamorgan

  36

  17

  43

  4

  21

  0

  Lliw Valley

  15

  33

  32

  37

  13

  22

  Neath

  48

  152

  160

  170

  161

  74

  Port Talbot

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swansea

  186

  259

  372

  474

  258

  490

  Total Wales

  2,581

  5,650

  6,492

  3,947

  2,932

  3,465

  1 Capital outturn returns were revised in 1986–87 and hence data for previous years are not strictly comparable.

  Disability
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the organisations representing disabled people in Wales which have contacted his Department; and on how many occasions since 1987 he has met each such organisation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Welsh Office maintains close contact with the major all-Wales organisations representing people with physical or sensory disabilities or mental handicaps.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and his ministerial colleagues meet such organisations from time to time. For example, my right hon. Friend formally opened the new regional headquarters of the Spastics Society in Cardiff on 16 January this year; and in June last year, my predecessor formally opened the new offices of the Wales Council for the Deaf.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of disabled people in Wales, by category; and if he will publish his latest estimate.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The latest available wide-ranging information on the incidence of physical and sensory disability is contained in the reports of the OPCS surveys published in 1988–89. These showed that 16·4 per cent. of adults and 3·1 per cent. of children in Wales have such disabilities, the proportions in the upper severity categories 6 to 10 being 6 per cent. of adults (the highest in the United Kingdom) and 2 per cent. of children (equal highest in the United Kingdom).

  The latest available figures show that in 1989–90 there were 10,406 people in Wales known to have serious mental handicaps.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policies he has initiated since 1987 to assist people with disabilities in Wales.
  310
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  On 8 May 1990 the Welsh Office issued a circular giving comprehensive guidance to health and local authorities on good practice in the development and delivery of services for people with physical and/or sensory disabilities. Authorities are expected to have regard to that advice in preparing their local strategies for health and their social care plans, which in Wales are being jointly prepared by all the statutory and voluntary agencies concerned.

  We have introduced this year a new grant scheme, unique to Wales, to promote the development of more flexible forms of community care for elderly people and for people with physical or sensory disabilities.

  The all-Wales mental handicap strategy has been in place since March 1983. We are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the strategy and propose shortly to publish for consultation our provisional conclusions on the framework for service development from April 1993.

  Deafness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take in order to ensure a greater supply of teachers of the deaf in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We are seeking to increase the number of teachers in Wales who are qualified to meet the educational needs of deaf pupils through a programme of in-service training. Over f100,000 has been approved by my Department for this purpose this year through the grants for education support and training programme.

  More generally, the recently introduced criteria for the approval of initial teachers training courses requires that, on completion of their course, students should have developed the capacity to identify pupils with special educational needs or with learning difficulties and to understand the ways in which the potential of such pupils can be developed.
  311
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes to help deaf children in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Children Act 1989, to be implemented on 14 October 1991, lays a general duty on local social services authorities to promote the welfare of children who are in need by providing an appropriate range and level of services. Section 17 of the Act defines children in need so as to include deaf children. By virtue of schedule 2 to the Act, services to such children should be designed to minimise the effect of their disability and give them the opportunity to lead lives which are as normal as possible. Guidance on these provisions is contained in chapter 2 of the publication "The Children Act 1989: Guidance and Regulations—Volume 2 Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children" (HMSO 1991), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Further guidance is in preparation which will give advice to local authorities on the discharge of their duty to children with disabilities.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to increase the number of speech therapists in Wales;

  (2) how many speech therapy posts in Wales are currently unfilled.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on the current number of unfilled speech therapy posts in Wales is not held centrally. However, the results of the 1990 annual manpower resource planning (MRP) exercise carried out by Welsh district health authorities indicated a shortage of 27 speech therapists across Wales as at September 1989.

  The extent and location of training provision for speech therapy in Wales is being considered along with that for other health care professions in the light of the manpower resource planning results and the new arrangements to be introduced for the planning and funding of certain pre-registration education and training at the all-Wales level.

  In the short term, speech therapy shortages are being addressed by my Department through the sponsorship of students. As a result of Welsh Office funding in 1990 and 1991 an additional 10 speech therapy students are being sponsored by Welsh health authorities on the understanding that they work for at least two years in Wales on completion of their training.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual remuneration of(a) health authority chairman and (b) health board members in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Health authority chairmen are remunerated at different rates. These are currently as follows:Band 1—£17,610 per annum
  Applicable to Clwyd, Gwent, Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan Health Authorities.
  Band 2—£15,659 per annum
  Applicable to East Dyfed and Gwynedd Health Authorities.
  Band 3—£13,812 per annum
  312
  Applicable to Pembrokeshire and Powys Health Authorities.
  All non-executive health authority members receive remuneration of £5,000 per annum. Executive members receive their appropriate NHS salaries.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he has adopted for appointment to health boards in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Members are appointed on the strength of the skills and experience they can bring to an authority's work.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those hospitals whose managements he has written to, or spoken to, about acquisition of hospital trust status.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The director of the national health service in Wales has written to all managers of health service units explaining Ministers' view that although national health service trusts are seen as the natural organisational model for hospitals and other units providing health care, the decision on whether to seek self-governing status is a matter for individual units, taking account of local circumstances and enthusiasm.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which hospitals in Wales are eligible for hospital trust status.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Any hospital or other health service unit actively providing patient care may apply to become a national health service trust. This would include hospitals, community-based services (whether alone or together with hospitals) and ambulance services.

  Health Service Grading
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurses there are in each health authority area in Wales with regrading appeals outstanding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The numbers of regrading appeals outstanding at the three different levels are as shown in the following table:

  Outstanding appeals at:

  Health authority

  District level

  Regional (all-Wales) level

  National (negotiating council) level

  Clwyd

  75

  117

  11

  East Dyfed

  229

  66

  5

  Gwent

  282

  287

  2

  Gwynedd

  —

  166

  36

  Mid Glamorgan

  616

  206

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  55

  —

  Powys

  —

  161

  2

  South Glamorgan

  310

  181

  17

  West Glamorgan

  —

  103

  22

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on 26 March 1991, and to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 28 March 1991.

  Aldbourne Associates
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 571, what is the total value of the housing consultancy work given to Aldbourne Associates on (a) the priority estates project and (b) housing options for Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information for the years prior to 1989–90 cannot, within the time available, be provided in the form requested. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

  It is not possible to attribute every payment made to Aldbourne Associates in 1989–90. 1990–91 and 1991–92 precisely to PEP or to HOW. Since its launch in January 1990, housing options Wales has subsumed the priority estates project programme. It is estimated that payments totalling approximately £98,000 can reasonably be attributed to elements of HOW that are distinct from previous work on PEP. The residue of the sums referred to in the previous answer includes payments made in respect of PEP, and of the Department's alternatives for social housing (ASH) programme (also now subsumed within HOW). Payments readily attributable to ASH for these years total some £27,000.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 571, whether Aldbourne Associates' contract was awarded subsequent to an open tender.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 571, when Aldbourne Associate's main contract was awarded; what length of time it was scheduled to cover; and what subsequent ancillary contracts were awarded.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The initial contract (with Miss C. Lesley Andrews, rather than with Aldbourne Associates Ltd.) was made in September 1983, in respect of work to be completed by 31 March 1986. Before the end of that period, the Department embarked upon the second phase of its PEP programme; a new contract was therefore made in November 1985, in respect of work to be completed by 31 March 1988. Subsequently, contracts were made in March 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 extending the application of the main work in line with the development of the Department's priority estates project, alternatives for social housing and housing options for Wales programmes.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each visit he has made to(a) sixth form colleges, (b) further education colleges, (c) university colleges and (d) polytechnics, in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has visited the following colleges:

  College

  Date

  (a)

  None

  —

  (b)

  Pembrokeshire College

  22 May 1990

  Bangor Normal College

  20 May 1991

  Pencoed College

  22 May 1991

  314

  College

  Date

  (a)

  University College of North Wales

  30 July 1990

  University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

  12 November 1990

  University of Wales, College of Cardiff

  11 February 1991

  University College Swansea

  17 April 1991

  (d)

  Polytechnic of Wales

  7 May 1991

  Sports Council for Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he last met the chairman of the Sports Council for Wales;

  (2) when he proposes to visit the headquarters of the Sports Council for Wales;

  (3) how many times he has visited the headquarters of the Sports Council for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have visited the national sports centre for Wales once, on 25 February, when I last met the chairman of the Sports Council for Wales. No further visit has been arranged.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for extra financing of the Sports Council for Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to provide extra financing for the Sports Council for Wales in addition to the generous grant-in-aid settlement announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 28 February 1991.

  Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which teacher unions he has met.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I met representatives of the NAS/UWT (Wales) on 7 September 1990. We are always prepared to consider requests from the teachers' unions for meetings to discuss educational issues in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to improve the morale of teachers in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 28 November 1990. Our intention to establish a pay review body for teachers will enhance the status of the profession and improve morale further.

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the teacher unions to discuss the standard assessment tests.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Tuesday 4 June.

  Health Service Waiting Lists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority regarding the best means of reducing waiting lists in ophthalmology and general surgery.
  315
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I last met the chairman and consultants from South Glamorgan health authority on 24 May to discuss current waiting time issues, including those affecting ophthalmology, and ways of tackling them.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will reconsider the contents of his letter of 31 March, addressed to Mr. J. Lazarus, county planning officer of Gwynedd county council, concerning the economic impact of the proposed reduction in British Rail's through services between Holyhead and Euston next autumn.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My letter did not refer to the economic impact of rail services to Holyhead. It did, however, draw attention to improvements to the number of journey opportunities, journey times and rolling stock which British Rail intend to bring to these services.

  Social Services
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision his Department has made to each county council for social services in(a) 1991–92 and (b) the previous year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Revenue support grant (RSG) for each county council in Wales is paid in support of services generally and is not hypothecated.

  The level of total standard spending (TSS) allowed for in the local government finance settlement for 1990–91 and 1991–92 is given in the following table. Also shown are the notional amounts provided for personal social services; it is however for local authorities to determine how resources should be allocated to particular services.

  Year

  Total Standard Spending £ million

  Personal Social Services £ million

  1990–91

  2,114·5

  186·8

  1991–92

  2,433·1

  224·0

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what, at 1992 prices, was the total spending on health and personal social services in each year since 1978–79; what is the average percentage increase since May 1979; and what are the equivalent capital provisions within these annual figures.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information, on the new planning total basis, is estimated to be as follows:

  £ million at 1991–92 prices

  Total net public expenditure on health and personal social services

  of which: Capital

  1978–79

  1,082

  70

  1979–80

  1,085

  62

  1980–81

  1,177

  66

  1981–82

  1,225

  80

  1982–83

  1,257

  83

  1983–84

  1,274

  84

  1984–85

  1,313

  89

  1985–86

  1,327

  85

  1986–87

  1,381

  90

  316

  Total net public expenditure on health and personal social services

  of which: Capital

  1987–88

  1,456

  88

  1988–89

  1,506

  78

  1989–90

  1,537

  101

  1990–91

  1,615

  118

  The percentage increase for total net spending between 1978–79 and 1990–91 was over 49 per cent. in real terms (about 275 per cent. in cash). During this period, the annual average percentage increase was a little over 4 per cent. in real terms (23 per cent. in cash).

  Health Service Waiting Lists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings with consultant ophthalmologists and general surgeons regarding initiatives to reduce the appropriate waiting list he has conducted during each month since January 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I met general surgeons at Prince Charles, Morriston, University hospital of Wales, and the Royal Gwent hospitals and consultant ophthalmologists at the University hospital of Wales and Singleton hospital at a series of meetings on 24 and 29 May to discuss waiting list problems. In addition I have discussed the matter when visiting other hospitals over the past six months.

  Anaesthetic Services
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken by the Welsh Office to make provision for additional hospital-based general anaesthetic services for tooth extraction in Wales in the light of the Poswillo report.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Consultation upon the Poswillo report is continuing. The outcome will be announced in due course.

  Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the booklet, "How is Your Child Getting on at School"; and by what means it is being distributed.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Total production costs of the bilingual version of the booklet issued in Wales were £27,600.

  Free copies were distributed through the Central Office of Information to all primary schools, main post offices and libraries.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the maximum and minimum basic rates of pay recorded in the Doncaster area of the Employment Service from advertised posts in(a) the manufacturing sector and (b) the service sector for (i) full-time and (ii) part-time work, showing figures for (1) men and (2) women for the latest date he has available.
  317
  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not available, but figures on average earnings in April 1990 in South Yorkshire metropolitan county, for full-time men and women workers, are published in part E of the 1990 new earnings survey report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for which the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Jackson
  The amount spent by my Department in 1990–91 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, was £10·8 million.

  The following firms were awarded consultancy contracts by the Department of Employment Group during 1990–91:

  Consultant

  Subject

  A. C. Mole

  The Field System—supply of accountant

  Astra

  The Field System—supply of trainers

  BPD

  The Field System—supply of system tester

  Calibre

  The Field System—supply of trainer

  CCTA

  The Field System—supply of technical staff

  CMG

  The Field System—supply of system tester

  Computer People

  The Field System—supply of system tester

  Coopers

  The Field System—supply of accountant

  CSS

  The Field System—technical assurance

  Digital Ltd.

  The Field System—installation work, project management and communications development

  Digitus

  The Field System—system testing

  DMBS

  The Field System—system testing

  England

  The Field System—BACS support

  Ernst and Young

  The Field System—supply of accountants

  Executor

  The Field System—system testing

  Franklin

  The Field System—system testing

  Future Dimensions

  The Field System—training

  Hunterskill

  The Field System—system testing and administration

  KPMG

  The Field System—supply of accountant

  Look Systems

  The Field System—training

  Lorien Ltd.

  The Field System—system testing

  Marcol

  The Field System—system testing

  Newton

  The Field System—training

  Novatek

  The Field System—systems implementation

  318

  P-E International

  The Field System—applications development

  Pactum

  The Field System—system testing

  Price Waterhouse

  The Field System—accountancy

  SBS

  The Field System—applications development, system testing

  SEMA

  The Field System—system testing

  Taber Midas

  The Field System—training

  Trident

  The Field System—system testing

  Unicorn

  The Field System—training

  World Systems

  The Field System—applications development

  Yale Consultants

  The Field System—system testing, analysis and development

  Ingres

  Supply of trainer for technical training services and quality assurance

  Pogoda

  Programming services

  SBS

  Systems testing

  Instruction Set

  Quality assurance and conversion programming for Information Services branch

  Kernel

  Systems administration

  Science Systems

  Software development

  Tempest

  Conversion work on YTS system

  Abbotts

  Support for TOPS mini-computer system

  Aegis Group

  Communications research

  Anderson Consulting

  Feasibility study on the use of Data Image protection technology including definition of requirements

  BIS Applied Systems

  Video consultancy facilities—Post implementation review

  BIS Applied Systems

  Government data networks security

  BIS Applied Systems

  Study on the introduction of the quality programme and subsequent work on the programme

  BIS Applied Systems

  Post implementation review—strategy view future

  BT

  Telephone services consultancy

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Work on Integration project

  CCTA

  Support agreement

  DBI Associates

  CRAMM report

  DBI Associates

  Contingency planning review

  DCE Inf Mgt.

  Software evaluation

  Dataflex

  Systems development for Information Services branch

  Ernst and Young

  Project control, evaluation reporting and reorganisation report for Information Services branch

  Ernst and Young

  Business analysis and evaluation report for TA Directors' Information System (TADIS)

  Ernst and Young

  Work on integration project

  Expertech Ltd.

  Superannuation expert system

  Husat

  Needs analysis

  Inference Europe

  Needs analysis

  ICL

  Quickbuild consultancy

  J and G Ltd.

  Human Factors Awareness report

  KPMG

  Evaluation report for Information Services branch

  Kernel

  Hot-line system support for Information Services branch

  Kermon It. Mgt.

  Scoping study for EDHQ

  Kermon It. Mgt.

  Information systems strategy

  Lalcrest Ltd.

  Function point analysis

  Logica

  Study of Project Support Office

  Logica

  Rapport support

  319

  NCC

  New introduction to Data Processing course

  Olivetti

  Local area network connectivity report for Information Services branch

  Omricon

  System development for printing and stationery system

  PA Consulting

  Project Management and reorganisation

  PA Consulting

  Work on integration project and information systems strategy

  Selven Ltd.

  Fees paid project

  Silkglade

  System support for Information services

  Strand

  Local Area Network support

  Xentec

  Consultancy on data capture and system support for Information Services branch

  Yale Data

  Software Identification

  Yale Data

  International Passenger Survey—Filetab

  Yale Data

  Public Expenditure Survey system study

  451 Computers

  Applications support for EDHQ systems

  Computer Management Group

  Project Management System (PMS)—project design and development

  Parachute

  As above

  Pert Master International

  As above

  Novatek

  As above

  Electronic Facilities Design Ltd

  General support for procurement section

  DBI Associates

  Single Terminal Access Project (testing)

  Electronic Facilities Design Ltd

  Single Terminal Access Project (draft performance model)

  EOSYS

  Single Terminal Access Project (operational requirement study)

  Andersons

  Employment Service Payments system development

  LOGICA

  Business testing

  CSE

  Data network requirement

  SEMA

  Advice on introduction of Ingres and Restart

  Class Ltd

  Provision of SSADM expertise to IT study teams

  AMTEC

  Hardware strategy support

  AMTEC

  Accounting system study

  PA Consulting

  Voice Telecomms strategy

  Donaldsons

  Computerising conditions survey reports

  Sergeant, Minton and Lennon

  Communications programme project manager

  Andersons

  Training delivery consultant

  PSA

  Prioritising conditions survey reports

  Calder Ashby

  Revision to conditions survey agreement

  EECS and Partners

  Development and provision of seminar on climatic change

  Ewbank Preece

  Evaluation of ES property maintenance practise

  Ewbank Preece

  Preparation of national contract and maintenance specifications

  Donaldsons

  Analysis of regional conditions surveys and production of maintenance reports

  Ewbank Preece

  Analysis of regional consultants tenders

  Fairhursts

  Provision of a building contract procurement of policy document

  320

  EECS and Partners

  Provision of energy survey brief for tender pack/advice on energy management and conservation matters

  Sutherland Consultancy Group

  Marketing advice/brief on "Jobcentre" name

  Kinsley Lord

  Assistance with implementation of Change Management Programme

  NML Presentations Ltd

  Advice on 2nd national ES conference

  Kinsley Lord

  Advice on diagnostic and planning phase of Change Management Programme

  AR International

  Pay Study

  Mr M Gubby

  Study of Head Office communications with the field

  McDonald Gordon and Co.

  Haven Products assignment—production efficiency review

  R Mitchell Associates

  Reviews of SEPACS account forms

  Prism consultancy

  Total Quality Management

  Ray Charlton

  Design and delivery of workshop on Total Quality Management

  Open College

  Identification of gaps in open learning provision against management development framework

  Sheppard Moscow

  Management of change workshop

  Walton Churchill

  Interviewing and selection training

  Sue Hepworth Consultants

  Staff travel audit

  Ex-offenders (Training)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what were the levels of expenditure on employment training for ex-offenders for each year since the inception of employment training;

  (2) whether expenditure on employment training for ex-offenders has increased since the launch of Training and Enterprise Councils.

  Mr. Jackson
  Trainees do not have to say whether they are ex-offenders so there is no reliable information on their involvement in ET.

  Earnings
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest information available showing the level of average earnings for(a) manual and (b) non-manual males and females in full-time employment in (i) the county of Lancashire, and (b) England as a whole.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested can be found in tables 108, 109, 111 and 112 of part E of the 1990 new earnings survey report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Employment Credit Schemes
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make the results of the Government's market research into the viability of employment credit schemes, and the pilot action credit scheme, available to the training and enterprise councils; and which training and enterprise councils are planning to adopt a form of such schemes in each area.

  Mr. Jackson
  The results of the market research carried out on behalf of the Employment Service were published
  321
  in July 1990 under the title "Action Credit: Survey of Clients", and a copy was placed in the Library of the House. The results of the pilot action credit scheme will be published shortly. They will be made available to TECs through Employment Department regional offices. No central record is kept of the extent to which TECs are planning such schemes, but it is understood that few TECs currently have such plans.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many health and safety inspectors are currently employed wholly or mainly in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  On 1 May 1991 the Health and Safety Executive employed 55 health and safety inspectors working mainly or wholly in Wales.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate for the number of people over the age of 55 years who have retired early due to redundancy.

  Mr. Jackson
  Reliable estimates are not available.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  EC Legislation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any further plans to review the arrangements for considering EC legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government are committed to carrying out a full review of the new scrutiny procedures at the end of this parliamentary Session. In addition, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, most recently on 29 April, I keep the arrangements constantly under review, and I am presently considering whether to bring forward any proposals in the short term to deal with points that have arisen from the operation of the European Standing Committees.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what percentage of publications printed by HMSO on behalf of the House of Commons appear on recycled paper; and what plans there are to increase this percentage.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No publications printed by HMSO on behalf of the House of Commons are produced on recycled paper at present. Much of the material concerned is of archival significance and when the question was considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee during the last Session, it concurred with the advice given by HMSO that recycled paper was currently unsuitable for use in producing parliamentary publications, largely due to the poor archival qualities of the paper. However, the matter is being kept under review and I have asked the Sub-Committee to look again at the proposal that the Vote bundle be printed on recycled paper.

SCOTLAND

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the infant mortality rate in(a) each Scottish constituency, (b) each health board area, and (c) each postal district, in the last available year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provisional figures show that there were 510 infant deaths in Scotland in 1990, giving an infant mortality rate of 7·7 deaths per 1,000 live births. This continues the long-term downward trend. At this level, care must be taken in comparing rates for different areas.

  Rates for the 15 health board areas are given below: those based on fewer than 10 deaths are marked with an asterisk.

  Rates for the 72 parliamentary constituencies and the 438 postal districts are not given because comparison at this area level could be misleading.

  Infant Death Rates, Scotland 1990 (Provisional)

  Health Board Areas

  Number

  Borders

  10·7

  Forth Valley

  8·1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  *5·0

  Fife

  7·2

  Grampian

  6·8

  Highland

  8·5

  Lothian

  7·9

  Tayside

  9·1

  Orkney

  *7·4

  Shetland

  *0·0

  Western Isles

  *8·7

  Argyll and Clyde

  10·1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  6·4

  Greater Glasgow

  7·3

  Lanarkshire

  7·4

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many justices of the peace in Scotland are(a) men and (b) women; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  I am advised on the appointment of justices of the peace for each district and islands area by advisory committees. The committees have all been given guidance to the effect that it is desirable that the area of selection be wide and the choice comprehensive, so that commissions of the peace may include both men and women and be broadly representative of all sections of the community which they serve.

  Justices of the peace in Scotland as at 1 May 1991

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Justices appointed by the Secretary of State

  2,893

  745

  3,638

  Ex officio justices nominated by local authorities

  235

  59

  294

  Justices by virtue of having held office as a magistrate immediately before 16 May 1975

  418

  44

  462

  All justices

  3,546

  848

  4,394

  Hospital Services (East Lothian)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation took place between Lothian health board and the Scottish ambulance service about the implications of closures of hospital services in East Lothian on the workload of the ambulance service before those wards and units were closed; and if he will make a statement on the measures being taken to meet that workload in terms of manpower, equipment and finance.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish ambulance service was consulted by the health board as part of the public consultation of interested parties from 29 May to 30 July 1990.

  In order to meet the additional workload and to improve the service, including a reduction in single manning, 14 additional staff were employed in the East Lothian area at a cost of £286,000. No extra vehicles and equipment were required.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for the last five years for which figures are available, the bed occupancy rate of Meigle cottage hospital.

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

  In-patient bed occupancy rate at Meigle cottage hospital years ending 30 September

  Year

  Occupancy Per cent.

  1986

  81·8

  1987

  74·5

  1988

  82·6

  1989

  81·0

  1990

  83·4

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Government policy concerning cottage hospitals in general, and Meigle cottage hospital in particular.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is primarily the responsibility of health boards to determine the extent and level of services they provide in the light of local circumstances and priorities. Proposals for the future of Meigle cottage hospital are currently being considered by Tayside health board.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many isolates of legionella species have been found in the water supply of Greater Glasgow health board premises in the last year; which hospitals have been affected; and what steps have been taken.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since June 1990 one species of Legionellaceae, namely, Legionella Pneumophila sero-group 1, has been found in the water systems within Greater Glasgow health board's premises.

  During 1990 the Glasgow royal infirmary and the Glasgow Western infirmary both recorded cases of Legionnaire's disease. There are currently no outbreaks in Greater Glasgow area.
  324
  Greater Glasgow health board has an ongoing programme of water systems disinfection, maintenance and upgrading and are researching the proliferation of legionellae bacterium in water distribution systems. Over the past two years £250,000 has been spent on these measures and an allocation of £500,000 has been made for 1991–92.

  Health Boards (Regrading)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the number of regraded medical physics technicians, pharmacy technicians and medical photographers who have appealed against their new grade; and how many of these appeals have been heard.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on appeals lodged with health boards against their implementation of a new pay and grading structure for various groups of technicians and the length of time it has taken to process them is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many, both in absolute and percentage terms, of physiological measurement technicians, cardiology, were upgraded during the recent restructuring exercise in(a) Greater Glasgow health board and (b) all other health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The agreement concluded by the Professional and Technical Staffs B Whitley council in September 1989 related to a new pay and grading structure for various groups of technicians, including physiological measurement technicians and cardiographers. Information is not held centrally on the grades of staff prior and subsequent to implementation of the agreement and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In the financial sense, all staff received an increase on assimilation to the pay spine, which was one of the features of the agreement.

  Further Education
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the amount of access funds allocated to each college of further education in Scotland for 1990–91 and the amount paid out to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The allocations to the individual colleges of further education are listed in the table. All the sums concerned have been paid to the education authorities with the exception of that allocated to Shetland Islands council. It has only recently accepted the requirements for participation in the access funds and has yet to indicate the extent of its commitments for the remainder of the 1990–91 session.

  Further Education Colleges

  £

  Borders

  Borders College of Further Education

  10,255

  Central

  Clackmannan College of Further Education

  15,803

  Falkirk College of Technology

  27,645

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway College of Technology

  15,669

  325

  Further Education Colleges

  £

  The Barony College

  2,148

  Fife

  Elmwood Agricultural and Technical College

  6,097

  Fife College of Technology

  41,304

  Glenrothes and Buckhaven Technical College

  12,294

  Lauder College

  7,593

  Grampian

  Aberdeen College of Commerce

  36,019

  Aberdeen Technical College

  10,841

  Banff and Buchan College of Further Education

  15,715

  Clinterty Agricultural College

  3,457

  Highland

  Inverness College of Further and Higher Education

  28,097

  Moray College of Further Education

  28,754

  Thurso Technical College

  5,448

  Lothian

  Jewel and Esk Valley College

  27,471

  Oatridge Agricultural College

  2,043

  Stevenson College

  32,237

  Telford College of Further Education

  43,516

  West Lothian College of Further Education

  12,336

  Orkney

  Stromness Nautical College

  471

  Shetland

  Shetland College of Further Education

  2,200

  Strathclyde

  Anniesland College

  11,200

  Ayr College

  28,059

  Barmulloch College

  8,957

  Bell College of Technology

  53,325

  Cambuslang College

  13,446

  Cardonald College

  45,088

  Central College of Commerce

  25,575

  Clydebank College

  57,807

  Coatbridge College

  20,828

  Cumbernauld College

  15,471

  Glasgow College of Building and Printing

  39,696

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  22,498

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  14,742

  James Watt College

  25,973

  John Wheatley College

  13,305

  Kilmarnock College

  24,121

  Langside College

  42,781

  Motherwell College

  29,209

  Reid Kerr College

  32,445

  Springburn College

  9,481

  Stow College

  20,056

  Tayside

  Angus College of Further Education

  12,009

  Dundee College of Further Education

  76,009

  Perth College of Further Education

  23,808

  Western Isles

  Lews Castle College

  6,214

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Beef
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he gave approval for the re-boxing of intervention beef at Ulster Cold Stores for the Goodman Group; what information he has on the re-boxing of beef at Ulster Cold Stores; and if he will make a statement.
  326
  Mr. Hanley
  The re-boxing of intervention beef at the Ulster Cold Stores was approved by the Intervention Board executive agency. Approved re-boxing at that location commenced in November 1986 and continues up to the present. All approved re-boxing up to 5 August 1990 was supervised by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and since then by the Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland as agents of the agency.

  The procedural rules relating to the Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland/Livestock Marketing Commission supervision of re-packing/reboxing operations require the following conditions to be met:
  the beef must remain in the frozen state throughout the re-packing;
  the beef must not be mixed or re-packed with nonintervention beef;
  only boxes of the same cut can be cut and re-boxed together; mixing of cuts is not allowed;
  replacement of boxes must be marked with the net weight; cut name; number of cuts; and the original number;
  the correct tare of new boxes and any wrap must be obtained and the net weight of the contents recorded.

  Housing
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reduce the age at which houses may qualify for improvement or repair grants.

  Mr. Needham
  As part of a forthcoming draft housing order, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is considering changes to the house renovation grants scheme comparable to those recently introduced in England and Wales under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  These changes provide for all dwellings over 10 years old to qualify for renovation grant aid: dwellings requiring provision for or adaptations to meet the needs of a disabled person are exempt from this criterion.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to change the year specified within the regulations of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's home improvement and repair grant schemes as the threshold year for entry to the grant scheme.

  Mr. Needham
  Within the terms of the present legislation, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive exercises its discretion to target the availability of grant-aid towards those persons and properties most in need. In doing so, it has, in certain instances, restricted the availability of grant-aid to properties built before certain specified dates.

  However, as part of the forthcoming housing order, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is considering changes to the house renovation grants scheme comparable to those recently introduced in England and Wales under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  These changes would provide for all dwellings over 10 years old to qualify for renovation grant aid: dwellings where works are required to meet the needs of a disabled person are exempt from this criterion.

  General Practitioners
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many general practitioners bought added years (old style) pension rights in 1975; how many
  327
  of these general practitioners were under 43 years old in 1972; what were the figures for general practitioners aged under 44 years in steps of £500 as based on average updated earnings to October 1972; and how many of the general practitioners are still paying for the added years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ulster Talks (Chairman)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the names of the possible candidates for the position of independent chairman of strand 2 of the Ulster talks who have been suggested by the Irish Government and rejected by Her Majesty's Government;

  (2) if he will list the names of the possible candidates for the position of independent chairman of strand 2 of the Ulster talks who have been suggested by Her Majesty's Government and rejected by the Irish Government.

  Mr. Brooke
  I would not regard it as helpful to disclose details surrounding the appointment of the chairman. To do so would also be a breach of confidentiality.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, by location, his Department's war pensioners offices; and if he will make a statement on each one's future.

  Mr. Jack
  War pensioners' welfare offices are located as follows:

  Scotland—Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow

  North East—Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Middlesbrough

  North West—Preston, Bootle, Manchester

  Midlands—Birmingham, Nottingham

  Wales—Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham

  South West—Bristol, Newton Abbot

  London, North—Euston, High Wycombe, Norwich

  London, South—Balham, Basingstoke, Brighton, Portsmouth, Tunbridge Wells

  Northern Ireland—Belfast

  Republic of Ireland—Dublin, Cork

  A report last year of a routine management inspection of the war pensions welfare service made several recommendations about the location of war pensioners' welfare offices. No decisions have been taken on the recommendations. The welfare service has been incorporated into the new war pensions directorate which is considering whether offices are in the right places to deliver the most efficient service to war pensioners. Any proposals for change which may emerge will be discussed fully with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions and local war pensions committees will have an opportunity to comment. The interests of war pensioners and war widows will be safeguarded and we shall ensure that the effectiveness of the welfare service is fully maintained.

  Benefit Scale Rates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the supplementary benefit-income support scale rate for(a) a single adult and (b) a
  328
  married couple each year since 1970, the level of national average earnings for each of these years, and the single and married scale rates as a percentage of national average earnings for each of these years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is contained in tables 5.6(a), 5.6(b), 5.11(b), 5.11(c), 6.4(a) and 6.5(a) of, "Abstract of Statistics Index of Retail Prices, Average Earnings, Social Security Benefits and Contributions", published by the Department of Social Security, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  National Insurance Contributions (Earnings Limit)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the current numbers and the average number for 1991–92 of individuals with earned income above the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Jack
  Following the recent rise in the upper earnings limit, it is estimated that just under 3 million employees currently have earnings above this level. It is also estimated that during 1991–92 an average of 3·1 million employees will have earnings above the upper earnings limit. In addition, about 0·5 million self-employed people will earn above the upper profits limit.

  Pensions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy regarding index-linking private pensions in the near future.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Contracted-out occupational pension schemes and appropriate personal pension schemes are already under a statutory obligation annually to increase guaranteed minimum pensions accruing in respect of contracted-out employment from 6 April 1988, or pensions or annuities deriving from protected rights, in line with increases in the retail prices index to a maximum of 3 per cent. Guaranteed minimum pensions in respect of contracted-out employments before 6 April 1988, and any excess over 3 per cent. thereafter, are indexed by the state earnings-related pension scheme in line with the retail prices index.

  The Social Security Act 1990 includes a provision which will require occupational pension schemes to provide annual increases in the rate of salary-related pensions (other than guaranteed minimum pensions) accruing in respect of pensionable service from an appointed day. The increase will be linked to increases in the retail prices index to a maximum of 5 per cent. a year. In addition, schemes which have a surplus of assets over liabilities will he required to make comparable increases in respect of service before that day. No final decision has been made as to when this provision will come into effect.

  National Insurance (Company Cars)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), 1 May,Official Report, column 254, whether his estimate includes the effect of changes proposed in the 1991 Budget for national insurance contributions on company cars and fuel.

  Mr. Jack
  The figure of £750 million given to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) includes an amount
  329
  of £610 million which is attributable to the extension of employers' national insurance contributions to company cars and fuel, announced in the 1991 Budget.

  Pensioners' Expenditure
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimated annual expenditure at current prices of pensioners in the Deeside area on(a) heating, (b) lighting and (c) travel in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985 and (iii) the last year for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the gross and net budgets of the social fund for each of the local offices in Wales for

  Caseload (including backdated awards) as at end of month

  Number of family credit awards current at end of month1

  Self-employed

  Employees

  Total

  August 1990

  281,414

  48,140

  276,500

  324,640

  September 1990

  282,019

  48,080

  278,540

  326,620

  October 1990

  280,744

  47,860

  278,600

  326,460

  November 1990

  293,343

  —

  —

  2324,000

  December 1990

  284,429

  —

  —

  2317,000

  January 1991

  281,250

  —

  —

  2315,000

  February 1991

  288,924

  —

  —

  2322,000

  March 1991

  294,202

  —

  —

  3—

  April 1991

  292,752

  —

  —

  3—

  May 1991

  300,096

  —

  —

  3—

  1 A breakdown between employees and self-employed is not available.

  2 Provisional total: no breakdown between employees and self-employed at this stage.

  3 Meaningful figures not yet available because of claims not yet decided.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families with the main earner(a) employed and (b) self-employed, were receiving family credit of (a) under £10, (b) £10 to £19·99, (c) £20 to £29·99, (d) £30 to £39·99, (e) £40 to £49·99, (f) £50 to £59·99 and (g) £60 or more, at the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Jack
  At 31 October 1990, the latest date for which this information is available, the breakdown of the families receiving family credit was as follows:

  Weekly amount of Family Credit

  Main earner self-employed

  Main earner employed

  Under £10

  3,120

  47,920

  £10 to £19·99

  4,820

  59,460

  £20 to £29·99

  5,820

  53,700

  £30 to £39·99

  5,680

  45,880

  £40 to £49·99

  8,760

  35,960

  £50 to £59·99

  10,280

  20,240

  £60 or more

  9,380

  15,440

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for family credit have been refused since April 1988; and what proportion of new claims in each of the months April and May 1991 was unsuccessful.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he is taking to improve the level of service to family credit claimants.
  330
  each year since 1988–89, under the headings of (a) crisis loans, (b) budgeting loans and (c) community care grants, showing the change in real terms since 1988–89 in each case.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the public information office.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will bring up to date the information regarding family credit awards and case load given in his reply on 25 April,Official Report, columns 541–44.

  Mr. Jack
  The information now available, for August 1990 and subsequent months, is as follows:

  Mr. Jack
  The administration of family credit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the public information office.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recent representations he has received concerning income support levels and residential care.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Several representations have been received recently both from individuals and representative bodies.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to meet representatives from the National Care Homes Association to discuss funding arrangements for care in residential and nursing homes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to speak at the National Care Homes Association's annual conference on 31 October. He has no plans to meet representatives before that.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what have been the percentage increases in each year since 1988 for the housing benefit non-dependant deductions.
  331
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Amount of deduction

  Percentage increase

  1988

  Rent Rebates/Allowances

  Higher rate

  8·20

  —

  Lower rate

  3·45

  —

  Rate rebates

  3·00

  —

  1989

  Rent Rebates/Allowances

  Higher rate

  9·15

  11·6

  Lower rate

  3·85

  11·6

  Rate rebates

  3·35

  11·7

  1990

  Rent Rebates/Allowances

  Higher rate

  10·85

  18·6

  Lower rate

  4·55

  18·2

  1991

  Rent Rebates/Allowances

  Higher rate

  13·50

  24·4

  Lower rate

  5·70

  25·3

  Notes:

  Non-dependant deductions are uprated by reference to the retail prices index for housing.

  Variations in the percentage increases are due to rounding.

  Child Support Bill
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the benefit savings to be made if the income support of absent parents is to be reduced by virtue of clause 39(2) of the Child Support Bill.

  Mr. Jack
  Clause 39(2) of the Child Support Bill provides for a power to seek a contribution to maintenance from absent parents on income support by deduction from their income support to reinforce the message that they have the same responsibility as other parents. But those who are sick or disabled, or who are claiming income support for dependent children will be zero-rated. The long-term reduction in benefit expenditure from applying the deduction to those who are fit and able to work is provisionally estimated at approximately £9 million at 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on clause 22 of the Child Support Bill.

  Mr. Jack
  On initial publication of the White Paper, "Children Come First", we received some 250 written representations of which 56 contained specific responses on our proposals to reduce the caring parent benefit which were reflected in the Bill's original clause 22. Since the introduction of the Child Support Bill we have received about 20 letters on clause 22, some occasioned by representations to Members of Parliament from bodies who had also responded at the time of the White Paper publication.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate has been made of the administrative cost of applying deductions from income support by virtue of clause 35(2) of the Child Support Bill.
  332
  Mr. Jack
  The long-term administrative cost of all deductions from income support arising as a result of the Child Support Bill is provisionally estimated at about £4 million at 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had on clause 22 of the Child Support Bill.

  Mr. Jack
  We sought the views of organisations and members of the public on all aspects of the proposals set out in the White Paper "Children Come First", including the measures set out in the former clause 22. We have received many letters on this subject. In addition to representation by means of letter we were pleased to meet some of the principle organisations representing lone parents, when, as part of our wider consultations on the Bill we discussed both the current clause 6 and the former clause 22.

  Disability
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to advertise benefits available to disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  Since January 1990 we are taking the following steps to advertise benefits available to disabled people:

  i. Regular local radio and regional TV broadcasts involving our team of regional information officers.

  ii. Displays and mobile advice units in communities across the country, which include talks to carers and disabled people, visits to hospitals, day centres and other similar organisations.

  iii. National press campaigns advertising changes to disability benefits aimed at specialist carers and people with disabilities.

  iv. A specialist press, mail-out and press editorial campaign to announce changes to attendance allowance.

  v. A publicity campaign on mobility allowance directed at carers and advisers of people who are both deaf and blind. This consists of direct mailings supported by free editorial coverage in press and radio.

  vi. A campaign to announce a new telephone advice and information service for people with disabilities. As part of this service, for those people with impaired vision or who are blind we are providing letters and forms in Braille and large print.

  Special telecommunications facilities are available for those people with hearing difficulties. This advertising campaign is currently being run in southern England and is due to be run nationwide at the end of June.

  Students
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider allowing payment of income support to students during the coming summer vacation who are unable to obtain temporary employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Financial support for students throughout the year, including the summer vacation, is provided through the educational maintenance system. But certain students such as those who are disabled, lone parents, and student couples with children, may qualify for income support during the summer vacation. We have no plans to extend this concession.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice his Department gives to students who
  333
  apply for benefit for the period during the summer vacation because there is no temporary work available; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Full-time students are no longer entitled to unemployment benefit. With the exception of certain vulnerable groups, they are similarly unable to qualify for income support and housing benefit. Financial support throughout the year, including the summer vacation, is provided through the educational maintenance system.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefit a student can obtain during the summer vacation who cannot obtain temporary employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  With the exception of unemployment benefit, income support and housing benefit, the normal range of social security benefits is available to full-time students who satisfy the appropriate qualifying conditions. Full-time students in certain vulnerable groups, including lone parents, student couples with dependent children and disabled students also retain eligibility to income support and housing benefit. Partners of students may also qualify for these benefits on behalf of the couple.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish in the Official Report such information as is available for the latest period for which it is available regarding the number of sittings of social security appeal tribunals in each region at which no presenting officer appeared.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 26 April 1991 at column 602.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Pensioners (Television Licences)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will meet pensioner representatives to discuss free television licences for pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Giving free licences to all pensioners, including those who are well able to pay the fee, would cost £470 million a year, and would mean that everyone else would have to pay £116 for their colour licence. We have no plans to change the present arrangements and a meeting would serve no useful purpose.

  Refugees
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were given refugee status in each of the past two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Around 3,000 people, including associated dependants, were recognised as refugees in 1989 in the United Kingdom. For 1990 the provisional figure recorded at present is about 1,600, but this is likely to understate because of delays in recording.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress being made with community service orders.

  Mr. John Patten
  National standards on the supervision of community service orders were introduced two years ago, on 1 April 1989. As intended, they have been effective in achieving tighter and more consistent management of this work by probation services. My Department is now circulating to probation services an analysis of the first year's operation of the standards.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to modify the structure and control of police authorities.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have no plans to modify the structure and control of police authorities. The Government remain committed to the tripartite structure of our policing system and the value of local involvement. There are developments that we need in providing support to the police service and enhancing the delivery of policing as a local service, but these can be achieved using the flexibility of the Police Act 1964. This is the message I will be giving to the Association of Chief Police Officers in a speech tonight.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on industrial relations within the prison service.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are currently 43 local disputes registered under the disputes procedure agreed between the POA and prison service management. The level of disputes is a matter of concern, particularly when it results in industrial action leading to prisoners being held in police cells.

  Following a POA ballot last June in favour of industrial action but not strike action on issues of staffing and safety, there has been a series of meetings with the POA to resolve the dispute which have not yet been successful.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the Prison Reform Trust to discuss implementation of the recommendations of the Woolf report.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend will next month be addressing a conference organised by the Prison Reform Trust. We shall listen with interest to all representations made about the future direction of the prison service while preparing the forthcoming White Paper.

  Obscenity Law
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to amend the law on obscenity.

  Mr. John Patten
  If suitable proposals are put forward which appear likely to command wide support, we will of course consider supporting them.

  Constitutional Arrangements
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the constitutional machinery of Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no such plans. We believe that our present constitutional arrangements serve their respective purposes well.

  Television Franchise Applications
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to discuss the franchise applications.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. It is for the Independent Television Commission, acting independently of Government, to assess the applications for Channel 3 licences.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to meet the Shopping Hours Reform Council to discuss Sunday trading.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I met representatives of the Shopping Hours Reform Council yesterday. The meeting was one in the extensive programme of separate discussions which I am holding with bodies representing retailers and other interests, to assist in the possible development of acceptable proposals for the reform of the Sunday trading law.

  Prisons, Yorkshire
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to make an official visit to Yorkshire to inspect prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend's current programme of visits to prisons does not include any in Yorkshire, but I visited HM prison Leeds in April and am planning to visit HM prison Askham Grange in July. I will also be opening HM prison Moorland, near Doncaster, in October.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that imprisoned sex offenders have access to appropriate counselling services.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Although many prison establishments already undertake individual counselling and group therapy with sex offenders, the current provision is largely unco-ordinated.

  The Criminal Justice Bill places particular emphasis on tackling offending behaviour. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce shortly details of a structured programme for sex offenders in prison.

  Iraqi Citizens
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to change the rules for admission of Iraqi citizens to the United Kingdom.
  336
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend did so on 12 April. Applications by Iraqi nationals now fall to be considered against normal immigration criteria.

  Prison Service (Properties)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the constituencies in the United Kingdom that contain domestic properties owned by the prison service and the number of properties in each constituency.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of attacks with a racial motive have been reported in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  National figures for racially motivated incidents are collected annually; 6,459 incidents were reported to police forces in England and Wales in 1990.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken by his Department to eliminate racial attacks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office has issued a series of guidelines to all police forces on responding effectively and as a priority to racial attacks. Good practice in preventing attacks, supporting victims and dealing with perpetrators is spread and monitored, in co-operation with Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. We are co-ordinating the work of all responsible agencies in providing further guidance, information and evaluation on national and local initiatives. Broader policies on equal opportunities, quality of service and police training are designed to take full account of the problem of racial attacks.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount spent by his Department in the 1990–91 financial year on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1990–91, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm, the subject of the assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for which the contract was carried out.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Home Office spent approximately £4,503,000 on management and computer consultancies, excluding hardware and software purchases, in the 1990–91 financial year. Details of the management and computer consultancies awarded, none of which was carried out for an executive agency, are as follows:

  Supplier

  Description

  Capita Group Ltd. (The)

  Consultancy support for performance measurement training

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Magistrates Courts Agency: Costing of the start up and running

  337

  Sallmans Int Prop Cons

  Appointment of project coordinator

  Mr B Webb

  Research into crime on London Underground Limited

  Touche Ross

  Review of catering service at fire service college

  Jones Lang Wooton

  City search

  A R Brannon

  Appointment of consultant to conduct an enquiry

  A Langdown

  Appointment of fire consultant

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Review of paperwork

  Collingwood Court and Association

  Market research for Hull safer cities project

  Capita Group Ltd. (The)

  Project coordinator for study of CICB

  DEGW

  Prison service headquarters: Space consultancy

  Vista Communications

  Prison service communications audit

  PE International

  Review of British visitors passport and standard passport

  Mr. P. Hyde

  Design and conduct of a seminar for senior management

  Charles Baker City Ltd.

  Provision of public relations support for the sale of national transcommunications

  Price Waterhouse

  Study into television licence fee

  J. Burrows

  Best practice in commercial crime prevention

  Ernst and Young

  Validation of IT strategy

  Handley-Walker Group

  Preparation of draft specification for market-testing of S and T warehousing and distribution activities

  PA Consultants

  Area manager training

  Michael Associates

  Research into CCTV

  Prof. R. V. Clarke

  Thievability index

  Ernst and Young

  Court escort area survey

  Price Waterhouse

  Police activity sampling

  Saville and Holdsworth Ltd.

  Revision of police initial recruitment test

  Touche Ross

  Preparation of financial model

  H. D. Associates

  Re-organisation

  Neville Clark Ltd.

  Quality systems

  P. Hannant

  Advice on police aviation

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Review of common police services

  Management Exchange Limited (THE)

  Feasibility study on police training needs

  Admiral

  Technical assurance

  Radius

  Software conversion

  S-Com

  Software production

  Whitworth

  Fire cover model technical manual

  Oracle

  File tracking testing

  LOGICA

  Lunar house LAN design

  DOWTY

  Fire brigade communications

  Hans Grafte

  SSADM consultancy

  ZENTECH

  MIS system consultancy

  Strand

  COMMS infrastructure

  INTAC

  Video conferencing consultancy

  PA Consulting Group

  INCIS project manager

  Winway

  LIDS 2 technical manager

  Oracle

  Oracle consultancy

  Oracle

  Financial management system consultancy

  Hoskyns

  LIDS post implementation review

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  MIS consultancy

  DBI Associates

  Business case guide

  Oracle

  Oracle consultancy

  VNG Nationwide

  Oracle consultancy

  Hoskyns Group

  NCRS project

  DBI Associates

  PROMIS strategy review

  Rede Group

  Quality consultancy

  DBI Associates

  Prince consultancy

  338

  CCMS

  Charging system consultancy

  Hoskyns Group

  UNIX capacity management

  CSC

  INCIS technical architect

  Grafton

  INCIS technical designer

  Grafton

  INCIS systems analysis

  Admiral

  Technical author

  Admiral

  AFMIS risk analysis

  Software AG

  Technical manager

  Winway Systems

  ITS technical management

  Grafton

  Application software consultancy

  Siemens Nixdorf

  Siemens software consultancy

  RMIS

  Probation study

  Bell Software

  Database administration support

  Ernst and Young

  Promis/spits strategy

  Paradis

  Packaging of algorithms

  CSC

  CDA Manager

  Metier

  Artemis support

  Kermon

  Mass project support

  DBI Associates

  Technical author

  CSS

  CICB Study

  Kermon

  Technical Manager

  Hoskyns Group

  Unix Policy Review

  Kermon

  IEU Software Consultancy

  VNG Nationwide

  Oracle Consultancy

  Hoskyns Group

  Review of projects

  Recognition research

  AFR Neural Networks Consultancy

  Kermon

  IT strategy

  Kermon

  Procurement support

  Winway

  ITS Risk Analysis

  Glossa

  AFR Investigation Work

  OFICE

  Prison comms study

  ENE

  Survey of Prison lans

  T. J. Knewett

  IT requirements for Probation Service

  Kermon

  Prepare IT strategy for Probation Service

  Cooper, Lybrand and Deloitte

  Review of Microb

  Mourney Partners

  IT strategy for training

  Price Waterhouse

  Advice on fallout modelling computer programmes

  Hunting Engineering

  Modifying Protfac code

  Prisons (Assaults)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the procedures under which allegations into serious assault in prisons are investigated; and whether such allegations are automatically referred to the police.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  If a prisoner is suspected of a serious offence against the law, including assault, the governor has discretion to refer the matter to the police for investigation. The internal disciplinary code includes charges that may amount to a criminal offence, however, and it is normal, therefore, for behaviour that might amount to a relatively minor criminal offence to be investigated and dealt with internally.

  Allegations against staff are investigated, and governors may, on prison service headquarters' advice, refer such allegations to the police for investigation if there is evidence that a criminal offence may have been committed. Evidence that a serious assault had occurred would invariably be referred to the police.

  Street Lighting and Crime
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the research by Southampton university, funded by the Home Office, into the effect of street lighting on crime in Wandsworth
  339
  Mr. John Patten
  We hope to publish the results of this research as a Home Office crime prevention unit paper within the next few months.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a reply to correspondence originating from Mr. and Mrs. J. T. Mayne, of Chywarthen, Tarrandean Lane, Perranwell Station, Truro, transferred to his Department on 27 March from the Department of the Environment under their reference K/PSO/5781/91.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 29 May.

  Violent Crime
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the incidence of violent crime in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the incidence of violent crime in other countries of the EC and in the United States of America.

  Mr. John Patten
  There were about 250,000 violent crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1990, about 6 per cent. of all recorded crime.

  A recent international crime survey showed that in 1988 the risk of being the victim of violent crime in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland was lower than in most western European countries—for example, Belgium. Within western Europe, risks were highest in Finland, the Netherlands and West Germany. The risk in the USA was the highest of all countries surveyed. The results of the survey are in "Experiences of Crime across the World: Key findings from the 1989 International Crime Survey", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Curtis Howard
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date in 1990 Mr. Curtis Howard, an American citizen, was deported from the United Kingdom; what entry was made in his passport at that time; when and where he is believed to have entered the United Kingdom this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Curtis Howard was removed from the United Kingdom to the United States of America as an illegal entrant on 5 July 1990 and his passport was endorsed to show this. Police inquiries into his more recent movements are continuing, but I understand that Mr. Howard did not gain entry in his true identity.

  Disability
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the head of programming at the BBC to discuss subtitles for the deaf.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the BBC from time to time to discuss a range of broadcasting issues. However, programming and subtitling are matters for them to determine, within their public service responsibilities.
  340
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to ensure that all polling booths are accessible to disabled people.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman means polling stations rather than polling booths. As he is aware, district and London borough councils in England and Wales have a statutory obligation to place polling stations in buildings which are accessible to disabled people, wherever this is practicable. My officials last wrote to councils in December 1989 to remind them of their duty in this respect and will do so again shortly.

  Police Records
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of the planned NCIS computer network for intelligence on major crime.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The requirements of the computer system for the national criminal intelligence service have not yet been finalised. Until the specification for the system has been agreed, it is not possible to say what the cost is likely to be.

  Women (European Community)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who represented the United Kingdom at the Informal Council on the Conditions of Women in the EC member states held in Luxemboug on 13 May; what was discussed; what priorities were put forward for action; and whether there are plans for a further meeting.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: I attended the informal meeting of Women's Ministers in Luxembourg on 13 May in my capacity as chairman of the ministerial group on women's issues. We discussed the implementation of the third medium term (1991–95) Community action programme on equal opportunities for women and men and child care provision in the member states.

  The meeting endorsed the overall objective of the Commission's third action programme and there was an exchange of views on child care provision. It is up to each presidency to decide whether to call an informal meeting of Ministers.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dog owners have been(a) fined and (b) imprisoned because of attacks by their dogs; what was the average fine or prison sentence in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 23 Mar 1991]: The latest figures in respect of offences under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, the Dogs Act 1871 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 are as follows:

  Number fined

  Average fine £

  Number imprisoned

  1985

  124

  33

  —

  1986

  112

  41

  —

  1987

  104

  43

  —

  1988

  104

  38

  —

  1989

  134

  51

  —

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports of dog attacks he
  341
  has received in each of the last five years; how many (a) children and (b) adults were injured, seriously injured and killed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 23 May 1991]: The Home Office is not routinely informed of attacks by dogs and no statistics about them are collected centrally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Whales
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts the British Government have made to prevent other nations from hunting whales for commercial reasons.

  Mr. Curry
  At the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission the United Kingdom continued to play a leading role in ensuring that the moratorium on commercial whaling was upheld. Further, requests for catch quotas by Iceland and Japan were turned down, resolutions were passed against the research whaling plans of Japan and the USSR and ensuring a follow-up to a report on the status of small cetacean populations. At the United Kingdom's suggestion a special review will be undertaken on the humaneness of whale killing methods, an issue about which we are particularly concerned.

  Ivermectin
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring is undertaken to detect traces of ivermectin in farmed salmon on sale in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ivermectin is not licensed for use in fish in the United Kingdom and, to date, no monitoring has been conducted to detect residues in ivermectin in the edible tissues of farmed salmon on sale in the United Kingdom. However, surveillance for residues in farmed fish is currently being stepped up and testing for ivermectin will be included within the scope of the new arrangements.

  Pig Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he intends to introduce a compulsory slaughter policy with compensation for herds affected, or suspected of being affected by blue ear pig disease;

  (2) whether he will ban all live pig imports from countries where blue ear pig disease has been confirmed;

  (3) what steps he is taking to protect the United Kingdom pig industry from blue ear pig disease.

  Mr. Maclean
  Until the causative agent is identified, there is no way of knowing if slaughtering herds would be an effective means of controlling the disease. Commission decision 91/237/EEC of 25 April prohibits exports of pigs for breeding or production from infected farms and municipalities in those member states where the disease has been confirmed. No live pigs are being imported from affected countries. There are no approved foot and mouth disease quarantine premises for pigs and there has been no trade interest in such imports.

  Artificial Sweeteners
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take to protect the United Kingdom's crisp and snack industry from adverse affects of the proposed EC directive on artificial sweeteners.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are continuing to press for the inclusion of these products in the proposed directive.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the pesticide active ingredients which are currently(a) under review and (b) awaiting review, indicating whether each one is due for a full or partial review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information set out below relates to pesticide active ingredients which are(a) currently tinder review and (b) awaiting review. Although an indication of full or partial review has been given for these active ingredients listed at (a), it is not possible at this stage to indicate the nature of the reviews that will be undertaken in respect of the pesticides detailed at (b). A decision on the extent of these reviews will be made once approval holders have submitted details of all data held in support of products based on the active ingredients.

  (a) Active ingredients first approved before 1981 and currently under review

  Alachlor—Full

  Atrazine—Full

  Benomyl—Partial

  Bromoxynil—Full

  Captan—Partial

  Carbendazim—Partial

  Chlorothalonil—Partial

  Demeton-S-methyl—Full

  Demeton-S-methyl-sulphone—Full

  Diazinon—Full

  Dichlorvos—Full

  Dithiocarbamates:

  Ferbam—Full

  Mancozeb—Full

  Maneb—Full

  Nabam—Full

  Propineb—Full

  Thiram—Full

  Zineb—Full

  Zineb-ethylene-thiuram disulphide adduct—Full

  Ziram—Full

  Dinocap—Full

  Ioxynil—Full

  Isoproturon—Full

  Lindane—Full

  Linuron—Full

  Methyl bromide—Partial

  Monolinuron—Full

  Oxydemeton-methyl—Full

  Simazine—Full

  Synthetic Pyrethroids:

  Cypermethrin—Partial

  Deltamethrin—Partial

  Permethrin—Partial

  8 post-1981 compounds—Partial

  Thiophanate methyl—Partial

  Thiabendazole—Partial

  Tecnazene—Full

  2-Aminobutane—Partial

  2,4,D—Full

  Vinclozolin—Partial

  Chlorfenvinphos—Full

  Dimethoate—Full

  +Omethoate*—Full

  +Formothion*—Full

  343

  Malathion—Full

  Mecoprop—Full

  +Mecoprop-p*—Full

  Phorate—Full

  Triazophos—Full

  (b) Active Ingredients awaiting review

  Category 1 (top priority)

  Azinphos-methyl

  Dichlorophen + DB (2,4-)

  Dichlorprop

  Diquat

  Fentin acetate

  Fentin hydroxide

  MCPA + MCPB*

  Metaldehyde

  Methiocarb

  Nicotine

  Paraquat

  Pirimicarb

  Pirimiphos-methyl +Pirimiphos-ethyl*

  Sodium Cyanide

  Zinc Phosphide +Aluminium phosphide*

  PRIORITY LISTS: CATEGORIES 2 TO 3
  If at any time areas of particular concern about active ingredients in the categories are identified, priorities will be reassed and an immediate partial or full review may be undertaken.

  Category 2

  Aldicarb

  Alphachloralose

  Ammonium sulphamate

  Benazolin

  Carbaryl

  Chloroethylphosphonic acid

  Chlorpropham

  Chlorpyriphos

  Chlorpyriphos-methyl

  Copper Hydroxide

  Copper Oxychloride

  Copper Sulphate

  Copper-complex-Bordeaux mixture

  Cresylic Acid

  Dicamba

  Dichlofluanid

  Disulfoton

  Endosulfan

  Formaldehyde

  Iprodione

  Maleic Hydrazide

  Methomyl

  Pentachlorophenol

  TCA

  Tetradifon

  Tri-allate

  Trichlorfon

  Trifluralin

  Vamidothion

  Category 3

  Aluminium sulphate

  Ammonium carbonate

  Ammonium sulphate

  Bitumen

  Bromophos

  Bupirimate

  Butoxycarboxim

  Carbofuran

  Chloridazon

  Chlorotoluron

  Chloroxuron

  Copper ammonium carbonate

  Coumatetralyl

  Dalapon

  Desmetryne

  Dichlobenil

  Diocofol

  Dithianon

  Diuron

  344

  Dodine

  Etrimfos

  Fatty acids

  Fenitrothion

  Ferric sulphate

  Ferrous sulphate

  Glyphosate

  Heptenophos

  Imazalil

  Indol-3-ylacetic acid

  Indol-3-ylbutyric acid

  Lenacil

  Mephostolan

  Metalaxyl

  Naled

  Pepper

  Phenols

  Prometryn

  Propiconazole

  Propyzamide

  Pyrazophos

  Pyrethrins-pyrethrum

  Quinomethionate

  Rotenone

  Sodium chlorate

  Sodium hydrogen carbonate

  Sodium tetraborate

  Sulphur

  Tar oils

  TBA (2,3,6-)

  Terbutryn

  Tetramethrin

  Thiometon

  Triadimefon

  Triforine

  Category 4

  Amitrole

  Ammonium hydroxide

  Benzalkonium chloride

  Bioresmethrin

  Bone oil

  Boric acid

  Brodifacoum

  Bromacil

  Carbetamide

  Chlorbufam

  Chlorophacinone

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 11 December 1990, if he will list all the pesticide active ingredients he(a) received, (b) approved and (c) rejected in 1990 and to date in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is set out below in respect of applications for pesticides submitted to this Ministry for approval by the six Departments responsible. Applications for which the Health and Safety Executive is not primarily responsible—non-agricultural pesticides—are not included.

  1990

  1991

  (a) Received

  7

  3

  (names are commercial in confidence)

  (b) (i) Approved

  6

  2

  (provisional level)

  deltamethrin fenoxyprop-ethyl cycloxydim PP321 fenpropathrin fenvalerate

  teflubenzuron gluphosinate-ammonium

  (ii) Approved

  1

  (experimental permit)

  oryzalin

  345

  1990

  1991

  (iii) Decisions deferred pending further data

  5

  1

  (names are commercial in confidence)

  (c) Rejected

  1

  —

  ethalfluralin

  (d) Withdrawn

  4

  1

  (names are commercial in confidence)

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields on 16 January 1990, if he will list the active ingredients which have had their reviews concluded by the advisory committee on pesticides according to the categories(a) approval withdrawn, (b) use restricted and (c) use continues unchanged following their review since 16 January 1990, indicating if they were full or partial reviews; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Approvals withdrawn

  P TBTO (some approvals)

  P Alphalchloralose—commodity substance approvals

  P Secanol—commodity substance approvals

  (b) Use restricted or other

  P Vinclozolin

  amendments to approvals

  F Diazinon

  F Toxynil

  F Bromoxynil

  P 2-aminobutane

  (c) Use continues unchanged

  F Maneb

  F Mancozeb

  F Nabam

  F Zineb

  F Zineb-ethylene-thiuram disulphide adduct

  Note: P=partial.

  F=full.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been undertaken by his Department into the levels of(a) mercury pollution, (b) plutonium pollution and (c) polychlorinated biphenyl pollution in the Irish sea and their uptake by fish, dolphins and molluscs living in the region.

  Mr. Curry
  The results of the Department's monitoring of non-radioactive and radioactive contaminants, including mercury, plutonium and polychlorinated biphenyls, in fish and molluscs are regularly published in the aquatic environment monitoring reports (AEMR), copies of which are available in the Library of the House. AEMR No. 26, due to be published shortly, will describe work undertaken in 1988 and 1989. In addition to results on contaminants in fish and shellfish, it will contain a section summarising work on contaminants in marine mammals, including dolphins.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made by his Department of the biogenic sulphur loading in the atmosphere arising from emissions from nutrient-enriched plankton in the North sea.

  Mr. Curry
  Dimethyl sulfide is believed to arise in surface water from the natural biochemistry of certain 346
  species of marine algae. We do not monitor specifically for sulfide loading. However, we have an annual nutrient monitoring programme in the North sea, and there is no evidence for enhanced algal production from nutrients of manmade origin in the open North sea.

  Rabies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional steps will be taken to prevent an escalation in incidents of rabies following the completion of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Maclean
  Eurotunnel has implemented measures agreed with the Department to prevent the possible entry of rabies-susceptible animals while the tunnel is built. The state veterinary service and the Department's wildlife scientists have been fully involved in devising the measures to be used once the tunnel is operational. These have yet to be finalised, but will include the use of sealed trains, physical barriers and grids, and the continuous use of baited traps in the tunnel and terminal areas, together with vigorous cleaning and inspection procedures.

  The planned control measures will ensure that the channel tunnel presents no greater rabies risk than other forms of cross-channel transport.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many quarantined animals have developed rabies in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Maclean
  Two animals developed rabies in quarantine in this period, one in 1983 and the other in 1990. None developed the disease after release from quarantine.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many non-organophosphorous compounds for the treatment of sheeps' coats are awaiting licence approval; how long they have been awaiting approval; and when he expects to make a decision on any of these preparations.

  Mr. Maclean
  Two applications for product licences in respect of non-organophosphorous compounds for sheep treatment were submitted to the veterinary medicines directorate in January 1990 and August 1990 respectively. Licences are issued under the Medicines Act only once a product has been demonstrated to be safe, of sound quality, and effective. We are unable to say when decisions on determining these applications will be taken.

DEFENCE

  Tanks
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the possible leasing of Leopard tanks by the British Army.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As Leopard 2 (improved) is a contender for Chieftain replacement, discussion on what may or may not be part of any particular offer would breach commercial confidentiality.

  German Equipment
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when in the last six months discussions have taken place with his German counterparts regarding the possible use by British forces of German equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend has had a number of discussions with Dr. Stoltenberg in the last six months, concerning a wide range of issues.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the specific performance targets set for the Meteorological Office following on from the initial targets he announced in 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  At column 444 on 2 April 1990, my right hon. Friend set out the initial targets set for the Meteorological Office. The performance achieved against these targets will be reported in the agency's annual report and accounts which will be available in the summer.

  Following on from these initial targets I have set further specific and demanding targets for the period 1991–96. These are:
  To improve efficiency by an average of 3 per cent. per annum.
  To achieve a 50 per cent. increase in uptake of meteorological services, as measured by revenue generated from commercial services to the public, industry and commerce (excluding the Civil Aviation Authority).
  To achieve a 170 per cent. increase in the gross contribution of commercial services revenue to offsetting core costs and overheads.
  To reduce by 15 per cent. cumulatively the standard error of 48-hour forecasts of mid-tropospheric pressure fields over the North Atlantic and North West Europe.
  To achieve high standards of quality and demonstrate a level of customer satisfaction with the services and products delivered. Quantified targets will be set annually for each major customer group.
  To provide authoritative advice on climate change issues to Ministers nationally, and internationally through the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  Central Television (Libel Actions)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact there has been between officials of his Department and Messrs de Normann and Mackenzie Geidt regarding their libel actions against Central Television.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As a date has been set for a hearing it would not be appropriate to comment.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, further to his letter to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South of 23 May, he will give the name and title of the official with whom Mr. Mackenzie Geidt had an informed discussion in October 1989 following his return from Vietnam.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Strategic Objectives
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his precise global strategic objectives; and what exact manning levels for the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force he is proposing in order to meet those objectives.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The strategic environment in which the Government set defence policy and take decisions on the defence programme is set out each year in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" (SDE) which includes manpower statistics for the three services. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House on 30 April, we hope to publish SDE 91 before the summer recess.

  Iraq (Nuclear Material)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent reports he has had from the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iraq's assurances on the amount of fissionable material(a) safely sealed and (b) destroyed during allied bombing; and what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to monitor radiation in the Tuwaitha area.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: I have been asked to reply.

  An IAEA team visited Iraq from 14–22 May to begin verification of Iraq's statements to the UN of its nuclear holdings. The IAEA has not made public the findings of its initial inspection. A confidential report will be submitted to the agency's board of governors, of which the United Kingdom is a member. Further inspections which may include the monitoring of radiation in the Tuwaitha area will be necessary to fulfil all the requirements of UNSCR 687.

  The Gulf (Pollution)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being carried out into the effect of hydrocarbons released by oil fires on the cells of animals' bodies in Kuwait.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: I have been asked to reply.

  I am not aware of research on this particular topic but as I have already indicated to the hon. Member (Official Report, 28 March, column 458 and 17 April, column 183) a comprehensive assessment of environmental damage caused by the conflict is now being carried out by the United Nations Environment Programme.

  Antares (Sinking)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the results of the Royal Navy inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have placed a summary of the main findings of the Royal Navy board of inquiry report into this tragic accident in the Library of the House today.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Gosford —Took the Oath.

War Crimes Act: Costs
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the estimated annual cost of operating the War Crimes Act; and how many convictions are likely to be obtained under it in the next two years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, costs associated with the War Crimes Act 1991 are estimated as in the order of £3 million in England and Wales and £600,000 in Scotland in this financial year
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is similar expenditure expected in future years? He will observe that the Question refers to the next two years. Will expenditure continue at that level?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is difficult to be precise in such matters, but for 1992–93 it is likely to be in the order of £11 million and for 1993–94 in the order of £11 million. The expenditure in Scotland is likely to be in the order of £3 million for 1992–93.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Australia and Canada are still in a state of standstill on their very first cases? Does that give the British Government any encouragement to embark upon an adventure of frustration and fiasco?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the decision to take such action was made by Parliament. There was overwhelming support for it in another place. One cannot compare Australia and Canada, which operate under different jurisdictions.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the Government did not waste money on essentially political excursions, of which this is a minor example and the poll tax story is one of staggering size, they might have more money to spend on practical needs such as modernising London Underground?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney —
Noble Lords: No, no!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we can all make terrible mistakes. I do not believe that I ever made a worse mistake than that one. I was going to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on extending the subject of the Question about war crimes to the poll tax and other such matters. We cannot compare
736
them. He is well aware that Parliament agreed to take the action. As Parliament, which is all powerful in these matters, has agreed to do it, it is up to the Government to make funds available.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the second part of the Question asks, "how many convictions are likely to be obtained under it in the next two years"? Does the Minister realise that he was well advised not to answer such a Question as it would be a most unhappy day for the House if we were asked to take on the job of being a jury and decide how many convictions there might be before charges are even brought?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for saying how well advised I was. That is in contrast to what he said the other day on the Criminal Justice Bill. I cannot possibly answer that Question because I do not know how many people will be charged or convicted.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as the Minister cannot answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will he tell us what criteria the Government will adopt in deciding whether they are receiving value for money for that £3 million?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not the Government's business to decide whether we are receiving value for money when we start prosecuting people on a matter for which Parliament has decided they should be prosecuted.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, have any of the police or security people working on the war crimes investigation been taken off work against terrorism or drug trafficking?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit was set up to investigate these cases on 28th May. It consists of a number of police officers. I cannot tell the noble Lord from which areas they have been drawn.
Lord Monson: My Lords, what steps are being taken to bring to justice communist war criminals who must be at least as numerous as Nazi war criminals, if not more so?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Lord knows to what the War Crimes Act refers and it does not refer to communist war criminals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend's inability to answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, that part of my Question in which I asked how many convictions were expected mean that it is possible that the expenditure about which he told us will result in no convictions over the next two years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is possible that the expenditure to be incurred over the next two years will result in no convictions. It may result in some convictions. My noble friend is well aware that I cannot tell him how many there will be.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, Does my noble friend agree that it is somewhat inappropriate and difficult to talk about convictions of proposed accused people who are assumed to be innocent until they are convicted?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is true. One cannot be convicted until one has been prosecuted. I cannot tell your Lordships how many people will be prosecuted or convicted.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that anyone who faces a possible appearance before the judges will have ample time to search for witnesses on his own behalf?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a matter for the operation of the judicial process.

European Monetary Union
3.8 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the European Commission's latest proposal whereby Britain would be asked to agree to a treaty on European monetary union without being committed in advance to the implementation of a single European currency.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor said in another place on 24th January, we cannot accept any changes to the Treaty of Rome that would bind us to move to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. The suggestion made at the informal ECOFIN on 12th May is a step in the right direction. But there remain many issues to be discussed in the Economic and Monetary Union IGC before a final agreement can be reached.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I recognise that it is early for the Government to make a final decision about what their attitude might be towards a treaty on economic and monetary union. However, does the noble Lord not agree that the proposition that has been put forward presents an attractive compromise? Does it not enable the Government on the one hand to demonstrate clearly that they want to remain active in Community matters while on the other hand not being committed, at this stage at any rate, to some objectives about which they have doubts?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I should make clear that I know of no specific proposition that has been put forward. What has been referred to is a statement to the effect that the United Kingdom would not be forced to move to a single currency. Clearly, if that was said, it is a step in the right direction, but it is not clear what the author of the statement had in mind in terms of any amendments to the treaty.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a vital question of principle is involved upon which it is not honest for the Government to equivocate? Will the noble Lord
738
confirm that the attitude of the Government falls fairly and squarely within the views expressed by the Prime Minister when he was a member of the Cabinet headed by the right honourable lady, the Member for Finchley? Any such compromise skates over vital issues of political accountability and is quite simply the wrong way for the future development of Europe. Will the noble Lord say whether or not the Government are in agreement with the ultimate move to the EMU, irrespective of whether it involves the single currency?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there has been no equivocation whatever. We have made it absolutely clear that we could not accept the imposition of a single currency. However, we shall, of course, continue to negotiate constructively and hope to find a way forward acceptable to Parliament and to our European partners. A move to a single currency must in any event be some years away at the earliest. It would be for a future government and Parliament to decide whether to move to stage three.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that the Government's position is that they could not accept the imposition of a single currency, should the stress be laid upon "imposition" or upon "single currency"?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, our position has been made absolutely plain. The United Kingdom is not obliged to accept the imposition of a single currency and we will not do so. However, we will continue to negotiate constructively. There are many issues, including the contents of stage two, which need to be resolved before the question of a single currency needs even to be addressed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, since it is now becoming increasingly apparent that the other 11 members of the European Community are intent on proceeding towards a single currency, does the response of the noble Lord the Leader of the House to earlier questions mean that the British Government will not sign a treaty for a single currency when it is produced in the relatively near future?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have answered the question quite clearly. We shall continue to negotiate constructively. Questions of a veto or of not signing any treaty, before we have even seen the terms of any amendments which might be agreed, are quite unnecessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that the Government and Parliament should be wary of any compromise proposal which comes from the napoleonesque M. Delors? Does he agree that such compromise would eventually lead to the monetary and economic sovereignty of this country being undermined? Finally, does he agree that Mr. Ridley at the Bruges Group yesterday set out what the future policy of the Government should be? Will the noble Lord follow that policy?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have already made clear that no proposals which can be described as a compromise on the lines suggested by the noble Lord have been put forward. We are talking about a statement reported in the press and attributed to M. Delors to the effect that the United Kingdom would not he forced to move to a single currency. That is all.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House keeps saying that he has made everything clear; therefore I know that it is my fault that I cannot understand what he says. Essentially, he is being asked: does one favour a move to a single currency? I can tell him clearly that I do favour a move to a single currency. I have no difficulty on that. This is a matter that concerns the whole country: in my view, it is not political, it is national. What some of us are trying to find out is where the Government stand. To use the noble Lord's word, the Government ought to have a "clear" view. Do they favour a move to a single currency or not? It has nothing to do with its imposition. We are trying to find out whether they favour it.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thought that we had made our position absolutely plain when we put forward our proposals for a hard ecu. We were making plain that we believe that it is far better to move from a common currency to a currency that is widely accepted by more and more partners in the Community than to go for a single currency, just like that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this matter. I thought that the hard ecu was completely dead; I did not think that we were going back to that. May I take it that the answer is that the Government do not favour a move to a single currency? Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House at least say that? It would be enormously helpful, although disastrous to the City of London, to know.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong if he believes that the hard ecu is dead. The Spanish and German governments have recently talked in terms of a harder ecu.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the hard ecu proposition. Could it be regarded as a step towards a single currency or as an alternative to a single currency?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the British Government have always made plain that over a period of time a common currency could eventually become a single currency.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord beat in mind that the opinions expressed from the Front Bench of this side of the House are not always indicative of party policy?

EC: Grain and Beef Stocks
3.16 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total volume of EC intervention stocks of grain and beef respectively at the latest date for which figures are available, and the corresponding figures for two years earlier.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the latest available figures for European Community intervention stocks of grain and beef show stocks standing at 18,092,000 and 566,000 tonnes respectively. The corresponding figures two years ago were 6,596,000 and 274,000 tonnes.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as the food mountains are again rising to record levels and as the common agricultural policy now costs the fantastic sum of £23 billion sterling annually, can the Minister at least assure the House that our Minister of Agriculture will support the moderate proposals for reform put forward by the agricultural commissioner in Brussels?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government welcome the Commission's acceptance that reform of the CAP is needed, but the Government are not in favour of the Commission's approach. In particular, emphasis on safeguarding small farms would tend to make EC agriculture less able to adapt to market forces. It would severely disadvantage United Kingdom farmers.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has it occurred to the Government that the vast amount of millions of tonnes of grain might more cheaply and usefully be used in feeding the hungry?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I very much take my noble and learned friend's point. Some of the grain will go to those who are in disaster areas at the moment. However, the Government also take the view that cash and expertise are equally welcome.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when the EC responds to the various famine appeals it does not draw from its own stocks but buys on the world market? If that is the case and if the noble Earl can confirm it, is that not the most ridiculous situation and an utter condemnation of the whole farce of the common agricultural policy?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I do not have the answer to the question but I shall look into the matter and write to him.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it might help in freeing the market within the European Community if stocks of beef and cereals which are in intervention could be freed when the market requires them, rather than when the European civil servants decide to release them?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the rules on sales from intervention stocks of the

741
various commodities are inevitably complex but in principle intervention is designed to support a given price by removing stocks from the market. It is therefore logical that those stocks should only be released back on to the market at a price at least equal to the support price. Sales out of intervention stocks at the market price, if that were below the support price, would therefore inevitably undermine the system.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the storage costs for these surplus foods amount to an astronomical sum per annum? A figure of £12 billion has been reported, of which the United Kingdom share is significant. Those storage costs contribute directly to the higher cost of food that is borne by households in this country. The costs also have a fiscal effect as they form part of the £2,000 million net contribution of the UK to the European Community.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct to mention the figure of £12 billion. I shall elaborate on the figures. The cost of the storage and disposal of surplus food in the European Community in 1990 was 16.22 becu. That is £11.3 billion. In 1989 the figure was 18.44 becu, or £12 billion. The noble Lord mentioned the latter figure. The full impact of recent increases in stocks has not appeared in the 1990 budget as yet. The cost of the storage and disposal of surplus food in the United Kingdom in 1990 was 810 mecu, which is £565 million, compared with 941 mecu, or £616 million, in 1989.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, do the Government still rely on farm gate price reductions to reduce this surplus? Have the Government worked out the long-term consequences to the rural economy of such a policy?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the outcome of the 1991 price fixing settlement has been a notable success.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that the astronomical and wasteful figures that have been mentioned entail more than mere figures? Is it not a fact that those figures feed through to ordinary people in their weekly bills? Is it not the case that each family in this country spends £16 per week more on food than they would have to spend if they could buy their food at world prices? Will the noble Earl confirm that the Irish have so much grain that they can no longer store it inland but have to hire ships to store it offshore?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord has quite rightly previously referred to this matter. Today the noble Lord mentioned the figure of £16 but I believe in the past he has mentioned £18. One must not forget that at the moment United Kingdom farmers are benefiting from the common agricultural policy. I cannot comment on the Irish grain situation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the object of buying grain into intervention stocks is to keep prices up while the effect of releasing the grain on to the market is to push prices down, and the cost of keeping the grain in intervention stocks is excessive, does not my noble friend agree that the opportunity of getting rid of large quantities of the stuff outside the market is to be welcomed? The answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, should be that the Common Market is trying in every possible way to use this grain to alleviate famine in other countries, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham suggested.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree with many of my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the principal reasons for the increase in the grain stocks in the past two years has been the total inadequacy of the measures taken by the Agriculture Council thus far to deal with mounting surpluses? While hope is held out that the recent settlement may do something to alleviate the position, one cannot ignore the fact that the Agriculture Council is itself a major source of the problem of grain surpluses.
As regards beef, does the noble Earl agree that the beef mountain is in part due to the purchase of stocks of beef which are being dumped by East European countries? Although those purchases are supposed to be controlled when they enter the Community, the degree of control is inadequate. British farmers have been beneficiaries in this matter in that the European Community has taken a fairly liberal view of the problems which the beef market is experiencing in Britain at present because of the incidence of BSE. Will the noble Earl ask his right honourable friend the Minister whether he will consider releasing additional supplies of meat free to those categories of people in Britain who are currently entitled to a free distribution of meat?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord made a number of points. In answer to his first point, I can only repeat that in the Government's view the outcome of the 1991 price fixing settlement was quite successful. The noble Lord also asked about beef imports from Eastern Europe. We have pressed the Commission to ensure that in all cases the rules regarding imports are properly applied and are not circumvented by illegal cheap imports from outside the Community. The Commission has adopted measures enabling it to monitor the level of live calf imports. The issuing of licences can be suspended if necessary. In addition, the Commission proposed the introduction of an annual live animal import limit of 425,000. That is significantly lower than recent annual imports.
As regards the noble Lord's final point on the availability of beef from intervention stocks to United Kingdom pensioners, under the EC surplus food scheme some 3,000 tonnes of beef will be distributed in 1991 to the most needy citizens in the United Kingdom. Pensioners as a group are not eligible for

743
this allocation. The food is restricted to homeless people and to those in receipt of income support or family credit.
Lord Jay: My Lords —
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we should move on to the next Question, otherwise there will be insufficient time for it.
Lord Jay: My Lords, if the Government cannot accept the Commission's proposals, are the Government themselves putting forward effective proposals to get something done?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I firmly believe that my right honourable friend in another place is doing a most excellent job.

The Five Pence Coin
3.27 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to discover whether the five pence coin finds favour with the public, and with what result.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the decision to introduce the new 5p coin, due to public demand for lighter coinage, was taken after extensive research and consultation with the general public and representatives of special interest groups such as the blind, the elderly and the vending industry. The transition to the new coin appears to have gone well with relatively few complaints.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am much obliged for that Answer. Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House able to scotch the rumour that the only people who are really happy with this coin are Mr. Nick Faldo and his friends who find it convenient for marking the spot where the ball lands upon the green?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord may or may not be right as regards whether Mr. Nick Faldo likes the coin. All I can say is that a consultation pamphlet was issued in 1987 and the majority of those who responded to it favoured a smaller 5p and 10p coin. Since the issue of the 5p coin 183 complaints have been received. That compares with 800 complaints following the introduction of the £1 coin. I would not describe that as a great tidal wave of public displeasure.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, how do the weight and value of this new coin compare with the classical threepenny bit and the classical farthing?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am not sure about the weight of the coins but the classical silver threepenny bit was 16 millimetres in diameter. The new coin is 18 millimetres in diameter.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1979 5p was worth two-and-a-half times more than it is today? Does he agree that the diminishing size of this coin must be a symbol of the
744
Government's failure to control inflation? How much smaller will this coin become before it disappears altogether?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows perfectly well that the point she has made goes very wide of the Question. However, I am more than happy to respond to it because, as she knows perfectly well, the average increase in inflation during the years of Labour government was precisely twice the average increase during the years of Conservative government.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people like the 5p coin? Can he say how soon we can expect to have 10p and 50p coins of similar weight and measurement?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the consultation process yielded no evidence of any demand for a smaller 50p coin. However, it has been decided to introduce a different 10p coin, which will be the same size as the old 5p. It will have a pronounced milled edge to help the blind and it will be cupro-nickel. Its introduction has been deferred from June to September 1992 to help the vending machine industry.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many millions of 50p coins in the banks because the public refuse to have them and that the coin is very unpopular? Will the Government consider recommending to the committee that that coin should be phased out?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I remember that initially the £1 coin was very unpopular, but later it became very popular. That is the reason why there are a very large numbers of 50p coins in the possession of the banks.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, as the Minister mentioned bookmakers can he tell us what kind of bet can be placed for 5p?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have not had a chance to go racing this year and therefore I am out of touch with racing habits, which is a matter for great regret.

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

London Underground (Victoria) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Business of the House: Debate, 19th June
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel set down for Wednesday 19th June shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing

745
Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2 1/2 hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes". —(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Committee of Selection
3.33 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Motion and the following two Motions arise as a result of the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, as Chief Whip in place of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and the fact that the Chief Whip is ex officio a member of these three committees.
Moved, That the Lord Hesketh be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Lord Denham. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leave of Absence and Lords Expenses: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Hesketh be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Lord Denham. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Hesketh be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Denham. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Industry Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to any of these consolidation Bills and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall beg to move in each case that the order of recommitment be discharged. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Resources Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, that the order of recommitment be discharged. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Water Companies Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, that the order of recommitment be discharged. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Drainage Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 67 as first printed for the Commons Amendments marked * are new or have been altered]
1.Clause 3, page 2, line 35, at beginning insert '(1) Subject to subsection (2) below,'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. With the permission of the House I shall also speak to Amendment No. 3.
The effect of the amendments is to disapply paragraphs (b) to (e) of Scottish Natural Heritage's balancing duty in relation to the special nature conservation functions described in paragraphs (b) to (e) of Section 133(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which are carried out not by SNH on its own

747
but by SNH with English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales through the Joint Nature Conservancy Council.
Those functions concern the provision of advice to government on policies for nature conservation for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain; the provision of advice and dissemination of knowledge to any persons about such nature conservation; the establishment of common standards throughout Great Britain for the monitoring of and research into nature conservation; and the commissioning or support of research relevant to those matters. The only balancing duty which is impose I on NCCS and the England and Wales bodies in relation to those functions is contained in Section 131(2) of the Environmental Protection Act and is broadly similar to that in paragraph (a) of Clause 3(1), requiring those bodies to take appropriate account of actual or possible ecological changes. The end result of the amendments is therefore the same as is achieved for England and Wales by Section 131(2) of the 1990 Act.
It may be noted that the remaining elements of the Clause 3 balancing duty are disapplied in relation to paragraphs (b) to (e) of Section 133(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, but not to paragraph (a). That is because the special functions mentioned in paragraph (a) are subject to an additional balancing duty under Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, requiring the English and Welsh bodies to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas. As that corresponds broadly to the most significant aspects of the rest of the Clause 3 duty it was considered inappropriate also to disapply paragraphs (b) to (f) of Clause 3(1) to this paragraph.
As I have already indicated, the amendments achieve the important effect of putting SNH's relationship to the JNCC on exactly the same footing as the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland at present, the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales. It has been an important government commitment throughout the re-organisation of nature conservation agencies that the relationship between the country agencies and the JNCC would be the same. The amendments contribute to fulfilling that commitment.
There has been some doubt about the effect of the amendments on the balancing duty placed on SNH by Clause 3 I can assure your Lordships that they will have no discernible effect on SNH's balancing duty. Whenever SNH itself is discharging any of its functions, the balancing duty under Clause 3 will come into operation. I hope that it is quite clear that nothing in the present amendments detracts from that.
There has been some suggestion that the amendments have some relevance to the implementation of European Community legislation. I can give a categorical assurance that that is not the case.
As I explained, the amendments relate to the functions discharged through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. That committee is concerned with uniformity of standards and criteria throughout Great Britain and therefore the members
748
appointed by each of the three sponsor bodies need to act on the same basis and bring to bear the same considerations. The amendments to Clause 3 are designed to achieve that in the case of SNH. Noble Lords should bear in mind that the JNCC is purely an advisory body. It does not have executive functions and therefore its deliberations cannot directly affect anyone's land or interests. It will be for SNH to decide whether to accept any advice offered to it by the JNCC. If SNH decides to implement advice from the JNCC, the Clause 3 balancing duty then comes fully into operation.
I apologise for being lengthy in my submission, but I hope that that clarifies any lingering doubts that noble Lords may have. I hope that the House will agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. I and 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No 1. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 3, page 2, line 41, leave out 'and' and insert —
`() the need to conserve sites and landscapes of archaeological or historical interest;
() the interests of owners and occupiers of land, and'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Clause 3 lays a duty upon SNH in exercising its functions to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of a number of other factors which interact with the natural heritage of Scotland. The clause has been described as SNH's "balancing duty". The amendment adds to the list of factors the need to conserve sites and landscapes of archaeologycal or historical interest and the interests of owners and occupiers of land.
In making the first of these amendments, we were mindful of the debate on this subject which took place during the Third Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House. The landscape that we see around us today is the product of a close relationship between man and his environment over many thousands of years. The conservation and protection of the natural landscape and the conservation and protection of the archaeological record must inevitably proceed in parallel. That is the reason for the first part of this amendment.
The second part of the amendment is designed to ensure that the interests of owners and occupiers of land, who will be major partners with SNH in conserving and enhancing the natural heritage, are fully taken into account.
Your Lordships will recall that we accepted the amendment put down by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, that SNH should take appropriate account of the interests of local communities. Nevertheless, the definition of communities is not an easy one, as became clear during Third Reading in this House. We therefore decided that some clarification was appropriate as, on reflection, we were not entirely convinced that "communities" fully embraced owners and occupiers.

749
We also believe that, without taking the interests of owners and occupiers of land as well as the interests of local communities into account, SNH would not be able to perform its statutory functions properly or effectively.
It will be for SNH to judge in each case what the balance should be between the different factors set out in the clause. Also, as I hope that the House will appreciate, the duty on SNH is expressed in terms of taking appropriate account of those various factors. They cannot override the primary aims.
I should emphasise that these amendments, and those others that we have agreed to for SNH's balancing duty, underline our commitment that SNH will work co-operatively and in partnership with all relevant interests. It will take steps to understand the interests and needs of those partners and the activities that they pursue, and ensure that that influences the way in which it undertakes its functions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, since we last discussed the matter I have thought a great deal about what might constitute a local community. I can give two examples. The rather wide-flung inhabitants of upper Deeside above Braemar might constitute a local community. I do not know whether any noble Lords are familiar with the township of Elphin in Sutherland, near Assynt. That again might constitute a local community.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to go a little further. He has been generous in explaining the new provisions and we appreciate it. However, I take it that landscapes of archaeological interest refer not only to the immediate landscape in which the object of archaeological interest lies, but to the neighbourhood. I have a case in mind in which a broch has been severely damaged in many people's view, not by anything done to it or its immediate neighbourhood, but by the creation of a large car park fairly adjacent to it and the road thereto. The damage has been done, I regret to say, by a public body which is supposed to look after our interests and our beauty spots. I take it that in future such a development in the neighbourhood but not in the immediate vicinity of the object of archaeological interest would be liable to scrutiny by a national heritage body.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord talks more in terms of a planning operation and of the difficulty of planning rather than of something that directly affects SNH. The balancing duty relates to when Scottish Natural Heritage wishes to do something. It is then obliged to take into account those various interests which include landscapes of archaeological or historic interest. I take the noble Lord's example. If SNH wanted to do something in that area, it would have to consider all those balancing duties. If a car park was proposed at that point, SNH would certainly have an opinion on that
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 3, page 2, line 42, at end insert —
'(2) Paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1) above shall not apply as regards any function exercised by SNH in pursuance of any of paragraphs (b) to (e) of section 133(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (special functions to be exercised through the joint committee).'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3 to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, perhaps I may make a technical point regarding the fact that the amendment refers to paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1). As I understand it, paragraph (d) relates to the need to conserve sites of archaeological and historical interest; paragraph (e) relates to the interests of owners and occupiers; and paragraph (f) relates to the interests of local communities. Is the amendment correct when it refers to paragraphs (b) to (d) or should it be paragraphs (b) to (f)?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not think that there is a drafting error. I hear what my noble friend says, but I am sure that that point will be taken care of.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 4, page 3, line 1, leave out '132(3) and 133' and insert 'and 132(3)'.
5 Page 3, line 5, at end insert —
'() Section 133 of that Act shall continue to extend to Scotland and —

(a) the references to 'the Councils' shall include a reference to SNH; and

(b) in subsection (3) after the words 'section 132 above' there shall be inserted the words 'or, as the case may be, the nature conservation functions of Scottish Natural Heritage',

and in discharging its nature conservation functions, SNH shall have regard to any advice given to it by the joint committee under the said subsection (3).'.
6 Page 3, leave out lines 15 to 17.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 en bloc.
These amendments are technical ones. They are designed to put beyond doubt the ability of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to advise SNH on any matter arising in connection with SNH's nature conservation functions which, in the committee's opinion, relate to nature conservation for Great Britain as a whole, or nature conservation outside Great Britain. The amendments also provide that SNH shall have regard to any such advice given to it by the committee. They are part of the undertaking, to which I have already referred, that the relationship of SNH towards nature conservation legislation should be on exactly the same footing as that of NCCS and the England and Wales councils.

751
Perhaps I may return to the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. It is currently a matter of printing and it will become paragraphs (b) to (f). I hope that that clarifies the matter and I am sorry that I was less clear earlier.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 en bloc. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on the point made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, is it not normal practice at this stage of a Bill for the paragraph lettering to be left to be sorted out later? This matter will arise later in our proceedings. It does not matter whether it is (a), (b), (f) or (g) because it will be sorted out later. That is the procedure that we normally observe.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that useful information. I was not fully aware of the procedure, but everyone is now happy that the correct procedure will be adhered to.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, in fact I asked the question reasonably seriously because it seems to me to make quite a difference whether paragraph (f) is the last one and whether we were talking about paragraphs (b) to (d). It would seem to me to be more than a trivial issue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 5, page 4, leave out lines 1 to 8.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 7
7A That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7, but do propose the following amendment in lieu —
Page 4, leave out lines I to 8 and insert —
("(4) Where SNH has prepared a proposal for a development project or scheme for any area which involves the compulsory acquisition of land under subsection (6)(a) below, a compulsory purchase order for that purpose shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure in any case where an objection has been duly made by the owner of the land and has not been withdrawn.
(5) In subsection (4) above "owner" shall have the same meaning as in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947.").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7, but do propose the amendment set out in the Marshalled List in lieu thereof.
The noble Lord said: In my view the Commons amendment is acceptable in so far as it removes the right of appeal against development schemes or projects. For the reasons that I gave in debate on Third Reading in this House, such a right of appeal is unnecessary. However, we consider that, in addition to removing the right of appeal, it is appropriate to take steps to meet the concerns that have been expressed about the scope of SNH's compulsory purchase power under Clause 5.
My proposal is, therefore, that compulsory purchase orders made by the Secretary of State under Clause 5 should be subject to special parliamentary procedure. The effect of this would be that, in addition to the normal legal and financial constraints, which
752
SNH would need to overcome, and as well as convincing the Secretary of State that it had a good case for wishing to purchase the land compulsorily, the making of a compulsory purchase order by the Secretary of State would by no means be the end of the story. Where the owner had objected to the compulsory purchase of his land, special parliamentary procedure would then be invoked. As your Lordships may know, this would be an additional and very substantial hurdle.
Under this procedure, a compulsory purchase order is of no effect until it has been laid before Parliament and has been brought into operation in accordance with the special procedure Acts. Petitions may be presented against the compulsory purchase order and either House may resolve that the order should be annulled. The most notable use of the procedure at present is that it is used to safeguard National Trust land. My amendment would therefore give the landowner the same degree of protection in relation to his land being compulsorily purchased by SNH as the National Trust in general has against any compulsory acquisition. Indeed, the definition of "owner" which we have used here is wide enough to include tenants under a lease which has more than three years to run.
The practical effect of my amendment would be that even if the Secretary of State agreed with SNH that a compulsory purchase order should be made, Parliament's approval would also be required via these very complicated procedures. In my view, this is more than adequate to curb any excessive or inappropriate use of these powers by SNH.
I remind those who feel that we may have gone too far with this amendment and effectively neutralised the compulsory purchase power of what I said when we discussed the scope of Clause 5 on Third Reading.
Clause 5 is essentially a re-enactment of a provision which already exists in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. In most instances where the Countryside Commission for Scotland has used the power the agreement of the landowner has been very easy to obtain since the land concerned has generally been of little value and not in any gainful use. We expect that pattern to continue. It is also unlikely that SNH would wish to pursue a project where the landowner does not consent. It is therefore extremely unlikely that SNH would ever wish to use its compulsory purchase powers, and indeed CCS has made no use of them in over 20 years. Resort to compulsory purchase in such cases would go against the whole basis of co-operation and partnership which we wish to see SNH establish.
The addition of the special parliamentary procedure to SNH's compulsory purchase powers will serve as a reminder to SNH that if it wishes to invoke its compulsory purchase powers it needs to be completely convinced of the overwhelming importance of the project or scheme. That seems to us to strike a satisfactory balance between the interest of the landowner and SNH's powers in relation to development projects or schemes.
It may be asked why we do not simply remove the compulsory purchase power from this clause. I agree that in many respects that would be the simplest

753
solution. But that avenue is not open to us because of the stage which the Bill has reached. We can look only at amendments made by the other place. The compulsory purchase power in Clause 5 was not amended in the other place and therefore it is beyond our power at this stage to touch it.
With that explanation, I commend Amendment No. 7A.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7, but do propose Motion No. 7A in lieu thereof. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the defect in Clause 5 is that Scottish National Heritage may prefer proposals for development projects for schemes which fulfil the criteria set out in Clause 5 (1) and (2) but there is no provision for testing the appropriateness of the project or scheme. Yet if the landowner objects it may form the basis for compulsory acquisition of his property.
The government amendment still does not provide a mechanism for testing the appropriateness of a project or scheme. It might in fact have been quite easily done by referring the project or scheme to the independent scientific committee which Amendment No. 11 is designed to set up. However, the additional difficulty encountered in going down the route of compulsory purchase which this amendment creates will have the desired effect of making SNH consider very carefully the desirability or expediency of any project or scheme where it is called into question by the owner or occupier of the land affected. That is why
I withdrew an amendment which I had tabled and which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has overtaken.
I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for this amendment and for all the trouble that he has taken over it. If necessary, I shall support it in the Division Lobby and I hope that other noble Lords will also do so.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, this is a new amendment which I have seen only today and I simply wish to clarify a point. I accept that there will be advantage from introducing the special parliamentary procedure, which the Government have decided to do in cases of this kind. But in the past any compulsory purchase procedure in Scotland which involved a compulsory purchase order has provided, as part of the system, for an appeal to the Secretary of State. At an earlier stage in this Bill I inquired whether that principle still existed in Scottish legislation; namely, that there can be no compulsory purchase without the possibility of appeal to the Secretary of State.
I want to make sure that that situation still exists and that introducing the special parliamentary procedure is an addition and does not detract from the fact that compulsory purchase enables an objector in the last resort to go the Secretary of State.
Lord Renton: My Lords, compulsory purchase is a fairly drastic remedy in order to achieve a public purpose. It is one which under the law has for years been subject to fairly stringent safeguards to protect
754
the interests of those who would be affected by that compulsory purchase. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, it is unlikely that in the circumstances envisaged here there would be compulsory purchase. It is just something up the sleeve of authority in case it should be needed.
However, we should record, as the noble Lady said, that to make it subject to special parliamentary procedure is a very important additional safeguard in addition to those that exist under the present law. Therefore, I too feel that the Government have done right in this matter.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and in particular the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, whose original amendment has been overturned by the other place. The introduction of the special parliamentary procedure seems to offer the best means of addressing the fears expressed both in this House and in another place about the use that SNH might make of its compulsory purchase provisions in relation to these schemes —given, of course, that we cannot just leave the power.
Perhaps I may just say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, that he is absolutely correct. With compulsory power, part of the procedure is that one has to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State. That is still maintained.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause: —
Natural Heritage Areas
'. —(1) Where it appears to SNH, after consultation with such persons as it thinks fit, that an area is of outstanding value to the natural heritage of Scotland, and that special protection measures are appropriate for it, it may recommend to the Secretary of State that the area be designated as a Natural Heritage Area.
(2) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (I) above he may designate the area by a direction under this subsection as a Natural Heritage Area.
(3) Where the Secretary of State proposes to make a direction under subsection (2) above he shall publish notice of the proposal in the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the proposed areas.
(4) Before making a direction under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall consider any representations received by him about the proposal within six weeks of the date which is the later of the dates on which the publication under subsection (3) above of notice relating to the proposal occurs.
(5) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under subsection (2) above he shall publish notice of the designation in the Edinburgh Gazette and in a least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the Area.
(6) Where it appears to SNH, after consultation with such persons as it thinks fit, that it is no longer appropriate that an area which has been designated as a Natural Heritage Area or any part of it should continue to be so designated it may recommend to the Secretary of State that the designation be cancelled or, as the case may be, varied.
(7) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (6) above he may, by a direction under this subsection, cancel or, as the case may be, vary the designation of the Natural Heritage Area; and subsections (3) to (5) above shall apply to a direction proposed to be made under this subsection as they apply to a direction proposed to be made under subsection (2) above, and for the purposes of such application the reference in subsection (3) to the proposed area shall be construed as a reference to the Area.
(8) Section 262C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (National Scenic Areas) shall be amended as follows —

(a) in subsection (3) for the words "National Scenic Area" there shall be substituted the words "Natural Heritage Area under section [Natural Heritage Areas] of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991; and

(b) in subsection (4) for the words "National Scenic Area" there shall be substituted the words "Natural Heritage Area".

(9) Notwithstanding the repeal by section 26 of and Schedule 11 to this Act of subsections (1) and (2) of the said section 262C or the amendment by this section of subsections (3) and (4) of that section, any area which, at the date of such repeal, was designated as a National Scenic Area shall continue to be so designated and, until such designation is cancelled by a direction under the said section 262C, the provisions of that section shall continue to have effect in relation to the area as if they had not been repealed or, as the case may be, amended.'.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. In moving Amendment No. 8 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 41.
I should point out that your Lordships will now have had the opportunity to read our consultation paper on natural heritage areas which sets out in detail our present thinking on the way in which the new mechanism might operate. Again I apologise if I am somewhat lengthy in explaining what this provision achieves.
The introduction of NHAs is based on the fact that at present no unified approach exists to deal with both nature and landscape conservation, and to provide for access and enjoyment. The merger of the two statutory bodies concerned with nature conservation on the one hand, and landscape protection and enjoyment on the other, is based on a comprehensive approach to the management of Scotland's areas of natural heritage significance. This new mechanism is an essential part of that approach and is based on the voluntary principle which underlies our attitude towards conservation.
Natural heritage areas are not, in essence, a new form of designation. They follow the precedent of existing national scenic areas. As the consultation paper makes clear, the only statutory effect of designation is to ensure that planning authorities would have to take account of the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and the appearance of a natural heritage area when exercising their functions under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. Our intention, therefore, with NHAs can be summarised as follows.
First, both the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Government have been concerned for some time about the effectiveness of national scenic areas as a means of influencing development which has an impact on landscape. Secondly, at the same time your Lordships, as well as many others including the former Nature Conservancy Council, have questioned whether SSSIs are the most appropriate means of safeguarding large areas of high nature conservation value, in particular in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Thirdly, we wish to involve, under the tried and tested voluntary
756
principle, all relevant local interests in discussion and decision about the use and management of the natural heritage. Building on that, we anticipate the SNH will influence through consultation the way that the land and other resources within natural heritage areas are used and managed. Finally, we want to ensure that SNH, recognising that it cannot operate to full effect over the whole of Scotland, focuses its resources and statutory tools on the key areas of Scotland.
Overall, therefore, we regard the real importance of NHAs and the mechanisms which SNH will apply, both statutory and non-statutory, in those areas to tie in their use as a natural heritage management tool rather than as simply a designation which has legal effect in planning matters. As it is based on consultation both prior to designation and in the implementation of any management statement approved by the Secretary of State, then I hope your Lordships will, for example, like the Scottish Landowners' Federation, look favourably on our proposals. The details have yet to be worked out. That is why we have widely circulated a consultation paper with a three and a half months consultation period to provide an opportunity for all those interests to help in the evolution of the proposals so that SNH will have the opportunity to take them forward at an early date. On that basis I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 8 8A★ Subsection (3), at end insert ("and give notice in writing to anyone in the proposed areas who is obliged, under section 78 of the Agriculture Act 1947, to submit a return.")
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I understand that Amendments Nos. 8A, 8C and 8D which concern the same matter have been grouped with Amendment No. 8B. It may be simpler for the House if I move Amendment No. 8A, and speak to Amendments Nos. 8C and 8D now and Amendment No. 8B later.
The reason for the amendments is that much trouble and misunderstanding has arisen in the past over the designation, for example, of national scenic areas. The owners of the land in the early years were not notified but were expected to have read the Edinburgh Gazette and such other newspapers in which the Secretary of State saw fit to advertise. I do not know whether anyone other than lawyers reads the Edinburgh Gazette. I certainly do not. If it were in order for me to ask those noble Lords who read the Edinburgh Gazette to raise their hands, I very much doubt whether I should see a great many hands. A person has only to be away for a week or two to miss an announcement in the press.
I therefore tabled amendments to require the Secretary of State to notify owners and occupiers in writing. I was then told that, as natural heritage areas would be very large, possibly containing whole villages and parts of towns, to notify every owner or occupier might be a task that the Secretary of State would not wish to undertake. It might even be impossible.

757
I still believe that he should undertake the task, whether or not he likes it. However, out of the kindness of my heart I tried to find less onerous ways to meet the objective of notifying individual people whose lives and livelihoods would be most seriously affected. Eventually, I tabled the amendments before your Lordships requiring the Secretary of State to notify anyone in the area who is obliged under Section 78, as amended, of the Agriculture Act 1947 to submit a return.
The Government cannot argue that there would be any difficulty. They must have an up-to-date list of people who are required to submit a return every year. Virtually anyone who makes his living off the land will fall into that category. They are the people whose need to be kept informed is the greatest. That is the story which underlies Amendments Nos. 8A and 8D. Amendment No. 8C is consequential.
I am advised that there is no such legal term as "owner" in Scots law and that the term should be heritable proprietor. Perhaps the Minister will comment when he replies. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I hope that I am in order in speaking to Amendment No. 8 since it is grouped with Amendment No. 8A. I wish to address most of my remarks to Amendment No. 8.
The Minister referred to the consultation paper issued by the Scottish Office in March of this year. It was a very comprehensive document on which organisations were invited to give their views by 30th June 1991. My first question to the Minister is this. Why was it necessary to go ahead with this proposal before receiving the views of all those organisations concerned? Does not the fact that the Government have gone ahead without hearing what the organisations had to say show almost contempt for their views? After all, there might not have been a single organisation in favour of what the Minister put forward.
As it happens, many organisations have expressed their disquiet with the amendment. In particular the Scottish Council for National Parks is convinced that the natural heritage areas scheme is intended to pre-empt the creation of more national parks. The council argues that there are certain mountain areas where national parks would be more appropriate. National parks allow and require the involvement of local people in a way that the NHAs will not. The council's view is shared by the National Trust for Scotland, Countryside Link, the British Mountaineering Council, the Scottish Scenic Trust and the Ramblers' Association for Scotland.
Furthermore, when the Government published their proposals for Scottish Natural Heritage in 1990 they stated:
"The Government will look to SNH to review its inherited range of countryside designations".
They further stated:
"The Government will wish to consider with SNH what changes to the system of land-use designations might be appropriate".
758
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is anxious that SNH will now be under an obligation to set up NHAs irrespective of the results of such reviews.
My further questions to the Minister are these. Will the Government give an undertaking not to proceed with the identification and designation of NHAs until SNH has become properly established and has reviewed the range of countryside and land use designations as promised in their 1990 consultation paper?
Secondly, why have the Government precluded the results of public consultation over NHAs by including this clause in the Bill? Why have these measures been introduced before the Government have responded to the national parks debate which is in full swing? It appears that the Government's reliance on a purely voluntary approach to securing good conservation in NHAs is not borne out by experience to date. Safeguarding SSSIs depends on both legal provisions and management payments because financial pressures restrict landowners' freedom to take positive measures for conservation.
I wish to ask several more questions. What new financial incentives will NHAs provide to help owners and occupiers to pursue sustainable land use on their land? Will the Government be providing SNH with additional funding to carry out the promised review of countryside and land use designations and, indeed, to implement any changes which may be found desirable as a result of that review? I apologise for the number of questions but I understand that I can have only one bite at the cherry. I hope that the answers will be forthcoming. The proposed NHAs appear to be a useful tool. Only the timing and the background are being questioned.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who spoke so eloquently, that throughout Scotland there is no agreement about the way in which national parks operate and the particular structure involved. If there were such an agreement that people wished to have implemented, I should be pressing the Government to go ahead with it at this time. However, I do not believe that there is an agreement. People have not yet thought the issue through sufficiently to know what they want. In the meantime it is right that the Government should proceed in the manner that is proposed in order to provide the necessary protection. That is the point that we have reached in Scotland.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggests in Amendment No. 8A that people should receive notice in writing if under Section 78 of the Agriculture Act they are obliged to submit a return. Comparatively few people are obliged to submit a return under that Act: so what about everyone else who has an interest in the matter? It is not a good idea to limit the provision to people who must submit a return under the Agriculture Act. Many people could be away. Many people do not read a newspaper and, as the noble Lady said, readership of the Edinburgh Gazette is somewhat limited. It is important that the newspapers should advertise properly. Throughout Scotland local newspapers are widely read; indeed, my

759
local newspaper covers 88 per cent. of the population. It is not difficult to transmit such news through the press. I should be sorry to see only people with that particular interest being required to be notified in writing,. It is unfair to everyone else.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, makes a valid point. Nevertheless, I support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in her Amendment No. 8A. It may be slightly invidious to give rights to certain classes of people who will be affected while not giving similar rights to others. On the other hand, there is a constant argument that while some people will benefit others will not and at the end of the day no one will benefit.
The amendment draws attention to the fact —which I shall not labour because I have already drawn attention to it —that small landowners in Scotland attach the greatest importance to every half acre of their land; that is not to mention the large landowners. They are suspicious of designations and I believe that the provision will go some way towards reassuring them. The process of preservation in Scotland depends on carrying the landowners with us and not antagonising them. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the amendment, although I agree that it might be improved. However, that is true of life in general.
I have no intention of opposing the Government: they are well intentioned and the matter has been lucidly explained. However, I am most suspicious of the division of Scotland into areas of land which are of importance and of particular beauty and those which are not. It is a changing issue and one of individual judgment as to what is beautiful. It is not long ago that the Highlands of Scotland were regarded as an unpleasant desert to be avoided at all costs. We then had the advocates of the old Caledonian forests, the wetlands and so forth. The fact is that all the land in Scotland is of immense importance to the Scots. Areas which are not unanimously thought to be beautiful are considered to be beautiful by local inhabitants. I regard the area of Orkney in which I live to be of particular beauty although that might not be a unanimous opinion. I am nervous of the whole procedure. I believe that we should protect all the land and not pick and choose, pay attention to passing fads and place decisions in the hands of bureaucrats.
The clause has a valuable subsection —that is subsection (6) —because the whole provision can be abolished. I understand that if the provision appears to be unnecessary it will be open to the SNH to recommend that it is wiped out and something else tried. I have no intention of opposing the clause but I believe that your Lordships should be wary of creating all over Scotland SSSIs, areas of special scenic beauty, areas of this and areas of that, coming under different bodies.
I received a lengthy and extremely interesting letter from the Secretary of State for which I am most grateful. At the end of the day the point remains that in order to work the machinery of the Bill one must be a trained lawyer. Most crofters are not trained lawyers
760
and are not in touch with such people. They do not have offices or secretaries. There is a danger of clogging up the workings of the Scottish Highlands and lowlands with the regulations of various bodies and all kinds of procedures. Although they are well intentioned they may in the end defeat the object by making it impossible for local people to make a livelihood. The fundamental point is that there must be people in the Highlands and all over the countryside in Scotland who can make a go of their land. That is by far the most important problem that now faces us.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on the relevant observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in respect of Amendment No. 8. It must be understood that national parks have not existed hitherto as a concept or have been part of legislation in Scotland as distinct from England and Wales. The subject is new and it is not one that can be introduced in the last stages of a Bill of this kind.
However, that is not to say that it may not be introduced. The fact that it has never been part of Scottish legislation in the past does not mean that it may not be considered for the future. I am not trying to close the door to that. However, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, it is a subject of much controversy and discussion in Scotland at present. It should not be a matter for this Bill.
Without wishing to enter on one side or other of the controversy, though I shall follow it with interest, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the proposals for NHAs in Amendment No. 8 will not mean that the possibility of national parks is ruled out if, at some time in the future, that was agreed in Scotland to be the best way forward. The main point I wish to make is that it is not widely known that there are no national parks in Scotland and they have never been part of our system.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was very impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about national parks. Recently I read the report of the review panel on national parks in England and Wales under the chairmanship of Professor Ron Edwards. My impression from that admirable report was that, by and large, they are working very well in England and Wales. As I understand it, all this was sparked off by a report by the Countryside Commission for Scotland on the mountain areas of Scotland which urged that there should be national parks in Scotland to manage the four mountain and loch areas suffering most from strong and conflicting land use pressures.
I should have thought that there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said. One should not include a reference to national parks in this Bill but, by the same token, I believe that it is wrong to put in the clause about natural heritage areas because they are widely perceived as the Government's preferred alternative to national parks. I do not believe that they are a good alternative because, as I understand it, the view of a number of the bodies in Scotland like the National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Wildlife Countryside Link, Scottish

761
Scenic Trust, and others, is that the national heritage areas proposed in this amendment would be totally inadequate for those four prime areas referred to in the Countryside Commission for Scotland's report.
There is no provision for a local management structure including local people or authorities. Any action would have to be taken by Scottish Natural Heritage; though apparently with no extra staff or funding. There would be no new powers for Scottish Natural Heritage and it would be dependent entirely on voluntary co-operation. That would not be adequate to deal with the pressures for development which take place.
I am also rather anxious about the procedure which the Government are following. I have seen a copy of the letter from Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link to the Secretary of State for Scotland which states:
"We believe that it is most unreasonable of the Government to legislate for NHAs in advance of the consultation period and before the Government has, on its own admission, had a proper opportunity to consider the results of other crucial consultation exercises carried out in the last two years by both the Countryside Commission for Scotland…and the Countryside Commission for England and Wales".
It seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for that. I hope that on consideration the Government will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Errol: My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friend Lady Saltoun. This Bill is about protecting the countryside and the environment. Therefore, it will mainly affect landowners. This is an excellent mechanism to make sure that they are informed as to which areas are affected. I have never seen or heard of the Edinburgh Gazette even though I lived in Scotland until I was 13 and I go there regularly. The amendment is extremely sensible.
To answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the Government said that it would be impossible to inform everyone. However, to inform most of the people affected is better than informing none.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I do not propose to become involved in the argument in relation to natural heritage areas and national parks. That has already been touched upon by my noble friend Lady Nicol and will be further referred to by my noble friend Lord Carmichael. However, I should like to follow the question of publicity.
Even lawyers do not like to buy the Edinburgh Gazette. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that only lawyers buy it. Most lawyers prefer to have no occasion to buy the Edinburgh Gazette. It is a record of those who have risen socially and those who have fallen commercially. It has very little to do with the subject matter which we are debating at present in your Lordships' House. If one walked the length and breadth of Scotland, one could not buy a copy of the Edinburgh Gazette at any newspaper shop or store. It is a useless publication for information of this sort. It has its commercial uses but that is another matter.
No doubt subsections (3) and (5) have been lifted from other legislation but we must apply this question to each particular subject. The question of natural
762
heritage areas and what should be done in relation to them is a national issue. I do not know what is the circulation of the Edinburgh Gazette, even if it had a general circulation. Subsection (3) states:
"the Secretary of State…shall publish notice of the proposal in the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the proposed areas".
Let us assume for the moment —and I do not know if there is —that there is a journal called the Auchtermuchty Gazette which is published once a week and has a circulation of 10,000. Notification is then given through a journal which people do not buy because they do not wish to see their names in it unless they have been promoted, and a local journal which has a limited circulation. I do not make this point facetiously.
In Scotland we are concerned about the number of foreigners —and for this purpose that includes English people —who are taking over the land of Scotland and owning Scotland. I do not know the present percentage of foreign ownership but I am sure that we can be given the figures. Therefore, it is pointless to advertise these proposals in the Edinburgh Gazette or the fictional Auchtermuchty Gazette. There must be proper notice given of the proposals universally, at least in Scotland. I am not pleading any particular cause but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, they should at least be published in the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman, which have a wide readership among people who have an interest in land ownership and anything affecting it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that almost all noble Lords have made clear their feelings of unease. The belief is that somehow the Government have introduced the idea of natural heritage areas in order to offset the possibility of national parks.
From this side of the House, we have no objection to having many different ways of looking at different types of land and heritage in Scotland and having different types of legislation to protect it. I agree that there can be difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested that there are too many bodies but, on the other hand, I envisage that the introduction of national parks in Scotland would be a large measure which would apply at the most to only half a dozen areas in Scotland. Therefore, widespread and special discussion would be needed before any such areas were to be designated.
I am not in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on her suggestion that no one knows what is a national park. To some extent that is true, but there is a vague feeling on what a national park may be. However, as my honourable friend in another place, Mr. McFall, suggested —his constituency takes in part of Loch Lomond —there should be enabling powers to allow national parks to be designated. Of course he was thinking of the very real problems that exist in the Loch Lomond area where he lives and where he hears what people are saying. There is no doubt that people are worried about the land and water use around Loch Lomond. Large power boats used to go into the loch —I hope that has now stopped. The shore edge is being eaten

763
away and the area is not open to the general public. A balance is required. There is a growth of marinas and even —almost sacrilege in Scotland —a growth in the number of golf courses attached to high priced hotels, again Keeping the general public away from those areas.
I do not want to stop all of that, but there is a feeling that it is going too far. Although people in the west of Scotland, and in other parts, may not be sure what a national park is, nevertheless a number of surveys have been carried out. According to the Scottish Council for National Parks, before the Bill received its Third Reading a national opinion poll found that 84 per cent. of Scots wanted national parks. Of course I would not suggest this of the Minister, but the Scottish Council for National Parks suggested that that finding was available to him before Third Reading and he chose not to reveal it to the House during the debate. I am sure that that is unfair. He may have received the letter himself and no doubt will have an answer for it.
The consultation document that was circulated by the Minister states that NHAs are intended for areas described in terms which explicitly or implicitly include all the proposed national park areas that have been referred to in Scotland, despite the assertion made earlier by a number of people on the Government side that they were not intended as substitutes.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out that one of the difficulties of the idea of natural heritage areas would be that they would have no money of their own; they would be totally dependent on Scottish Natural Heritage which does not have the resources or the specially trained people to service such areas. The Government are relying on local volunteer, not involving, from what I understand, local authorities or any other local organisations.
Although it is too late to do anything about the matter now, there will be a feeling that this has been a substitute for something that could have been much more important. I hope that the Minister will attempt to clear up the point that the natural heritage areas will not be national parks. National parks are something that. the Government still have in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested, to be brought forward. I do not know when the Government will have the opportunity to do that. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the view that it is not a good idea at this stage of the Bill to introduce Scottish natural heritage areas.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, by my noble friend Lady Nicol and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, almost argued the case for waiting. She said that there is not yet enough agreement in regard to national parks. While consultation is continuing it would seem reasonable to wait until the end of June rather than hurrying the measure through.
I do not believe anybody mentioned the national opinion poll carried out before the Bill received its
764
Third Reading in another place. The poll found that 84 per cent. of Scots wanted national parks. Those figures may be challenged but 84 per cent. is a considerable number.
It seems to me that the Government are hurrying unnecessarily in attempting to bring this measure forward. I hope, along with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the Government will be willing to withdraw the amendment. It is an enabling clause. If they are not willing to withdraw it perhaps they will at least give some sort of assurance that nothing more will be done about these areas until after the consultation period.
It is significant that so many of the bodies in Scotland who are interested in the matter —the Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link, the National Trust and the Ramblers' Association for Scotland —are extremely suspicious of what the Government are doing. I hope that the Minister will take a generous view; that he will listen to what is being said in this House, and that he will do as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word about national parks in Scotland. They cannot be compared with national parks in England. The noble lady said that 84 per cent. of Scots want national parks in Scotland. No doubt that is so, and it may be a very good thing. However, one must realise that Scotland has far more rare wildlife, especially in regard to birds in the Highlands of Scotland, than England. Somebody said "rubbish". I do not agree.
Before national parks are introduced in Scotland, there must be far more properly educated and knowledgeable park wardens who can ensure that the crowds do not come over the hills in their hundreds. If they do there will soon be no wildlife in the Highlands. That is a point that should be taken into account.
I support Amendment No. 8. I believe that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, spoke a lot of sense.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I support the Government on this amendment. The Loch Lomond area mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is a special area. It is unique in the whole of Scotland and comes under considerable pressure. It certainly needs some protection. I should have thought that natural heritage areas were a step in the right direction. With a little luck they may help that area.
I can think of areas in the Highlands which are coming under substantial pressure and yet have not been mentioned in the possible four areas of designation for national parks. The national park situation is not suitable for most of Scotland, though Loch Lomond needs special consideration.
The noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite mentioned the Auchtermuchty Gazette. I think he was referring to the Sunday Post, which always refers to Auchtermuchty.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, we seem to have strayed from the narrow confines of the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, into a slightly more general debate on the clause. Therefore, I hope that it will be

765
in order to emphasise what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. What resources will support the natural heritage areas? When one reads the consultation paper one is forced to the conclusion that it is a marvellous talking shop for absolutely everything except producing money to help preserve those areas. When the Minister replies I hope that he will make it perfectly clear that the setting up of a natural heritage area does not rule out the possibility of the well tried and successful system of management agreements under Section 16 of the 1949 Act. In many cases that has helped to preserve the natural features of so many of these important areas.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the community of Strath Elphin on the west coast of Sutherland. I happened to have the privilege of driving through most of Sutherland last Sunday.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I referred to Elphin.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, we will not argue about it. One can drive across the whole of Sutherland, of which a great deal may be owned by English proprietors. The only place where one finds any restriction and any offensive public notices is at the Inverpolly National Nature Reserve. There one finds that the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has put up those friendly notices about no overnight parking and no camping. There is not another single proprietor in the whole of north-west Scotland who has put up these restrictive notices. It should not be done. There is no right to enforce the restrictions. The only places where such notices are enshrined in stone are around the Inverpolly National Nature Reserve. I do not think that a good example has so far been set by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I hesitate to rise and speak because I have not spoken on this Bill before. Although I am not a Scot I farm in a national park. Perhaps I can clarify one or two of the points which have been made. In principle I support the Government's amendment as amended by my noble friend Lady Saltoun. I associate myself with that amendment. As we know, the status and functions of the national parks are under review at the moment. As I understand it, the Countryside Commission for Scotland has not yet announced its views on the matter.
My experience is rather at variance with that of my noble friend Lord Moran. I find that these bodies are largely underfunded. I believe that the concept of new funding is a myth at the moment because no one has said from where the new funding is to come. The national parks appear to act as wholly-owned subsidiaries of the county councils of which they tend to form part. They proceed on the basis of a series of negative controls over what farmers, landowners and others may carry out on their own land on which they pay tax and on which they have a financial commitment. They are entitled to have reasonable use and enjoyment and produce some form of return.
766
By a public relations operation the national parks encourage the public to come along, but they do not control them. The principle behind the national parks and their relations with the public is that there should be informal public access. "Informal" is an important word in that context because it means that one can go more or less anywhere —at any rate, that is the idea —and that there should be the minimum of notices. The public do not go anywhere; they go to the places they want to visit. There are problems in the Lake District and other areas.
I do not wish to dwell on that matter in particular. I want to bring the House back to the amendment by the concept of the national parks. The national parks are far from being a perfect model. We hope that when the Countryside Commission for Scotland has pronounced on the matter and further measures have been put forward, the national parks will provide a better model for the future. I perceive a problem which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I refer to inadequate compulsion, which is what I understood her to say. I hope that she will not rise to tell me that I am wrong. She spoke about inadequate measures to achieve certain stated objectives.
The problem is that the threat of compulsion is very much at the heart of what is wrong at the moment. Too little attempt has been made to achieve matters by consensus. It has been too much a question of imposing without any right of consultation, appeal or, in some cases, any right of compensation, a series of measures which is —
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not recall saying that there was not enough compulsion. I believe that the noble Earl will be pleased to hear that I was complaining about there being not enough funding which is quite a different matter.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, in that case the noble Baroness and I are entirely at one because we agree that there is insufficient funding. There is a problem here. It may have been perceived and represented to the House this afternoon why the interests of the special interest groups should be considered paramount in matters of rural management in these areas. Of course they are important. It is extremely important that rare species and outstanding landscapes are preserved as important elements in our rural fabric.
Those elements have to be supported on an economic basis; they cannot be supported at vast expense to the taxpayer if he is kept out of those areas unless they are of the highest scientific value. It follows that one cannot keep people out of areas purely on the say-so of the landowner. Yet there is the element of the perfect balance here. We have the demands made by special interest groups and the public; we have supply in the form of administration by the administration authorities —land administration by landowners; and there is no pricing system to balance out the problems. That is one of the issues which is at the heart of the national parks. That is why I feel that the natural heritage areas represent a significant advance on what we have south of the Border. Therefore, I associate

767
myself with the amendment, as amended by my noble friend Lady Saltoun, and hope at the very least that the Minister will stick to his guns on this issue.
4.45 p m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad that we have had such a good debate on this subject. It arouses a great deal of passion and excitement especially when talking about national parks. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who said at one point that the national heritage areas were not a good idea. The problem is that some dislike the idea of having NHAs and would rather have nothing at all —
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, what I was implying was that they were not a good idea if it is made impossible at a later stage to have national parks.I said that Scotland may need different ways of handling different parts of the country.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is very helpful. The point is that some people believe that we have gone too far in introducing NHAs and would rather have nothing at all. Some believe that we have not gone far enough and that we should' introduce national parks. I agree with my noble friend Lord Burton who thought that the NHAs were a good idea. That seems to be a good compromise. Many noble Lords have spoken this afternoon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, we have only one bite of the cherry. Therefore, if I do not answer every point it is because I simply have not picked them all up. I shall trawl Hansard to make sure that noble Lords get a reply at a later date.
I shall first deal with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. She spoke about the lack of consultation as regards the introduction of NHAs into the Bill That was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. There has been some criticism of the introduction of this clause establishing NHAs. That criticism has been based on the argument that whereas we rejected amendments to set up the national parks on the grounth that there was no clear consensus in favour of them, we have introduced NHAs when the proposal has only recently gone out for consultation and no consens is therefore exists.
These criticisms represent a radical misunderstanding of the position. The consultation paper, Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead was issued in June 1990. It contained the proposal to establish the NHA designation although the name itself had not then been coined. Only one of the 156 respondents to that consultation paper raised any objections to the concept. It was in the light of the support received then that we considered that we were quite justified in implementing such proposals in the form of the new clause to the Bill. The consultation paper which has now been issued deals with the detailed operation of the designation and not the principle of whether there should be such a designation.
While on the subject of the national parks perhaps I may deal with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and I believe also by the noble Baroness, Lady David, concerning the poll
768
on national parks and whether or not details were available before Third Reading in the other place. I can assure noble Lords that the report was published at a later date. It showed that 84 per cent. were in favour of national parks. Unfortunately, I have to tell the House that that is only part of the survey. It showed also quite clearly that there were three quite different views on the purposes of the national parks. One-third of those who were in favour considered the proposal was exclusively for the protection of those particular areas; one-third thought that it was for conservation and recreation; and a further one-third thought that it was for recreation only. I hardly think that that shows a consensus for introducing national parks in Scotland. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour is quite correct in saying that that consensus simply does not exist.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and several other noble Lords asked about the position of national parks in this Bill, and whether or not they could be introduced.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I made it very clear that I thought that national parks could not be introduced under this Bill. I was simply asking whether the introduction of the NHAs —which we are only now considering as they were not in the Bill when it was before us before it went to the other place —will nullify the possibility of national parks later on? I am not necessarily in favour of national parks, I just want to be clear that the Government do not regard this as an alternative which would close the door to national parks later.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry about that. I misunderstood my noble friend. He is absolutely right. Of course this does not stop the Government deciding to come forward later with national parks. However, the establishment of national parks in Scotland would involve the creation of national park authorities which would need a wide range of powers conferred on them. All these aspects of the establishment of a national park are outwith the scope of national heritage areas but would require quite separate and specific primary legislation. That is the point and our minds are not necessarily closed. We could not do so with this Bill but with a later Bill.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am still not quite clear. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that national heritage areas will not be included in national parks and that national park boundaries will have to be considered later. Are we quite sure, if we do not know where the national parks might be, that the national heritage areas might not be some obstacle?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may explain to the noble Baroness that in this particular clause we are simply dealing with the proposal that SNH will be able to set up national heritage areas. That has nothing to do with national parks because there are no national parks in Scotland and there is no proposal to put forward national parks. If at some later date a proposal is approved by Parliament to set up national parks, then at that time the boundaries of NHAs can

769
be examined to see whether or not they should be changed in order to allow the formulation of national parks.
Perhaps I may deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Kimball, and others, on management agreements under the 1967 Act. This Bill amends the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967; Section 49A of which deals with management agreements. The power to enter into such voluntary agreements has been available to the Countryside Commission for Scotland for some time, but it has not been used. The section as amended by this Bill will be available to Scottish Natural Heritage. We envisage it will use that process in relation to natural heritage areas, at least as a means of targeting resources in areas of greatest need and of highest value. The degree of resources which SNH devotes to such agreements will be for SNH to decide.
That leads me on to the whole issue of finance and the amount of funding that will be available. That is a matter which many noble Lords opposite raised, including the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who had an interesting insight into the situation in England, and that is appreciated.
Scottish Natural Heritage will be funded fully in accordance with its functions. Within that funding it will need to determine its own priorities and it will need to decide what proportion of its grant aid to commit to NHAs or any other part of its functions. That is the point of funding. There will always be disagreement on funding, but that is determined in terms of overall government expenditure.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 8A, 8C and 8D in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There has been some support around the House from the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, the noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Erroll, and, to some extent, from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who pointed out some of the problems in the amendment, which I also intend to do. I have some sympathy with the intention of these amendments. Our intention in dealing with the establishment of NH As is that all those within the area concerned should have the fullest opportunity to comment on the proposals. All relevant interests including, very importantly, those who earn their living from the land in the area, would be involved in any development concerning the management of the area before the proposal is even put before the Secretary of State. We had a somewhat similar discussion about the notification of owners and occupiers in relation to the power of entry of Scottish Natural Heritage. I was able on that occasion to agree to the proposals put forward by the noble Lady. I regret that I shall not be able to do so on this particular amendment.
The noble Lady has explained the rationale behind her amendment regarding those to whom the Secretary of State should give notice that he proposes to make, or has made, a direction designating an area as an NHA. I regret to tell the noble Lady that I do not think that Section 78 of the Agriculture Act 1947 is a solid base on which to build this amendment. That section of the Act does not oblige the Secretary of State to ask for returns to be submitted. It only
770
empowers him to do so. He may not always make use of the power. No obligation to submit a return exists until the Secretary of State serves notice under subsection (1) of the provision.
There is also a risk that designation of an NHA could be invalidated if SNH failed to give notice to just one owner in the area. The provision for advertisement strikes me as being the most practical way of drawing the matter to the attention of all those with an interest. Advertising will not be just in the Edinburgh Gazette: it will be in the local paper and possibly in the national papers as well. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy informed us, some local papers can have as much as 80 per cent. saturation in their area.
All the people in an area —farmers, crofters, landowners or anyone else —will be aware that Scottish Natural Heritage is working up an NHA proposal since SNH would consult owners and occupiers and all other interests in the area before submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State. It is in the light of that quite specific and very extensive consultation by SNH that further notification by the Secretary of State seems unnecessary. As I have indicated, there are also practical difficulties in accommodating the amendment which the noble Lady has proposed. I hope that she will agree not to press her amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, we have had a very interesting discussion about the Government's new clause and about my amendments. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that she thought that the number of people affected by my amendment was far too limited. I entirely agree with her. It was tabled for the reasons I gave and I thought that it would take care of the interests of those most affected. However, it was not my ideal amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, gave us some very interesting information about the Edinburgh Gazette which I very much enjoyed. I understand that the Edinburgh Gazette is available in the Library of another place but is not available in the Library here.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, pointed out to me in my ignorance that Elphin and Strath Elphin are one and the same place. I can only say that I think that Elphin is a very much prettier name for it.
I come back to the amendment and to what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said. It is important that the Secretary of State should advertise in the national press as well as in local papers. What the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said is absolutely true. Although the local papers are as a rule read very carefully from cover to cover by at least 80 per cent. of the local population, there are people who do not read them. The national press should be automatically used for advertising.
I am satisfied with the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 8A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 8
8B Subsection (4), line 3, leave out ("six weeks") and insert ("three months")
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8B. Experience has shown that six weeks would be a very short time indeed to allow for the making of representations about proposals to designate a natural heritage area. That is especially so at certain times of the year, such as, for example, over the Christmas and New Year holidays which now seem to last for at least three weeks, and during the summer holidays, and indeed at any time when it may be necessary to take professional advice before making representations. It is curious how often the Government or a quango give notice at the end of July of a proposal about which representations are invited and must be received within six weeks or two months. At that time of year, when so many people are on holiday, it is impossible to get one's act together in such a short time as six weeks. Twelve weeks would be a very much more realistic time limit to impose. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not want to surprise the House too much but I am delighted to be able to tell the noble Lady that I entirely agree that a longer period for the receipt of representations is reasonable. I am grateful to her for bringing this matter forward in the shape of this amendment. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we see the wisdom of this proposal in developing such ideas. I am happy to accept her suggestion of three months instead of six weeks and to support Amendment No. 8B.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, it is a rare event in this House for the amendment of a humble Cross-Bencher to be accepted, just as it stands, warts and all. June 6th will be a red letter day for me from now on. I heartily thank the noble Lord for accepting it and I am sure that he will thereby have earned the gratitude of many.
On Question, Amendment No. 8B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 8, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8C and 8D not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 8, as amended, agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
9 Clause 6, page 5, line 19, after 'Office', insert 'of the Inland Revenue Department'.
10 Clause 10, page 8, line 19, leave out '4(4)' and insert '4(5)'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 en bloc. In speaking to these amendments I should like to speak also to other similar amendments, which are all of a minor and technica nature; namely, Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, 37 to 40 and 42. I do not feel that it is necessary at this stage to detain your Lordships with explanations of these amendments since they quite genuinely are of a drafting or consequential nature and are of no great substance in themselves.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 en bloc. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 11, page 8, line 21, leave out Clause 11.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 11
11A That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 11, but do propose the following amendment in lieu —
Leave out Clause 11 and insert the following new Clause —
Advisory Committee on SSSIs
(" . —(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee (in this 1section referred to as "the Committee") which shall have the function of giving advice to SNH on such matters concerning areas of special scientific interest as are specified in this section.
(2) The chairman and members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons who are not members of SNH or of any committee appointed by it having scientific qualifications and experience in relation to flora or fauna or the geological or physiographical features of land.
(3) The chairman and members of the Committee shall be appointed upon such terms and for such periods as the Secretary of State may determine and they shall be paid by SNH such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
(4) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, give directions to the Committee as to its procedure.
(5) Where SNH has given notification to the owner or occupier of any land under subsection (1) of section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest) that the land is or forms part of an area of special interest and has received from the owner or occupier of the land, within the time specified in subsection (2) of that section, representations or objections relating to any reason specified in the notification in pursuance of subsection (4)(a) of that section and the owner or occupier does not agree to withdraw such representations or objections, it shall refer the matter to the Committee.
(6) Where, as regards any land in respect of which a notification has been given under subsection (1) of the said section 28 before the commencement of this section, SNH receives representations from the owner or occupier of the land that any reason specified in the notification in pursuance of the said subsection (4)(a) has ceased to be valid and, within six months of such representations having been made, they have not been withdrawn —

(a) in the case of a notification given since the commencement of section 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1985 or in the case of a notice of proposed notification given before such commencement, where objections or representations were duly made in pursuance of subsection (2) of the said section 28 at the time the notification or, as the case may be, notice was given; and

(b) in any other case, where not less than 10 years have elapsed since the date the notification or, as the case may be, notice was given,

it shall refer the matter to the Committee.
(7) SNH shall not confirm a notification to which subsection (5) above applies or come to a decision on representations to which subsection (6) above applies without having received and considered the advice of the Committee on the matter; and in any case where a matter has been referred to the Committee SNH shall send a copy of the Committee's advice to any owner or occupier who has made objections or representations at the time when it notifies the owner or occupier of the confirmation of a notification or, as the case may be, its decision on the matter.
(8) Where representations are made to SNH in respect of a notification relating to any land in circumstances other than

773
those mentioned in subsection (5) or (6) above, SNH shall refer the representations to the Committee where not less than 10 years have elapsed from whichever is the later of the date of the notification or the date of any earlier representations made in respect of the notification.").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11, but do propose the amendment set out in the Marshalled List in lieu thereof.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in proposing the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11B to 11D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, since it is more convenient to consider all these amendments together. Clause 11 of the Bill has had a rather chequered history. It was inserted on Third Reading after a Division. I pointed out on that occasion the flaws and drawbacks of the clause but the amendment was approved, although, as my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch acknowledged, that approval gives your Lordships' House a chance to look at anything decided in another place regarding the amendment.
The other place, of course, decided that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. It is fair to point out that that was a unanimous decision of the Standing Committee considering the Bill. There was also considerable opposition to the clause from a wide range of Scottish opinion. I am aware that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has listened to the criticisms of the effect of the clause and has been concerned to hear it described in some quarters as a wrecking amendment. That is not a description the Government ever used, but we certainly argued that Clause 11 would be such an onerous burden and a diversionary activity that it would be doubtful if SNH could devote much effort to its other duties during its first five years of existence.
There is, however, a much more fundamental reason for our opposition to the clause, and one which remains in spite of the modifications I have mentioned. The establishment of a right of appeal to the Secretary of State would be a departure from the provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As that legislation embodies not only the SSSI procedures but gives effect to our commitment to nature conservation under both international treaties and EC directives, any departure from that legislation on a purely Scottish basis could call into question our commitment to those obligations, and could lead to the risk of challenge in, for example, the European Court of Justice.
At the risk of trying noble Lords' patience, I should like to set out once again the reasons why there is no need for a right of appeal against a notification. There appears to be a lack of recognition that there is already a right of representation against notification of an SSSI and a form of appeal to the Secretary of State against the confirmation of potentially damaging operations. The existing system provides a statutory right of representation against notification of an SSSI. This is perhaps the most crucial stage of the whole process, and owners and occupiers, the Secretary of State and local planning authorities have four months in which to make representations. SNH must within
774
nine months of the notification decide whether to confirm it, withdraw it or modify it in some way. Notification of an SSSI in itself places no restraints on owners or occupiers of land. It simply means that any proposed changes to the use or management of land should be cleared first with SNH.
I should also point out that a form of statutory appeal already exists under the nature conservation order system, whereby the Secretary of State is the final arbiter of the significance of the site. Owners and occupiers can, in the last resort, only be stopped from a particular activity which would damage the scientific interest of a site by the making of a nature conservation order. SNH has to convince the Secretary of State that an order should be made. If objections are made to the order, a public local inquiry or hearing is then held and the ultimate decision of whether or not to confirm the order is for the Secretary of State, not SNH. If the Secretary of State does not reach a final decision within nine months, the site ceases to be protected. Given the existing statutory provision and the improved procedures for the hearing of representations at the initial stage, and the form of statutory appeal embodied in the nature conservation order mechanism, there are adequate safeguards to the position of owners and occupiers, and I am not persuaded of the need for a review and right of appeal on existing SSSIs.
I have suggested to NCCS that it should issue a clear and coherent code of guidance on SSSI procedures, so that owners and occupiers and all other interests understand precisely what their statutory rights are in relation to SSSIs. The code will be as comprehensive as possible, while retaining the utmost clarity. I am sure this initiative, which will be inherited by SNH, will meet with your Lordships' approval.
I should now like to turn to the guts of the amendment which stands in my name. We have produced this new clause in an attempt to balance, on the one hand, the legitimate worries expressed by owners and occupiers of land about the role of SNH in SSSI notification with, on the other, our commitment to the SSSI system, particularly as set out in Sections 28 and 29 of the 1981 Act. The amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to appoint a committee of people of relevant scientific qualifications and expertise who would be independent of SNH. That independence is guaranteed by the provision in subsection (2) which excludes the appointment to the committee of any member of SNH or a member of any committee appointed by SNH. The constitutional part of the new clause has deliberately been drafted in general terms to allow for maximum flexibility to respond to circumstances.
Subsection (5) deals with new SSSIs, and in effect provides that if an owner or occupier objects to the notification, and SNH cannot persuade him to withdraw his objection, SNH has an absolute duty to refer the matter to the committee for advice. The procedural arrangements for the committee will be such that the Secretary of State can ensure that the committee makes its advice available in time for SNH to reach a decision within the nine months allowed by the 1981 Act. Subsection (6) deals with existing SSSIs,

775
and these are in general subject to a somewhat different procedure. In both subsections (5) and (6) the objection must relate to the scientific interest of the site, but in subsection (6) SNH is given six months to try to persuade the owner or occupier to withdraw his objection. This is in keeping with our intention that SNH should be a sensitive and responsive body seeking co-operation wherever possible. The grounds for referral to the committee were deliberately restricted to the scientific criteria as this is the only basis on which SNH can notify an SSSI.
If the representations have not been withdrawn within six months, SNH must refer the matter to the advisory committee. The subsection distinguishes two different categories of existing SSSI. In cases where objections or representations were made at the time of the original notification, representations can be made to SNH as soon as it is established. For other cases, that is where no objections were expressed in the first place, at least 10 years must have elapsed from the date of notification. It is of course the case that an owner or occupier could make representations to SNH about a designation at any time: the 10-year period Tlates only to referral of representations to the independent committee. In whatever circumstances the matter has been referred to the committee, subsection (7) makes it clear that SNH cannot reach a decision until it has received and considered the committee's advice. A copy of that advice must also be sent to the objector when SNH notifies its final decision on the case.
Subsection (8) introduces a 10-year cycle for objections for all SSSIs, once they have been dealt with under the provisions of either subsection (5) or (6). We believe this is an essential feature of the new clause, since otherwise SNH could be asked to refer the same SSSI to the committee almost continuously. Ten years seems a reasonable period, particularly when it is borne in mind that SNH will constantly monitor the scientific interest of the site during that period Inder the general workings of the 1981 Act.
As I have indicated, subsection (8) establishes a 10-year cycle for referral of further representations to the committee. This means, in the case of new SSSIs notified by SNH, if no representations about the scientific basis for notification are made initially, any made 10 years after notification will be referred to the committee. If the owner or occupier does make representations at the time of notification —which is the situation covered by subsection (5) —they are similarly entitled to have further representations referred to the committee 10 years later.
As for existing SSSIs, if no representations were made originally at notification, subsection (6) (b) of the new clause allows for referral of representations to the committee 10 years after the date of notification. Under subsection (8) a further period of 10 years must elapse from the date of those representations under subsection (6) (b) before the matter can come before the committee again. If representations were made to NCC or NCCS at the time of notification, subsection (6) (a) provides for immediate referral to the committee of representations made to SNH. Subsection (8) allows for another referral to the
776
committee 10 years later. In each case, once representations have been referred in accordance with subsection (8), further representations may be referred at 10-yearly intervals thereafter.
I am aware that the last couple of minutes have been quite complicated. The endeavour is to try to set down the arrangements whereby people who have existing SSSIs will be able to know whether they can bring their particular case forward to the scientific advisory committee. That is simply to show that what I think exists in the Bill actually does so.
I should like to turn now to my noble friend Lord Pearson's Amendments 11B, 11C and 11D. There is no need to grant a right of referral in relation to a potentially damaging operation since the 1981 Act makes perfectly satisfactory provision for dealing with PDOs. SNH can, of course, consent to a PDO being carried out. If not, the SSSI notification cannot prevent the PDO being carried out. It is at most a delaying mechanism to allow time for negotiation between the owner or occupier and SNH. After a specified period, four months, the owner or occupier can carry out the PDO if he has not entered into a management agreement with SNH. If he does enter into a management agreement, he would be compensated for forgoing the PDO.
It would not be appropriate to refer PDOs under Section 28(4) (b) of the 1981 Act to the committee. PDOs are best handled by SNH, when considering a specific proposal from an owner to carry out particular activities covered by the PDOs. SNH can then assess in practical terms whether the operation would, in fact, damage the scientific interest, or whether some modification to the proposal would avoid such damage. The committee, on the other hand, would be asked to decide in the abstract whether the operation would be damaging. That is putting an impossible task on this new committee. Moreover, if the operation did not have the potential to be damaging in at least some circumstances, it would not have been included on the list. The committee could therefore only confirm the original list.
It should also be borne in mind that the owner or occupier does have an opportunity to question the list of PDOs applying to his land, although not in the context of notification of the site as an SSSI. If after the end of the four month period no management agreement is entered into and the owner or occupier is still proposing to carry out a PDO against the wishes of SNH, SNH may ask the Secretary of State to make a nature conservation order under Section 29 of the Act. If any objections are made to the order, a local inquiry is held and it is the Secretary of State, not SNH, who must decide whether the order should continue in force in its original or in an amended form, or whether it should be revoked. Amendment may for instance limit the area covered by the order, or may alter the list of PDOs specified in the order. There is therefore in our view no need to provide for review of the PDOs at an earlier stage when these appeal procedures independent of SNH already exist. The opportunity for independent appraisal of the scientific case for notification is in general for what many

777
Members of your Lordships' House asked when they spoke on Report and on Third Reading, but it does not —and I make this abundantly clear —override the statutory duty of SNH to notify sites under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
What the Government are bringing forward today is a substantial concession, but it does not undermine our continuing commitment to the SSSI procedures laid down in the 1981 and 1985 Acts. I commend the Government's amendment to your Lordships, and ask you to support it rather than the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. II, but do propose Motion No. 11A in lieu thereof. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO MOTION NO. 11A
11B★ Subsection (5), line 6, leave out ("reason specified in the notification in pursuance of subsection (4)(a)") and insert ("reason or operations specified in the notification in pursuance of subsection (4)").
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 11C. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 11D.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his amendment because it proposes to allow appeals on scientific grounds to his new proposed committee. It is an enormous improvement to the Bill. My noble friend's amendment would allow appeals to the proposed new advisory committee on grounds purely of the scientific interest of the site in question. These amendments would also allow appeals to the same committee against the restrictions on land use which will be applied by SNH in order not to damage that scientific value.
I regret the suspicion and controversy which have been growing recently over these and related issues. The conflict appears to arise between those who own and work their land and those who wish to protect it or enjoy it for other reasons. I say that the conflict appears to arise because I wonder whether it is as acute as our powerful conservation lobbies and much of the media would have us believe. I hope to show that the amendments, if agreed to, would improve the nature conservation of the sites in question. At the same time, they would do much to alleviate a perceived injustice to owners and occupiers of land which remains in the Bill, despite the welcome improvements proposed by my noble friend in the rest of his new Clause 11.
I shall deal with the injustice first and then the nature conservation interest. An injustice remains, even under my noble friend's new clause, because an owner or occupier cannot appeal to the proposed new advisory committee against the restrictions placed on his land use by SNH. He can appeal only against SNH's view of the scientific importance of the site in question.
Perhaps I may offer your Lordships a simple example: a small farmer is told by SNH that it has discovered some rare thistles in his fields. SNH
778
proposes to designate the fields as a site of special scientific interest and to prevent the farmer forthwith from grazing his cows there. As my noble friend's amendment is presently drafted, the farmer would be able to question the rarity of the thistles with the new committee, but he could not point out to the committee that in his view cows do not eat thistles and that they should therefore be allowed to graze the fields.
The committee would not be free to agree or disagree officially as to whether cows eat thistles. It could only confirm or deny the rarity of the thistles. Assuming that the committee agrees with SNH that the thistles are rare enough to merit SSSI designation, the farmer will be left facing the existing procedure for deciding what activities or operations are potentially damaging to the site.
I maintain that forcing a small farmer, or anyone else, through that procedure without appeal is unjust. My noble friend has explained admirably the procedure for dealing with potentially damaging operations. Our only difference is that he called it "perfectly satisfactory". I need not trouble your Lordships with another detailed explanation because the long and the short of it is that cows can be prevented from grazing a field for at least nine months while SNH attempts to negotiate a management agreement, perhaps a nature conservation order is issued, and the prospect looms of a public inquiry, leading possibly to compulsory purchase.
The smaller the farmer, the greater the injustice is likely to be of forcing him through that procedure. The smaller the farmer, the less likely he is to want to face up to the time-wasting bureaucracy involved, and the more likely he is merely to give in to the demands of this powerful body (SNH). I am afraid that it is not good enough to pretend that his interests are adequately protected because he can be offered compensation under the management agreement procedure. We all know how slowly grinds the bureaucracy, and how long it can take to deliver such a thing. Examples have been given in your Lordships' House of distressing cases in precisely that area. Anyway, what does a farmer do with his cows for a minimum of nine months? If he cannot graze them, does he have to sell them? The potential for injustice still exists in the clause, which these amendments do much to remove.
I turn now to the conservation interest. I return, if I may, to the small farmer and his rare thistles. Let us suppose that the farmer agrees with SNH that the thistles are rare, but let us also suppose that he knows a great deal about thistles, however rare, and how they interact with cows. I hope that I shall be forgiven for suggesting that as a farmer he is likely to have that knowledge. In the farmer's opinion, the thistles would be encouraged by cows grazing the fields where they grow. Why should he not be able to take that view to my noble friend's new scientific committee? There must be many such examples, and there are likely to be many more in future. I say that because farming and land use are changing rapidly just now.
The farmers' and landowners' life is not easy at the moment. They need to find new activities and new

779
ways of supplementing their income. Some of those will be beneficial to the special scientific interest and some will no doubt be damaging. I am afraid that it seems 3ensible to refer those activities to my noble friend's new scientific committee. There can surely be no doubt that if that committee is competent to confirm the scientific interest, it must also be capable of judging what will or will not damage that interest. If it knows enough about the thistles to declare them a great rarity, its opinion must also be valuable as to whether cows eat them or avoid them and, for example, whet her cows' manure is helpful or harmful to their regeneration.
I recommend the amendments to your Lordships, both to alleviate the present injustice, which, I repeat, is at its worst for the smallest among us, and to enhance the nature conservation functions of SNH.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he kindly tell the House whether he or his immediate family have any interest in any land which is SSSI, or PSSI in Scotland?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should confirm to your Lordships, as I declared during the earlier Series oldebates in your Lordships' House, that I own land which is subject to an SSSI. It is land which the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has said cattle should not graze. Recently on national radio Mr. Aubrey Manning (I do not remember of which conservation body he is chairman) agreed that he thought that cows would be an advantage to the land in question because they would graze the molinia grass which is rapidly becoming the cancer of the West Highlands. I can assure my noble friend that my interest in that issue is not such as to sway my view about what I have just said and what I propose. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his new clause. It greatly improves the original provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has raised an extremely important point and I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it. If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right in what he says, the commit tee can consider the scientific importance of the thistle —to continue the example —but it is unable to comment on the means of protecting it. That cannot be right. If it is right that that is in the Bill, the Minister should alter it. I hope that he will answer the point.
A further question concerns what staff or resources the committee will have. Will it depend upon the SNH for staff? Will it have funds with which it could commission a small inquiry or research project into certain subjects? It seems to me desirable that, although I am against a large staff, we should know the position. If the committee is dependent on the SNH the landowner would not be certain that it was not prejudiced by the information it receives. It is reasonable that the committee should have some funds or staff, though small, which should be entirely independent of the SNH, as, indeed, the committee is.
780
Can the Minister assure us that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, are unjustified or else accept his or a similar amendment? If he will tell us that the staff of the committee as well as its members will be independent, then we shall have gone a considerable way, if not the whole way, towards meeting the original objections to this part of the Bill.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has raised the extremely important point of resources. Even if that question is answered, we have not yet reached the right solution. I am the part-time, non-executive chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council for England, now called English Nature. I have an important connection with Scottish Natural Heritage through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee by which we exercise our special functions.
As your Lordships know, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 divided the former Nature Conservancy Council into three new organisations plus the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It is important to emphasise that these are three new organisations. They are approaching the subject of nature conservation in the United Kingdom in a new way, with new measures which are not uniform with those of the old Nature Conservancy Council and which represent different and interesting approaches in each country.
During the debates on the Environmental Protection Act and again on this Bill and today, my noble friend the Minister has given reassurances that the separation of the old Nature Conservancy Council will not alter the ground rules of strict equality of duty and function between the county councils in regard to nature conservation. That was repeated this afternoon when my noble friend the Minister, if I heard him aright, added that in his view any departure from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would make the Government vulnerable to indictment before the European courts. In the debate on 3rd December 1990 at col. 55 of the Official Report, he said:
"The Government have repeatedly stated, especially during the course of debates in this House and during the progress of the Environmental Protection Act, that they are not prepared to contemplate any change to the statutory procedures for site notification…"
and that
"the Government cannot change the provisions for SSSIs laid down in the 1981 Act in a Scottish Bill as these are Great Britain measures".
Following the introduction of the new Clause 11 which was inserted in this House by my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland (which will become Scottish Natural Heritage) Mr. Magnus Magnusson, undertook a review of the internal procedures for notifying SSSIs. He announced the new arrangements which he proposed to follow in Scotland.
The revised procedures in Scotland enable disputes over SSSI notification to be referred first to the regional board. In Scotland they have chosen a dispersed model and, as we know, are setting up four regional boards. If the dispute cannot be settled at the

781
regional level, it is to be referred to the full council of Scottish Natural Heritage. That body may and will seek advice where it chooses.
These arrangements were made widely known and were welcomed by the Secretary of State when he said in February that:
"This decision underlines the Government's continuing commitment to the SSI system, as the essential mechanism for ensuring the protection of areas that are unique, representative sites of scientific interest for plants, animals and earth science features… It follows that I do not intend to support the case for a statutory right of appeal".
We received today a complicated and lengthy clause introduced by my noble friend at the last minute, giving us little time to look at it, but nonetheless clear enough. A moment ago, my noble friend Lord Pearson recognised that it allows the right of appeal in certain cases. If it were not for that, I recognise that it would not receive the support of a large part of the House. It is a substantial concession, as my noble friend the Minister said. In my view, the system would positively invite appeals and repeated appeals on a decadal basis.
The system of appeal that is being set up overrides the present duty of the successor body to the Nature Conservancy Council to exercise its judgment; to express its opinion in law in the national interest; to identify sites of special scientific interest; to notify and ultimately to confirm them after the due process has been gone through. I shall deal with that later.
As the non-executive chairman of English Nature, I am naturally concerned that we should remain on parity and that when we operate together to the common rules of identifying SSSIs, as laid down by the 1981 Act, the three country agencies should operate on a level basis.
In April I spoke about my concerns to Mr. Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, the convener of the Scottish Landowners Federation. He assured me at the time that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, did not have the backing of that federation. What he subsequently published in a letter in the magazine The Field, in response to the article by my noble friend Lord Pearson, leads me to believe that this was then his opinion. He looked to the Government to put it right in the Commons, as they did, as my noble friend said, by unanimous decision.
It is widely claimed that there is no appeal. It is true that there is no direct appeal system to notification under the 1981 Act. However, because it has been the duty of the Nature Conservancy Council and is the duty of its successors to exercise their opinions, the councils have been specially selected and appointed by Government in order to fulfil this function. I am proud to say that, as the result of the appointments by the Secretary of State, in England there is a council covering a wide range of backgrounds and skills; people whose views I shall value and do value highly; who, corporately, can exercise their opinions and can reach the right conclusion.
The decision to notify, as my noble friend said from the Front Bench, sets up a negotiating process. During this process, objections are discussed; there is face-to-face discussion between members of the staff
782
and the objector. If I may say so, frankly, the story about the thistles is ludicrous. I accept that, under the heading of potentially damaging operations, (PDOs) the grazing of cows must be listed. This is a constant difficulty that we face. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, does not appear to have heard of the consent system which is widely used in England and by which these cases are normally resolved. The process leading up to confirmation allows for negotiation and discussion with objectors and for consents to be agreed.
My noble friend also emphasised that the Secretary of State exercises the right of appeal if a nature conservation order mechanism under Section 29 is put in place. Moreover, he might have added that if any activity, other than those concerning PDOs— that is to say, activities involving planning consent, for example — is brought into operation, the Secretary of State is again the ultimate appeal, through the planning process.
The proposal to set up an independent committee supersedes, overrides and denigrates the scientific capabilities of the council of Scottish Natural Heritage. That proposal reduces the council's powers to exercise its opinion. I must ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether this amendment is the way to show the Secretary of State's confidence in his appointment of Mr. Magnus Magnusson as chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage. Is it the way to support his careful and well thought out reforms of the present system? Does it sustain the confidence of the central council and regional boards? My view is that it totally undermines the standing of Scottish Natural Heritage's regional boards and of its full council. Their capacity to make scientific judgments is openly questioned.
I agree that we in English Nature are highly concerned about these issues. We recognise that SSSI notification can and does impinge on one of the most delicate areas of human sensitivity; namely, the rights of ownership and the management of land. We have debated and agreed upon the most careful procedures by which we shall exercise our opinions. We in English Nature shall work in partnership with owners and occupiers of land. We wish to review the ways in which management grants are provided and we intend to work together in the national interest to conserve the natural heritage of England.
We have debated and agreed upon the most careful procedure by which the council of English Nature shall exercise its statutory duty to notify SSSIs. Today I received an assurance from the Department of the Environment that there is no intention to introduce arrangements in England that are similar to those now proposed for Scotland. That in itself emphasises that there is a difference and that the two country agencies will not be operating on a level playing field.
This is a government amendment and my next point may be an irregular one to make. However, I hope that my noble friend concurs with my judgment that the House of Commons got it right in deleting this clause. I hope his amendment will also be withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who has so much more experience of this matter than I. Having listened

783
to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I am even more confused about the provisions of this clause than I was hitherto. That is unusual as the noble Lord usually manages to throw light on whatever matter he is presen Ling. I have looked again at the clause but it still appears to me that subsections (5) and (6) allow for a review of SSSIs on scientific grounds and that subsection (8) allows for a review on non-scientific grounds. If that is the case, the clause goes back on everything the Government have said about resisting a review. I believe that the noble Lord repeated that assurance today. Some clarification, at best, is needed on that point.
As regards setting up the separate committee, I note that the cost of that will fall squarely on SNH, apparently without any extra money being made available for that purpose. I believe that matter is mentioned in subsection (2). The press release given by the Secretary of State for Scotland to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has already referred, and the publication of a letter by Sir Magnus Magnusson show that Scottish Natural Heritage was undertaking a review of its procedures which would enable a second opinion to be given almost independently of SNH. It seems to me that Sir Magnus, in a letter which he sent to my noble friend Lord Carmichael in May, went out of his way to reassure those who were worried about the provisions of SNH that he was going to meet all their concerns. The letter states:
"I intend to focus more effort on the procedures prior to notification of the scientific interest in an area. You will be aware that under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 pre-notification discussions were, shall we say, discouraged".
That point is arguable, but I know that it is voiced. The letter continues:
"Nevertheless, in Scotland, our staff have been tacitly allowed to exercise their discretion in this area, and so far with excellent and constructive results. From now on, NCCS staff will provide owners and occupiers with an indication of whether changes in the management of land are required to safeguard the scientific interest of the site".
Sir Magnus explains in detail in his letter how that will occur. However, I shall not weary the House by quoting at length from the letter. I am sure the Minister has seen the letter and Sir Magnus sets out in it a useful procedure for meeting a great number of the objections which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has made.
I shall not make all the points I intended to make as I believe that the noble Earl has covered most of them. However, I must say that I am left with the impression that the movers of the amendment to the Government's amendment, and those who persuaded the Government to insert Clause 11, have the intention of shackling and impoverishing the new SNH before it is even born so that it cannot in any way inconvenience those landholders who wish to exploit their holdings without being hindered by inconvenient thoughts of preserving Scotland's wonderful natural heritage. I hope that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not be accepted. I beg the Government not to insist on inserting Clause 11 in the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was not too pleased with the way in which this matter was discussed in the Chamber on the previous occasion. It was more the style of the debate than what was actually said that displeased me. Today the style of the debate is much more constructive and more realistic. When Sir Magnus Magnusson came to the House and met Scottish Peers— I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was present on that occasion— by no means all of those Peers took the view that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, takes of this issue. Many of us were simply anxious that the procedures were such that someone who had a problem in this area could obtain an opinion other than that of Scottish Natural Heritage. I have been involved in quangos for many years and I know what wonderful defence mechanisms they can evolve as time goes on to deal with awkward situations.
Sir Magnus explained the role of the scientific committee to us and he explained that that committee would be able to provide a separate opinion. However, he added that Scottish Natural Heritage would appoint that committee. That appeared to me to be rather a pity— I am sure a number of others who were present felt the same way— as the scientific committee was not therefore an external body to which one could have recourse. Now the Government have moved in the direction of making that committee independent. That seemed to me to be the main issue that was at stake in that meeting. I am pleased that that has happened. I had hoped that there might be some other way but it is not realistic to think that there is. It is different from what is happening in England, but the difference is only minor. I think that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is unduly worried about that difference. I believe that the system will work in very much the same way in Scotland and that there will not be injustice in this respect.
I should like to address a few words to my noble friend Lord Pearson. I do not know whether the animals in the field are his and whether he farms the field, but in Scotland in a field of thistles which has cows in it from time to time the grass grows very unevenly, not because of the thistles but due to the cows, and one has to top the field with a grass mower. That does not do the thistles any good; but if one leaves the thistles there soon there will be no room for the cows.
My noble friend's example was very amusing. It made his point very clearly, but it was not a very good example. A committee of scientists would not know about what my noble friend called the operation; namely, the farming of the field. They would not know that the field had to be topped with a grass mower. They would probably agree the application, and soon there would no longer be any thistles. Therefore, that particular example is not a sound one.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend for clarification on one point on which there has been some confusion; namely, the difference between notification of an SSSI and a

785
nature conservation order in relation to the procedures which existed under the former NCC and those proposed in the original Bill for the SNH.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has described in detail the procedures introduced under the 1981 Act which were applied by the former NCC. They deal with the notification and designation of an SSSI, which within the NCC's structure have been dealt with under the terms of the 1981 Act. My noble friend explained that there was no appeal to the Minister or other outside body, but that matters were considered very carefully by the Council.
That procedure related to designation. In the case of proposed operations by an owner or occupier, when the SNH, or previously the NCC, considers that the operation would cause damage to the purpose of the SSSI a conservation order can be made by the Secretary of State. There is the possibility of an appeal to the Secretary of State by an objector. It should be made clear that, for example, if a farmer wants to undertake operations to which the SNH objects, the land can be made the subject of a nature conservation order. That could then lead to an appeal to the Secretary of State who makes the order in the first place.
I should like to have clarification that that is the situation; that there is no appeal outside the SNH in the notification procedure but that there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State on questions of operations which can be carried out in an SSSI.
The letter from Sir Magnus Magnusson setting out his refined procedure is available in the Library, and I hope that it has been seen by all who have taken part in the debate. It has been widely circulated. Sir Magnus has gone to great trouble to indicate how the system will operate in Scotland in future in relation to notification and designation. My noble friend Lady Carnegy and I both heard him when he came to the House and spoke on the subject at some length and answered our questions. That is a great advance. It should go a long way to meeting the difficulties and distrust that have arisen in some parts of Scotland. I and other noble Lords have spoken at some length on the matter in previous debates, not only in relation to this Bill but also a year or so ago on the United Kingdom Bill which is now an Act.
I did not think that the amendment agreed in this House, which was deleted in the other place and which is now being proposed in substitution for the Government's proposal, was correct or necessary when it was originally moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson. I opposed it. I said at the time that the other place would throw it out for various reasons which I shall not go into again, and I was not surprised that it was rejected.
I feel that with this amendment my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and the Government have gone as far as they possibly can with the procedures, keeping procedures uniform within the United Kingdom. I do not believe that noble Lords should try to add additional items at this stage. The Government have gone a long way. I believe that the combination of the new procedures within Scotland— which will be dealt
786
with much nearer the point of contact with owners and occupiers— and the Government's proposed advisory committee is as far as we should go without upsetting the procedure about which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is worried. I hope that the House will accept the Government's new clause.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 11A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I should like to thank him for bringing it forward. I should like to emphasise that our belief in the necessity for the advisory committee to which objections are referred to be independent of SNH does not imply any lack of confidence in the sensitive direction of the chairman-designate of SNH. I want to emphasise that very strongly. It merely implies recognition of the fact that none of us is immortal. We are legislating for a time when a future chairman and committee of SNH might be tempted to act rather less sensitively than I am sure the present chairman designate will act, and a right of appeal to an independent committee might therefore be necessary to prevent injustice.
In relation to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and myself, it is a pity that it will not be possible for potentially damaging operations under subsection (4) (b) of Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to be referred to the independent advisory committee. I should have thought that the committee's expertise would be such as to make it uniquely qualified to make decisions where any dispute arose as to whether any particular operation would be likely to be damaging.
6 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I should begin by saying how sorry I am to have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I sit on the council of English Nature and he is my chairman. It therefore grieves me somewhat to have to disagree with him on this particular occasion.
I should also declare an interest in that on my own land in the North I have four SSSIs. The procedures have worked well, the designations have been fully accepted, as have the PDOs. However, that does not mean that I do not know of other cases which have gone wrong. It is principally for that reason that I support the Government's amendment, which I should like to speak to now before moving on to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson.
There seems to be some divergence of opinion as to what Sir Magnus Magnusson has said. It is my impression that at a meeting in this House recently he made it quite clear that he was not averse to a system incorporating the introduction of an advisory committee.
We have heard constant reference to an appeal system. As I understand it, this is not an appeal system. It is simply a second opinion. Quite frankly, if SNH is to carry out its duties effectively and well it should have nothing to worry about. There is nothing in the amendment that would prevent SNH from carrying out its statutory duties for nature conservation. I can assure your Lordships that, if I thought

787
that that was the case, I should not support the amendment. I believe that to be of ultimate importance.
Another prerequisite for my supporting such an amendment is that the advisory committee should consist of individuals with sufficient scientific qualifications. The Government appear to have satisfied that criterion from what I have seen. I should like to add one point to which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred. It is important that the advisory committee should, when assessing such claims, work along the lines of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for the three country agencies. That is fundamental; otherwise, we might find the advisory committee working to a different set of criteria than those of the three country agencies. However, basically I can see no reason why a site designation should not be accepted if the scientific criteria were sound. Surely that is the basis.
Those people who oppose the amendment must assume that all designation of sites to date has been 100 per cent. okay. I cannot believe that that is true. There must have been cases of sites having been designated incorrectly in one form or another. The advisory committee is simply there to scrutinise and to ensure that that happens as little as possible.
My noble friend Lord Pearson referred to the cost factor for small farmers. That is an extremely important point. If an SSSI designation is put on a large landowner, he no doubt has the resources to go to a separate scientific body, such as a university, to obtain an opinion, but the small farmer does not have the resources. It is not only a question of finance; he probably does not know where to go. The system at least enables him quite simply and cost-effectively to challenge the designation of an SSSI. I cannot see why anyone should be averse to that basic principle. I dare say that the compensation payments received for operations forgone under the system work well, but there is little doubt that in certain cases capital values depreciate simply because there is a designation. We must also consider that factor. I therefore heartily support the amendment of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I shall now move on to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson, which I support because it seems illogical that we should have a system under which the advisory body examines the designation of an SSSI. It should also incorporate any operational activities that are likely to be presented in the PDO list.
Generally speaking, owners and occupiers accept the important role of the conservation agencies and of site designation, but the restriction of operations, particularly at this time of agricultural uncertainty to which my noble friend referred, deeply concerns many farmers. The compensation system has worked well, particularly among those farmers who are struggling. When a site designation is made and compensation is paid, it is extremely welcome.
Reference has been made to one other factor; namely, the approach that Mr. Magnusson and his team have so far made in Scotland and the introduction of regional boards and what I believe will be called the scientific research and development
788
committee. That step is undoubtedly to be welcomed. It is a major step forward and I congratulate Mr. Magnusson on it, but the measures are not statutory. What happens if another chairman in the future decides to repeal the measures? The case for referring matters to the advisory committee then becomes even stronger.
However, as I said at the outset, if I thought that the system would undermine the pursuit of sensible conservation policies, I would not support it. but I firmly believe that it enhances those measures and that we shall see a better balance in the future.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I did not take part in the earlier discussion of the amendment in this House because I do not live in Scotland and I thought that the matter could perhaps be left to those noble Lords who live there. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I was not happy about what happened there because it seemed to me all too easy that it would look to people outside as though a group— in this case, Scottish landowners— was using the House to promote its interests. I noted what the Government said then. They were resolute in opposing the amendment, although they were overridden. I was glad to see that the amendment that we passed was overturned in the other place.
I thought that the Government would continue to stand firm when the Commons amendments came back to us, but they have now introduced this amendment which the Minister described as a substantial concession. The highly respected environmental correspondent in the Daily Telegraph, Mr. Charles Clover, describes it in today's paper in the following terms:
"The move is a huge concession to land-owning peers who have criticised the stringency of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act".
It was only the other day that the Government set up those three new nature conservation bodies for England, Scotland and Wales. Some of us were unhappy about that, but it happened and we welcomed the appointment of the three distinguished chairmen of the new councils and thought that they would be allowed to get on with the job in the way described by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, with a new approach to nature conservation. It is extraordinary that the Government should now, as a concession to criticism of the Scottish Council, propose the appointment of a committee which is to second-guess the Scottish Council's decisions on the designation or preservation of SSSIs. That would be appropriate only if one regarded the brand new Scottish Council under Mr. Magnus Magnusson as a kind of rogue elephant. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, regards it as such. He wrote in The Field last month:
"I am afraid that the new institution now looks likely to reflect the worst instincts of its component parts: socialist control (from the Countryside Commission for Scotland) and narrow-minded science (from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland)".
He went on to talk about officials of the Department of the Environment showing:
"a disturbing enthusiasm for environmental ideals which spring from left-wing European green movements".
I read that with some surprise. I was glad that Mr. Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, convener of the

789
Scottish Landowners Federation, took issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in a subsequent letter to The Field already referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
I should like to ask the Minister one question about the new body; namely, whether it will follow the guidelines on SSSI criteria drawn up by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. I do not believe that he made clear what will be the relationship of the new body to the joint committee. That will be fundamental to the whole issue of nature conservation in Great Britain.
I should like to say a very brief word about Wales, which is where I live. I should also declare a slight interest in that my wife has a small wood near our home. It is an SSSI concerning which we have had a very happy relationship with the Countryside Council for Wales. I know that the new chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, Mr. Michael Griffith, was worried about the amendment that was passed in this House. He told me that it would place the new Countryside Council for Wales in an almost impossible position. He writes:
"We should have to put the bulk of our resources into reviewing SSSI and therefore we would get very little else done".
That was written before the government amendment was introduced. I had a word with Mr. Griffith today and informed him of the latest situation. He told me that he fully shared the concerns so eloquently expressed today by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Above all he is aware that there is a great deal for the new councils to do in the way of nature conservation. He wants them to get on and not to be bogged down in bureaucratic detail. He wants them to be free to deal with the real job of conserving nature. I think that that is absolutely right.
I hope very much that the Government will think again about this proposal. I realise that at the moment it is confined to Scotland. But, for the reasons expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, it is a worrying development. There would be great concern if anything like this procedure were to be introduced into England or particularly into Wales.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I find it amazing that in a democracy we can set up a non-elected body with absolutely no chance to have a second opinion. The people who are "pro" having an autocratic body whose opinions cannot be questioned are mistaking the number of objections that there will be.
The only part of Scotland that I own is a house and 30 acres of cliff which happen to be an SSSI. About eight years ago I received a paper through the post which told me that it was an SSSI. I was told that there were various things that I could not do with it. There are also three fishermen's cottages on the land: presumably, they are also SSSIs. I did not worry about the piece of paper and I put it aside. I certainly was not notified in advance. I was not given a chance to consult, appeal or do anything of that kind. I was
790
simply told that my land was an SSSI. I am not particularly worried. I am very happy that it is an SSSI. I do not do anything to damage it. About 14 car loads of Aberdonians come out in the summer at weekends to try to damage it, but there is nothing that I can do about that. If the Government would like to stop them perhaps they could. We have been trying to stop them for about 20 years. My mother started the attempt that long ago. I cannot see why noble Lords are worried about there being an appeal.
On the same grounds I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I cannot understand what is wrong with having the PDOs reviewed at the same time. Some SSSIs involve small farmers— small people without funds. Cash flow is vital to a small farmer. Although there is a right of appeal against the PDOs, it can take time and banks these days are only too willing to foreclose. It does not take long for a small farmer to go bust.
I should have thought that it would be only sensible to have the operations reviewed, if it seemed wise to the committee, at the same time as the designation of the SSSI. On those grounds I note that there are moves to stop legal aid for the early stages of certain legal actions. I should think that that would further inhibit farmers and prevent them doing anything about it. Both sets of amendments are extremely sensible. I support them.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, all noble Lords who, at an earlier stage of the Bill, were concerned about sites of special scientific interest will be extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for having introduced these proposals. He referred to the fact that doing so has constituted quite a bit of difficulty. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in referring to thistles, let us infer that the matter is also a prickly one.
With regard to the two aspects of appeals arising from the designation of SSSIs and potentially damaging operations, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun in their suggestions regarding the latter. I ask my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, now that he has this new system on board, whether within it he can think of some way at an early stage to encourage the views and respect the insight of the farmer and the man who directly knows his land, whenever potentially damaging operations may be an issue.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Dundee in sincerely thanking my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for putting forward this amendment. I thank also my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for their persistence in pointing out the need for change in this part of the Bill.
I cannot understand the objections from some SNH and NCC members. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Peel, who apparently was a colleague of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, voice completely different and, I think, correct views. When the amendment was passed in this place on Third Reading there was an outcry from certain quarters of the media

791
and quite possibly in another place as well. References were made to landowning peers interfering with conservation and so on. That is totally unjustified. Shortly after the amendments were passed, I attended meetings of the NFU and FFWAG (Farming, Forestry and Wildlife Advisory Group). The amendments were greeted with delight by big and small farmers, by foresters and indeed by many people with varying interests in land use. After all it is those who use the ground who are most important in these conservation matters. Many users have been angered by current designations of SSSIs.
I cannot speak for England. Obviously, however, there is total lack of understanding of the hostility that has been engendered by some designations in Scotland. Indeed, there was a deplorable case recently in Caithness. Such was the anger that an SSSI was deliberately set on fire. The whole site was burnt out. I am sure that we all deplore such happenings. But it shows the hostility which has been engendered, particularly in the far north.
It is necessary to convince the land user of the necessity of the designation. Most landowners will help to comply with the required protection if the need for that protection is explained to them. Most landow iers in Scotland would not want to object. They are largely conservationists. But when a designation is suddenly slapped upon them which they do not feel is justified and which they do not understand because it is not explained properly to them, one cannot be surprised that they want some sort of appeal.
There have been two mentions today of the Scottish Landov, ners Federation. I attended a meeting of the full council last Tuesday. Mr. Gordon-Duff-Pennington, who has also been mentioned today, was present at that meeting, which was generally in agreement with him. I had a telephone call yesterday to say that the SLF strongly supported the Government's amendment. However, it was slightly worried about some minor points. In particular there is anxiety about subsection (2) of the amendment which refers to,
"scientific qualifications and experience".
I am not clear what is meant by "qualifications". Does it mean having letters after one's name or being experienced in the subject? It would be better for those with some experience of land use— possibly from the colleges of agriculture— or who knew something about the subject, to be eligible. One does not need letters after one's name to be a good gardener. I can think of many people who are experts on wild flowers but are rot necessarily qualified with a degree. I hope that "qualifications" in subsection (2) does not necessarily refer to someone who has a degree.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I shall be brief. I am concerned about two aspects of the Government's new proposed clause. My first anxiety relates to subsection (8) to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred. Subsection (8) will allow landowners and farmers to appeal against SSSI designations on non-scientific and scientific grounds. For example, if a landowner felt that an SSSI was an inconvenience and was disinclined to discuss land management agreements with the NCC
792
in Scotland, he would be in a position to persuade the new advisory committee to remove the SSSI label from his land. I hope that my noble friend will give an assurance that any appeal or objection against SSSI notifications must be on scientific grounds. In other words, they must be based on nature conservation or geological value.
My second point relates to the Government's international obligations towards nature conservation. If land is stripped of its SSSI label but retains its scientific value, the UK Government could be in serious breach of their obligations under the international conventions. In essence, those are the Berne Convention which protects vulnerable habitats and their wildlife, the RAMSAR Convention which protects wetlands of international importance, and the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that the UK's international obligations will continue to be fulfilled.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have no land in Scotland, and I have no interest to declare. I shall be exceedingly brief.
My concern is twofold. First, it seems to me that it is the small farmer and not the great landowner who is assisted by the government amendment. It is not a free-ride government concession to the great landowners of Scotland. It is a plain question of due administration where one has set up a form of autocratic administration which is totally free to do as it will. That is my concern whichever side of the Border that administration occurs.
It seems to me that the Government have done totally the right thing. Having listened to the debate, I believe that the amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson is totally right. Everything that he said about the seeds of injustice — it requires no repetition— was totally right. I had made some notes. However, the reasoning in support was so eloquently and persuasively advanced by my noble friend Lord Peel that nothing more need be said.
Baroness David: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. He made a powerful speech. If there is a Division I shall certainly support him and vote to agree with the Commons who deleted the clause that was inserted in this House at an earlier stage.
The Scottish Wildlife Trust states that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is a weak compromise which would not best serve the interests of nature conservation in Scotland. It adds a further unnecessary complication to the existing committee structure effectively creating a parallel body to the national SNH committee which is to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
If we follow the government amendment, we provide for a second committee appointed by the Secretary of State. The SNH, appointed by the Secretary of State, has a valuable base of scientific opinion. To add another committee on top of that seems absolutely ridiculous. It undermines everything that was promised for nature conservation in Scotland. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was present at the previous

793
discussions about what was to happen after the Nature Conservancy Council was split up. We were assured that nature conservation would be the prime consideration, as it had been with the NCC.
This provision undermines what was promised at that time. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, received so little support. Three or four people agreed with him. I hope that that will not deter him from voting at the end of the debate.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it has been a long debate on an important subject. We all wish the Minister to clarify a number of points.
The Commons fairly decisively deleted Clause 11. However, they did not have before them the new clause which the Minister puts forward. It is therefore not a straight argument. If they had had that provision before them there might have been some reconsideration of the issue.
The longer the debate continued, the more uneasy I became. The Minister knows that I did not vote on the last occasion because I was uneasy about it. When we heard the number of pleas from the Scottish Landowners Federation for the small farmer I became worried. I wondered if I was taking the wrong view. I certainly do not wish to be associated with the Scottish Landowners Federation on such a matter. Perhaps the Minister will give an assurance that an appeal can only relate to the issue of a site of special scientific interest. Perhaps he will give us some idea of how the 10-year rule works. Is there a large backlog of people who are likely to make representations under the 10-year rule within the next period? Is there any estimate of the number of SSSIs likely to go to the special committee?
I do not believe that the committee will be second guessing the Secretary of State. The committee will have power to refer any difficult cases to the special committee when there is an obvious, although not unanimous, decision of the scientific section of the Scottish Natural Heritage.
Those questions are important to me. Everyone who has spoken on the question of the appeal procedure has been much concerned as to whether it is so narrow that it concerns only SSSIs. It would be of considerable help to have clarification.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I knew that we would have a full debate on the subject; I have not been disappointed. I felt that the debate did not start off well when my noble friend Lord Cranbrook stated that we were denigrating Scottish Natural Heritage with the introduction of our new clause; the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that we were shackling it and impoverishing it; and, latterly, the noble Baroness, Lady David, said that we were undermining promises.
I believe that that argument is fundamentally to misunderstand what we are providing in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, and especially in this clause. The provision is about building bridges between conservation bodies and the people who need to make a living from working on the land. That element of
794
trust has been missing during the past few years under the NCC. It is why the NCC was split up; it is why we are creating a Scottish Natural Heritage; and it is why we are trying so hard to ensure that we achieve something that can go forward with pride and dignity in terms of our Scottish heritage.
I also believe that it undermines exactly what the chairman designate of the organisation has been trying to do during the past few months. He has created new arrangements. He has come to this House to talk to various peers. He has written many letters and I have commended him previously on his approach. I am not distrustful of his approach; I am simply ensuring that on the face of the Bill we have a safeguard so that people— whether they are big or small landowners, crofters, farmers or owners of holiday cottages — will feel secure in the knowledge that if their land is subject to a notification of an SSSI they will be able to obtain a second opinion.
It is only that; it is not a right of appeal. There is no obligation on the part of the scientific advisory committee to demand that SNH sticks to its opinions. SNH does not have to listen to the committee if it does not wish to do so. That is of fundamental importance and that is why the integrity of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has been maintained. I refute any suggestion that we are changing that Act and that it no longer applies on a GB basis. That is untrue. Those people who propagate that argument do themselves, this House and this Government a great disservice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, accused me, I suspect correctly, of being confusing in my approach to the amendment. Perhaps I may explain it in layman's terms. Let us suppose that a new SSSI is declared after the setting up of Scottish Natural Heritage. If after six months one disagrees with the negotiations that one has been having with that body one can bring the matter to the attention of the advisory council. If one already has an SSSI one of two things can happen. If one objected at the time of the original notification one can bring the matter forward to the advisory committee having re-opened negotiations for a further four months with Scottish Natural Heritage. However, if no objections were made at the time of the original notification one must wait 10 years before bringing the matter to the advisory committee. Likewise, once one has been to the advisory committee one cannot go back for 10 years.
What is wrong with that? The provision has been extremely well worked out and it is designed to avoid a substantial number of people coming forward to the committee in the first instance. I have great confidence in the ability of Scottish Natural Heritage to work with landowners, farmers and crofters through the new arrangements. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, there has been a substantial overrating of the number of people who will use the new procedure.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch explained at length why we should include in the procedure the PDOs, and he was supported by many noble Lords. In opening, I explained at length why I believe that the existing procedures laid out under the

795
1981 Act would suffice. A conservation order cannot be applied until it has been approved by the Secretary of State; there must then be a public inquiry or hearing; and then the Secretary of State must agree yet again. 'That is a far more substantial and real system of appeal than the light touch that we have with the advisory committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked why we did not include the sensible provision put forward by my noble friend, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. That is a central question. There is an appeals procedure which works and is effective. It may be over-bureaucratic and where possible we can attempt to make it more streamlined. However, if we pass my noble friend's amendments we shall have a double appeals system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, my noble friend Lord Norrie and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked several questions about subsection (8) about which there appears to be confusion. The structure of the clause is such as to make clear that we are dealing with representations only on scientific grounds. The new committee is not on the face of it qualified to consider other grounds of representation. Subsection (8) simply sweeps up the factual circumstances which are not covered by subsections (5) and (6). It does not extend the grounds upon which representations can be made. I confirm to my noble friend Lord Norrie that in the Bill we are not in the business of breaking any international convention or of changing the integrity of the 1981 Act. That is not the effect of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about the work of the advisory committee and whether it would act on the same criteria as the JNCC. I assure your Lordships that the advisory committee will consider representations within the framework of the criteria for biological and earth science sites agreed by the three native conservation agencies operating for the JNCC. I also confirm the accuracy of the statement made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and that the description of the distinction between the notification of operations under Sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, drew attention to an article p thlished in the Daily Telegraph this morning. I was surprised that he did so having heard my comments about the new clause. The article in the Daily Telegraph was filled with such atrocious inaccuracies and created a sensationalism which I believed knew no bounds that it would have been better to have left the newspaper at home than to have read it. I am convinced that the Scottish press will not report this debate in the same way as it was pre-empted by the Daily Telegraph this morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked me about the committee, whether it will be independent and who will pay for it. As a matter of administrative convenience SNH will service the committee in the sense of supplying an office, a telephone, lighting systems and so. Its expenditure will be met by SNH. Those arrangements are purely administrative and do not compromise the independence of SNH.
What really counts in terms of independence is the disqualification of all members of SNH. That is the
796
essential guarantee of independence. The members will be appointed by the Secretary of State and must be persons who are not members of SNH or any of its appointed committees. That would include regional board members. That is the way in which we aim to guarantee independence.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, do I understand that the committee will have no say in the appointment of its staff? Indeed, it will have no staff directly responsible and no funds— is that correct?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may explain how the committee will operate. The Government have always made it clear that they have confidence in the work of SNH and in the chairman designate— Magnus Magnusson— to bring forward new procedures which will make sure that there is a greater trust between people who live and work on the land and the conservation body (SNH). We believe that this committee must sit very rarely indeed, if at all. It is simply a last resort. On that basis it would be very silly and potentially expensive to set up a whole new quango with its own office, staff, secretaries and so on because I am sure your Lordships will know how such matters can snowball. The committee will be under the service of SNH but will be totally independent. That is guaranteed by the Secretary of State.
Baroness David: My Lords, in that case, will SNH be given extra funds to pay for the committee?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it will be directly in the interests of SNH to make sure that the committee feels as comfortable as possible and also that very few cases reach it. In that event, there will be nothing to pay for. I have already dealt with the question of funds. It is not a question of new funds but a question of what SNH will do with its funds.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government are walking a middle path between conservation bodies on one side and those people who believe that conservation bodies should have as few rights as possible on the other. The Government have been successful with this clause in comforting both sides of the argument. This is not a fundamental change but, on the other hand, it allows for a second opinion.
One noble Lord talked about the real job of conserving nature. After all this, SNH can go forward with confidence and carry out that task. It can do that if we agree to the new clause. I hope that what I have said will convince noble Lords that the new clause proposed by the Government is sensible. Also, I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch are not desirable, would not work and would replace what is, in effect, a totally acceptable appeals procedure.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks to those noble Lords who have opposed what has been called, this evening, an appeals procedure. I am advised on what I believe to be very sound authority that nothing that we are considering

797
tonight is an appellate procedure as such. Those who oppose the second guessing mechanisms put forward by my noble friend and myself seem to rely for their opposition very much on the people who will be operating the new mechanisms.
The people who are operating the existing mechanisms in the shape of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and, in the future for Scottish Natural Heritage, Magnus Magnusson, and many other people who have been appointed to the regional boards are well known to many of us and respected by all of us. The trouble is that we are dealing with a framework of law — a framework of law which must be operated possibly in the future by people who are less well intentioned than the people who are operating it today. I believe that it is dangerous to rely purely on the people and to ignore the mechanisms which will control the people in future.
I should like to underline that any scientific theory is strengthened by taking a second opinion which confirms it. Here we are dealing with scientific theory. Having said that, I confirm that I am most grateful to my noble friend and to other noble Lords who have supported me. Of course I accept that Scottish Natural Heritage is likely to be a more sensitive agency than its predecessor, at least for some time. My noble friend's amendment will certainly produce a substantial improvement on the present situation.
I very much hope that Scottish Natural Heritage will be informed by this debate and that it will extend its new sensitivity to all those who must go down what may be the long route to a possible management agreement or even to a nature conservation order or public inquiry. With that hope and with my noble friend's assurances ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 11B, as an amendment to Motion 11A, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11C and 11D not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I have already spoken at length. It is perfectly clear from subsection (3) of the amendment that the committee will be paid and there will be a demand on the resources of Scottish Natural Heritage. I only know that this morning, when I spoke to Mr. Magnus Magnusson, he was distressed and upset at the government amendment. I cannot say what he would now feel, having heard the kind words of the Minister from the Front Bench and the general words of commendation and appreciation expressed to him from all sides of the Chamber.
In the House this afternoon I have heard a number of people say how outrageous it is that decisions should be taken by an unelected body. It would be proper to favour the decision taken by the elected body and to support another place. Therefore, I oppose Motion 11A.
6.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11, but do propose the amendment set out in the Marshalled List in lieu thereof?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 152; Not-Contents, 6.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Airedale, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Arran, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball. L.

Auckland, L.

Kintore, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.]

Bessborough, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Biddulph, L.

Listowel, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Longford, E.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lytton, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Burton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Mills, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Norrie, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Orkney, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Palmer, L.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cox, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peel, E.

Cranworth, L.

Phillips, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Quinton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Richard, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Elton, L.

Russell, E.

Erne. E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Erroll, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Flather, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Forester, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strange, B.

Grey, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimond, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Swansea, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hughes, L.

Westbury, L.

799

White, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wise, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

David, B

Rea, L.

Moran, L.

Scrota, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
6.57 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
12 Clause 14, page 10, line 16, leave out from 'of where it first occurs to end of line and insert 'irrigation—

(a) in any form; and

(b) for the benefit of any agricultural or horticultural activity which, in itself, is carried out on a commercial basis.'.

13 Page 10, leave out lines 28 to 35.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 en bloc. These amendments merely clarify what the controls in Part II of the Bill cover; that is, irrigation for commercially based agricultural and horticultural purposes.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13— (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
14 Clause 19, page 13, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert 'and where applications are made both by a board and by an authority in respect of the same locality, the Secretary of State may make separate drought orders in favour of the board and in favour of the authority.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. It is a technical amendment and represents no change in policy.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14— (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 23, page 17, line 30 leave out 'the river purification authority, water authority or water development board'.
16 Page 17, line 31, after 'sustained', insert 'loss or'.
17 Page 17, line 32, after 'authority', insert 'or board'.
18 Page 17, line 35, at end insert '; or
(c) the occupation and use of land authorised by a drought order by virtue of paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 to this Act;'.
19 Page 17, line 36, after 'the' where it first occurs insert 'loss or'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 19 en bloc. With the permission of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 to 31. The amendments correct an omission from Clause 23. They extend to water authorities and water development boards the same liability for compensation as is placed on river purification authorities for any damage attributable to their exercise of rights of entry to land under Clause 23. The other amendments are consequential.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 19— (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
20 Clause 27, page 19, line 29, leave out from '4(2)' to 'as'
in line 30 and insert 'and (4) of this Act and so much of sections 4(10) and 26 of and Schedules 2, 10 and 11 to this Act'.
21 Page 19, leave out lines 32 to 35.
22 Schedule 2, page 24, line 35, after '21)', insert ', in
subsection (7)(a)'.
23 Schedule 7, page 38, line 47, leave out 'and (8)' and insert '(8) and (9)'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 en bloc to which I have spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 23.— (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 Schedule 8, page 39, line 23, at beginning insert:
'() Before making an application for a drought order, the applicant shall consult any river purification authority or district salmon fishery board upon whom notice of the application would be required to be served under this paragraph.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. The amendment reinstates the provision from the Water (Scotland) Act 1990 requiring consultation with the river purification authorities and district salmon fishery boards prior to the submission of an application for a drought order to the Secretary of State. It was not previously included in the Bill since the measures in Part III were intended to reflect those available in the Water Act 1989 for England and Wales.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.— (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
25 Schedule 8, page 39, line 27, after 'circulating", insert '(i)'.
26 Page 39, line 28, after 'order', insert '; and (ii) within any locality from which, in the opinion of the applicant, an alternative supply of water is likely to be taken.'.
27 Page 40, line 29, after 'place', insert '(i)'.
28 Page 40, line 30, after 'order', insert '; and (ii) within the locality from which, in the opinion of the applicant, an alternative supply of water is likely to be taken'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 en bloc. These amendments add to the advertisement requirements for drought order applications in the area from which alternative supplies of water are proposed to be taken to meet deficiencies elsewhere. That is entirely appropriate so that those who have an interest in the alternative sources can have an opportunity to raise any objection.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 28.— (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
29 Schedule 9, page 41, line 41, after 'by', insert 'section 23(9) of this Act and'.
30 Page 41, leave out from line 45 to line 5 on page 42 and insert:
'2. The provisions of this Schedule shall not apply to compensation in respect of the entry upon or occupation or use of land in the exercise of powers conferred—

(a) by section 23 of this Act; or

(b) by a drought order by virtue of paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 to this Act.'.

31 Page 42, line 8, leave out 'paragraph 2 above' and insert 'section 23(9) of this Act'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 to 31.— (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
32 Schedule 10, page 44, line 51, at end insert—
'Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 47)
. The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 shall be amended as follows with regard to the penalties for certain offences—

(a) in subsection (8) of section 12, for the words "level 4 on the standard scale" there shall be substituted the word "£ 20,000";

(b) in subsection (2) of' section 24, for the words from "level" to the end of that subsection there shall he substituted the word "£ 20,000"; and

(c) in subsection (2) of section 46, for the words from "level 5" to "therefor" there shall be substituted the word "£ 20.000".'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. Last year we took the opportunity of the Environmental Protection Act to raise the maximum fine on summary conviction for water pollution offences under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to £ 20,000 thus enabling sheriffs to take more stringent action against polluters in summary proceedings. This amendment brings the penalties for offences under the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 into line. It is therefore a further step in protecting the environment against those whose thoughtless and selfish actions can have such detrimental effects on the quality and cleanliness of our surroundings.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32.— (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
33 Schedule 10, page 44, line 51, at end insert:
'Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 65)
. After section 135 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (establishing river purification areas and boards) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Variation of composition of river purification boards.
135A.— (1) The power to make an order under subsection (5) of section 135 of this Act includes power to vary the composition of any river purification board, in accordance with the provisions of this section, in a subsequent order.
(2) Such a variation order shall provide—

(a) that any river purification board shall consist of such number of members as may be specified in the order;

(b) that one quarter of the members of the board shall be appointed from among their members by such of the regional councils wholly or partly within the area of the board and in such proportions as may be so specified;

(c) that one quarter of the members of the board shall be appointed from among their members by such of the district councils wholly or partly within the area of the board and in such proportions as may be so specified; and

(d) that one half of the members of the board shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with such bodies as he thinks fit, to represent the interests of persons concerned with the carrying on of agriculture, fisheries or industry in the board's area or any other interests which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, should be represented on the board.

(3) Such a variation order may make such transitional provisions with regard to the termination and appointment of members, including members appointed by regional or district councils, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. This amendment stems from a package of recommendations set out in the report of the first policy review of RPBs published last autumn. It will enable the distribution of members appointed to the purification board by the Secretary of State by regional and district councils to be changed. At present each is responsible for one third of the appointees. When the amendment is put into effect, which we plan to be in May 1992, my right honourable friend will appoint 50 per cent. of the members of each RPB and 25 per cent. each for the regional and district councils.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33.— (Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Burton: My Lords, I can see subsection (2) (c) causing some difficulty. I am a member of a purification board and this matter arose at our last meeting. It will be quite difficult for district councils to sort out which is to send a representative to the purification board. The district councils do not normally meet with each other. I am surprised that the amendment has come forward at this moment. If there is to be an alteration to local government with a single-tier authority set up or something like that, which I gather is a possibility, it seems a pity that this matter should have been brought forward when perhaps in a couple of years' time the whole arrangement will have to be changed again. It is too late to alter the amendment, but I wish to draw attention to it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the matter. The real point is how district councils will decide who

803
to send. It will be for them to decide. I suspect that in many areas where there are many district councils they will have to decide between themselves who is to send a representative. I expect that they will agree. Very few of them have the necessary skills. I am not anticipating any trouble.
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 33
33A Schedule 10, in subsection (2)(d) of the inserted section 135A, line 2, leave out from ("State") to end of subsection and insert ("and that those members shall be persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions and duties of the board.")
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33A. The amendment will remove the requirement from the Secretary of State to consult with agricultural specialists and industrial interests before appointing members to the river purification boards. It will return us to the status quo in that half of the members appointed should have experience or should have shown capacity in some matter related to the functions and duties of the board. It will give the board more flexibility in deciding who they should appoint. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, wishes to ensure that the persons appointed by the Secretary of State to RPBs are useful and effective members. That is also the Government's intention. When the Secretary of State is considering potential board members he will take into account their experience and capacity in matters relating to the board's work. These matters are not necessarily tied closely to the explicit statutory duties and functions of the board, as the noble Lord's amendment might suggest. For example, experience in ecology might be useful on a board. Experience and capacity in matters widely related to the board's work are not the only possible tests of fitness for appointment. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, could preclude the appointment of someone with exceptional ability and with a real interest in the board's work simply on the grounds of lack of specific experience.
Another difficulty is that it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to make appointments without appropriate consultations with bodies which have an interest in the work of a board. I assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will continue to apply the most careful considerations as to the suitability of individual candidates for appointment by him. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Chief Whip on my side of the House says that that is a fair offer. The Minister introduced the question of someone who is not specifically working in the area and who may have other duties. However, I feel that when one consults too widely one raises the expectations of people who will feel that they are able to contribute, which may turn out to be a disappointment. In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amen iment No. 33A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, by leave, withdrawn.
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 33
33B In subsection (2)(d) of the inserted section I35A, line 5, after ("with") insert ("the promotion of Scotland's natural heritage or").
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33B. This amendment will add to those bodies which the Secretary of State must consult before appointing members to the river purification boards. It will include those bodies which represent persons who are concerned with the promotion of Scotland's national heritage. It seems fairly self-evident to me. I hope that the Minister has a helpful reply. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly have sympathy with the sentiment behind this amendment since the promotion of Scotland's natural heritage is the main thrust of Part I of the Bill. However, the amendment would not allow the Secretary of State any greater scope for considering candidates for appointments to boards than is already provided by the amendment made in another place. We believe that the all-embracing term "any other interests" is much more preferable as an attempt to provide an exhaustive list of relevant interests. The wording of the amendment made in another place follows in this respect the present statutory provision which has enabled the Secretary of State to appoint persons representing a very wide range of interests, including those who are concerned with natural heritage which, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is so important. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 33B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 33, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
34 Schedule 10, page 45, line 2, at end insert—
'() In section 54 (directions to a river purification authority)—

(a) in subsection (2), leave out the words from "to give effect" to the end of that subsection and insert—

"(a) to give effect to any Community obligation or exercise any related right; or

(b) to give effect to any obligation or exercise any related right under any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party,

and "related right", in relation to an obligation, includes any derogation or other right to make more onerous provisions available in respect of that obligation."; and

(b) after subsection (3) insert—

"(4) The power conferred by subsection (I) of this section to make a direction shall include power, exerciseable in like manner and subject to the same conditions, to vary or revoke the direction by a subsequent direction.".'.
35 Page 45, line 8, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 11 and insert '—

(a) to give effect to any Community obligation or exercise any related right; or

805

(b) to give effect to any obligation or exercise any related right under any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party,

and "related right", in relation to an obligation, includes any derogation or other right to make more onerous provisions available in respect of that obligation.".'.
36 Page 45, line 33, at end insert—
`() The words of section 76K (power to give effect to international obligations) shall be subsection (I) of that section and the section shall be further amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (1) leave out the words from "to give effect" to the end of that subsection and insert—

"(a) to give effect to any Community obligation or exercise any related right; or

(b) to give effect to any obligation or exercise any related right under any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party."; and

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be added the following subsection—

"(2) In this section—
'modifications' includes additions, alterations and omissions; and
'related right', in relation to an obligation, includes any derogation or other right to make more onerous provisions available in respect of that obligation.".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 en bloc. These are all technical amendments designed to facilitate implementation of Community and international obligations concerning water quality.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 en bloc — (Lord Strathclyde.)
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word about Amendment No. 36, which I am happy to welcome. Perhaps the Minister can answer one question. If he cannot answer it tonight perhaps he will write to me. Will he give an assurance that the Government will give the river purification authorities directions on how their obligations under the EC wild birds directive will be met? The need for the directive arises because under current legislation RPAs do not have a clear statutory duty to promote nature conservation and the consideration of water quality alone does not necessarily bring full benefits for flora and fauna. I hope the Minister will consider whether directions can be given in this instance.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point and I hope that I can answer her. I am also glad that she welcomes this amendment. In the case of the Community directive on the conservation of wild birds, the Government made arrangements some time ago to ensure its implementation in Scotland. The arrangements were set out in the Scottish development department's Circular 1 in 1988. Further guidance is now being prepared by the Scottish Office environment department to reflect and enhance the protection which must
806
now be accorded under the directive following a recent judgment in the European Court. This further guidance will be issued later in the year. In regard to the role of the river purification authorities, we believe their functions already provide protection for birds dependent on the aquatic environment. However, we are in any event considering very carefully, in the light of the recent consultation exercise, what might more usefully be done by the RPAs to further promote nature conservation generally. I hope that answer is to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
37 Schedule 10, page 46, line 8, at end insert—
'() a Natural Heritage Area designated under section 6 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991;'.
38 Page 46, line 29, at beginning insert—
'(1) The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.'.
39 Page 46, line 29, leave out 'of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984'.
40 Page 46, line 33, at end insert—
'(3) In section 98(1) (control of stray and other animals on roads) for the word "countryside" there shall be substituted the word "land".'.
41 Schedule 11, Page 47, line 41, at end insert—

'1972 c. 52.

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972

In section 262C, subsections (1) and (2).'.

42 Page 48, line 9, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 98, subsection (6).'.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 42 en bloc, to which I have already spoken. Since this is the last group of amendments perhaps I may thank all noble Lords who have participated in today's encouraging and exciting debate.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 42 en bloc. — (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
7.12 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 19 [Power to search for munitions, radio transmitters and scanning receivers]:
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 15, line 2, after ("supplied") insert ("at once or, where that is not practicable, as soon as is practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee Clause 19 of this Bill was amended by the Government to place a duty on the police and armed forces to make a written record when they exercise their powers of search under this clause. The amendment also

807
required the security forces to provide a copy of the record to the occupier of the premises or other place searched.
During the debate the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, welcomed the amendment but drew attenticn to the fact that it did not specify any time limit within which the record must be provided to the occupier of the premises. I undertook to look at that point.
It was always the Government's intention that, if practicable, a copy of the record should be supplied at once. The amendment which stands in my name is designed to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that it goes as far as is reasonably possible.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the amendment. It fully meets the concerns that were expressed in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Examination of documents]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 15, line 27, at end insert:
("() A statement by a qualified barrister or solicitor, or by a clerk to a qualified barrister or solicitor, that a document or record is subject to legal privilege (within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989) shall be taken as conclusive proof by a constable or member of Her Majesty's Forces for the purposes of the operation of subsection (3) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 22, which is a new clause giving members of the security forces the power to examine and remove documents discovered in the course of a search. It is a very important clause. However, the clause ha s been the subject of a great deal of anxiety. It was the subject of debate in another place and we expressed those worries in Committee.
The original version of Clause 22 made no provision whatever for the protection of legal privilege. Subsection (3) was then introduced in another place in order to exclude legally privileged material from examination and removal when found in the course of a search. However, the amended Clause 22 is still defective since it fails to address the practical difficulty which we identified in Committee. That difficulty is this: how will a soldier without the necessary training and experience recognise that a particular document which he has found in the course of a search is entitled to legal privilege and is therefore not to be examined or removed? That is the question which I asked the Minister in Committee. It was not directly answered by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. When he replied the Minister merely repeated that the soldier must have reasonable cause for believing it to be a legal document. In our view, that is not particularly helpful.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, envisaged that it might present difficulties for soldiers. He went on to suggest that there could be a code of practice. We will come to that suggestion at a later
808
stage. Therefore, the difficulty with the clause as it stands is how a soldier will determine that it is a document to which is attached privilege. If it is the case that he has to read through the document in order to answer that question, that would appear to me to be breaching the principle of privilege.
This amendment seeks to find a way out of this dilemma by providing that if a member of the legal profession states that the document in his possession is legally privileged the document cannot be examined further. In that situation the duty of the soldier would be to verify the identify of the person making the statement. Although I have not checked this, I am sure that a person falsely claiming legal privilege would be guilty of some offence. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I so warmly support the intention of this amendment that I am reluctant to be critical of the way it is drafted. However, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, might wish to consider the point that there is a danger that terrorist organisations will organise themselves to get lawyers' letters saying that documents are protected by legal privilege. Also, would not the people most likely to go to the trouble of procuring legal privilege be those with the most to hide?
Therefore, my problem with the amendment as drafted is that it may present the danger that we hamper the security forces without affording real protection to anyone other than the very sophisticated or those who have something to hide. However, I warmly support the amendment and to save the House having to hear me twice on the same subject, I also warmly support Amendment No. 4 which, as originally drafted, was meant to deal with the same clause in the Bill. I support the idea of a code of practice. Perhaps that might be a better way to proceed.
While I am on my feet, and as this is the first occasion we have discussed Northern Ireland matters since the breakthrough in the talks, perhaps I may say a few words from these Benches of congratulation to the Secretary of State on the extraordinary breakthrough. He deserves our warmest congratulations. As to the Northern Ireland parties, we all know what sacrifice of entrenched positions has been involved for all parties to have reached this point. Some would say— I think I might say it myself— that now we can get on from matters of process to matters of substance.
It is worth remembering that in the Vietnam peace negotiations the biggest problem was deciding the shape of the table. Once the shape of the table was decided, which took many painful months, what followed turned out to be somewhat easier. I am sure that it is public opinion acting on the politicians and parties in Northern Ireland that is the key factor, combined with the skill and diplomacy of the Secretary of State himself. The greatest reason for optimism— there are many reasons to be pessimistic— is the pressure public opinion is now exerting directly on the political leaders in Northern Ireland. I

809
apologise to the House for deviating somewhat from the amendment. However, it seemed right not to let the breakthrough go unmarked.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has said and to congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
In coming to the amendment I disclose that I have been a barrister for 58 years. I find it very flattering that members of my profession should be allowed to offer documents as being subject to legal privilege and for it to be taken as conclusive proof, not even prima facie proof, that they are subject to legal privilege. I would not expect my noble friend to accept the amendment for several reasons. First, there is often doubt and dispute as to what constitutes legal privilege in any particular circumstance. I have already mentioned the second reason. For this to become conclusive proof is going much too far. My third reason is that it makes an assumption that every qualified barrister or solicitor or their clerk should be so reliable and in all circumstances so complete in their integrity that it would be safe to take this as conclusive proof. I do not consider that to be realistic.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the arguments in favour of the amendment were adequately rehearsed in Committee. The argument put to the Minister then was to the effect that soldiers carrying out a search, whether of a home or of a car, are not especially qualified to ascertain the authenticity of whatever documents they may happen to find.
When a search of a home is taking place, the search is normally carried out by the Army in support of the civil authority; namely, the RUC. Members of the RUC in Northern Ireland are very much more experienced in the ways of the terrorist and in the documentation which may or may not be involved. It is not a slight on the British Army and no attack on the character of the ordinary soldier to say that, in such a sensitive situation as that which exists in Northern Ireland, the soldier is not an expert who would be able to make up his mind on a particular document. He could create a great deal of aggravation by the manner in which he took away documents, either from a car or from a home. I should be happy to hear the Minister say that if those documents were to be taken, they should be taken on the word of the RUC rather than on the word of the ordinary British soldier.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, may be a little out of date. When occupied houses are searched in Northern Ireland, so far as I am aware a policeman is always present. Therefore there will never be an occasion on which a soldier will have to act on his own.
The amendment as it is written is not to my liking and I do not think we need it. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that in Committee I mentioned a code of practice. I did mention it. I do not totally disagree with a code of practice but it would be much more practicable to have a straightforward written
810
instruction for soldiers as to how they should conduct a search of documents or whatever. If there is any suspicion that a document may be legal in any way, they should call the police. It should go through that system.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Bill already requires the authorities not to examine, retain or remove documents which they have reason to believe are subject to privilege. The amendment merely gives them a particular basis for that belief which will depend on the soldier knowing that the person giving the evidence is a qualified barrister or solicitor. What basis he will have for making that assumption is not clear. I merely put in my ha'p'orth in order to join the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and my noble friend Lord Renton in the warmest congratulations to the Secretary of State, and also to the politicians involved in the, for them, very difficult step of moving away from positions which they have occupied as entrenchments for far too long. It is a difficult move which we should all welcome.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their words about the talks process which is going on. I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what has been said. I know that he will much appreciate it.
I fully understand the anxiety which underlies the amendment but it would, as my noble friend Lord Renton in essence said, give rise to more difficulty than it would solve. One of the difficulties which my noble friend adumbrated is that it would be necessary for a policeman or soldier to establish that a person was a qualified barrister or solicitor or a clerk to a qualified barrister or solicitor before such a statement could be held as conclusive. That would be almost unworkable. It would be only too easy, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, for members of paramilitary organisations to claim fraudulently that they were members of one of those professions.
Perhaps I may be a little more constructive than that and draw attention to the wording in subsection (3) of the clause. It makes clear that a person may not examine, remove or retain a document or record at a time when he has reasonable cause for believing it to be an item subject to legal privilege. As my noble friend Lord Elton reminded us, the change was made in the House of Commons in order to try to be helpful. If someone who is a barrister or a solicitor indicates that a document or a set of documents is subject to legal privilege, then a policeman or a soldier would not be justified in examining them for longer than it was necessary to check that the documents were of a legal nature. I realise that that brings us to the point of how that is done.
At the previous stage of the Bill my noble friend Lord Brookeborough made some helpful observations about how in practical terms a soldier or policeman might seek to operate the provision. My noble friend said then that it is clearly right that where any doubt arises it should be for a policeman rather than a soldier to make a judgment about the nature of a document or a set of documents because the police are

811
trained in the police and criminal evidence legislation. I give an undertaking to the House that instructions issued to the security forces will make the point clear that it is the police who ought to make the examination.
I should like to emphasise that in introducing subsection (3) of the clause we were seeking to meet the worries that had been expressed about the importance of protecting legal privilege—which is given special protection within the police and criminal evidence legislation—while at the same time not in any way undermining the generality of the power or causing it to be inoperable.
We all accept the sensitivity of this provision; but equally I hope that your Lordships will be reminded at this new stage of the Bill that this is a clause which has great potential value in saving lives and securing convictions. I do not think that this amendment would assist in the operation of this particular power which was put in to try to be helpful or enhance the protection given to legally privileged documents. But I give the assurance that, in co-operation with the security forces, we shall ensure that this aspect of the power is fully understood and its operation properly set out in the instructions given to individual soldiers and policemen.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, our theory is that the clause may be unworkable. The amendment was an attempt to get around the difficulties that I identified. I accept, as I must, that there is force in the criticism that has been levelled at the amendment. It is imperfect. I am not so convinced however that the clause should remain without an additional safeguard. I therefore reserve the right to come back at an even later stage with an improved safeguard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 17, line 9, at end insert ("at once or, if that is not practicable, as soon as is practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the second occasion that I am going to suggest to your Lordships that a change should be made to the Bill in response to a perceptive point put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He moved an amendment at a previous stage of the Bill to place a duty on the police and armed forces to issue a written receipt on the spot, as I understood it, when they remove documents for examination under Clause 22. On that occasion I said in reply that the Government considered that the detailed written record of the examination would constitute a receipt. But I also undertook to reflect further on the noble Lord's anxieties.
It was always the Government's intention where practicable that a copy of the written record ought to be provided at once. The noble Lord is right that this ought to be written on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble. Lord will feel that this essentially meets the point he made.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the amendment which
812
goes a long way to meet the problem that one had identified in Committee. However, it is not quite directed at the difficulty. The difficulty could arise where the document is removed for examination under subsection (2) and it has not been practicable to provide a written record—and, after all, the written record needs to specify seven matters—and then subsequently the document is lost.
I wonder whether the Minister has overlooked that documents can get lost. They can get lost in transit. Therefore is there not a case for a short receipt—not consisting of the seven matters in subsection (6)—to be issued where a document is removed for examination and it has not been practicable to issue the fuller record under subsection (6)? I should be grateful if the Minister could in addition address his mind to that particular case, bearing in mind that documents can get lost in course of transit.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is going for a belt and braces approach. The first amendment I moved was in reply to a point that had been put by the noble Lord. In that particular case I agreed—and the noble Lord graciously replied that it met his point—that there ought to be a record made of a search of a house, and that that should be given as soon as practicable. The noble Lord did not then say that that record might be lost and therefore that yet another piece of paper might be supplied.
In this case I thought that I was meeting the noble Lord's point by agreeing that the written record of the examination of the documents should be given to the person concerned immediately, or as soon as practicable. The reason for that is just in case at the crucial moment there is another bomb found in a particular situation, or a sudden alarm or excursion. The noble Lord is saying, "But that piece of paper might be lost". That is asking for a little too much. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I shall resist that suggestion.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood the point that I am making. He cannot draw the comparison between the record under Clause 19 and that under Clause 22. A document can get lost. Premises cannot get lost. Under Clause 19 we are concerned with premises, whereas here we are concerned with documents. Nevertheless, I take note of what the noble Lord has said. I do not accept it, and I shall have to consider whether this is an issue which I shall bring back at a later stage.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the House will forgive me, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (6) of Clause 22, where the record has to make under subsection (a)
"a description of the document or record"?
If the document gets lost, the description is still there. To say then that therefore the effect of this amendment is negated is to stand logic on its head.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 17, line 32, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice on the operation of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we shall see whether we can be a little more relaxed on this amendment. This amendment is also related to this difficult Clause 22. Its purpose is to ensure that a more detailed and statutory guidance on the operation of the clause is issued to the police and the armed forces in order to exercise some degree of control over the power to examine documents. It was generally agreed in Committee that there is a need to provide soldiers and constables with more detailed and specific instructions about the use of these powers. The Minister told the Committee that the RUC chief constable and the GOC intended to issue detailed force instructions on the use of these powers. We welcome that. The Minister also agreed that it would be necessary for the clause to be administered properly and sensitively.
This amendment would provide for a code of practice to be issued by the Secretary of State. Although the amendment had its origins in a suggestion made in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I now understand that he is possibly no longer in support of the suggestion. The code of practice would have advantages over the voluntary code to be issued by the RUC and by the GOC. It would have these advantages. It would allow for some degree of parliamentary scrutiny of the ways in which it is envisaged that the power would be exercised. Secondly, the code, unlike the voluntary guidance, would have some statutory authorisation, and would therefore enhance its legal status.
Thirdly, the code would be a public document. It would give members of the public a clearer understanding of where they stand in relation to the operation of Clause 22 and how it could affect them. For those reasons, we believe that a statutory code of practice is preferable to relying upon a voluntary code to be issued by the army or the RUC. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder why the noble Lord feels that the amendment is necessary because Clause 61, which refers to police powers, requires the Secretary of State to make codes of practice,
"in connection with the exercise by police officers of any power conferred by Part II",
of the Bill. The power contained in Clause 22 is in Part II. For members of the armed forces, we find a parallel provision in Clause 62(1). It would seem that the amendment adds nothing to the Bill.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said in Committee, we expect that the exercise of the powers contained in Clause 22 will be governed, at any rate in the first instance, by joint force instructions issued by the chief constable and the GOC. The exercise of the new power will, in any case, require special training for ordinary policemen and soldiers, and it seems sensible that the basic rules governing the use of the power should be summarised briefly on something akin to the yellow card. I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Brookeborough said about that at an earlier stage. If we go down this road, which is what I believe we can and should do, I make it clear that the Government would be consulted in the drafting of those
814
instructions. Our view, which is shared by the security forces, is that in most circumstances it should be policemen and not soldiers who should exercise the power, and that they should do so only in a limited number of circumstances. That view will be reinforced by the requirement to make a record of each occasion upon which the power is exercised.
When the Bill comes into force the existing non-statutory guidance to the emergency powers will be superseded and will therefore need to be revised in the light of the new powers contained in the Bill, especially those in Clause 22. In the course of updating the guidance, we shall take account of the instructions on those powers which have been issued. I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Lord that that is the right way to proceed. My noble friend Lord Renton is also right technically and legislatively: the point is covered elsewhere in the Bill if the Government wish to take that line. I am being honest with the House when I say we would not wish to take that line on this point, because I believe that force instructions through a yellow card procedure would be preferable.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for having drawn my attention to the provisions of Clauses 61 and 62. They may well cover the point. I shall not press the amendment. The Minister referred to the yellow card. As I understand it, the yellow card is a confidential document, while a code of practice would be a public document. We took the view that it would be helpful if members of the public had access to the guidance. Bearing in mind that the point may well be provided for in Clause 61, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 25 [Power of Secretary of State to direct the closure, etc. of roads]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 18, line 37, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert ("If the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for the preservation of the peace or the maintenance of order he").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is intended in the main to meet the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when he tabled a similar amendment in Committee. The effect of the amendment would be to state more explicitly the scope of the Secretary of State's power to direct the closure or diversion of roads; namely, where he considers it necessary,
"for the preservation of the peace or the maintenance of order".
I have considered whether it would be appropriate to introduce a criterion of "reasonableness" into the power, as the noble Lord intended. I should make it clear that the exercise of the existing power is already susceptible to judicial review, and the amendment he moved in Committee might have assisted an application for such a review in certain circumstances, but it could create real difficulties if the "reasonableness" of the Secretary of State's decision to close a

815
road, which is often based on confidential security advice, were open to challenge on each occasion. Such a provision could be of assistance to terrorist organisations.
As I said in Committee, it is essential that the social and economic implications of a closure are considered by the Secretary of State and his advisers before the decision is made to close a road; but there are circumstances in which the security considerations, and the danger that lives may be lost, are compelling, and it is necessary that a road should be closed and remain closed. For the reasons that I have given the amendment does not include a criterion of "reasonableness", which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, wished to see included. I hope that he will feel that the amendment is a practical and genuine attempt to meet his point. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, although the amendment does not fully meet the point made in Committee, nevertheless I thank the Minister for tabling it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Supplementary regulations for preserving the peace, etc.]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 42, line 36, after ("or) insert ("Parts I, II, III, and IV of').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 58 gives the Secretary of State wide powers to make additional regulations for promoting the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order. The Bill contains no hint of the nature of those regulations, but we noted in. Committee that the regulations may create a new criminal offence, punishable by a fine or up to six months' imprisonment. In Committee, we attempted, unsuccessfully. to limit the scope of the clause. The amendment is yet another attempt to restrict the scope of the clause, as it would restrict the provisions of the clause to the first four parts of the Bill.
It will be recognised that the wording of the amendment is inspired by the comments made in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Clause 58 is not a new clause. It mirrors the provisions of Section 27 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the powers of which are a legacy of the special powers legislation.
Clause 58 adds enormously to the potential scope of the Bill. The 1978 Act consisted of 36 clauses and four parts, but the Bill consists of 71 clauses brought together in nine parts. The power contained in Section 27 applied only to matters connected with scheduled offences, powers of arrest and search, public order offences and detention orders. Those matters are to be found in Parts I, II, III and IV of the Bill, hence the significance of the wording of the amendment. We say that the other parts of the Bill should not be subject to the Secretary of State's regulation-making power. If new regulations are required, then it would be for the Secretary of State to obtain them by introducing fresh legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I support the amendment very warmly. It is an attempt by the
816
noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to limit the subjective interpretation by the Secretary of State. Clause 58 is extraordinary:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision additional to the foregoing provisions of this Act for promoting the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order".
The qualifying clause at the end is welcome; but this is an objectionable clause from any parliamentary perspective. As it stands, or even, to some extent, amended as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, wisely suggests, it is constitutionally objectionable, and I venture to say dangerous. It is a blank cheque which allows the Secretary of State by regulation and by order to do what he wishes.
The Bill is already extremely comprehensive. Its provisions have been accumulated over painful years. It has been closely debated both here and in the other place. Although it is necessary as a whole, in the view of these Benches, it comes dangerously close at points to tilting the balance between liberty and security towards security. We should ask ourselves what these new unspecified powers are that might be required. Clearly they may result in putting people in prison, because that is provided for here. Why should Parliament not have the right to hear if extra powers of some kind are required? Why should it not be a matter for Parliament?
If I may say this to noble Lords opposite: it is difficult, but imagine for a moment a government of a different complexion sitting on those Benches, putting portmanteau clauses into Bills which allow Secretaries of State to do what they choose when they wish, for whatever reason. I can hear the protests now from noble Lords with a long and distinguished record of opposition to the overweening power of the Executive saying, "This really will not do. You can't give Ministers blank cheques. Parliament must decide". I can hear those arguments now. I suggest that we should not only support the noble Lord's amendment but the Government should think again about the whole nature of the clause.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, when the special powers legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1920, it met with a good deal of opposition from all those people who believed in the liberty of the subject. Over the years, it was added to by the Government who were frightened of what they saw as a nasty minority in Northern Ireland who might bring about the downfall of the state.
When the civil rights demonstrations began in Northern Ireland in the mid-1960s, one of the demands made by the civil rights movement was for the abolition of the special powers legislation. I cannot recall when exactly, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that during this time a debate took place in the South African parliament on the apartheid laws. It met with a good deal of opposition from those who were opposed to that type of legislation. The minister responsible for security in the South African parliament said, during a dramatic part of the debate, "I would be willing to give up all this legislation for Sections 14 or 15 of the special powers Act as it applies to Northern Ireland". I remember taking note of it at

817
the time and we put the quotation in our banners. We felt that it totally justified our opposition to the special powers legislation, particularly when it had the support of the apartheid government in South Africa.
It is unwise for the Minister to accept Clause 58 which appears to do exactly the same. On its own the clause gives the Government overwhelming power to take whatever action they deem necessary in the face of any situation. Under the Bill, all the other clauses could be made to look irrelevant.
It has been said in this House that when all those of us who have questioned the necessity for the legislation voice opposition to some of the clauses and seek to put forward amendments, it is not in any way with a view to helping the terrorists. I would not stand up in this House for a second to make comments on the legislation if I thought it would help the terrorists in Northern Ireland. It has been stated repeatedly that the legislation is draconian and is only on the statute book because of the awful situation that has existed for so long in Northern Ireland.
However, recognising that the legislation is draconian, every effort must be made to assure the innocent public in Northern Ireland that we shall not have a repeat of the special powers legislation as we knew it during the existence of the Northern Ireland Government.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, to use a rather time-worn expression, perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, is always fair about these matters. He says that the clause is constitutionally objectionable. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, believes that it allows the Secretary of State to do what he likes. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also believes that it gives wide powers with no hint of exactly what could be raised by regulations.
If these fears were real I should find myself on the same side as noble Lords opposite; but, with respect, I do not believe that the fears hold water. The reason I say that is that the limit on the regulation-making power that we are talking about is in the reference to promoting the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order. In addition, the power conferred by the clause is narrower now than the corresponding power in Section 27 of the 1978 Act since there are now more matters in the foregoing provisions.
I wish to make it clear that the clause does not allow the Secretary of State to do as he wants when he wants. The Bill states clearly that:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision additional to the foregoing provisions of this Act for…the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order".
He may only do that. There are two criteria of which noble Lords have perhaps not taken account. For that basic reason, I believe that we are on the wrong track in this discussion. With great respect, the amendment is on the wrong track because it narrows what was the corresponding power in the 1978 Act. There are now more matters in the foregoing provisions. In addition to Parts V to VII, the Bill now includes Clauses 22 and 27 and the part of Clause 25 dealing with border
818
crossing closures. Thus there is less that the regulations could add. It is common sense that if there is an absolute limit to the number of provisions that it is possible to make and extra provisions have been included in the Bill, then the overall pool of possible provisions must have been reduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, may be reassured if I also say that there is no intention on behalf of the Government to use the regulation-making power to add to the provisions already in Parts V to VII. Anyway, it is difficult to see how those parts of the Bill could be added to by way of provision under Clause 58. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, were any regulations made under the 1978 Act?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I cannot reply to that question without notice.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Minister has given the House some reassurances. I accept that Clause 58(1) has certain limitations. In a sense the Minister is right. As this Bill contains many more provisions than the previous Bill, fewer matters can be added by regulations. That is a fair point to make. However, on the other hand, the Secretary of State will, under the Bill, be able to make regulations in a total of nine areas, whereas under the 1978 Act he was confined to the four areas which come under Parts I, II, III and IV of this Bill. In that sense the scope for the power has been considerably extended. We may well have to reflect upon this matter and possibly return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Clause 60 [Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 43, line 37, at end insert:
"() may require the GOC to make further investigations into a particular complaint if the Independent Assessor considers such further investigations to be necessary.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 8 and 13. I welcomed Clause 60 when it was introduced by the Minister in Committee. Clause 60 establishes the office of the independent assessor of military complaints procedures. It is the assessor who will provide the independent element in the system for the supervision of complaints involving the security forces. Nevertheless, the clause could be improved and should be improved.
The major criticism of the clause has been the limited role which the independent assessor has been given. The new office is in many ways—although not entirely so—apparently intended to be that of an adviser to the general officer commanding. The object of Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 is to strengthen the role of the assessor. In a sense both are self-explanatory. Amendment No. 7 would enhance the assessor's supervisory role by giving him authority to require the

819
general officer commanding to make further investigations into a complaint. We believe the assessor should have that authority. Where he is satisfied that an investigation has been inadequately carried out or that something may have gone wrong in the course of an investigation, he should have the authority that I have just referred to. This amendment would give the assessor the authority to ensure that investigations are adequately carried out.
Amendment No. 8 would also strengthen the role of the assessor. As drafted, Clause 60 gives the assessor the power to make a recommendation to the general officer commanding, but this amendment requires the GOC to make a response to any such recommendation. It seems to me that a power for a supervisor to make a recommendation without a duty on the recipient to respond is not satisfactory. These two amendments would strengthen the role of the independent assessor. I hope that these amendments, or amendments along these lines, will be acceptable to the Government.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to ensure that the new office will be well publicised. If adequate publicity is not given to the existence and the role of the assessor, we fear that the effectiveness of the office may be considerably reduced. If the office is not well publicised, how will the ordinary citizen quickly get to know of its existence? If the independent assessor is not within reach of complainants and is not aware of their feelings and beliefs about the complaints procedures, how can he know whether the procedures are perceived to be working fairly? If the independent assessor does not know how complainants feel about such procedures, how will he know whether they should be perfected? Those are the kinds of questions that have led to the tabling of this amendment. The amendment seeks to establish an adequate budget for the new office to enable its existence and its work to be publicised. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that the answer to the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as regards Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 can be four d in paragraph 4 of Schedule 6. The noble Lord seeks to ensure that the GOC adequately meets the requirements placed upon him by the assessor, and that he is prompt in responding to the assessor. Under paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 the independent assessor is given a power to draw the Secretary of State's attention to any shortcomings that may have occurred in the behaviour of the GOC during the year. The Secretary of State is required to publish that information and to lay copies of the information before both Houses of Parliament. Moreover, if the behaviour of the GOC falls far short of what the assessor believes to be reasonable, the latter has an opportunity to make a report on that behaviour to the Secretary of State without waiting for the annual report to be submitted.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, simply wishes to bring pressure to bear on the GOC in Northern Ireland. However, I believe that pressure is placed overwhelmingly in the hands of your Lordships through the provision that is already included in the Bill.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 13. I support the proposal for some measure of publicity to be given to the office of the independent assessor. I believe that on the whole the House regards that office as an extremely valuable appointment that is designed to secure public reassurance. Therefore a modest publicity budget could only be helpful. In the case of the provisional appointment of the various ombudsmen and also of the police complaints authority and other bodies publicity has been used to explain the role of those bodies to the public. The matter of public relations is at the root of this measure. It is important that justice is seen to be done. People need to be reassured that, should matters go wrong, nothing will be covered up. That purpose is positively served by the right kind of publicity. I hope the Government will look sympathetically at Amendment No. 13.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I hope he can clarify something for me. I listened with particular attention when the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, moved Amendment No. 7. In conjunction with what my noble friend Lord Elton suggested in relation to Schedule 6, it seemed to me that paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Clause 60(4) cover every eventuality in any particular case.
If your Lordships look at Clause 60(4) (d) you will see that the independent assessor "may require the GOC"—that is fairly strong:
"to review any particular case".
Should there be any failure in that particular respect there is a further fallback provision in paragraph (e) in that the independent assessor:
"may make to the GOC recommendations concerning any inadequacies in those procedures…in the way in which they operate in relation to any particular complaint".
Therefore it seems to me that paragraphs (d) and (e) cover what I see as any eventuality in any problem in relation to the independent assessor and the GOC. I wonder what difference Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would make or what cream it would put on the provisions of Clause 60.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in essence the purpose of the first of this group of amendments, Amendment No. 7, is to give the independent assessor a direct role in the investigation of non-criminal complaints. However, the Government do not support that concept. I sought at Committee stage to explain why, by reference to my noble friend Lord Colville's recommendation. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 5.25 of my noble friend's report. The Government have done exactly what my noble friend recommended there so far as concerns complaints against the Army.
My noble friend Lord Lyell asked your Lordships to look carefully at the functions of the independent assessor, which are set out in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Clause 60(4). While those do not amount to giving the assessor a direct role in the investigation of a complaint, my noble friend is absolutely right in saying that they amount to important review functions, which I believe go a long way to meeting the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord opposite.

821
Under those subsections the assessor will be able to investigate how the complaints procedures have operated in relation to a particular complaint. That will enable the assessor to examine the effectiveness of the procedures for investigating complaints. Moreover, the assessor may require the General Officer Commanding to review any particular case in which the assessor believes any of the investigation procedures have operated inadequately. The assessor is empowered to make recommendations to the GOC concerning any inadequacies in complaints procedures including—and this is very important—any inadequacies in the way in which the procedures have operated in relation to any particular complaint or group of complaints.
Therefore, it is clear that if the assessor finds the investigation procedures have operated inadequately in relation to a particular case—and I am repeating myself now but I believe that it is important that I do so—he may require the GOC to review that case. The assessor may make recommendations to the GOC concerning any inadequacies in procedures that he has identified.
I hope that the noble Lord may feel that that goes quite a long way to meeting his anxieties in relation to Amendment No. 7. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for pointing that out in his remarks.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 8, the Government do not feel that the amendment is necessary. The Bill makes it clear that the independent assessor may make recommendations to the GOC concerning any inadequacies in military complaints procedures. It is inconceivable that the GOC would refuse to consider any recommendations made to him. That would not be in the interests of the armed forces. That is not to say that every recommendation would be acceptable. Some might be misdirected.
That said, as my noble friend Lord Elton, pointed out, there is Schedule 6, which requires the Secretary of State to publish the independent assessor's annual report and to lay copies of it before each House of Parliament, making clear to the public and Members of both Houses what recommendations the assessor has made and the action that the GOC has taken in response. I am most grateful to my noble friend for making that point, which I believe covers this particular point rather better.
Finally, I turn to the final amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, also supported, relating to publicity. I do not want to appear pig-headed, but rather than put additional provisions in the Bill perhaps I may make two points. Given the importance of this office it is axiomatic that the Government will wish to publicise the existence and role of the independent assessor. We have gone out of our way to bring the amendment forward and we shall certainly not keep quiet about it. There will be opportunities to review and reissue the existing publicity leaflets and other material dealing with military complaints procedures. No doubt the assessor will have ideas about how the office's existence and
822
role should be publicised. We should like to wait and see what the assessor himself has in mind before finalising the publicity.
However, at the same time there is our old friend Schedule 6, and every year there will be annual reports. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, talked about the dangers of covering up. There will be no such dangers because there will have to be an annual report.
I hope that your Lordships will feel that under those circumstances the amendments are unnecessary. I do not want to refuse amendments for the sake of it, but I feel that these matters are covered.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I believe that the discussion of the three amendments has been helpful. This is a new office, starting from scratch. I believe that the discussion has helped us to see how the Government perceive the role of the independent assessor. Time will tell whether he should be given additional functions and powers. I shall not press Amendments Nos. 7 or 8 further.
As to Amendment No. 13, there is now a considerable body of research which establishes that publicity is important to the success of any complaints procedure. I understand from the Minister that the Government accept that this office must be given adequate publicity, otherwise it will be reduced in effectiveness, and that this does not call for a provision in the Bill.
I am content to accept what the Minister has said and that the Government agree that the funds should be made available and will be made available but that that is not a matter to be provided for in legislation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may add one further point, if the House will allow me. In relation to Amendment No. 8 there was also a very compelling technical reason why the amendment is unnecessary. I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is met squarely. I had not realised that until I came today to look again at the Bill with my advisers. Clause 60(6) requires the GOC to furnish such information as the assessor may require. If the noble Lord would like to look subsequently at Clause 60(6) I believe he will see that the objective of amendment is met completely by the provisions of the Bill. I thought that I should just say that because it is almost tantamount to accepting the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for drawing our attention to Clause 60(6) which goes a long way to meeting at least the spirit of Amendment No. 8. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Codes of practice: lethal force
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a code of practice in connection with the use of lethal force by police officers and members of Her Majesty's forces in dealing with suspected terrorists.
(2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 60 above shall apply to a code under this section as they apply to a code under that section.
(3) A failure on the part of a police officer or a member of Her Majesty's forces to comply with any provision of such a code shall constitute an offence punishable on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 10 because it is concerned with the same area of policy.
Amendment No. 9 is identical to an amendment which I moved in Committee. It seeks to complement the code of practice in Clauses 61 and 62 with a code of practice on the circumstances in which it is legitimate for the security forces to use lethal force. Given the controversies that have arisen in Northern Ireland during the past few years over the use of lethal force in certain situations by the security forces, that allegations are made from time to time that the use of lethal force in a particular situation was avoidable, and that every human life deserves some respect, we believe that a strong case can be made out for a statutory code of practice with regard to the circumstances in which it is legitimate for the security forces to use lethal force, identifying the precautions that would be taken where practicable before lethal force is used.
I mentioned in Committee that the case for a code of practice is supported by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. The Minister rejected the argument primarily on the grounds that such a code of practice would undermine the position of parity. By that he meant that it would place policemen and soldiers in a different legal position when confronted by a suspected terrorist and an armed robber. Nevertheless, the Minister recognised the strength of feeling on the issue and assured the Committee that the Government would continue to consider the case for the concept of a code of practice to deal with the use of lethal force. This is not an easy matter to discuss, particularly when we are reminded, as we have been this week, of the strength of feeling on the issue, but I trust that the Government will continue to have discussions about the possibility of a code of practice.
I now turn to Amendment No. 10. Given the present definition of the crime of murder, there is often no satisfactory way of dealing with cases in which the current rule about the legitimate use of lethal force as we understand that rule has been broken. The formal legal rule is that, where unreasonable force is deliberately used when some force could be justified, only a charge of murder is permissible. In practice, that makes it difficult for the prosecution to justify making a charge of murder in many cases because there is no realistic prospect of securing a conviction of murder against a soldier or a policeman who has
824
used unreasonable force in self-defence, except in the most flagrant cases. The choice therefore appears to be a charge of murder or no charge at all.
However, it is important in terms of public confidence that members of the security forces should not be seen by members of certain communities to be above the law. They should be seen to be amenable to the law, particularly in a case involving the killing of a person. The noble Lord, Lord Colville, recommended on more than one occasion that the law should be changed to permit a charge of manslaughter to be laid in cases in which some force can be justified in self-defence, but where lethal force has been unreasonably used. The amendment was powerfully supported in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who reminded the Committee that the principle of the amendment had been recommended by the Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment and by the Lord Chief Justice.
Again, in Committee the Minister accepted that there was a case for the amendment but that it was not appropriate to be dealt with in the emergency provisions legislation. In the light of what the Minister said on that occasion, I thought of making the amendment less general by restricting its application to members of the security forces in Northern Ireland, but I decided otherwise as I believe that it would be a mistake to have one rule for the armed forces in Northern Ireland and another for the armed forces elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That would only lead to more difficulties. I have therefore brought back the amendment in the form in which it was presented to the Committee. I beg to move.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, it appears on the face of it that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has a nice argument for trying to improve what he perceives to be a problem in Northern Ireland. However, I believe that those who support the amendment do not fully understand what happens in the circumstances that we are discussing.
We are discussing lethal force. It is not a code of practice about the handling of prisoners and how one interrogates and talks to people or how one searches their cars. Lethal force is used only in what appear at the time to be life-threatening situations, and there are clear directions on its use to all members of the security forces. I do not think that by having a code of practice one can improve on what amounts to almost a single sentence of description as to when one should use lethal force. Because we are talking about shooting, we are inevitably talking about something that happens not just in a matter of seconds but about actions to which someone has to react instinctively.
Let us face the fact that the use of lethal force is the ultimate means that a soldier or a policeman may have. It is the most extreme means and it must therefore be clear in a person's mind as to when he may open fire. I believe that it already is that way in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that, as a result of a one-page code of practice, a person who is involved in such an incident will either not open fire or that the life of the man who is fired at will be saved. I therefore cannot accept that one should have a code of practice.

825
It will simply blur what is already absolutely clear; namely, that people open fire only when they think that it is absolutely necessary.
If any of your Lordships are in any doubt about what is at present understood to be the reason for opening fire in Northern Ireland and think that it is in any way inadequate, you may care to consider the situation that occurred on the night of 25th-26th of last month in an area of Belfast called the Crescent. An RUC patrol, including a woman constable, was walking past a chip shop. It must have been some sort of routine, but four people came out, some dressed in dinner jackets, shot the rear policeman, pushed the policewoman to the ground and would clearly have murdered the other two policemen when a military patrol came round the corner and saw that something was happening and that life was clearly being threatened. They appear to have fired to miss. Given where they were, it is inconceivable that they fired at anyone in particular. They did not hit anyone. The only place from which muzzle flashes came was the terrorists who are still at large after having killed Constable Spence. I do not advocate that we should relax what is already there but I totally dispute the fact that the impression may be given that members of the security forces in Northern Ireland travel round opening fire all too easily. I make just one other point. I do not believe that the three terrorists in Coagh were going armed to the teeth to have tea with their grandmothers at 7.30 in the morning. One must look at what is happening. One cannot deny what is going on.
I am very unhappy about Amendment No. 10, primarily because I understand that there is no equal to it in the remainder of the law throughout the United Kingdom. At present some terrorist acts take place in England as well as in Northern Ireland. I am not quite sure why we are hounding the members of the security forces and trying to convict them of some offence if, as we have just discussed, the person has been acquitted of murder, it having been deemed that he had reasonable justification at that time for opening fire. Therefore I do not go along with the notion that, should he be acquitted of murder, having been justified in the first place, we should then try to convict him of manslaughter. That would be not at all useful in its effect upon soldiers and policemen when the occasion arises on which they have to open fire. I cannot support either of these amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 11 in particular. I do so as a result of my wide experience in Belfast. This week I have again been nauseated and sickened by statements coming from the IRA and Sinn Fein, its political spokesmen, in relation to the deaths of three IRA men in Coagh. Some people would call those three men freedom fighters; some people would call them patriotic Irishmen; and some people would call them terrorists. The fact is that they had rifles in their possession and were certainly on an errand of murder.
826
They were apprehended by the security forces. I read in a newspaper report either yesterday or today a statement by a Sinn Fein councillor, or so I believe, who said that the security forces used an anti-tank gun to stop the car and kill its occupants. Surely, that is a gross exaggeration. But that type of charge is levelled every time some terrorist is killed by the security forces.
It must be said that some innocent people have been killed as well by the security forces, notably in Derry on Bloody Sunday. It is necessary to consider the number of deaths that have been caused by the action of the security forces and set it against the claims of Sinn Fein and the IRA that the security forces are carrying out a shoot to kill policy when it is exactly that policy which the terrorists, both Loyalist and Republican, have been carrying out for the past 20 years. Theirs has been a shoot to kill policy and a bomb to kill policy. What sickening hypocrisy we hear from their spokesmen when their own terrorists have been killed by the security forces! I can understand it from people of that level of intelligence. What I find harder to accept is the attitude of the elected representatives of either the Republican community or the Loyalist community when someone from within their communities has been killed by the security forces. A terrorist has been killed. The elected representative feels compelled to go on television and say, "I hope that minimum force was used. I hope that every effort was made to apprehend the terrorists before they were killed". That sounds very reasonable. In fact, it is a coded message to the community whom that elected representative represents. In other words, by voicing such sentiments he is objecting to the security forces killing terrorists.
We have seen that happen in the past week. Indeed, it happens every time a terrorist from one or other of the communities is killed in Northern Ireland. We have seen it so many times. If a code of practice were to be introduced into this legislation, it would mean a better clarification of the circumstances in which lethal force could be used. I am not sure that there are many individuals in Northern Ireland who know exactly what is stated on the yellow card or know exactly what they should or should not be doing if they are not to render themselves a victim of the security forces. The yellow card has not been given the publicity that should be available to the public in general in Northern Ireland so that they may be made aware of the dangerous circumstances in which they may be killed.
If a code of practice was made available to the public in Northern Ireland and in particular to their elected representatives, there might not be such nauseating expressions of part sympathy, part condemnation and part anticipation of the next election such as we have seen this week and all too repeatedly from elected representatives over the past few years. That is why we need a code of practice. We need clear guidelines so that the public will be aware of the circumstances in which it is necessary for the security forces to use lethal force.
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies seeks just that. It does not want

827
restrictions unduly to be placed on the security forces who help to deal with some terrible situations in Northern Ireland, one of which was illustrated by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. I quite understand. I heard and read of the circumstances of that incident. The IRA men or Loyalists—terrorists, whoever they may be—were not apprehended. But they killed a policeman and, surely, they must be taken as being in the Republican camp. They were certainly carrying out a shoot to kill policy that night. There is no doubt about what they were trying to do. We hear a statement issued by the RUC yesterday that the two rifles found in the car had been used to murder four innocent Protestants in Northern Ireland. So how many of all the spurious objections made by those who apologise for the actions of terrorists are we supposed to accept?
I believe that this code of practice should be used. It would make clear to every individual in Northern Ireland the circumstances in which lethal force is permitted. That would be in the interest of the soldiers concerned, those who are behind the trigger in Northern Ireland, and those people who possibly could become victims in certain circumstances.
Lord Elton: My Lords, one instinctively has sympathy for the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. It is difficult to disagree with his conclusions. However, I have two reasons to doubt whether it would be wise for noble Lords to carry Amendment No. 9 into the Bill.
The first reason is that I do not believe that the publication of a code of practice would have the effect that the noble Lord hopes for. It would merely produce a mesh of circumstances which the terrorist would seek to circumvent. And to the extent that it made plain to them the constraints on the security forces, it would make the task of those forces more difficult.
However, a greater difficulty for the House of Lords is presented by subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause 9. The noble Lord apparently proposes —I did not hear him disclaim the intention—to import the provisions of the clause dealing with independent assessors to bear upon the clause that he inserts in the Bill dealing with codes of practice. I would expect his intention to be to attract the effects of Clause 61(2) to (5) of the Bill rather than Clause 60. However, the moment has passed at which it is possible to rectify that error—if error it were. I should have thought that the amendment was fatally flawed since as drafted it makes no sense.
Regarding Amendment No. 10, I am not a lawyer. I take note of the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is reported to have been warmly in sympathy with a provision resembling the measure on the Marshalled List when it came before your Lordships in Committee. As a layman who has spent a good deal of time dealing with the law being framed in your Lordships' House, I find it extraordinary that a Bill which relates to Northern Ireland should be used to reinterpret a defence against murder and its treatment in the courts throughout the United Kingdom since the Bill deals with only a part of the United Kingdom.
828
I find the intention equally disturbing—as I believe the effect would be—to change both the defence and the consequences to make them different in one part of the United Kingdom from another. I should have thought that the law on murder must be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that noble Lords would be ill-advised to accept either amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, when we discussed the matter previously, I expressed anxiety about the proposition that the breach of any provision of a code —that is the subject of Amendment No. 9—should constitute a criminal offence punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton that while enormously appreciating what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said—his words will be warmly appreciated also by members of the security forces—almost on that ground alone I am very wary of the amendment. To create a code and make it subject to criminal sanctions is a major step indeed.
I endeavoured previously also to say that the Government believe that it is a matter which has implications for the criminal law as a whole and should not therefore be considered simply in the context of emergency legislation. However, I also assured the Committee that we would continue to consider the concept of a code of practice alongside the other propositions that have been made relating to the general use of force including the possibility of a new defence of manslaughter. In discussions with my officials, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland have I believe accepted that the issue is best considered in the round and in relation to the whole question of the investigation and adjudication of incidents in which the security forces open fire, in particular where death results.
My noble friend Lord Renton (who was present earlier) intervened in Committee to say that we ought not to use codes of practice as a way of making subordinate legislation. That is a quite powerful technical reason against the amendment. The effect of the code of practice proposed would be to create a series of new criminal offences which would apply uniquely to soldiers and policemen. To create such specific offences would be a major decision in itself; but one would strongly question whether we should be attempting to criminalise members of the security forces in Northern Ireland who already run such terrible risks in carrying out their duties.
On Amendment No. 10, there are a number of practical issues which would need to be considered were we to introduce such a provision. I know that I repeat myself. However, it would be invidious if we appeared to single out for special legislative treatment soldiers and RUC officers in their anti-terrorist roles. If we were to change the law in that way it should be a change to the general criminal law as a whole.
On those grounds, on a matter which is very much ongoing, on which we are having discussions with the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and on which we understand the worries of the noble Lord, I nonetheless resist the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Fitt for his contribution to the debate.
According to my understanding of the law, there is a precedent in the law of Scotland for Amendment No. 10. It would not be unique to Northern Ireland. I was also anxious not to confine Amendment No. 10 to members of the armed forces. I thought that I had made it clear that I resisted that approach.
I accept that there is a typing error—it might have been my error—in Amendment No. 9. The reference should be to Section 61. I should be satisfied at this stage for the Government to continue to have discussions on the issue with the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. The view which is held in some communities that the armed forces in Northern Ireland may be above the law substantially detracts from the policy of conciliation and reconciliation which the Government are actively seeking to promote.
There are strong political reasons why the Government should be giving very active consideration to the principles involved in these two amendments in order to bring the law on the use of lethal force and the possible charges for the breach of that law into a proper shape and state.
Having said that, I am content to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
("Codes of Practice: Miscellaneous
. The Secretary of State may issue codes of practice in connection with the exercise of powers by any person engaged in the implementation of the powers conferred by this Act or by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed an amendment in Committee which required the Secretary of State to make a code of practice to provide for the video recording of interviews of terrorist suspects, the Minister indicated that the Government were considering the possibility of appointing a commission to monitor the procedures at the holding stations. We fully support that suggestion. The appointment of a commissioner would be a great advance.
If such an office were to be established, is there a case for authorising the Secretary of State to make a statutory code of practice to give guidance about his role? The general arguments and the benefits (as I see them) for a code of practice have already been referred to earlier today. I shall not repeat them. I emphasise that I do not argue that there should be a code of practice for the proposed office of a commissioner. There may be valid arguments for and against a code of practice. However, prompted by what the Minister told the Committee—that the Government were considering whether to appoint a commissioner—I shall urge the Government to accept the principle that
830
there should be a provision in the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to make a code of practice if that were seen to be appropriate.
The Bill will be in place for four or five years. During that time it may be desirable or necessary to introduce another office, which is not referred to in the Bill, to perform duties in connection with the implementation of the powers contained in it. It may be desirable for those powers to be supported by a code of practice. If the Minister tells me that the power is already available in the Bill, or elsewhere, that is an end of the matter. However, if the power is not available the amendment will fill a gap in the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, at times during the debate I have thought that we are in danger of producing an Act that has more codes of practice than clauses. I wish to exploit the amendment by asking the Minister a question and I make no apologies for reverting to the issue of video taping. It is pleasing to see that in Clause 61 the Secretary of State shall make codes of practice in connection with detention, treatment and questioning. That issue figured in the Minister's speech in Committee. Therefore, provision exists for a code of practice on the questioning of suspects. It is also pleasing to see that the draft code of practice will be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Can we take it that in the preparation of the code of practice relating to questioning the Minister is not excluding the possibility of video taping interviews with suspects? That provision is recommended not only by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, but by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Committee for the Administration of Justice. It is also supported by the Labour Party and Members on these Benches. It would be reassuring if the Minister, without committing himself, could say that in the preparation of codes of practice the Secretary of State would have the option of looking at the issue again. That would be a matter of great satisfaction in many quarters in Northern Ireland and in both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme, I must point out that there will be a code of practice under Clause 61 covering the detention, treatment, and so forth, of terrorist suspects in police custody. Under those circumstances the role of the commissioner or assessor, to which I referred in detail at a previous stage of the Bill, could be spelt out. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to detention which could also be covered by a code of practice.
I am sorry to cross swords with the noble Lord but I wish to make clear beyond peradventure that the Government are certainly not considering the question of video recording. I sought to make that clear at a previous stage of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, can the Minister answer more specifically a question that I have sought to ask the Government? Let us assume that during the course of the next five years the Secretary of State

831
decides to establish a new office in order further to implement the Bill. If he took the view that it would be desirable for the office to be governed by a code of practice would he have the power to produce a code of practice in those circumstances?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, Clauses 61 and 62 allow the Secretary of State to make codes of practice in relation to all the main powers of the police and army under the Bill in addition to all the police powers conferred by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It is therefore the case that all the significant powers in this Bill and in that Act for which a code of practice would normally be appropriate are included in the existing enabling clauses. It was the Government's intention that those clauses should be reasonably comprehensive in the scope of the powers that were covered.
The only other powers that the Bill confers are those of the Secretary of State to authorise the closure of roads, to set time limits on preliminary proceedings, to make regulations, and so forth. In addition there are powers for the High Court to grant bail and legal aid in scheduled cases, the powers of explosives inspectors under Clause 20, and those of the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures. I do not believe that a code of practice would be appropriate in relation to any of those powers; their scope is fully spelt out on the face of the Bill.
That exhausts the opportunities for making codes of practice which are extensive, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said. I hope that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it appears that the Government are satisfied that there are no gaps to be filled in the legislation. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [The Scheduled Offences]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 53, line 44, at end insert:
(" Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990
20A. Offences under the following provisions of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990—

(a) section 1 (endangering safety at aerodromes);

(b) section 9 (hijacking of ships);

(c) section 10 (seizing or exercising control of fixed Platforms).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Repeals and Revocations]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 82, line .34, at end insert:

("1990 c. 31

The Aviation and. Maritime Security Act 1990.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 5.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]
8.57 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 69 as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 2, page 4, line I, leave out 'subsection (l)(a) above' and insert 'this section'.
2 Page 5, line 16, at end insert—
'(7A) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer on magistrates' courts, in addition to their powers under paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3) above, the power (the "additional power") to order that payments under a qualifying maintenance order be made by the debtor to the creditor or the clerk of a magistrates' court (as the regulations may provide) by such method of payment as may be specified in the regulations.
(7B) Any reference in any enactment to paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3) above (but not a reference to any specific paragraph of that subsection) shall be taken to include a reference to the additional power, and the reference in subsection (7C) below to the additional power shall be construed accordingly.
(7C) Regulations under subsection (7A) above may make provision for any enactment concerning, or connected with, payments under maintenance orders to apply, with or without modifications, in relation to the additional power.
(7D) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under subsection (7A) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 en bloc. Amendment No. 2, which is the principal amendment, was introduced by the Government in another place in order to ensure that the Bill's provisions continue to be responsive to banking practices. The amendment specifically secures that all the provisions which apply under the Bill to any method of payment listed in the Bill would equally apply to any method of payment which is added later. The amendment adds that extra touch of flexibility to the Bill. I am certain that your Lordships will appreciate that the more methods that are available to the courts the more the courts can tailor their decisions to the individual circumstances of any case before them. Furthermore, the more convenient that we can make the paying of maintenance the more likely that maintenance owed will be paid.
Amendment No. 1 is a minor consequential amendment to Clause 2 and is required because Amendment No. 2 refers to a "qualifying maintenance order". The definition of that phrase must therefore be

833
applied to all of Clause 2 and Amendment No. 1 fulfils that purpose. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. I and 2.—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I have read what was said in the sittings of Standing Committee B in another place on this subject, and I have listened with great care to what the noble Viscount said in your Lordships' House this evening. Nothing that I have either read or heard has caused me in any way to waver from my opinion that these two amendments are very helpful and sensible. We support them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause:—
' . After section 94 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (effect of committal on arrears) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Interest on arrears.
94A.—(l) The Secretary of State may by order provide that a magistrates' court, on the hearing of a complaint for the enforcement, revocation, revival, variation or discharge of an English maintenance order, may order that interest of an amount calculated at the prescribed rate shall be paid on so much of the sum due under the order as they may determine.
(2) In subsection (1) above "the prescribed rate" means such rate of interest as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(3) An order under this section may make provision for the manner in which and the periods by reference to which interest is to be calculated.
(4) Where, by virtue of subsection (1) above, a magistrates' court orders the payment of interest on any sum due under a maintenance order

(a) then if it orders that the whole or any part of the interest be paid by instalments that order shall be regarded as an instalments order for the purposes of section 95 below and that section shall accordingly apply in relation to it; and

(b) the whole of the interest shall be enforceable as a sum adjudged to be paid by the maintenance order

(5) In this section—
"English maintenance order" means—

(a) a qualifying maintenance order made by a magistrates' court, other than an order made by virtue of Part II of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972; or

(b) an order made by the High Court or a county court (other than an order deemed to be made by the High Court by virtue of section 1(2) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958) and registered under Part I of that Act of 1958 in a magistrates' court;

"qualifying maintenance order" has the same meaning as it has in section 59 above,
(6) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument made with the concurrence of the Treasury and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons Amendment No. 3. Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 8.
I should like to take Amendment No. 3 first as Amendment No. 8 is ancillary to it. This new clause will enable the Home Secretary, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to give magistrates' courts a discretionary power to order that interest be paid, at a specified rate, on the whole or any part of maintenance arrears. Such a power will act as an additional sanction against default. This power is in line with enforcement powers contained in the Child Support Bill. The new clause avoids the administrative problem of continuous calculations of interest by providing that the interest be set at a fixed sum. Further, magistrates' courts will have the power to apply the same method of payment to the interest ordered as they may prescribe for the arrears themselves.
Amendment No. 8 prevents imprisonment being imposed if the only amount outstanding is interest. All other enforcement powers will be applicable. This limitation on the court's enforcement powers is considered advisable since sending a debtor to prison, when he has complied with the substantive element of the order by paying the arrears, would be too severe a penalty and an inappropriate use of prison resources. I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it has been agreed on all sides and at all stages of the passage of this Bill that when a debtor fails to face up to his responsibilities, he should be obliged to do so. In nature, I see no reason why this kind of debt should be different from any other kind of debt in attracting to itself the need to pay interest. However, I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could enlarge in any way on the methods by which the rate of interest may be calculated.
Section 94A(1) refers to "the prescribed rate". In subsection (2) that rate is defined as:
"such rate of interest as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe".
Are there any precedents or guidelines or does the Secretary of State have absolute carte blanche?
When this matter was discussed in Standing Committee B on 12th March 1991, the honourable Member for Hull West inquired whether it would be the overdraft rate which would be set and whether the rates would be different if the debtor had to pay by instalments. From my perusal of the record, I cannot find any answer to that question. Perhaps the noble Viscount is able to help me on that.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not able to give a complete answer. The power to make an order allowing interest to be charged on arrears of maintenance in a magistrates' court is similar to an enabling provision contained in the County Courts Act 1984 which is also not yet brought into effect. Regulations under the order will prescribe the rate of interest which has not yet been decided. The rate will

835
be set with the concurrence of the Treasury. I am unable to go further than that. However, I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his elucidation of what must remain a mystery.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Schedule 2, page 30, line 39, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'sections 59, 59B and 60 above'.
5 line 43, leave out 'and as a magistrates' court maintenance order'.
6 line 42, leave out 'and section 76 below'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 en bloc. These amendments are technical amendments only. They are required because, where a magistrates' court enforces a lump sum maintenance order, which has subsequently been ordered to be paid by instalments, it actually enforces the original lump sum order and not the instalment order. These amendments clarify this position in the Bill which might otherwise be ambiguous. I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 en bloc.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Schedule 2, page 31, line 4, leave out 'applicant for the' and insert 'person who applied for the maintenance'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. This amendment is a minor drafting amendment consequential to, and having the same effect as, other amendments which were made when we considered this Bill during its Report stage.
The amendment is necessary to complete the process of ensuring that the Bill's wording applies not only to the original maintenance application but also to subsequent applications for variation or enforcement of the maintenance order. For this reason it is more accurate to use the phrase "person who applied" than the word "applicant". I commend this amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Schedule 2, page 31, line 17, after 'above' insert 'or
(c) where the sum to which the default relates comprises only interest which the defendant has been ordered to pay by virtue of section 94A( 1) below.'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 9, I must point out that there
836
is a misprint in the Marshalled List. Half way down page 4 at line 23 the word "purposes" should read "proposes".
COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Schedule 2, page 31, line 17, at end insert—
'7A. For section 95 of that Act (power to remit arrears) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Remission of arrears and manner in which arrears to be paid
95. (1) On the hearing of a complaint for the enforcement, revocation, revival, variation or discharge of a magistrates' court maintenance order, a magistrates' court may remit the whole or any part of the sum due under the order.
(2) If, on the hearing of a complaint for the enforcement, revocation, revival, variation or discharge of a magistrates' court maintenance order, a magistrates' court orders that the whole or any part of the sum due under the order be paid by instalments (an "instruments order"), then—

(a) if the maintenance order is an English maintenance order, the court shall at the same time exercise one of its powers under paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 59(3) above in relation to the instalments order;

(b) if the maintenance order is a non-English maintenance order, the court shall at the same time exercise one of its powers under subsection (3) below in relation to the instalments order.

(3) The powers of the court referred to in subsection (2)(b) above are—

(a) the power to order that payments under the order be made directly to the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court;

(b) the power to order that payments under the order be made to the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magristrates' court, by such method of payment falling within section 59(6) above as may be specified;

(c) the power to make an attachment of earnings order under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 to secure payments under the order.

(4) The court may in the course of any proceedings concerning an instalments order or the magistrates' court maintenance order to which it relates vary the instalments order by exercising—

(a) in respect of an English maintenance order, one of the powers referred to in subsection (2)(a) above;

(b) in respect of a non-English maintenance order, one of its powers under subsection (3) above.

(5) In respect of an English maintenance order, subsections (4), (5) and (7) of section 59 above shall apply for the purposes of subsections (2)(a) and (4)(a) above as they apply for the purposes of that section.
(6) In respect of a non-English maintenance order—

(a) subsection (4) of section 59 above shall apply for the purposes of subsections (2)(b) and (4)(b) above as they apply for the purposes of that section but as if for paragraph (a) there were substituted—

"(a) the court proposes to exercise its power under paragraph (b) of section 95(3) below;"; and

(b) in deciding which of the powers under subsection (3) above it is to exercise the court shall have regard to any representations made by the debtor (within the meaning of section 59 above).

(7) In this section—
"English maintenance order" has the same meaning as it has in section 94A above;
"non-English maintenance order" means—

(a) a maintenance order registered in, or confirmed by, a magistrates' court—

(i) under the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920;

(ii) under Part II of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950;

(iii) under Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972; or

(iv) under Part I of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982;

(b) an order deemed to be made by the High Court by virtue of section 1(2) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958 and registered under Part I of that Act in a magistrates' court; or

(c) a maintenance order made by a magistrates' court by virtue of Part II of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972.".'.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This amendment rectifies an omission in the Bill by ensuring that a method of payment can be specified by a magistrates' court in respect of arrears of maintenance ordered to be paid by instalments.
838
This amendment was introduced by the Government in another place in response to a letter which they received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Although he is not here this evening, I should like to take this opportunity to thank him for his perceptiveness in spotting this lacuna in the Bill. I commend this amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, this has proved a remarkable Bill in that, even in my limited experience, the tail is so much longer, more vigorous and more active than the dog. The schedules to the Bill outweigh the clauses by a considerable extent. Nevertheless, despite the length and complexity of the amendment, after perusing it most carefully, we are quite happy with it and wish to support it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Bill [H.L.]
Recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.

  FURTHER EDUCATION: FUNDING
  FURTHER EDUCATION: FUNDING
  EDUCATION AND TRAINING: YOUNG PEOPLE
  EDUCATION AND TRAINING: YOUNG PEOPLE
  EDUCATION AND TRAINING: REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
  EDUCATION AND TRAINING: REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
  SIXTH FORM COLLEGES: FUTURE STATUS
  SIXTH FORM COLLEGES: FUTURE STATUS
  ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING
  ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING
  KUWAIT: DEPLOYMENT OF 21 EOD SQUADRON
  KUWAIT: DEPLOYMENT OF 21 EOD SQUADRON
  "LANDLORD AND TENANT, DISTRESS FOR RENT"
  "LANDLORD AND TENANT, DISTRESS FOR RENT"
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: RAIL SERVICES
  CHANNEL TUNNEL: RAIL SERVICES