Sitting of 4 March 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Pensioners
    Mr. Dover: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners own their own homes.
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners own their own homes.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The latest information shows that, in 1987, 49 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes; 45 per cent. owned their homes outright.
    Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pensioners have become better off in the years of Conservative government? Will he confirm that, by 1989, 85 per cent. of them had telephones, 71 per cent. had washing machines and 62 per cent. had their own cars?
    Mr. Newton: Indeed, all the evidence suggests that pensioners have been becoming considerably better off in general—although, obviously, with exceptions, to whom we have tried to give additional help through the income support rate. The increases in durable ownership are very
    2
    striking, as my hon. Friend pointed out, especially in the number of those owning telephones, which has risen from just under half the total to over 85 per cent.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that aspiring to home ownership is a basic human instinct and that the Government have made remarkable progress in satisfying that desire? Will he take positive steps to encourage banks and building societies to make incomes and payments available td pensioners on the basis of the asset value of the homes that they occupy, once the mortgages have been repaid?
    Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a type of scheme which, as he knows, has been advanced with some success in recent years. I have certainly noted his suggestion and I am sure that it will be noted outside the House, too.
    Mr. Winnick: I have been informed in a parliamentary answer that two thirds of pensioners have annual incomes of less than £5,000. What justification can there be for requiring those who either own their homes or rent accommodation to pay the poll tax—a tax which is levied on them in the same way and, even more important, in equal amounts as it is levied on multi-millionaires? Is not it very odd for some Conservative Members to be so determined to retain a tax which penalises pensioners, as it penalises so many others in the community?
    Mr. Newton: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is once again engaging in extravagant generalisations while completely ignoring the fact that, because the calculation of community charge benefit is based on income support rates as a threshold, and because those rates are, owing to the premiums, higher for pensioners than for most other groups in the population, pensioners receive considerable help with their community charge payments.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although pensioners can own their own homes, it does not necessarily mean that they are wealthy? Of course, the increase in pensioners' average income is welcome, but

    3
    have not the Government a duty to do more and yet more for those who must rely on nothing more than the state pension?
    Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, very few pensioners have only the state pension to live on, unless they are living in someone else's household. If they are renting accommodation, as many will be, they will receive substantial assistance through housing benefit; if they have only the state retirement pension, they are in any case likely to be in receipt of income support. The hon. Gentleman must not overplay his hand. We have been directing additional help to the least well-off pensioners—those on income support.

    Benefits Agency
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes there will be in the service provided to claimants when the Benefits Agency comes into operation later this year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Customer service will be one of the new agency's core values. The prospect is of a more dynamic organisation, more responsive to change and to the needs of local customers, which gives better value for money to the taxpayer while at the same time providing a sensitive, caring and professional service.
    Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that many benefit offices have left and continue to leave a great deal to be desired in the speed and quality of delivery of service to claimants? Will the Benefits Agency make one of its main priorities an improvement in the quality and speed of service to claimants?
    Miss Widdecombe: That will be one of the agency's top priorities. When the business plan and targets are published, they will be a source of reassurance. We are aware that the most urgent need is to improve service to customers. I commend the efforts made by the Keighley local office of which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that the introduction of the new agency was partly forecast by the introduction of computerisation? As computerisation has been introduced staff have been made redundant in advance of the improvement in service. The result is staff cuts in offices which has reduced the quality of service. Could that matter be considered? In Pudsey, for example, it is a serious problem.
    Miss Widdecombe: On the introduction of operational strategy we gave a guarantee that there would be no compulsory redundancies and there has been none. We will consider staffing as a result of networking, although we are in consultation with all concerned. So far, reductions have been achieved through natural wastage and voluntary agreement and we hope that that will continue.

    Service Men's Families
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has given to local offices about benefit payments to families of service men in the Gulf.
    Mr. Newton: Several instructions have gone to local offices on this subject. In particular we have emphasised the importance of giving help quickly and sympathetically to people who are likely to be in stressful circumstances.
    Mr. Dalyell: My general impression is that local offices have dealt sympathetically and sensitively with those in emergency, straitened circumstances arising from the Gulf. Is the special allocation which was available in September likely still be be available to those who now come back in special straitened circumstances of one kind or another?
    Mr. Newton: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I, too, pay tribute to the work of our local offices and the central office at North Fylde, which deals with war pensions claims. It is a matter of satisfaction to us all.
    I am not absolutely clear what the hon. Gentleman has in mind with his latter point, but he must mean the special arrangements that we made in respect of assistance with travel and resettlement for people returning from the Gulf in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi invasion. Those arrangements remain in place.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the average pensioner's income comes from occupational pensions, savings and earnings.
    Mr. Newton: In 1987, 21 per cent. of the average pensioner's gross income was derived from occupational pensions, 19 per cent. from savings and investment and 7 per cent. from earnings.
    Mr. Carrington: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it is important that everybody in employment should be encouraged to make provision for their retirement? Is not the large increase in the number of people taking out personal pensions schemes to be greatly welcomed?
    Mr. Newton: In a word, yes.
    Dr. Reid: Should not every pensioner in Britain have two pensions: the first being the pension which the Government already give them and the second being the supplementary pension which they would receive, had not the Government, as one of their first and most scandalous acts, cut the link between pensions and earnings?
    Although the Secretary of State boasted that fewer than 50 per cent. of British pensioners own their homes, will he confirm that the amount that has been lost by a pensioner couple because of cutting that link, £20 a week, is equivalent to a mortgage, even at the crucifyingly high rates of interest under this Government, of £12,500 a year? Why does not he do the decent thing, supplement the pension with the money that he has already taken away and allow many more pensioners to own their home?
    Mr. Newton: The number of pensioners in Britain owning their own homes is likely to rise steadily because of the general rise in home ownership to which this Government's policies have significantly contributed, often against vigorous opposition from Opposition Members in respect of one of the main engines of that growth: the sale of council houses.

    5
    A growing number of pensioners have additional pensions, either from the additional SERPS pension or from occupational pensions or from the growth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) referred, in personal pensions. That has happened a great deal more and a great deal faster than it would have had the policies of the Opposition remained in place.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most positive contributions that the Government can make to raising pensioners' living standards is to take whatever measures are necessary to curb inflation?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, I do. One of the striking aspects of pensioners' incomes is the extent to which they have gained from increases in savings income during the past 10 years—whereas the average value of pensioners' savings income appears to have fallen under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that the figures that he has given today and on other occasions detailing the rise in pensioner incomes are completely out of date because they go up only to 1987, since when the average pensioner has become poorer as a result of high inflation, high interest rates, falling dividends, falling asset prices and rising poll tax? Will he have the honesty to admit that the Government failed the pensioner 10 years ago when they broke the pension link with earnings and that the market on which the Government have since relied to increase pensioners' incomes has also failed the pensioner? Is not he ashamed that, as a result, the British pension is now much the lowest in Europe?
    Mr. Newton: Let me simply give the hon. Gentleman the figures in real terms—at constant prices—for pensioners' average income from savings in 1974, 1979 and 1987, the latest year for which, as the hon. Gentleman said, figures are available. In 1974 the figure was £10·70 a week; after five years of Labour Government it had fallen to £9·10 a week; after eight years of Conservative Government it had more than doubled to £20·10 a week. If the hon. Gentleman can take any satisfaction from the record of the Government in which he was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the DHSS—a Government who reduced pensioners' incomes from savings—I shall be somewhat surprised.
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have some form of second income to add to the basic state pension.
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that, in 1987, 84 per cent. of pensioners received some form of income in addition to the retirement pension and other state benefits.
    Sir Anthony Durant: The whole House will agree that those figures are very encouraging. Do not they prove that we should concentrate our efforts now on pensioners in the greatest need?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have already directed £200 million of extra support towards poorer pensioners and why we intend to devote a further £80 million, as already announced.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is the Minister aware of the situation of widows on pensions? A constituent of mine was recently
    6
    widowed and was therefore—rightly—in receipt of a widow's pension based on her husband's contributions. She inherited no occupational pension from him. She has worked and paid social security contributions all her life. In her late 50s she became unemployed and because of overlapping benefits regulations she is not entitled to any recompense for her lifetime's contributions. Would not such a widow feel cheated by a Government who can treat her in that way?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that through the safety net of income support and other benefits we try to assist those who, through no fault of their own, may not have successfully made the provision that they originally intended. The benefits are regularly uprated and reviewed and we shall continue to support such people in that way.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that from 1979 to 1987 occupational pensions rose by 77 per cent. and that they continue to rise?
    Miss Widdecombe: I can confirm those figures. We should also note that because of the abolition of the earnings rule, earnings are included in that additional income.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister endorse the thanks of the Peterborough pension group that I met this morning to Peterborough city council for salvaging the concessionary fare scheme for elderly people which had been cut by the Conservative county council? Is not that another example of local government, of whatever political party, stepping in to salvage the Government's reputation over their treatment of the elderly? Does she agree with Julie Owens, the next Labour Member of Parliament for Peterborough, that the Government have taken from the married pensioner couple £1,000 that they would have had if the pension had been linked to earnings?
    Miss Widdecombe: I find it increasingly distasteful that a party that completely decimated pensioners' savings by the inflation of the 1970s should have the gall to ask us to revert to the very system which produced no more than a 3 per cent. rise whereas we have produced a 31 per cent rise in pensioners' incomes. When the hon. Gentleman is talking to pensioners and others, perhaps he would tell them the absolute truth about how the Opposition's promises will be paid for.

    Child Maintenance
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average assessment for child maintenance under the current system.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): A recent survey of DSS local offices and courts found the average child maintenance assessment to be £25 a week per family.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that Chelmsford is by no means unique in having far too many single mothers who face financial hardship because of being abandoned by the fathers? Does he agree that it is a national disgrace that only 30 per cent. of mothers receive regular maintenance payments and that the current

    7
    two-pronged approach in the House and the other place to tighten up on maintenance should go a long way towards helping mothers?
    Mr. Jack: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his continuing interest in this important subject. I agree with him. It is interesting that about 10 years ago 50 per cent. of maintenance orders were honoured. Today only 30 per cent. are honoured. The Child Support Bill would redress that and would compensate the taxpayer for the £300 million bill that he has to foot because people are not honouring their maintenance obligations.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that a great deal of money would be available for child maintenance and other causes if there was a reduction in tax avoidance and tax evasion? Did he notice a recent parliamentary answer which showed that a married woman on an income of £1·8 million a day should be paying £262 million a year in income tax? Does he think that every woman in Britain with an income of £1·8 million a day should be paying income tax?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me into areas that are rightly the province of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government's tax policies have ensured that we have gained in terms of total cash revenues from income tax. That is why we have been able to make substantial increases in our social security budget, to the extent that this year we shall spend £60 billion.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra help has been directed to lower-income pensioners in the last two years.
    Mr. Newton: We directed an extra £200 million in income-related benefits to elderly and disabled pensioners in October 1989. We will be directing a further £80 million to pensioners aged from 60 to 74 from next month. These increases total more than a quarter of a billion pounds and are in addition to the normal annual upratings.
    Mr. Bowden: I am reassured by my right hon. Friend and pleased to hear that the greatest resources are being targeted to those in the greatest need. Will he confirm that Government policy will continue to provide benefits to those in the greatest need rather than blanket cover for all pensioners?
    Mr. Newton: I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we stick firmly to our commitment to protect the value of the basic retirement pension. We have faithfully done that and will do so again in just over a month. It is right to recognise, as I have consistently recognised in exchanges with hon. Members, that many pensioners do not have additional savings and occupational incomes. We have deliberately sought to steer additional state help to such groups and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.
    Mr. Skinner: Are not the Government creating another form of low-income pensioners? I refer to those who have an occupational pension of, say, £10 a week as a result of the husband having worked in the pits for 40 or 50 years. If that occupational pension is increased by 50p per annum, for example, housing benefit is lost and poll tax is
    8
    increased. After two small increases to the state pension and the miners' pit pension, the widows of retired miners will be worse off than hitherto.
    Mr. Newton: As with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) the hon. Gentleman may not understand fully how the benefit system works. Not the least of the advantages of the sort of increases in income support pensioner premium rates to which I referred in my main answer is that they raise the starting point for assistance with housing costs and the community charge. They feed through from pensioners on income support to those who are slightly above that level. Those who are a little above income support level are also assisted by the changes that we are making.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure for the number of families benefiting from family credit and the number benefiting from the predecessor scheme in 1978–79.
    Mr. Jack: At the end of November 1990, the latest date for which comprehensive information is available, the family credit caseload was 324,000. This compares with 82,000 families on family income supplement in November 1978.
    Mr. Amos: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being able to concentrate more resources on more people who are in real need. Will he consider the merit of abolishing child benefit and using the money to target more help to more people through that mechanism instead of giving over £1 billion to people who are very wealthy and do not need child benefit?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his appreciation of the help that we are giving to families with children. I remind him that on 24 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that
    "child benefit … is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support".—[Official Report, 24 October 1990; Vol. 178, c.352.]
    My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accords with that view.
    My hon. Friend's supplementary question refers to the breadth of support that we are now able to give through family credit and the higher premia in income support to families with children. It is our intention to continue to help poorer families in that way.
    Mr. Madden: The Minister will understand that I was surprised and delighted when I telephoned the Minister of State earlier this afternoon and found that he picked up the phone himself. I hope that his office will be able to expedite payment of family credit to one of my constituents who won an appeal recently, thereby restoring the suspension of family credit in 1989. She is now owed £2,000. I hope very much that that sum will be paid promptly.
    Family credit is no substitute for proper and adequate child benefit. The protests of mothers throughout the country at the way in which child benefit has been frozen and thereby reduced in value will become deafening as we approach the next general election.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment now on the individual case to which he referred.

    9
    If he supplies me with the details, I shall follow up the matter. It is good to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is multi-skilled, as we all are in the Department.
    It is sad that Opposition Members are prepared to rubbish a benefit that can contribute about £50 a week to 17 per cent. of those in receipt of it, while 30 per cent. receive £40 and 65 per cent. receive £20 a week. That is substantial additional income for families who are back in work—some of them are in work for the first time—and making an effort to help themselves.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend accept that family credit is not only available to many thousands more families than its predecessor, family income supplement, but—and just as valuable—the average payment is more than double the value of the supplement which used to be distributed?
    Mr. Jack: As I said in my opening answer, the present case load is about 324,000, compared with 82,000 on family income supplement. The benefit is more generously structured and, since the start of the present campaign to increase awareness of the benefit about two weeks ago, we have already received about 10,000 telephone calls from people interested in learning more about this excellent benefit.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review the grant element of the social fund.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister acknowledge that people who apply for grants from the social fund are among the poorest in the land? How can he pretend that there is any fairness or equity, when offices such as the one serving most of my constituency in Erdington will consider applications for grants only under the heading of high priority, which means that the majority of those applying for grants are refused before their case is considered? Will he now study the operation of the social fund grants and loans scheme, with a view to removing the cash limits and thereby making it fairer?
    Mr. Scott: Expenditure on community care grants increased by 16 per cent. compared with the same period last year, so extra resources have been devoted to the system. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's local office is able only to consider high priority cases. We monitor carefully every aspect of the social fund and its operations, and later this year we shall have the results of the York survey and research into the operation of the fund and will take it into account at the time.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: My right hon. Friend is aware of my somewhat dissident view upon the social fund. Could I suggest to him that, while I have no wish to return to the extravagent single payment scheme which was in existence under the previous Government, there is a case for assessing whether we have the balance between loans and grants absolutely right? Does he agree that, by giving loans to people in this section of society—they are indeed among
    10
    the poorest in the land—we risk perpetuating the problem by not encouraging them to climb out of their difficulties and to cease to be reliant upon state benefits?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly take account of what my hon. Friend says. I believe that in practice the social fund has proved to be much more flexible in giving help to the most vulnerable in our society than single payments ever were. We should not forget local authorities' responsibilities to enable people to establish or to maintain themselves within the local community.
    Mr. Frank Field: As the Comptroller and Auditor General has said that the accounts that the Government submitted to him were largely worthless and meaningless, why should the House accept the Government's reassurance that the scheme is working well?
    Mr. Scott: First, I think that the hon. Gentleman has somewhat exaggerated the Comptroller and Auditor General's comments and I am not surprised at that. In essence, we need to await the research findings which, as I have already said, will come out later this year. We have had a number of other reports which were mainly based upon small, unrepresentative samples. When we review the workings of the scheme we shall take account of all of that.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to be able to tell the House how much it would cost to reintroduce a grant-based system, as suggested by the Labour party?
    Mr. Scott: If we had projected the rise in single payments up to the present date at the rate at which it was growing when it was abolished we would be spending more than £1·1 billion on that scheme this year.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Are not the fund's rules in urgent need of change to address the plight of mentally ill patients, discharged from hospitals? How many of them are among the 779,000 who were refused help last year? How does he respond to the National Audit Office's strong criticisms of the fund and to Saul Becker, the benefits expert at Loughborough university, who described it as "an overwhelming disaster"?
    Mr. Scott: I do not accept for a single moment that anyone who was really familiar with the workings of the social fund would support that. Of course, mentally-ill and mentally-handicapped people are a priority when community care grants are considered.

    Pensioners
    Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current value of the assets held by the average pensioner household; and what was the comparable position in real terms in 1978–79.
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we estimate that the average real value of pensioners' assets doubled between 1979 and 1987.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that beneficial answer. Will she make a comparison with France and Germany, where house ownership is less extensive than in the United Kingdom? Will she also deal with the poorer section of the United Kingdom,

    11
    principally those who are over 70, because, although their gross income is considerable, their special circumstances mean that they come off rather badly?
    Miss Widdecombe: As I said in a reply a short while ago, we are aware of the need to target pensioners with special needs, particularly those in an age group in which they could not take advantage of occupational pension schemes. We also wish to target those whose savings were completely destroyed by high inflation during the Labour Administration of the 1970s. In comparison with Europe, we come out well on pensions. A far higher number of pensioners own homes and other assets than is generally the case in the rest of Europe.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that, as a result of the Government's policy of paying low pensions, pensioners want higher and higher interest rates? Is it not incongruous that pensioners' interests are the direct reverse of the interests of the Government's economic strategy?
    Miss Widdecombe: As the value of pensioners' income has risen 31 per cent. under this Government, it is a little extraordinary to talk about low pensions. Pensions have kept pace with inflation and we have kept our promises to pensioners to ensure that the value of their benefits is preserved. However, we have encouraged a great deal of other pensioners' income, such as occupational pensions and personal pensions. We believe that through that encouragement, pensioners are now able better to provide for themselves while we concentrate on those who cannot do so. Only certain forms of savings will be wholly dependent on high interest rates, which are not in the general interest of the economy. I do not believe that pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would, in general, want high interest rates.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increased number of pensioners owning homes and other assets has resulted in more pensioners being able to live off their savings in recent years than there were in 1979? Page 18 of the social security expenditure report shows that, in 1979, there was 20 per cent. more reliance by pensioners living off their earnings, with the result that many of them were probably unable to retire.
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend's analysis is right. We have already heard that the value of savings has doubled. The value of income has gone up by 31 per cent. Savings take many forms and the rapid growth in occupational pensions and in the greater provision that pensioners can make for themselves allows them to retire. That is why there are now more retirements at an earlier age and less pressure on people to continue to work, than under the Labour Government of the 1970s.

    Severe Weather Payments
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the number of applications for severe weather payments which have been submitted since 7 February; and how many have been granted.
    Mr. Scott: Information regarding the number of claims submitted in February, and the number of payments made is not yet available, but will be placed in the Library as soon as it is.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does not the Minister understand that the fact that such information is not yet available shows the shambles that exists in relation to that form of payment? The retrospective nature of those payments is inadequate because people need to be able to turn up the heat at the time of the crisis, not worry about whether they will receive the money. The £6 referred to pays for one bar of an electric fire for fewer than 100 hours. Is it not time that an automatic and continuous provision was introduced?
    Mr. Scott: This is exceptional help for use in special cold weather circumstances—a top-up scheme. The income support rates already include provision for heating costs throughout the year. During the recent cold snap, fuel companies made it clear that vulnerable people should feel free to turn up their heating and that companies would be prepared to consider making arrangements for phased payments if bills turned out to be high. In practice, we have had only a short spell of cold weather so far this winter.

    Invalid Care Allowance
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women are in receipt of invalid care allowance; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79.
    Mr. Scott: There were 110,100 women receiving invalid care allowance on 31 January 1991 compared with 3,600 in January 1981, the earliest year for which such information is available.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that spending has gone up from £4 million to £200 million during the past 10 years? Does he agree that, once again, the Government are concerned with hot money, whereas the Opposition are concerned with hot air?
    Mr. Scott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This is an excellent benefit that delivers good levels of care to severely disabled people.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Disablement Officers
    Sir David Price: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, whether there are any proposals to fund the employment of a disablement officer for every diocese.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners are not aware of any such proposals. The General Synod's board for social responsibility regularly considers issues involving the disabled. Each diocese has a social responsibility adviser.
    Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite what he said, access for people in wheelchairs is difficult or impossible in a significant number of Anglican churches and that some vicars and bishops are singularly negative in their attitude towards trying to solve this problem?
    Mr. Alison: I am aware of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. He may not be aware that more than half our Anglican church buildings are more than 500 years old, which is the starting point of the difficulties involved in ensuring easy access. I am glad to say that all new parish churches are advised to provide access for the disabled. Having been in touch with the rector, I am glad to be able to report that access will be provided at St. James, Piccadilly for the disabled visitor in the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are examples of excellence in terms of access to church buildings? Can we assume that he will do all that he can, in further consultation with those who can help, to lift the general standard up to that of the existing best?
    Mr. Alison: Certainly it is the wish of dioceses and parishes to do everything possible to improve access for the disabled. All new churches are advised to provide easy access for the disabled. I repeat the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) that many Church of England churches are more than 500 years old. Their early architectural design was not intended to accommodate wheelchairs and other such aids for the disabled, even if the wheel had been heard of in those times.

    Diocesan Boards of Education
    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the revenue implications of the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure.
    Mr. Alison: This is not a matter for the Church Commissioners, but I understand that the Measure is not expected to have any revenue implications.
    Mr. Field: Does the Commissioner accept that, while the Measure may not have revenue implications, it has other effects? The Measure gives the diocese greater power to direct Church schools than local authorities have to direct state schools. The House would take a dim view if any diocese tried to prevent Church schools from expanding their numbers.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that some of his reservations have been recorded in the ecclesiastical committee's draft report on the Measure. I am hopeful that, when the Measure is introduced in another place, the bishop who introduces it will address himself to the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and will, I hope, reassure him about them.

    Archbishop of Canterbury
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what will be the salary and perquisites of the next Archbishop of Canterbury; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The stipend for the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be about £41,000 a year. As is the case for all diocesan bishops, he will be provided with rent-free accommodation and an official car.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend wish the incoming archbishop every success and happiness in the important task that he is taking on? Will he invite him to dissociate himself immediately from the remarks made by the Bishop of Durham at the weekend and to express strong support for a proper victory parade and service of thanksgiving for success in the Gulf?
    Mr. Alison: I do not think that Dr. Carey will be able to make a formal statement on such matters before his official enthronement in mid-April. Meanwhile, I note that at least two diocesan bishops—the Bishops of Chester and Peterborough—have dissociated themselves in the most robust terms from the comments by the Bishop of Durham and have expressed the hope that there should be such a celebration.

    Redundant Churches Fund
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the budget of the redundant churches fund.
    Mr. Alison: The maximum budget for the five years beginning on 1 April 1989 is £12·4 million.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of redundant and half-empty churches underlines the need for a more positive message to come from the Church in the 1990s than we heard in the 1980s?
    Mr. Alison: I hope that the leadership of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, the decade of evangelism, and the striking growth in independent, charismatic, Pentecostal and Afro-Asian churches will register a significant growth in the next 10 years.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Smoking
    Mr. Amos: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress has been made in implementing a no-smoking policy for the protection of the Commission's employees against passive smoking.
    Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commissioners): No-smoking areas have already been established in the Department of the Library. Their designation in other areas occupied solely by staff employed by the House of Commons Commission is a matter for individual heads of department, who are understood to be willing to establish no-smoking areas where accommodation will allow and where there is evidence of sufficient demand. The co-ordination of policy in this respect is initially a matter for the House of Commons Whitley committee.
    Mr. Amos: I am grateful for that reply, but could the hon. Gentleman give me some idea when those people who want to eat and work in a smoke-free environment can do so, bearing in mind that passive smoking increases the chance of lung cancer by between 10 and 30 per cent.? People have the right to eat and work in a smoke-free environment.
    Mr. Beith: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's view. Responsibility for such matters extends beyond the House

    15
    of Commons Commission which must have regard only for the staff whom it employs. So far, I am not aware that staff have asked for such facilities but not been given them. The provision of such facilities in areas occupied by Members' staff and Members themselves falls within the remit of the Services Committee.
    Mr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chairman of the Services Committee about refreshment facilities for Members? Many of us find it tiresome, to put it mildly, that smoking continues in the Members' Tea Room. Dare I say that a certain hon. Lady from the Opposition Benches, who shall remain nameless and who is not here now, persists in smoking small and acrid cigars in the confined space of the Members' Cafeteria.
    Mr. Beith: These are clearly matters for the Services Committee. I have long used the section of the Tea Room which I understood to be a no-smoking area.
    Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman also remember that just as people should have the choice of being where smoking is not allowed, other people should be allowed to exercise the right to smoke? Whatever one's individual feeling on the subject, the principle of choice should be paramount. Both groups of people should have equal opportunities in this place.
    Mr. Beith: I have long held to the John Stuart Mill principle that the exercise of liberty should not interfere with the liberty of others. The House of Commons Commission tries to have regard to the needs of both groups within its staff.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Brian Wilson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here".] Order. We need to go back to the questions on social security. Mr. Richard Page. Mr. John Wilkinson. Sir Marcus Fox. Mr. Anthony Steen. Mr. Kenneth Hind. They are not here. Mr. James Paice.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Child Maintenance
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of a parent's gross income is estimated to be payable in maintenance under the proposals outlined in the White Paper "Children Come First."
    Mr. Jack: The proportion will vary according to the individual circumstances of each case. However, in most cases maintenance payments will represent no more than about a quarter—at most a third—of an absent parent's net income and even less of gross income—nearer one fifth.
    Mr. Paice: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and stress to him the importance that many people attach to the fact that parents, of whichever sex, cannot forgo the responsibilities of parenthood? Does my hon. Friend agree that the courts should have the power to attach whatever proportion of earnings is appropriate to support whatever family has been left behind by the absent parent?
    Mr. Jack: I welcome the spirit and content of my hon. Friend's remarks, but I must correct him slightly on matters of fact. One of the objectives of the Child Support
    16
    Bill, which is being introduced in another place, is to bring under one roof all matters concerning the collection of maintenance, ultimately by 1996. It also aims to remove some of the more costly parts of present maintenance recovery operations from the courts and that is why we plan to establish a child support agency that will do just that job on a consistent and inexpensive basis.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Satellite Television
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve further the availability of satellite television in the Palace of Westminster.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I am seeking to ensure that the satellite television viewing facilities provided during the Gulf conflict will continue to be available to Members. Other improvements must await the outcome of our consideration of last year's report from the Services Committee on computer services for Members.
    Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that Cable News Network, an American service, has been provided to the House and the other place since the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf. Does he agree that that sets a good precedent and that right hon. and hon. Members want to see not only American news, but a British-based news service? On that basis, is my right hon. Friend able to say whether he has yet responded to the offer made on 17 January by British Sky Broadcasting to provide a British, 24-hour news service to the Palace on a free basis?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are two issues involved—the provision of some television viewing, which was available during the Gulf conflict in Interview Room J and the provision for all Members. The Services Committee has taken a positive attitude to the provision of satellite television in the House, particularly in Members' own rooms. It has recommended, as a matter of urgency, that the type and capacity of the cable needed to supply the long-term needs of the House should be identified. That is what we are in the process of doing.
    On the provision of some television available to Members, we must decide exactly on which television supply in relation to the kind of facilities we were providing in Interview Room J. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee took the view earlier that it would not be right to accept free offers from individual companies.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Can the Leader of the House explain whether it would be possible for the Government to consider acquiring the lease of the London county council building opposite the House for a short term? The requirements for television facilities, Members' accommodation, a children's creche and everything else could be adequately covered if the Government considered acquiring such a short-term lease on that building.
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think we need that building to provide satellite television, the problem is the provision of cable and we are considering that and the cost thereof.

    17
    On space for the House, the hon. Gentleman will be especially aware that phases I and II of the Bridge street site are being pursued. I hope that Bridge street phase I will be complete by the end of the recess.

    Recycled Stationery
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Lord President of the Council when House of Commons writing paper and envelopes made from recycled paper will be made generally available to hon. Members.
    Mr. MacGregor: A limited quantity of recycled writing paper and envelopes was ordered from HMSO on an experimental basis and has been available for issue to hon. Members from the Serjeant at Arms' stores since October last year. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee will be considering the results of the experiment before Easter.
    Mr. Rathbone: My right hon. Friend will be aware that we knew that, but is he aware that I was hoping that he would encourage bringing forward the date when that paper will be readily available, partly because it gives a good lead to others in the country and partly because of the practical fact that such paper happens to work much better in modern machines?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that point. I understand that, so far, 95 hon. Members have requested and been issued with recycled writing paper and envelopes. I was not in this post when the experiment was introduced, and I must confess that I was not aware that that paper was available. Since my hon. Friend tabled his question, I have examined that paper and it is very good. I am therefore happy to endorse what he said.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman use it before Easter?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, before Easter. The experiment will be reviewed before Easter, which is very soon, so I hope that we shall be able to reach conclusions before long.

    European Standing Committees
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the operation of the European Standing Committees.
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement concerning the operation of Standing Committees considering draft legislation or other documents originating from the European Community.
    Mr. MacGregor: There have now been five debates in the European Standing Committees, three in Committee A and two in Committee B. A number of suggestions have been made to me on ways in which the operation of the Committees can be improved and I have taken steps to act on some of them, for example by giving Committee members more notice of meetings wherever possible.
    Mr. Taylor: Can the Leader of the House explain why one Standing Committee has not met on three occasions in the past four weeks when there are urgent issues which the Select Committee asked us to consider? As one issue is the
    18
    report on export rebates, is not it a matter of huge urgency since the European Community will clearly break its legal limits? Is not it sad that when there are obvious and growing strong feelings in the House about smoking, the Committee is not even able to express a view on the fact that British taxpayers and others will contribute £900 million this year simply to dump high-tar tobacco on the third world and eastern Europe?
    Mr. MacGregor: The tobacco issue has been raised many times in the House. On the procedure point that my hon. Friend raises, he will know that we endeavour to ensure that Standing Committees, as indeed the House, whenever recommended, discuss those issues in good time, normally before the European Council of Ministers takes decisions. Quite often, an item that is recommended for debate may not be right for a proper discussion because of the way in which progress has been made in the European Community. We endeavour to ensure that Committees debate such issues well before decisions are taken.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that some difficulties at least have been caused by Ministers' actions, the timetable of the European Council, and the nature of the proposals? Does he agree also that, as some documents now going into Committee are of great significance, for example the MacSharry proposals on the common agricultural policy, a matter that was not discussed in previous debates might be, for instance, the possible extension of a Committee session, as indeed was possible in one and a half hours on the Floor of the House, if the matter was of such importance and the attendance was such that the Chairman thought that there should be a carry-over motion? In particular, I refer to the forthcoming important debate on the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. MacGregor: As I have said before, we need to review how Standing Committees are operating. Perhaps I shall wish to present specific proposals for change from time to time. We need to see how it goes, but I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
    Dr. Cunningham: The House has debated Standing Committees on two occasions. The Government must be breathing a sigh of relief that they did not proceed with their original proposal to have three of them, especially as Ministers seem to be getting the runaround from the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Just because Ministers are in difficulties, that is no excuse for saying, "We are going to have yet more changes in Standing Committees." If the Leader of the House envisages further changes will he ensure that they are published and that the House has a chance to consider them properly before they are put in place?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear throughout that I am prepared to look at short-term changes and that we shall certainly have a review at the end of the summer. Some hon. Members are pressing me to make changes now. I have to strike a balance, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that if we come forward with further proposals for change we shall give the House time to consider them.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee to consider military action in Kuwait.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Dalyell: Before the Government reply in the debate on 15 March that I have been lucky enough to draw, will they reflect whether, in the light of the Al Sabah family's not returning to Kuwait as yet, in the light of the photochemical smog from the burning oil wells, which is becoming a desperate health problem, causing respiratory and other difficulties, and in the light of what appears to be happening to the Palestinians—the Kuwaitis are saying publicly that the Israelis know how to deal with the Palestinians, and are treating them very cruelly—there is not a serious case for a Select Committee? It looks as if we shall have to be in Kuwait for a very long time.
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it would be appropriate to have a specific and separate Select Committee. It is possible for individual Select Committees to look into aspects of the issue if they wish to do so. Indeed, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will give evidence to the Defence Select Committee on Wednesday of this week. The hon. Gentleman knows that Select Committees can take up these issues. From what he said, it is clear that more than one Select Committee may be involved.
    Mr. Jessel: As we normally set up Select Committees to discuss what is going wrong, and as the military action in Kuwait plainly went absolutely right, ought we not to set up a Select Committee to determine what went so disastrously wrong with the policies of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a number of fair points, which speak for themselves.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I confess that I was indeed wrong. I forecast that only 300 oil wells would go up; actually, 900 are burning.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter may be discussed on Friday 15 March, since the hon. Gentleman has wisely chosen it as the subject for debate.

    Point of Order
    3.34 pm
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that on 30 January the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment told the House that he estimated that there were 2,000 to 3,000 people sleeping rough in central London. On 22 February, the same Minister told the House that these figures were based on the whole of London—17 London boroughs. Do you, Sir, recall giving me an opportunity, by way of a private notice question, to raise this matter? On that occasion, the Minister said:
    "It was because we felt our figures were out of date that we asked … the voluntary organisations most experienced at dealing with rough sleepers in London to carry out a more recent count. The estimate that they produced came to 1,046 … We shall therefore use that figure to replace the earlier and out-of-date estimate."—[Official Report, 8 February 1991; Vol. 185 c.542–43.]
    Have you seeen the reply, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I have not seen the reply, but, clearly, replies given by Ministers are not matters of order. They may be matters for disagreement, but what does that have to do with me?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wondered, Mr. Speaker, whether you had received a request for permission for a statement by a Minister in the Department of the Environment, in view of the fact that the revised figure related only to seven locations in central London.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of the points of order procedure.

    AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Rolnick.]

    Statutory Instruments, &c.
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Vehicle Inspectorate Trading Fund Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Central Office of Information Trading Fund Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Prevention of Terrorism
3.34 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 2Ist February, be approved.
It is 12 months since the House last considered whether the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 should be continued in force. The House will know that the senseless terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland continues. Last weekend, five people were brutally murdered—a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment by the Irish Republican Army on Friday night, and four last night in another incident. Another four were seriously injured.
During 1990 as a whole, the threat of terrorism has continued without pause. In Northern Ireland, 76 people died and 906 were injured as a result of republican and loyalist terrorism. In mainland Great Britain in 1990, there were more terrorist incidents than at any time since 1975. Three people died and 56 were injured in those incidents. Earlier in the year, the targets were predominantly military ones. The House will recall some of them: in February, a recruiting office in Halifax; in May, an Army education corps establishment in Eltham; in the same month, Sergeant Chapman was killed by a bomb in a van. In June a soldier was shot down and murdered on Lichfield station, and two others were injured. There were also attacks on the Honourable Artillery Company in London, on an Army careers office in Derby, and on the Army information office in Finchley.
In the middle of the year, civilians also became targets. There were attacks on the former houses of Lord McAlpine and Lord Armstrong, as well as on the Carlton club, the Stock Exchange and the Royal Overseas League. Sir Peter Terry was shot in the sitting room of his own house. Everyone will remember the appalling murder of Ian Gow in July. Three men died in Irish terrorist incidents on the continent of Europe.
More recently, we have had the mortar bomb attack on Downing street and the explosion at Victoria station, in which one man died and 38 were injured, some losing their limbs. On Monday of last week, a bomb was planted without warning on the main St. Albans to London railway line with what could have been appalling consequences. The thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with all those who have suffered as a result of those terrible crimes.
However, we should also recognise the successes that we have had in the past year in disrupting terrorist activities. There is no doubt that the action taken in the autumn of last year as a result of the effective use of intelligence and good policing disrupted the activities of some terrorist groups. There have been similar successes on the continent and elsewhere. In December, two terrorists were sentenced to 30 years each for their role in the arms store in Wales. Two trials are currently taking place in Belfast and Holland. There is a trial pending in Belgium and two trials are pending here. I do not wish to say anything that might prejudice any of those cases, but they show that, as a result of detection, indictments can be brought.
22
The sole issue before the House is whether the prevention of terrorism Act should be continued in force for another 12 months. The fight against terrorism is a matter which unites us all. We are not here to score party political points. Terrorism is a matter which should unite us all.
I should like to explain to the House why I have concluded, as has each and every Home Secretary before me—of both the main parties—over a period of 17 years, that the prevention of terrorism Act must remain in force.
I shall deal first with the powers under the Act. The first is proscription. The first part of the Act gives the Home Secretary of the day powers to proscribe Irish terrorist organisations. The organisations that are at present proscribed are the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army. Membership of a proscribed organisation is a serious criminal offence, with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. I ask the House to consider what it would mean if, as some Opposition Members want, the Act should not continue in force.
The IRA and INLA are proscribed because they openly profess the use of violence to overthrow our democratic system of government. Members of those organisations are criminals, murderers and thugs who callously use violence in all its forms—death, brutality and destruction. If the Act does not continue in force, the IRA and INLA will be able to meet openly in this country and to plan their nefarious activities; to recruit new members and to raise funds as openly as other political parties. People in this country simply would not tolerate such murderous organisations being given that freedom. If we do not renew the Act tonight, the people of this country would think, with justification, that we had gone out of our minds.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the Secretary of State think that the ban should extend to Sinn Fein, which is part and parcel of the IRA and which the police have said is part and parcel of the IRA?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that other organisations are proscribed in Northern Ireland. Proscription does not extend to Sinn Fein. It is necessary to proscribe organisations that are openly committed to murder and to violence, to which the terrorist arm of Sinn Fein is committed. To those hon. Members who believe that we are being too fastidious about these matters, I note that the two organisations to which I have referred are also proscribed in the Republic of Ireland.
I want next to consider the powers of exclusion. Any Home Secretary would exercise such powers most carefully. I accept that in his 1987 review of the legislation Lord Colville came down on balance against that power. However, we must face the facts. There is now, and has been for a number of years, an organised campaign of intimidation and violence directed against the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That campaign is directed and controlled from the island of Ireland, north and south. The purpose of exclusion is to prevent terrorists from being able to carry out their activities in Great Britain or, in the case of those who are not British citizens, in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Of course, in an ideal world, it would be possible to bring such people before the courts charged with serious criminal offences. However, we do not live in an ideal world. Often our information comes from sources whose identities we cannot disclose without risk to their lives. We

23
cannot take that risk. Where we cannot charge, and there are reasonably found suspicions, we have to exclude. We have a duty to protect the public from terrorist attacks in whatever way we can.
In his latest review of the operation of the Act, Lord Colville acknowledges that exclusion cases are handled with meticulous care. Only 97 such orders are in force, a considerable reduction in the numbers in force earlier in the history of the legislation.
If a person is excluded, he or she has a right to make representations and a right to a personal interview with an independent adviser. A solicitor or legal representative may be present at the interview. The advisers are independent, and for security "reasons I will not name them, but they have no connection with the Government, the Home Office or with me except through the fact of their appointment. As Lord Colville says in his report, 18 people who had been excluded made representations to an adviser during 1990. As of today, of the 13 cases that have been completed, the adviser has upheld exclusion in 12 of them.
The third main part of the Act is concerned with the powers of arrest, examination and detention. The powers are to examine people entering Great Britain with a view to discovering whether they may be involved in terrorism; to arrest and detain on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism; and to detain without charge for an initial period of 48 hours and for a further period of a maximum of five days on the authority of the Secretary of State, making seven days in all.
It is alleged that the power of examination at ports is exercised in an arbitrary and indiscriminate way and that it alienates the Irish community. There is no immigration control between the island of Ireland and the mainland of Great Britain. The Act thus gives the police the only power they have to identify those entering Great Britain and to prevent terrorists from entering the mainland.
The powers are exercised by asking passengers—some, not all—a few questions of the sort that any of us may expect to answer when we cross a border or move from one country to another. Depending on the answers to those questions, the police may ask further questions and they may check the person's name against criminal and other records. If a false name is given, or if some other suspicion is raised in the officer's mind, it would be wrong to allow the passenger to go on his way before that suspicion has been removed.
Of course, I regret that passengers, British and Irish alike, may be inconvenienced, but law-abiding people understand why that inconvenience is necessary. I acknowledge, in particular, the very considerable support given to the police by Irish people, in helping to bring terrorists to justice. I have no doubt that Irish people understand why it is necessary for the police to take the action that they do.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: My right hon. Friend referred to the Act's exclusion powers. Without naming names, can he say whether those powers have been used only in respect of people suspected of being involved in Northern Ireland terrorism, or have they been used also against others?
Mr. Baker: Without naming names, I can assure my hon. Friend that those powers have been used in cases involving other than Irish terrorism.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary may want to reflect on his reply, because exclusion orders require those who are subject to them to go to one of the six counties of Northern Ireland. Surely that power would not be used for anyone who was not from Northern Ireland or involved in Irish terrorism.
Mr. Baker: I was referring to the overall powers of the Act. I have exclusion powers, and I have used them in certain cases involving Northern Ireland terrorism. I shall be happy to clarify that point later, but I assure my hon. Friend the Member of Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that the Secretary of State has powers of exclusion, and that they have been used in relation to certain terrorists who were not directly Irish terrorists.
Turning to the powers of examination and detention, 273 people were examined for more than an hour at ports in Great Britain, and 193 were detained, in 1990. In Northern Ireland, where the powers are used more extensively, 1,764 persons were detained, leading to 376 charges. Some Opposition Members allege that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1986 provides sufficient grounds for the arrest of a suspected terrorist, and that the prevention of terrorism Act's powers are not needed. That is wrong. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1986 contains a power of arrest on suspicion that a person has committed a serious specific offence, whereas the prevention of terrorism Act confers a power of arrest on the much wider ground of suspicion of involvement in terrorism.
There are many circumstances in which the police may have information that a particular person is involved in terrorism, but no information as to the specific offence in which he may have been involved. Without the prevention of terrorism Act, there would be no power to arrest such a person. Those who would not continue that Act in force would allow known terrorists to walk our streets—with the police powerless to intervene.
At this point, I will say a word about the Government's decision to derogate from a provision of the European convention on human rights in response to the Brogan case. As we made clear, that decision was not taken lightly but only after full consideration of possible alternatives. The derogation was made under article 15 of the convention, which allows for derogation in time of war or other public emergency. The issue is whether authority to detain a suspected terrorist for between four and seven days should be given, as at present, by the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for his actions, or by a judge, some other person, or a tribunal. Right hon. and hon. Members may want to bear in mind that suspects can be held without charges for longer than seven days in some other European countries.
In Lord Colville's latest review of the legislation, for which the House will always be grateful, he asks whether it is now inevitable that a new tribunal should be set up to exercise that power. The Government's answer is no. We believe, as Lord Colville himself concluded in his 1987 review of the legislation—and as Lord Shackleton and Lord Jellicoe also concluded in their earlier reviews of it

25
—those powers are rightly exercised by the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for his actions, and is ultimately responsible for the safety of the public.
If there are any lingering doubts about the value of those powers in the Act that is before us, I invite right hon. and hon. Members to turn to page 2 of Lord Colville's 1989 report on that legislation's operation. Referring to the extension of detention in Great Britain, particularly in relation to Scotland, paragraph 1·6 states:
"In the latter case I have every reason to believe that the detention led to a substantial disruption of terrorist activities, and in all cases I am satisfied that good reasons for the order were put forward to the Secretary of State."
If hon. Members needed only one reason to support the Act, they would find it in that paragraph.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: When discussing the powers of examination, my right hon. Friend mentioned only examination at the ports. Can he confirm that the powers also embrace examination of, say, crew members on ships carrying ammunition and explosives to Eire, or the drivers of trucks carrying similar cargoes? Is it not important to deal with such people in order to contain the threat to such highly sensitive cargoes?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has asked, in effect, about the transmission of explosives. An internal review has been carried out, on the security of explosives, and the Government are planning to tighten up the controls on their acquisition, transfer and possession. We hope to lay regulations before Parliament later in the Session which would put the proposed tighter controls into effect.
I come now to the powers to investigate terrorist funding. These provisions were introduced in 1989 and form part of the extensive armoury now available to the criminal courts on the confiscation of assets. The police increasingly see the provisions as being at the core of the fight against terrorism; yet, if the Opposition did not vote for this extension, the power would fall.
Lord Colville has uttered some strictures on the provisions, but he does not recommend that they should not be renewed. I acknowledge that the legislation is complex, and that there are differences of detail between the provisions of the three Acts, but those difliculties reflect the different nature of the problems that each of them seeks to address. The value of the provisions lies in the fact that, by clearly defining terrorist financing as a criminal offence, they enable the police to investigate it. In investigating the finance, using the special powers of investigation conferred by the Act, they can obtain information that may lead to charges.
I can, however, offer Lord Colville and the House some consolation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has recently unveiled new proposals on the confiscation of terrorist funds in Northern Ireland, in the shape of amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. The amendments, if adopted, will add substantially to the powers available to the courts in Northern Ireland, and it is of course in Northern Ireland that the particular problem of terrorist racketeering is concentrated. I intend to watch very closely the effectiveness of the new powers, and, in the light of that, I shall consider whether in the future any useful improvements can be made to them.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: References to these powers form the bulk of Lord Colville's criticisms of the operation of the Act. He has
26
described the provisions relating to confiscation as a legislative shambles. Will the Home Secretary undertake to report to the House as soon as possible on the review on which he has embarked? It may be too soon to expect him to have produced a review himself, but, in the light of the Colville report, we cannot be wholly satisfied that the changes proposed for Northern Ireland deal adequately with the problem.
Mr. Baker: The legislation is exceedingly complex, and crosses the thresholds of three Acts. However, I shall certainly undertake to let the House know the outcome of our review. Let me emphasise that I have been advised that the powers as they stand are being used very effectively in the investigation of possible terrorist financing.
Mr. John Bowis: Lord Colville has been quoted as describing the provisions as a "shambles". Did he not go on to say specifically that, in regard to confiscation, the Bill needed more teeth? Does not this measure need more, not fewer, teeth—and not less sharp teeth?
Mr. Baker: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. Plenty of proposals to water down the effect of the measures are floating around in public debate, but we must think of improving and enhancing them. I see that I have the support of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
Mr. Hattersley: As the Secretary of State knows, we have already said that we shall support the tougher proposals in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. Has he considered the possibility of amending those tougher, more effective proposals so that they apply also to the United Kingdom, not simply to Northern Ireland? If so, we would certainly support him in that endeavour.
Mr. Baker: I am advised that, as the proposals are laid out, they could not be extended effectively to the United Kingdom. Before agreeing or not, I should like to see exactly how they will operate. They represent a substantial extension and it would be unusual to use this legislation as such a legislative vehicle. I am glad that there may be some agreement on that point, if not on much else, and that we may make progress. If it is possible to make these measures stricter, I am happy to consider that.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took powers in Committee under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill to extend certain investigative powers to the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could extend those powers, which he has, to operations within the United Kingdom we should welcome that. It has been done already, so the Secretary of State does not need to wait and see.
Mr. Baker: I first want to see how the powers will operate because they are a substantial extension of the present powers. My advice from those who conduct investigations is that their present powers, together with the confiscation powers of this measure, give them all the powers that they need to investigate terrorist financing. It is providing a useful power as it stands now.
I turn now to recent changes in the organisation for fighting terrorism on the mainland. I have seen suggestions that we need a single, national agency for the prevention

27
of terrorism on the British mainland. I believe that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) called for that at the weekend. I shall remind the House of two matters about which it knows, and a third matter which I shall announce.
We already have an agency, the Metropolitan police special branch, which has the national responsibility for the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence about Irish republican terrorism throughout Great Britain. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield should know because it was announced last year, the head of the Metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch was appointed the national co-ordinator of Provisional IRA investigations by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Thirdly, to increase the effectiveness of those arrangements, a small, dedicated group was created last October. It is chaired by the Metropolitan police assistant commissioner for specialist operations, who has responsibility for both the anti-terrorist and special branches. The other members are three chief constables of police forces outside London with particular responsibilities for counter-terrorism.
This is an important new development, greatly enhancing co-ordination between the Metropolitan police and provincial forces. Only the local police force can bring local knowledge to bear on the investigation of a terrorist crime within its area.
The new arrangements ensure that the special expertise of the Metropolitan police is placed at the disposal of provincial forces. That means that counter-terrorist activity has the right co-ordination at the centre.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the light of what the Secretary of State has just said, what liaison takes place between the Metropolitan senior police officers and Scottish police officers? He talked about provincial police forces. Although Scotland seems blessedly immune from terrorist activities committed by the Provisional IRA, we have a deep concern about these matters.
Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is close co-operation with the various police forces in Scotland which, as he rightly said, is so far blessedly free from the problem. I hope that it will remain so. One of the three chief constables to whom I referred is Scottish.
In the speech that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made last week—he kindly sent me a copy of it—he called for discussions between our parties so that we could have a common cause against terrorism. In that speech he did not set out any new proposals, but he continued to express the reservations that the Opposition have about the powers of exclusion and the questioning at the ports, and his reservations about the exercise of the powers of detention. His well-known opposition to this is nothing new. In fact, the latest policy document of the Labour party contains a commitment to repeal the prevention of terrorism Act. Today I have set out in rather more detail than is usual in these debates the reasons why I believe it essential that these powers be continued.
I do not doubt for one moment that the right hon. Gentlemen loathes terrorism as much as does any Conservative Member, but I must tell him that neither in his letter nor in his speech were there any concrete
28
proposals. The right hon. Gentleman restates his reservations. In one way or another he wants the powers to be watered down. He wills the end but denies the means. But rhetoric against terrorism is not enough; nor is invective: one has to be prepared to act. The right hon. Gentleman is willing to wound, yet afraid to strike.
The right hon. Gentleman talked in his speech about the powers of detention continuing to alienate law-abiding citizens of the United Kingdom. I find precious little evidence of that. I find law-abiding citizens of this country are alienated by the fact that terrorists place bombs in litter bins and kill innocent passers-by. They are alienated by the fact that terrorists place bombs on railway tracks. And the law-abiding citizens of this country are appalled and alienated by the fact that Members of Parliament are assassinated in their cars; and I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the law-abiding citizens of this country do not expect the Government to dismantle such powers as we do have to deal with these crimes. They expect the Government to support the police in providing them with these powers, and to support the police when they exercise them.
In his speech last year, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the resentment felt about the powers of exclusion and the questioning at the ports. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the people of this country feel a great resentment against those people—I admit that they are a very small number—who travel either from Northern Ireland or from the Republic with an intent to kill people in this island and to set up cells of terrorism and to plant bombs and to raise caches of arms. That is the resentment felt by the people of this country.
The right hon. Gentleman does not like the powers of detention either—powers that were used by Labour Home Secretaries and by Labour Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. Not only did they use them: they justified them. Indeed, they were justified quite recently by Lord Mason of Barnsley in a debate in the House of Lords in February 1988, when Labour were in opposition:
"To defeat the terrorists there is a price to pay. There is the inconvenience, irritation, annoyance with police and Special Branch Officers and the curtailment of our total freedom and civil liberties. But to combat evil men we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available and that is what I urge my party and this House to do."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 573.]
The noble Lord had responsibility, and he did not shirk it.
Of course, in those days the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook voted for these powers. He supported them. But there was a change of heart in 1982. I hope that there will be a change of heart again. The public who rely upon their representatives, Members of Parliament, to protect them will not understand or accept a proposal aimed at dismantling and weakening these powers. In a moment, the right hon. Gentleman could forge a bipartisan approach. He could get up at the Dispatch Box and say, "Such is the threat being posed by the IRA at this time that the Labour party is prepared to support the prevention of terrorism Act." This is not the time for sophistry. The signal to the country from the Labour Front Bench spokesman today should be a signal of determination, resolution, and strength.
If the Act were not renewed, who would be happy? There would be rejoicing in the ranks of the IRA. It and its friends would cheer because it would be easier for them to plan and execute their evil deeds. The whole purpose of

29
the IRA is to sap and weaken the resolve of the Government and the will of the British people. Let us not give the IRA the chance to claim a victory in the House.
The IRA is not succeeding. At every election, both north and south of the border, the IRA's political wing, Sinn Fein, gets fewer votes. After each vicious and wicked attack, it alienates possible allies and loses more support. What decent people would support an organisation that murders innocent people going about their business or going to work? The IRA is politically bankrupt, ethically corrupt and morally evil. It is not a party or a movement. It is a gang of murderous criminals, and it is right that the powers in the Act should be retained and used. I commend them to the House.
4.5 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: We shall vote tonight against the continuation of the prevention of terrorism Act, in the same way that we have voted against it for the past eight years. The criticisms that we shall make are shared and have been publicly expressed by a wide variety of distinguished authorities, including the European Court of Justice and the General Council of the Bar. Now Lord Colville, whom the Government chose to report on the workings of the Act, has expressed reservations about the Act's two major provisions. That Lord Colville, a Government nominee, should express such strong reservations about detention and internal exile is in itself extraordinary. That the Government should not attempt to respond to their nominee's reservations, except by announcing that they do not accept them, is even more extraordinary. Therefore, we shall vote against the Act with Lord Colville's authority to support us.
I make clear my belief that the undoubted disagreements which will characterise our debate should not prevent the Home Secretary from accepting the offer that I made to him last week. He is right to say that in my speech I made no practical proposals; nor, as he rightly said, did I make any in the covering letter which asked him please to read the enclosed copy of a speech that I would make the next day. I propose to make some proposals before the end of the debate, but I repeat that nothing that is said in the debate should make the conversations and discussions that I still offer to the Government impossible or undesirable.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not seek to mislead the House. Will he confirm that Lord Colville's most recent report points to specific instances of where the Act has seriously disrupted terrorist activity and that he does not recommend getting rid of the Act but says that he has reservations—which is quite different?
Mr. Hattersley: I used the word reservations because that is Lord Colville's word. The hon. Gentleman has no need to correct me or to interrupt my speech. As he probably anticipates, I shall shortly deal with Lord Colville's criticisms of the Act. If at that time the hon. Gentleman has any doubts about the accuracy of my reports of Lord Colville's views, I shall give way to him. If he has a better interpretation of Lord Colville's criticisms, no doubt he will offer it to the House.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The right hon. Gentleman must get the matter absolutely right. Lord
30
Colville recommended the renewal of the Act and he cannot be quoted as an authority on reservations that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed.
Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman reads Lord Colville's report, he will see that it is impossible to think that Lord Colville supports anything other than a modified Act. Lord Colville expressed strong reservations about the powers of detention and in previous years he expressed strong reservations about exclusion orders. He described the powers to confiscate funds for the IRA and other terrorist organisations as a shambles. I shall shortly come to that. Lord Colville wants an Act that operates more efficiently and with greater justice. That is what we want and it could be obtained if the Home Secretary were prepared to enter into the discussions that I proposed. Such an Act could be passed with the unanimous agreement of the House.
I continue to hope, therefore—I shall repeat my hope at the end of my speech—that there can be some common ground on how the campaign against terrorism can be prosecuted. The Prime Minister was right to say, of course, that the Government and the Opposition are united in their determination to destroy terrorism, and to defeat it in this country. No sensible person doubts that. As the debate continues, I shall make some positive suggestions and outline steps that could be taken to promote that end. The Opposition's view—it is one which runs through the entire speech that I propose to make—is echoed by the first leader of the Daily Mail this morning, which states that changes are necessary, but before they come about the Government
"should seek the maximum inter-party consensus."
Nothing that is said today—not even the bit of bravura in which the Home Secretary indulged towards the end of his speech—should prevent the possibility of consensus, agreement and bipartisanship being examined.
I am sure that the Home Secretary knows—this is riot fully understood by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who interrupted me—that bipartisanship can never be obtained by one party asserting something and expecting the other party slavishly to agree with every detail. Those who want bipartisanship on any issue must be prepared for consensus to be built around a degree of compromise. Bipartisanship will not be achieved by a take-it-or-leave-it approach.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then in this short debate I shall feel it necessary to make some progress.
Mr. Nicholls: It is clear that what the right hon. Gentleman says about the need for consensus and bipartisanship is exactly right. I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome that. However, he must work on the basis that his plea for bipartisanship and consensus would be a great deal more convincing if he were to say—we are dealing with legislation which a Labour Government introduced and which has been supported by Labour Oppositions in the past and by the Conservative Government—"We would support our Act tonight if we could enter into negotiations in the near future." I accept that that would be a logical course for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt, but I do not think for one moment that he will take it.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to interpret what I have to say before I say it. I shall pursue the case that I am trying to make and then the hon. Gentleman must make up his own mind in deciding whether I have met my criteria.
Our past criticisms of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act have concentrated on the denial of civil liberties which is inherent within it. We believe, of course, that in times of national danger it may be necessary to introduce special measures that would not be acceptable in normal times. However, those special measures must be judged against strict criteria, and they were laid down by Lord Jellicoe almost a decade ago when he reviewed the workings of the Act for the Government.
The two major criteria are easily described. First, are the denials of civil liberty essential to the defeat of the threat? Secondly, are the special measures, which are denials of civil liberty, effective in achieving the objects set out for them? I think that no one—no one whom I know—doubts or denies that the prevention of terrorism Act constitutes a restriction on our essential liberties. It provides for detention for up to seven days without charge and during that time many of the rights set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are denied to the detainees. It provides for men and women to be excluded from England and Wales and required to live in the six counties of Northern Ireland.
Neither of those powers is subject to any judicial check or supervision. In both instances there are review procedures, but at the end the decision lies with the Home Secretary alone. No matter how benevolent the Home Secretary, it is intolerable that a Minister should exercise such powers. I repeat that we are not alone in making that judgment. Authorities range from the European Court of Justice to the General Council of the Bar. They have expressed their profound reservations about the principles on which the prevention of terrorism Act is based.
The criticisms have intensified with every year that the Act has remained in force. It was intended to be temporary. Indeed, it was called "temporary" and when it was brought before the House it was justified as such. No one who reads the first debate can doubt that it was intended as a brief measure which would have only a short life. What is more, no one who reads the first debate can doubt that one of the principal purposes of the Act was to reassure the British population that tough action was to be taken immediately against terrorism.
Mr. Bowis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: No. It is a short debate and I have given way several times already. I may give way again in a few moments, but first I wish to make some progress.
The reassurance that tough action would be taken was thought to be necessary in the aftermath of the Birmingham bombings, which, as we are about to discover in the Court of Appeal, produced many hasty and mistaken judgments.
The powers inherent in the Act are incompatible with a free society—the sort of society that we seek to protect against the IRA. However, a second criticism, which is often neglected, is the problems created by the Act and the way in which it now operates. An Act which is designed to give the reassurance of tough and effective action is not necessarily the same as an Act which provides for tough
32
and effective action. Mounting evidence exists to suggest that the prevention of terrorism Act has become counter-productive and I shall try to give some examples.
The Act creates the illusion of a campaign against terrorism. It possesses the virtue of a tough title which obscures the need to reconsider the action that we take. That was demonstrated last week in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister was asked about the attack on Downing street and the bombs at Victoria and Paddington stations, and whether they confirmed the need for the Act. The Prime Minister said that those bombs confirmed the fact that the Act was working well, and had served us well. With great respect to the Prime Minister, one could argue the case either way.
Today, the Home Secretary read a tragic and terrible list of the death and destruction caused in this country in the past year. That can be interpreted in two fashions: as the need for the prevention of terrorism Act to continue in its present form, or as evidence of the Act's failure and the need to reconsider the whole issue.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman's colleague and I cannot give way to him.
On the evidence of how the Act is working, even in the pursuit of its principal objectives, it needs to be looked at again. I very much regret that the Government are not prepared to give the Act that fundamental re-examination together with other parties in the House.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "illusion" and said that the Act was an illusion of activity. Therefore, I refer him again to the words of Lord Colville, who said that detention led to a substantial disruption of terrorist activities. What about table 7? That is not illusory. As a result of the operation of the Act last year 28 people were charged in England, Wales and Scotland and 376 in Northern Ireland—some of them with very serious offences indeed.
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary is being less than frank with the House, as 28 people were charged but only six with terrorist offences.
Mr. Baker: So what?
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary says, "So what" and that there were six, but if six is such a startling number I am surprised that he did not give that figure to the House honestly instead of the figure of 28.
I do not think that even the Home Secretary will seek to justify the Act because on 22 occasions offences not connected with terrorism were thrown up and prosecuted as a result. The fundamental point is not the Home Secretary's error—I am sure that it was an error and that he did not intend to deceive us—but swings and roundabouts. Of course the Act has had some effect in preventing terrorism—how extraordinary it would be if it had not. However, this afternoon we have to consider whether, on balance, it has done more to destroy terrorism or less.
Mr. Bakerrose——
Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary will allow me, I shall suggest some ways in which the Act is a detriment to the objectives that he and I both seek.
Mr. Baker: I wish to correct the right hon. Gentleman because he is under a misapprehension. I referred to 28 charges listed in table 7, and 376 charges in Northern Ireland. Of the 28 charges in England, Wales and Scotland, six were for relatively minor offences relating to breaches of the Act—mainly offences against exclusion orders and other offences of that sort. The other charges were serious and grave and the right hon. Gentleman should not be so flippant. If the number were only six it would be worth while, but it is much higher than that.
Mr. Hattersley: I do seek not to be flippant but accurate. In the pursuit of accuracy, I shall read to the Home Secretary calmly—as is appropriate in such a debate—from table B of his report. It says that, in 1990, there were 193 detentions, 16 exclusion orders, six charges concerning terrorism, and 22 charges concerning other offences.
Mr. Baker: I have just explained what that means.
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary says that he has just explained what that means, but he has not explained why he mentioned the figure of 28. However, I shall not pursue his error any further.
Mr. Baker: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand, because we have been talking about it for enough years. The six offences relate to offences under the prevention of terrorism Act, which are usually quite minor offences, such as offences against exclusion orders. The other charges relate to serious criminal offences—for example, the possession of firearms. Such serious matters can be legislated against by the Act.
Mr. Hattersley: Those are exactly the serious matters about which I have argued in the past. The Home Secretary has been kind enough to quote me as having done so——
Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way in a moment.
Given the chance, I shall argue again that such serious matters should be pursued under normal criminal law. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways and say that he is operating a criminal law and that special powers are necessary.
Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the nature and purpose of the legislation, which, as I clearly stated, deals with cases where there is suspicion of general and terrorist activity. It does not deal with specific offences, where the criminal law operates and action can be taken. That arises from these investigations. I am staggered that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to dismantle those powers and discard them in such a cavalier way.
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary simply reiterates his original error. I shall pursue the matter in detail, in the hope that he will come to another conclusion and answer the question that he thinks he has already answered.
What, in practical terms, is the Act supposed to do which cannot be done under criminal law? The Home Secretary urged me to turn my mind to that matter and I am doing so now. I did so last year and the previous year. I asked the Minister of State, during his wind-up speech, why criminal powers could not be used in the majority of cases and he answered with an example of his own
34
choosing. He referred to three men who were found in the garden of the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and told me that they had been detained under the prevention of terrorism Act. I said to the Minister of State that, were three armed men found in my garden, I would expect them to be arrested, whether a prevention of terrorism Act were in force or not. Why did not the rule apply in that case? The Minister of State then told me that the case was sub-judice and that he could not speculate any further. Because of an indiscretion by the Secretary of State for Defence, the case is sub judice no longer. Therefore, I shall ask again, hoping that the Minister of State will answer when he winds up the debate, why, if such cases were prosecuted under criminal law 10, 20 or 35 years ago, is the prevention of terrorism Act necessary?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I shall let the Minister of State intervene in a moment. I wish to cite another case, and he can answer the two questions together—two for the price of one.
A similar case arose in my constituency. An elderly doctor who was held under the PTA was eventually charged with possessing explosives, but was acquitted. If the police believed that she possessed explosives—a crime by any standards—why was she not held and prosecuted under normal criminal law?
Mr. John Patten: I do not know the details of the second case; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will provide me with further details. I well remember our exchange during the declining moments of the debate last year. The three people detained in the garden in Wiltshire to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred were not, as I understand it, armed. The Secretary of State was satisfied that they had been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, so he made orders excluding all three from the United Kingdom. The fact that there eventually proved to be insufficient evidence to convict them for conspiracy to murder does not mean that they were not involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
This will have to be a lengthy intervention because the right hon. Gentleman set me two lengthy tests. He asked what this Act could do that was not possible under general law. It can give the police powers to examine, detain and exclude, although after that process is completed the preference is always to use the ordinary criminal law to bring charges related to murder or explosion.
Mr. Hattersley: I think that I understand what the Minister of State is saying, and I shall quote him making the same point more starkly in Committee. That leads me to the first rational assumption that has been made over the years, which the Minister of State came near to repeating today. The PTA is used to trawl for information, rather than obtain specific convictions—undoubtedly, it was once used for the latter purpose.
In 1983, Sir Leon Brittan, then Home Secretary, was explicit about this. I asked Sir Leon:
"Is he saying that it is right in a free society to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information from them?"
Sir Leon replied:

35
"It has been made clear … that that is a legitimate … use of the power."—[Official Report. 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 56.]
—[Interruption.] I see that some Conservative Members are nodding emphatically. However, since Sir Leon said that, subsequent Home Secretaries in different Governments have made it emphatically clear in the House and in Strasbourg that the PTA will not be used for trawling for information in that way. Therefore, we are left to find another intention of the special legislation. I hope that we can take it for granted that its principal purpose is not that given to the Committee by the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who said:
"under PACE the powers of arrest can only be exercised where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed."
He continued by saying that the PTA was necessary for occasions
"where one cannot prove or does not have reasonable grounds to suspect the commission of a specific … offence."
If one does not have grounds to suspect the commission of a specific offence, why is the man or woman detained? Is it on reasonable grounds, a hunch, prejudice, guesswork? Fortunately, the comments of junior Ministers are not held to be the law. Were that the case and that were the official justification of the Act, every man or woman who was detained would be off to Strasbourg complaining that they had been held unreasonably, arbitrarily and unacceptably. The Minister of State wants to intervene again.
Mr. John Patten: The right hon. Gentleman has done me the favour of quoting some of the excellent words I used in Standing Committee B. I wish that the right hon. Gentlman had learnt something during the past four or five years when he has been addressing his mind to the issue. There is indeed a difference between the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the prevention of terrorism Act, which is to stop people preparing themselves for the commission or instigation of acts of terrorism. That is the difference between the two Acts. I made it clear in Committee and I am happy to do so again this afternoon.
Mr. Hattersley: It is simply silly to answer the question by being rude to me, which is the easiest thing in the world. We are discussing a serious point. There is a distinction between arresting someone on reasonable suspicion and arresting somebody when reasonable suspicion does not exist. I shall make my point—and I believe the Labour party's point—altogether clear: I am opposed to arresting people when reasonable suspicion does not exist. It turns out that the Minister is not. I do not believe that anyone who has heard what he has said today, which, to my surprise, confirmed his words in Committee, can do anything other than believe that we are now debating a most damaging erosion of our liberties. There are practical objections—involving the politics of Northern Ireland—to the practical erosion of those liberties.
I repeat without hesitation that it prejudices people in Great Britain, people abroad and people in Ireland—the men and women who should be wholly on our side—against us and against the steps that we are taking to defeat terrorism. As an example, I take the powers of detention set out in section 4 of the Act. Under those powers there is no charge, no court appearance and no consultation
36
with solicitors. Detainees are held on the authority of the Minister and on nothing else. That power has been ruled unlawful in the European Court. In his report in 1988, Lord Colville referred to
"worrying indications about the level of charges brought as a proportion of detentions made".
Since then, the situation has got worse. In 1990, 193 persons were detained under the Act. Six or 28 of them—the Home Secretary can choose his figures—were charged with something, but the others were not. One hundred and sixty-five individuals were detained and denied access to a lawyer. They were then released without explanation or apology. There was no prosecution and no acquittal. They were simply told that, having been held without charge, they were now free to go. It is difficult to imagine the resentment which must have built up in them and in their families.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
We argue—as the court in Strasbourg has argued—that such detention—especially if extended from 48 hours to five or seven days—is tolerable only if it is subject to a judicial examination. The Home Secretary treats the House with less than his normal courtesy when he says that in other parts of Europe individuals are held for longer under emergency powers. In other parts of Europe, individuals who are held under emergency powers are subject to court hearings. The case for holding them is heard by judges. That is what we ask of the Home Secretary and it is also what the court in Strasbourg asks of him.
If the Home Secretary were prepared to introduce a system under which a judge or judges would consider a case if the initial 48 hours had to be extended, we should examine the whole issue from a different perspective—from the perspective that the rule of law rather than the rule of ministerial fiat was operating. Lord Colville, the Home Secretary's own nominee, has reached a similar conclusion. The full recommendation of his report stated:
"It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal be set up to oversee these powers. It could draw on Scottish and Channel Isle methodology, but nothing except a bold new initiative seems likely to deflect a continuing divergence of procedure between the rest of Europe and ourselves."
I repeat my offer on the terms set out by Lord Colville. We are prepared to co-operate in examining the "bold new initiative" which is essential to the successful continuation of the Act.
The recommendation that I read out is not the judgment of a man who shares the complacency about the working of the Act which the Prime Minister exhibited last Thursday and which the Home Secretary echoed today.
Mr. Jones rose——
Mr. Hattersley: I offered to give way and I shall do so.
Mr. Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, not long ago many of my constituents came near to losing life or limb on the St. Albans to London railway line. The wriggling that he exhibits today can only convince them that he is interested not in the civil rights of the majority of travellers but in those of a tiny minority who are charged—or not charged—under this legislation.
Mr. Hattersley: Civil rights always apply to a tiny minority. If we say that they do not matter because they apply only to a few, we are not talking about civil rights at all. The hon. Gentleman can put it in personal terms if he wishes. I am not fully aware of the details of what happened to his constituents, but 15 years ago six of my constituents were killed in the Birmingham pub bombings. I take the view now—as I did then—that the steps that we must take against terrorism must be consistent with belief in a free society and they must be effective. What I have tried to argue today—the House will judge with what success—is that in many ways those new steps are not effective.
Mr. Bowis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: No, I must get on.
I must draw the House's attention to Lord Colville's judgment on detention and the need to inject some judicial review into the process. What the Home Secretary has uniquely done today is virtually to reject the conclusions on every major point of the report by the man whom he requested to examine the operation of the Act.
Mr. Bowis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: Very well.
Mr. Bowis: The right hon. Gentleman has referred again and again to Lord Colville. Lord Colville pointed out two things: that some 400 charges were brought and that incidents of terrorism stopped. If the right hon. Gentleman has his way tonight and the House votes down the order, we will have not an improved Act, but no Act at all. If that happened, what reassurance could the right hon. Gentleman give to my constituent who was injured as a result of the bomb at Victoria station and who may never walk again?
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman's constituent must judge whether the Act is being as effective as his Member of Parliament clearly believes.
I have been meticulous in describing the words that Lord Colville used to criticise the major powers in the Act. I shall now outline, having given way for the last time—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose——
Mr. Hattersley: No, I have given way for the last time.
Lord Colville reported—the Home Secretary again, disingenuously, read simply the brief words at the end of the paragraph—that the rules governing exclusion orders—part II of the Act—were meticulously observed. Of course they were; we expect no less. What the Home Secretary was less precise about, however, is the fact that Lord Colville does not believe that there should be exclusion orders. He came to that judgment three years ago—he was opposed to exclusion orders in their entirety.
The exclusion order provision, described by a previous Attorney-General as "internal exile", was equally opposed by Sir Cyril Phillips, who reported on the Act, at the Government's invitation, before Lord Colville. Sir Cyril Phillips, in masterly understatement, described exclusion orders as possessing advantages which it was
"difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way".
He went on to describe them as "objectionable in principle".
Lord Colville was even more categorical. I quote from his report of 1987:
38
"I renew my recommendation … that Part Two of the Act should not be renewed in 1988 or replaced in the new Bill".
It was, of course, replaced in the new Bill and we discuss the replacement this afternoon against the explicit, repeated advice from the man whose judgment on the Act the Government requested.
Whatever the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) may say, it is not simply the civil liberties aspect that we regard as cause for concern. Frankly, it is absurd to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they are an integral part of the United Kingdom if we then take powers to require individuals who are suspected of terrorism to leave the mainland and live in the six counties. Northern Ireland should not be a dumping ground for terrorists. If it was a simple requirement that a terrorist should return home and a Belfast terrorist was required to live in Belfast, there might be some justification for that power. Under the Act as it now stands, however, a Birmingham born and bred terrorist, a Manchester born and bred terrorist or a Mole Valley born and bred terrorist might be required to live in the six counties. When Northern Irish men and women read that provision of the Act it is not surprising that they ask, "Why do you pretend we are part of the United Kingdom with the normal rule of law running here as it runs there when this special provision is made that applies to us in a way in which it does not apply to other parts of the United Kingdom?"
I should like to refer to another aspect of Lord Colville's report—the confiscation of the proceeds of terrorism or funds built up to finance it and the prosecution of those who finance terrorism. We supported the measures when they came before the House of Commons and we must therefore share with the Government blame for what Lord Colville describes as a legislative shambles.
I repeat to the Home Secretary what I said in an intervention. Of course we shall support the proposals in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill that toughen up the law against terrorist funds. If, after advice, the Home Secretary decides that the provisions can be applied to Scotland, Wales and England, we shall support an extension. I hope that the Minister will be clear about one proposal and one issue that the Home Secretary got wrong. He said that without those powers, which, after all, were introduced only a little more than a year ago, there would be no ability on the part of the Government to act against terrorist funds. That surely cannot be right. What the Government tried to do two years ago, what we supported them in doing and what we both found to be inadequate in Lord Colville's judgment was a toughening up of the procedure and a more effective administrative way of denying terrorists the money that they want.
Clearly, under the normal law, anyone who provides money to assist in murder, destruction, arson or bombing would have to be subject to some prosecution were they apprehended and brought before the courts. That is a minor error that the Home Secretary made. The important point is that we are prepared to see the extension of the emergency powers, and if there can be a toughening of the process we should gladly vote for it and discuss it with the Home Secretary as part of the discussions that I still hope will be held.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman implied in a letter to me last week that he would say something new today. At the beginning of his speech he said that he would

39
say something new today. He has said nothing new today. All his comments and the limitations that he seeks to introduce have all been well rehearsed by him and his colleagues in the past. He wishes to water down the powers in the prevention of terrorism Act because he rightly says that they impinge in some way upon civil liberties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) said, his constituents could have had their civil liberties eroded by being killed by the action of terrorists. The right hon. Gentleman is far too cavalier in saying that it is only 22, and six and so on. We must act. If the right hon. Gentleman ever held responsibility in this role—I do not think that he ever will—he would have to act to protect public safety. He is not trying to create a bipartisan approach today. He has drifted further from the Act. He wants to dismantle, water down and weaken the Act. The people of this country will not understand him and they will not understand his case in the next general election, either.
Mr. Hattersley: Again, I urge the Home Secretary to listen to the final passage of my speech with as much calmness as he can muster, for he was uncharacteristically over eager in saying that I have made no suggestions. I am about to do that. I am about to offer to the Home Secretary five ideas. None of them is brand new, but few ideas are these days—[Interruption.] I see that there has been no change in Government policy—it is just as it ever was. We have been arguing that for the past 100 days and the Home Secretary has been denying it. I am glad for his admission that things are as they ever were.
Let me proceed with my suggestions about the Act. I have one or two suggested improvements. First, we should accept the view of the European Court and Lord Colville that detention should be extended only after the case has been reviewed by a judicial tribunal. Secondly, we should abandon exclusion orders. Thirdly, we should toughen up provisions affecting the financing of terrorism. Fourthly, we should consider the feasibility and desirability of setting up a national agency—a British intelligence bureau—to provide an effective countrywide response against terrorism. I should make it clear that we remain wholly committed to the principle of local police forces, but some threats can be dealt with only nationally. In our view, terrorism is one of them.[Interruption.] We shall extend our suggestions on special request from Conservative Members not only to No. 5 but to Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
Fifthly, we should fully and immediately introduce the Colville suggestion of video-recording of interviews of all suspects in police custody. Our proposal and the Colville proposal are completely reasonable. We should also, as Lord Colville recommends, remove internment from the statute book and introduce an independent complaints procedure for the Army.
On the basis of those five proposals I reiterate, and I shall continue to reiterate, my strong view that there is everything to be gained for the country in a demonstration of common purpose. I regret that the Home Secretary did not accept the offer today, but chose more and more as his speech went on to make the speech not of a Home Secretary but of a failed chairman of the Conservative party.[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is not
40
only a failed chairman of the Conservative party but a failed Secretary of State for Education and Science and a failed Secretary of State for the Environment.
I prefer to rely on the Prime Minister's assertion that we are all equally opposed to terrorism and all wish to work against it. Only the Provisional IRA has anything to lose from a common view on how terrorism can be combated. Again, if the Home Secretary comes to the idea that interparty talks would be an advantage, we are available for that purpose. It is in the national interest that they should be held, and we are available to hold them.
4.45 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution. Along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with total incredulity. He would have us believe, and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he is seriously and sincerely opposed to terrorism, but nothing that he said carries conviction, and his speech seriously undermines that declaration.
I wish to make only one main observation because it is at the kernel of the debate. I accept that the overhelming majority of Opposition Members are sincere in their opposition to terrorism and in their search for means to combat and defeat terrorism. However, they undermine their argument. There is a fundamental flaw in their argument because they have failed to analyse correctly one essential aspect of terrorism. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke about the Act being an erosion of civil liberties. We have heard the debate many times on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and a sense of deja vu descends on those who have previously taken part in the debate.
It is not true that the erosion of civil liberties creates the oxygen on which terrorism can thrive. The reverse is the case—terrorism thrives on the exploitation of the hallmarks of a free and liberal society. Terrorism exploits the freedom of the press, it exploits the open society, and it exploits our judicial system. Thererfore, it is absolutely essential in resisting terrorism that temporarily and in set circumstances we take the measures outlined in the Act so that we can deny terrorism that oxygen.
With respect, when Opposition Members talk in terms of an erosion of civil liberties as promoting terrorism, they are fundamentally wrong. The reverse is the case—terrorism exploits freedom, and it is by a voluntary curtailment of freedom that terrorism can be defeated.
4.49 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary began the debate by outlining the history of the terrorist outrages that this country has suffered during the 12 months since the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act was last debated. It is a tragic tale, and the tragedy continues. It is quite clear that terrorism has not been defeated. We must take all the measures that are necessary to support the fight against the lawless men and women who seek to intimidate the citizens of this country into accepting a certain political point of view. Those men and women must be pursued and defeated.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggests that there should be talks

41
between the official Opposition and the Government. He cannot reconcile himself to the view that measures that were initially placed on the statute book by a Labour Government should be continued. His speech today did not indicate that there is much to talk about. He is undoubtedly right in saying that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has not defeated terrorism, and is not sufficient to defeat terrorism. No one could quarrel with that conclusion. However, the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion that the Act is not necessary is illogical. In drawing that conclusion, he not only is wholly mistaken but has sought systematically to misrepresent the views of Lord Colville, who has on many occasions reported on the operation of the Act. Lord Colville himself has asked questions about the effectiveness of exclusion orders, but he has not put in question his view that the Act as a whole is necessary. We are being invited by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to dispense with the Act as a whole.
During the corresponding debate last year, I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had had discussions with the authorities—in particular, the police—who are responsible for combating terrorism in Great Britain. I listened with interest to hear whether he had some answers to the points that those authorities have made to me and, no doubt, to others who have been willing to consult them about the practical consequences of revoking the provisions under which exclusion orders are made. It is a point that has not been discussed specifically by the Home Secretary in supporting the provisions.
believe that the police are wholly right in their view that exclusion orders are necessary if there is to be proper surveillance of people whose activities pose a major threat to the state. The manpower considerations that would be involved in continuing the surveillance of those who have been subject to exclusion orders if they were at liberty to wander the length and breadth of Great Britain, as well as the Province of Northern Ireland, simply could not be seriously contemplated by a responsible Secretary of State for the Home Department and it is Secretary of State for the Home Department that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook aspires to be. I can only conclude that the right hon. Gentleman has not discussed these questions with those who are responsible. Certainly, he has never brought forward their views in support of his case against exclusion orders.
However, this is not the main thrust of Lord Colville's examination of the working of the Act this year. Lord Colville has looked in particular at the provision for the review of detention, and I am glad that he has done so. There is no doubt that the provisions on detention have caused the greatest anxiety. They undoubtedly curtail fundamental rights and freedom, and they have been operated in a manner found to be in contravention of the European convention on human rights. In this regard, I refer to last year's judgment in the Brogan case. I am considerably reassured by Lord Colville's finding that the detention review procedures are effective. He believes that, at least so far as Great Britain is concerned, police officers who are responsible for the custody of people in detention act as something of a balance against those who conduct the interrogation. He rightly draws attention to the question whether the checks are as effective in Northern Ireland itself. So long as this legislation is on the statute book, the House of Commons must pay particular attention to that matter.
42
The review procedures are important, and in that context I hope that the interrogation tape recording experiments that have begun will be followed with great interest and great care and, if possible, extended. Recording an interview should not be inconsistent with obtaining the truth. Like Lord Colville, I believe that much depends on very careful examination of the results of the experiments, which, I think, are being carried out in Paddington.
As I have indicated, the operation of the detention provisions constitutes a violation of the European convention—a violation that led to the Government's derogating from the convention in respect of these matters. Last year, I expressed my regret—and I repeat that expression of regret now—that the Government are unwilling to consider altering the examining system in any way to bring this country within the ambit of the European convention. As Lord Colville has pointed out, a look at the experience within the criminal justice systems in Scotland and the Channel Islands should enable us to meet the strictures of the European Court of Human Rights by means of some alteration of procedures in England and Wales. Today, however, the Home Secretary was adamant—he set his face against any such alteration.
The disadvantage of the method of initiating these inquiries in England and Wales is that it is misunderstood abroad. If we are found to be in contravention of the European convention, that is regarded as being a serious matter. Yet, Lord Colville is right to draw attention to the fact that in other countries, including France, people have been held for substantially longer periods than that allowed under this Act without conclusions having been reached as to their guilt or innocence or as to whether they ought to be charged. A fair look at the record of this country, by comparison with the records of other countries, will show that we do not come out badly. That is why the Home Secretary ought to consider other ways of meeting the finding in the Brogan case.
On this occasion, Lord Colville's main purpose was to draw attention to the mixed, and sometimes conflicting, legislation dealing with the confiscation of the assets of those assisting the terrorist effort. The Home Secretary has given the House a fair account of what he intends to do by way of consideration of the points that Lord Colville has raised. Lord Colville indicates that the provisions of the Act lack teeth. That is a matter that must give rise to concern. Not everyone in this House is anxious to whittle away the powers under the Act. Some of us are anxious to see the legislation made more effective. I hope that, before many months, the Home Secretary will come back with proposals to deal with proceeds that are being diverted to assist terrorist organisations. There is no doubt that that has maintained terrorist activity more effectively than almost anything.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook appealed to the House and to the Government to treat this matter in a bipartisan way. As a Liberal Democrat, I am naturally attracted to the idea of cross-party agreement when there is a genuine meeting of minds, but the right hon. Gentleman's speech neither gave support to any new proposals nor suggested that he was entering upon the proposed discussions in a bipartisan spirit. It appeared to me that he was, quite simply, failing to face up to the reasons why this Act remains on the statute book, and

43
failing to recognise that all those who have had responsibility for the fight against terrorism have found that the Act has contributed materially to that fight.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook significantly misled the House about what Lord Colville said. The Home Secretary read out a passage of the report which I found persuasive. In a number of other passages, Lord Colville speaks of the effectiveness of the Act. In one passage he says, about the extension of detention in Northern Ireland, that in a number of cases admissions were made during further interrogations under extension orders. Prolonged interrogation can evidently still produce results although, in current circumstances, it is more likely that the extra period of detention is sought in order to carry out forensic, laboratory or other tests.
If such prolonged interrogation is producing results, and Lord Colville believes that it is, then that is a powerfully persuasive argument for retaining these powers.
Mr. McNamara: Lord Colville also said, in relation to Northern Ireland, that extended interrogation should be videoed. Does the hon. Gentleman support that suggestion? Does he know why the Government have rejected that part of Lord Colville's recommendations?
Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman must have been out of the Chamber or not listening when I spoke about that. I said that I thought that that was a valuable recommendation but I understood Lord Colville to be saying that the experiment that was being conducted in Paddington should be studied with considerable care and that it would be desirable to extend it, if possible. I do not believe that he went as far as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also seriously misrepresented Lord Colville when he said that Lord Colville had felt that the move to set up a new tribunal to oversee these powers was now irresistible. Lord Colville did not say that. He put it in the interrogative form and the Home Secretary gave his answer. I am not happy with the Home Secretary's answer, for the reasons that I have given, but Lord Colville was nothing like as dogmatic about it as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggested. Throughout his commentary on Lord Colville, one had the strong sense that he was seeking to find an ally who was not there. Lord Colville has been more careful in his consideration of the effectiveness of the Act than has the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He seems to be more moved by party political considerations than consideration of the security of the realm. I greatly regret that. This stance should not be taken by the shadow Home Secretary, nor by someone who, as a member of the Cabinet, supported the Act when it was first introduced. It is not responsible to overlook the advice that was given by Lord Mason of Barnsley as recently as 1988, to which the Home Secretary sensibly and properly referred. The House will feel that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has, once again, failed to measure up to the challenge of terrorism.
5.5 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: The House has been alerted to the necessity of applying its mind to the debate by the sad happenings of the past year. The awful catalogue that it was the duty of the Home Secretary to read out should put the darkest possible shadow over the Chamber and impose solemnity as we seek to tackle this problem. What happened in the past few days in this city has brought home to the House just what terrorism is really about and what it can accomplish.
Each one of us has a pass to the House which we wear outside this Chamber. That gives our identity, but the Government have not applied themselves to the fact that all our citizens should be identified. It would aid the police in the execution of their duties if, when a terrorist attack took place, those in the immediate vicinity could be identified and eliminated from their inquiries. The House needs to apply itself to that problem. If we feel that we can defend ourselves against an attack in this way, our citizens have a right to say that they should be defended in the same way.
It may be argued that such a scheme would take away civil liberties because everyone would be asked to carry an identity card, but no reasonable person could argue that. We are all identified in various ways for different affairs. Why should we not be identified in the battle against terrorism, which is taking such a sad toll of our citizens? The Home Secretary should apply his mind to this affair.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) struck an important chord when he said that, in the fight against terrorism, society has to surrender some part of its liberty. This is, of necessity, true. When a nation is at war, every citizen has to sacrifice part of his liberty. This battle with terrorism is a war. It is not fought by the rules of any Geneva convention. The soldiers who fight in it do not identify themselves. Instead, they carry on a campaign of cowardly attacks on ordinary men and women and against the forces of the Crown which seek to give law and order to, and ensure the liberties of, all citizens of this United Kingdom. We must remember what the hon. Gentleman said—we must all surrender some part of our liberty so that others may be brought to book for their offences against society.
I noticed that the Secretary of State said that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had the will to achieve the end, but was refusing the power. It is with deep respect that I say to the Secretary of State that that is exactly what the people of Northern Ireland are saying about his Government. I am not exonerating Members on the Labour Front Bench from the charge that the Secretary of State made against them, but there are many people in Northern Ireland who would say that this Government and, indeed, Labour Governments have not had the will to win this war.
I should like to pick the Secretary of State up on what he said about Sinn Fein—indeed, I am sure that he would expect me to do so. Sinn Fein is no different from the IRA, and the IRA is no different from Sinn Fein. That is not what I say—it is what the police and the authorities say. The highlight of a Sinn Fein conference is when a masked gunman gives a report to the political party about the progress of the armed struggle.
We in Northern Ireland find it strange that Northern Ireland Office Ministers are absolutely adamant that they will not talk to Sinn Fein, because its members are IRA

45
men, yet they say to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, "You have to sit in councils and carry out the business of the affairs of this Province with IRA members."
Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to draw attention to the hypocrisy of Northern Ireland Office Ministers in that respect. Does he agree that the approach of those Ministers is also inconsistent, because, although they say that they will not talk to Sinn Fein, through intermediaries or otherwise they have dealings with Sinn Fein people?
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman has made that point in the House and elsewhere. Thank God, I do not have to answer for Northern Ireland Office Ministers, but no doubt they will make their own reply to him.
Members of my party who serve on councils and whose loved ones have been murdered by the IRA are expected to take part in council business with men who, when the council suggested that its members should stand in silence for a moment in memory of the slain, opposed and objected to that motion while eulogising the gunmen and murderers. That is what we find strange. Of course, the Home Secretary is not in that position, because he does not have to serve on a council in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman will, however, have to take some more advice about Sinn Fein's success. I also find it strange that on the one hand he is trying to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA while on the other hand he is trying to say that the IRA's standing can be seen from Sinn Fein's election results. He cannot have it both ways. The Secretary of State has said that Sinn Fein is losing in all elections, but it is not. The last two election tests have been the by-elections in Cookstown and Dungannon, in both of which Sinn Fein made big gains, averaging 10 per cent. Therefore, the Secretary of State was wrong to say that we are winning the war against the IRA and that the Sinn Fein vote is decreasing. We must face up to the fact that we are not winning the war.
That is why we are here today discussing emergency provisions. Although this is supposed to be an "emergency", it goes on and on, into permanency. That is cruel proof of the fact that we are not really winning the war. I cannot say to my constituents who have had their loved ones murdered that we are winning the war. I cannot say that we are winning the war to the people whom I shall be visiting this week because they do not believe it. They are not convinced that the war is being won.
I do not like to think that Northern Ireland is a dumping place for terrorists. That point was argued by Northern Ireland Members in the House when this legislation was first introduced, but, although it was well argued, that point was not answered. I do not like that fact, and I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that is the attitude of Northern Ireland Members. However, I would tolerate that if we were making the headway against the terrorists that needs to be made. There are certain things that we shall be forced to do.
What worries me is the fact that the land border between the Republic and the United Kingdom is practically forgotten while the water border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is treated as the border between the Republic and the rest of the United Kingdom. Many people from Northern Ireland resent the fact that, when they travel by aircraft and enter
46
their own country, they may be stopped and asked to sign a card which will admit them into their own country. I have to fill in such a card when I travel through Gatwick, but not when I travel through Heathrow. I can never understand that. Gatwick must be a clearing place for republican travellers and unionists must travel via Heathrow. I understand that the same happens at Luton, Liverpool and Manchester.
If signing such a card would bring us nearer to defeating terrorism, the people of Northern Ireland would be quite prepared to put up with that. However, instead we find that the land border is open. I recently asked a friend to test how many times he could cross the border without being stopped. On just one day he crossed the border 27 times but was never stopped. I ask the Home Secretary: what is the use of having an open land border and of trying to deal with terrorism only on the water border, which cannot be policed sufficiently?
There will always be people who raise the issues of human rights and civil rights and there will always be those who object if the battle against terrorism gains ground because of legislation passed in this House. However, the Secretary of State should face up to some of the matters that I have raised. Dealing with the identity of the citizens of this land would be a major step forward in dealing realistically with what could be mounting attacks from terrorists.
In conclusion, we do not know what will be the spin-off from the Iraqi defeat in the Gulf. We do not know what terrorist groups will be released upon our country. We should have the best possible measures in legislation to deal with what could be a new and mounting threat.
5.19 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I want to preface my remarks by making one or two things very clear. The Secretary of State referred to attacks on people in Britain emanating from one of the proscribed organisations named in the legislation—the Provisional IRA. He rightly referred to the revulsion felt by people in this country at those attacks. However, no people were more revolted by those acts or more angry about them than Irish people living in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland and, above all, in England, Scotland and Wales. Those attacks create great emotion, but we should realise that that kind of perverted, twisted machismo for political reasons is abhorred by the vast majority in Northern Ireland.
I have witnessed not just physical injury, but other forms of injury at railway stations. For example, I have seen thousands of people who cannot get to work or home from work, or who have had to spend three or four hours travelling simply because a warped mind wanted to gain some pseudo-satisfaction from causing a false alert. Those alerts are organised by the Provisional IRA.
Each time IRA members set off a bomb and kill someone or carry out any act of violence, that is a gory—and sometimes very gory—but pathetic statement of their own failure. They are really admitting that the political objectives that they wish to achieve cannot be achieved through politics, rational argument and the power of persuasion. However, that does not help the people who are killed and injured. It does not help the

47
people who are bereaved. However, as legislators we should remember that, whenever an atrocity is committed, those people are admitting that they have failed.
That failure will add up. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talked about winning the war. However, there are two wars to be won. The first involves the protection of society from terrorism. The other involves protecting the very highest standards of integrity and justice within this country, within Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is worth fighting for.
When the IRA has gone and its failure is copper-fastened and permanent, the integrity of that system will have to be rebuilt. This is not a flaky or weak issue of civil rights, human rights or civil liberties. It involves the protection of something that is essential—the integrity of the process of law and of legislation.
When we talk of winning the war, we should remember that more than one thing is at stake. People who are pursuing political objectives through violence are forcing everyone else to derogate from the highest standards. Those people, who may not be members of the IRA—and I am not making that as a point—killed four people in County Tyrone last night. They also killed a UDR soldier in my constituency at the weekend. Those people are negating the essence of what we are doing or trying to do. They are negating the essence of political progress. They demean and debase their objective, an objective which many of us in Ireland hold very dear. We become very angry when the IRA demeans it in the spurious cause that it claims to be pursuing.
The IRA has cast a vote of no confidence in itself. IRA members, through their actions, admit that they cannot come to this forum or to any other forum and, through the rationale of their argument, try to persuade others of the validity of their case. At the end of the day, that is what politics are about. They are not about numbers; they are about the strength of one's argument and the confidence and courage that one has to put that argument if that argument is not very popular.
Dr. Godman: I have been listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman has said about these very grave matters. However, will not the isolation of the terrorists—the Provisional IRA and the extreme loyalists—be made worse if it is heightened by the decision taken by the leaders of the political parties in the six counties to come to the negotiating table with those others who are so concerned to win this war?
Mr. Mallon: I am not exactly clear about the hon. Gentleman's point. However, if I understand him correctly, I can state that I would talk and negotiate with anyone if I thought that that would save one life. My susceptibilities and sensitivities would have to take a back seat if I could passionately persuade people to end that kind of killing.
The community in which I live and from which I come, the nationalist community in South Armagh, has suffered greatly as a result of the activities of the Provisional IRA. Indeed, no community has suffered more. The people I live among understand the horror of IRA terrorism. We also know the horror of so-called loyalist terrorism, because we saw it in County Tyrone last night. We know the absolute horror of giving up the highest standards of our justice and
48
legal procedures so that those people can run amok. That is the weakness with this provision, because that is exactly what those people want us to do. The more things begin to crumble in terms of law and legislation, the better those people like it, because that is the kind of milieu in which they can succeed.
It is spurious to argue that, if one is opposed to the terms of emergency legislation or are critical of some of the provisions of such legislation, one is soft on terrorism. I can understand why such an argument is advanced in the House, but it has nothing to do with emergency legislation: it has to do with party politics. Frankly, as a member of a party with three representatives in the House, which will never be in government or be the official Opposition, I do not have to indulge in that kind of argument. However, it should be clearly understood that, because one is critical of legislation, that does not mean one is in any way soft on terrorism.
At the weekend I paid at least one visit, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North must do on many occasions, to see the consequences of a terrorist bomb, the loss of life and the damage that that does to the community. Let there be no media over-statement in that regard. We could also do without the kind of self-congratulation that we sometimes hear. I am critical of the legislation, and shall vote against it for the reasons that I have consistently given and will continue to give. That does not mean that I have any sympathy for terrorism or that I am in any way soft on terrorism. I probably have more reasons to be hard on it than most.
Is it possible to fight terrorism without measures such as internal exile, or without having to derogate not once but 38 times from European law—this time, in relation to article 15? Is it possible to fight terrorism without detention as a means of trawling for intelligence? There is a fundamental distinction between trawling for intelligence and arresting someone on suspicion of having committed a crime.
Is it possible to fight terrorism without any derogation from the higher standards of justice that we should all be trying to preserve? Is it possible to fight terrorism without a whole panoply of legislation that resembles a patchwork quilt—from the emergency provisions Acts and the prevention of terrorism Acts to the ad hoc legislation that comes before the House from time to time? That is like taking pieces of putty and sticking them on a crumbling wall, hoping that they will hold together. They will not.
That was the essence of the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He did not question the need to fight terrorism but only the means by which that should be done. He asked whether a better way could be found than derogating from article 15 or trawling for information.
Is there a need for adequate legislation that will go beyond that which currently exists? The answer must be yes, but in this country a patchwork quilt approach is taken which does not achieve what it should and which damages certain principles that we all hold dear.
The Republic of Ireland has been forced to face the same problem. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook stressed that we should look carefully at that aspect. At the end of his report, Lord Colville pointed out that terrorism not only exists in Northern Ireland but is straying into England, Scotland and Wales, as well as into the Republic. Acts of terrorism have also occurred in France, Holland and Germany. I am sure that I have omitted other

49
countries. Is there not some merit in the suggestion that we should consider the entire issue, in the way that we do in respect of agriculture, trade, the environment, and many other issues within the European Community? Would not that be better than sticking another piece of putty on the wall when there is an atrocity?
In the world in which we live, if the IRA's violence stops, and if loyalists' violence stops, there will still be sufficient terrorism to merit a concerted and unified approach by all the countries affected by it. I ask the Secretary of State not to dismiss that suggestion simply because it comes from the Opposition or from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.
Lord Colville made it clear in the last sentence of his report that
"nothing except a bold and new initiative seems likely to deflect a continuing divergence of procedures between most of the rest of Europe and ourselves."
Something that had a European basis would be free of the inter-country, inter-communal connotations which such legislation sometimes has—and which the prevention of terrorism Act has in the eyes of many Irish people. It would override and transcend such considerations. It will not be easy to achieve, but it is a challenge which must be faced, sooner or later—in international rather than domestic terms.
I can imagine the reaction that there would be in this country and in the Republic of Ireland, France, and other countries, but the prize is much too big to throw out such a concept without giving it full consideration. There is much to be gained from starting down that road, rather than having an emergency provisions Act for Northern Ireland and a prevention of terrorism Act for England, Scotland and Wales—overlapping, interlinking, and tying in with other legislation where it suits, so that if one wants to examine that legislation one needs to have five or six Acts to hand.
I want to make reference to one or two practical aspects. An interesting study of the tape recording and video recording of police interviews was conducted for the Law Reform Commission of Canada between 1985 and 1987. One paragraph is particularly relevant:
"Aside from providing a new tool for the investigative process, the police, Crown counsel and defence lawyers viewed the introduction of this technology as an improvement of the administration of justice. An accurate video tape record of police interviews largely eliminates court room conflicts over what was said and how an accused was treated. The new technology therefore helps police in gathering evidence at the same time as it adds protection to the rights of the accused."
When we go beyond the normal bounds of the law and embark on what is euphemistically called emergency legislation, we must remember to provide matching protection. I know of the practical difficulties, but there is an overriding argument for helping the police and protecting them against unfounded allegations, as well as for adding to the protection given to the accused. I ask the Secretary of State to continue apace with tape recording experiments and to move into video taping also.
I make this7 final, carping point simply because reference is made to it in Lord Colville's report. He clearly draws a distinction between the effectiveness of the police complaints procedure in England and Wales and that in the north of Ireland. Out of 407 "completed" investigations in 1990, 327 were incapable of being completed, 14 were withdrawn, and 66 were held to be not substantiated. No charges were brought by the Director of
50
Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland against police officers and nor did the complaints commission recommend any disciplinary charges.
I can see why those investigations would have been withdrawn; I understand why, if the essence of a case was not there, the Director of Public Prosecutions would not bring that case to court. But, given the current position in Northern Ireland, is it imaginable that not a single disciplinary charge should be possible? Does that not raise questions about police complaints procedure, and about the Police Complaints Commission?
I have complained bitterly for a long time about the composition of the commission's board and about its means of operation. Many problems could be avoided if the commission used properly the legislation made available to it by the House three years ago—one of the best and most effective pieces of legislation that we have produced. I hope that the Secretary of State will note the relevant part of Lord Colville's report and will also note the difference in tone and content between Colville's reactions to the two Police Complaints Commissions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will get around, at some stage, to asking a very naive question: why do the police in England and Wales seem to be so much worse than those in Northern Ireland? Disciplinary charges are brought in England and Wales, but none are brought in the north of Ireland.
In the past week, I have had to deal with Army authorities informally in relation to complaints that I have made. After a time, I went back; to their credit, the authorities were able to tell me exactly what they had investigated, what they had found, what action they had taken and how they had dealt with those who had transgressed. I believe that the authorities deal fairly decently with some of the complaints that they receive, but I cannot accept that, in some circumstances, a disciplinary charge will not be brought in regard to police complaints, despite the legislation that is available.
As I have said, I shall vote against the measure. I believe that there are better ways of dealing with the problems and I must, in all honesty, suggest ways in which they could be handled more comprehensively and effectively. The kernel is in that last sentence of Lord Colville's report that I quoted. I believe that there is merit in what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, and I plead with the Government not to reject his proposal simply because it came from the Opposition.
5.42 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Some of the debate has been taken up in exposing the Labour party's hypocrisy in dealing with the subject of terrorism. I do not think that it is merely a matter of party politics; it is a very important subject. There ought to be a united, multi-party policy on terrorism. The result of Labour's defection from the true course is that we have a policy in this party, in this Government and in this Parliament of containing terrorism when we ought to have,a policy of defeating it. The public insist on the defeat of terrorism. It is not enough to give them ritual denunciations of violence, and ritual avowals of dissociation from those who seek to achieve their political ends by violence. We have heard a great deal of that in this debate, and we have also heard people place considerable emphasis on civil liberties in this country as though they were endangered or threatened.

51
Society needs to be able to defend itself by its own self-discipline, and must be given adequate weapons to do so. That is not the case yet.
The Labour party stands convicted in that regard. After all, the initial Labour legislation on the subject—which came about simply because of explosions on the mainland—is basically the same as the measures that we are debating today. The principles are the same. There have been minor amendments; I regard them as minor, because they have not achieved their true purpose. There have been small improvements, but basically the position remains the same. Now that it is in opposition, the Labour party has changed its tune and reverted to the civil liberties argument.
I do not suggest that any Opposition Member lacks patriotism or a desire to get rid of terrorism; unfortunately, however, that is the impression that is being given to the country at large. The difficulty is that, because of an inhibition or hang-up—largely because of party politics—we have not been able to present a united front to dispose of terrorism as we have—I hope—virtually disposed of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi aggression. There was a united policy on that, the success of which was due partly to all-party support for the Government's policy. Could we not adopt such a policy on terrorism? The Labour party's own principle involved the proscription of terrorist organisations. It has been in the legislation all along, but Labour wants to repeal the relevant provision.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is making sweeping generalisations about Labour party policy. Does he not know that all Opposition Members want all-party agreement on this matter? Is he not aware that, only last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a speech and wrote to the Home Secretary asking for every proposal to be on the table—for nothing to be ruled out—with the objective of securing such all-party agreement? Could an Opposition be fairer or more open-minded than that?
Mr. Stanbrook: I regard that as worthless. The position has been the same all along. We are talking about Labour legislation—a Labour Act. The Conservative party simply took it over when it came into office, and has renewed it regularly. A Labour spokesman may come along now and say, "Nothing is excluded; everything is included. We are only too willing to talk." That was not Labour's attitude at the time of the Gulf war.
Mr. Sheerman: I respect many of the views that the hon. Gentleman expresses in the House, but 16 years is a long time in politics. Opposition Members agree with his opening remarks, in which he said—I hope that he remembers this—that our efforts against terrorism were not working; that terrorism was continuing unabated, and that we needed more effective means of beating it. That is what we are saying, and that is why we want a discussion.
Mr. Stanbrook: If that were the case, the Labour party would not be trying to repeal the Act. Labour Members would be saying, "The Government are absolutely right: this is not good enough. We must add more teeth to the Act. We must get together and agree extra, positive measures." I shall not pursue the point with the hon.
52
Gentleman, because I happen to agree with something else that he said recently, and I propose to be nice and friendly to him later. There is always a chance that the truth will suddenly be clear, and wisdom will dawn. The hon. Gentleman already has an inkling. I can only encourage him to persuade his colleagues that their constant opposition to the legislative means provided by Governments of both parties does Labour no good whatever. It does the public no good either, and it hampers the fight against terrorism. If the Opposition were more intelligent about their programme, they would adopt a policy similar to their policy on the Gulf war, realising that opposing such policies would make them so unpopular in the country that they would be certain to lose the next election. Unfortunately, this legislation is taking the place of the Gulf war. If the Labour party continues to maintain its opposition to the main legislative weapon against terrorism, it will suffer the same reaction from the British electorate. It is not that it is not doing enough, but that it is trying to defeat something that has as respectable an origin as a Labour Home Secretary years ago—certainly 16 years ago. For 16 years the war against terrorism has continued, but it has certainly not been won. We need more efforts and positive measures.
It is no use the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) saying that he will vote against the measure because it infringes civil liberties and human rights. We are not talking about that. The only human rights that concern us are those of the victims. Positive measures are required, but we are not getting them.
Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stanbrook: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
In the spirit in which we should approach terrorism, one is bound to accept that there are strong arguments against some of these provisions which perhaps could be considered in amendments and so on. Even Lord Colville gave expression to them. The exclusion principle is one of them. It is abhorrent by Executive order not subject to judicial review to cause a British citizen to stay away from part of the country. It is one of the restrictions on the liberty of the individual which the police and the Government contend is necessary for the defeat of terrorism. It is argued that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has not been effective. Those who claim that do not know because the evidence is obtained through its operation, which is secret and cannot be revealed.
Mr. Mallon rose——
Mr. Stanbrook: I see the hon. Gentleman pregnant with desire to intervene, but I do not want to give him an excuse to do so. I accept that it is not nice for a British citizen to be told, "You cannot stay in this part of the country. You must go back home."
On Thursday 21 February, Thames Television produced an absurd "This Week" programme. After considering the great costs of providing personal security, the programme identified one particular person who without a doubt had connections with the IRA. He was an Ulster man who had been working in Devon and was required to return to Ulster. That must be an injustice and I suppose that he is now unemployed, as the programme said, whereas previously he had had a job. The police made

53
that decision and an exclusion order was applied. The programme presented the case as though it were a great injustice, compared with all the money that we spend on security against terrorists and concluded that somehow it was not right: it interfered with civil liberties. If the best example of injustice that the programme could produce was one unemployed person from Northern Ireland with relatives in the IRA—which may well have been the reason why such action was taken—who was sent home, one is bound to lose faith in the balance and understanding of those who make such television programmes.
There is a point here. One hopes that such a provision is not necessary, but I am prepared to accept that if the security authorities say that it is and if behind the scenes there is ample intelligence obtained through the operation of the Act—let us not say that, because we do not know what that information is, we should not allow fishing expeditions—there is a basis for examination of these cases. No doubt a great deal of intelligence is obtained that cannot be revealed. The measure must be justified. It stands to reason that it is.
One's great complaint must be that of the general public, especially after the dreadful incidents of wholesale attack on civilians and ordinary people, including my constituents, on the concourse of Victoria station. The general public ask us to fight back against the IRA. So far they have not been satisfied with the Government's response.
I said that I agreed heartily with some recent remarks by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). Surely now is the time for us to adopt the same response to and positive measures against the IRA as the German Government used against the Baader-Meinhof. Germany had a national intelligence-gathering agency, supplied with the best men and technical equipment. It drew on sources from all over Germany and Europe and all the information was fed into a central system. It had mobile and effective teams which acted on the information thus gathered. If that is what the hon. Gentleman was advocating, I certainly agree. I hope that the Government will welcome the initiative with open arms. Of the seven ideas from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that is the only positive one. We need a national agency.
The trouble with all our defences against criminals is that so far we have been hampered by a ramshackle police structure. We have more than 50 separate, operational, autonomous police forces. Some are co-ordinated at some level, but never nationally. Some subjects are coordinated, but not overall. In some cases the computer systems are incompatible with those of other forces. The Home Secretary talks about the efforts to fight all violent crime, especially terrorism, but I do not understand how he can be so complacent when our weapons are so inadequate and rooted in a 19th century structure. It is the hesitation to upset chief police officers and others which bedevils us and prevents us from getting the matter under control.
We must take criminal investigation, detection and the defeat of terrorism in hand. We must not talk about it in terms of co-ordination, as the Home Secretary did in his opening speech. It is not the co-ordination of intelligence gathering that is needed; it is the co-ordination of action. That is what was so effective in West Germany and we must learn that lesson.
54
We have been hampered too much because we have paid too little regard to the dangers which terrorism poses for a civilised society. We have paid too little regard to the demands of the public to get to grips with the problem. We have paid too little regard to the niceties of personal and civil liberties. Opposition spokesmen stand back from the problem for party political purposes. Society demands that we get ahead with this. We are not doing enough now.
5.58 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I wish to criticise some points in the legislation, but I shall support it in the Lobby this evening because its principle is more important than its defects. Others have discussed the measure—I will not on this occasion—in the context of whether or not it is effective. The Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen debated that point. On this topic I find table 8 in Lord Colville's report interesting. It sets out the number of occasions when charges, exclusion orders, removal or deportation have occurred as a percentage of the number of detentions under the prevention of terrorism Act. It is remarkable to note the consistency among the various categories: the total of effectiveness for the United Kingdom as judged in this way is about 22 per cent.; the effectiveness in dealing with international terrorism is 21 per cent.; and the effectiveness of dealing with republican terrorism is about 22 per cent. That provides a clue to the usefulness of the legislation, and it reinforces the need to retain it.
It cannot be argued that the legislation has been wholly effective. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) pointed out that we still have a serious terrorism problem. It is clear that the Act in itself is not sufficient, and I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that we should look at ways of strengthening it.
The legislation is inextricably linked with the circumstances of its introduction—as a response to the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. I do not wish to refer directly to the cases before the courts, except to make the general point that they and other court proceedings underline the need for coolness in responding to terrorism. Because terrorism is an attack on the entire community, there will be an emotional reaction to it right across the community. That is why we need coolness when dealing with it. I noticed a letter in The Times last Saturday from Sir Frederick Lawton in which he indignantly made the point that the convictions complained about were decisions not of judges but of juries. That underlines the point that I have just made: because of the nature of terrorism and the emotional response to it, the response of the man in the street cannot be trusted.
A good case can be made for replacing juries in terrorist cases by judges. That is not to give the judges a blank cheque. Even they can err. In Northern Ireland we well know a case in which they did err; the case is currently before the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who I hope will give the go-ahead for an early re-trial. Mistakes were made because of political pressure. My comments about a cool response apply as much to politicians as to jurors. I hope that ultimately there will be an inquiry which will reveal that what we believe to be false convictions arose as a result of political interference with the course of justice and with decisions to arrest and detain people.

55
Eventually I hope that there will be a full judicial inquiry, although I am perhaps straying a little beyond the matter in hand.
This is a United Kingdom Act, and that is good. Its application throughout the United Kingdom should be followed in other matters. Hon. Members have already mentioned the number of different Acts dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, to name but two. It is sometimes difficult to know the full extent of the panoply of powers in dealing with terrorism, and that is wrong. It would be far better to bring all anti-terrorism legislation together in one Act, to be applied throughout the United Kingdom.
This Act contains certain provisions which it is hoped will cut off funds for terrorism. That is good, but they have not been effective so far. Some remedies have been proposed, and we shall debate them on Wednesday—but only in a Northern Ireland context. I was appalled to hear the Home Secretary say that the Government intend to experiment in Northern Ireland to see whether the proposals will work before extending them to the rest of the country. That is a silly way to proceed, and it will not work. Everyone knows that the proposals come from the Home Office, not from the Northern Ireland Office, so it is not likely that the Government will commit themselves to providing enough resources to implement the provisions in Northern Ireland.
We should proceed on a United Kingdom basis. If the provisions to deal with funds for terrorism need strengthening, they should be strengthened for the whole United Kingdom, not by way of an experiment in Northern Ireland that is likely to produce an uncertain response.
As we have said in other contexts, it is illogical to proscribe some organisations in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain. People travel between the two countries, and organisations that are proscribed should be proscribed throughout the United Kingdom. There is an argument for considering the shortlist in this Act beside the longer list in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, under which eight organisations are proscribed. It goes without saying that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North about Sinn Fein. It makes no sense to proscribe the IRA yet not to proscribe one part of it, which is what Sinn Fein is, as everyone knows. The pretence that there is a difference is made only for political purposes, and that qualifies and casts doubt on the Government's commitment to anti-terrorist measures.
The Home Secretary will know that we are critical of exclusion orders. It is not right that people should be dumped in Northern Ireland. The orders are wrong in principle. What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about them was inaccurate. There is no danger under the legislation of persons born and bred in Birmingham being dumped in Northern Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman casts his eye over section 5(4), he will no doubt be happy to correct his comments.
We should like exclusion orders to go, but only if the frontier is dealt with seriously. Controls should be moved
56
from the Irish sea to the frontier. The hon. Member for Antrim, North identified the idiocy of having an open frontier between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and of trying to control the frontier at another point further down the sea. This is due in part to laziness on the part of the Government and officials. They think it easier to carry out checks at ports and airports than to make the comparatively small effort to treat the frontier seriously. The Government should realise that their laziness sends the wrong message to the terrorists. That message is that the Government do not really think that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and that their commitment to the defeat of terrorism and the maintenance of the Union is contingent and half-hearted. That only encourages terrorism.
The paradox is that the exclusion order procedure only makes matters worse. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not present to hear me say that the terminology that he used can only encourage terrorism. I was appalled to hear him say that the law-abiding citizens of this country were appalled by a number of terrorist incidents, all of which had happened in England. It was perfectly clear from the context that in his mind "this country" means England and nothing beyond it. In other parts of his speech he referred to Great Britain and Ireland, to the Irish people, to Ireland north and south. It is clear that in his mind there is a mental blind drawn down the Irish sea. That, too, is an encouragement to terrorism and it sends out a signal to the IRA to continue its offensive because the Home Secretary is not committed to the Union and he will give way to them at some point in the future. That is how his speech will be read.
The Home Secretary should reflect carefully on this matter, but I am not surprised at his attitude when I recall that, with his literary pretensions, he savagely censored "The Boyne Water" in his anthology.
Mr. John Patten: I have not read the literary savagery to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall look at it with some interest later.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary an injustice. I have checked the text and found that one of the first sentences uttered by my right hon. Friend in his speech refers to the appalling incidents that the Province suffered over the weekend. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I know the Province well and I feel strongly that it is wrong for people in the Province not to recognise the major contribution that everyone in the United Kingdom is trying to make to keep the peace in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Trimble: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I am sorry to say that they do not meet the point. I acknowledge that in his speech the Home Secretary spoke about terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland. However, in part of his speech he spoke about "this country" in terms which did not include Northern Ireland and he was therefore sending the wrong message. Perhaps the Home Secretary's mistake is unconscious, in which case I hope that he will think about it and correct it and will not again encourage terrorism in that way.
Detention and its extension have given rise to some legal difficulty in terms of the European convention. The ability to extend the period of detention to seven days is important, and that is substantiated on page 3 of Lord Colville's report, which refers to detentions in Northern Ireland. Lord Colville says that 166, or 37 per cent., of

57
those subject to extensions were charged. If one looks elsewhere at the number of people charged out of the total detained, one notes a significant increase—more than double—in the number of charges of persons for whom the period of detention was extended. That statistic alone shows the need to have the ability to extend the period up to seven days.
The problem arises because of the European convention and the way in which it is drafted. It operates on a Europe-wide basis. While there was a significant British input to its drafting, it was largely drafted by and interpreted by civil lawyers rather than common law lawyers. The civil law system is significantly different from the common law system. Some form of judicial involvement in detention and the building of a case against an accused is common in civil law but not in common law. That is our difficulty.
The Home Secretary was right to refer to cases in France where people are effectively detained for much longer than here, but there is no problem there because in France the juge d'instruction is involved in the proceedings. However, he does not play what we would regard as a wholly judicial role, although he is to some extent involved in the interrogation process and in the gathering of evidence. To some extent, he carries out what we—by "we", of course, I mean people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—would regard as a police function. The position in Scotland is different because the procurator fiscal is based on the concept of civil law and, to a certain extent, he is involved in what might otherwise be regarded as police work.
Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the important role of the procurator fiscal, who is in every sense of the word concerned with criminal investigations. That fine experience has been followed in England through recent legislation.
Mr. Trimble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his elucidation. This is a complex matter and the difficulty is in finding a way to graft on to the common law accusatorial system the inquisitorial procedures of civil law. There is a way out which we have suggested in other circumstances, and it would solve the problem in Northern Ireland. It is that after an appropriate period of two, three or four days, or whatever it might be, an application could be made in chambers to a resident magistrate. Provided the resident magistrate did not treat that as full judicial proceedings and took account of the nature of the information and intelligence available to the investigating authorities, he would provide the necessary "judicial" input to satisfy the European convention.
That solution is not available generally in England and Wales, which retain lay magistrates and, of course, it would be impossible to involve them in such a system. That might be an argument for dispensing with lay magistrates and having what we call resident magistrates, the term for which here is stipendiary magistrates. The Government may want to consider that.
It may be necessary to consider extending the Scottish procurator fiscal system, or something analogous, to the rest of the United Kingdom. That option was examined in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s in the MacDermott report into the prosecution of offenders. I am sorry to say that it was turned down solely on fiscal grounds, when it was said that it would cost too much to introduce
58
examining magistrates. The proposal was supported by a range of people and may be worth looking at again because that could be the way to solve the problem. There is no easy way to solve it, and those who understand the situation in the United Kingdom and in Europe should not be impatient if it takes some time to work out a solution. A certain amount of heat is generated about detention by people who do not fully appreciate the intricacies of the problem.
Reference has been made to the videoing of interviews. We should do what Lord Colville has reported elsewhere and allow experiments to be conducted by the police to see whether it is feasible. Lord Colville's reports on that and on associated legislation are useful. They provide a valuable way to make information available to the public and are clearly a valuable test of the efficacy of the legislation. One has only to look at the way in which hon. Members have appealed to Lord Colville's report and the eagerness with which he has been prayed in aid, sometimes not altogether properly, to show how much the reports are appreciated.
Lord Colville's useful work is a substitute for a proper way of looking at the legislation, which I hope can be done eventually. A debate once a year on the prevention of terrorism Act and an associated debate later this week on the emergency provisions legislation are no substitute for proper parliamentary supervision and control of such exceptional legislation. The powers are properly exceptional. It is right that they should exist, but there should be some effective means of supervision. Because of the nature of the powers, I do not think that we can have effective judicial supervision of them, and an attempt to over-judicialise this procedure is wrong.
We should look at the prospect of having a special procedure, perhaps a Select Committee of Privy Councillors and senior hon. Members charged with carrying out the function carried out by Lord Colville. It would also investigate annually or perhaps more often than that. That might be more useful than the constant. pursuit of toughening-up powers for complaints bodies and so on. It would certainly have the advantage of requiring hon. Members seriously to address the detail of the legislation.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) gave an eloquent denunciation of recent terrorist incidents in England and Wales. He said that by their acts those terrorists are saying that their objects cannot be achieved politically. He is quite right. Those objects cannot be achieved by contesting elections and obtaining majorities. However, the terrorists expect to succeed politically, but through the weakness of Governments and particularly of English Ministers. In that respect the Government have repeatedly encouraged terrorism, not just by the casual and careless use of language that I criticised earlier, but in the way in which they have allowed terrorism to set the political agenda. I refer here to certain ill-judged initiatives that have been taken over the years. That is not only my criticism. An editorial in The Times on Saturday week made exactly the same criticism.
The frequency with which the Government have given in to terrorism has in turn created a lack of confidence in some sections of the community in Northern Ireland. That lack of confidence has led some people wrongly to resort to what they call counter terrorism. That, of course, is wrong. The Unionist community has effectively repudiated or rejected such people and such action by joining or

59
supporting the security forces and by providing them with the necessary information. The high success rate of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in dealing with such terrorism—some 90 per cent. plus—is evidence of that. When dealing with Republican terrorism, the success rate is only 13 to 15 per cent. That points to the difference in the political response.
The party of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, the Social Democratic and Labour party, is extremely good at the verbal condemnation of terrorism. Unfortunately, that is not followed through by appropriate action to support and assist the security forces. The role of the hon. Gentleman's party in these matters is often that of a channel by which political concessions extorted by IRA terrorism are made available to Irish nationalism. That role is wrong, as are the actions of Government in making such concessions. None of these matters, however important though they are, will prevent us from supporting the proposed legislation, flawed though it may be, if the House divides this evening.
6.21 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Members of the public who listen to the debate will do so with complete amazement. They will have heard the Labour party's spokesman in this matter, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), make a speech which I consider almost incredible.
The right hon Gentleman, having said that no sensible person can doubt that the Opposition are against terrorism, then sought to dismantle the legislation that is designed to combat terrorism. It is true that the Opposition speak against terrorism, but speech is not enough. We are dealing with matters where there has to be action—
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
The Opposition want to dismantle the Government's action in protecting the nation from terrorism, and their position is entirely untenable. A Labour Government thought that action was necessary. In 1974, and again in 1976, they brought forward the current legislation, or legislation that was almost identical. They took against the relevant legislation only when they went into opposition and the Conservative Government took over the reins of power and introduced the current legislation. Since then, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has described the legislation to which he was a party in introducing as draconian. That word is intended to diminish the legislation's importance.
Had the position changed—had there been no terrorism since the Labour Government left office—there would be justification for the Opposition's stand. Unfortunately, since 1982 when the Opposition changed their mind, the need for this sort of legislation has grown, not diminished. We have had the Brighton bombing and the murders occasioned there. We have had the avoidance of the summer bombing campaign in British holiday resorts. In the past year we have had the Deal slaughter, the Victoria station bomb, the Downing street bombs, the St. Albans bomb, the killing in West Germany, the bomb in Colchester, the bomb in Kensington, the shooting of Sir Peter Terry, the assassination of Ian Gow, the shooting of the soldier at Lichfield station, the bomb at Derby and the
60
bombs at Leicester and Halifax. In the past year, terrorist activity has killed 80 in the United Kingdom, with a further 1,000 being injured. Most of the deaths and injuries have taken place in Northern Ireland. How can it be said that the time has come to go against what the then Labour Government thought was important in 1974 and 1976? Why action then but no action now?
The speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was pathetic. He struggled to find reasons why the legislation should not be renewed. He was flailing for something on which to cling to avoid the accusation of total absurdity. He claimed that Lord Colville had reservations about the Act, even though Lord Colville had no criticism of extended detention or of exclusion. Lord Colville never once suggested that the legislation should not be renewed. How can it be that an intelligent political party—one of the two great political parties in the land—allows its spokesman on home affairs to say, "My position is justified by Lord Colville", even when Lord Colville does not support him?
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that the General Council of the Bar has reservations. That may be so, but the General Council does not say that the powers should not be renewed. How is that a justification for doing what the Labour party is seeking to do tonight, which is to defeat the renewal order?
The only friends whom the Opposition will have in their attempts to stop the renewal of the current legislation are the terrorists and those who say that normal security procedures should exist even if that means more terrorism.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke of the erosion of liberties. What about the erosion of the lives of slaughtered people? What about the people who die because of terrorism? The right hon. Gentleman cited the Brogan case, during which it was said that suspects should be brought more promptly before a judicial authority. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) put his finger on the difference between the judicial authority in European legal systems and our judicial authority. In our process, that authority comes on to the scene much later and yet our system is supposed to be much better than many of the systems that prevail elsewhere in Europe. Apart from that, European judges have not experienced terrorism on the scale that we have in Britain. We resent it when they decide that changes should be made according to their lights when they have not had to experience the misery that we have suffered here, and especially in Northern Ireland.
Why does not the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook choose to rely upon, to be inspired by and to be supported instead by the words of his predecessor, Lord Mason of Barnsley, if he really wants common ground? Lord Mason said:
"… some liberty must be sacrificed in the defence of liberty, insiduous though that may be. It is the price that must be paid in defence of our democracy … Nothing gives the IRA more joy and some encouragement than to see a divided House, and especially the image created by some within Parliament of seeming to be too protective of the terrorists and their political allies, rather than wishing their destruction."—[Officiol Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1989; Vol. 504, c. 33–4.]
That is the sort of guidance that Opposition Members should give. If they chose to adopt that approach, we would have common cause.
It is clear that if we dismantle our defences against terrorism the chances of catching the Victoria station

61
bombers will be less, so will our chances of catching the Downing street bombers, those who tried to assassinate Sir Peter Terry, those who killed the Lichfield soldier, those who planted bombs in Derby, Leicester and Halifax and those who slaughtered in Deal. That is why those who are watching our proceedings on television or hearing them on the radio will be utterly amazed.
What does the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, say? I expect that his words will be repeated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who will reply from the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition are saying, in effect, "Let us talk. Let us make common ground against terrorism." Yet they have nothing to talk about. They have been saying, "Let us talk" for years. They have been advocating the making of common ground for years. We have been listening for their ideas for alternative action—not alternative words—but what have they brought forward? What practical policies are they putting forward for beating the terrorists?
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook gave a list and seems to think that that is positive action. He asked us to accept the European Court's view that the judicial process should engage sooner than it does. He asked us to scrap exclusion orders. He suggested a review of the financial provisions and asked us to consider a national agency to deal with terrorism. He suggested that we have tape-recorded interviews and an independent complaints procedure. Those may or may not be very sound and sensible ideas. It may be worth while to introduce such provisions in the future, but they are not reasons for dismantling present legislation. They would water it down, make it easier for the terrorist and not more difficult. That is why the British people will listen to this debate with utter and complete amazement.
There is no alternative to the Act. That is because it has been reasonably effective and why the Opposition cannot suggest an alternative. The Act is the only common cause against terrorism and the Opposition should support it.
After the Carlton club bombing on 26 June last year the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said:
"In a free society it is never possible to provide complete protection against indiscriminate terrorism, but clearly we must do all that we can to reduce the chances of such criminal lunacy killing and maiming innocent men and women."—[Official Report, 26 June 1990; Vol 175, c. 186.]
Is failing to renew this order, as the Opposition will seek to do by voting against it tonight, doing all that they can to defeat terrorism?
Until they support this legislation, the Opposition will have placed themselves in an absurd and impossible position. The country will punish them for it, and rightly so, because it proves that they are totally irresponsible and unready for power.
6.31 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Opposition Members do not have to prove to anyone that we are firmly committed to beating terrorism and that we also mourn the deaths of those killed at the hands of terrorists: Ian Gow, who was a respected Member of this House; and David Corner, who was a loved and valued member of his community and who was tragically killed at Victoria station. The tragic list of deaths, near-deaths and mutilations in recent years and the recent intensification of terrorism have led us to the conclusion, after objective
62
consideration of the facts and not on a party-political basis, that the House and successive Governments have failed to beat terrorists.
The reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made an offer, which would be judged by most fair-minded commentators as honest and positive, in his speech last Tuesday and in his letter to the Home Secretary was that we believe that the Act has been a failure. People in this country know that we have failed to beat terrorists. Waving the prevention of terrorism Act around has not beaten terrorism. We introduced the prevention of terrorism Act, but, on mature reflection after 16 years of its operation, we have come to the conclusion that we owe it to the people of this country and to their protection to reconsider an Act which gives the semblance of prevention of terrorism rather than the reality.
It gives us no pride to say that terrorists are not being beaten. Opposition Members want them to be beaten. In one part of his speech the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) agreed that we need more effective action and that very often the prevention of terrorism Act is an excuse for not acting more positively on an all-party basis. Anyone who tries to argue that we do not oppose terrorism because we vote against the Act tonight is simply making mischief and trying to score cheap political points.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: No, I shall not give way. During the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook the Conservative Benches were full of hon. Members who disappeared after it. Instead of a silence, which would have paid respect to those who died at the hands of terrorist bombs, Conservative Members have treated this as a cheap political debate and so I shall not give way to any cheap politicians on the Conservative side of the House.
Mr. Tracey: This is a serious point.
Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way to any hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House this afternoon.
It is crucial that the fight against terrorism is not politicised. On this issue, more than on any other, it is important for us to find common ground on which we can build a consensus and a determination which will see the terrorist off.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: No, I have said that I shall not.
We shall vote against the prevention of terrorism Act not merely because it does not work and because it undermines the quality of justice in this country—justice which we have always been proud of—but because it feeds terrorism and gives terrorists ammunition with which to win support at home and abroad—support which we must cut off.
How must it look to Irish Americans who are asked to support Noraid and the like when they are told that Britain has legislation that breaks the European convention on human rights and enables people to be banished from one part of the country to another without any explanation and which denies the suspect access to legal advice not merely for 48 hours but for up to seven days?

63
The unjust appearance of the Act is compounded by its operation. Since the first prevention of terrorism Act came into force in 1974, more than 80 per cent. of those arrested have been released without charge and the percentage of those convicted under the Act is even less than 20 per cent. In 1990, out of 193 people held under the Act, only eight were convicted: seven were fined for non co-operation at a port or airport and one for a broken exclusion order. I cannot believe that their arrests and convictions helped in any major way to prevent a planned terrorist attack in this country.
What has happened to people who have been arrested and held for some considerable time before being released? What effect does it have on them, their families and on the reputation of the British administration of justice?
Opposition Members have tried to argue that we do not object to parts of the prevention of terrorism Act. Indeed, when I was Opposition spokesman on the Bill in Committee two years ago we gave our wholehearted support to cutting off the natural support for terrorists. Other parts of the Bill were discussed. We know that we need legislation—perhaps special legislation—but not this legislation, because it does not work.
There could not have been a fairer offer than that made by the Opposition this week when we said that we do not have all the answers and we do not know how to defeat terrorists on our own, but that we do not think that the Government know how to do it on their own, and so we offered the hand of co-operation. We said that we wished to study some parts of the Act, other parts are positive and some parts are objectionable. Only a schoolboy would say, "We won't discuss it with you because you don't like the prevention of terrorism Act."
The Opposition object to serious flaws in the prevention of terrorism Act and we have no alternative but to vote against it tonight.
Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: I shall not.
Mr. Tracey: It is on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd):Order. The hon. Member has made it clear that he is not giving way; the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) should not persist in that case.
Mr. SheermanI am not frit, but I shall not give way.
I want to—[Interruption.] I am missing out a part of my speech because Conservative Members made such long-winded speeches.
Misuse of the criminal justice system in our country does enormous damage to the reputation of British justice. The Home Secretary skated over any reference to our objections to the Act on that basis. The fight against terrorism will never be won if we do not win the trust and support of the community. We cannot hope to win their trust if we treat them with such flagrant disregard for civil liberties. We are not making a spurious case, but a serious one. In Northern Ireland, the situation is exacerbated by the parallel Prevention of Terrorism (Emergency Provisions) Act and sections of the community, sadly, appear to have lost all faith in the administration of justice. That cannot be right.
64
It must be remembered that not only the arrested individuals' confidence is shattered by their experience, but there is a knock-on effect on their families, friends and everyone who hears of the treatment that they have received. The existence of draconian powers also serves to give terrorists a special status that we all wish to deny them. The successful criminalising of terrorists means that they must be dealt with under ordinary criminal law. They are rotten criminals, not politicians. If we design special legislation for them, we give them a special identity and therefore play into their hands by giving them treatment that they do not deserve.
We are grateful for Lord Colville's informative report about his investigation into the operation of the Act in 1990. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook argued convincingly——
Mr. Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman said that Lord Colville wanted to scrap the legislation.
Mr. Sheerman: My right hon. Friend did not say that. He said that particular parts of Lord Colville's recommendations lead us to agree with Lord Colville that it is now irresistible that a new tribunal be set up to oversee those powers. If the independent arbiter who is brought in by—[Interruption.] We gave the Government a fair hearing and I should like to finish my speech. As we said in Committee two years ago, Lord Colville made many important and fundamental criticisms of the working of the Act. The Government have ignored those criticisms. What sort of Government can conceive an Act that does not defeat terrorism—their record on terrorism is appalling—and, every time the independent arbiter makes suggestions to improve the Act, they refuse to implement them? They are then surprised when a helpful, constructive Opposition say that there should be fundamental changes made to the Act. They are surprised that, ultimately, we are forced to vote against the Act in its entirety to force the Government, who are deaf on the subject, to listen.
Lord Colville again turns his attention to the problem that the detention powers under the Act contravene the European convention on human rights. He suggests that a tribunal could be set up to judge whether a suspect's detention should be extended rather than the responsibi lity remaining solely with the Home Secretary. I asked the Home Secretary about that and have been advised that such a tribunal may be acceptable to the European Court. Will the junior Minister say whether that is so? If the European Court were independent so that it could make decisions, not merely recommendations to the Home Secretary, would that be acceptable? Would it also be acceptable if the court provided that the suspect should appear before it with his or her legal representative and if the suspect was given the opportunity to make representations on his or her behalf? We understand that those three changes would be acceptable to the European Court. Will the Minister comment on that? Such a measure would allow the Government to remove Britain's derogation and enable us, once again, to fulfil our obligations under the European convention on human rights. Simply repealing the provisions would ensure an easier compliance with the court's decision. The Labour party believes that we should not have derogated in the first place, but the court's decision should have been accepted and implemented without delay. We urge the Government to do so as soon as possible.

65
Lord Colville also said that the offence of withholding information should be removed. We have asked the Government time and again for their response to that. Virtually no provision in the Act has escaped intensive criticism by the Government's own reviewers and the European Court of Human Rights. One wonders whether any credibility for the Act remains. The time has come to accept that the Act has no future as a serious tool in the fight against terrorism. We need fresh thinking and a new approach to the problem.
Mr. Lawrence: What is the Labour party's alternative for action?
Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will wait, I shall tell him.
Last Tuesday, the Opposition made a serious proposal to introduce two measures that the British public want. We want an all-party approach to the defeat of terrorism, but also an effective approach—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall not give way.
The Opposition are offering to participate in all-party discussions. We shall come with a blank sheet of paper. We have no prejudices except those against terrorists—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary is mumbling as usual.
On Saturday evening, I made a speech in my constituency. The meeting was packed out.
Mr. Bowis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification of the term "packed out". Does it mean that, when more minor party representatives——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair. Let us continue the debate as we have very little time.
Mr. Sheerman: In my speech to my constituents I said that there was an agreed anti-terrorism policing policy which we believe makes sense. It would give the police a national intelligence unit and the ability to tackle terrorism seriously. We made such a positive suggestion in our discussions with the Government. We would discuss anything to defeat terrorism, but the Government will put nothing on the table because, ultimately, they secretly want to use this issue as a political stick to beat the Opposition. The great British public will not be fooled. They want action against terrorism, not fancy words.
6.47 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) spoke about sticks to beat the Opposition. We have just heard an example of self-flagellation. It was uncharacteristic and unparliamentary of him not to give way during his speech, but I shall follow his example. I shall not respond to any of the issues that he raised. If he is not prepared to debate, I am not prepared to debate with him.
In general, the debate has been good. It has ebbed and flowed from both sides of the water, and there have been some excellent speeches from my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) presented some robust arguments; and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) was right to say that we need to protect the civil rights of his constituents who risked being injured by the bomb on the
66
track in Hertfordshire. The civil rights of everyone in the United Kingdom must be protected and we shall ensure that we protect them.
Mr. Tracey: I heard what my right hon. Friend said about not giving way, but I was trying to make an important point to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). If the Opposition were successful in voting down the motion tonight, the measure would no longer exist. They say that they would then go into talks. Would not the public be unprotected until an alternative was put forward? Our priority must be to protect our people.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) is absolutely right. Should Labour win tonight and the order be defeated, the Act would lapse in a few days and the public on both sides of the water would lack the protection given by the Act—my hon. Friend was, characteristically, spot on. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who wants the defeat of terrorism, was also right. He and I agree that the role of the prevention of terrorism Act is vital. Last, but by no means least, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was right to treat the House to a chilling litany of death and destruction, and I am grateful to him.
I do not for one moment doubt the detestation of terrorism of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). However, when we compare his words with what he undoubtedly feels, his speech seems odd and unhappy. Its very first sentence was to the effect that he would lead his party to vote against the prevention of terrorism Act. He then went on to make a number of suggestions. If he were really interested in serious discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and had a list of things he wanted to discuss, rather than issuing a press statement last week and condemning the prevention of terrorism Act in the first breath of his speech today, surely he should have gone to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, perhaps on Privy Councillor terms, to talk to him about the sort of changes he wanted. Instead, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook turned to opposition by press release—a speech, a quick letter and then into the Chamber tonight with a few suggestions that I genuinely believe were hastily and inadequately cobbled together.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's qualified support for EPA and his suggestion that we should look hard at financial provisions to chase up terrorists and track down terrorists' funds in the three separate Acts—Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989—that constitute the most significant and fiercest package of anti-terrorist measures in any western European country. If it can be made better, clearly we must do so.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of bold new initiatives. He promised five, but later extended the list to seven. I admired the facility with which he produced them, although not the production.
Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten: As I said, I shall not give way. I do not mean the right hon. Gentleman any disrespect, but he

67
should talk to his junior spokesman when they get outside the Chamber about how one conducts oneself in a proper, grown-up debating Chamber.
The approach of the right hon. Gentleman was counter-productive. I shall not condemn him; unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke. I do not intend to do down the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who, as we all recognise, is one of the fairest minded Members. He said that the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook contained nothing new, and I agree with him. He also said that he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman's speech took a genuinely bipartisan approach, and I agree with him. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is not a Conservative or a Unionist, but speaks as a professional observer and seeker after consensus. That is the Liberal Democrats' position.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also said—this was most telling—that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had significantly misled the House over Lord Colville's approach—savage words from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who was absolutely right. He finished his speech with a splendid phrase. He said that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had simply failed to measure up to the threat of terrorism. We all say "Hear, hear" to that.
When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was kind enough to allow me to intervene—something that I shall not allow him to do—he demonstrated that he failed to understand the differences between the workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the prevention of terrorism Act. I was not seeking to be rude to the right hon. Gentleman, but it surprised me that, after so many years as shadow Home Secretary, he still did not understand the fundamental difference. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it queer—[Laughter.]—clear, and I can quote from my right hon. Friend's wonderfully clear speech. He rightly said that there were many circumstances in which the police might have information that a person was involved in terrorism but have no information as to the specific offence in which he may have been involved. He said:
"Without the prevention of terrorism Act, there would be no power to arrest such a person. Those who would not continue with that Act in force would allow known terrorists to walk our streets—with the police powerless to intervene."
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is under a basic misapprehension about the nature and purpose of the Act. Apart from the provisions of general law, we also need to be able to go further and use it for preventive purposes. That is why we have the power, under the prevention of terrorism Act, to take into detention, and then examine, for the purposes of determining whether a person appears to be someone who is or has been concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. That is why we have the Act. That apart, the police must always act on reasonable suspicion, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington.
Therefore, under section 14 of the Act, the power of arrest and detention is governed by reasonable suspicion. That is the rule.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On the issue of rules, will my right hon. Friend comment on reports that
68
the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was kept from the final stages of the Criminal Justice Bill last week because he was attending a £1,000 a head dinner——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is totally irrelevant to the debate.
Mr. Patten: I am tempted to take up the intervention, but I am afraid that the dining habits of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook are not matters for Her Majesty's Government.
The European Court of Human Rights has found against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary only on his power of extension of detention. We should also have listened with respect to what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said about the differences in judicial practice and detention between this country and other countries. In Belgium, the police can detain for only 24 hours, but thereafter they can detain indefinitely before charges are laid. There is a qualitative difference. If the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had been in the Chamber to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, he would understand that.
We accept in good faith that the Labour party's desire to do something about the scourge of terrorism is reflected in its call for talks—it would be wrong to do anything else. We also believe that its commitment to combat terrorism would be much better reflected in its support for the prevention of terrorism Act, as has been said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other hon. Friends. Comfortable condemnation from the Green Benches is not enough. The Labour party cannot merely weave words, but must will the means, and the best way to do that is through the extension of the prevention of terrorism Act. To ignore the Act and, instead, to engage in talks would be to leave a vacuum for terrorists to exploit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton said.
We must have a policy in place to deal with terrorism; we cannot rely on talks as a substitute for immediate action. We cannot legally disarm ourselves in this country and leave our people without the anti-terrorist legislation that they need and other countries—the United States, Germany and Italy—see that they need. That is why a new prevention of terrorism measure is now before the Greek Parliament, demonstrating the Greek Government's intention to deal with the problem with special legislation.
I do not doubt the personal integrity of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his hon. Friends, or their dislike of terrorism, but if their views were put into effect, that would lead to the growth of terrorism in this country. Therefore, I commend to the House the order that will ensure that that does not happen.
Question put:—
The House divided:—Ayes 303, Noes 138.

Division No. 85]

[7 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Ashby, David

Aitken, Jonathan

Aspinwall, Jack

Alexander, Richard

Atkins, Robert

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

Allason, Rupert

Baldry, Tony

Alton, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Amess, David

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Amos, Alan

Batiste, Spencer

Arbuthnot, James

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Beith, A. J.

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Bellingham, Henry

NOES

Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Allen, Graham

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Anderson, Donald

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Armstrong, Hilary

Canavan, Dennis

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Barron, Kevin

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Battle, John

Clay, Bob

Beckett, Margaret

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

Cohen, Harry

Bermingham, Gerald

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Blunkett, David

Corbett, Robin

Boateng, Paul

Corbyn, Jeremy

Boyes, Roland

Cox, Tom

Bradley, Keith

Cryer, Bob

Bendall, Vivian

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Gregory, Conal

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Ground, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter

Grylls, Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hague, William

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bowis, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hannam, John

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

Brazier, Julian

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bright, Graham

Harris, David

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

Haselhurst, Alan

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hawkins, Christopher

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hayes, Jerry

Buck, Sir Antony

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Budgen, Nicholas

Hayward, Robert

Burns, Simon

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Butterfill, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Carrington, Matthew

Hill, James

Carttiss, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Cash, William

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Holt, Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Chope, Christopher

Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

Churchill, Mr

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

Hunter, Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Irvine, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Irving, Sir Charles

Cope, Rt Hon John

Jack, Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Jackson, Robert

Couchman, James

Jessel, Toby

Cran, James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Critchley, Julian

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Key, Robert

Devlin, Tim

Kilfedder, James

Dicks, Terry

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dorrell, Stephen

Kirkwood, Archy

Dover, Den

Knapman, Roger

Dunn, Bob

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Dykes, Hugh

Knowles, Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Knox, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Evennett, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fallon, Michael

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lord, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Forth, Eric

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Maclennan, Robert

Franks, Cecil

McLoughlin, Patrick

Freeman, Roger

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

French, Douglas

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Fry, Peter

Madel, David

Gale, Roger

Maginnis, Ken

Gardiner, Sir George

Malins, Humfrey

Gill, Christopher

Mans, Keith

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Maples, John

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Marlow, Tony

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Goodlad, Alastair

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gorst, John

Mates, Michael

Maude, Hon Francis

Shersby, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Sims, Roger

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Miscampbell, Norman

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Speller, Tony

Mitchell, Sir David

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Moate, Roger

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Squire, Robin

Monro, Sir Hector

Stanbrook, Ivor

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Moore, Rt Hon John

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Steen, Anthony

Morrison, Sir Charles

Stern, Michael

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Stevens, Lewis

Moss, Malcolm

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mudd, David

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Stokes, Sir John

Needham, Richard

Sumberg, David

Nelson, Anthony

Summerson, Hugo

Neubert, Sir Michael

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Nicholls, Patrick

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

Norris, Steve

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Thorne, Neil

Oppenheim, Phillip

Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

Page, Richard

Tracey, Richard

Paice, James

Tredinnick, David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Trimble, David

Patnick, Irvine

Trippier, David

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Trotter, Neville

Patten, Rt Hon John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Pawsey, James

Viggers, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Porter, David (Waveney)

Walden, George

Portillo, Michael

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Price, Sir David

Waller, Gary

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Walters, Sir Dennis

Rathbone, Tim

Warren, Kenneth

Redwood, John

Watts, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wells, Bowen

Rhodes James, Robert

Wheeler, Sir John

Riddick, Graham

Whitney, Ray

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Widdecombe, Ann

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wiggin, Jerry

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Wilkinson, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wilshire, David

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wolfson, Mark

Rost, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Hon Tom

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Sayeed, Jonathan

Yeo, Tim

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Tellers for tbe Ayes:

Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Cummings, John

McNamara, Kevin

Darling, Alistair

Madden, Max

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

Mallon, Seamus

Dixon, Don

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Dobson, Frank

Meacher, Michael

Duffy, A. E. P.

Meale, Alan

Eadie, Alexander

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Eastham, Ken

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Faulds, Andrew

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)

Fisher, Mark

Mowlam, Marjorie

Flynn, Paul

Mullin, Chris

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Murphy, Paul

Foster, Derek

Nellist, Dave

Foulkes, George

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Fraser, John

O'Brien, William

Fyfe, Maria

O'Hara, Edward

Galloway, George

O'Neill, Martin

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Patchett, Terry

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Prescott, John

Gordon, Mildred

Primarolo, Dawn

Gould, Bryan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Radice, Giles

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Randall, Stuart

Grocott, Bruce

Redmond, Martin

Hardy, Peter

Reid, Dr John

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Robertson, George

Haynes, Frank

Rogers, Allan

Henderson, Doug

Rooney, Terence

Hinchliffe, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Home Robertson, John

Rowlands, Ted

Hood, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Skinner, Dennis

Illsley, Eric

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Ingram, Adam

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Soley, Clive

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Lamond, James

Walley, Joan

Leighton, Ron

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Lewis, Terry

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Livingstone, Ken

Wigley, Dafydd

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

McAllion, John

Winnick, David

Macdonald, Calum A.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McFall, John

Worthington, Tony

McGrady, Eddie

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Tellers for the Noes:

McLeish, Henry

Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

McMaster, Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.

Orders of the Day

  Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This is a short Bill of a technical nature and it has received the support of the official Opposition, for which I am grateful. The Bill has served to draw attention to detailed aspects of census confidentiality, on which we had a useful discussion in Committee. I hope that I was able to reassure Committee members of the importance that the Government attach to the confidentiality provisions of the census legislation.
  It is important to be able to give an assurance to every citizen filling in his census form that the information given will be the subject of complete confidentiality. The need for the Bill arose because the repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 left two gaps in the confidentiality provisions which the Bill plugs. The Bill now allows us to say, as we should properly be able to say, that the information given in the course of completing the census form will be treated with absolute confidentiality.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can the Minister assure me that the people taken on as temporary employees for the purpose of gathering census information will have impressed on them during their training programmes the need for such confidentiality?
  Mr. Dorrell: Yes, the importance of confidentiality will be stressed to short-term employees in the census office taken on for the purpose of collecting census information. They will be governed by the same statutory duty of confidentiality as everyone else who is, under the terms of the Bill, under the control of the registrar-general.
  I believe that the Bill represents a small but important step in securing that absolute duty of confidentiality. I commend it to the House.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Minister has said that this is a short, technical Bill, but it deals with an important matter.
  More than a year ago the House agreed that the census should take place on 21 April. As the Minister said, the Bill remedies a defect in the legislation that arose as a result of the reform of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
  There is no doubt in the mind of the official Opposition that the Bill has been scrutinised and that, as a result of the Bill, the personal information given by fellow citizens in the census will be more closely guarded and protected than in any previous census.
  The census is a vital instrument of social policy and the information in it is as useful to the Opposition as it is to the Government. The census is used more by health authorities and local authorities than by anyone else because they are in closer contact with our fellow citizens.
  We want to reassure fellow citizens that there is no connection whatever between the census and the poll tax.

  73
  Anyone who seeks to give the misguided advice that the census should not be complied with because of the poll tax is making a fundamental error. There can be no connection between the two. The Opposition are satisfied about that and, therefore, we give the Bill our full support.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not want to detain the House for long, but I want to discuss an issue that I have pursued for the past 18 months—my concern that the protection of the confidentiality of census information does not go far enough.
  I am certain that my constituents welcome the idea of the census, as it provides the basic raw material to provide better education and health services and to improve the general government of the country. My constituents are concerned, however, about the further possibility—one that the Government seem keen to develop—of selling census material to commercial organisations that will use it for their own profit.
  Census material has been sold in the past and I do not believe that that caused many problems. This time round, however, that material will be sold on the basis of postal codes. Since the previous census, methods of handling data by computer have developed greatly. People are concerned that after the next census has been completed, census material will be available within 18 months on the basis of postal codes.
  It will be relatively simple to run that census material through a computer and to match it to information on the electoral register and on poll tax returns. Commercial organisations, having done that, will use the lists generated, based on names on the electoral register and the census information, for mail shots.
  My constituents, in common with many others, already receive far too much junk mail. It would be of considerable concern to them if, having completed census forms to improve good government in this country, they found that their letter boxes were stuffed with more items of junk mail. When we discussed the census order, the Minister said that my constituents should not complain if junk mail is more accurately directed rather than inaccurately directed as it is now. Many of my constituents do not want mail shots at all.
  If I am concerned about mail shots, I am even more concerned about the present practice of insurance companies refusing insurance cover to certain areas of towns because of their postal codes and, in some cases, dramatically increasing premiums. If that policy is based on crime statistics for an area, together with census material, my constituents and others have reason to be concerned.
  Even at this late stage the Minister should think again about allowing census information to be made available on the basis of relatively small postal code areas of about 2,200 households because of the way in which it can be used for commercial purposes. We have had more than 100 years of almost universal co-operation with the census on the basis that it is to provide information for the good government of this country, and it would be very sad if people reduced their co-operation because they were unhappy about some of the uses to which census material was to be put.
  It might be better to forgo income from the sale of such information to commercial organisations so that we could
  74
  continue to receive the goodwill of the general public rather than to risk that general goodwill by making information available on the basis of relatively small postal code areas. Although I shall not vote against the Bill, I still hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to sell census information on the basis of postal codes.
  7.21 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promose to be very brief. I wish to voice my concern about confidentiality and to seek an assurance from the Minister. Am I to take it that those who are employed temporarily or otherwise by the registrar in Scotland in the collection of highly confidential information will not collect such information from the neighbourhoods in which they live?
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that the census is important, and that is why I shall not vote against the Bill. However, the census depends on public co-operation. Therefore, there should be no fear about how census data will be used or people would be likely to give wrong information.
  The Minister should comment on a letter in last Saturday's issue of The Guardian from Mr. David Northmore of Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd. He drew attention to the longitudinal survey that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys conducts, which traces the activities of 1 per cent. of the population—about 600,000 people—through their entire lifetimes. He said that following the 17th national census—this is the 19th—the National Council for Civil Liberties
  "revealed that OPCS had undertaken a follow-up survey of ex-nurses whose names and addresses had been taken from the individual census returns—although no warning that this might happen was given on the forms."
  Mr. Northmore hopes that that will not happen with this census, and particularly in respect of the longitudinal survey. He went on to ask an important question about whether OPCS computers will be registered under the Data Protection Act 1984
  "for the transfer of such information".
  Those are two very good points and they warrant a response by the Minister.
  I made it clear in Committee and on Second Reading that there was poor planning by the Government in relation to the census which is to take place on 21 April. They were slow to get the report on confidentiality from the British Computer Society. They said that it would not be ready until after the census began, but they have since hurried because pressure was applied by hon. Members on the Committee, and they have published Command Paper 1447. The BCS said that the plans are okay and that all that it can do is to look at plans and intentions but that it could not give
  "a definitive view of actual adherence in practice".
  That point is repeated throughout the report. The report goes on to state that:
  "not all procedures had been defined, not all aspects of systems had been designed, not all equipment had been procured or installed, nor had all accommodation been completed."
  The census has been poorly organised by the Government.

  75
  There is a serious question about information technology. Much new technology has been introduced since the previous census. In Committee I referred to optical discs. British Telecom can put virtually all its telephone directories on optical discs. Presumably census officers will also be able to put information on optical discs in the near future. We had some assurance——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I dislike stopping the hon. Gentleman, but I draw his attention to the fact that the Bill is only a three-clause Bill—it is narrow. This is the Third Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman can debate only what is in the Bill, not what he would like to be in the Bill, or what might have been or should have been in the Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: I am confining myself to the Bill because it is the interpretation of confidentiality—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would refer me to the section of the Bill to which he is referring. That would be extremely helpful.
  Mr. Cohen: I am referring to confidentiality, which is in the short title of the Bill and in the long title. If confidentiality is not assured, the census will fail in its essential purposes. I am trying to restrict my remarks. I made speeches on Second Reading and in Committee and I do not wish to repeat them.
  The Government are not allowing subject access, and that is a mistake. People should be able to see their own personal data to check that they are not misused. That is how the Bill is relevant to the data protection legislation. The OPCS seems to be saying, "We are keeping your information confidential, but you cannot look at it to check that we are doing that." That is not a good aspect.
  I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish about information being provided for commercial purposes. It was a mistake for the Government to open just a window for that to be done on the basis of postal codes. The minimum of 16 households and 50 individuals to which the Minister referred is too small. The Minister should have increased that minimum to protect confidentiality. Good assurances about the poll tax were given in Committee. I even put out press releases relating to those assurances so that people would fill in their forms properly. However, there is an abiding fear among many people, including some of my constituents, that the information might yet be used for poll tax purposes. In view of the assurances that we were given in Committee, I do not think that it will be. However, if the Government want to make sure that this is not a problem, they should scrap the poll tax. We are told that that tax is still under consideration. I suggest that the Minister who is responsible for census returns should put in his tuppence worth towards scrapping it.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I know that the Minister is disappointed when I make short speeches. Well, I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint him on this occasion, as I want to make only a few brief points. Indeed, my points will be developments of those
  76
  made by my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who talked about the problems of confidentiality.
  My hon. Friends referred in particular to information that could be derived by way of postal districts. If people feel that there is not full confidentiality, it is difficult to secure their co-operation and good will. Despite the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton, the Bill does provide protection with regard to information given to poll tax registrars. Such information cannot be used for census purposes.
  However, I argue that the Government ought to be consistent. The issue of confidentiality affects many aspects of British politics and the British constitution. The census is a key element of constitutional law. Written in this measure, or perhaps into a separate measure, should be a provision that information supplied for electoral purposes must be kept separate from information supplied for poll tax purposes. It is my intention to seek to introduce a measure entitled the Electoral Registration (Confidentiality) Bill, which will be entirely consistent with this measure. Thus, I hope, the Minister will have an opportunity to support the protection that I seek.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Dorrell: Once again, I am grateful for the expressions of support from all parts of the House for the principle on which the Bill is based, which is that it is important to establish beyond peradventure that information given in the course of a census is the subject of a statutory duty of confidentiality that is complete and unquestioned. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and his hon. Friends for that important principle. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Perry Barr that the 10-year series censuses in this country provide valuable information. Certainly, the information is valuable for the management of the health service. It is also valuable to the Opposition, because it enables them to support their prejudices with the occasional smattering of facts when they advance their case against us.[Interruption.] It is a tactic which has been used by successive Oppositions down the years.
  Obviously, the information provided through a census is an important basis of political debate. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr has stressed, there is no connection—indeed, there can be no connection—between the information provided in the course of a census and information associated with the community charge. First, the information collected in the course of a census is the subject of a statutory duty of confidentiality and cannot, therefore, be passed to those responsible for the community charge register. Secondly, by the time census information was published, it would be out of date for the purposes of compiling a community charge register.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) continues to be concerned about the possible commercial exploitation of the information provided through a census. I do not see how, in a free society, one could prevent information published by census offices from being used by commercial organisations as a basis for market research. I think that that is neither possible nor desirable.
  The hon. Gentleman, seeing that information is to be published by the census offices on the basis of postcode

  77
  sectors, makes the link between those sectors and junk mail. Apart from the fact that both have at least an indirect connection with the Post Office, I do not think that there is an important link between them. The hon. Gentleman's argument rests on the assumption that the publication of information on the basis of postcode sectors involves a greater risk to confidentiality than does the publication of information on another local basis. As I reminded the members of the Standing Committee, the average postcode sector is roughly 10 times the size of the average enumeration district. So far as I know, the hon. Gentleman does not challenge the suggestion that we should publish information on the basis of enumeration districts. The average postcode sector contains 2,300 households, whereas the average enumeration district contains 200 households.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In the past, the enumeration district was drawn up for convenience in the collection of information, and could not be easily matched with anything else. It would have been extremely difficult to run information through a computer and quickly match it with names on the electoral list. But, once the postal code is included, it will be extremely easy to match on a national basis.
  Mr. Dorrell: The possibilities about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern were that there could be breaches of confidentiality and that information derived from a census could be used commercially. The point that I am making is that the enumeration district is a building block for the creation of a postcode sector—not the other way round. Of course, the boundaries will not always be precisely the same. Anyone seeking to discover the social make-up of a postcode sector would not find it very difficult—give or take the odd relatively small margin of error—to build up a reasonable picture, simply by taking the information published on the basis of enumeration districts. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has shown that there is either a threat to confidentiality or a breach of privacy that could be exploited commercially in an undesirable way by providing information on the basis of postcode sectors.
  78
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked me for an assurance that temporary employees would not be asked to collect information in the locality in which they lived. I can give him an absolute assurance to that effect.
  The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) expressed concern abut the contents of a letter in last Saturday's Guardian concerning the collection of information in a longitudinal study. I refer the hon. Gentleman to a written answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), in which I set out the basis of the continuing longitudinal study that the OPCS conducts:
  "The OPCS has no plans to conduct, commission or participate in a longitudinal survey based on the 1991 census. Such a survey would entail repeated interviewing of a sample of the population over a period of time. However, the OPCS administers a longitudinal study which can be used to link together, when required, data for a 1 per cent. sample of the population of England and Wales to produce statistical tables. The study includes the information from the various records of events held by the OPCS. The events include the 1971 and 1981 censuses, births and deaths. The study provides additional insights in the process of changes over time and increase the usefulness of information collected by the OPCS. As announced in the winter 1989 issue of Population Trends', a copy of which is in the Library, the OPCS plans to include the appropriate sample of records from the 1991 census in the study."—[Official Report, 26 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 467.]
  As regards the hon. Gentleman's case that the British Computer Society study was published too late, I am bound to say that it could also have been published too early. The purpose of the study was to examine the procedures that were being put in place for the census that is to take place in April. That requires the BCS to see those procedures being put into place and it would have been absurd to advance that ahead of the time when that information would have been available to it.
  The Bill is a small but significant step in completing the statutory guarantee of confidentiality surrounding the census, and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Oversea Superannuation Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I start by declaring a pecuniary interest in that I am a beneficiary of the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 by virtue of having served in colonial Nigeria. The Bill covers comparatively narrow ground, but I shall make one or two points that are of importance to the people concerned and to others who may be indirectly concerned, or who may be concerned in the future.
  I refer first to Hong Kong pensioners. As the House knows, the position there is completely different from that in the rest of the former colonial empire. On transition to independence, arrangements for the pensions of the expatriate staff of the British colonial service or the British overseas civil service were made, and pensions were guaranteed and paid by Britain in the shape of the Overseas Pensions Act, which provides for enhancement and index linking. That is wholly beneficial and, to the extent that the Bill tidies up little problems of that kind for members of the overseas civil service, one is grateful.
  However, Hong Kong will not become independent. It is not envisaged that the same arrangements will apply to those who have retired or who will retire from colonial service there as apply to people who have served in countries that have become independent and whose pensions are fully protected. For one thing, such people get credit for war service included with their final pension. Half of their war service is added on for pension purposes. That is a generous and proper addition. However, Hong Kong does not, and will not, do that. The Hong Kong Government are dragging their feet under cover of the excuse that it has a problem with the People's Republic. Although this is a colonial territory and should obey the orders of the British Government, the British Government are not willing to enforce their authority and tell these unelected administrators, most of whom are British, where their duty lies. Their duty is to ensure that pensioners who served in the colonial service in Hong Kong are treated in the same way as pensioners who have retired from service in other parts of the colonial empire.
  Secondly, the arrangements for Hong Kong pensioners are special in that the value of the pension awarded at the end of service, whether or not the person has been in service elsewhere, is calculated in terms of the Hong Kong dollar, which is linked to the American dollar. Such pensions have been subject to fluctuation. I am talking about those drawing their pensions now, who may or may not be covered by the Bill, but whose pensions may have declined in value by 30 per cent. Such a deterioration in the value of the pension of someone who has given service to the Crown with honour, honesty and responsibility and now is living in Britain is wrong. These people should be treated in the same way as all other pensioners who have served in the colonial service.
  The remedy is for the British Government to agree, under the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act, to bring the Hong Kong system into line with that for other services, including those covered by the Bill. We must avoid that discrepancy which is emerging in the treatment of pensioners. From whatever part of the colonial service
  80
  these people have retired, the amount payable should be calculated in sterling from the date of retirement and not from some future date. I know that that means the British Government having to take over in the way proposed in the Bill so as to ensure equality of treatment, but it must be done. We cannot leave an injustice like this when Hong Kong ceases to be part of the colonial empire.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is not clear from the Bill, but I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could confirm that the provisions of the Bill apply to Hong Kong pensioners.
  Mr. Stanbrook: That is part of the point that has to be made. A number of people covered by the Bill come under the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act and the question is whether they will get the same treatment as everyone else. The Minister may say that they will, and I shall be happy about that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman about this because on Third Reading we must discuss what is in the Bill, not how we think the Bill should be extended.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I am not talking about extending the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am asking questions. Who come under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973? From what territories do they come? Are they restricted to those who come from one territory, or are they part of the general movement of tidying up pensions legislation, which applies to all former colonial service officers? There is not much in it, it may be a quibble, but it is important that such a grievance should be ventilated if it can be done within the confines of the Bill. I think that it can because of the overriding benefit that Parliament gives to the colonial service generally by bringing all these cases within the Overseas Pensions Act.
  We should ensure that included in this benefit are all those who come from different circumstances—for example, those who served in Hong Kong, which is not a traditional colony that is about to get independence. Another example is Zimbabwe, which, although it received independance, had a civil service that was locally recruited rather than being recruited by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Therefore, those who served in it do not have the same pension rights as others in the colonial service. Those people stayed at their posts and many served the British empire in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
  These are difficult problems, but they have to be addressed and I believe that I was right to raise them in this debate.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I had not intended to say anything, but, having heard the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I feel that I must say a few words. I do not intend to go down the road that he opened up, because, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot see its direct relevance to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that he was a beneficiary of the Bill, but the Opposition maintain their support for the Bill, shown on Second Reading and in Committee.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on the eloquent and efficient way in which he dealt with the Bill in Committee. I congratulate the Minister for Overseas Development,

  81
  who unfortunately is not with us today, on the excellent way in which she dealt with the Bill in Committee. Perhaps I may be permitted the rare privilege of congratulating the Minister with us today on the eloquent way in which he moved the Third Reading.
  7.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): In view of the normal exchanges between the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and myself, I am grateful for his gracious compliment, which was so different from our last exchange.
  With regard to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), perhaps it would be helpful if I stated the purpose of the Bill concisely. It seeks to bring the overseas superannuation scheme within the scope of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973, thereby giving the Overseas Development Administration the authority to defund the scheme—if I may use the jargon—which means to convert the scheme into a pay-as-you-go system.
  The overseas superannuation scheme was an extra statutory pension fund that was set up in 1951 by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to provide superannuation cover for research and scientific staff who were working overseas. It was closed to new members in 1961, and there are no active contributors. It was always a small fund. It now pays 134 officers' pensions and makes 17 dependants' awards. One of its essential problems is its administrative cost. It consumes abut £25,000 per year.
  There has been wide consultation on the desirability of this Bill. There was discussion with the advisory board, on which beneficiaries are represented. The beneficiaries were written to and asked whether they wished to petition against the Bill, but no petition has been lodged.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington referred specifically to Hong Kong. No decisions have yet been taken on the arrangements that will be made for overseas civil service officers following the transfer of sovereignty. My hon. Friend also referred to Zimbabwe. I am afraid that there is no prospect of the Government taking over responsibility for the payment of pensions that are now the responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
  7.51 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10880/90+CORI and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by H.M. Treasury on 22nd February, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 26th February relating to extension of food assistance to the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria and a credit facility for the Soviet Union and 4120/91 relating to revision of the financial perspective to finance technical assistance for the Soviet Union; and agrees with the Government that food aid to Romania and Bulgaria should be considered a priority; that any Community food aid given to the Soviet Union should be provided for humanitarian purposes; and that consideration of any other forms of Community help should take full account of developments in the Soviet Union and the Baltic States.
  Tonight the House is debating matters that have considerable implications for us all—developments in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, and the way in which the European Community is responding and should respond to those events. First, I should like to put the debate in context—[Laughter] I am being laughed at, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must advise Opposition Members that I was simply setting my stop watch so that I do not go on for too long. I hope that that provides some reassurance——
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Was the Minister setting his watch to Moscow time?
  Mr. Hogg: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is House of Commons stop-watch time.
  First, I should like to put the debate into its proper historical context. Worried as we are by recent shifts of policy in the Soviet Union, we should also acknowledge the profound and, we hope, irreversible changes that have taken place there. The countries that until recently were the satellite countries of the Soviet Union are now free of Soviet control. Most have introduced or are introducing accountable systems of government, and their economies are the subject of urgent and fundamental restructuring.Great changes have occurred within the Soviet Union itself since Mr. Gorbachev began the process of reform. The Soviet Union is a much more liberal and open society than it was six years ago. Ordinary people there have tasted freedom and can see the world more clearly and as it is. The distorting prism of Marxist theology lies shattered on the ground. The old style of Soviet government has failed the Soviet people and, for that reason, is finished.
  Above all, we should recognise that the cold war has come to an end. The liberation of Kuwait—a triumph that we rightly celebrate—would not have been possible if the Soviet Union had not lent its support to the resolutions of the Security Council.
  However, while the Government recognise the extent of the change that has taken place in eastern Europe and the critical role that President Gorbachev has played in that process of change—without him I do not believe that such change would have occurred—our support for President Gorbachev is not uncritical or unqualified. We support not Gorbachev the man, but Gorbachev the reformer.
  This debate concerns the European Community's policy as set out in the documents that we are considering. Our policy is to encourage, to stimulate and, where we can,

  83
  to reward political and economic reform in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. All of us recognise the great difficulties that stand in the way of that process, and the length of time that the change will take. The nature of those changes is for the peoples of the Soviet Union to determine. We have no right—indeed, we lack the capacity—to influence the way in which the Soviet peoples will ultimately determine their future. It is not for us to seek the dissolution of the Soviet Union or to determine the shape of the constitutional arrangements that may be devised. Our interest—it is also the interest of the Soviet Union itself—lies in seeing the republics agreeing with the Soviet Government on new methods of working together harmoniously and with mutual consent. Our motives are simple. We believe that political and economic reform in eastern Europe and especially in the Soviet Union is desirable both for those who live in those countries and for all of us who inhabit the continent of Europe. By assisting the process whereby individuals within the Soviet Union gain greater economic and political freedom, we hope to see that country develop its great potential. Moreover, and as a general rule, democratic states do not fight aggressive wars.
  That was the background to the decisions that were taken by the European Council on 14 and 15 December 1990. The Community wanted to reinforce the movement of reform within the Soviet Union by sending a clear signal of support. That is why the Community decided on four specific measures: food aid, worth £175 million; a guarantee for credits to purchase food, worth £350 million; technical assistance to the value of £280 million, and the negotiation of a new and wide-ranging agreement for our mutual relations. The Government supported all those decisions. However, we believe that there should be a close connection between the delivery of support and the fact of reform. Furthermore, we were and we are concerned that food aid should be targeted at the genuinely needy, and that it should be closely monitored to ensure that it reaches those people.
  Sir David Steel: I have been closely following what the Minister is saying. Democratic groupings in the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria have stressed the importance not only of monitoring to whom the food goes, but the method of distribution. In other words, will the ancien regime get the credit for distribution through its own tentacles of apparatus, or will we ensure that the distribution of food does not become a political instrument for propping up the old and discredited administrations?
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious and important point. We will endeavour to ensure that the method of distribution is not that described by the right hon. Gentleman and that it does not have the effect that he fears.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the question that the Minister has just answered and with respect to the food aid for humanitarian purposes, which non-governmental agencies within the European Community will monitor that distribution in the way requested by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)?
  Mr. Hogg: Management committees will be set up on which officials will be represented. They will have an overall and over-arching duty to monitor. I cannot at this moment tell the hon. Gentleman whether any nongovernmental organisations will be involved in that process. However, I will make inquiries about that during the debate and if I have an opportunity at its conclusion, I will try to deal with that specific point then, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me.
  As I was saying, it is important that we ensure that the humanitarian aid reaches those to whom it is directed. It is also very important not to disrupt the Soviet Union's agricultural market. It is also important that we do not stand in the way of much-needed improvements in the existing food distribution system.
  We must recognise that within the Soviet Union the greatest shortage is not of food, but of expertise and that is precisely what we have to offer. We can offer knowledge to develop an entrepreneurial system; training and advice to those engaged in new projects and market-oriented enterprises; and assistance to those engaged in constructing the legal framework for a market economy. That approach is the objective of the United Kingdom's know-how fund for the Soviet Union and it was also the purpose of the Community's technical assistance programme.
  As I have already said, we believe that there should be a close connection between the delivery of support and the fact of reform. The tragic events in the Baltic states have brought into question the Soviet commitment to reform and those events have caused real damage to east-west relations.
  The British Government have never recognised the forcible incorporation of the three Baltic states into the Soviet Union. We have repeatedly emphasised our belief that the peoples of the three Baltic republics have the right to determine their own futures. We wholly condemn the way in which the Soviet forces behaved in the early days of this year. The loss of life in Lithuania and Latvia was tragic and deplorable.
  Following those killings, we and our partners within the Community took urgent steps to emphasise to the Soviet Union that our measures of support were not unconditional and would not survive continued repression. We therefore suspended the bulk of the measures previously agreed at the Rome European Council. However, since that suspension, there have developed modest grounds for optimism. For example, the Soviet Government have appointed delegations to begin discussions with the three Baltic states.
  Moreover, the Soviet Government have distanced themselves from the bogus salvation councils that were brought into existence earlier this year. However, we must recognise that we are still some way from seeing proper and serious negotiations between the Baltic republics and the Soviet Government.
  It is against that background of modest improvement that we should consider how the west in general and the European Community in particular should proceed. Should we turn our backs on the Soviet Union? Should we withhold all the support and encouragement that I have described?
  I cannot believe that such a course would be right. The benefits of co-operation are obvious and mutual. The west has vital interests at stake. We therefore believe that, provided the response is positive, we should continue to

  85
  encourage and assist those working for reform within the Soviet Union. That is the message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is delivering this week in Moscow. He will emphasise that very substantial help is available. He will say that the benefit that will flow from integration into the international economic system is great. However, all that depends upon the Soviet Union continuing with political and economic reform.
  The motion refers to Bulgaria and Romania to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow referred.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: While we are considering economic aid, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is sympathy with the Soviet Union's position particularly when it has told the Baltic states that economic arrangements must be made? It is very difficult for any state to lose suddenly a vital part of its economy when its economy is in such difficulties.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made an important point. However, we must go back to first principles. In this case the first principles are that we did not recognise forcible incorporation of the three Baltic republics into the Soviet Union. That was achieved in a deplorable and unlawful way. That is the foundation on which the debate must stand. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the loss to the Soviet Union. However, at the same time my hon. Friend would be the first to concede that the peoples of the three Baltic republics have a right to determine their own futures.
  I am sure that the right approach for the House and for the Government is to say that we recognise the right of self-determination within the three Baltic republics and very much hope that there will be serious negotiations between the Soviet Government and those republics from which will emerge a solution that is acceptable to both parties. That may take the form of complete independence, but it may take a different form that falls short of complete independence. However, that is a matter for the parties to that negotiation.
  Romania and Bulgaria have a great need for food and medical aid. That is why the Government supported last December's decision of the European Council to provide £70 million of food and medical aid to both those countries. We are now pressing for the rapid disbursement of that aid.
  I am glad to say that the Bulgarian Government are actively pursuing a programme of economic and political reform. The United Kingdom Government recognise that and therefore two weeks ago, during the visit to this country of President Zhelev, we extended the know-how fund to Bulgaria.
  There is evidence that Romania is also pressing ahead with reform. Right hon. and hon. Members will have noted last Tuesday's speech by the Romanian Prime Minister, Mr Roman, in which he emphasised his Government's intention to restructure his country's economy along free market lines. We believe that the Community must encourage and assist that process, and we welcome the decision taken last January to include Romania in the PHARE programme. That decision was reached only after the European Community had carefully monitored events in Romania over the preceding six
  86
  months. I assure the House that the Community will continue to monitor events in Romania to ensure that reforms happen.
  Sir David Steel: Political as well as economic reforms?
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. I agree that political and economic reforms are linked.
  Our policy towards Romania provides a good example of the Community policy of conditionality. By making support conditional upon democracy and economic liberalisation—taking the point that the two stand together—the Community encourages reforms in those areas. By delivering a programme of support, we help the reformers to honour their undertakings.
  I hope that the Soviet Government have drawn the right conclusion from the delay in implementing the European Council package, and we believe that the time has come to move forward. Discussions on food aid and on credit guarantees have continued, and that work is more or less complete. The United Kingdom has insisted that food aid be properly targeted and monitored. Both food aid and credit guarantees will be under the supervision of management committees, which will permit strict member state control.
  Adverting to the intervention by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow when he asked about the extent to which non-governmental organisations will be involved in monitoring distribution, I confirm that we have pressed for a role for NGOs, and that the Commission's proposal includes provision for such help. The Red Cross is an obvious candidate in that respect, and the Crown Agents are another. No decisions have been taken as to which NGOs will be involved, but that NGOs should be involved is accepted.
  Discussions were resumed at today's Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, where our approach was endorsed by other member states. Financial aspects remain to be resolved with the European Parliament. The European Commission has yet to table a proposal on technical assistance, but we believe that it should continue its preparations. That view is endorsed by the Council.
  However, we believe that we should hold something in reserve, so a decision on the Commission's expected proposal on technical assistance will be taken in the light of the political and economic situation then prevailing. Only then will it be right to decide whether the financial perspectives should be amended to permit the release of the funds necessary to support the programme.
  Mr. Anderson: The Minister mentioned the Red Cross in relation to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about NGOs. May one take it that, in addition to working through those agencies, the British Government and the Community will work through the republic Governments, as well as through the central Government? There is clearly a power struggle under way between the Kremlin and individual constituent republics.
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, for the reasons suggested by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, and by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. It is important not to support by the provision of aid simply

  87
  the status quo or the Governments that are too closely associated with the ancien regime. It is often important to deliver aid at the lowest effective level.
  It is the British Government's earnest wish that conditions within the Soviet Union will permit early Council agreement to an extensive Community programme of technical assistance and, in due course, to a broader framework for our respective relations.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: The Government keep talking about the Soviet Union, perhaps quite rightly, but what is the Soviet Union today? Only yesterday, we heard that 70 or 80 per cent. of the population of Estonia and Latvia do not want their countries to remain part of the USSR. Will we not have to give serious consideration to helping countries such as Romania and Bulgaria individually? To put it bluntly, the USSR no longer really exists as a power bloc that is able to assist all the countries that are going through what we in Brum call a hell of a time.
  Mr. Hogg: I cannot entirely follow my hon. Friend in that. There is a distinction to be drawn between, on the one hand, Romania and Bulgaria, which are sovereign states, and, on the other, the three Baltic republics that are currently within the union; and on the third hand—if one can have three hands——
  Mr. George Foulkes: That must be why the hon. and learned Gentleman's watch has stopped.
  Mr. Hogg:—the other republics in the union.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: But they do not want it.
  Mr. Hogg: So far as the three Baltic republics are concerned, we did not accept their forceful incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1941, and we hope that they can negotiate with the USSR a relationship that is acceptable to them both. As to the remainder of the Soviet Union, I remind my hon. Friend of my earlier remarks.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was not in the Chamber at the time.
  Mr. Hogg: I believe that my hon. Friend had a pressing engagement elsewhere, but it is always nice to see him.
  It is not in our interests to seek to bring about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That is not the purpose of our policy. We are not in the business of doing that. Europe has much to gain from co-operation and closer links with the Soviet Union, but co-operation can continue only as long as we are confident of the Russian Government's commitment to the principles of reform. Our support for President Gorbachev is not unqualified or uncritical. We support not Mr. Gorbachev the man, but Mr. Gorbachev the reformer.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: Last year, I attended the European socialist parties congress in Berlin, just after everything started to happen in that part of the world, and was privileged to address that great assembly.
  88
  However, I came rather low down in the pecking order after the Kinnocks, Craxis, Mitterrands and Brandts had departed, so I addressed what was left of the audience.
  I was able to tell the delegates from central and eastern Europe in particular that one of the great things that the British parliamentary system teaches is how to speak to empty halls. I advised them to prepare for the day when the crowds will have left Wenceslas square, when they will also find themselves addressing empty halls. That lesson is useful, too, when contributing to foreign affairs debates in the House.
  This is a timely debate, as the Prime Minister arrives in Moscow this evening, and as European Community Foreign Ministers meet in Brussels today to discuss the same subject. I am grateful to the Government for arranging this debate so soon after we requested it. I also pay tribute to the Select Committee on European Legislation, which singled out these documents as being especially important.
  The debate gives us a chance to review not only the Community's programmes of immediate and longer-term aid, but the prevailing circumstances in the countries of central and eastern Europe, as well as the Soviet Union itself. Understandably and inevitably, our recent preoccupation has been with the middle east rather than with the eastern part of our own continent. That preoccupation may well continue for some time, but we must never allow it to drive from our minds the dangerous fragility of the newly democratised nations in Europe. Nor should we forget the forces that are changing and, in some respects, destabilising the Soviet Union—still a military super-power with more than 20,000 nuclear weapons, and still a vitally important player in the modelling of the new international order, whenever that will take place.
  There is an apparent lack of control in the Soviet Union at present—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) perhaps took it to extremes—which must perturb all of us. I was reminded of a story told by Sir David McNee, a former Metropolitan police commissioner, about his days as a police constable in Scotland. Having stopped a car that had been weaving along the highway, he went to the car window and asked the driver to wind it down. It became glaringly obvious what was wrong. He bent down and said to the driver, "Sir, you are drunk." The driver turned on him with a grin and said, "Thank God; I thought that my steering had gone."
  There is a feeling that eminent men are sitting in the Kremlin wondering whether they are drunk or whether the steering has gone. But, of course, the Soviet Union is still crucially important in world affairs, which is precisely why our Prime Minister is in Moscow this evening, and why his discussions there are so important.
  This may not be the place in which to say this, but, when we consider providing aid for our own continent, we must constantly remember the fate of the millions who, as we speak, are dying in the African famines. We must never allow our proper concern for the stability of Europe and the long-term democratic base of our neighbours to divert attention or resources from the pressing and urgent demands for the feeding of the millions who now face starvation.
  The documents that we are considering allow us both to examine the programme of food aid to the Soviet Union—which, latterly, has turned out to be somewhat controversial—and to hear the Minister confirm that

  89
  humanitarian aid has, indeed, reached the Soviet citizens for whom it was primarily intended. I am sure that. I am not alone in welcoming the fact that the Government are considering establishing that by means of nongovernmental organisations such as the Red Cross and the excellent Crown Agents.
  There is no shortage of food in the Soviet Union, which can cope easily with the food demands of its own population. The problem, which has created a crisis for, especially, those living in the cities, is the collapse of the distribution network in that huge country. While we may criticise a system that provides for shortages, we cannot get over the fact that it is the people themselves who are suffering.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend said, rather woundingly, that I had been extreme. That is not in my nature.
  The problems faced by those in the Soviet Union are very much of their own making. They gave thousands of millions of dollars of aid to Cuba, and still do so; they gave thousands of millions of dollars to support the fighting in Afghanistan, and thousands of millions of dollars to Iraq, all of whose weapons turned out to be like the weapons of toy soldiers.
  The idea that someone is extreme, or is exposing himself in public, if he draws attention to such matters does not hold water. Russia must be told, "Your days are over." It is no good the hon. Gentlemen saying that it is extreme to say such things; by one means or another, we want a peaceful entente.
  Mr. Robertson: First, let me apologise to the hon. Gentleman for calling him extreme. His moderation is highlighted by the fact that he calls me his hon. Friend.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: His steering has gone.
  Mr. Robertson: I assure my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman's steering has not gone. I took exception, however, to his implication that the Soviet Union no longer existed as a nation. Of course it has major problems, and considerable difficulties face its administration; but it is still there, and still represents a significant force in the world today. None of the facts adduced by the hon. Gentleman diminish that truth, but I accept his apologies for calling me a friend.
  The debate also allows us to examine the mechanics of the European Community, and some of the more substantial programmes of technical assistance in which it has been involved, including the PHARE programme—Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much of that programme will emanate from this country. As he will know better than I, PHARE programmes are initiated by individual Community countries. Accusations have been made, I hope unfairly, that we are not getting our fair share of the programmes set up under this admirable scheme. I am sure that the Minister will want to correct that impression before it is too widely accepted.
  Last month, in an excellent article in the Financial Times, Mr. David Buchan—who provides an enormous amount of information for all of us—called the European Community the
  "World leader of the 'salvation army—.
  Given the obligations that it has taken on under the G24 programmes, that is what it increasingly resembles.
  90
  The importance of our assistance to these countries should never be underestimated, and it would be helpful if the Community, as well as others, stopped calling it aid. Not only is that not a fair or accurate description of the technical and economic co-operation in which we are involved; it has the doubly harmful effect of legitimising an apparent competition with the third world. Assistance with the setting up of a stock market in Budapest, or a school for auditors in Prague, is radically different from the provision of food and medicine for starving babies in Ethiopia and Sudan. They must never be seen to be in competition for the same finite resources, and it is a matter of shame that some countries and individuals have raided one to pay for the other.
  None the less, it may be prudent to remind ourselves why we are involved in the provision of assistance for central and eastern Europe. It has only a little to do with altruism and moral obligation and a good deal to do with self-interest. There is nothing unwise or reprehensible in that, of course, as self-interest has motivated international relationships down the centuries. It was, indeed, self-interest—interest in our own survival—that drove us for 45 years to invest vast, almost limitless, funds to defend ourselves from a threat from the military machine of the eastern bloc. It must be in that same self-interest to ensure that instability and economic self-destruction do riot become the hallmark of the newly liberated nations of eastern Europe.
  We must welcome, as I am sure the Minister does, the moves by the Community to construct new association agreements, fashioned as European agreements to distinguish them from the others, which I hope will lead in the foreseeable future to full Community membership for those countries. It is also sensible that we restrict the countries, for the moment at least, to Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but in the long term and even in the medium term we must not be seen to exclude Bulgaria and Romania.
  More than anything else, it was a tide of unsatisfied consumer pressure—people materially denied by corrupt and unworkable economic systems—which finally swept away the communist states. How ironic it would be if a disillusionment with the alternative systems were to bring other nastier alternatives back to power.
  Only two weeks ago Mr. Miklos Nemeth, the former Prime Minister of Hungary who is now, admirably, vice-president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, said:
  "The democracy of poverty is dictatorship. Real democracy can only be achieved against a background of economic security."
  He concluded:
  "The future—not only the future of Central Europe but the safety of the whole of Europe, largely depends on how the former West and the former East are able to make this recognition a reality in practical economic co-operation."
  Those were wise words to which we should listen with great care, as we should listen to the views of the Bank for International Settlements whose recent quarterly report made it clear that:
  "official aid is critical to the success of the economic reform in the region."
  All that is self-evident, but it needs constant repetition to get the business and financial world to listen. I know that the Government have made great strides through the know-how funds, on the advisory board of which I serve with the Minister, and through the instruments that we are

  91
  extremely fortunate to have. In particular, I think of the British Council with its network already in place to ensure that our assistance gets right to the grassroots quickly. We should also pay tribute to the Confederation of British Industry, whose scheme for training managers has been a great success and, I understand, is to be expanded.
  Mr. Foulkes: The co-operative movement, too.
  Mr. Robertson: Indeed, I also pay tribute to the co-operative movement. It has acted as an example in setting up co-operatives and a form of a co-operative bank. Such matters cannot be left to luck and good fortune. Public stimulus will continue to be required if the private sector is to be encouraged to move into these regions.
  In addition to the shock to the eastern economies brought about by having to pay new higher prices for Soviet oil and in hard currency at that, is the shock of the Gulf impact on overall oil prices and supply. Where it was difficult and dangerous to restructure economies, the task has been made even more dangerous and risky—all at a point where access to international lending has been severely restricted. Unemployment, a previously unknown experience, is rising in all the countries and it may well provide a breaking-point strain for the shaky, democratic institutions.
  The practice of government is not strange to any of those countries, even if it is now much more difficult than when all dissent was suppressed. What is crucially missing is the practice of opposition—that patient, frustrating mixture of criticism of Government and the assembly of a palatable alternative. We have built up that expertise over 12 years and I am sure that the Minister will enjoy it before the year is out. That careful mixture of responsible, loyal opposition will be crucial for the long-term, political stability of those nations and is essential in providing a secure environment for economic investment.
  Last week we received a prescient warning from two senior citizens of the central and east European environment. President Havel of Czechoslovakia said of his country:
  "The danger lies in permanent instability and chaos, which would affect not only neighbouring countries but also Europe and the entire world."
  Then, in the words of Mr. Adam Michnik, the prominent Polish opposition figure and editor of the Solidarity daily newspaper, Gaseta Wyborcza—I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for help in pronunciation because he trained in the diplomatic service and his language skills are much greater than mine:
  "the cult of the central plan has been replaced across Eastern Europe by the cult of the free market."
  He also warned that these societies were psychologically unprepared to deal with the effects of that—unemployment and bankruptcies—at a time of rising consumerist expectations. Those are serious signals from serious, responsible, distinguished politicians in central Europe. They point to the problems which face them and which we must face.
  The Minister was right to point out the qualitative and quantitative difference in the Soviet Union from that of the new democracies. It is right that we should treat carefully the type of assistance and its targeting that we give to the Soviet Union. I, too, believe that President Gorbachev
  92
  deserves and should continue to receive our support. After all, his experiment is a mere six years old and it has changed the face both of the USSR and the world. However, there are forces abroad in the Soviet Union—anti-western, right-wing and isolationist. That is a tide that we cannot encourage. It means that the assistance, both humanitarian food aid and technical, offered by the Community and Britain must be selectively directed and conditional on the maintenance of the improved human rights and reform record that we have seen since President Gorbachev came to power.
  We cannot overstate the influence that we shall have. We must not be over-moralistic, because the size of the Soviet Union and its problems is so vast that its salvation can eventually come only from inside. We can make our views known and hope that they will help to keep the right pressure in the right direction.
  There are major dangers ahead for the countries of east and central Europe, but we face some of those dangers ourselves. Just as the unification of Germany gained its impetus from the pressure to emigrate west if nothing was done, so if our assistance falters or if we fail to deliver what is necessary to underpin the democratic experiment that is going on, the fall-out may not stay easily confined at home and will certainly not be confined to the Oder-Neisse line. Sometimes I fear that it could become one of the biggest problems that we may face in the late 1990s. I believe in being optimistic and that there is a case for optimism, but that prospect is, indeed, a spectre that is realistically before us. That, alone, should be enough to motivate us for the better.
  8.38 pm
  Sir Michael Marshall: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the two Front-Bench spokesmen. It is important in these matters that, as far as possible, a common voice should come from this House, and I believe that it has. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister put the matter into perspective persuasively and helpfully and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), reflecting his work on the advisory body for the know-how funds and the Great Britain-East Europe Centre, brought breadth of vision to the subject. I welcome this debate, and I want to concentrate on Bulgaria for reasons which I shall explain.
  I was glad to see the relatively late addition to the proposals of medical assistance, which has been added to food assistance in the cases of Romania and Bulgaria. I shall not repeat the arguments about the Soviet Union except to say that one of the best ways of helping the democratic and economic development that we all want in the Soviet Union is to help its former satellite countries to become successful in their own right. In a limited way they can show economic and democratic developments going hand in hand and working, and that may help the Soviet Union.
  I wish to discuss Bulgaria partly because I am chairman of the British-Bulgarian parliamentary group and partly because Bulgaria has not featured as largely in these debates as it should have—partly because of its small size compared with that of the Soviet Union and also because countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland tend to have their natural constituencies of interest. They draw in private investment in a way that is more difficult for Romania and Bulgaria to achieve. Whatever one says

  93
  about Ceausescu's regime, it had at least the one great advantage of leaving his country with virtually no foreign debt, which gives Romania a certain amount of elbow room. Moreover, in the strange way in which these things happen on our country, media interest in Romania, for reasons on which I need not expand, has been great. In my constituency—this may be mirrored throughout the country—there is enormous interest in the voluntary sector in supporting Romania, especially its AIDS-infected babies. Every month a lorry with food and medical supplies leaves my constituency for Romania.
  Against that background, I want to discuss Bulgaria's problems, which have gone largely unknown hitherto. I was glad to hear the Minister talking about the economic and political reforms which were recognised in the announcement of the know-how fund. The visit by President Zhelev was timely in that regard. There are grounds for optimism about a growing interest in Bulgaria given the number of exhanges between, for instance, this House and that country. There was a recent Inter-Parliamentary Union visit, and the CBI is looking into the possibility of joint ventures. The Great Britain-East Europe Centre, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and certain Opposition Members serve, will also help to redress the balance and meet the need for greater understanding of the great humanitarian needs of Bulgaria.
  I visited Bulgaria in 1988 for the first time since becoming a Member of this House, but I was there before, in the 1960s. There has been a sad progression in that country. It became almost helpless following the break-up of the traditional Soviet and east European trading patterns. Bulgaria is a small country with only 9 million people. In some ways it used to be the fruit basket of the communist bloc; suddenly it found itself in an exposed position. Its relationship with the Soviet Union broke down and the break-down of its barter trade with oil was also a factor.
  Bulgaria produces oil but has to blend it with imports of oil, as does Britain, so it has experienced great difficulty because of rising oil prices and because—this brings us nearer to home—it is owed large sums of money by Iraq. Iraq's unwillingness to pay its debts of recent years has caused great difficulties for many countries, including Bulgaria.
  Bulgaria is heavily dependent on electricity—hence the importance once again of oil. Almost everyone in Sofia cooks with electricity; vast numbers of people must sit hungry in the cold and dark. And there are chronic shortages of medicine.
  The food shortages have not been as bad as they might have been because this winter has been relatively mild, but I am advised of extreme shortages of meat, eggs, butter, sugar, cheese and cooking oils. Prices are 10 times what they were a year ago. People can buy food, at uncontrolled prices, because of the slaughter of milk cows and of poultry that should really be used for egg production.
  The motion this evening suggests a way of beginning to help to get a free market working in countries such as Bulgaria. The present price distortions are leading to hoarding and black marketeering. The urgent provision of food from Community surpluses gives us a chance to get prices back into balance and to make hoarding a less attractive proposition. I welcome the proposals in that direction in the motion.
  94
  I should like the Minister to put the food and medical aid that we are discussing in a wider context. What estimate has been made of the effect of this aid? How far will it meet the need and complement other aid of which we are aware? Over what period will it take effect? In what sense is it related to other relevant aid—for instance, for food production? Bulgaria used to be a natural food producer and processor; tourism was also important, and there was some light industry. It is of the utmost importance that the country's food production be restored. It is said that next year's harvest may be doomed for lack of the necessary agro-chemicals and investment.
  Last December the state monopolies in tobacco, fruit, vegetables and poultry were all disbanded. They were closed down, and their component parts are now small companies in a free market economy. Naturally, I welcome that, but the process urgently requires certain skills and inward investment. The latter is arriving only slowly and Bulgaria has had to attract British companies in competition with other countries in central and eastern Europe. There are ways of helping the country internally—in management training, in finance and in marketing. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two about how the know-how fund is related to what we are discussing, and about how we shall bridge the gap between Bulgaria's needs and what it is receiving. I welcome the extension of the know-how funds to Bulgaria. It is clear that it is directly related to the process of trying to develop a free market.
  How far does what we are currently doing help to forward the attempt by Bulgaria to establish a more free-standing and logical structure for its food and food processing industries? How far is that seen not just by the Government but by the Community as a continuing process of aid? There is a real fear of deaths this winter in Bulgaria and those who will suffer are the most vulnerable—the old and the very young. There are real problems of malnutrition and hypothermia and a shortage of medical supplies.
  The hon. Member for Hamiliton was right to remind us that we cannot divorce the subject of the debate from the overwhelming problems in Africa and Asia which suffer from famine. However, in Bulgaria there are fears of famine. I am told that for some time there has been no insulin or none of the equipment that is necessary to test blood for the presence of hepatitis or AIDS. Drugs sold on prescription and even everyday drugs such as aspirin are not available.
  Helping Bulgaria cannot be a matter just for the Government or our partners in the Community. Every hon. Member has a role. Widespread recognition has been accorded to Romania, and it is reasonable to suggest that it should extend to Bulgaria. It has many similar problems, but it has not received the level of media interest that can help to bring forward voluntary help. However, such interest can lead to unfair discrepancies of the type that I have sought to outline. I hope that all hon. Members agree that it would be reasonable and appropriate to urge people to extend to Bulgaria the voluntary activity that was harnessed to help Romania.
  The Minister and the hon. Member for Hamilton said that there was a need to ensure that supplies get through. They will both be aware of the new and dynamic ambassador, Mr. Ivan Stancioff, at the Bulgarian embassy. That shows that Bulgaria is addressing the problem, and I am advised that there is a depot in Reading

  95
  to which those who want to send voluntary supplies of food and medicine can apply. Such people can be assured that the supplies will be supervised and directed to the proper outlets. To make the point plain, the ambassador has said that those who wish to travel with such supplies or to take them under their own steam may do so. Such openness is encouraging to the voluntary sector.
  I detect some scope for joint ventures and the like, and there is some dialogue about economic progress. However, the Bulgarian Parliament and Government still have a long way to go in making their legislation more attractive and relevant to inward investors. I know that they seek such investment.
  The aid that we are debating is important in the wider sense in helping to create successful economic and political conditions in the small countries of central and eastern Europe. Such aid is relevant not only to their needs, but to the wider challenges in the Soviet Union. The proposals meet a genuine humanitarian need and it is appropriate that the House should direct itself to the problem because, as I have said, all hon. Members have a part to play.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: This interesting debate touches on issues that of late we have not had the time to discuss. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall). He did not mention it in his speech, but he is the past chairman of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Over the past 18 months that group has been greatly involved in helping the countries of central and eastern Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and I were officers in the IPU under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Arundel, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would join me in paying a warm tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work to improve our relationships with other European countries.
  I and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who are members of the Council of Europe, have over the past 18 months seen very great changes. Many of the central and eastern European countries have delegates and delegations at our meetings and at committees in the Council of Europe. We are now starting to hear first-hand accounts of the problems that those countries face and they are beginning to tell us about their hopes and aspirations.
  For 40 years the countries of western Europe were calling for freedom and democracy in eastern Europe. Now that the process has started, we have a responsibility to help those countries. We have the skills, the knowledge and the wealth, and we must share them. One now meets many representatives from eastern Europe at conferences and meetings. Many of them thought that the changes would be based on western economic systems and that the benefits that flow from such systems would soon start to appear for them. That has not happened and it will not happen for a long time. Such benefits will emerge in those countries, but we must pay attention to the problems that are beginning to appear there now.
  It is all very well to debate these matters and to provide technical assistance, but if we do not start to help these countries face the social problems that are involved in the changes that are taking place, we shall be letting them
  96
  down. Such is the extent of unemployment in central and eastern European countries that a meeting of the social and health committee of the Council of Europe which I shall attend in Paris on Friday will have that issue on its agenda. The meeting has been arranged basically to discuss the unemployment and social unrest that are starting to develop in the countries of central and eastern Europe. These developments are of crucial importance to the United Kingdom and other western European countries that have knowledge of the problems and an understanding of how to deal with them. We and other western European countries must share our knowledge with the countries of central and eastern Europe.
  Associated with the problem of unemployment are women's employment rights and employment opportunities, which are not always fully considered. We must give consideration to the provision of social assistance for the very poor. We know that there are many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in central and eastern Europe who are extremely poor. They need help. We must bear in mind also the needs of the elderly and the disabled. We must accept these responsibilities and offer practical assistance.
  Over the past 18 months, vast sums have been given by way of grants to central and eastern Europe. There are many examples, but I shall quote only two or three. The International Monetary Fund gave US $710 million to Poland. A similar programme for Hungary amounted to US $210 million. There is a World bank credit of US $5,000 million to central and eastern European countries that will be spread over three years. There was a Japanese aid package of US $1,200 million for Hungary and Poland. These are substantial sums. Whatever countries the financial aid may come from, the moneys come from taxpayers. We have a right to discuss economic systems with the beneficiaries as we have a right also to encourage them to follow certain systems.
  Many of the countries that are receiving aid have great potential. We are discussing the provision of agricultural assistance to three countries and certainly two of them—the Soviet Union and Romania—and possibly the third, Bulgaria, have the most enormous potential for development. Sadly, such development has not taken place for year after year. Surely we have a right to ask what is happening in these countries. We have a right to seek to modernise and develop their agriculture systems. Any of us who have even a limited knowledge of the way in which agriculture is practised in the United Kingdom know that nowadays it is possible to make enormous strides extremely quickly.
  What encouragement are we giving to central and eastern European countries? No one writes to me stating that the food surpluses within the EEC should be given to central and eastern European countries. Instead, I receive many letters in which I am told that food surpluses are yet another example of the inefficiency of the common agricultural policy. The writers of these letters are critical that we are having to give away the results of excess production.
  Bearing in mind the moneys that we are talking about, we have a right to ask about distribution. How will food aid be distributed, for example? The Minister has outlined how he understands that distribution will take place, and it seems that there will be a fairly elaborate organisation to ensure that the food will go to those who need it most in the areas where it is most needed. Will this be a one-off

  97
  operation or are we talking of one of many similar food assistance programmes that will be made available to central and eastern European countries in future? If there are to be future programmes, we should be told. We are talking about sizeable sums when we consider the value of the food aid programme.
  I have not heard anyone mention what type of food we are to supply to these countries and it would be interesting to be told. Also, what quantity of food will be made available?
  I have no basic disagreement with giving such assistance. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, and certainly the Front-Bench spokesmen, have outlined the need to help countries that are facing enormous food shortages. However, I do not think that we have any right to approve such assistance without being told that the project that we are involved in is subject to close scrutiny and that discussions are taking place with the countries that we seek to help on how their agricultural systems will be developed.
  The hon. Member for Arundel mentioned fertilisers and the chemicals that we all know are used in modern agricultural production. If countries in central and eastern Europe are to develop modern agricultural systems they will need such items. How will they pay for them? We know that all those countries have problems getting hard currency which will allow them to buy the sorts of commodities to ensure that their markets can produce goods that will sell to the rest of the world.
  I welcome this debate as it has allowed us to touch on many of the arguments that interest hon. Members who seek to involve themselves in central and eastern Europe—whatever their background. However, questions need to be asked because my constituents will ask me about their pensions, the health service and the education system and, although we may be talking about a relatively small sum of money, it is still taxpayers' money. Therefore, as have outlined, we have a right to know how it will be spent and what we are seeking to do to encourage these countries to develop agricultural systems which would allow them to produce food to feed the needs of their countrymen and women.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I shall confine my remarks principally to the last sentence of the motion:
  "that consideration of any other forms of Community help should take full account of developments in the Soviet Union and the Baltic States".
  It is far better to support the reforms that President Gorbachev has set in train, however imperfect, than to risk assisting the forces that wish for a change of leader in the Soviet Union. It cannot be disputed that President Gorbachev's Russia has brought enormous benefits to the west and these must not be forgotten.
  First and foremost was the ending of the cold war after 40 years, and, secondly, there was the liberation of eastern Europe. I had the unique opportunity to stand behind President Havel in Czechoslovakia on the balcony of the Civil Forum headquarters on election day—the first democratic election since the second world war—and to hear the great roar from the massive crowd in Wenceslas square when he stepped out on to the balcony. That brought home to me the tremendous strength and work of the reform movement and it would not have happened had it not been for President Gorbachev.
  98
  Thirdly, the whole of Germany is in NATO. It would have been inconceivable a couple of years ago that the former Soviet front line would be within NATO. The fourth benefit is the United Nations co-operation which the Soviet Union is now engaged in.
  Had it not been for the new climate that President Gorbachev and, to a certain extent, President Bush have brought about, I suggest that it would have been unthinkable for the Soviet Union not to have supported Saddam Hussein. We must be grateful that President Gorbachev's enlightened policies have made the sea change in Soviet foreign policy possible.
  I welcome the food aid, the guarantee credits, the technical assistance and the wide range of agreements for improving relations that the motion calls for. I understand and do not object to the need for conditions, but hope that we will show a great understanding for the Soviet Union's attempts to make monumental political and economic changes. I accept that the reforms have not progressed fast enough but suggest that we cast our minds back and remember that it took a long time—nearly 100 years—for the House to become democratic. The first Reform Act was in 1832, the second in 1869, but full universal franchise did not take place until 1918. We must consider the position of other European countries. Switzerland does not offer the vote to women. When we consider how long the reforms in the Soviet Union are taking, perhaps we should compare them with the time that democratic reforms took in this country.
  We should also remember that we support other non-democratic regimes. Some of our Arab allies in the Gulf are not democratic. In a sense, therefore, our restrictions on aid to the Soviet Union are selective. In considering the problems that the Soviet Union faces., I should mention the strategic concerns that influence their attitude to reform and aid packages. The Soviet Union faces, through the possible loss of the Baltic states, the loss of Riga, its main Baltic port for the Russian navy. It also faces the problem of that old part of east Prussia and the city of Kaliningrad, which can be accessed only through Lithuania. Those are major problems for the Soviet Union.
  I agree that it is reasonable to provide conditional aid to the Soviet Union. The deaths of citizens in the Baltic states have been worrying and are to be regretted, but we must not forget that President Gorbachev responded to western concerns by withdrawing troops from the Baltics. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) mentioned that matter and said that he was worried about the economic effect of the loss of the Baltics, which play a key part in the Soviet Union's economy.
  I therefore caution against pressing President Gorbachev too far. I believe that a successor would be much worse for the west. We could have a Ligachev-type conservative and the KGB could gain greater control. Marshall Yasov and the Soviet army might be in a much more powerful position. It is a time of great heart searching for the Soviet army, which has lost Afghanistan, the front line in eastern Europe and, recently, an important client—Iraq.
  I have argued that we may be stopping reforms by restricting aid to the USSR, so let us not lose sight of the fact that President Gorbachev has moved away from confrontation. It is better to support him now, because otherwise we may lose the ratification of the arms treaties

  99
  and face the tremendous resistance of the Soviet army to moving out of eastern Europe. It cannot have been easy to sell the problem of moving half a million troops out of east Germany and there have already been problems with the timetable of the Soviet withdrawal from Poland. There are additional domestic problems facing the Soviet Union, especially its President. The Soviet Union is trying to embrace western economics. It suffers from a lack of skills and resources. Could we imagine embracing, countrywide, a completely different, communist economy, and working that through down the line managers to the factory floor? The Russians are trying to import our system. That does not happen overnight, but needs time to settle down.
  The unemployment problems have also been mentioned. I support the conditions referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister because they give us influence over the reform process and enable us, in a small way, to shape it. They encourage the USSR to look west and outward, and prevent it from turning inward.
  On Sunday, I shall lead an eight-member delegation from the House to the Soviet Union under the auspices of the British Atlantic group of young politicians, of which I am fortunate to be chairman. It is a return for the visit we organised for the Russians to come to Lancaster house for our conference in the spring of last year. The newly elected members who came were open to embracing our ideas and looked for help from the west. In my recent discussions with the Soviets prior to making our visit to the Soviet Union next week I found them open. They wanted to hear our views on how to solve their problems and have asked us to offer advice when we go there.
  We should show the understanding to which I referred and continue to offer aid. We should not be afraid to support Mikhail Gorbachev, without whom the seismic changes in east-west relations, the arms reductions and the brave domestic reforms would not have been possible.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: None of us can but approve of the Government's decision to give humanitarian aid to the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe. But—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is not present to hear me say this—it is in the interests of the United Kingdom and the peoples of western Europe as well as those of eastern Europe to give that aid. In fact, Britain has been laggardly in giving assistance in comparison with its European Community partners.
  Some months ago, in the late summer of last year, Helmut Kohl warned of the dangers of a Russian invasion—not of the Red army but of Russian people—who, this year, will be free to travel where they will under a law being passed by the Supreme Soviet. There is a great danger of many of those people coming to western Europe. They will not go simply to Germany; many of them will find their way to Britain and will, possibly, become a problem.
  The Soviet Union's need for aid is not directed by dire poverty such as exists in some south-east Asian or African countries, on the scale that I saw in the Philippines—not even Romania—only last August. The Soviet Union's problem is its close proximity to western Europe and its highly commercialised economies ruled by consumer
  100
  societies. One has only to go to Berlin to see Russian soldiers selling uniforms and giving up various goods in exchange for hard currency to know that what I am saying is absolutely true.
  Many important points have been made about aid to eastern Europe, particularly that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) in respect of the social problems. I have spoken to people in eastern Germany who now face—even under the advanced western economy of West Germany—severe problems of unemployment and price rises.
  I wish to deal mainly with the problems facing Romania. About an hour ago, the former leader of the Liberal party, who is not here now, talked about not allowing the ancien regimes to claim credit. However, I counsel caution because that may lead people to think that because the National Salvation Front won the election in Romania in May 1990, and because of some of its Government's actions since then, there is reason to withhold aid from Romania. It is important that we give humanitarian aid to the Romanian people.
  I went to Romania with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to witness the elections. We must bear it in mind that Romania has never known democracy and has been ruled by dictatorships for the past 120 years since independence—fascist dictatorships such as that of Antonescu before and during the second world war and the Stalinist dictatorships since then.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South agreed with me that the election fought in May 1990 was, as far as we could see, carried out with tremendous energy by all the political parties in Bucharest, Timisoara, Ligova and small villages in Transylvania to ensure that they got it right and that it was a completely free election.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wareing: I shall give way in a moment.
  The people to whom we spoke said that they felt completely free either to support the National Salvation Front or to vote against it.
  Mr. Dunn: I apologise for intervening as I have not been here for most of the debate. I was interested in a point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). Is not it a fact that in the elections to which he referred more people voted than were entitled to do so? When directing humanitarian aid to a country that does not know or has any experience of the freedoms that we take for granted, is not it important to ensure that we monitor aid so that it reaches the people who need it and does not go to officials who sell it on the black market?
  Mr. Wareing: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. There is no real evidence to suggest that in the elections the figures did not tally with the number of people entitled to vote. Certainly, in the areas in which we witnessed the elections, they were carried out scrupulously fairly. One of the precautions taken in Romania—which we do not even take in this country—was that everybody had to show an identity card which, of course, we do not have. Even the ballot papers were not numbered, whereas they are here and there is a perfectly good reason for that. The elections were carried out fairly.
  The problem in Romania, which should not be lost on us, is that a free election is not the sole criterion for

  101
  democracy. There is also the matter of give and take and of tolerance. The Opposition and the Government tolerate each other. After June or October, or whenever, we shall be on the other side of the House and I know that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) will tolerate the decision of the British electorate. Nevertheless, that is not the case in Romania where we must consider not only the Government who won the election but the Opposition. The Opposition in Romania have a few lessons to learn. We should support them in order to stimulate democratic discussion and to promote democracy. We could do that because there was great hope during the elections of May 1990. There is no doubt about that.
  Romania should be given food aid. The Minister referred to technical assistance, but we must remember that, in the past, Romania was the granary for south-eastern Europe. The Danube basin was extremely prosperous in the past and Romania was responsible for the export of wheat and other foodstuffs. As the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said, Romania was the only country in eastern Europe that did not have an overseas debt, but that was achieved by sacrificing the lives of Romanians. If Romania is to trade rather than just receive aid in the future, it must have the means to obtain hard currency.
  Until December of last year Romania was still exporting food and it sold processed food products to this country—many of them were sold under famous brand names in our supermarkets. We should help Romania to feed its people by re-establishing some of the industries that existed under Ceausescu so that it can export to the rest of the world to receive the hard currency that would be of vital assistance now.
  When the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South and I were in Romania, we witnessed the conditions in the children's hospital at Timisoara. We saw dedicated nurses and surgeons and other assistants carrying out their work in difficult conditions. The hospital building was extremely old—that is not unusual, as we have many similar buildings in this country—but the equipment in the operating theatres was also extremely old.
  If we intend to provide food for Romanian children, it is as well that we consider the conditions in which that food will be processed. The kitchens in the hospital were old and the equipment was near derelict. The floors were full of crevices and those crevices were full of germ-ridden water. Such were the conditions in a children's hospital, the children were crowded almost one on top of the other because of the cramped conditions. It is not just a matter of providing food; we must provide the technical assistance to improve the Romanian health service. I am a little diffident about asking the Government to do anything to assist a national health service as they have been deficient in providing help for our own, but there is a real need in that part of the world.
  To assist Romania, we must work with the existing Romanian Government. Obviously we want to stimulate reform, but we must not hold back from assisting the children in the hospitals, the old and those in poverty simply because we do not like the colour of the National Salvation Front Government.
  The liberty of western Europe can suvive only if our brethren in the east are similarly liberated. We must bear with them because they have not known democratic government as long as we have. The history of Romania is different from our own. It only emerged from the Ottoman
  102
  empire in the 1860s and, until now, it has never known democracy. We must try to get alongside the Romanian Government to give all the assistance that we can.
  I hope that the Government will be much more to the fore in the European Community. As I said, I welcome the efforts of the European Community, but I should like the Minister to say something about the scale of our assistance within the programme of the European Community as compared with that of Germany, France and our other European partners. No statistics have been given by the Minister on the documents other than the global sums. What will Britain's contribution be, and what form will it take?
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: We are discussing European documents. I wish to press my hon. and learned Friend the Minister a little on the European dimension of this matter and the European approach to it. We recently experienced a lack of cohesion in the European approach to matters in the Gulf. There has been a reawakening of concern in this country—perhaps a slight diminishing of the euphoria about Europe—and a realisation that, in respect of foreign policy at least, the EC still has much to learn. My hon. and learned Friend has said that the Government support Gorbachev the reformer, not Gorbachev the man, that the delivery of support will be related directly to the fact of reform and that that support is not in any way intended to be unconditional. That is the United Kingdom approach, and that is why the Prime Minister will meet first with Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian representatives on his arrival in Moscow tonight.
  However, we are discussing European documents and European Community aid. Is it to be made plain in the Council of Ministers that the delivery of support rests upon the fact of reform? Will the Commission hold something in reserve? Will EC technical assistance depend upon economic and political change, or will EC sectarian commercial interests dictate the pace of aid? I should like to know from my hon. and learned Friend the answers to those questions and how he regards the attitude of the Council of Ministers towards the conditions upon which aid is given—the conditions that the Government understand.
  Like many other hon. Members, I refer briefly to the situation in Romania. I have a personal interest because my wife is a trustee of the Romanian orphans trust. In recent weeks there have been rather sad and damaging allegations that charity aid, having arrived in Romania, has been misappropriated, that goods have been stolen and sold on the black market, and that assistance that was ostensibly destined for those in terrifying need has been directed elsewhere. Those allegations have been extremely damaging to the cause of those who have been seeking to provide aid from this country. That is why the Romanian orphans trust has concentrated its aid programme upon aid in the form of personnel—for example, doctors, nurses, and paediatricians in child care assistance—upon training Romanians who, at some point, will need to take over the care of the literally thousands of orphans who are still in need in that country, and upon medicines and other essential goods that have been ordered by Romanian orphans trust personnel so that they are targeted and delivered directly to aid teams. Those involved with the Romanian orphans trust are confident that the aid that is

  103
  so generously given by people in this country reaches the people for whom it is intended and the children towards whom it is directed.
  In his reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), my hon. and learned Friend said that Government aid was targeted at the genuinely needy. Is the method of distributing European Community aid genuinely secure? Can the European Community ensure that goods that it sends to Romania will not be sold on the black market or used to prop up the old guard? The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said that our constituents, including pensioners, as well as children who donate pocket money, have a right to know where their money is going. They want to know that it is being well spent—that it is not being used to prop up regimes of which they do not approve, or otherwise misappropriated.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can assure the House that the European Community and its Council of Ministers will take as much care to safeguard the direction of aid to Romania as is taken by charities like the Romanian orphans trust. I hope, too, that the Council of Ministers will seek to increase the pace of change in Romania. There, as elsewhere in the eastern bloc, aid must be dependent upon economic and political improvements. At the moment, the pace of those improvements is very slow.
  Finally, I wish to refer briefly to the situation in the Baltic states. A few weeks ago, I was very privileged to be asked to address a rally in Trafalgar square. On Nelson's column, behind me, were the names of the Lithuanians who had been murdered a few days earlier. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that feeling among the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians at that rally was running very high indeed. Those people made one thing very plain to me, and I, in turn, should like to offer it to the House. They believe that support should be for reform—as was said earlier, not for Gorbachev the reformer or Gorbachev the man, but simply for reform. If President Gorbachev is able to maintain the pace of reform in the eastern bloc, he will deserve support. However, if he is unable to do so, this country and Europe must transfer support and allegiance to those who are prepared to carry the banner of reform.
  There have been signs of recognition on the part of the Soviets that the murders in Lithuania were a tremendous mistake, and that they have had very severe and damaging political repercussions. But will the Soviet Government now recognise the strength of the plebiscites in the Baltic states? Can my hon. and learned Friend make plain in the Council of Ministers, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make plain in Moscow this week, that European Community financial, food and technical aid is not, and never will be, unconditional or open-ended?
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was right to ask some basic questions about the disbursement of aid to Romania and to stress that, as the Minister has said, we support not President Gorbachev the man but what he has represented in the past and what he may still be able to represent. We benefited from the hon. Gentleman's
  104
  knowledge of Romania and from the knowledge and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who is passionately concerned about the needs of Romania. As has been said, we may give emergency food aid, but beyond that is the infrastructure, including the hospital, which still leaves children in a desperate situation.
  I am pleased that a number of hon. Members were able to benefit not only from their experience of visiting these countries but from the organisations in which they have played a part. I think particularly here of the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) who, in the time that he was the chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Union group, contributed to the tremendous upsurge in the range of contacts with eastern Europe. I believe that it was his prompting that led to two missions—his own to Bulgaria and that on which my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby went. That gave him the background knowledge that he passed on to the House earlier.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) drew on his experience of the Council of Europe and helped the House in so doing. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), with his experience of young politicians, asked basic questions about the role of President Gorbachev. There are worries about the direction in which the Soviet Union is going and some point to the moves that President Gorbachev has made to please the conservatives, to the centralising power that he has given himself, to the bypassing of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and of the constituent republics, to his outright opposition to the private ownership of land, to the replacement of the Minister of the Interior by the hardliners and to the nature of the vice president whom he appointed. However, taking all that into consideration, we have to give him the credit for the path along which the Soviet Union has come, which has had such major effects both on eastern and western Europe and on matters such as the Gulf crisis, in which the Soviet Union played an important and constructive role.
  Last week, I was in the Baltic republics and a number of the political leaders complained about the slow down in reforms and the slowness of the pace of advance. However, I urge them to look back over the past few years and to realise how far they have come in such a short time and to use that to put into perspective their current position.
  All hon. Members who have spoken have endorsed the general proposition of linkage. As the Minister said, we are making it clear to the Soviet Union that there is a link between the readiness of the European Community to provide aid and assistance and the continuation of its reform process. The debate has been useful in setting out general principles to be followed in future. It is timely not only because of the discussion between foreign Ministers in Brussels today but because of the two advisory votes yesterday in Estonia and Latvia. If any proof was necessary, those two votes, taken with the one in January that made clear the views of Lithuania, showed the determination of the three republics to set out on the path to independence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was correct, using a rather magisterial and broad brush approach, to set recent developments in the context of the whole of eastern and central Europe. Last week I paid a fascinating visit to Moscow and the three Baltic republics. In Moscow I met the two key members of the Central Committee who were responsible for both

  105
  foreign relations and for national relations within the Soviet Union. I also met all the leaders of the Baltic republics who were available at the time. It is perhaps, therefore, inevitable that I shall concentrate on the USSR, but any comments that I make on food aid may be relevant to Bulgaria and Romania, the special needs of which were dealt with by the hon. Member for Arundel and my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting and for West Derby.
  All of us recall the harrowing stories that we read in the press and the pictures that we saw on television at the end of last year about the food shortages in the Soviet Union and the need for food aid there. At the time, the Council of the European Community rushed to respond to the perceived needs. There were, indeed, food shortages, but some argue that a basic cause of the shortages was the struggle for power between the centralised bureaucracy and the command economy in the Kremlin, and the new power structure that is developing within the constituent republics. It was clear in Moscow last week that the Kremlin is on one side, while on the other side is the large building that houses the alternative power structure of Mr. Yeltsin in the RSFSR—the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic. As the Minister conceded, any external intervention that aims to improve the food supply for the population must take into account the political realities in the Soviet Union today.
  I have heard reports of a shortage of medical supplies in the Soviet Union as well as in both Bulgaria and Romania. Those shortages are now being met or at least assisted by the EC proposals. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us whether he accepts that there is a need for basic medical supplies in the Soviet Union, down to things such as aspirins and syringes. Why have those basic medical needs, which are humanitarian, not being included in the current package?
  In terms of food aid, there appears to have been some correlation between those places in the Soviet Union that are the worst affected, including Moscow, Leningrad, the three Ural towns of Perm, Chelybinsk, and Sverdlovsk, which are the cities with the most democratic city councils, and the lack of food in, say, Kharkov, which is on the fringe of the black earth region.
  Although the basic reason for the food shortages was the breakdown last year of the traditional distribution system of the command economy, we must remember that there was also a record harvest of 240 million tonnes. The breakdown of that distribution system opened the way for substantial corruption and political manipulation of the food supply. It looks as though the European Community has taken on board the fact that the various power elements in the Soviet Union, such as old regimes of the KGB and the army, have had opportunities to manipulate the supply of food.
  As Mr. Yeltsin has suggested, another means of distribution could be via the constituent republics or through the various non-governmental organisations, including the International Red Cross. Each of those channels of distribution has particular political implications in terms of the present power struggle. For example, in Moscow, with its 'radical city council, a common explanation for the shortages was the attempt by more conservative elements to block off Moscow. Part of the evidence for that was that, on one day, nine of the 10 oblasts that were supplying milk to Moscow stopped that supply as if that was a co-ordinated act on behalf of the traditional suppliers of milk to the capital. I am glad
  106
  that the Government seem to be alert to that factor and will be ready to recognise the political implications of the selected supply systems. The Minister has already referred to the attempt by the EEC to set up co-ordinating and monitoring organisations.
  Will the Minister ensure, so far as he is able, that the political implications of the distribution of food are carefully monitored in the Soviet Union? He has already referred to the nature of the bodies under article 2, and I hope that he will ensure that they have proper facilities to monitor that aid.
  What is the British position about the tying of the credits to EC suppliers? I understand that there is some dispute within the EC about whether the food aid should be tied specifically to EC suppliers or whether it should be open. It is said that the British Government are on the side of having as open a system as possible, and we should be in that camp.
  It appears from the documents that the European Community will pay for the transport costs of the food aid and the food provided under the credits unless the recipient country takes over the supply from within the Community. Why, taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting and by the hon. Member for Thanet, North who sought to defend taxpayers, should that be the case? With regard to the transport of grain to ports, even if the supply is transported in Community ships, why should the local costs of the supply be taken over thereafter by the Soviet Union? The food is provided free and I wonder whether the transport position is as inflexible as it appears from the rules.
  With regard to the last part of the motion about linkage with the pace and nature of reform within the Baltic republics, last week when I met responsible leaders within the three Baltic republics, they were all most grateful for the robust response of the European Community on 22 January. They feared that the understandable concentration of western Europe on the Gulf would have distracted attention from the plight of the Baltic states. They feared that there was the precedent of the Suez adventure and Hungary. They were therefore surprised and delighted at the swift European Community response on 22 January to the killings in Vilnius on 13 January and in Riga on 20 January.
  The effect of linkage on the Soviet Union has a good precedent. The Minister is probably aware of the Jackson-Vannick amendment on the linking of the emigration of Soviet Jews to American assistance to the Soviet Union and the very important effect that that had on an important internal policy within the Soviet Union.
  The Minister stated that delegations have been selected by the Soviet Union to begin discussions. I raised that point with Estonia leaders, for example, and although they accept that working groups have been established, they complain that Estonia—perhaps the most cautious and realistic of the Soviet republics—finds it difficult to get any response from their interlocutors within the central Government apparatus. They claim that there is no authority or mandate, and that it is impossible to obtain answers on that or any other matter from the Kremlin, which seems paralysed in its indecision. Perhaps the establishment of the working groups is not as favourable and as much of a step forward as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. There is evidence of the Kremlin taking a harder line towards the republics.

  107
  The Community's response is proper because the linkage has been made, and the stick is available to be used if necessary. No doubt the Prime Minister is, in his best diplomatic way, making that point clear to the Soviet Union.
  Obviously we must maintain our human rights credentials in relation to the republics, but we must equally acknowledge the Soviet Union's legitimate concerns about a change within the Baltic republics that is too abrupt. We must recognise the Soviet Union's needs in terms of its national security, particularly at a time when we are seeing the dissolution of the Warsaw treaty framework.
  We must recognise also the minority situation within the Baltic republics, and their economic importance to the Soviet Union—the port of Riga has been mentioned already. A balance must be struck.
  We are very ready to endorse the broad line taken by the Government in relation to credit guarantees and technical co-operation. We shall monitor carefully the political situation in the Soviet Union, particularly in respect of the Baltic republics, and will frame our policy acccordingly.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their considerable support of the Government's position. I thank in particular the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for his support of Government policy, but he will forgive me if I correct one error that he made. Projects under the PHARE programme are suggested not by Community member states but by the recipient Governments.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to detail the allocation of the projects granted to United Kingdom firms. I do not have those figures, and I do not believe that they are readily available. However, I will investigate that matter to see whether I can give the hon. Gentleman any guidance.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton is concerned, for reasons I well understand, that the food programmes will not result in losses to the developing world. He probably fears that money going to eastern Europe might be at the expense of third world countries. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that assistance for central and eastern Europe is kept separate from, and is additional to, that given to the developing world. I hope that that reassures him.
  I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) said about the needs of smaller countries in eastern Europe. As he said, it is easy to overlook those needs, especially when the countries concerned lack a vocal pressure group. My hon. Friend has done Bulgaria a service by urging its case with such eloquence; as he will know, President Zhelev was here two weeks ago, and that visit alone will have given an increased focus to the requirements of his country.
  My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, within the European Community, substantial sums are being sent, or have been sent, to Bulgaria: under the PHARE programme, £17·2 million went in the second half of 1990 alone. Of that, £11·2 million was for a support programme for agricultural reform and the promotion of private agriculture.
  Sir Michael Marshall: That summary was very helpful. Given the spirit of accord that has prevailed tonight, it is
  108
  only right that I should mention Gladstone—as the Liberals cannot help us there. There is a long and honourable parliamentary tradition in this regard, and I feel encouraged by what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said.
  Mr. Hogg: I thank my hon. Friend. He also raised Bulgaria's wider financial needs, having in mind the effects of the Gulf crisis and the reform of the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance. Those important issues are being addressed by the IMF and the G24 countries. As my hon. Friend knows, the Community plays a dominant and generous role within the G24, and the Economic and Finance Council will discuss EC financial help for Bulgaria during the year.
  The hon. Member for Tooting made a number of substantial points. I assure him that many hon. Members have written to me suggesting that the Community's agricultural surpluses be sent to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We are now trying to avoid the accumulation of food stockpiles, and the Government—along with others—have worked hard to reduce the food mountain. But, if such surpluses exist, it surely makes sense to send them to the countries that need food most.
  The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case for agricultural reform, and I agree with much of what he said. That is why PHARE projects concentrate on agricultural reform, among other things. In 1990, we committed for agricultural reform £70 million to Poland, £14 million to Hungary and £11·2 million to Bulgaria. Resources will be available to Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia during 1991, if they seek those resources.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) made an important point when he stressed the importance of President Gorbachev's contribution, not only to the Soviet Union but elsewhere in Europe. I agree with his view that no other Soviet leader has so far appeared who is likely to be a more effective proponent of the cause of reform. He is also right in saying that the west has a real investment in President Gorbachev: he listed a number of instances in which that was particularly true. I hope that he will forgive me for adding that our support cannot be unqualified or uncritical. Although I agree with most of what he said, I hope that he will understand that the Government can support Mr. Gorbachev only provided that he remains a reformer.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) drew on a wealth of personal experience from his visit to Romania with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Clearly, that was a particularly interesting visit. I am sure that my hon. Friend played a prominent role in whatever happened there, no doubt appearing on television and radio on many an occasion. Obviously, it was an invaluable experience for them both and the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for sharing it with us.
  The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, in addition to the medical aid for Romania and Bulgaria, which is the aid that we are discussing tonight, there has been other aid in the past, most notably £500,000 provided by Her Majesty's Government in 1990 and more than £9 million already provided through the European Community. As he knows, our contribution to EC expenditure is about 18 per cent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) raised several important points. The Council of

  109
  Ministers is, indeed, agreed that reform within the Soviet Union should be a condition of its receiving assistance under the programmes. That is why it sought close member state involvement in the disbursement of aid through a management committee of the kind that I have already described to the House. If there is a serious deterioration in conditions within the Soviet Union or elsewhere in eastern Europe, aid would be suspended.
  We have secured Council of Ministers agreement to full monitoring of the Community's assistance to Romania. That is an essential condition of the European Community providing successful aid. In answer to the question about monitoring the help provided last year to Romanian orphanages, I am pleased to say that the Crown Agents were instrumental in ensuring that Community aid reached those who needed it most and for whom the European Community had sent it.
  I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend that we are supporting reform. In one sense, it matters not who provides that policy of reform. Our objective is to support reform and our assistance is conditional on the provision of that reform.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked why no medical aid was included in the package of aid for the Soviet Union. I must give the honest answer that I do not know. I have been scratching my head and asking myself, not to say my officials, and I suspect that the truthful answer is that it was never raised. That may be a partial answer to the question whether there is a serious shortfall, or at least a perceived one, which may well be different, within the Soviet Union.
  It is also more difficult to distribute medical aid directly to the needy. Food aid is one thing, medical aid is another. It is rather difficult to see how as a general proposition one could distribute medical aid other than through the established institutions of society.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that when embarking on a policy of distribution we would take into account the political implications of the methods used to make distribution. I can confirm that that is the case. The Council of Ministers decided that food credits should finance food from the European Community, although we would have agreed to finance some purchases from European countries.
  The modalities of supply are still being worked out. That extends also to the transport arrangements, but if the Soviet Union is in a position to pay for the transport costs it seems rather difficult to see why it should not do so.
  I trust that I have responded to most of the questions that I have been asked, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the support that they have given to the policy outlined in the documents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  hat this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10880/90+CORI and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by H. M. Treasury on 22nd February, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 26th February relating to extension of food assistance to the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria and a credit facility for the Soviet Union and 4120/91 relating to revision of the financial perspective to finance technical assistance for the Soviet Union; and agrees with the Government that food aid to Romania and Bulgaria should be considered a priority; that any Community food aid given to the Soviet Union should be provided for humanitarian
  110
  purposes; and that consideration of any other forms of Community help should take full account of developments in the Soviet Union and the Baltic States.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions Nos. 5 to 10 on the Order Paper.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &.).

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
    INCOME TAX
    That the draft Income Tax (Building Societies) (Annual Payments) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &.) and the Order [18th February].

    EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION
    That the draft revised Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    ENERGY EFFICIENCY
    That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 10149/90, relating to the promotion of energy efficiency in the Community (SAVE programme); and supports the Government's intention of ensuring that it results in effective and properly co-ordinated measures in those areas where they are appropriate.

    COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7057/90 relating to agricultural and agro-industrial research (1990–94); and endorses the Government's view that Community support for research in these areas should be given a high priority.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.

  PIG HUSBANDRY BILL
  Ordered,
  hat it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Pig Husbandry Bill that it have power to make amendments to the Bill to extend the prohibitions contained in the Bill to all pigs and to tethering by any means.—[Mr. David Davis.]

  Roads (Greater Manchester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: This debate is entitled on the Order Paper "Roads in Manchester". I am glad to have the opportunity to point out to the Minister that that is a misprint. It should have read, "Roads in Greater Manchester". The Minister will know from private conversations that roads have been the subject of a great deal of controversy in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members. I refer of course to the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, a subject with which the Minister has been made familiar over several months.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that the wrong wording of the title was unintentional on my part, and that the courtesy that I have extended to him covers the point. I want to avoid being accused of the same devious tactics that the Department of Transport has practised thus far in this sorry affair.
  The Greater Manchester western and northern relief road has caused great anger, partly because of the nature of the beast and partly because of the secrecy surrounding its promotion. The Minister and others have drawn attention to so-called leaks of information about possible routes. They have accused activists of blighting property and they have tried to draw a series of red herrings across the debate. I shall try to generate more light than heat by raking over the embers of this unfortunate tale.
  The relief road first appeared in the public domain as a schematic dotted line that ran through the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" in June 1989. During the following summer recess, my studies of the document got me worried about the dotted line, which dissected my constituency through its most sensitive environmental part—he village of Worsley in particular. In short, it put a line through a conservation area.
  I set about tabling a long series of parliamentary questions in the hope of finding out the Department's intentions. The answers to those questions were models of civil service-speak. Although answers were given, they were, in the now hackneyed phrase, given with a degree of economy with the truth. What I found most unacceptable was the notion that, while a £300 million relief road was in prospect, the widening of the existing M62 was the principal focus for Department of Transport planners. It was only when the existence of the A556 improvements came to my attention that the scale of the problem for my constituents became apparent. This is where the major deception arises.
  I have never been given a satisfactory explanation by the Minister or his predecessor of why a major motorway should be planned in three distinct phases. I cannot escape the conclusion that it was done to deceive the public. That became clearer to me when I discovered that the first section, the M6 to the M56, which was billed as an improvement to the A556, went out to public consultation as long ago as 1 November 1989. People believed that they were being consulted about a localised road improvement scheme. They were not disabused of that view and it was not until January 1990, when my parliamentary questions became public knowledge, that the Department of

  113
  Transport's real intentions were recognised. The tactic became clear and later in my speech I shall deal with its subsequent refinement.
  The strategy was to prosecute the plan in three stages. The southern section was to be first, followed by the northern section. Then the middle section, which affects my constituency, was to be built. As soon as the two outer sections, dealt with months apart, were determined, the controversial middle section would have had its start and finish thoroughly circumscribed. Thankfully, with the cat well and truly out of the bag in January 1990, opposition groups sprang up all along the route and they are now conducting an intelligent and energetic campaign of opposition to the Department's intentions. My thanks and those of my constituents are due to councillors Davies and Stirling, who are leading forces in the Residents Against the Motorway group, and to Chris Gray, Ian Bailey, John Spink, David Cowpe and Bob Boyd who are working in various ways to present local opposition to the destructive intent of the Department. Their efforts deserve to be placed on the record and I am pleased to do that.
  Having dealt with the secrecy and duplicity of the Department, I now turn to the question of need. My view, which is shared by many, is that the motorway that the Department is keen to promote is entirely unnecessary. If the £300 million, which will no doubt be more than doubled by the time of completion, were to be given to the local authorities to enable them to organise their own traffic management schemes, one justification would be removed at a stroke. At the same time, it would help if the Minister were to invest through local authorities and the passenger transport executive in decent 21st century public transport.
  It might make more sense if the Minister's colleague further down Marsham street, the Secretary of State for the Environment, stopped the crazy building of peripheral housing schemes to be filled with city commuters. It would certainly be more sensible if sites closer to city centres were made more attractive. That would breathe life into decaying urban areas and obviate the need for millions of car journeys a year. That, in turn, would prevent the vandalism that is being proposed and which has already caused so much anguish.
  I have been asked many times recently, "Why more motorways?" Why put at risk what little remaining woodland and open space we have in the north-west? What has happened to the Government's professed adherence to green policies? The Minister is better placed than Ito answer those questions, but it is my view that the problem of motorway demand' lies firmly in the Department of Transport which is gripped by roads mania. The Department has 12,500 road planners and only 125 public transport planners. No wonder the solutions are always to build more roads.
  These new roads and the extra traffic that they are supposed to accommodate will cause serious damage to the local and global environment and they will undermine any pretence by the Government to promote environmental protection measures. The full forecast of traffic increase will be generated only if the roads are built. I reject the need for this road, as do most of my constituents. Experience of the past 20 years or more tells us that this type of motorway will significantly injure the amenity of the area.
  Experience tells us also that the Department of Transport is an extremely slippery customer in its dealings
  114
  with the public. I have to refer only to the confidence trick that has been played on, and added to in dealings with, residents in the Farm lane area of my constituency. In the early 1960s, a bypass was built to avoid Eccles and Swinton. It was known always as the Eccles bypass. Over time plans changed or there were additions. That happened to such an extent that a fairly insignificant piece of road became part of the M62 trans-Yorkshire motorway. My constituents in the Farm lane area were never compensated properly for that construction, which took place by attrition. A bitter taste remains that will be significant in the battle to stop the latest piece of motorway madness.
  I return briefly to leaks, information and disorientation. It is sad that much of the public knowledge of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road has had to he gained through leaks. It is my duty, however, to puncture the official secrecy that exists, on whatever pretext that may be.
  I freely admit that the latest piece of information does not affect my constituency, but it bears on the way in which the opposition is engaged. It is no secret that the protest groups to which I have referred are in regular contact. It is no secret also that each of them obtains information from a variety of sources, with sometimes surprising results. The latest piece of information is no exception. It seems that the consultants have produced an alternative route in one part of the northern section of the road. I understand that it includes a bizarre proposal to cut and cover through a neighbouring town.
  I am interested in the politics that has led to an alternative route. I am certain that it involves an exercise in dividing the opposition. The intention is clear. The plan is to divide communities as much as possible all along the route and so dissipate the objections. This will not work. Throughout the route every constituency and every threatened part of each constituency contains a growing protest movement. The opposition is becoming more proficient and it seeks the same success as that which was enjoyed by objectors in London. The Minister knows about that because he represents a London constituency. After 10 years of struggle, massive motorway proposals were ditched, possibly for electoral reasons.
  I shall conclude by posing four questions, which I hope the Minister will do his best to answer. First, when will the promised consultation with the public take place? Secondly, will there be an environmental impact assessment study? Thirdly, will the public be given choices of routes, and a further choice of no motorway at all? Fourthly, will the Minister contemplate my suggestion of improved public transport and local traffic management investment?
  10.23 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am pleased that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has given me the opportunity once again of returning to the subject of transport and road infrastructure in Greater Manchester. I am disappointed that he has exemplified in his remarks his belief in the great conspiracy theory, in the dubious tactics of the Department of Transport, in secrecy, in disorientation, in duplicity and in confidence tricks. Those are all terms and

  115
  words that the hon. Gentleman used. They demonstrate that the hon. Gentleman is given to a certain amount of self-deception on those important issues.
  I shall remind the House, including the hon. Gentleman, that the proposals for a Greater Manchester northern and western relief road are still at an early stage. The leaks that have taken place have been counterproductive in creating much unnecessary blight. The hon. Member was present on 17 December when I responded to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber this evening. Obviously I have to cover some of the same ground that I covered then because the two constituencies are almost adjoining and are served largely by the same road network.
  The major roads within the Worsley area are the M63 and M62 motorways, which together form the western section of the Manchester outer ring road. However the M62 fulfils a dual purpose. As part of the ring road it provides a route between the major centres of population in the Greater Manchester area. In addition, it forms an important link across the Pennines, connecting the three conurbations of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and west Yorkshire. The route occupies a fundamental place in our transportation network, carrying high volumes of traffic with a significant proportion being goods vehicles. This need to satify two discrete functions—as a long distance through route and as a more local distributor—has led to poor conditions for traffic, which are continuing to deteriorate. Delays, frustration, congestion and accidents are, I regret, far too commonplace.
  The hon. Member for Worsley referred to a spurious analogy with the assessment studies in London. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in assuming that I represent a London constituency—I used to have the privilege of leading a London borough. The problems of ensuring that through traffic is taken out of London were resolved by the establishment of the M25, which is the largest and most effective bypass anywhere in the country. The roads that we are discussing in this debate fulfil a similar function around Manchester, at the same time enabling vehicles to travel from the Manchester conurbation and Merseyside across the Pennines to Yorkshire.
  I have much that I could say about other issues in Manchester, but it is appropriate that I come to the principal issue which the hon. Gentleman raised, which was the M62. Our major study into the trans-Pennine route and the need for further capacity to relieve the M62 is well known. We expect to receive a consultant's report in the spring and an announcement will be made as soon as we have had the chance to consider the report's findings and recommendations.
  Mr. David Sumberg: As my hon. Friend knows well, I am strongly opposed to all these planned motorway routes and am extremely concerned at the delay taking place in this consultation process and any inquiry which may be necessary. Many of my constituents find that their homes are completely blighted as a result of the route through the Whitefield part of my constituency, and, as the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) said, another route is proposed through Radcliffe. Can my hon. Friend give me any assurance about when the consultation process will take place so that my constituents will know
  116
  where they stand and also when there will be an inquiry if that is necessary? Until then my constituents cannot sell their homes and are facing the gravest possible difficulties.
  Mr. Chope: We have not yet reached the stage of a consultation, because we have not yet published any proposals. Certain potential proposals which were being discussed on an informal, tentative and confidential basis with local authorities were leaked. As a result, they have been given a spurious authority which they should not properly enjoy, which has led people to think that there should be an early consultation.
  My Department only consults on specific proposals, and it only brings forward proposals after the most careful consideration. It is only after such consideration that we can make clear proposals, after which I promise my hon. Friend that we shall consult on them as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Lewis: Does not the Minister accept that 33 organisations—not just local authorities—were consulted? That is significant because some of us know where the leaks came from, and they did not come from local authorities. Does not the Minister also accept that as soon as "Roads for Prosperity" was understood—followed by a report on roads that gave more detail about it—whole districts became blighted? In my constituency, Worsley village became totally blighted because those two documents could be interpreted only as sending a brand new motorway through a small area that was already well and truly covered by motorways. Does not the Minister accept that proposition?
  Mr. Chope: I do not accept that proposition. In "Roads for Prosperity" we stated our view that a new road was needed in the district. Consultants were then appointed to think about the proposals which, when properly considered by my Department, would, if deemed appropriate, be brought forward for public consultation. But the hon. Gentleman should recognise that many ideas for new roads are never brought forward for public consultation. If, prior to the plans being rejected without seeing the light of day, the public had seen them, that would have caused an enormous amount of unnecessary anguish for people who would have thought that their properties were threatened by them, even though the plans were never brought forward for consultation.
  It is not for me to question the hon. Gentleman's motives, but he may have political motives. The consequence of premature disclosure of information put forward on a confidential basis—a system that operates effectively throughout the country—has resulted in much blight on the homes of people living in the district, which I very much regret.
  The announcement on the consultant's report of the trans-Pennine route will be made as soon as we have had a chance to consider the report's findings and recommendations. Those are not expected to affect the case for undertaking improvements to the M62 or for the proposed Greater Manchester western and northern relief road. It is important to make that clear at the outset.
  As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, we are just completing works on the M62 at Worsley between junctions 12 and 14. That is major resurfacing work, needed to repair a motorway that was simply worn out. I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in recognition of that fact. The road is worn out because it is so heavily used

  117
  by traffic. That is a sign of the pressures on the present motorway network in the Manchester district, which has some of the oldest sections of motorway in the country.
  The proposed improvements to the M62 between junctions 12 and 18 are an interim measure only. They will not deal with forecast traffic growth. The relief road is designed to supplement, not replace, the M62 which, along that section, carries 130,000 vehicles a day. That amount of traffic is comparable with the busiest sections of the M25. In addition, completion of the outer ring road will not obviate the need for a new road. Constructon of the final section from Denton to Middleton will have no significant effect on flows on the M62 west of junction 18, and so will not affect the need for the relief road.
  The hon. Gentleman attacked the Government for investing in new roads, but he is as aware as anybody that his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has been campaigning for the early completion of the circular motorway round Manchester because he knows that, by investing in that motorway, much-needed relief will be given to his constituents. That confirms the odd attitude of Opposition Members to investment in new roads.
  Mr. Lewis rose——
  Mr. Chope: No, I shall not give way.
  We must look closer at the options for widening, particularly in the Worsley area, and to what extent that work may be accommodated within the general limits of the existing highway. We shall then determine what form any consultation about the widening should take. I hope to be able to make an announcement on at least part of that work later in the year.
  The high levels of traffic to which I have referred are the result of increased levels of economic activity and prosperity. Traffic flows are predicted to grow by up to one third by the end of the 1990s and could well double by 2020. A responsible Government must face those forecasts and respond. Congestion reduces the efficiency and reliability of road transport for industry, and increases costs to consumers. It is also harmful to the environment, as slow-moving vehicles burn more fuel and therefore give off greater quantities of harmful emissions.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government are interested in not just investment in roads, but investment in public transport and its infrastructure. In Manchester we already have good examples of that investment in practice with the metrolink and the construction of the second terminal at Manchester airport with its new rail link. The metrolink is the first, new street-running rail system for three decades and the
  118
  Government are proud to be contributing more than £50 million to it. Manchester airport is Britain's third largest after Heathrow and Gatwick.
  Mr. Lewis: We should be thinking about the next phase of the metrolink now. Some of us believe that that system should be brought out to places such as Worsley, as that would save a lot of unnecessary car journeys.
  The M62 is worn out at the specific junctions to which the Minister referred because of the old specifications that were used. If we intend to reline and resurface motorways to new specifications, they should be adequate to deal with the existing levels of traffic.
  Mr. Chope: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is already thinking ahead about further development of the metrolink. It is unrealistic to think that such investment could be a substitute for investment in the major road artery between Merseyside, the Greater Manchester conurbation and west Yorkshire. No one would be forgiving of a Government who ignored the obvious trends of increased traffic in that area and did not try to find a solution to that difficult problem. The Government recognise those problems.
  We do not yet have proposals for the new road that we can submit for public consultation. Once proposals are published for consultation purposes, there will be ample opportunity for people to visit exhibitions, ask questions and give their views. I again give an assurance to the House that no firm decision on the scheme will be taken until public consultation has been held. That consultation process gives people the earliest practicable opportunity to have a say in the development of the scheme. We put great value on the views presented at this stage, which is in addition to the statutory opportunities for public input that will arise later. It is at that later stage, when orders are published, that statutory rights of objection may lead to consideration of the scheme at a local public inquiry before an independent inspector.
  It is only after the Department's most careful considerations that we submit a draft route for public consultation. It is only after the most exhaustive procedures that we finally decide on a route. The hon. Member for Worsley and his constituents and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South and his constituents will have ample opportunity to participate to the full in that detailed consultation process
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Attorney-General how many court actions relating to mortgage repossessions there were in the Leeds county court in each year since 1982.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of mortgage actions for possession in Leeds county court were:

  Number

  1982

  803

  1983

  508

  1984

  558

  1985

  800

  1986

  773

  1987

  492

  1988

  807

  1989

  903

  1990

  1,068

  Maintenance Enforcement
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he is giving to the relationship between access and maintenance in the new legislation on maintenance enforcement to ensure that failure to pay does not result in the child being forbidden to see a parent.

  The Attorney-General
  The Child Support Bill and the Maintenance Enforcement Bill are concerned only with the assessment and payment of maintenance. The difficulties surrounding the denial of access to an absent parent are being considered as part of the Government's review of the family justice system. There is no proposal that failure to pay maintenance will result in the child's being forbidden to see the parent who has failed to pay.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Attorney-General whether there are any proposals when the private child support agency is established to track down and collect maintenance from errant fathers to ensure that shared access is enforced.

  The Attorney-General
  The Child Support Agency, which will be a "next steps" agency accountable to the

  Confirmed redundancies—Leeds metropolitan district area

  SIC 1980 division

  Year

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  21990

  Agriculture, forestry, fishing

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—.

  Energy and water supply industries

  206

  235

  1—

  1—

  150

  1—

  1—

  Extraction of minerals and ores other than fuels; manufacture of metals, mineral products and chemicals

  226

  224

  91

  69

  81

  1—

  122

  Metal goods, engineering and vehicle industries

  1,531

  478

  1,031

  801

  518

  207

  612

  Other manufacturing industries

  940

  670

  467

  658

  623

  521

  950

  Construction

  120

  215

  95

  1—

  1—

  62

  69

  Distribution, hotels and catering; repairs

  374

  487

  400

  1,028

  362

  226

  135

  Transport and communication

  190

  149

  64

  1—

  54

  245

  93

  2
  Secretary of State for Social Security, will be concerned only with issues relating to the assessment and payment of maintenance for children. It will have no involvement with issues of access, which will remain with the courts. As the White Paper "Children Come First" made clear, although absent parents sometimes see the payment of maintenance as connected to the question of their access to the children concerned, the two are separate issues which are decided on the basis of different criteria. Nonetheless, the Government are aware that there are difficulties surrounding the enforcement of access where an order has been made. This is one of the areas which is being considered as part of the Government's review of the family justice system in England and Wales.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the levels of redundancies, by industry, in Leeds West for the period 1981 to 1991, classified by men, women, young persons and ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is given in the tables. The figures relate to the numbers of redundancies confirmed as having occurred following receipt of notification under the 1975 Employment Protection Act, in the years 1983 to 1990 in the jobcentre areas covering the Leeds metropolitan district, analysed by the 1968 and 1980 standard industrial classifications.

  The comparisons are affected by the changes to the redundancy fund in 1986.

  Confirmed redundancies—Leeds metropolitan district area

  SIC 1968 group

  Year

  1981

  1982

  1983

  Agriculture, forestry, fishing

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Mining and quarrying

  1—

  100

  159

  Food, drink and tobacco

  83

  218

  219

  Coal, petroleum and chemical products

  161

  1—

  88

  Metal manufacture

  750

  441

  542

  Engineering and allied trades

  2,450

  1,905

  1,358

  Textiles, leather and clothing

  2,252

  1,410

  695

  Other manufacturing

  823

  942

  656

  Construction

  346

  178

  99

  Gas, electricity and water

  1—

  69

  129

  Transport and communication

  336

  66

  74

  Distributive trades

  612

  462

  474

  Financial, professional and miscellaneous services

  306

  582

  475

  Public administration and defence

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1— 50 or less.

  3

  SIC 1980 division

  Year

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  21990

  Banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing

  1—

  82

  68

  122

  1—

  184

  76

  Other services

  96

  324

  122

  149

  129

  137

  94

  1— 50 or less.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of total employment by industry and what was the percentage change in employment by industry; for the period 1981 to 1991, for Leeds, West, classified by men, women, young persons and ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment statistics for local areas are compiled only when censuses of employment are taken. They cover employees in employment only and exclude the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  Employees in employment: Leeds, West parliamentary constituency

  Percentage

  Proportion of all employees, by industry

  Change in employment by industry

  Industries and services (division of SIC 1980)

  September 1984

  September 1987

  1984 to 1987

  males

  females

  males

  females

  males

  females

  1–5 production and construction industries

  31·9

  9·0

  31·3

  8·6

  +1·7

  -1·5

  2–4 manufacturing industries

  26·5

  8·4

  26·3

  8·1

  +2·7

  -0·7

  6–7 distribution, hotels and catering; repairs; transport and communication

  14·4

  15·6

  14·4

  13·3

  +3·5

  -11·8

  8 banking, finance, business services and leasing

  2·6

  1·6

  3·1

  1·9

  +25·2

  +23·0

  9 other services

  9·7

  15·3

  10·6

  16·8

  +13·0

  +13·3

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons in the Leeds metropolitan district there were in(a) full-time employment, (b) part-time employment and (c) temporary employment for each year from 1979 (i) by gender and (ii) as a percentage of all employees in (x) manufacturing industry and (y) the service sector industry.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information for employees in employment by district is only available from the censuses of employment for 1981, 1984 and 1987. This can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. It is not possible to identify how many were in temporary employment.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Jackson
  Senior grades are recruited by the Civil Service Commission. The commission has taken various steps to aid recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities. The ED group will shortly be implementing equal opportunities action programmes focusing on the need to increase the represention of ethnic minorities and women and people with disabilities, in the higher grades. These programmes will reflect the programme of action on race issued by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service.
  4
  The available information for Leeds, West from censuses of employment taken in 1984 and 1987 is given in the table. Separate data for young persons and ethnic minorities are not available. Comparable data from the 1981 census of employment could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; data from the 1987 census are the latest currently available.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of officers in each grade 1 to 7 and overall in the Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  The numbers and percentages of women and ethnic minority officers in grades 1 to 7 and overall in the Department at 1 January 1991 are set out in the tables.

  Table 1

  Women in the employment department group (grades 1–7) at 1 January 1991

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  0

  0·0

  2

  0

  0·0

  3

  3

  10·3

  4

  0

  0·0

  5

  27

  15·7

  6

  35

  12·3

  7

  139

  12·6

  The Department employs 35,142 women who comprise 65·7 per cent. of the total staff.

  Table 2

  Ethnic minority staff in the employment department group (grades 1–7) at 1 January 1991

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  0

  0·0

  2

  0

  0·0

  3

  0

  0·0

  4

  1

  7·1

  5

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  5

  1

  0·6

  6

  0

  0·0

  7

  9

  0·8

  The Department employes 2,556 staff from the ethnic minorities who comprise 4·8 per cent. of the total staff.

  Redundancy Payments
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the reason for the delay by his Department's redundancy payments service at Birmingham in sending the sums owed to Mr. Peter Turner of 67 St. John's court, Warwick, following representations by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer my hon. Friend to my letter of 20 November 1990. A duplicate claim has now been processed and the money owed was sent to the Official Receiver on 7 February 1991. I understand the payment to Mr. Peter Turner was made on 27 February.

  Homeworkers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends to take to improve the pay and employment rights of homeworkers.

  Mr. Forth
  Employees who are homeworkers have the same employment rights as other employees. Pay is best determined by the parties concerned in the light of their particular circumstances. Homeworkers in wages council industries must be paid at least the statutory minimum wage rates set by the councils.

  Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the average costs per(a) employment training place and (b) youth training trainee place negotiated in the past year between (i) TECs and providers and (ii) regional offices and TECs.

  Mr. Jackson
  Financial arrangements agreed between training and enterprise councils—TECs—and providers of training for the delivery of employment training—ET—and youth training—YT—are matters for the parties involved. The details of costs per trainee week and per output agreed between my Department and individual TECs are commercially confidential.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of underspending on youth training and employment training measuring anticipated actual expenditure on 31 March against planned expenditure for 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  Forecast outturn expenditure on youth training and employment training in comparison to 1990–91 cash limits is shown in the table.

  Published cash limit £ million

  Forecast outturn £ million

  Youth training

  840

  833

  Employment training

  1,075

  1,062

  Claimants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many claimants in each of the years 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 from Great Britain have changed their status from long-term unemployed to fresh claimant as a result of participating in programmes provided by the employment service;

  (2) if he will list each of the programmes provided by the employment service which result in the long-term unemployed returning to the unemployment register as new claimants.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred these questions for reply.

  Pay Rates
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the maximum and minimum basic rates of pay recorded in the Leeds office 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 and showing figures for (1) men and (2) women.

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

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men(a) over the age of 60 years and (b) between the ages of 60 and 65 years, are in full employment; and what proportion of the employment market (b) constitutes.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is estimated from the labour force survey that there were 695,000 men aged 60 and over and 604,000 men aged 60 to 64 in full-time employment in Great Britain in spring 1989. The latter group formed 4·4 per cent. of all men aged 16 and over then in full-time employment.

  Training (Special Needs)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average cost per employment training special needs place negotiated in(a) the year 1989–90 between regional offices and providers and (b) in the past year between regional office and TECs and (c) in the past year between TECs and providers.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on costs of special needs places on the employment training programme is not available.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 480, what part his Department will take in the re-tendering process for the construction of the new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: This is a matter for the TEC.
  7
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answers of 12 February,Official Report, column 461–62 and 26 February, what was the subject of discussion between his director of field operations and the chairman of South Glamorgan TEC on 7 and 9 December 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: Various matters were discussed including the contract for the refurbishment of premises at Dumballs road for South Glamorgan TEC.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to finalise the amount of his financial contribution towards the cost of constructing the new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: This will depend on a number of factors, including the dates on which the TEC makes decisions about its premises.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Jobs Report
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement of implementation of the Ibbs report.

  Mr. Beith
  Following the generally supportive debate in the House on Thursday 17 January, the Commission is now proceeding with the first phase of the implementation of the proposals in Sir Robin Ibbs's report on House of Commons services. The recruitment of a new Director of Finance and Administration is now well advanced, and an appointment is likely to be made by Mr. Speaker before Easter. It is hoped that the procedures for appointing the new Director of Works—who will be responsible to the authorities of both Houses—will be completed before the Whitsun recess. The implementation of the other main proposals in the report will proceed as expeditiously as possible thereafter. The House will wish to know that the Offices Committee in the other place has also welcomed the general thrust of the Ibbs report and is taking steps to apply the recommendations where appropriate to its own administration.

TRANSPORT

  School Buses (Seat Belts)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) of 11 February,Official Report, column 309, if he will indicate the EC legislation which currently prevents Her Majesty's Government from introducing national proposals on the wearing of seat belts on school buses; and if he will further indicate which part of which EC directorate he is pressing to enable such measures to be brought forward.

  Mr. Chope
  The relevant EC directives are 76/155/EEC and 77/541/EEC together with their subsequent amendments, including most recently 90/629/EEC and 90/628/EEC. Any seat belts and anchorages that are fitted to new vehicles must conform to the standards laid down 8
  in these directives. In the case of coaches, no manufacturer can be obliged to fit seat belts or anchorages other than to front or exposed seats, and member states are not free to override this.

  We have pressed directorate general III in the European Commission to bring forward proposals as soon as possible which would require seat belts to be fitted on all seats in coaches and minibuses. This concern has now been reflected in the recitals to directive 90/628/EEC, which state that everything should be done in order to prevent passenger ejection in accidents. We hope the Commission will respond to this by putting forward proposals within that time scale requiring the fitting of seat belts on each seat. In the meantime, we are considering what further steps can be taken to encourage the more widespread fitting of seat belts on passenger seats.

  British Rail Work (King's Cross)
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to safeguard the land required for British Rail's proposed works at King's Cross.

  Mr. Freeman
  Safeguarding directions under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 have been made. They came into force today 4 March. These are initial directions and can be amended if details of the works at King's Cross are altered at any stage.

  Canning Town Flyover
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to open public consultation concerning the widening of the Canning Town flyover A13, and any associated changes in traffic circulation affecting pedestrians and local traffic.

  Mr. Chope
  We intend to hold full public consultations, which I hope will begin towards the end of this summer.

  Central Line
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the investigation by London Underground Ltd. into the delays and hazards experienced by passengers on the Central line on Tuesday 19 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that London Underground Ltd. hopes to complete its report very shortly. This will be discussed with the Health and Safety Executive's railways inspectorate, and the Health and Safety Commission will consider and advise on whether further action may be necessary.

  M20
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when the contract for the M20, junctions 5 to 8, improvement will be awarded;

  (2) when he expects the M20, junctions 5 to 8, improvement to be completed;

  (3) when tenders will be invited for the M20, junctions 5 to 8, improvement.

  Mr. Chope
  Tenders for the construction of the M20, junctions 5 to 8, improvement, were invited on 1 March. We aim to award the contract by mid-summer this year for completion of the work by mid-summer 1993.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to achieve the harmonisation of international road sign standards.

  Mr. Chope
  The United Kingdom plays a full arid active part in promoting necessary international harmonisation of road sign standards. The Department of Transport is represented on United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and European conference of Ministers of Transport committees dealing with road sign harmonisation.

  Work on constructional standards for traffic signs is being carried out under the auspices of Comité Européen de Normalisation—CEN. The Department is represented at CEN and plays a full part in the development of the new European standards which are planned for publication by the end of 1993.

  Road Building and Renewal
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to institute rolling programmes of road building and renewal.

  Mr. Chope
  These are already in place. Road construction schemes are kept under review, and schemes are added to the programme from time to time. A total of £400 million will be spent on major maintenance of motorways, trunk roads and bridges this financial year as part of a continuing programme.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the United Kingdom Government have ratified(a) the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic, signs and signals and (b) the 1954 New York convention on the temporary importation of private road motor vehicles and for tourism.

  Mr. Chope
  The United Kingdom is a signatory to and hopes soon to ratify the 1968 Vienna conventions on road traffic and road signs and signals. The 1954 conventions on the temporary importation of private road vehicles and facilities for touring were both ratified by the United Kingdom in 1956.

  Road Signals
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the standardisation of the position and operation of controls, lights and indicators for roads and road vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  The detailed requirements for and the legal significance of light signals for the control of vehicular traffic are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 and comply with the provisions of the European convention and agreement on road signs and signals. Detailed legal requirements for the fitting and control of lights on vehicles, including direction indicators are covered by the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. These regulations follow closely agreed European standards for the installation and performance of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and trailers.

  Carbon Monoxide Emissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a list of car manufacturers' specifications for carbon monoxide emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is already available from vehicle manufacturers and published by other organisations such as tuning equipment manufacturers. Reputable service agents should also have the information.

  Cars (Fuel-injection Systems)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the proportion of new cars available for purchase in the United Kingdom with fuel-injection systems which are fitted with an inertial safety switch.

  Mr. Chope
  It is estimated that in excess of 90 per cent. of fuel-injected vehicles manufactured in the United Kingdom are fitted with a device, not necessarily inertial, that will automatically shut off the fuel delivery in the event of a substantial impact. Proportions of imported fuel injected vehicles fitted with such devices are not known, although most importers will have been issued with guidelines recommending their use.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory provisions that relate to the accountability of broadcasting authorities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The constitution and responsibilities of the Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority and S4C are set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990, while the BBC is governed by the terms of its charter and accompanying licence and agreement.

  Asylum Requests
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average length of time spent in processing requests for asylum into the United Kingdom in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Average length of time (in months) between the receipt of an application and the decision, 1983–901

  Year in which decision made

  Applications for refugee status or asylum

  1983

  6

  1984

  8½

  1985

  12½

  1986

  14

  1987

  14

  1988

  17

  1989

  12

  21990

  12

  1 Excludes south-east Asian refugees given settlement on arrival.

  2 Provisional.

  11
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals currently seeking asylum have had to wait for two years or more before a decision is made on their cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At 31 December 1990 some 4,000 asylum applicants, including associated dependants, are recorded as awaiting a decision in the United Kingdom for two years or more. However, this figure overstates the position because of under-recording of decisions made earlier.

  Female offenders found guilty at all courts or cautioned for shoplifting offences 1980 to 1989 England and Wales

  Number found guilty or cautioned for shoplifting offences

  Percentage found guilty or cautioned of shoplifting over all indictable offences

  Number given custody for shoplifting offences

  Average sentence length for shoplifting (months)

  Magistrates' court

  Crown court

  1980

  52,797

  55

  659

  3

  4

  1981

  52,577

  56

  669

  3

  4

  1982

  56,904

  58

  750

  2

  4

  1983

  53,402

  56

  735

  2

  5

  1984

  50,919

  55

  751

  2

  5

  1985

  58,239

  58

  808

  2

  5

  1986

  49,807

  56

  657

  2

  6

  1987

  45,822

  53

  635

  2

  6

  1988

  37,787

  47

  535

  3

  6

  1989

  35,371

  46

  465

  2

  5

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Charity Commission's income is provided by Government grant.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Charity Commission is non-ministerial Government Department and, as such, its total expenditure, which is subject to a cash limit, is voted by Parliament.

  Leicestershire Police Force
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will reimburse the Leicestershire police force in respect of unforeseeable expenditures which have led to budgetary overspending.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office will continue to meet 51 per cent. of Leicestershire police authority's expenditure on revenue costs through specific grant, regardless of whether the expenditure was foreseen or not.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding the Leicestershire police force has received from central Government in each of the past five financial years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Specific police grant paid to Leicestershire county council in respect of the financial years 1985–86 to 1989–90 was as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  18,093,241

  1986–87

  20,700,339

  1987–88

  22,488,908

  1988–89

  24,563,482

  1989–90

  28,578,769

  Women Offenders
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the most common category of crime for women offenders during the last 10 years; and what is the average sentence for these crimes.

  Mr. John Patten
  The most common indictable offence committed by women is shoplifting. The table shows the number of women found guilty or cautioned for this offence over the past 10 years and the average sentence lengths imposed by the courts.

  In addition, rate support grant paid to Leicestershire county council in each of these years included support for that part of police expenditure not covered by police grant.

  "Cautioning of Offenders"
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provisions of Home Office circular 59/1990 "Cautioning of Offenders", as it relates to the discretion now being extended to the police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The purpose of the circular is to establish national standards for cautioning based on consistent general principles in which the courts and public may have full confidence. It does not give the police any new discretion, but emphasises the principle that cautioning can be suitable for all age groups, not just juveniles. Generally, cautioning is recognised as an increasingly important way of keeping offenders out of the courts and, in many circumstances, reducing the risk that they will re-offend.

  Crime Concern
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of Crime Concern.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the two years for which it has been fully operational, Crime Concern has undertaken a wide range of valuable work, notably in establishing area crime reduction schemes, forging a fruitful relationship with the private sector and encouraging the development of youth crime prevention projects. I look forward to the organisation's continuing contribution to preventing crime.

  Hospital Strip Cells
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were put into hospital strip cells in each of the years from 1986 to 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I regret that the information is not available in statistical form and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Women's Prisons
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the overcrowding and lack of integral sanitation at Bullwood Hall and Styall women's prisons; and if he will give figures for the certified normal accommodation and the actual numbers for the last 12 months at these establishments.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Some cells in Bullwood Hall are being shared because of the temporary withdrawal of 23 cells so that access to night sanitation can be provided by means of an electronic unlocking system. All the main areas of accommodation in the prison will have integral sanitation by February 1992 leaving only the hospital and segregation unit, and work will be carried out in these areas in 1992–93. There is no overcrowding in Styal prison and integral sanitation is currently being installed. Work on one house is complete and the two remaining houses will have integral sanitation by September 1991. All other areas of the prison have open access and therefore integral sanitation is not required.

  The figure for the certified normal accommodation of Bullwood Hall is 119. The figure for Styal is normally 258, but has been reduced to 208 while refurbishment is carried out. The actual numbers of prisoners on the last Friday of the month for each of the previous 12 months were as follows:

  Bullwood Halt

  Styal

  1990

  30 March

  123

  221

  27 April

  124

  214

  25 May

  119

  204

  29 June

  112

  185

  27 July

  113

  196

  31 August

  115

  200

  28 September

  112

  202

  26 October

  115

  204

  30 November

  115

  205

  28 December

  116

  206

  1991

  25 January

  105

  197

  22 February

  105

  200

  Television Programme Listings
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received on the publication of television programme listings; and what evaluation he has made of the effects of charges on local newspapers;

  (2) if he will again review the implications of the Broadcasting Act for television listings in local newspapers; and what steps he will take to monitor referrals of charges for listings to the copyright tribunal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received a number of representations about the proposed scale of charges for the 14
  publication of television listings. The Broadcasting Act 1990, however, makes provision for the independent Copyright tribunal to adjudicate in any case in which a publisher considers that the charge imposed for publishing television listings is unreasonable. I see no need to monitor referrals to the tribunal. It is premature to consider the effects of charges on local newspapers until the procedure set out in the Act has been concluded.

  Estate Rifles
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidelines to chief police officers following the consideration of the firearms consultancy committee of section 16 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 on visitors' use of estate rifles; and whether he intends to legislate on the purchase of ammunition by users of estate rifles.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We shall consider the need for this most carefully in the light of any advice which the Firearms Consultative Committee may make in due course. We have no plans, at present, to legislate for further controls on the purchase of ammunition permitted under section 16.

  Detainees
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the guidelines decided by his advisory panel on those detained on the grounds of national security under the Immigration Act 1971 in relation to(a) the number of witnesses allowed, (b) the legal or other advisers who may be present at hearings and (c) other matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The arrangements are those set out in the then Home Secretary's statement to the House on 15 June 1971 at columns 375–77. Other issues affecting the conduct of proceedings are a matter for the chairman of the panel.

WALES

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the air pollution monitoring sites based in Wales for(a) ozone, (b) carbon monoxide, (c) nitrogen oxides, (d) acid deposition, (e) atmospheric hydrocarbon, (f) trace germs, (g) atmospheric chemistry, (h) smoke and sulphur dioxide directive, (i) other sulphur dioxide sites, (j) lead sites and (k) multi-element sites including lead.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The sites operated in Wales on behalf of the United Kingdom Government are:

  (a) Ozone—Aston Hill.

  (b) Acid deposition sites—Beddgelert; Tycanol Wood; Llyn Brianne; Plinlimmon.

  (c) Smoke and sulphur dioxide, including directive sites —Cardiff; Cresselly (Pembs); Marshfield, near Cardiff; Newport, Gwent; Neyland; Pontypool; Port Talbot; Waunfawr; Welshpool; Wrexham; Cwmgwrach, Neath; Glynneath—installed but not yet operational.

  (d) Lead sites—Cardiff.

  There are no air pollution monitoring sites operated in Wales on behalf of the United Kingdom Government in

  15
  respect of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, atmospheric hydrocarbon, trace germs, atmospheric chemistry and multi-elements.

  However, other monitoring is carried out under the aegis of various independent organisations.

  Welsh Water
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what target has been set for Welsh Water plc to achieve in terms of reducing water loss between reservoir and consumer as part of the efficiency component in price setting.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  In the prospectus of the water share offers in November 1989, Dwr Cymru stated that it intended to reduce the proportion of water lost through leakages and otherwise unaccounted for to 25 per cent. by 2012. As part of its "K" investment programme the company is to spend £550 million, at November 1989 prices, on its distribution system by 31 March 2000. The company also set out in the prospectus its objectives in relation to the replacement and relining of its mains.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what reports have been made by Welsh Water on progress made in reducing the proportion of water between reservoir and consumer since privatisation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask Minister for the Civil Service when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The last survey was conducted in 1986. There are no plans to repeat it, but the enthnic origins of all entrants to the department are monitored on a continuous basis.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Peru (Cholera)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific medical resource is available to help the people of Peru combat the outbreak of cholera.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government of Peru, with assistance from the World Health Organisation, has identified the medical requirements and requested external assistance. The international community, including Britain, has responded positively to this request.

ENERGY

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.
  16
  Mr. Wakeham
  Recruitment to senior grades is carried out by the Civil Service Commission on behalf of my Department. The commission has taken a number of steps to encourage applications from the ethnic minorities and to ensure that selection procedures are nondiscriminatory. These include publicity in the ethnic minority press, increasing representation of ethnic minority members on selection panels, training in equal opportunities issues and validation of selection procedures to ensure that they are non-discriminatory.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1 to 7) and overall in the Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Wakeham
  As at 1 January 1991 there were no women in grades 1 to 4; at grade 5 there were five, or 12·5 per cent., at grade 6 there was one, or 4·5 per cent., and at grade 7 there were 14 or 10 per cent. The information supplied voluntarily in the most recent ethnic origin survey shows one person, or 0·5 per cent., of grades 1 to 7 is from the ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The last survey was conducted in the spring of 1990, and a top-up survey is currently in progress. Further surveys will be carried out as the need arises, initially on an annual basis.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he or any of his Ministers or officials have been in touch with regional electricity companies about their proposed price increases for domestic electricity consumers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I and my Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the regional electricity companies on a range of electricity matters.

  Pollution Tax
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what studies he has made of the effect of a pollution tax on(a) fossil fuels and (b) fossil fuels used to supplement electricity generation under the non-fossil fuel obligations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's policy on the use of economic instruments for environmental protection is set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". In the long term, action to control emissions will inevitably have to include increases, achieved by taxation or other means, in the relative price of energy. However, the White Paper made clear the Government's intention not to introduce any such measures in the next few years outside the transport sector. Analytical work continues in support of this policy.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West of 25 February,Official Report, column 345, how

  17
  much of the 3·5 tonnes of plutonium sent abroad, or the 0·5 tonnes of plutonium held on behalf of foreign customers at Sellafield, was reprocessed and stored or exported by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. before the tripartite safeguards agreement between the United Kingdom and Euratom/IAEA was agreed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Some 40 per cent. of the plutonium referred to by the hon. Member was sent abroad or stored by British Nuclear Fuels plc before the United Kingdom/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement —Infcirc-263—came into force in 1978. All plutonium arising from reprocessing spent fuel at Sellafield on behalf of overseas customers has been subject to Euratom safeguards since 1973 and to the terms of that tripartite agreement.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West of 25 February,Official Report, column 345, what proportion of the 3·5 tonnes of foreign origin plutonium to which he refers arose from contracts for reprocessing nuclear fuel from abroad signed prior to the end of 1975.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Specific details of the Company's contracts are a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Radioactive Wastes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for what time periods the low, intermediate and high level radioactive wastes respectively, arising from the reprocessing of foreign spent oxide nuclear fuel at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, may be stored at the site before being repatriated.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Contracts containing provisions for the return of waste from reprocessing during the first 10 years of operation of British Nuclear Fuel's thermal oxide reprocessing plant allow a period of up to 25 years following the year of reprocessing for the return of conditioned waste. Contracts signed in 1990 for reprocessing in the second 10 years of THORP operations provide that conditioned waste will normally be returned within five years.

  It is planned to return high-level waste, which contains 98 per cent. of the activity of all wastes, as soon as practicable after vitrification. The detailed negotiation of this programme is a matter for BNFL and its customers who must complete facilities for the receipt and storage of the vitrified waste before it can be returned. It is expected that even for the initial baseload contracts the return will begin within five to 10 years of the fuel being reprocessed.

  Oil and Gas (GDP)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the proportion of the gross domestic product of each of the countries of the European Community and Norway and Sweden which is derived from oil and gas production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In 1990 extraction of mineral oil and natural gas accounted for about 2 per cent. of United Kingdom gross domestic product at current factor cost. The corresponding percentage is zero for Belgium,18
  Luxembourg, Portugal and Sweden. Comparable figures for Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Spain and Norway are not readily available.

PRIME MINISTER

  IRA Terrorism
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Government's programme to combat IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government remain totally committed to defeating terrorism, whether it emanates from the Provisional IRA, or from other Northern Irish terrorist groups.

  In Northern Ireland, we will continue with the security policy described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement of 8 November 1990.

  In order to ensure that anti-terrorist legislation is appropriate to the current security threat, the Government have laid before Parliament the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. In addition to re-enacting virtually all the provisions of the existing emergency law this Bill would provide the police and armed forces with the legal means to protect the community effectively, and at the same time provide appropriate safeguards for individuals. The specific proposals before Parliament include new powers to examine documents; a new criminal offence of possession of items intended for terrorist purposes; new powers in relation to closed crossings on the Anglo-Irish land border; a new offence of directing the activities of an organisation concerned in terrorism; new powers to enable the Secretary of State to make statutory codes of practice in connection with the exercise of emergency powers; and new powers to facilitate the investigation of terrorist financing and to confiscate the assets of those who have gained personally from their involvement in this.

  In Great Britain, responsibility for protecting the public from the threat of attack from the Provisional IRA rests primarily with the police. The Government welcomed the appointment last year by the Association of Chief Police Officers of the head of the Metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch as national co-ordinator of PIRA investigations. The Government will seek to ensure that the police have the right structure for combating terrorism; that they have sufficient resources; and that they have sufficient powers. To this end it is in the Government's view essential that the House should approve the continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The Act contains special provisions for the proscription of Irish terrorist organisations; for the exclusion of suspected terrorists from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole; for the restraint and confiscation of terrorist funds; for the arrest and detention without charge of suspected terrorists for a maximum period of seven days on the authority of the Secretary of State; and for the system of police controls at ports and airports throughout the United Kingdom.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1–7) and overall in the Cabinet Office are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Grade

  Women

  Percentage

  Members of ethnic minorities1

  Percentage

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  6

  0

  0

  3

  2

  11

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  9

  18

  1

  2

  6

  15

  35

  0

  0

  7

  36

  21

  0

  0

  Overall in the Cabinet Office

  839

  56

  51

  3·5

  1 These figures are based on a voluntary questionnaire.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government first learned of the announcement made on Baghdad radio on 25 February that Iraqi forces were withdrawing from Kuwait; at what time an authoritative English translation of the announcement was made; and whether he made any contact with allied partners in Operation Granby as a result of the radio statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The substance of the Baghdad radio broadcast, made at 2230 hours GMT on 25 February, became known to us at 2245 hours GMT. A full English translation became available to us at 2324 hours GMT. We are in constant touch with our coalition partners over many aspects of the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment was made of the applicability of Geneva convention article 23 before allied airforces in Operation Granby were given orders to bomb convoys of Iraqi military forces withdrawing from Kuwait.

  The Prime Minister
  Article 23 of the regulations attached to Hague convention IV of 1907 states that it is especially forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion. The coalition made it clear that it would not attack unarmed Iraqi soldiers, but that retreating formed combat units continued to pose a threat and would therefore be treated as hostile.

  International Agreements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it his policy for Ministers of Her Majesty's Government to answer questions from Members that seek clarification of Her Majesty's Government's interpretation of international treaties, agreements and United Nations resolutions to which the United Kingdom is a party and affect policy decisions of the Government.

  The Prime Minister
  It has always been our policy to answer hon. Members' questions as well as we can.
  20
  The Prime Minister
  The number of women and ethnic minorities in each grade (1–7) and overall serving in the Cabinet Office is:

THE ARTS

  Crafts Council
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to increase the level of Government funding to the Crafts Council.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government's current level of funding to the Crafts Council is £2·52 million. Under the latest settlement, this funding will increase to £2·815 million in both 1991–92 and 1992–93, and increase further in 1993–94 to £2·885 million. The figures for 1991–92 include an exceptional additional allocation of £65,000 for incentive funding to use in connection with the move to new premises.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the level of funding granted to the Crafts Council in each year from 1979 onwards; and what are the estimated grants for the Crafts Council up until 1992–93.

  Mr. Renton
  Details of the level of funding granted to the Crafts Council in each year from 1979 onwards are set out in the table. Under the latest settlement, the estimated grant for the Crafts Council is £2,815 million for each year of 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  £ million

  1979–80

  1·148

  1980–81

  1·260

  1981–82

  1·525

  1982–83

  1·600

  1983–84

  1·665

  1984–85

  1·777

  1985–86

  1·880

  1986–87

  1·925

  1987–88

  2·022

  1988–89

  2·250

  1989–90

  2·350

  1990–91

  2·520

  Welsh Arts Council
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many separate grants and other payments have been made by the Welsh Arts Council during the last three years; and how many grants issued were of amounts less than 5,000.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is as follows:

  1989–90—409 grants and subsidies (263 less than £5,000);

  21

  1988–89—440 grants and subsidies (308 less than £5,000);

  1987–88—369 grants and subsidies (260 less than £5,000).

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has, pursuant to his oral answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 12, relating to the Kuwait museum of islamic antiquities, the museums and shrines of Najaf and Kerbaka, Babylon and Ur of the Chaldees, and the museum in Baghdad housing Sumerian antiquities.

  Mr. Renton
  The Office of Arts and Libraries has no responsibility for museums or religious and cultural sites in Iraq or Kuwait.

  My answer of 18 February referred to the removal by Iraq of the contents of the Kuwait museum of Islamic antiquities. I have no information relating to the museums and shrines of Najaf and Kerbaka, Babylon and Ur of the Chaldes and the museum in Baghdad housing Sumerian antiquities. Newspaper reports have speculated about the possibility of damage being caused to cultural and religious sites in Iraq and Kuwait, but I have no means of substantiating these reports.

  Departmental Policies (Environmental Implications)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what actions have been taken since the appointment of a Minister in his Department to consider the environmental implications of his Department's policies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: The environmental implications of the Department's policies are my responsibility. Consideration is given to them as appropriate in consultation with arts bodies, but particularly with the institutions which my Office sponsors. Arts organisations contribute considerably to the enhancement of the environment through conservation activity, assistance towards inner city regeneration, ecological and other research programmes.

HEALTH

  Incontinence Services
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the existing project on incontinence drawing on evidence from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys surveys started; when he expects it to finish; who is carrying out the project; and how the results will be used in developing the incontinence services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The project, undertaken by the social policy research unit, university of York, commenced in September 1990 and is scheduled for completion in April 1991. The purpose is to relate the OPCS data to previous United Kingdom research on incontinence and incontinence services so as to establish a starting point for measuring outcomes.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the meeting between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 15 January with representatives from the Spinal Injuries Association, Age Concern England and the Association of Continence 22
  Advisers on the incontinence services; what were the views expressed by those organisations; and what was his response.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It was agreed that, across the country, there were wide variations in the level of services to people with incontinence. The Department is looking at how best to tackle this problem. In the meantime the NHS management executive has written to all district health authorities drawing their attention to existing policy guidelines on continence services, and reminding them of the need not to expose vulnerable patients or clients to anxiety as a result of any proposed changes in arrangements for the supply of incontinence pads.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will carry out the project on the role of continence advisers due to start in April 1991; with whom they will consult and work; within what financial parameter they will look at the future roles of continence advisers; and when he expects the project to finish.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The project will be conducted by the social policy research unit, university of York, and is expected to take two years. The researchers aim to make contact with all existing continence advisers, a representative sample of health and social service managers, and other interested parties. The researchers are free to make whatever recommendations they think appropriate.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population was over the age of 65 years in 1961, 1970, 1980, and 1990; and if he will give estimates for the years 2000, 2010, 2020 and 2030.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimated and projected percentages of the population of England and Wales aged 65 and over are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Mid-year estimate:

  1961

  11·9

  1970

  13·2

  1980

  15·1

  11989

  15·8

  Projections (1989-based):

  1990

  15·8

  2000

  15·7

  2010

  16·1

  2020

  18·0

  22029

  20·0

  1 Latest available estimate.

  2 Last available projection.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's current policy towards the elderly; if he will comment on funding arrangements of organisations connected with the elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's policy for elderly people comprises two main aims: the first is to provide services which enable people to maintain their independence for as long as possible and, after any period of hospital care, to return to their homes or to homely settings in the community as soon as possible; the second is to provide care and treatment appropriate to the
  23
  individual patient—this may involve community nursing at home, domiciliary social services, acute hospital care, rehabilitation or long-stay medical or nursing care.

  It is for each health and local authority to determine the type and level of provision they provide in the light of local circumstances and priorities. In drawing up their community care plans we expect the statutory agencies to work together to ensure that they are compatible and comprehensive taking account of provision in the independent sector and of the individual needs and wishes of the elderly people themselves and their carers.

  Under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, the Department of Health funds a number of voluntary organisations who work with and for elderly people.

  Expenditure
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the level of health expenditure in Scotland, England and Wales for each of the last 10 years at constant prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Gross NHS expenditure at 1990–91 prices

  £ million

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1981–82

  18,909

  2,555

  1,177

  1982–83

  19,250

  2,587

  1,212

  1983–84

  19,533

  2,641

  1,230

  1984–85

  19,989

  2,695

  1,266

  1985–86

  20,061

  2,707

  1,281

  1986–87

  20,875

  2,786

  1,332

  1987–88

  21,768

  2,870

  1,399

  1988–89

  22,524

  2,977

  1,459

  1989–90

  22,830

  3,046

  1,486

  1990–91

  23,718

  3,102

  1,554

  GDP
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the proportion of the gross domestic product in each of the countries of the European Community and Norway and Sweden which is spent on health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information required is in the table:

  Total Expenditure on Health as a proportion of GDP (1987): EC Countries, Norway and Sweden

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  7·2

  Denmark

  6·0

  France

  8·5

  Germany

  8·1

  Greece

  5·3

  Ireland

  7·4

  Italy

  7·2

  Luxembourg

  7·5

  Netherlands

  8·5

  Norway

  7·5

  Portugal

  6·4

  Spain

  6·0

  Sweden

  9·2

  United Kingdom

  6·0

  The proportion of GDP spent on health care is indicative neither of the efficiency with which resources are used, nor of health outcomes.

  Baby Milk Powder
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take action to ban any advertising of baby milk powders that suggests that those products are as good as or better than the baby's mother's milk.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are committed to the protection and promotion of breastfeeding as the best means of nurturing infants. Our policies and programmes are based on unequivocal expert advice from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) and on the principles of the World Health Organisation's "International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes". The latter includes recommendations on the restriction of general advertising of baby milk powders, formally known as infant formulae.

  In the United Kingdom the marketing of infant formulae is closely controlled under voluntary self-regulating arrangements which the United Kingdom manufacturers drew up in consultation with the Government in the early 1980s. It is under these arrangements that we have acted on the WHO recommendations. Details of the arrangements are set out in the publication "Code of Practice for the Marketing of Infant Formulae in the United Kingdom and Schedule for a Code Monitoring Committee". The code of practice specifically states that
  "no advertising should imply that infant formulae are equivalent or superior to the milk of a healthy mother"
  and restricts such advertising to publications aimed at
  health care professionals.

  Copies of the WHO and United Kingdom codes of practice are in the Library.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of cases notified to him in 1990, for 1990 by region, for(a) food poisoning in general, (b) salmonella (c) salmonella enteritidis, (d) salmonella enteritidis P4, (e) salmonella typhimurium, (f) campylobacter and (g) listeriosis.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The data show notifications of food poisoning to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and laboratory reports of specific organisms to the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre.

DEFENCE

  Antares
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the results of the inquiry into the sinking of the vessel Antares from Carradale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Departmental consideration of the board of inquiry report has not yet been completed. I will, however, make a summary of its findings available to the House in due course. I am at present unable to say when this will be.

  Air Publications and Forms Store
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects the air publications and forms store to be moved from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Current planning for the move of the air publications and forms store from Woolwich to Llangennech allows for a phased transfer over the period April 1991 to December 1992.

  Iraqi Nationals
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central of 19 February,Official Report, column 137, how many Iraqi nationals detained at Rollestone remain there; and how many have been released.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 32 Iraqi nationals are detained as prisoners of war at Rollestone; three others have been released.

  1st Armoured Division
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those units under the command of 1st Armoured division.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The main units under the command of the 1st (British) Armoured Division are as follows:

  HQ 1 Armoured Division

  HQ 4 Armoured Brigade

  HQ 7 Armoured Brigade

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)

  Queens Royal Irish Hussars

  14th/20th Kings Hussars

  16th/5th The Queens Royal Lancers

  Queens Dragoon Guards

  2 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  12 Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  26 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  32 Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  39 Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  40 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  46 Air Defence Battery Royal Artillery

  10 Air Defence Battery Royal Artillery

  21 Engineer Regiment

  23 Engineer Regiment

  32 Armoured Engineer Regiment

  39 Engineer Regiment

  3 Field Squadron Royal Engineers

  15 Field Support Squadron Royal Engineers

  37 Field Squadron Royal Engineers

  45 Field Squadron Royal Engineers

  45 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron Royal Engineers

  14 Topographic Squadron Royal Engineers

  1 Armoured Division Signal Regiment

  30 Signal Regiment

  204 Signal Squadron

  207 Signal Squadron

  2 Squadron 14 Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare) Elements of 1st Battalion Scots Guards

  1st Battalion Coldstream Guards

  1st Battalion Royal Scots

  3rd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  1st Battalion Royal Highland Fusiliers

  1st Battalion Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment

  Elements of 1st Battalion Queens Own Highlanders

  4 Regiment Army Air Corps

  1 Armoured Divison Transport Regiment Royal Corps of Transport

  26

  4 Armoured Division Transport Regiment Royal Corps of Transport

  7 Tank Transporter Regiment Royal Corps of Transport

  10 Regiment Royal Corps of Transport

  27 Regiment Royal Corps of Transport

  28 Ambulance Squadron Gurkha Transport Regiment

  52 Port Squadron Royal Corps of Transport

  1 Armoured Field Ambulance

  5 Armoured Field Ambulance

  22 Field Hospital

  24 Airmobile Field Ambulance

  32 Field Hospital

  33 General Hospital

  205 General Hospital

  3 Ordnance Battalion Royal Army Ordnance Corps

  6 Ordnance Battalion

  6 Armoured Workshop Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  7 Armoured Workshop Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  11 Armoured Workshop Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  71 Aircraft Workshop Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  174 Provost Company Royal Military Police

  203 Provost Company Royal Military Police

  27 Group Royal Pioneer Corps

  187 Company Royal Pioneer Corps

  598 Company Royal Pioneer Corps

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance was given to British pilots in the allied forces involved in Operation Granby to assess whether the Iraqi troop carriers, withdrawing from Kuwait, contained any Kuwaiti citizens kidnapped by Iraqis, before bombing of the convoys in southern Iraq took place.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Allied forces had instructions to attack retreating Iraqi units which could continue to pose a threat.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A survey of members of staff for whom no ethnic origins information was held was undertaken in December 1990. As a result, the total proportion of Treasury staff for whom ethnic origin data are held now stands at 84 per cent.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at the Treasury.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Recruitment to senior grades of the civil service is undertaken by the Civil Service Commission. The commission has taken a number of steps to aid recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities including increasing representation of ethnic minorities in its liaison and selection panels; ensuring that its recruitment brochures reflect a multi-racial work force; and organising training which highlights equal opportunity issues concerning ethnic minorities.

  Male Earnings
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the take home pay of a married man on average pay with two children since 1 April 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The real net income of a family with two children aged under 11 years, in which the husband has average earnings, rose by 32 per cent. in real terms between 1974–75 and 1990–91; all but 1 per cent. of this rise took place after 1978–79.

  Foreign Travel
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the percentage of the gross domestic product in the United Kingdom which has been spent on foreign travel by British citizens travelling abroad in 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990.

  Mr. Maples
  The percentage of gross domestic product which has been spent on foreign travel by British citizens travelling abroad is as follows:

  Percentage

  1960

  0·72

  1970

  0·74

  1980

  1·18

  1989

  1·84

  1990

  1—

  1 Data not yet available.

  These figures have been derived from gross domestic product data and travel data which are found on the CSO database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  GDP
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the gross domestic product of each of the countries of the European Community and Norway and Sweden; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  Figures of gross domestic product analysed by country are shown in the monthly OECD publication "Main Economic Indicators", of which copies are available in the Library of the House.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the points on the income scale for a single man with the standard allowance at which the combined national insurance and marginal rates alter; and if he will list those rates.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Information for 1990–91 is given in the table.
  28

  Levels of income at which the marginal rate of income lax and national insurance contributions of a single person1 changes, 1990–91

  Weekly income £

  Marginal rate of income tax and national insurance contributions2 Per cent.

  46·00

  9

  57·79

  34

  350·00

  25

  455·87

  40

  1 Assumed to be non-aged with no reliefs or allowances other than the single personal allowance.

  2 Class 1 national insurance contributions for an employee contracted into the state earnings-related pension scheme (SERPS).

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost in a full tax year of returning to schedule D those income tax payers in the theatrical, writing, television and allied industries who have recently been transferred to schedule E; and if he will also estimate the cost of continuing to tax these categories as schedule E but restoring all new expenses previously allowed under schedule D.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the £30,000 limit could be raised to give a revenue neutral change if mortgage tax relief were restricted to the basic rate.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: To about £37,000 on the basis of 1990–91 figures. The estimate excludes behavioural effects.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was(a) the total amount invested in the business expansion scheme, (b) the amount invested in private rented housing, (c) the total cost of tax relief and (d) the amount of tax relief in respect of investment in private rented housing, for each year from 1987–88 to 1989–90;

  (2) for each of the years of the existence of the business expansion scheme, what were the percentages and amounts of BES money invested in residential and assured tenancy schemes and the associated revenue foregone by the Exchequer.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The business expansion scheme was extended to include investment in private rented housing in 1988–89. The latest estimates are shown in the table.
  29

  Amounts invested

  Cost of income lax relief

  Total

  Of which investment in private rented housing

  Total

  Of which in respect of investment in private rented housing

  (£ million)

  Amount (£ million)

  Percentage

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  1987–88

  200

  —

  —

  120

  —

  11988–89

  415

  365

  88

  150

  130

  11989–90

  225

  165

  75

  75

  55

  1 Provisional estimates.

  Information is not yet available for 1990–91.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently in profit-related pay schemes; how many were in, in each of the years since it was introduced; how many registered schemes have existed in each year; and what is the distribution of schemes by number of people in them.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The information is shown in the table. There were about 290,000 employees participating in PRP schemes at the end of January 1991.

  Live registered schemes as at December

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Number of participants

  1–50

  244

  517

  650

  711

  51–100

  64

  114

  149

  165

  101–500

  88

  156

  245

  268

  501–1,000

  23

  28

  37

  49

  Above 1,000

  11

  15

  31

  40

  Total schemes

  430

  830

  1,112

  1,233

  Participating employees

  72,000

  122,000

  226,000

  263,000

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people participated in the payroll giving scheme in each year of the scheme's existence; what total sums were given to charities as a result of the scheme in each year; and what was the cost to the Exchequer in each year.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Estimates are as follows:

  Payroll giving scheme

  Year

  Donors (thousands)

  Donations (£ million)

  Cost of tax relief (£ million)

  1987–88

  55

  1·0

  0·3

  1988–89

  120

  3·5

  1·0

  11989–90

  190

  7·0

  2·0

  11990–91

  250

  10·0

  3·0

  1 Provisional.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those benefiting from tax relief on private medical insurance are pensioners; and what is the income distribution of those people who gain.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: It is estimated that tax relief on private medical insurance for
  30
  the over–60s will benefit some 600,000 individuals with 330,000 policies in 1990–91. The further details requested are not available.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the yield from increasing the company car scale charges in 1991–92 by (i) 10 per cent., (ii) 20 per cent. and (iii) 30 per cent.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 26 February 1991]: The yield in a full year from increasing the company car scale charges in 1991–92 by 10 per cent., 20 per cent., and 30 per cent. is provisionally estimated at £120 million, £240 million and £360 million, respectively.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each country making a contribution to the United Kingdom's costs in the Gulf conflict(a) the amount promised, (b) the amount received so far and (c) the dates which he expects payments to be made; and what are the totals of such contributions (i) promised, (ii) received and (iii) expected in each quarter.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 February 1991]: In addition to the information given in my right hon. Friend's reply of 26 February, column 443, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), we have learnt that the Danish payment of DKr90 million, or about £8 million, was made on 26 February. The first of three tranches of $167 million, or about £85 million, was received from the United Arab Emirates on 28 February. As of noon on Friday, 1 March, we had also been promised £15 million by the Belgian Government. At this stage, the timing of future payments is not known.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the total cost of Government spending in 1990–91 and 1991–92 of the Gulf war; and what is his estimate of the effects on the British economy.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 26 February 1991]: In 1990–91 provision has been made for additional defence spending as a result of the Gulf crisis of £780 million, of which £40 million was absorbed within the existing defence budget. An extra £9·5 million has been provided for health, additional provision totalling a further £9·5 million made on FCO votes and there are also smaller costs, which have been absorbed, on some other public expenditure programmes. About £160 million worth of claims has been paid by ECGD to exporters against defaults by Iraq.

  The effect on Government spending in 1991–92 cannot yet be estimated. The Government are committed to

  31
  substantial additional costs for defence, but these will be spread over some years and are very uncertain. The indications at this stage are that eventual defence costs may be up to the £3 billion mark. This figure does not take account of contributions pledged by other countries towards the United Kingdom's costs. The balance of claims against ECGD are likely to be paid over the next 5 to 6 years.

  The impact of the Gulf war on the United Kingdom and world economies is uncertain and difficult to separate from other factors. A revised economic forecast will be published at Budget time.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current total subsidy to mortgage tax relief(a) for higher rate taxpayers, (b) for lower rate taxpayers and (c) for those lower rate taxpayers buying their first home.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 28 February 1991]: The estimated cost of mortgage interest relief in 1990–91 can be analysed as follows:

  Cost £ billion

  Higher rate taxpayers

  1·1

  Basic rate taxpayers

  6·3

  Non-taxpayers

  0·4

  Total

  7·8

  Information on mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers is not separately available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments (Prayers)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many prayers against statutory instruments have been debated in the current parliamentary Session; and how many prayers have been tabled.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Up to and including 25 February, 43 motions for an address for the annulment of statutory instruments have been tabled this Session. Of these, one has been debated on the Floor of the House. In addition, seven instruments subject to negative resolution have been referred to Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, and four have so far been considered.

  Space Audit
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the results of the space audit of the Palace of Westminster and its associated buildings.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The space audit is being undertaken by the Parliamentary Works Office to provide an authoritative record of the use of all the accommodation on the parliamentary estate, and a qualitative assessment, particularly of the areas used as offices. The consultants' recommendations, together with advice on space standards, are now being evaluated by the New Building Sub-Committee before it takes decisions on the accommodation needs to be included in the brief for the next phase of the new parliamentary building.

  Office Accommodation
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any plans to bid for rental accommodation now available in close proximity of the House to enable Members to have more office accommodation; what constraints there are on his doing so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A number of properties are under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to provide additional space for the House.

  Parliamentary Procedures
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any further statements to make regarding new parliamentary procedures and hours of work.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will review arrangements for the internal collection and delivery of hon. Members' correspondence to and from constituents.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Members' Post Office receives and sorts Members' incoming mail for collection or redirection daily; outgoing mail is collected at set times, by Post Office staff, from boxes in the Palace and outbuildings for onward transmission by the Post Office. I have no plans to review the arrangements at present but I know that the Serjeant-at-Arms will wish to try to meet any particular problems which the hon. Member may wish to draw to his attention.

  Parliamentary Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council since 1979, how many(a) Bills, (b) orders, (c) schemes, (d) regulations, (e) affirmative resolutions and (f) negative resolutions have been passed; and if he will make a statement on the trends.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The following information is available:

  (a) Since the beginning of the 1979–80 Session, 748 Public and Provisional Order Bills and 290 Private Bills have received Royal Assent:

  Session

  Public Bills

  Private Bills

  Total

  1979–80

  102

  40

  142

  1980–81

  78

  25

  103

  1981–82

  59

  25

  84

  1982–83

  56

  5

  61

  1983–84

  76

  37

  113

  1984–85

  87

  18

  105

  1985–86

  77

  38

  115

  1986–87

  55

  19

  74

  1987–88

  62

  33

  95

  1988–89

  46

  20

  66

  1989–90

  45

  28

  73

  11990–91

  5

  2

  7

  Total

  748

  290

  1,038

  1 Up to and including February 1991.

  33
  In Sessions 1979–80 to 1989–90 inclusive, 11 Public Bills were passed by the Commons but did not receive Royal Assent.

  (b), (c) and (d). Orders, schemes and regulations, along with rules and directions, are types of Statutory Instruments. Figures for the numbers of each type considered by the House and made are not maintained. The following numbers of Statutory Instruments have been made each calendar year from 1979:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  1,770

  1980

  2,051

  1981

  1,892

  1982

  1,900

  1983

  1,965

  1984

  2,072

  1985

  2,080

  1986

  2,344

  1987

  2,278

  1988

  2,311

  1989

  2,503

  1990

  2,663

  Total

  25,829

  (e) Figures for the numbers of Statutory Instruments and other statutory papers (reports, codes of practice etc.) which are subject to affirmative resolution and have been so approved by the House are not readily available. The Joint and Select Committees on Statutory Instruments have considered the following numbers of Statutory Instruments subject to affirmative resolution procedure since 1979:

  Session

  Number

  1979–80

  235

  1980–81

  130

  1981–82

  121

  1982–83

  99

  1983–84

  180

  1984–85

  158

  1985–86

  158

  1986–87

  117

  1987–88

  246

  1988–89

  160

  1989–90

  164

  Total

  1,768

  (f) Since 1979, one motion for an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a statutory instrument be annulled (a "prayer") has been agreed to (on 31 October 1979). One motion to disapprove a statement of changes in immigration rules has been agreed to (on 15 December 1982). Figures for the numbers of statutory instruments and other papers laid pursuant to statute which are subject to negative resolution are not readily available. The Joint and Select Committees on Statutory Instruments have considered the following numbers of Statutory Instruments subject to negative resolution procedure since 1979:

  Session

  Number

  1979–80

  1,010·00

  1980–81

  755·00

  1981–82

  686·00

  1982–83

  455·00

  1983–84

  863·00

  1984–85

  637·00

  1985–86

  815·00

  34

  Session

  Number

  1986–87

  462·00

  1987–88

  1,179·00

  1988–89

  854·00

  1989–90

  916·00

  Total

  8,632·00

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to so so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A full survey of the ethnic origins of Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff was conducted in 1986–87. It is kept up to date with information on new staff and leavers. Non-respondents in the diplomatic wing are to be re-surveyed in the next few weeks. The aid wing conducts periodic resurveys of non-respondents. The FCO attaches importance to its departmental programme for action on race as a means of ensuring that it recruits, develops and retains the best qualified people regardless of ethnic origin.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at the Foreign Office.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Recruitment to the most senior entry grade is conducted for us by the Civil Service Commission, which has taken various steps to improve ethnic minority recruitment. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has produced its own recruitment materials which reflect a multi-racial work force, and often places features and advertises vacancies in ethnic minority media.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1–7) and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information available is as follows:

  Diplomatic wing

  (a) The figures at 28 February 1991 for the diplomatic wing, including both home civil service grades 1 to 7 and the diplomatic service equivalents, are as follows:

  Total women in grade

  Women as percentage of total in grade

  HCS1

  0

  0

  HCS2

  0

  0

  HCS3

  6

  5·36

  1HCS4

  0

  0

  HCS5

  7

  2·37

  1HCS6

  0

  0

  HCS7

  43

  8·66

  1 no equivalent DS grade.

  35
  Overall there are 3,312 women in the diplomatic wing, equivalent to 46·8 per cent. of staff.

  (b) According to the diplomatic wing's ethnic survey 96 staff, or 1·4 per cent. of the payroll, have declared themselves to be of ethnic minority origin. The survey is, of course, voluntary.

  I regret that I am unable to provide a breakdown of the figures by grade.

  Aid wing

  (a) In January 1990 there were 35 women at HCS grades 1 to 7, representing 10·9 per cent of the total at those grades. A more detailed breakdown is not available. Overall there were 662 women in the aid wing, or 43·4 per cent. of staff.

  (b) According to the aid wing's ethnic survey 1·5 per cent. of HCS grades 1 to 7 are of ethnic minority origin. Overall, 3·79 per cent. of the total payroll of 1,525 staff have declared themselves to be of ethnic minority origin. The survey is voluntary. A breakdown of figures by grade is not available.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps are being taken to improve the reception of the BBC World Service for British forces.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In addition to the substantial measures already taken to improve reception in the Gulf since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, by increasing the number of frequencies and extending the hours of broadcasting, arrangements for high quality local rebroadcasting of the World Service are in hand. The arrangements made through the Services Sound and Vision Corporation to bring BBC World Service programmes to troops in the Gulf over special channels are a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. British forces, as well as the wider public, in other parts of the world are benefiting from a 10-year programme of investment in audibility which is now almost complete.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking to improve the reception of the BBC World Service to the Gulf area generally.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Substantial improvements have already been made, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The BBC has increased the number of shortwave frequencies serving the Gulf and the time that they are available. High-power medium wave transmissions have been added to provide additional coverage throughout the night hours. In addition, arrangements for high-quality local rebroadcasting of the BBC World Service are in hand.

  Sri Lanka
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will urge the Sri Lankan Government to establish an immediate ceasefire with the Tamil Tigers and use the good offices of the Australian Prime Minister or those of the Commonwealth to mediate in the conflict between the two sides.
  36
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Before urging the Sri Lankan Government to arrange a further ceasefire with the LTTE, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, with or without international mediation, Her Majesty's Government would need to be convinced that conditions existed for meaningful negotiations to take place thereafter based on recognition of the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and of the need to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of all its citizens through preservation of its multi-ethnic and multi-lingual character.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the practical results of the recent visit of President Zhelev of Bulgaria to this country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told President Zhelev that we would extend the know-how fund to Bulgaria. Cultural and a cultural centres agreements were signed. President Zhelev also accepted a gift of pharmaceuticals from Her Majesty's Government. There will be a further announcement shortly.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and Bulgaria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Kingdom-Bulgarian relations have been raised to a new level by President Zhelev's highly successful visit. We were pleased to be able to show our support for reform in Bulgaria.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the number of Hong Kong Chinese who have sought to enter the United Kingdom under the British Government proposals, as of the 25 February.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number of applications for United Kingdom passports lodged by Hong Kong residents on the final date for application.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will seek a report from the governor of Hong Kong on the number of applications received for United Kingdom passports under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many applications were received for United Kingdom passports under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990, as at 28 February;

  (3) what were the reasons for the number of applications for United Kingdom passports under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 being substantially less than anticipated by the governor of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of applications received is substantially less than the total number of people in Hong Kong who were eligible to apply. Because the scheme is objective and transparent, potential applicants were able to assess accurately their prospects of success. It seems likely that many people who believed that they would not succeed did not apply.
  37
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications had been received in Hong Kong for British passports at the end of the deadline date of 28 February.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of applications received up to midnight Hong Kong time on 28 February was 57,862. This is not, however, the final figure. Registered mail applications posted up to 28 February will also be accepted.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to secure the removal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We believe that the full implementation of the 1989 Taif accord is the best means to achieve Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. We reiterated our support for the accord in the unanimous vote to renew the UNIFIL masdate on 30 January and in the EC declaration on the Gulf of 19 February.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what input he has had with regard to the advice offered to United Kingdom business men who wish to exploit business opportunities in the Baltic states.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We keep in touch with the Department of Trade and Industry and the British embassy in Moscow over commercial opportunities in the Baltic states.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to set up honorary consular facilities in the Baltic republics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no such plans at present.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there are any representatives of the British Government who are based in the Baltic republics and who have the remit to exploit trade and commercial opportunities on behalf of British industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The British embassy in Moscow has responsibility for assisting export promotion in the Baltic states. Members of the embassy visit the region and assess opportunities there.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the name and address of the nearest United Kingdom consular representative to each of the Baltic states.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's consul in Moscow, Mr. Paul Massey, is responsible for consular matters in the Baltic states. The address of the consulate is Naberezhnaya Morisa Toreza 14, Moscow 72.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of those countries which maintain consular offices and personnel in the Baltic states.
  38
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to the information available to us, the following countries maintain consular offices and personnel in the Baltic republics:

  Latvia (Riga)

  Sweden: branch of Leningrad—Consulate-General

  Estonia (Tallinn)

  Sweden: branch of Leningrad—Consulate-General

  Finland: branch of Leningrad—Consulate-General

  Lithuania (Vilnius)

  Poland: Consul ad hoc of the Polish republic in residence in Vilnius.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1–7) and overall in the department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number and percentage of women in each grade requested and the overall number in the Department are as follows:

  Number

  Per cent.

  Grade 1–3

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  2

  25

  Grade 5

  26

  21

  Grade 6

  114

  27

  Grade 7

  46

  25

  Overall

  1,525

  54

  We do not hold information on the ethnic origin of all our staff, but of those who have responded to the ethnic monitoring survey (98 per cent.) carried out last year, those from ethnic minorities were:

  Number

  Per cent.

  Grade 1–4

  0

  0

  Grade 5–6

  4

  1

  Grade 7

  5

  3

  Overall

  184

  6·4

  The survey was conducted on the understanding that anonymity would be preserved. Any further breakdown of the figures could identify individuals and cannot therefore be provided.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  Recruitment of grades above administrative officer is carried out by the Civil Service Commission which has taken steps to aid recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities. For the grades of administrative officer and below, where the Department recruits direct, we are trying to widen our recruitment field, particularly to those from ethnic minorities, by using centrally devised tests as an alternative to formal qualifications.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  A survey of the ethnic origins of staff was carried out last summer and the database is now
  39
  continually updated as now staff join the Department. This Department launched its own programme of action to achieve equality of opportunity for people of ethnic minority origin in June last year. We have already achieved the objective to establish ethnic origin data on 98 per cent. of our staff.

  Health Education and Physical Education
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the position of health education and physical education in the core curriculum and on how they relate to each other.

  Mr. Atkins
  Health education is a cross-curricular theme within the curriculum as a whole, including physical education. The terms of reference of the national curriculum working group on physical education asked it to consider the contribution which physical education can make to health education. The interim report of the group, published in February 1991, identified ways in which this contribution can be made. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Licensed Teachers
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities who are currently employing licensed teachers indicating (i) the numbers employed by each authority, (ii) how many are graduates and (iii) how many are non-graduates who met the necessary criteria.

  Mr. Fallon
  On 28 February 439 licensed teachers were employed by local education authorities in England and Wales and, of these, 290 were graduates. The number of licensed teachers employed by individual local education authorities is as follows:

  Number

  Avon

  2

  Barking and Dagenham

  2

  Barnet

  28

  Bedfordshire

  14

  Berkshire

  9

  Bexley

  16

  Brent

  22

  Bromley

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  Calderdale

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  4

  City of London

  1

  Cleveland

  3

  Coventry

  4

  Cumbria

  1

  Essex

  18

  Gloucestershire

  2

  Hackney

  24

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17

  Hampshire

  8

  Havering

  15

  Hereford and Worcester

  4

  Hertfordshire

  49

  Hillingdon

  12

  Hounslow

  6

  Islington

  46

  Kent

  15

  Kingston upon Thames

  9

  Lincolnshire

  5

  Newham

  17

  Northamptonshire

  14

  Redbridge

  9

  Shropshire

  2

  40

  Number

  Staffordshire

  1

  Stockport

  1

  Suffolk

  3

  Surrey

  6

  Sutton

  8

  Tower Hamlets

  8

  Waltham Forest

  2

  Wandsworth

  9

  West Sussex

  4

  Westminster

  10

  Wiltshire

  2

  Secondary Schools, Torquay
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to reply to the letter dated 28 July 1990 concerning secondary school placement in Torquay from Mr. I. W. Morton of Kingshurst, Paignton road, Stoke Gabriel, Totnes, Devon TQ9 6SJ.

  Mr. Fallon
  Mr. Morton's letter, and those of seven other parents on the same subject, raised difficult questions about the Sex Discrimination Act and have required detailed consultation with the local education authority. Two letters have been sent to Mr. Morton advising him of the problem and apologising for the unavoidable delay. We will reply fully to Mr. Morton's inquiries as soon as we are in a position to do so.

  National Association of Governors and Managers
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will undertake a review of the decision by his Department to grant funds to the National Association of Governors and Managers; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) if he will suspend further payments to the National Association of Governors and Managers.

  Mr. Fallon
  A grant of up to £40,000 has been agreed for 1991–92. My right hon. and learned Friend is now considering a further application for funds.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current rate of student take-up of loans from the Student Loans Company; and what number of loans he estimates will have been taken out by the end of the 1990–91 academic year and 1991–92.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As at 28 February 1991, over 109,000 students have applied for a loan from the Student Loans Company. It is too early to say what the take-up rate will be for the current academic year or, of course, for the academic year 1991–92.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what number and percentage of applications the Student Loans Company has rejected to date.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Student Loans Company does not reject any valid applications from students whose institutions have correctly certified them as eligible.

  Where the application form is invalid—because it has not been completed correctly—the company may need, in

  41
  certain circumstance, to invite the student to reapply. I am asking the managing director of the company, which is responsible for the administration of the scheme, to write direct to the hon. Member, giving the number of cases where this has happened.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what costs he expects the Student Loans Company to face in collecting due loans, separating out(a) collection costs per loan for each year from 1990 to 2027, (b) annual collection costs for each year from 1990 to 2027 and (c) annual loss from loans deemed uncollectable, for the same period.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Student Loans Company expects to collect significant numbers of repayments from April 1992. The company does not yet have an approved budget for the financial year 1992–93. However, the Government have consistently forecast annual operational costs for the next few years within the range of £10 to 20 million.

  The company will not regard any loans as uncollectable. Where a borrower is granted deferment, he need not make any repayments, although his outstanding loan will continue to be indexed in line with inflation. Where a borrower qualifies for cancellation, the student loans legislation provides for the debt to be cancelled: there is, therefore, nothing to collect. Where a borrower defaults on his repayments, the company will seek recovery of the full sum owed, if necessary by taking him to court.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest available figure for the number of student loans outstanding; and how much is owed.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As a t 28 February 1991, the Student Loans Company had made 82,176 loans, to a total value of £31·095 million.

  Chief Inspector of Schools (Annual Report)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the latest annual report of Her Majesty's senior chief inspector of schools was(a) made available to the press, and (b) placed before Parliament; and in what manner.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Copies of the report were made available to the press at 12.00 on 13 February, the day of publication. Copies were dispatched to the Vote Office by first-class post on the day before publication. Opposition spokesmen were sent copies and further copies were placed in the Library on the day of publication.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make copies of the latest annual report of Her Majesty's senior chief inspector of schools available to hon. and Right hon. Members through the Vote Office.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On 12 February 200 copies were sent to the Vote Office.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date he first saw a draft of the latest annual report of Her Majesty's senior chief inspector of schools, and whether any amendments to the draft were made at the suggestion of Ministers.
  42
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The senior chief inspector submitted his annual report to me on 4 February and it was published on 13 February.

  Ministers made no suggestions of any changes to the report which was published in the form in which it was submitted.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out in detail the procedures for the forthcoming appointment of a new holder of the office of Her Majesty's senior chief inspector of schools, including the nature of the involvement of Ministers in the appointment.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Civil Service Commission is organising an open competition which is being advertised widely in terms which I approved. Selection will be on merit and those selected for interview will appear before a board, chaired by the first civil service commissioner, on which my Department will be represented by senior officials and which will include a distinguished outside member. The board's recommendation will be made to me in the usual way. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, on the recommendation of the holder of my office, as required by section 77(2) of the Education Act 1944.

  Wavertree Church of England School
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what capital works required at Wavertree Church of England school he authorised at the time of its establishment; when they will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Statutory proposals approved on 22 June 1990 provided for the site and buildings of Wavertree Church of England voluntary controlled school to be upgraded and extended as necessary in order to accommodate about 210 pupils, including pupils displaced by the closure of St. Mary's and St. Bridget's CE voluntary controlled primary schools.

  In setting Liverpool's annual capital guideline (ACG) for 1991–92 we have taken full account of the authority's plans for this project. It is, however, for local education authorities to decide what capital projects to undertake, and when, taking account of their obligation to implement approved statutory proposals.

  Barkestone Church of England School
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the future of the premises and property of Barkestone Church of England school, Leicestershire.

  Mr. Fallon
  The future of the premises and property of Barkestone Church of England school will be determined strictly in accordance with the provisions of the proposed Diocese of Leicester (Educational Endowments) Order 1991. The order authorises the Leicester diocesan board of education to sell any of the property of the schools comprised in the order and, until sale, to let or otherwise manage such properties according to the general law applicable to the management of property held on trust for charitable purposes. In the case of Barkestone Church of England school, the diocesan board of education has indicated that it will not sell the former school premises
  43
  but make them available for local community purposes under a lease. The diocesan board has indicated also that the teacher's house will not be sold for the time being, although there are plans to sell the agricultural land which comprises part of the trust property.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage the use of low-energy light bulbs in his Department's offices and other buildings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The use of low-energy lighting is being promoted as part of a major Government effort to increase energy efficiency, with the target of a 15 per cent. reduction in overall energy consumption in Government buildings by 1995. A recent consultative paper on energy efficiency issued by the Department of Economic Development highlighted a wide range of energy conservation measures, including low-energy lighting. Departments have been asked to identify areas where energy efficiency can be improved. Moreover, where necessary, the cost of worthwhile projects will be taken into account when financial allocations are being made.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Post Office on the reorganisation of the royal mail service in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the reorganisation of the royal mail service in Northern Ireland on unemployment in the constituency of South Down.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Railway Crossings
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the enabling legislation authorising Northern Ireland Railways to install automatic half barriers to selected open crossings is to be tabled; and if he will name the crossings concerned.

  Mr. Needham
  Orders in relation to the conversion of 13 automatic open crossings to automatic half-barrier level crossings are in preparation and are scheduled to come into operation as follows:

  Crossing

  Operation date

  Slaght

  2 September 1991

  Killagan

  16 September 1991

  Galgorm

  30 September 1991

  Broughdone

  14 October 1991

  Glarryford

  28 October 1991

  Dunloy

  11 November 1991

  Caldanagh

  25 November 1991

  Ballyboyland

  9 December 1991

  Barmouth

  6 January 1992

  Umbra

  20 January 1992

  Magilligan

  3 February 1992

  Bellarena

  17 February 1992

  Cromore

  2 March 1992

  Residential Homes
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish tables, broken down by area health and social service board showing, for each of the last three years where figures are available, (i) social security expenditure on income support for residents of private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes, broken down by age and client group, and (ii) expenditure on board residential care and other services for elderly people.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 February 1991]: The only readily available information about expenditure on income support relates to the position at 1 October 1990 and is as follows:

  Weekly expenditure on income support at 1 October 1990

  Up to 59 years

  60 years or over

  £

  £

  Homes for persons in need

  Age and infirmity

  3,059

  104,824

  Elderly and blind or elderly and entitled to the higher rate of attendance allowance

  —

  26,060

  Mental disorder

  5,313

  10,210

  Drug or alcohol dependence

  950

  918

  Mental handicap

  19,541

  4,198

  Physical disablement under pensionable age

  6,372

  5,095

  Physical disablement over pensionable age

  —

  4,891

  Nursing homes

  Mental disorder

  1,180

  13,165

  Mental handicap

  6,967

  4,419

  Drug or alcohol dependence

  776

  959

  Physical disablement under pensionable age

  29,654

  49,988

  Physical disablement over pensionable age

  —

  29,401

  Terminal illness

  8,374

  338,671

  Others

  693

  71,064

  Totals

  82,919

  663,863

  Grand totals

  746,782

  Expenditure by each health and social services board for the last three years available on residential accommodation for the elderly was:

  Year ended 31 March

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Board

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Northern

  7·0

  7·2

  7·3

  Southern

  4·2

  4·5

  4·6

  Eastern

  11·4

  11·8

  12·6

  Western

  4·1

  4·2

  4·6

  Total

  26·7

  27·7

  29·1

  However, for facilities such as day centres and services such as home help and meals it is not possible to separate expenditure on a specific client group such as the elderly and this expenditure has not been included in the above figures.

ENVIRONMENT

  Fire Services
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment following the decision to transfer funding for the Fire Service College to local fire brigades, what amount has been added to the RSG in respect of this commitment; where information is available as to the sums allocated to each authority; who may inspect this information; what account was taken of these changes indetermining the standard spending assessments for metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities; and where this information is available.

  Mr. Key
  In 1990–91 the Fire Service College will receive £7,595,000 as its share of the revenue support grant total for England. In 1991–92 it will receive £5,630,734. Additionally, for 1991–92 the total standard spending assessment for the fire and civil defence block takes account of the new arrangements whereby the college recovers part of its costs through charges. This is reflected in the standard spending assessments of individual authorities. However, grant is distributed on the basis of authorities' total SSAs and it is therefore not possible to say what proportion of their grant entitlements relates to any specific task or function.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider extending the grounds for exemption from the poll tax to include severe physical handicap as well as severe mental impairment.

  Mr. Key
  Our review of local government finance is considering all aspects of the community charge. Under the present arrangements people with disabilities may be helped by the community charge benefit disability and severe disability premiums.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy to exempt from the poll tax wives whose husbands were sole earners and have either absconded or been jailed.

  Mr. Key
  Our review of local government finance is considering all aspects of the community charge.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many ex-service men who receive a war pension are exempted from paying(a) all and (b) 80 per cent. of the poll tax; and in how many cases the war pension payable to ex-service men is taken into account in calculating the liability of the pensioner's partner for the poll tax.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not available. Although entitlement to a war pension does not confer exemption from the personal community charge, local authorities must disregard the first £10 of and have the discretion to disregard the whole or part of the rest of a person's war disablement pension when calculating community charge benefit. If a partner is in prison, the decision whether a community charge benefit claim should be assessed on a joint basis will depend on whether, in the opinion of the local authority, the partners are still members of the same household.
  46
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the actual current expenditure of each London borough per poll tax payer.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is as follows:

  Net revenue expenditure per head of relevant population

  Budget Estimate 1990–91 £

  City of London

  26,186

  Camden

  1,392

  Greenwich

  1,428

  Hackney

  1,802

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,460

  Islington

  1,563

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,420

  Lewisham

  1,212

  South wark

  1,400

  Tower Hamlets

  1,883

  Wandsworth

  1,176

  Westminster

  1,286

  Barking and Dagenham

  914

  Barnet

  751

  Bexley

  757

  Brent

  1,230

  Bromley

  648

  Croydon

  799

  Ealing

  1,067

  Enfield

  871

  Harrow

  841

  Havering

  753

  Hillingdon

  885

  Hounslow

  1,037

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  818

  Merton

  896

  Newham

  1,340

  Redbridge

  771

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  733

  Sutton

  819

  Waltham Forest

  1,147

  Lambeth and Haringey have not supplied figures which enable the calculation to be made.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the standard spending assessment for each London borough expressed in terms of spending per poll tax payer.

  Mr. Key
  The standard spending assessments for each London borough for 1991–92 in pounds per charge payer are listed in the table:

  1991–92 SSA (£/adult)

  City of London

  11,762

  Camden

  1,403

  Greenwich

  1,191

  Hackney

  1,920

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,335

  Islington

  1,551

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,178

  Lambeth

  1,718

  Lewisham

  1,295

  Southwark

  1,455

  Tower Hamlets

  1,872

  Wandsworth

  1,262

  Westminster

  1,548

  Barking and Dagenham

  976

  Barnet

  882

  Bexley

  847

  Brent

  1,339

  Bromley

  754

  47

  1991–92 SSA (£/adult)

  Croydon

  950

  Ealing

  1,187

  Enfield

  966

  Haringey

  1,345

  Harrow

  906

  Havering

  795

  Hillingdon

  881

  Hounslow

  1,011

  Kingston upon Thames

  885

  Merton

  865

  Newham

  1,519

  Redbridge

  914

  Richmond upon Thames

  740

  Sutton

  846

  Waltham Forest

  1,210

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many students were estimated to be in Cambridge for the purposes of calculating the community charge; what factors have led to the increase in charge levels for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The number of students notified to the Department of the Environment by Cambridge city council and used for the purposes of calculating revenue support grant was 15,020. The community charge set by each district council is a matter for it to decide.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much assistance a couple living in a property of(a) half and (b) three quarters average rateable value in Rugby and Kenilworth will receive under the community charge reduction scheme in 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  If Rugby borough council sets its community charge next year at or above £332, a couple who have not moved since 31 March 1990 living in a property of half average rateable value could look forward to a reduction of £272 between them and for a couple living in a property. of threequarters average rateable value, £128 between them. If Warwick council sets its community charge next year at or above £344, the reduction for a couple living in that area who have not moved since 31 March 1990 would be(a) £248 between them and (b) £80 between them.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in Hackney were in receipt of transitional protection in 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  No information is available on the numbers of households in each authority area in receipt of transitional relief. Relief grant claim forms from the local authority indicate that 19,000 charge payers in Hackney have benefited from transitional relief this financial year.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set out in tabular form details of the exact effects on community charge payers in(a) Charnwood borough, (b) Melton borough and (c) Rutland district councils of the community charge reduction scheme; and how many charge payers are likely to benefit in each case.

  Mr. Key
  No information is yet available on the numbers of people in each charging authority area who will benefit from a reduction. The figures in the table show the benefit of the community charge reduction scheme in 48
  Charnwood, Melton and Rutland for couples who have not moved since 31 March 1990 living in properties of (a) three quarters average rateable value and (b) half average rateable value for the area if the authorities concerned set a community charge in 1991–92 which is at or above their scheme charge.

  Benefit for couples from 1991–92 community charge reduction scheme

  Scheme charge

  (a)

  (b)

  £

  £

  £

  Charnwood borough

  342

  202

  328

  Melton borough

  339

  220

  338

  Rutland district

  340

  173

  307

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the district councils within Leicestershire which have increased their levels of community charge in 1991–92 by more than the benefit which their charge-payers have received from central funding of the safety net; to what factors he attributes these increases; and how they will be affected by the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Key
  As far as I am aware, no district council in Leicestershire has yet decided upon its community charge for 1991–92.

  A list of the authorities in Leicestershire which are contributing to the safety net, together with the amount of their contributions, is given in the table. Contributions will not be required in 1991–92.

  £

  Blaby

  881,265

  Charnwood

  3,208,998

  Harborough

  1,444,158

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  505,101

  Oakby and Wigston

  502,287

  Rutland

  684,308

  Entitlement to reductions under the community charge reduction scheme will be based on the scheme listed in the Community Charge Reduction Scheme Report (England), laid before Parliament on 18 February, or the local authority's set charge in 1991–92, whichever is the lower.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his estimate of the number of local authorities who will receive special grant payments for income forgone because of exempting Gulf personnel from the poll tax;

  (2) if he intends to publish any further details on the operation of the scheme to compensate local authorities for income forgone due to exempting Gulf personnel from the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of authorities which will benefit from the scheme is not yet known. Further details of the operation of the scheme will be issued shortly, following discussions between my Department and the local authority associations.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the information available, including forecasts, from the capital monitoring returns from local authorities on the likely level of(a) housing capital receipts, (b) non-housing capital receipts and (c)

  49
  all capital receipts generated in 1990–91 in (i) England and (ii) in each class of authority; and what is the amount that will have to be set aside as provision for credit liabilities.

  Mr. Portillo
  The quarterly capital payments return (CPR2) submitted by local authorities covers outturn data for April to September 1990–91 and provides a forecast for the whole of 1990–91. The returns made by local authorities together with estimates for non-response suggest the likely level of all capital receipts generated in 1990–91 to be as follows:

  £million

  County councils

  284

  Metropolitan districts

  697

  London boroughs

  873

  Non-Metropolitan districts

  1,558

  Other authorities

  218

  All England

  3,629

  Local authorities report that of the £3,629 million they expect to receive in 1990–91, £1,195 million will be usable capital receipts, hence the reserved part will be £2,434 million which must be set aside as provision for credit liabilities.

  Local authorities are not required to provide separate forecasts for housing and non-housing capital receipts.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details of the information sent to local authorities during February on the treatment of service men in the Gulf regarding poll tax liability.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department has not issued any such advice to local authorities during February. On 19 February my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley explained to the House that it was the Government's intention that soldiers and associated civilians posted to the Gulf should not pay the charge for the duration of their posting. In the light of the recent High Court judgment in the case of Bradford MBC v. Andersons we are currently considering what steps need to be taken to realise this objective.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much assistance a couple living in a property of half average rateable value in Sevenoaks will receive under the community charge reduction scheme in 1992.

  Mr. Key
  If Sevenoaks council sets its community charge next year at or above £281, a couple who have not moved since 31 March 1990 living in a property of half average rateable value could look forward to a reduction of £221 between them.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for(a) each local authority, (b) each class of authority and (c) England as a whole the capital receipts accumulated by 31 March 1990 and his best estimates of the amount set aside as provision for credit liabilities in 1990–91 from (i) housing capital receipts, (ii) non-housing capital receipts and (iii) all capital receipts.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have today arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of implementing and 50
  administering the community charge in each of the 32 London boroughs and in the City of London (i) during 1989–90 and (ii) during 1990–91, (a) funded by the Government and (b) in fact incurred; and what is the estimate of the cost of the same activity for each of the same local authorities for the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost to his Department of(a) implementing and (b) monitoring the community charge in England in the financial years (i) 1989–90 and (ii) 1990–91; and what is his estimate of the cost for 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer, 1 March 1991]: The information is not available in the form requested. The outturn costs for 1989–90 and 1990–91 and estimated costs for 1991–92, excluding accommodation, publicity and publications, of the local government finance policy directorate in my department, which deal with all aspects of local government finance, including the community charge, are as follows:

  £000s

  Total

  1989–90

  2,591

  1990–91

  2,705

  1991–92

  2,983

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for every year since 1975 the total spent by local authorities in cash and real terms, and the proportions of funds from Government, from business and from households or individuals with an estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 26 February 1991]: The available information is as follows:

  Local authority net expenditure financed from relevant grants, rates and balances

  Cash

  At 1990–91 prices

  England and Wales £ million

  England £ million

  England and Wales £ million

  England £ million

  11975–76

  10,102

  —

  36,534

  —

  1976–77

  11,293

  —

  35,972

  —

  1977–78

  12,195

  —

  34,169

  —

  1978–79

  13,631

  —

  34,445

  —

  1979–80

  15,956

  —

  34,556

  —

  1980–81

  19,307

  —

  35,336

  —

  1981–82

  21,314

  20,106

  35,574

  33,558

  1982–83

  —

  21,952

  —

  34,209

  1983–84

  —

  23,263

  —

  34,650

  1984–85

  —

  24,119

  —

  34,188

  21985–86

  —

  24,284

  —

  32,644

  1986–87

  —

  26,629

  —

  34,614

  1987–88

  —

  28,943

  —

  35,678

  1988–89

  —

  31,334

  —

  35,998

  31989–90

  —

  33,403

  —

  36,075

  41990–91

  —

  36,434

  —

  36,434

  1 Figures for 1975–76 are estimates

  2 London Regional Transport excluded from 1985–86

  3 Polytechnics excluded from 1989–90

  4 Revenue expenditure to compare with TSS

  51

  Proportions met by relevant grants and rates

  Government grants1 as percentage of local authority expenditure

  Non-domestic rates2 as percentage of local authority expenditure

  Domestic rates/community charges3 as percentage of local authority expenditure

  41975–76

  67

  23

  14

  41976–77

  66

  22

  14

  41977–78

  63

  23

  17

  41978–79

  61

  22

  16

  41979–80

  60

  22

  17

  41980–81

  59

  23

  17

  1981–82

  56

  25

  20

  1982–83

  53

  26

  21

  1983–84

  54

  26

  19

  1984–85

  54

  26

  20

  1985–86

  54

  28

  21

  1986–87

  50

  28

  22

  1987–88

  49

  28

  23

  1988–89

  46

  28

  24

  1989–90

  44

  28

  25

  1990–91

  42

  29

  28

  1 For the years 1975–76 to 1989–90 Government grants comprise aggregate Exchequer grant and rate rebate grants. For 1990–91 Government grants are made up of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants, aggregate external finance, community charge benefits and transitional relief grants.

  2 Net of rate rebates.

  3 Net of rate rebates for the years 1979–80 to 1989–90. Net of community charge benefits and transitional relief in 1990–91.

  4 England and Wales.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the proportion of local government income, and the amount, which comes from charges or fees payable by users of local authority services; what are the average figures for local authorities; and what is the range of such figures.

  Mr. Key
  The latest year for which information is available on the levels of fees and charges is 1988–89. The total amount of income met from fees and charges, excluding rents, over all accounts in 1988–89 for the English local authorities was £3,584 million. This represented 8 per cent. of total revenue income for that year.

  The average income from fees and charges for all the English local authorities, including the passenger transport authorities, waste regulation and disposal authorities etc., was £7,239,000. The range spanned a minimum of less than £1,000 to a maximum of £90,211,000 for ILEA.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local authority income was provided or will be provided for each year from 1979–80 to 1991–92 by(a) rate or revenue support grant, (b) domestic rates or poll tax, and (c) non-domestic rates or receipts from the non-domestic rate pool, for (i) the York city council area and (ii) England as a whole.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 19 February 1991]: Under the old system of local government finance rate support grant was not paid in respect of local authority areas. It is not possible to estimate the proportion of rate support grant paid to North Yorkshire county council which relates to the area of York city council. The estimated amounts of rate income for the area are shown in the table:
  52

  York City Council

  £ million

  Domestic rate income

  Non-domestic rate income

  1983–84

  6·6

  9·4

  1984–85

  7·2

  10·2

  1985–86

  7·9

  10·9

  1986–87

  9·3

  12·7

  1987–88

  10·7

  14·4

  1988–89

  12·1

  16·5

  1989–90

  13·6

  18·3

  No figures are available for rate income for York city council before 1983–84.

  Street Naming
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to transfer responsibilities for street naming to town, community, and parish councils; and what representations he has received on the subject.

  Mr. Key
  No, and none; but the topic could be relevant to the current review of local government.

  Action for Cities
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the results to date of the campaign Action for Cities, launched in March 1988.

  Mr. Key
  Good progress has been made in regenerating our inner cities under the Action for Cities initiative, with Government expenditure input of over £10 billion since 1988. In partnership with the private sector, substantial investment has taken place in new factories, shopping centres, roads and other infrastructure and in treating derelict land, thus improving the quality of life for people in our inner cities and creating important new employment and training opportunities. Long-term unemployment in the inner cities has nearly halved since March 1988.

  The Government, through the city action teams and inner city task forces, are continuing to work with local government, the private and voluntary sectors and with local people to build on that success.

  Land Reclamation
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to promote the use of sewage sludge in land reclamation schemes.

  Mr. Baldry
  Full-scale experimental reclamation proposals have been carried out in recent years by several water companies in England and Wales. In addition the water research centre, in consultation with the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has in hand the preparation of an advisory code of practice on the use of sewage sludge in land restoration.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans regularly to publish figures of the costs and benefits of measures to reduce air pollution.
  53
  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has a substantial research programme on the effects of air pollution and the costs and benefits of possible approaches to the abatement of these. Results of research projects are published whenever appropriate.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the reasons for the British Waterways Board's decision no longer to set targets for revenue from leisure, freight and estates for years after 1990–91 in his Department's annual report.

  Mr. Baldry
  Ministers set annual targets for a range of performance indicators agreed with the British Waterways Board (BWB). The previous set of performance indicators are being reviewed in the light of the board's move to regional management and the Government's endorsement of the integrated business strategy in February 1990. Income from leisure, freight and estates is incorporated in the figures for internally generated income in the table at figure 16 in the Department's 1991 annual report.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has received of income to British Waterways from the disposal of estates for the next four years.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of income from all sources for the next four financial years will be provided in the British Waterways Board's (BWB) 1991 corporate plan. The plan is not published, but the Government's decisions about the Exchequer grant and borrowing limits for BWB in 1992–93 onwards, which will be announced in the autumn, will be based on its assessment of the board's projected income and expenditure. Income from disposal of assets is shown in the board's annual report and accounts.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he took the state of the property market into account when determining revenue grant to British Waterways.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: British Waterways Board grant settlements take account of all relevant factors.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all sites of special scientific interest associated with waterways administered by British Waterways.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 28 February 1991]: This information is not available centrally, but the Nature Conservancy Council's memorandum to the Environment Select Committee in February 1989 gave details of some 110 km of 19 British Waterways Board waterways notified as sites of special scientific interest (the Fifth Report from the Environment Committee—Session 1988–89, Appendix 16 (HC 237)).

  Sewage
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the locations of sea sewage outfalls in Cornwall; what are the quantities of treated and untreated sewage discharged at each location; and at what distance from the high water mark.
  54
  Mr. Baldry
  Details of these discharges are available from the south-west regional office of the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those viruses which are not destroyed by primary treatment at a sewage treatment works; and the proportion of total viruses which are not destroyed by primary treatment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The report by Consultants in Environmental Sciences Ltd. into coastal sewage discharges indicates that primary treatment removes up to 50 per cent. of viruses. The report, which was commissioned by my Department, has been placed in the Library. Further discussion on this subject is contained in the Environment Select Committee's fourth report on pollution of beaches.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used by the Property Services Agency in selecting new office accommodation; and what factors influenced their decision to select accommodation in Newton Abbot rather than Torquay.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Property Services Agency now acts only as the agent of the Department which commission new office accommodation. In the case of a jointly occupied building, this will normally be the Department of the Environment, through its property holdings directorate.

  The location of new office accommodation depends on the requirements of the occupying Departments. The proposed new building in Newton Abbott is intended to house three Departments, which each have a specific requirment to serve the Newton Abbott area.

  Boat Owners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement of the level of protection for residential boat owners.

  Mr. Yeo
  Residential boat owners are protected by the terms of their contracts, if any, with the owner of the mooring at which their boat is kept. Their protection may also be subject to local Acts and byelaws.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many residential boat owners, both licensed and unlicensed, moor their craft on waterways administered by the British Waterways Board.

  Mr. Baldry
  The British Waterways Board licensed 173 houseboats in 1989–90. No figures are available for unlicensed houseboats.

  British Waterways Bill
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the British Waterways Bill.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since this Private Bill was deposited on 27 November last year, 56 letters have been received, most of which are of a circular nature. The representations largely concern the proposals for dealing with the control
  55
  of moorings and craft construction standards. Since the Bill's provisions are matters for the British Waterways Board, correspondents have been advised to pursue their concerns directly with them or through the appropriate Private Bill Office.

  Benzene
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has on the levels of airborne benzene at various locations within the United Kingdom;

  (2) what information he has on airborne benzene levels in countries other than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  The averages of hourly concentrations of benzene in air, measured in the Department's air quality research programme in 1982–83 were: 1·6 parts per billion (ppb) at a rural site, 2·7 ppb at a site by a busy motorway and 9·3 ppb by a major road in a city centre. The maximum hourly means measured at the three sites were 6 ppb, 12·7 ppb and 26·4 ppb respectively.

  The levels found in the United Kingdom are consistent with measurements reported elsewhere. The United States Environmental Protection Agency report mean concentrations of 2·8 ppb in urban areas, 1·8 ppb in suburban areas and 0·16 ppb in remote rural areas. A mean concentration of 2·6 ppb has been reported for Sydney, Australia.

  Petrol Pumps
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to make vapour recovery petrol pumps mandatory at filling stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  Pollution from petrol vapour will be much reduced by the proposed EC car standards directive to come into force in 1992. The Government's White Paper on the Environment "This Common Inheritance" commits the Government to working with the vehicle and fuel industries to achieve further improvements. The European Commission is expected soon to bring forward proposals for reducing petrol vapour emissions along the marketing chain and we propose to review what further action is necessary in the United Kingdom in the light of these proposals.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals there have been in each of the last five years; and what has been the cost of their administration.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is set out in the table. The administrative costs column relates only to costs incurred in the planning inspectorate. Other costs are incurred elsewhere in the Department and planning authorities. Information on these is not readily available.

  Year

  Appeals received

  Appeals withdrawn

  Appeals decided

  Administrative costs £ million

  1985–86

  17,839

  2,143

  14,130

  5·405

  1986–87

  19,856

  2,533

  15,613

  6·109

  1987–88

  22,482

  3,173

  18,474

  6·981

  1988–89

  28,659

  4,257

  21,061

  10·274

  1989–90

  32,281

  4,627

  26,481

  11·414

  Vacant Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has had to the consultation paper "Encouraging The Use of Vacant Public Sector Land"; and what steps have been taken to analyse the information received.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received 111 responses and are being analysed in the context of our current consideration of policy options. I am arranging for a list of respondents to be placed in the Library shortly.

  Planning Controls
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider strengthening planning controls and regulations on developers to include environmental concerns.

  Mr. Yeo
  Environmental concerns must already be taken into account by local planning authorities when determining any planning application in so far as they are material to that application. The Government's planning policy guidance emphasises the importance of such concerns, and identifies some of the matters which must, where relevant, be taken into account. The Government will continue to review that guidance, as promised in the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200).

  The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 require environmental assessment as part of the planning process for many development proposals which are likely to have significant environmental effects. These regulations implement directive 85/337/EEC for this purpose.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to put environmental impact assessment on a statutory basis.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (SI No. 1199) require environmental assessment for a wide range of projects where they are likely to have significant environmental effects. These regulations, and other statutory instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972, implement directive 85/337/EEC.

  My noble Friend Lady Blatch has undertaken to consider the principle of an amendment to the Planning and Compensation Bill which would enable the Secretary of State to add to the categories of project which are subject to planning control and which require environmental assessment.

  Land Register
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of additional acres which would be added to the register if all public and private land had to be shown on the register.

  Mr. Yeo
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring only to unused and underused land.

  A total of 82,400 acres of unused and underused land owned by the public sector in England was recorded as

  57
  being on the register at 30 September 1989. Since that date the register has been maintained only selectively, for the purpose of considering directions to dispose of such land.

  No figure is available for the total amount of public and private unused and underused land. It is estimated at present that there are approximately 150,000 acres of vacant land in urban areas, but there is no basis for estimating the amount of such land outside urban areas or the amount of underused land in England as a whole which is not included in this figure.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act, in order to prohibit the all-year killing of wild birds in Britain.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Act permits the killing at any time only of those species listed in part 2 of schedule 2. These species can cause widespread agricultural damage or threaten public health or air safety. The Act implements the objectives of the European Community directive on wild birds to which the Government are fully committed. We have urged the European Commission to propose an amendment to the directive which will establish that member states may operate sensible pest control practices where this would not endanger the conservation of the species.

  Magpies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has received concerning the impact of magpies on song bird populations;

  (2) what assessment he has made of which particular song birds are most at risk from magpie predation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Population levels of magpies have been monitored by the British Trust for Ornithology under contract to the Nature Conservancy Council. The trust found a substantial increase in magpie numbers between 1966 and 1986 and no evidence that magpie numbers had any deleterious effect overall on song bird populations and breeding success in the areas studied.

  Land Disposal
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consult the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other voluntary organisations concerning the drafting of amendments to the general authorisation issued under section 152 of the Water Act 1989 concerning the disposal of land in a national park, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, an area of outstanding natural beauty or a site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Baldry
  Consultation is taking place with the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council and they in turn will take full account of the views expressed to them by voluntary conservation bodies about the operation of the existing general authorisation.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will state the conservation, access and recreation criteria which are applied when entering into a covenant with a company holding an appointment 58
  under chapter 1 part II of the Water Act 1989 for the purposes set out in section 152(7) of that Act or directing the disposal to a specified person under section 152(5)(a) of that Act where the land has not been acquired compulsorily.

  Mr. Baldry
  In exercising his powers under section 152 the Secretary of State must fulfil the duties in relation to the environment and recreation placed on him by section 8 of the Act.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what minor transactions he intends to exclude from the conditions applied in the general authorisation issued under section 152 of the Water Act 1989 concerning the disposal of land, or interests or rights in or over that land, which is situated in a national park, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, an area of outstanding natural beauty or a site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Baldry
  The review of the general authorisation is still in progress, and conclusions have not yet been reached.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to seek Parliament's approval for the text of any revision or alteration to the general authorisation issued under section 152 of the Water Act 1989 concerning the disposal of land in a national park, the Norfolk and Suffolk broads, an area of outstanding natural beauty or a site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. The Act does not require that.

  Canal Towpaths
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to secure continued access to the towpaths of canals owned by the British Waterways Board for cyclists and pedestrians.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: The Government's objectives for BWB require the board to promote the fullest practicable use of the waterways for leisure, recreation and amenity. The aim of the board's integrated business strategy, endorsed by Government, is to enhance the value of the network for the benefits of all users.

  Water Contact Sports
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority regarding the introduction of appropriate water quality objectives for water contact sports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: We have asked the National Rivers Authority to advise the Department about the establishment of the new system of statutory water quality objectives provided for under the Water Act 1989 and discussions on this are continuing. As part of the preparatory work for the new system, consideration is being given to the setting of appropriate standards for the range of uses for which waters are expected to be suitable. The needs of water contact sports will be taken into account in this process.

  Jobs, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment further to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 284, if he will break down by sector (a) the 5,241 permanent jobs created in the Leeds development corporation area between June 1988 and March 1990 and (b) the expected 885 jobs in the year to 31 March.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: A breakdown, by sector, of the permanent jobs created in the Leeds development corporation's area between designation in June 1988 and the end of March 1990 and in 1990–91 is not available. The Department does not require UDCs to collect information in this detail.

  Single Homeless Initiative
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on(a) the number of properties on which short-term leases had been entered into, (b) the number of empty housing association properties that had been repaired and (c) the number of properties that had been purchased as at 31 December 1990 under the single homeless initiative announced by the Minister for Housing in June 1990; and how many single homeless people have been assisted as a result.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 27 February 1991]: No transactions had been completed by December 31 1990, but for rough sleepers or those who would otherwise be sleeping rough, 70 private sector leasing places are now available, with a total of 500 expected by the end of March. The Housing Corporation has approved expenditure of £3·3 million to provide 220 places in repaired housing association properties; £7 million has been allocated to provide 200 places in purchased properties. These figures exclude the 586 extra places in direct access hostels approved for funding under the initiative.

  £ billion

  United Kingdom crude trade balance1 in engineering2

  Federal Republic of Germany's crude trade balance in engineering

  Exports to the world

  Imports from the world

  Trade balance

  Exports to the world

  Imports from the world

  Trade balance

  1979

  9·8

  7·4

  +2·4

  23·3

  9·2

  +14·1

  1980

  11·5

  7·7

  +3·7

  22·8

  9·9

  +12·9

  1981

  11·9

  8·9

  +3·0

  23·1

  9·9

  +13·2

  1982

  13·0

  10·9

  +2·1

  26·7

  11·1

  +15·7

  1983

  12·9

  13·3

  -0·4

  29·3

  13·4

  +15·9

  1984

  15·5

  16·4

  -0·9

  33·4

  16·1

  +17·4

  1985

  18·0

  18·4

  -0·4

  38·7

  18·6

  +20·1

  1986

  18·3

  19·4

  -1·1

  48·1

  22·8

  +25·3

  1987

  20·2

  22·3

  -2·1

  51·7

  25·4

  +26·3

  1988

  22·9

  26·2

  -3·3

  52·1

  26·8

  +25·3

  1989

  26·7

  30·4

  -3·7

  59·5

  33·2

  +26·3

  1990

  29·6

  30·5

  -0·9

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1 The crude trade balance is exports (FOB) less imports (CIF).

  2 SITC divisions 71 to 77.

  3 Not available.

  Source: United Kingdom data from OTS.

  Federal Republic of Germany data from OECD series C.

  Property Identification
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is the policy of his Department to mark property with an indelible mark or similar means of identification.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the report on research conducted by Lancaster university's environmental epidemiology department at Blackpool; and whether he intends to consult with the North West Water Company, on action to be taken in respect of the sea off Blackpool.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have recently received a copy of the report on Lancaster university's research which complements similar studies by the Department over the past two years. The Department will continue to take a close interest in progress on North West Water's comprehensive improvements to bathing waters on the Fylde coast which should be completed as quickly as possible.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Incentive Expenditure
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to restore the level of regional incentive expenditure to that of 1979.

  Mr. Leigh
  We have no plans to make changes to regional industrial policy. The Government remain committed to an effective regional industrial policy and will continue to make the necessary resources available.

  Engineering Trade Balance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the annual trade balance of the engineering sector in each year from 1979 to 1990; and what are the comparable figures for West Germany over the same years.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information is in the table. Figures for Germany for 1990 are not available.

  Mr. Leigh
  An exercise was undertaken in 1987 when some 3,000 items of equipment, ranging from computers, typewriters, video recorders and facsimile machines, had identification markings applied to them.
  61
  Since then, smaller, easily removable items of IT office equipment, such as telephones, portable PCs, and so on, have a marking applied to them.

  In the context of IT and office equipment the issue of potential theft is under continuing review as part of our security policy.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1–7) and overall in the Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Leigh
  The figures as at 28 February 1991 are:

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  (a) Women

  G1

  Nil

  —

  G2

  Nil

  —

  G3

  4

  7·5

  G4

  2

  25·0

  G5

  29

  14·0

  G6

  19

  10·4

  G7

  116

  12·9

  All staff

  5,795

  44·6

  (b) Ethnic minorities (from 87 per cent. response to survey)

  G1–4

  Nil

  —

  G5

  2

  1·0

  G6

  5

  2·7

  G7

  17

  1·9

  All staff

  1,180

  9·1

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  On those few occasions when the DTI recruits senior grades directly, the Department makes clear in its advertisements that it is an equal opportunity employer. Normally, however, the Civil Service Commission conducts recruitment to senior grades on the Department's behalf. The commission has taken a number of measures to aid recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities. It has, for example, increased representation of ethnic minorities in liaison and selection panels, and appointed an Asian woman as a part-time commissioner.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origins of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  A voluntary ethnic survey of DTI staff was completed in April 1988, and the resulting database is continuously updated. There is a current positive response rate of 87 per cent. As part of this Department's programme of action on race we intend, in 1991–92, to examine again the ethnic origin database to establish whether an improvement in the response rate is possible.

  Instant Coffeee
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's investigation into the instant coffee market in the United Kingdom.
  62
  Mr. Redwood
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report into soluble coffee is currently being considered by the Secretary of State and will be published in due course. A copy of the report will be laid before Parliament in the normal way.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the United Kingdom's main exports, in value, to Indonesia for the last 15 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: For the years 1976–89 the information requested can be found in table V of the relevant edition of "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" (Business Monitor MA20); 1990 figures are in table V of Business Monitor MM20 (December 1990). These publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Export Controls
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what restrictions are placed on the type of goods available to be exported under the export credit guarantee scheme.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: There are no specific types of goods for which ECGD credit insurance is restricted. However, all exports covered by ECGD must comply with the statutory requirements for export licensing and must also comply with other international agreements of which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list countries which have had export controls and restrictions placed upon them since 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: Goods which are subject to export controls are listed in the Export of Goods (Control) Order, which specifies in Article 2 the destination to which goods are controlled. Since 1987 India and Pakistan have been added to article 2.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Radioactive Products (Safety) Regulations to enter into force.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 28 February 1991]: We hope to make the Radioactive Products (Safety) Regulations in the late spring, to come into force by the end of the year.

  Fire-retardant Mattresses
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence he has on the extent to which fumes given off by fire-retardant mattresses if they catch fire are lethal.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 28 February 1991]: My Department has no evidence that smoke and gas emissions from the ignition of fire-retardant mattresses are more injurious than those from burning mattresses with little or no fire protection.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has sought to obtain any evidence on the
  63
  extent of use of fire-retardant mattresses for young children and on the use of fire retardant and non-fire retardant bedding for young children.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 28 February 1991: No. Requirements for the fire protection of mattresses, and other nursery furniture, can be met without the use of fire-retardant treatments. There are no specific requirements relating to the fire resistance of bedclothes.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has sought to obtain any evidence of the toxicity in its other uses of the plasticiser used in fire-retardant mattresses.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 28 February 1991]: No. A number of different plasticisers are used in the manufacture of mattresses which have PVC covers. The chief medical officer's expert group is examining whether current plasticisers are entirely appropriate for use in cot mattresses. The findings of the expert group will be published as soon as possible and the implications, if any, for mattresses and other products will then be considered.

  Drinks Cans
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with(a) the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (b) beverage manufacturers and (c) container suppliers about the use of opening mechanisms of cans of drinks which involve part of the opener entering the can and coming into contact with the contents.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 27 February 1991]: None. My officials regularly meet ROSPA and the enforcement authorities and I am not aware of difficulties giving rise to the need for a meeting with ROSPA or the industry on this matter.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to prohibit the use of opening mechanisms of cans of drinks which involve part of the opener entering the can and coming into contact with the contents.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 27 February 1991]: I have no such plans.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what moves are being taken within the European Community to prevent the use of opening mechanisms of cans of drinks which involve part of the opener entering the can and coming into contact with the contents; and what information he has on the current policy of other European Governments on this matter.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 27 February 1991]: I am not aware of any proposals within the European Community to prevent the use of such opening mechanisms. The policy of other European Governments on this matter is not known.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has concerning the number of accidents which have arisen, in the latest year for which figures are available, as a result of the swallowing of any parts of opening mechanisms of cans of drinks which involve part of the opener entering the can.
  64
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 27 February 1991]: No accidents of that type were recorded by my Department's home accident surveillance system for 1988, which is the latest year for which complete information is available.

  EC Grants
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those EC countries that apply additionality conditions to EC grants and payments; and if he will provide details of the conditions that are imposed in each country.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 26 February 1991]: The terms of Community grants are set out in Community legislation.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland is he will list for each regional council in Scotland his estimate of the turnover of the community charge register, expressed as a percentage,(a) that took place in 1989–90 and (b) that is expected during the current financial year; and what are the equivalent Scottish wide figures.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is not held centrally, but the recent report prepared by the Controller of Audit suggests that changes to the register in 1989–90 were equivalent to an annual average of 50 per cent. of total register entries.

  Land Grants
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the amounts(a) applied for and (b) received by the Scottish Office from the European Community for land grants relating to industrial regional aid and the amounts paid to Scottish applicants for land grants for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the conference prodeedings on proposals for the disposal of radioactive waste in the Highland region by Nirex, held on 28 November in Inverness.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Environment Department is obtaining a copy of the proceedings of the conference, which was organised by Highland regional council.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently registered as community charge payers in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  As at 1 July 1990 3,834,410 people were included in the community charge registers in Scotland. This figure includes students, who are liable for only 20 per cent. of the community charge, but excludes those liable for collective or standard charges.

  Volunteer Fire Brigades
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the level of fire cover provided by volunteer fire brigades in Scotland, in the light of the need to implement regulations relating to health and safety and hazardous substances.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for fire authorities to satisfy themselves on the level of fire cover, whether this cover is provided by volunteer, retained or whole-time firefighters, taking into account relevant legislation and regulations.

  New Towns
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether tenants of existing new town housing authorities will be given the option of choosing public sector landlords when the new town administrations are wound up.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The options for new town tenants remain unchanged from those set out in the White Paper "The Scottish New Towns: The Way Ahead" (Command 711), which states:"The position in each new town will be carefully considered once an order for dissolution has been made, and formal consultations will be held with development corporations, district councils and representative tenant groups to review the position and to determine to what extent transfers might take place, be it to housing associations, co-operatives, district councils, private or other landlords. Those tenants who have not transferred to other landlords will be transferred to Scottish Homes at wind-up, with a view to pursuing further diversification with the small residual number of houses."

  Water Quality
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list each of the water supplies in Scotland which have been issued with a relaxation under regulation 4(1)(c) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 in respect of aluminium, the size of the population served, the mean concentration of aluminium recorded, and which of these have aluminium in excess of the EC standard for each of the individual water supplies;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of those water supplies with aluminium in excess of the EC standards which have been granted a relaxation under regulation 4(1)(c) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 which have excess aluminium as a result of the naturally occurring aluminium.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Relaxations under regulation 4(1)(c) have been authorised in respect of aluminium in the supply zones listed in the table. The population and the authorised maximum concentration of aluminium in each case are shown. Data on mean concentrations for individual supplies are not held centrally. The EC standard is the same as that set in the regulations (200 micrograms per litre). All these relaxations relate to naturally occurring aluminium.
  66

  Population

  Authorised maximum value micrograms per litre

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Black Esk

  27,867

  250

  Lochinvar

  12,863

  250

  Penwhirn

  10,391

  230

  Carsphairn

  153

  300

  New Abbey

  1,458

  600

  Wanlockhead

  128

  300

  Palnure

  191

  400

  Grampian

  Inverurie—Newbigging (until 1995)

  2,131

  300

  Strathdon

  100

  500

  Highland

  Ardvasar/Dariach

  60

  800

  Balmacara

  260

  340

  Beauly Firth

  5,250

  290

  Carbost

  240

  770

  Dornie

  260

  230

  Drumbeg

  70

  630

  Durness

  220

  250

  Glendale

  260

  600

  Kentallen

  250

  710

  Kilchoan

  200

  310

  Kilmaluag

  150

  340

  Kilmuir

  210

  650

  Kinlochbervie

  380

  300

  Laid

  100

  220

  Mellon Udrigle

  100

  660

  Melness

  100

  340

  Nedd

  30

  670

  Onich

  450

  1,140

  Penifiler

  30

  650

  Poolewe

  200

  310

  Portree

  2,670

  710

  Raasay

  160

  680

  Scourie

  180

  230

  Shieldaig

  100

  610

  Spean Bridge

  450

  830

  Spey Valley—Blackpark

  7,640

  270

  Strontian

  340

  440

  Uig/Idrigill

  160

  590

  Strathclyde

  Brodick (until 2000)

  900

  370

  Catacol (until 1997)

  93

  240

  Kilmory/Sliddery (until 1998)

  420

  320

  Lochranza (until 2000)

  300

  310

  Pirnmill (until 1997)

  50

  220

  Loch Gair (until 1996)

  130

  210

  Portnahaven (until 1991)

  180

  470

  Nerebolls (until 1991)

  30

  470

  Graighouse (until 1999)

  150

  280

  Ross of Mull (until 1994)

  135

  570

  Kilberry (until 1999)

  40

  240

  Arinagour (until 1997)

  50

  280

  Iona (until 1995)

  150

  320

  Mulindry (until 1994)

  25

  740

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the criteria applied in deciding the duration of the relaxations under regulation 4(1)(c) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 in respect of individual water supplies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the criteria applied in deciding which water supplies are subject to relaxations under regulation 4(1)(c) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990; and if he will make a statement.
  67
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Relaxations under regulation 4(1)(c) can be authorised only in respect of substances or parameters arising from the nature and structure of the ground in the area from which the supply emanates. They cannot be authorised for toxic substances or microbiological parameters and must not give rise to a public health hazard. An authorisation can be modified or revoked at any time, without notice if that is necessary in the interests of public health.

  The regulations do not require any limit of duration to be specified in the authorisation of a relaxation under regulation 4(1)(c). Where a time limit is stated it is the date by which the water authority expects to make improvements, so that the supply will meet the standards, and beyond which the relaxation will not be needed.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will release details of the latest updated list of water supplies which have been granted relaxations under regulation 4(1)(c) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 in respect of aluminium; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Current relaxations are listed in my answer to an earlier question today. Water authorities are required by the regulations to maintain a public record containing information on the quality of water in each of their supply zones, including particulars of any relaxations granted. They are also required to publish similar information in an annual report to be issued by 30 June each year. The first such reports, covering the part-year 1 July to 31 December 1990, are due by 30 June 1991.

  Training Costs
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average cost per trainee week for(a) employment training and (b) youth training negotiated in the past year between the Training Agency and each of the local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  There are no such negotiations between the Training Agency and local enterprise companies.

  Departmental Policies (Environmental Implications)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what actions have been taken since the appointment of a Minister in his Department to consider the environmental implications of his Department's policies; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: As the responsible Minister I have set up a new framework for co-ordinating and monitoring Scottish action on the various policy commitments in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" which was published in September. From the turn of the year the Scottish Development Department was renamed the Scottish Office Environment Department and will take the lead in following up the White Paper.

  Legislation was introduced earlier this Session to merge the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland to form Scottish Natural Heritage from 1 April 1992. I have increased the funding available to voluntary bodies for environmental
  68
  activities and commissioned a major survey of attitudes in Scotland to the environment. New guidance has been issued on the design and location of rural housing.

  Various measures are being taken to improve Scottish Office housekeeping, including steps to meet energy efficiency targets and to make greater use of recycled products.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a table which shows the number of (a) sites of special scientific interest in Scotland which were originally notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, (b) sites which have been renotified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (c) sites awaiting renotification under the 1981 Act, (d) sites whose original boundary was altered when renotified under the 1981 Act and (e) original sites which the Nature Conservancy Council has denotified or does not intend to renotify.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: The information is shown in the table.

  Sites of special scientific interest

  Number of sites

  Sites originally notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949

  905

  Sites which have been renotified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  774

  Sites awaiting renotification under the 1981 Act

  21

  Sites where the boundary was extended on renotification under the 1981 Act

  254

  Original sites which the Nature Conservancy Council has denotified or does not intend to renotify

  110

  The figure of sites originally notified under the 1949 Act has been adjusted to take account of subsequent amalgamations and divisions. Information is not available for sites where the boundaries were altered because of partial deletions on renotification.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughterhouses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis European Community veterinary inspectors decide which slaughterhouses they will visit when they make their routine checks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Decisions are taken by the European Community Commission. Selection is random, but practical considerations generally result in visits being made to particular geographical areas. The Commission aims to have inspected all existing approved plants at least once by the end of 1992.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when European Community veterinary inspectors will next visit the United Kingdom; whether he will name the slaughterhouses chosen for such a visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  European Community veterinary inspectors will visit slaughterhouses in England on 11–22 March and in Scotland on 8–19 April. They intend visiting the following slaughterhouses in England:
  69
  EWS 17, 24, 30, 41, 51, and 108.

  The visits planned for Scotland are a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Further visits are planned to slaughterhouses in England and Northern Ireland in June and July, but itineraries have yet to be finalised.

  Wood Pigeons
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been carried out into the impact of shooting wood pigeons as against scare methods as a means of reducing agricultural damage.

  Mr. Gummer
  Research carried out by my Department has shown that scaring regimes to protect crops against wood pigeon damage are most effective when combined with shooting.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has carried out into the agricultural damage caused by wood pigeons in the United Kingdom; and what have been the results.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 21 November to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies),Official Report, column 135, and the consequent placing of relevant research in the Library.

  Soft Fruit
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has of the possible effects on the raspberry industry in particular, and the soft fruit industry in general, of the ending of minimum import prices; and if he will assist these industries by continuing the minimum import price system until the end of the fruit season.

  Mr. Curry
  There is a place for semi-processed soft fruit from eastern Europe in the United Kingdom market to complement the home-grown product provided that it is marketed in an orderly manner. Minimum import prices MIPs were introduced by the EC Commission in July 1990 at the request of the United Kingdom Government because east European imports were causing market disruption. We have made it clear that our preferred solution is voluntary price agreements and that the EC Commission should seek to conclude these before the MIPs expire on 31 March. If that is not possible, we will seek the extension of the MIP arrangements to cover the beginning of the 1991 soft fruit season. I shall emphasise this at the Council of Ministers next week.

  Foxes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fox destruction societies or clubs are registered with his Department in England; and what level of financial assistance they currently receive.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such groups are registered in England.

  Intervention Storage
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).Official
  70
  Report, 6 February, column 198, if he will make it his practice to continue to publish figures on the tonnage and value of foodstuffs in intervention storage in response to questions from hon. Members.

  Mr. Curry
  Tables showing EC and United Kingdom intervention stock levels are deposited in the Library of the House each month. We are willing to supply other information in relation to intervention stocks as long as the cost of providing it is not disproportionate.

  Coccidiostat
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce regulations requiring poultry treated with coccidiostat to be labelled as such.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have asked the food advisory committee in its general review of food labelling to consider whether treatments to living animals should be indicated on food labels. The committee's report on its review will be published shortly and I shall be consulting interested parties on its recommendations before reaching my conclusions.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed cases of BSE reported from(a) livestock markets and (b) slaughterhouses in England and Wales in the last six months of 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1991: Following is the information:

  Confirmed cases

  (a) Livestock markets

  60

  (b) Slaughterhouses

  51

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Agencies
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the two new social security agencies are expected to come fully into operation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The social security benefits agency and the contributions agency are due to be established in April 1991. We will make a further announcement about this in due course.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have some form of second income in addition to the basic state pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant).

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current value of the assets held by the average pensioner household; and what was the comparable position in real terms in 1978–79.
  71
  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet).

  National Insurance
  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Jack
  If the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions were removed it is currently estimated that about 3·3 million people would pay more in contributions. If the corresponding upper profits limit for self-employed people were also removed it is estimated that about another 0·6 million people would pay more in contributions.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total cost to business would be if national insurance contributions were levied at 5 per cent. on all employees with earnings below the national insurance threshold.

  Mr. Jack
  On the limited information available, we estimate the cost to employers at around £200 million a year in national insurance contributions. In addition, employers would bear substantial administrative costs arising from the extra record keeping involved.

  Single Mothers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the policy towards single parent mothers of small children who by working lose benefit.

  Mr. Jack
  The social security system already has several provisions which help lone parents benefit from working, where they wish to do so. The White Paper "Children Come First" contains proposals which will further improve the ability of lone parents to combine work with the responsibility of caring for their children and thus to be better off.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to revise the 26-week rule depriving homeless unemployed people of benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the rule under which budgeting loans do not become available until a claimant has been on income support for 26 weeks. The purpose of this rule is to target social fund money on people who have been out of work for some time and who are therefore likely to be in greatest need. Crisis loans are available if there is an emergency or serious risk to health or safety.

  We have no plans to change this rule.

  Computerisation
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has of improvements in the speed of service offered by social security offices as a result of the computerisation of the benefit system.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department's strategy for the computerisation of the social security payment system will 72
  be completed on time in July 1991. One of the aims of the strategy is to reduce the time taken to process benefit claims.

  The latest available information indicates that the national clearance time for new and repeat claims for income support stands at around 4·7 days, compared with 6·2 days relating to the period immediately prior to computerisation. The clearance time for claims to retirement pension averages 22·7 days compared with 28·2 days before computerisation.

  General benefit inquiries are also being dealt with more efficiently, as local office staff are now able to quickly access an individual's details, via the computer terminal, rather than having to search for the appropriate clerical record.

  Family Credit
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure for the number of families benefiting from family credit; and what was the number of benefiting from the predecessor scheme in 1978–79.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos).

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in(a) west Leeds, (b) Leeds, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) England are in receipt of family credit; and what proportion these families represent of those estimated to be entitled to this benefit.

  Mr. Jack
  The only figures available for Leeds, west Leeds and West Yorkshire are for the number of families actually in receipt of family credit on a particular day. They do not include those who had claimed by that date but whose claim had not yet been decided. On 8 February 1991, the latest date for which these figures are available, the number of families who, at the date of their award, were living in the places listed, were as follows:

  Number

  (a) West Leeds

  13,005

  (b) Leeds

  24,826

  (c) West Yorkshire

  316,557

  1 The total in the area covered by the Leeds west, Leeds north west and Leeds north local social security offices.

  2 The total in the area covered by all the local social security offices in Leeds.

  3 The total in the area covered by all the local social security offices in West Yorkshire.

  For England as a whole, a true caseload figure is available which includes awards covering the given date but not made till later. At 31 July 1990, the latest date for which this figure is available, the caseload for England was 264,000.

  Information about the total number of families eligible for family credit can be obtained only for Great Britain as a whole, and only retrospectively, from family expenditure survey data.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of disabled people who will be able more easily to work as a result of the introduction of the new disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability working allowance is an entirely new addition to social security to meet the needs of disabled people who want to work but have limited capacity. We expect that once DWA is established about 50,000 people at any one time will take the new opportunity offered by this benefit.

  Consultancy firm

  Subject of the Assignment

  Assignment completed

  Andersen Consulting

  Contributions Unit (Agency) Project

  Continuing

  Andersen Consulting

  Director of Social Security's Central Unit (DSSO/CU)

  August 1989

  Andersen Consulting

  Agency Planning for the Information Technology Services Directorate (ITSD)

  March 1990

  Andersen Consulting

  Agency Implementation for ITSA

  March 1990

  Andersen Consulting

  Senior Management Information Systems

  November 1989

  Andersen Consulting

  Executive Reporting System for the Board of Benefits Agency

  January 1990

  Applied Learning

  Establishment of an Open Learning Centre for ITSD

  September 1989

  Arthur Allwright Associates

  DPSD Purchasing Consultancy

  Continuing

  Arthur Young

  Efficiency Scrutiny of Fraud: Consultancy support

  April 1989

  Arthur Young

  Integrated Complementing System

  March 1990

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Central Accounting System Study

  March 1990

  CAS Marketing Services

  DPSD Purchasing Consultancy (Engagement of New Director)

  April 1990

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Local Pay Addition Hazard

  September 1989

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Overbearing Model

  September 1989

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Local Pay Addition Model

  September 1989

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Secondment on various projects

  September 1989

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  Departmental Information Systems Strategy—Scoping Study

  February 1990

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Social Security Agency Study: Future work

  August 1990

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Senior Management Structure—Organisational Analysis and Design

  March 1990

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Purchasing Information System

  November 1990

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Property Consultancy for HQ Relocation

  November 1990

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  Benefit Agency Implementation Team—Development of Project Timetable, Critical Path and Monitoring

  March 1990

  D. Chislett

  Review of Computer Security

  October 1989

  Dun and Bradstreet

  DPSD Ad Hoc Purchasing Consultancies

  Continuing

  Easymove

  Provision of Advice on Information Guides for Staff

  February 1991

  Enator

  Integrated Complementing System

  October 1989

  Ernst and Young

  Lone Parenthood Consultancy

  July 1990

  Ernst and Young

  Departmental Debt Scrutiny

  December 1989

  Ernst and Young

  Integrated Complementing System

  Continuing

  Handley Walker

  Post Office Counters—Fee Negotiation

  April 1990

  King's Fund College

  Director of Social Security's Central Unit (DSSO/CU)

  April 1990

  Kingsley Lord

  Social Security Policy Group Consultancy

  December 1989

  Korn Ferry International

  Benefits Agency Chief Executive—Consultancy to Assist Selection

  March 1990

  Lloyd Northover

  Corporate Image and House Style for DSS Property

  Continuing

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Integrated Monitoring System

  September 1989

  M. Pickett

  Accommodation Policy

  October 1989

  Modulus

  Consultancy Support for the Staff Suggestions Working Party

  November 1989

  MORI Human Resource Research

  Headquarters Relocation Preference Exercise

  August 1990

  Nationwide Anglia Relocation

  General Relocation Services for Staff

  Continuing

  Neville R. Way

  Purchasing and Contracting Procedures

  March 1990

  PA Consulting Group

  Review of Management Formula

  Continuing

  PA Consulting Group

  Enhancement of the MMD—BMD Data Base at Nottingham Staff Resource Unit

  March 1990

  PA Consulting Group

  Pay Flexibilities for the Benefit Agency

  May 1990

  PA Consulting Group

  Review of Central Office Management

  Continuing

  PA Consulting Group

  Pay Arrangements for ITSA

  May 1990

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the projects(a) undertaken in the year to April 1990 and (b) proposed but not yet operational by management consultants giving, in each case, its title, author, completion date and whether the document is available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of the projects in the year 1989–90 and proposed but not yet operational projects are shown in the table. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member's earlier question on 21 February 1991 at col 269, consultancy reports are usually internal working documents and are not publicly available. The exception in the 1989–90 project list is the Arthur Young assignment which contributed to the efficiency scrutiny on fraud. As this was considered to be of wider interest, a copy of the scrutiny report was placed in the Library.
  75

  Consultancy firm

  Subject of the Assignment

  Assignment completed

  PA Consulting Group

  Reward Arrangements for the Benefit Agency

  May 1990

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Centralised Receipts Collection System

  February 1990

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Efficiency Scrutiny of Management of the Departmental Debt—Consultancy Support

  December 1989

  P-E Inbucon

  Survey of Local Authorities (Preparations for Community Charge Benefit)

  February 1990

  Price Waterhouse

  Administrative Resource Management System

  Continuing

  Price Waterhouse

  Integrated Complementing System

  March 1990

  Price Waterhouse

  Future Career Development for Staff within ITSD/ITSA

  March 1990

  Price Waterhouse

  Forecasting Social Security Expenditure

  August 1989

  Price Waterhouse

  Financial Planning and Control

  May 1989

  Price Waterhouse

  Performance Measurements for ITSA and CU

  February 1990

  Professor Geoffrey Woodroofe

  DPSD Purchasing Consultancy (Post Office Counters Fee)

  January 1990

  Purchasing and Supply Consultants

  DPSD Ad Hoc Purchasing Consultancies

  April 1990

  Sema Group

  Consultancy Support for Integrated Complementing System Project

  November 1989

  Simmons Relocation Services

  Advice on Relocation Package

  July 1989

  The McNeil Robertson Partnership

  Departmental Personnel Management (DPM) Survey

  June 1989

  Touche Ross

  Administrative Resource Management System (Phase 1)

  September 1989

  Touche Ross

  Integrated Complementing System

  May 1990

  Touche Ross

  Finance Information Strategy

  January 1990

  Touche Ross

  Benefit Agency Implementing Work (MIS and Finance)

  November 1990

  Touche Ross

  Monitoring the Camberwell Replacement Scheme

  October 1990

  Touche Ross

  Patterns of Business Study

  February 1990

  Touche Ross

  Administrative Resource Management System (Phase 2)

  October 1990

  Projects Proposed

  Monitoring the Management of Change

  Team Building and Communications for the Benefit Agency Management Team

  Project Management Software Selection

  Yield Measurement on Liable Relative Cases

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims for attendance allowance under the terminal illness rules have been received by his Department since the new rules came into force; what is the average number of days between day of claim and the date of the decision for such claims; what are the shortest and longest clearance times to date; and what is the average clearance time for reviews;

  (2) what is the success rate for (a) initial claims and (b) reviews of claims for attendance allowance under the terminal illness rules; and if he will list the numbers of refusals by grounds for refusal.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the table.

  Attendance allowance: claims and reviews under the special rules for terminal illness

  Number and Estimate

  Number of claims decided (to end January 1991)

  20,200

  Estimated average time from claim to decision

  10·5 days

  Estimated success rate of claims

  95 per cent.

  Estimated average clearance time for reviews

  3·8 weeks

  Estimated success rate of reviews1

  77 per cent.

  1 In a significant number of cases, where the review was not successful under the special rules, the review was changed to one under the normal rules.

  Absent Parents
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the details of how the right of appeal will apply in cases where 20 per cent. of the income support personal allowance is deducted from caring parents on 76
  income support or family credit who do not provide information for pursuit of maintenance from absent parents.

  Mr. Jack
  As part of the Government's proposals for reforming the system of child maintenance, the Child Support Bill, introduced on 14 February in another place, provides for a reduction in the income support personal allowance of caring parents on income support or family credit who, without good cause, fail to provide information which will allow maintenance to be recovered from an absent parent. The White Paper "Children Come First" proposed that the reduction should be up to 20 per cent. of the adult income support allowance. In cases to which this reduction applies, the decision will be taken by an adjudication officer on the basis of an opinion from the Secretary of State together with any representations from the person concerned. As with other such decisions, there will be the right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal and thereafter, on a point of law, to the social security commissioner.

  Child Support
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to ensure that child support agency staff are fully trained and can offer an adequate counselling service.

  Mr. Jack
  Staff in the agency will be properly trained in recognition of the sensitive nature of their work. They will also be able to help those lone parents who wish to work to do so by advising them on "in work" benefits and identifying the practical help available from various sources such as employment training, jobcentres, job clubs, and so on. Training will focus on measures to
  77
  provide a good quality service to the public including, among other things how to deal sensitively and sympathetically with people who may be under stress. Staff will be responsible for ensuring that the caring parent understands the range of services that the agency can provide.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the proposed changes to child maintenance will incorporate an additional element when calculations of maintenance levels are being arrived at for children with disabilities.

  Mr. Jack
  The White Paper "Children Come First" invited comments on whether the maintenance required should be increased for a child who is disabled. The Government are considering the differing comments received.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many responses he has received to the White Paper "Children Come First"; and if he will publish a digest of them, together with the Government response.

  Mr. Jack
  So far, some 250 submissions from organisations and individuals have been received. The Government have no plans to publish a digest and response. A number of the organisations which commented have already published their responses and in a number of cases individuals commented drawing on their own personal experience. We have considered all the comments received and there will be an opportunity to discuss the issues during debates on the Child Support Bill and the detailed regulations.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy in future legislation on maintenance enforcement to replace the White Paper terms "caring parent" and "absent parent" with "resident parent" and "contact parent", respectively.

  Mr. Jack
  We received comments on terminology in a small number of responses to the White Paper "Children Come First" and have given thorough consideration to the most appropriate and readily comprehensible phrases to describe the parties involved in a maintenance award. In the Child Support Bill, introduced in another place on 14 February, "caring parent" has been replaced by "person with care". This reflects the fact that a person responsible for the day-to-day care of a child is not necessarily the child's natural or adoptive parent. We do not think that the proposed terms are appropriate, because the responsibility to pay maintenance is wholly independent of whether the parent has any contact with the child.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what mechanism there will be to ensure that the proposed new Child Support Agency will not reduce the income of individuals or families to below the income support level when enforcing maintenance payment; and if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee to reconsider the proposal in the White Paper "Children Come First" to impose a penalty of over £7 a week reduction in benefit for lone parents who refuse to name the liable parent.

  Mr. Jack
  The Child Support Bill sets out the method of calculation of the amount of maintenance due to be paid for a child or children. It makes provision for a protected level of income after the payment of maintenance based on income support levels.
  78
  The Bill also makes provision requiring a caring parent who claims income support or family credit to co-operate as far as possible in obtaining maintenance. Where there is no good reason for a failure to do so a reduction may be made in the amount of benefit paid. We have considered very carefully all the comments received on this issue, including those of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We remain convinced that it is right in principle to expect both parents to do as much as they reasonably can to ensure the payment of proper amounts of maintenance for their children. It would, however, clearly not be right to define criteria for this purpose which would mean that the making of a threat of violence would automatically absolve an absent parent from liability being pursued.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that there is no expectation upon women escaping violent partners to name fathers of their children at liable relatives interviews.

  Mr. Jack
  Our policy is that caring parents who are in receipt of benefit should be expected to co-operate in obtaining maintenance for their children unless they can show good cause for refusing to do so. It would, however, clearly not be right to define criteria for this purpose which would mean that the making of a threat of violence would automatically absolve an absent parent from liability being pursued.

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list of the situations where the proposal to deduct 20 per cent. of the income support personal allowance from caring parents on income support or family credit who do not provide information to allow pursuit for maintenance from absent parents, would not be applied.

  Mr. Jack
  The White Paper "Children Come First" quoted rape and incest as circumstances which might constitute good cause for a caring parent claiming income support or family credit not to co-operate in seeking maintenance from the absent parent. We are still considering carefully all the comments we have received on this proposal, and whether it is in the interests of the children to publish a list. Regulations will prescribe the circumstances in which a benefit reduction will not apply in as much detail as possible.

  Income-related Benefits
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the basis on which income-related benefit levels are set.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 2.1 to 2.5 of the memorandum on benefit levels and a minimum income, dated 18 October 1989, and submitted to the House of Commons Social Services Committee. A copy of the complete memorandum is in the Library.

  Departmental Relocation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many jobs have been created outside London by his Department over the last two years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has taken a number of positive steps to move work away from London. For example, we are transferring benefits processing work away from 21 London offices to new social security centres in Glasgow, Belfast and Makerfield employing some 1,400 staff.

  In addition, new agencies such as the Information and Technology Services Agency are based primarily away from London, and the new Benefits Agency headquarters will be moving to Leeds from June 1992 with the transfer of nearly 500 London-based posts.

  Pensioners' Income
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the average pensioner's income comes from occupational pensions, savings and earnings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington).

  Mr. Ridley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of those over retirement age have additional income over and above their national insurance pension; and what has been the percentage increase, in real terms, of the total income of the average pensioner over the period 1979 to 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Eighty-four per cent. of pensioners have some form of income in addition to their state retirement pension and other social security benefits. The average pensioner's income increased in real terms by 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1987, the last year for which figures are presently available.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he would list the subject areas in social security which after the creation of the Social Security Benefits Agency will receive a reply which is(a) printed in Hansard and (b) only placed in the Library.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 21 February at col.272–73. The precise matters to be delegated to the chief executive will be set out in the framework document when the Benefits Agency is established.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) of 26 February,Official Report, columns 466–67, whether he will recommission Price Waterhouse to survey the running costs of private residential and nursing homes using the chief social services inspector's recommendations in "Inspecting for Quality Guidance on Practice for Inspection Units in Social Services Departments and Other Agencies."

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no current plans to do so.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of 25 February,Official Report, columns 401–404, if he will indicate which of the projects listed (a) is to be published and (b) when.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 20 November 1990 at column 108.

  Claimants, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show for (1) Leeds, West and (2) Leeds metropolitan district council area the number of applicants for and awards of(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans and (i) the amounts awarded, (ii) the percentage refused and (iii) the average award.

  Mr. Scott
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Pensions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to assist persons on low incomes to enhance their pension levels.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Appropriate personal pensions were introduced in 1988 to give people the chance of contracting-out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and investing that money in their own pension arrangement. They have been further assisted in building up their pension by the extra 2 per cent. incentive which is payable for the five years from 1988 to 1993.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

National Insurance Fund
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What savings have accrued to the National Insurance Fund in the current financial year as a result of changes in statutory sick pay and the removal of industrial injury benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Social Security Act 1990 rationalised the scope of the National Insurance Fund by transferring the costs of certain non-contributory benefits to general taxation. The savings to the fund in 1990–91 from these changes are estimated as £956 million in respect of statutory sick pay, and £574 million in respect of industrial injuries benefits.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I assume from what he has told me that the National Insurance Fund is likely to be in surplus. If that is so, has that taken into account the fact that according to one estimate unemployment figures are likely to be in excess of 1.75 million and, according to other estimates, 2.5 million? Will the fund be in surplus next year in view of the large amount being paid to individuals to opt out of SERPS and into private personal pensions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is estimated that the fund will be in surplus by about 41 per cent. this year as opposed to 16.7 per cent. (which is the recommended minimum suggested by the Government Actuary) and by 33 per cent. next year.
The noble Baroness asked whether increasing unemployment might have some effect on the fund. Any increases in unemployment may cause increased outgoings from the fund. However, I remind the noble Baroness that the biggest cost to the fund is retirement pensions. That is about three quarters of the fund's outgoings, whereas unemployment benefit accounts for a mere 5 per cent. or less.

Iraq: Economic Sanctions
2.37 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the economic measures against Iraq, decided upon by the United Nations Security Council since 2nd August, appear to have been carried out by member states.
Lord Reay: My Lords, yes. The most recently available report from the United Nations secretariat
1188
indicates that 124 of the 159 member states have formally notified the United Nations of their compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 imposing economic sanctions on Iraq. The 35 states which have given no formal notification are mostly small states with no trade links with Iraq.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does it not show that sanctions, even universally applied, would have taken a long time to shift Saddam Hussein? Will potential aggressors in future be more effectively deterred by the readiness—visible and improved—of the United Nations to take action, with armed forces if necessary?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. Experience has indicated that however long sanctions were maintained, Saddam Hussein would not have given in to economic pressure alone. It is hoped that it has also shown to any other leader or nation with similar expansionist aspirations the opposition that it can expect to meet from the international community.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House who, following our exchanges on the subject last week, informed me that humanitarian aid is being allowed, subject to the authorisation of the sanctions committee of the United Nations. Will the noble Lord confirm that sanctions will not be lifted until all the conditions laid down are complied with by the Iraqi Government?
Lord Reay: My Lords, yes. In our view it is too soon to say how or when the sanctions regime against Iraq should be modified. However, we need first to see Iraqi compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I declare a personal interest in asking this question of the noble Lord the Minister who answers for the Government. If it appears that some of our prisoners of war have been tortured to death, is it the intention of the Government to introduce a War Crimes Bill in your Lordships' House?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot give any information at this moment about the Government's intention to introduce a War Crimes Bill. However, it is an urgent priority for us to secure the release of allied prisoners of war.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, since Belgium did not contribute a single penny or a single man towards the war effort, and since she owes everything to this country, is she included in the list of those nations who were good enough and kind enough to apply economic sanctions?
Lord Reay: My Lords, a number of cases of sanctions violations have been drawn to the attention of the sanctions committee. The chairman has sometimes been asked to take follow-up action. However, the proceedings of that committee are confidential.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the fact that so many nations were prepared to co-operate in the sanctions effort is a tribute to the

1189
possible effectiveness of the Security Council? Is there a valuable precedent for the future? When the noble Lord states that they may not have caused Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait, is he stating that they had no effect? What studies are being made, perhaps by the United Nations secretariat, about the effectiveness of the sanctions?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was saying that sanctions were comprehensive and rigorously enforced for more than five months; yet, despite their effect on the Iraqi economy, there was no sign that they affected Saddam Hussein's resolve to hang on to Kuwait for as long as he could.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not clear, in view of the atrocities now becoming evident in Kuwait—perhaps more appropriate for the description "obscene" with which some newspapers have reacted to the war this morning—that sanctions should be continued in their full stringency not merely until Saddam Hussein agrees to pay compensation, but until in fact he has paid it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that sanctions should be maintained for the time being. First, we need to see compliance by Iraq with the United Nations resolutions. Thereafter there should be a selective and progressive approach to the removal of sanctions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, what evidence does the Minister have for using the word "never" in his initial answer? The Minister said that sanctions would never undermine Saddam Hussein or force him to leave Kuwait. What evidence has been provided regarding the effect of sanctions? At the beginning of sanctions the American Administration said that they would take at least 12 months to work. Why, and on what evidence, were they abandoned as a means of expelling Saddam Hussein after five months?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Saddam Hussein evidently cared little for the suffering of his own people, not to mention the suffering of the people of Kuwait. There is no evidence that sanctions alone would have caused him to order his troops to withdraw from Kuwait and comply with the other requirements of the United Nations resolutions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on what evidence did the Minister use the word "never" in his first reply?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I stated our belief that sanctions alone would not have forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at no time have sanctions worked in any country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot follow my noble friend wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did I understand the Minister correctly? Did he say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that sanction-busting countries are to have their names kept secret? If so, can he explain why?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the sanctions committee is a United Nations creation. It is mandated by the United Nations Security Council to monitor the implementation of the resolutions. It is for the United Nations Security Council to determine the conditions in which it should do so.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, can my noble friend say with a simple yes or no whether the Kingdom of Jordan was one of the countries which gave an assurance that it was applying sanctions?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are satisfied that all countries have applied sanctions properly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply to my supplementary question and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will he press the Government to make representations to the United Nations that the names of sanction-busting countries be made public?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are satisfied with the assurances received from governments, including the neighbouring states of Iraq, that every possible effort is being made to comply with and enforce the embargo.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Government give a categoric assurance that sanctions will not be removed with their consent until all our prisoners have been returned?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is the decision of the Security Council that sanctions should remain in force until Iraq complies with the requirements of the various United Nations resolutions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister explain how the national or international interest is served by withholding the names of those countries that have not applied sanctions?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is a matter for the United Nations.

Homeless Households
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any statistics relating to the re-housing of the 40,000 former owner occupiers who lost their homes in 1990 following repossession due to lapsed mortgage repayments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, our figures reveal that from January to September 1990 some 9,900 homeless households were accepted and found accommodation by local authorities following mortgage arrears. Other borrowers who lost possession of their homes may have other property, moved to less expensive homes, moved in with friends or relatives or rented alternative accommodation. No statistics are available for those categories.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, last year was a record year with over 40,000 families having their homes repossessed. Does not the Minister agree that a large number of those families became homeless through no fault of their own? Bearing in mind that that happened due to the failure of the Government's financial and economic policies, is not the Minister's Answer at the Dispatch Box small comfort to the people experiencing this terrible tragedy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree that the figures this year are worse than ever before. However, perspective is important. There are 9.4 million mortgages; only 0.47 per cent. of those are the subject of repossession. The noble Lord says that the repossession of one home is a tragedy for that family. However, a great deal is being done for those who become homeless. The statistics for the homeless rehoused by local authorities show that 9 per cent. are accounted for as a result of mortgage repossession; 60 per cent are accounted for by family and relationship break-ups.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many of the approximately 9,000 were previously council house tenants who exercised the right to buy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we do not have that breakdown. People in that category who are on income support have their interest payments met by half for the first 16 weeks and thereafter they are met completely.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the building societies are offering lower interest rates for new buyers in the housing market against existing borrowers who are having to cope with the present high interest rates? Does the Minister agree that this practice should be deplored, and that priority should be given to the people who have been suffering for so long because of high interest rates?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. People in difficulties should seek early assistance from the building societies. The building societies' record for helping such people is to be commended. The societies help people who are in difficulty by deferring interest payments and extending the period over which money can be borrowed. They also help first time buyers.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, unfortunately, the Minister did not answer the question. I agree with what the noble Baroness said; but my question was a specific one. Some of the building societies are now offering lower interest rates to new purchasers than to people with existing mortgages. Does the Minister agree that people with existing mortgages who have suffered for so long should have priority and not the new buyers? Will the Minister now answer that question?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, governments do not run building societies. Building societies are managers of their own affairs. When a borrower in difficulties goes to a building society early, the building society
1192
has a very real interest in keeping the mortgage as a going concern. Building societies do a great deal to help.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that by far the majority of repossessions have taken place concerning people who are in the higher income groups and in professional occupations? Without detracting from the tragedy to those people, does the Minister agree that many of them just bought that which they could not afford to maintain?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am unable to confirm whether the vast majority of repossessions come within that category. But they form a substantial number. I understand that the accountants' profession is most responsible for over-extending itself.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend has given very wise advice; namely, go early to your lender. Does she not agree that the real problem is that people who become so disheartened and fed up with the situation literally throw the keys in at the building society door and, in their view, cut their losses? Does she not agree that that is the worst possible thing that they can be advised to do?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, putting the keys through the door of the building society as a last resort is the worst possible thing for a borrower to do. If the borrower seeks help at the earliest possible moment, the chances are that he will remain in occupation of the house for which he has borrowed.

Peers: Car Parking
2.53 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk asked the Chairman of Committees:
What thought has been given to the provision of adequate car parking space for Members attending the House.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I can assure the House that the provision of car parking space for Members attending the House is a matter for careful periodic review. The last review was undertaken last summer, when spaces in the Peers' car park were redesigned. This work allowed for easier circulation without reducing numbers.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I readily appreciate the difficulties which face us. I do not know whether it is my noble friend or others who have to take a decision. Does he agree that it is disturbing to see cars parked on the road outside the parking areas? That is extremely dangerous on a road which has much fast traffic. That also looks as though the Peers could not find a proper place to park their cars. I hope that my noble friend will continue in his efforts to meet the needs of the increasing number of people who over the past four or five years have wished to park here.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall certainly take on board what my noble friend has said. I do not think that the cars which are parked on the road are normally your Lordships' cars. Usually, they have something to do with another place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that noble Lords in all parts of the House are grateful to him and to the Gentleman Usher for the assistance that they give us in these matters? Is he further aware that the police officers are uniformly courteous to us? Can the noble Lord say whether they are authorised to assist noble Lords to leave and enter the parking area? As regards the complaint made by the noble Earl concerning cars parked outside the parking area, is he aware that those which give the greatest difficulty and hindrance to noble Lords are vans which park there and about which nothing is done by police officers or anyone else?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said about the police. They are uniformly courteous and do their very best to help your Lordships. The primary function of the officers on duty is security. However, they are available to help if your Lordships are in difficulty in trying to get in or out of the car park, and they usually help. I hope they will continue to do so.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, from my own observation and from the advice that I have received from noble Lords, the police officers in New Palace Yard who are responsible for the other place are more active in assisting Members of the House of Commons to leave and enter their parking area than those who assist us.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am not sure that I know the answer to that problem. From my observation, there seem to be a good many more officers at the House of Commons entrance. We usually have one man at our entrance. It is difficult for him to exercise his security function at the same time as he is helping Peers to drive in and out of the parking area. The noble Lord made another point about vans which I forgot to answer. There is a security implication there. Wherever possible, we hope that vans will not be brought inside the perimeter. At the present moment, they stop there to be unloaded.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said about the service with which we are provided by the police and security staff outside. As I came into the Chamber, I was presented with a new vehicle pass, which I shall use. Can the noble Lord say whether it extends to the car park across the road to which the noble Lord referred earlier as being tenanted by Members of another place? If the pass does not extend to the other car park, can the noble Lord say why not?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the parking spaces in front of Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard, there are spaces there. In that particular car park there are 10 spaces for the House of Commons, and our staff have 23.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there should be a fine for Peers who park along the line between parking spaces and who therefore take up two parking spaces?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, yes I do.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, is it not clear that we are seeking a long-term solution? The giving of immediate answers is not enough. Does my noble friend agree that the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion should be taken away for the summer holidays and a car park made underneath? He can be put back in the autumn.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the provision of car parking is a feature in the forward planning of the parliamentary estate; but that is some way ahead.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in the meantime when the car park is full it would be helpful for that to be plainly indicated outside?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall see whether that is a practical proposition. Very often, even though the car park is full, the police manage to find a space for an extra vehicle.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, particularly for the last point that he made; namely, that this is a matter which is going to be taken up. Does my noble friend agree that it warrants a degree of urgency? Today there is a very real crush in the car park. On many occasions one cannot get in at all. I do not know how many noble Lords have had to park elsewhere. I have had to do so on occasions.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I very much sympathise with my noble friend. Unfortunately, it is a problem that we face together with many other people who live and/or work in London.

Road Traffic Bill
3 p.m.
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.

Business of the House: Debates, 6th March
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Clinton-Davis set down for 6th March shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of the Baroness Ewart-Biggs set down for the same day to 2 hours, and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to both debates.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4,

Schedule 1,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 5 to 7,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 8 to 10,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 11 to 15.—(Lord Henley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Railways: ECC Report
3.1 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on A New Structure for Community Railways (3rd Report, HL Paper 11).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret to say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who was due to open the debate, has a bad attack of 'flu and is unable to be present. This is a matter of great regret not only to him—we wish him well and a quick recovery—but also to me, as at the last minute I have been asked to take his place. I hope your Lordships will bear with me in that I have to combine two speeches in one; namely, the speech that I had prepared for delivery later in the debate and the noble Lord's speech in introducing the report.
There are many who believe that the railways are facing a period of potential revival. I happen to be one of them. There are a number of reasons: first, the increasing congestion that affects other forms of transport—I need refer only to road and air transport—and secondly, the environment. Although the committee has not dealt specifically with the matter, it is the case that railways cause less environmental damage than many other forms of transport, particularly road transport. It is worth noting that after we had completed our report the German embassy in London issued a press release. This stated that Germany was trying to reduce the impact of transport on the environment, not least by encouraging rail transport. It also stated that Germany was adopting measures to protect the environment on the "polluter pays" principle and that in this regard the railways offered many advantages. One important form of integrated transport, say the Germans, is to collect goods by road, send them the main part of the journey by rail and then deliver them to their ultimate destination by road again. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply can state how this country is ensuring the development of transport policies which similarly reflect the need to meet environmental concerns.
With the approach of the single market, modifications in railway developments throughout the Community will be needed to meet the challenge. A more specific aspect in our case is progress towards the completion of work on the Channel Tunnel. The committee has previously considered the place of the tunnel in the United Kingdom transport network. In our report Transport Infrastructure we saw the tunnel as a key to bringing to Britain the "railway renaissance" which we note is under way in the rest of Europe. We tried to avoid getting too far into the political controversy surrounding the link through Kent, although paragraph 91 of the report drew attention to the fact that:
"The United Kingdom is already on the periphery of the Community and … there is an urgent need for an enhanced network of infrastructure links between all regions of this country and the Continent via the Channel Tunnel and ports".
In this context, I, like many in the House, was concerned to see reports in this morning's Financial Times that there will be no express passenger services to the Continent from any city in Britain other than London. The committee has already drawn attention to the harmful effect this could have on the regions of the United Kingdom, which are becoming isolated from the heart of Europe. I should be very much obliged if the Minister in his reply can tell us whether this is the truth of the matter. If so, it is a matter much to be deplored.
The report of the committee considers the recommendations of the Commission which are wide ranging. We decided to concentrate on three aspects; the managerial and financial autonomy of the railway system; high-speed trains; and combined transport. I should like to deal with those three issues.
Deliberation on managerial and financial autonomy formed the bulk of the committee's work, as the title of the report reflects. In paragraph 71 we support the greater autonomy for railway companies proposed by the Commission which is already under way in the United Kingdom. But the report stresses that the railways sometimes provide "a necessary social service" which creates a dilemma for railway companies not faced by their competitors on the roads or in the air. When we reflect on the position in the United Kingdom we see that ever since the war the conflict of interest between making the railways viable and providing a social service has dogged the development of our railway system.
Our report concludes that a mechanism for public service obligations needs to be developed in all member states along the lines of the Commission's proposal for contracts. Part of the public service obligation in the United Kingdom is moving towards such a system: we welcome that. No doubt the Minister will tell us more about it. We see a need for government and other public authorities to define and specify more clearly the level of social services that the railways are being asked to provide. Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied that an adequate balance between public service and commercial autonomy is being achieved? What further plans are there in that direction?
The second Commission proposal we considered in detail would allow free access to the railways for any authorised operator wishing to run trains. We accepted evidence from the railway companies that there would be numerous technical constraints to such developments, but we concluded that those considerations need not preclude a degree of access and that there is impressive evidence of a latent demand for rail transport of freight and that, given a legally guaranteed right to operate services and satisfactory charging arrangements, a number of private companies and joint ventures are likely to come forward. The committee therefore concluded that as soon as possible a right of access should be made available for any company to run international freight services in the Community.
The second main plank of the Commission's case is a proposal to separate responsibility for infrastructure from responsibility for operations; that is, those who manage the infrastructure need not be the only people who run the trains. The committee believes that this will help achieve the Commission's objective of competition on the railways and improved service to the consumer. Paragraphs 81 to 83 draw attention to technical and operational constraints on such a separation. The committee drew the important conclusion that those who run the infrastructure must be responsible for safety and for organising the timetable to meet the competing demands of operators.
The committee's main conclusion was that responsibility for rail infrastructure should remain that of the state, except in certain limited cases such as dedicated links to airports. That is because the cost of railway infrastructure far exceeds the revenue it can raise in financial terms. But there are also benefits to users, such as reduced congestion, and to society as a whole, environmentally. The committee recommends that such benefits should be taken into account in this country as they are in Sweden, which was visited by members of the committee. We recognise that the issue of dividing the infrastructure from operations has a wider impact than the mere statement of principle in the case of the United Kingdom with the possibility of the privatisation of the railways. We hope that that factor will be seriously borne in mind by the Government if privatisation takes place.
I turn now to high-speed rail lines. Members of the committee did not scrutinise this part of the Commission's proposal in great detail as we were awaiting the results of its expert study into a Europe-wide network of high-speed trains. I have already mentioned the United Kingdom's position regarding the Channel Tunnel, and especially the links to the United Kingdom's regions. That caused us serious concern. Can the Minister say whether the Commission's experts are looking at the matter and, if so, when the results of the study will be published?
As regards combined transport, paragraph 51 of the report gives the definition used by the Commission. It reads:
1198
"Combined transport is a system in which goods are loaded on to a load carrier at the point of origin and unloaded from it at the destination and the carrier is transferred at least once from one mode of transport to another on the way".
The committee welcomed the Commission's proposals for tax advantages for combined transport; but it also called for a more positive approach to grant-aiding investment where justified by social benefits. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to reform the Section 8 grant system under the Railways Act 1974 to take account of such benefits?
Members of the committee also considered some of the physical limitations on a Europe-wide system of combined transport. The most important problem we identified was the incompatibility between the United Kingdom loading gauge and that used elsewhere in Europe. Can the Minister say whether there are any plans to study the costs and benefits of converting a limited section of the United Kingdom network to the European gauge? In particular, will he accept that converting a line from the Channel Tunnel to the industrial heartland of the Midlands and the North-West, as recommended in paragraph 97 of the report, would help to alleviate some of the concerns of those regions?
The committee emphasised the importance of an efficient, well-managed and well-planned railway network integrated throughout Europe. But the report concluded:
"That vision is far removed from present reality where national boundaries continue to place obstacles in the path of international services".
The low level of traffic presently moved by the railways is regrettable. We believe that the prospects ahead, the needs of the environment, the congestion in other forms of transport, the approach of the single market and the construction of the Channel Tunnel offer us an enormous opportunity. The question is: will we seize that opportunity? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I am very pleased that so many noble Lords have agreed to take part in the debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on A New Structure for Community Railways (3rd Report, HL Paper 11).—(Lord Ezra.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his admirable speech, and for moving the Motion to take note of this report, which was readapted at such short notice and which took the place of the speech we would have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I much regret the fact that the noble Lord is not able to be here today. I hope that he will soon recover from the 'flu.
I should like to begin by thanking the Commission for its proposals. It is not always the case that proposals from the Commission are as adventurous and as welcome as these. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, his colleagues on the Select Committee, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for this most interesting report.

1199
For a change, the starting point of the argument is that these days when transport is one of the major features of our lives in the Western world—and mass transport at that —road and air transport are congested to a point where we all suffer at times and consider that a solution to the problem should be found. However, in this scenario, rail transport alone is substantially underused.
I agree with the underlying comment in the report that the existing structure of rail ownership and organisation in this country and in other European countries, on a monolithic national basis under government ownership, is too rigid to permit the experiments with new forms of rail services which have been recommended and which might meet some of the ever increasing demand for transport.
However, the idea of privately operated companies working on state-owned track and signalling systems is a new one—except in the case of Sweden—and obviously has attractions. In the light of our experience of privatising road transport, passenger and freight, which in the main has turned out for the benefit both of the customer and of the taxpayer, we should certainly feel encouraged to carry out an experiment in the UK with this new idea for rail. The experience in Sweden, of which the report gives us a very ample picture, is an encouraging precedent. The existing national management structure could not undertake what is required in the proposal.
Having been a daily commuter for many years, I must say that I am very conscious of the endemic weaknesses in the rail structure, especially the weakness of management and the lack of staff loyalty. All too often, that feeds through to commuters by way of cancelled and disrupted services which cause immense inconvenience and hardship. Such disruptions happen sporadically and at any time of day. During, the recent light snowfall, which measured only two or three inches in the South-East, the situation was appalling. Normally at peak times we have five or six trains per hour. However, on one occasion the hourly service was cut down to one very short train. The overcrowding in that train was horrendous. Indeed, if an inspector had been on duty at the time he would have said that it created a danger and three-quarters of the passengers would have been taken off the train. However, I suppose that we should have experienced the same conditions in the following train.
Any private company wishing to run the system would have to compete initially for the contract. I am sure that it would be able to do the job better but if it did not it would lose the contract. I agree with the Select Committee's conclusion that the burden which rail has to carry to meet social needs could best be met by inviting competitive tenders from private companies, as has been done in connection with uneconomic passenger road services. However, in this case Her Majesty's Government would be paying a subsidy.
The report is certainly right on a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, called attention so lucidly; that is, the latent demand for rail transport of freight which might be expected to attract private companies,
1200
especially if it could be connected with other member states in the Community which are making a similar development so that there would be a prospect of a high-speed European freight rail service. That would be very attractive and there is no reason why it should not be achieved one day if all member states co-operate.
The report discusses some of the substantial technical problems to which the noble Lord called attention, particularly the loading gauge. I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on that and the question which he put to my noble friend Lord Brabazon who is to answer the debate. I shall be interested to hear the answer because this is a serious problem. However, it seems to make an argument that for the first experiment which I hope our Government will make with this idea, the western region should be chosen because it has less contrasting gauges than the other regions and might be less difficult to adapt to the European loading gauge standards. However, the report believes that there are mechanical solutions to the problems.
As the noble Lord told us, there is the major problem of separating responsibility for the infrastructure—that is, the track and signalling from operations. The report gives a very interesting picture of the solution in Sweden. I am especially grateful for the appendix which sets that out so clearly. Two points must be made. First, the rail system in Sweden is very much simpler than ours. The second point, with which I am sure the noble Lord will agree, is that the Swedish experiment seems to be developing satisfactorily but is still in its infancy.
However, the Select Committee concluded that the difficulties can be overcome and a satisfactory relationship between the track authority—necessarily a state corporation—and the operating companies could be worked out. I hope that my noble friend Lord Brabazon is able to tell us that Her Majesty's Government will accept that recommendation. I hope that after the next general election, whichever party wins, the government of the day will set up an experiment as quickly as possible in at least one region.
An essential point is that a national corporation for track and signalling must be set up, with the necessary strength in engineering, financial and management quality to restore our railways' tradition of safety. All noble Lords will remember the terrible Clapham disaster. That revealed a weakness of management and supervision on the electrical side which was horrifying. Therefore, no expense must be spared to ensure that all aspects of engineering are constructed and maintained to the highest standard.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for deputising so ably. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for producing a very interesting report. However rapid development may be, I doubt very much whether I shall see it in the southern region in my time.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his comprehensive summary of the activities of your Lordships' Select Committee. Like the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Nugent, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is not able to be with us this afternoon, most particularly because he devoted a good deal of personal enthusiasm and energy to his chairmanship of the committee which for my part made the subject of the work much more interesting than perhaps is true of some sub-committees.
The report is more interesting to a wider readership than your Lordships, particularly in that the commission's proposals set down some innovative and rather different ideas which deserve much wider discussion. I hope that your Lordships' debate this afternoon and the report will make a contribution to that wider discussion.
I begin at the end. I draw your Lordshps' attention to the general conclusion and the last sentence of paragraph 99 on page 22. In that sentence the committee urges British Rail and the Department of Transport to think more widely about the Commission's proposals as a whole. It is all very well to say that, but one must look at the evidence which came before the sub-committee. I appreciate that it is very difficult to put an accent on the oral evidence as distinct from the written record. There were instances—I shall return to this in a few moments—where the quality and enthusiasm which some witnesses demonstrated during their evidence provided the committee with rather wider thinking than is usual.
In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, commented on what he called the renaissance which appears to be evident on the European Continent. In paragraphs 67 and 68 the committee draws attention in particular to the two reasons why we should think in the wider context of the Commission's proposals. I select the two major points of those two paragraphs. Paragraph 67 states:
"There is a growing perception of rail as an environmentally friendly mode of transport".
Your Lordships will recognise that I am usually more anxious about the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the road user. Even that somewhat selfish group of people recognises that there is an environmental benefit to be derived from the use of rail. Indeed, the haulage industry has always been a keen supporter of the use of rail and is no less firm in that resolve today.
The tragedy is that the service offered by rail as an alternative is not there. I do not wish to follow my noble friend Lord Nugent in his opening remarks when he discussed domestic issues. It follows that if the service is not provided domestically, there is very little hope of either a passenger or freight service being provided on this side of the Channel which will enable us to link up with any grander rail network in Europe. Indeed, it is fair to say that the committee was conscious of some of the evidence which suggested that if we were not very careful, as a peripheral nation to Europe we would be left on the periphery, with no links which would enable us to enjoy the benefits of a transcontinental rail network.
1202
Secondly, paragraph 68 of the "Opinion of the Committee" states:
"Another factor working in favour of rail is the urgent need to resolve congestion on the roads".
That is evident not just in the United Kingdom but in some other parts of Europe. It is against that background, that the Commission put forward its proposals. I believe that in general the proposals will strike a sympathetic chord with all transport users because of the enormous costs, if nothing else, of road congestion.
In paragraph 23 the committee condenses the evidence of the comparison of investment between road and rail. It states:
"but the Department of Transport nevertheless refused to assess road and rail investment on a comparable basis".
Unless such a comparison is made there will be little hope of introducing tax systems to encourage a shift or the right kind of investment. The taxpayer pays for the roads but I do not believe it is yet a fact that road pays its track costs, and it cannot possibly be seen to cover those costs if one takes the social and environmental cost benefits into account. On the railway side, however, such a cost-benefit analysis is made only at the earlier stages but is then abandoned for monetary considerations. That cannot be the right way to proceed, and nor will it encourage the railway—whoever runs it—to provide the necessary infrastructure.
In relation to "Freedom to Provide Services" the Commission proposes:
"Any railway undertaking … shall be granted access on equitable conditions to national railway infrastructure in the country of its establishment".
There is nothing wrong with that. We heard ample evidence that there are companies and consortia which would like to provide general services and some specific and special services. However, they are denied that right. I shall return to that point when I deal with British Rail's evidence. Again, that cannot be a good thing.
Mr. Rees, head of Inland Transport (DGVII) of the European Commission, when talking about the separation of infrastructure said that such a move would allow railways to exploit their "very considerable technical ability" to compete with other modes of transport. The view of Mr. Hope of Railway Gazette International, whose evidence impressed the committee, was,
"There is a yawning gulf between what the railways are theoretically capable of—based on energy inputs for example—and what they actually deliver in a highly competitive market".
Those are powerful words. However, Mr. Welsby of British Rail, although supporting the Commission's intentions, saw the proposals for separating infrastructure and operations as "at best imperfect". He said:
"The track authority would not only have to control and own the rails and the signalling"—
the committee did not disagree with that—
"but would also have to be responsible for operational control—the speed, frequency, passing and timetabling of trains"—

1203
again, the committee did not disagree with that point of view—
"reliability of operations, 'reconciling the different aspirations of different operators' and technical standards. A monopoly of control of operations of the system was needed 'for safety and general operational reasons'".
That is nonsense. Those of your Lordships who care to look at British Rail's evidence may be interested to see that, although there was a powerful team assembled to give evidence, but one man (Mr. Welsby) gave the evidence. I found that the evidence was negative. He spent his time defending the position that British Rail currently adopts; that is, sectorisation. In my language, that amounts to the restatement of independent profit sectors.
A number of press releases have been issued reporting a number of appointments of a wide variety of no doubt able men to the managing directorships of a variety of subsidiary companies. I wonder how they, with the profit motive assigned to them, will lead to a divergence of different views and different operating conditions without leaving the whole in something of a mess. In the four-page press release of 29th January 1991 headed,
"BR is stretched but well-placed to meet European challenge —Sir Bob Reid",
I pick out only two pieces. The chairman, Sir Bob Reid, set out his requirements for a European policy. He said that there has to be a,
"transparency in financial structures for all forms of transport, including clear identification of who should pay for uncommercial services".
That is fine. He discusses the proposed separation of the management of infrastructure from railway operation and says:
"That simply will not do. Superficially it is attractive—with different operators providing competing services over the same track. Maybe there was a time when railway technology was simple enough and traffic density low enough for that to work. But the railways today are not like that".
Why not? There is enough technical back-up to provide a complex service. If different people want to operate specialised services, I see no reason why they should be denied the opportunity. The committee's opinion on that matter is clear. It says in paragraph 79:
"But nothing we have heard has convinced us that such a move is so totally impractical to be rejected out of hand".
That is what Mr. Welsby and Sir Bob Reid have virtually done.
I turn now the "Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations" on page 23. Paragraph 100 discusses the Commission's proposals and says that they are welcome, and,
"contain positive suggestions for improving the competitiveness of Europe's railways".
I consider that to be an important conclusion. Paragraph 102 states:
"Railways should become more commercially independent and financially autonomous".
Paragraph 109 states:
"Social and economic cost-benefit analysis should be applied to railway investment decisions".
1204
In conclusion, the recommendation in paragraph 106 states:
"There is evidence of problems facing the Commission's proposals to separate responsibility for infrastructure from operations. These are not so great as to make the proposal totally impractical; and such a separation could also make it easier to achieve the Commission's objectives of a more efficient railway service to the consumer".
It is to the consumer that all the railways should devote their attention. One sometimes has the feeling that the railways in this country are run by the railways, for the railways. As for the passengers and freight, the devil take the hindmost. If the Commission's proposals do nothing more, they draw attention to the need for a radical overhaul of the basic principles underlying the structure of rail transport.
3.40 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, perhaps I may add my words of sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I know the immense amount of work he has put into this excellent report. I wish to add a word of congratulation on the deftness of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in combining two good speeches into one very good one.
I wish to restrict my few comments to the structure. It is perhaps the main subject in the Commission's report and the title of the Select Committee's report. First, I shall deal with the justification, which is largely competition. Competition is good for the consumer, but I am sceptical about the realities of competition for railways. The history is a sad one. In the United States years ago there was real competition of structure and operation. Trains were leaving New York and arriving at Chicago at the same time, running on essentially parallel lines.
That is history. It has all gone. Today there is a limited number of large railway groups and competition is very limited indeed. This has been accepted by the United States Government, who, as we all know, are keen on competition. I do not believe that railways are a good business. Again, the history is of horrendous losses; the balance sheets of the remaining profitable companies, mostly in the United States, are a mere sliver of the money which has been put into them. That is despite the great land areas which were made over to companies like Union Pacific at the original foundation of the company.
I do not believe that anyone would suggest that there should be duplication of infrastructure; I question whether there should be significant duplication of operating assets. Arrangements should be made with different railways by businesses in this country for the best possible use of existing equipment. I do not question that. However, duplication is what real competition would be and I doubt whether it would be best. The Channel Tunnel is not a good example. It is a special case. Its infrastructure is owned by the company. The three railways concerned are, by agreement, proposing a regulated service over the Channel Tunnel line. Moreover, the Channel Tunnel will be a monopoly for 50 years. That is basic to its financing.
Likewise, the Heathrow Expressway—and I had something to do with that in the Select Committee

1205
—is a special case. It is a short railway, partly leased from British Rail and I hope it will be partly built by the company. However, it is a year since the special committee reported; the legislation is still in the Commons and there was a fairly tight financial deal at the outset. Costs have been increasing and revenues tending to go down. That is merely an aside. I am sceptical about competition.
On the other hand, the advantages of running the business as a whole are obvious. In any important railway there is capital expenditure and necessarily a direct relation between the fixed assets and the operating assets. If a line is electrified, money must be spent on electrification and engines. It is better, I should have thought, for the always difficult decisions to be taken by one group of people rather than two. There may be differences on the basic assumptions involved. Thus I should have thought it best for the foreseeable future to leave the structures as they are throughout Europe and not try to tear them apart.
I am in total agreement when the committee says that a railway cannot be expected to earn a fair return on all its assets. There are duties of a social nature which must be performed. These would best be created by contracts which can be incorporated in the budget of a railway company and used as the appropriate discipline for management in the way in which any good business is run.
To carry matters to the finesse suggested by the Commission in the term "cost-benefit" I find much more difficult to understand. I give an example from British Waterways, since I was a member of its board some years ago. The operation is simpler and clarifies the point in my mind. When I was with the organisation, only one waterway could in any way be deemed to be commercial and that was the Aire and Calder Canal on which there were coal mines and power stations. The coal was transported from one to the other by canal. All the other waterways lost money; some lost more than the gross revenue. It is difficult for a businessman to deal with that equation.
The cost was evident; the benefit was much more difficult to decide. Canals are a part of the environment. What are they worth? To the enthusiast they are worth unlimited sums; to those less interested, much less. What happened was that in an annual discussion with the Treasury an amount was agreed which seemed reasonable in the context of national finance. No doubt year by year it was adjusted upwards in line with inflation. That achieved the objective, but it must have involved a minute cost-benefit calculation.
I do not believe that a complete restructuring is wise. Vertical integration should remain. No doubt there would be vertical divisions of the railway. There does not need to be an exact structure now and we do not need two separate organisations. The social costs should be evaluated as best they can and contracted for, giving a financial discipline. All encouragement should be given to private businesses to deal directly with the various railways on the Continent in order to obtain the best possible terms.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I wish to echo the noble Viscount's compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in managing to combine the two speeches in one. It also reflects the immense hard work and dedication of the committee in preparing and producing the report.
First I must declare an interest, which, I regret, keeps me away from the Chamber too often. My private companies are involved with the realities of third rail electrification and high-speed current collection equipment for heavy and light railways in this country, on the Continent and elsewhere in the world.
In declaring my interest I should like to feel that I speak on behalf of many other private and public companies in the railway supply industry which have a special interest in discovering whether there has been any change in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards implementing a rail transport policy more related to the 21st than the 19th century.
Sadly the report that is before us this afternoon seems to indicate that nothing has changed. All previous reports produced by noble Lords and honourable Members in another place came to the same conclusion. All the reports produced so far have implied the same thing in one form or another; that is, that our rail system, both track and rolling stock, is outdated, undercapitalised and uncompetitive with roads. The third report of the European Communities Select Committee is no different. It comes to precisely the same conclusion as other reports that have preceded it.
I and other noble Lords will recall the twenty-first report of the European Communities Select Committee of 1988–89 entitled Transport Infrastructure; first report of the Science and Technology Select Committee of 1986–87 entitled Innovation in Surface Transport; the second report of the Science and Technology Select Committee entitled Innovation in Surface Transport—I seem to recall preparing papers for these reports, as other noble Lords have done—the first report of the European Communities Select Committee of 1981–82 on combined transport and the good old Serpell Report which sank without trace ever since we debated it in this House. That was a dreadful report and I recall saying that it was destined to gather dust on a shelf somewhere in the building. It has remained unread and unloved. I have the titles of a few more reports produced in another place. I have several pages of notes devoted to them, but I shall not tire noble Lords by reading them out.
However, rather than refer to past reports and past words which say the same old thing, I have given notice to the Minister of four questions that I wish to raise in the debate. I look forward very much to hearing his reply. The first concerns the transparency of accounts procedures. That is a rather boring subject but it was raised by the CBI and other bodies in the evidence given for the report. It is, however, a relevant matter. Will the Minister kindly confirm whether it is BR's current accounting policy to depreciate

1207
locomotives and rolling stock over 30 years? It is my understanding that 30 years is about the maximum period.
Any vehicle has a depreciation period in a set of accounts. When it has reached that time limit, it is accorded a nil value in the accounts. Any vehicle, whether it is a road vehicle, a rail vehicle, a bus or an aeroplane, that is run past its design life and past its depreciation period can be kept running but at vast and inefficient cost to the operators and the users of the vehicles. That leads me to my second question.
Is the noble Lord in a position to inform the House what percentage of British Rail's fleet of locomotives, passenger coaches and freight cars has exceeded its depreciation period or is more than 30 years old? I do not understand why I cannot find any reference to this matter anywhere. I am sure the Minister will have no trouble in replying to me. What is the replacement policy of British Rail? How is it funded? Is it adequately funded or is British Rail still relying on ridership—that is, making the ticket payers pay a high cost for riding on the railway—to finance replacements? That is mixing income with capital. Only incompetent businessmen ever indulge in those two fatal mistakes. If they continue in such a fashion, they do not last very long as businessmen. What is the policy regarding replacement? If there is a replacement programme, will the replacement vehicles be allowed on European railways? Will they be able to cope with that, and will they be licensed to travel at high speeds of over 300 kilometres an hour? It would be helpful if the Minister could offer us some guidance on that point.
I now turn to a minor but detailed point that came to my attention while I was carrying out research for this debate. I have also given the Minister notice of this question. Will he inform the House what the current state of play is as regards Ashford International Passenger Station which is situated at the mouth of the Channel Tunnel? Has the situation changed in any way from that depicted in a letter dated 18th October 1990 from the Member of Parliament for Thanet, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, to the Secretary of State for Transport? Mr. Aitken stated:
"there was no chance of the station being built by June 1993".
That is the opening date of the tunnel. I hope the Minister can say something about that matter. When in the course of my work I travel to the Continent, people tell me they cannot believe that it is impossible for us as a nation to build a railway station when we have constructed a Channel Tunnel which comprises one of the largest and most complex civil engineering projects that has ever been undertaken this century or at any other time. Despite that enterprise, we seem unable to build a railway station to deal with passengers leaving the Channel Tunnel. The problem seems to be planning procedures. I suspect that those procedures have been wrongly used to try to delay the building of the station for some political reasons which another noble Lord referred to. That situation is pathetic and reveals gross incompetence of a national kind.
1208
Why are the Government not doing anything about that matter? Why is it that we cannot build a railway station when we can build a high-speed tunnel underneath the Channel? The tunnel is highly complex and people have risked their lives in building it. The construction programme is reasonably on time. That matter must affect the attitude of the Commission. The report refers to a handout that it is hoped the Commission will provide. It is hoped that the Commission will give us some money to build a high-speed link or a Berne gauge line. We do not have the latter and I gather that we shall not have one. Why should the Commission give this country money if we cannot even build a railway station? We have made no attempt to build a high-speed link to the Channel Tunnel. We have made no attempt at least to widen our bridges. I agree that that is an expensive procedure, but there are other lines that could be used. There is, for example, the central line that runs up the spine of this country and is virtually unused. That line would be perfectly suited to a broad gauge track. Why therefore should the Commission give us a penny? We have done absolutely nothing to meet the challenge of the European rail system. I have insisted on the example of Ashford station because that seems to me to epitomise this lack of effort. I hope the Minister can give me a satisfactory reply.
Will the Minister also confirm that a director of British Rail said at a function of the Royal Society—a science and technology talk—that both InterCity passenger and freight trains on the United Kingdom side of the tunnel would be unable to exceed an average speed of 100 kilometres per hour, or 60 miles per hour, by the year 2000? Many noble Lords will be aware that in France and in other parts of the Continent inter city trains travel at 300 kilometres an hour now. My firm can provide equipment for those trains, as can other UK firms. We may ask what is so important about speed. Some may ask why we should frighten horses or disturb the squires' pheasants in Kent as trains pass by. But many business people are fully aware of the many advantages to be gained from higher speed trains. Those advantages are to be gained mainly on the freight rather than on the passenger side of the business.
However, there is another factor which concerns equipment makers. I refer to the equipment that was mentioned in the report, of wagons with small bogies. In my view it is unlikely that these wagons can be used on the Continent. One obvious reason for that—I am surprised this was not referred to in the report—is that there is nowhere in this country where freight wagons or passenger coaches can be tested at speeds of 150 kilometres an hour or more. Therefore it is unlikely that our continental friends will use equipment that has not had high-speed use while in service. There is not even a test track for that equipment. I am proud of the fact that I am developing, together with British Rail, high-speed equipment. However, we have nowhere to test such equipment. There is no high-speed track and there is no intention of building one. Yet we have to compete with foreign equipment suppliers. The Minister responsible for transport

1209
stated on 19th February 1991 in a speech delivered to a seminar of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on the railway industry in the international market:
"Our railway industry should therefore be well placed to take advantage of an upturn in the rail sector. One needs only look to our near neighbours in Europe to see that the competition will be fierce; but that can only be healthy for the industry as a whole in the longer term".
There is competition in providing equipment for high speed trains. Equipment companies have to face the problem of deciding whether to move onto the Continent to continue their business or to change their business.
I note that the noble Lord is going to China to sell railway equipment. What will he say if, as I hope they will, his Chinese hosts show interest in buying high-speed railway equipment but say, "Where have you tested it? How long has it been in service?"? We do not have any high-speed rail equipment in service in this country because we do not have a high-speed rail track. Nevertheless, I wish the noble Lord well. All of us in the industry look forward to learning of his success on his return. The quality of engineering in this country is capable of matching any requirement in the railway industry anywhere in the world. That has been proved everywhere except in our own country.
Have any members of the committee and has the noble Lord ever travelled on a high-speed train? If not, why have they not done so? I hope that a member of the committee will stand up and say that he or she has have travelled on a high-speed train. I am sure that noble Lords have done so because otherwise how can they talk about a high-speed route when they do not understand it and have never experienced it?
The questions which the Commissioners in Europe are asking us and the industry to look at are relevant. How can we collect electrical current efficiently at speeds over 300 kilometres an hour? How can the driver cope with speeds of 400 kilometres an hour? We are not dealing with theories. We are dealing with the realities of a rail system that will be operating on the other side of the Channel by the year 2000 while our Inter City trains will still be stumbling along at an average of 60 miles an hour.
Someone has to ask what is the point. There must be some logic to it and no doubt we shall hear about that from the noble Lord. Companies are having to deal with the realities of high-speed transport—the transport of the future, which does not pollute and which is needed more than any other throughout Europe. That is recognised throughout Europe, as the committee and its report have shown.
In view of the complete lack of experience in this country of either building or running a high-speed rail route, will Her Majesty's Government now consider employing SNCF, the French railway company, as consultants for the job if and when it is undertaken? I ask that question because I have a suspicion that British Rail or whoever will be responsible for the task, whenever that may be, runs an acute risk of making the same initial costly mistakes as were made originally on the Continent. We should bear in mind that the French railway system was in far worse shape than our rail system is today when the French set
1210
about the task. We have no relevant experience. We are out of touch. That comes out in this report and in countless other reports. For goodness sake—as we have with the tunnel—let us employ as consultants people who are managing a railway and get going.
The railway supply industry long recognised and frequently complained of the fact that the right honourable lady the former Prime Minister did not use the railways. Nor did she support their modernisation, but gave preference instead to the motorways in this country. For the railway supply industry today the right honourable lady Mrs. Thatcher is history. Can the noble Lord the Minister of State for Transport now say whether or not the right honourable gentleman Mr. John Major is pursuing the same negative transport policy of the past 10 years?
If the noble Lord cannot announce a new Berne gauge route as part of government policy in order to allow high-speed passenger and freight traffic to link up with the Continent of Europe from all parts of the country and not just one part, not only I but the railway supply industry must assume with much regret that there has been no change in the stagnant rail transport policy pursued by this Government for the past 10 years.
The same must also apply if the noble Lord states either directly or indirectly that the £3 billion required to be spent annually over the next 10 years to update the rail industry will not be forthcoming. If he says instead that as a result of the report and this debate yet another study of some sort is to be undertaken before such spending can begin, in my book that is confirmation that there has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's rail transport policy and the report is destined to be put away to gather dust with the rest of the reports on this unfortunate subject.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is very difficult to follow the amusing and authoritative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. It is a pity that your Lordships do not hear him more often. I shall speak on a different aspect of the subject.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing the debate. I agree with other noble Lords that it is sad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is not present today. I should like to thank the noble Lord and his committee for a report which is extremely comprehensive and readable, as far as it goes. However, there are many innuendos and questions still to be thoroughly investigated.
The premise for the restructure of the Community railways is the Swedish experience, which indeed appears to have been a happy one so far. In my opinion that proven experience is the reason why the United Kingdom and the committee need to look further.
As my noble friend Lord Hood said, railways in Great Britain have never been wholly reliable. Much as one dislikes denigrating one's own country, our performance has been bad compared with that of our European neighbours, although from time to time

1211
they too have had their problems. Only last summer in the very hot weather I travelled on the Dutch railways. As in this country, rails buckled and chaos ensued. The provision of information was abysmal. However, I must stress that each country's problems are unique and one cannot treat like with like but must base one's theories on certain common factors.
If one believes the comments of newspapers and Punch cartoons, railways were far from efficient in the 19th century when they enjoyed almost a monopoly of traffic. That experience led to the disappearance just after the 1914–18 war of smaller railways and the formation of larger railways in 1922. Some may say that they enjoyed a heyday for a period but even those companies suffered before they were nationalised in 1948.
The only chink of light is that the Commission's proposals would provide a new experience. Previously a railway has always operated on its own track. That point has to be thoroughly looked into. If there were competition there could be possibilities, as in the Swedish experience.
I shall touch briefly on certain points that do not appear in the report. I must congratulate British Rail on its excellent forward-looking, imaginative and aggressive marketing policy, and especially on introducing schemes to encourage people to travel by rail off-peak and at weekends. However, one wonders how that established success would work in the face of competition. My noble friend the Minister may be able to enlighten us on that point.
The Transport Act 1985 deregulated buses. I now concede that that has enjoyed limited success. Costs have been reduced but outside London there has been a drop in the number of passengers carried. However, the provision of information and co-ordination of services has been very poor. British Rail has had to stop providing information on connecting bus services at rail-heads because of the unreliability of the bus timetables. Any new legislation would have to ensure that proper information was provided. That would have to be done through primary legislation or codes of practice. Penalties would have to be paid by operator; for not running services unless there were exceptional reasons for their not doing so.
In this country there is heavy congestion of rail services. I shall not talk about the grand trains to which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred—although I agree with much of what he said—but the ones that most of us have to travel on daily. I live in the south of London where there is great congestion. British Rail's performance in the recent bad weather —which has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford—was appalling. It is all too easy to blame the lack of investment and capital resources. Whatever the reason, the matter must quickly be put right. The worst factor was the lack of information.
There is now an intercom at all stations which is centrally controlled. Messages are not always clear but the machinery exists. That aspect can be improved. Passengers waiting at unmanned stations late in the evening can and must be informed of late-running and
1212
cancelled trains. One wants to know that arrangements are being made to overcome the inconvenience in the event of cancellations. Surely, if people know why they are being delayed they will mind less, but to be stuck at a station not knowing what is happening is dreadful. I know it is very difficult for British Rail to divulge information in the case of security alerts, which sadly have happened recently, but where it would be safe to do so it would be helpful to state the exact position of trains on the track.
The last point I make is to ask for guidance. What would happen to subsidies given to urban services in passenger traffic authority areas? After the deregulation of buses, there were misgivings which, happily, have proved unfounded. One would hope that that situation will continue.
Finally, this is an excellent, well thought-out and worthwhile report which deserves maximum consideration but should be left just on amber light.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have great pleasure in following my noble friend Lord Teviot. He introduced a note which deviated slightly from the main thrust of the report.
All owe a huge debt to the committee for its work and to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who sadly is not in his place today. Those speaking this evening should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for the excellent way in which he combined both his own views on everything received in evidence and performed admirably what I call the captain's job.
For my own part, I was interested in this very readable report. I must say I long to hear a lot more of the committee's visit to Sweden; but perhaps not today. It may be various items have been laundered out of the report. Nevertheless, it was interesting as far as it went.
As your Lordships will see, the Commission's report covers four main points: high speed trains; combined transport; the public service obligation; and railway structuring. I start with the new structure for the Community railways. It makes good sense to examine both financial and management autonomy; but I am somewhat curious about British Rail's input into this particular affair and also their requirement to earn an 8 per cent. return on investment, although I think that figure is shared by at least one other member state's railway.
There is quite a lot in the report which deals with the new Swedish system, which is a particularly good example. However, reading the account of the committee's visit to Sweden together with the evidence submitted to it, it seemed to me that we and the report might not be comparing like with like. Sweden is very similar geographically to Scotland rather than Great Britain as a whole. It is a fairly large country with a not very large population.
British Rail are to be congratulated for looking at the prospect of private undertakings running various parts of their business and even competing with them in particular areas. One example quoted in the report is Foster Yeoman, which I understand is a very large

1213
building firm with quarries in the Mendips and has gone as far as to provide its own locomotives. They use existing British Rail track, signalling, facilities and crew. Quite how passenger services would work on the basis of sharing of facilities requires a little further thought.
In that connection, I hope there will be no similarity with Heathrow air services and the sharing of landing slots and take-off facilities. If your Lordships go to Heathrow on Friday night and wish to fly to Edinburgh they will find it quite interesting. The dramas at Heathrow can compare with what has sadly been taking place at London termini in the past month or so. That point is briefly covered in the report; but nevertheless they go a little way into that aspect.
Freight competition is already present and working on British Rail's track; and examples of that abound in the report as well as the evidence. If we look at paragraph 29 of the evidence given to the committee, we find that Mr. Richard Hope (of whom I have heard before, and whose work I have read) lays stress on what he regards as,
"the separation of infrastructure from operations",
and how it can,
"unlock the potential of Europe's railways to relieve the pressure for more trunk roads to carry long-distance lorries".
That was one of the key elements of the report which struck me.
The Swedish concept is promising. However, apart from the problems already mentioned, we ought to consider some aspects of the system in the United States which are in the report. Does that have something to offer, in that the Amtrack structure enables various operators to rent the track and infrastructure? It is very nostalgic to read in some of the evidence of the good old Denver and Rio Grande Western, the Burlington Northern and the Southern Pacific lines. Sadly, there is no reference to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe line. Nevertheless, all of these individual operators and undertakings have something to offer to British Rail and European railways in terms of how they combine to use infrastructure in an efficient and competitive way.
However, neither the Swedish nor the United States examples given in the report have to overcome the difficulty which we have in Europe of frontiers and occasionally customs examination, let alone the state monopoly of railway undertakings and the problem of member states and railway undertakings having to come to a decision upon charges for using the infrastructure which lies within their jurisdiction.
Your Lordships will see from paragraphs 47 to 50 of the report an excellent reference to the high-speed rail network, together with a startling comment from the Commission which seeks progress on a network from Edinburgh to Palermo. That might concern me and perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. He and I both share that part of the high-speed network of British Rail, though whether we go to Palermo I do not know. The committee also seek progress on the provision of a network stretching from
1214
Lisbon to Berlin and to Athens. That might be a little more interesting, though what the rate of progress would be, I do not know. As a concept it is admirable. Once again Mr. Richard Hope provides us with a beautifully worded caution (in paragraph 49 of the report), together with the different priorities perceived by the Suppliers of the network—that is, the financial, environmental and managerial considerations of each member state of the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, will not be surprised to know that I am not a member of the committee. I am afraid that I have not yet travelled by TGV in France at 300 kilometres per hour. Whether one is able to eat, sleep, drink or do anything else at that speed I am not sure, let alone at 225 kilometres per hour which is the speed British Rail are hoping to provide between London and Leeds. However, it is clear that a high-speed European passenger network will require considerable investment in new infrastructure, signalling and the like. Of necessity, all of that will have to be done on a European basis, or at least on a European-compatible basis.
The existing infrastructure in the United Kingdom can provide some excellent service and provides competition with the airlines. I shall cite just the Edinburgh to London journey by high speed train. There is a train every hour from 7 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening. There are three or four supplementary trains on the half hour. That compares favourably with the service from London to Glasgow which is thought to be the core route and, according to the report, provides valuable competition to the airlines.
However, I stress to noble Lords—and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who may not entirely agree with me —that the service between Edinburgh and London is based on track which over the years has been consistently improved but which was designed and built for the Great Northern Railway, the North Eastern Railway and the North British Railway in the 19th century. Apart from a minor by-pass of the Selby coalfield, that track goes right back to the 19th century. Yet trains are being run, and I understand that on the summer service they will be running from Edinburgh to London in four hours. That is not quite an average of 100 miles per hour, but is on an existing 19th century base with a track which will be updated.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. However, the point is that British Rail hopes to get the sleeper train. One of the problems is that it will need the large Motorail sleepers, which are big coaches, if it is to go into Europe and span out across the whole of the European continent. If the trains are not able to go through our tunnels, one will not be able to catch a Motorail in Edinburgh or Glasgow to be able to go to Palermo.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord in that train of thought. I was thinking mainly of the high speed passenger networks. If he wishes to discuss the tunnels, I can have a talk with him over the tea cups.
Noble Lords may have heard my views before on the comparison between British Railways' InterCity

1215
system and comparable systems in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned France. When he looks at the existing intercity system in Germany and at Switzerland, I think that he will find that there is only one winner; namely, British Rail. I hold that view and I slick to it today.
The main thrust of the report and what everybody is discussing this afternoon is the reference to combined transport. That returns us once again to the environmental advantages. My noble friend Lord Lucas referred to paragraph 67 of the evidence about the growing importance of environmental advantage, together with some financial advantage, in moving freight by rail wherever possible. But the concept of combined transport, as we see it set out, is defined as moving freight and goods and changing what they call the "mode" of transport at least once. There is a great deal of evidence about movement of freight and goods by rail in Europe. But there is a necessity for dedicated rail sidings and even spur lines to particular factories, firms and commercial centres. Certainly France and Germany have them.
Before we start to discuss improving the freight network, the United Kingdom has one problem in that our network has been reduced enormously. I understand that there are something like 15,000 separate rail freight sidings in each of France and Germany, whereas there are approximately 1,500 in the United Kingdom. Even if freight trains were to be encouraged back to British Rail, there would still be a major problem. There are some enormously efficient container depots on British Rail. Nevertheless, there remains the main problem of frontiers between member states and transnational freight. That point was discussed by the committee.
However, the main core of the problem which has to be overcome for combined transport relates to the United Kingdom loading gauge. I found fascination with the Berne plus gauge together with something called W6. Reference to those can be found on pages 49 and 50 of the evidence. According to the evidence given by Mr. Rees, the gauge was larger than the Berne system yet, according to him, the W6 loading gauge was compatible with British Rail. He said that freight traffic runs on the existing network to that particular gauge.
What would appear to be the solution to this problem of trying to attract more freight on a European gauge back to British Rail? The first solution would be to build new track. It is pointed out (at page 81 there is some evidence produced by British Rail) that it would cost approximately £1.3 billion for a limited line built on the Berne dimension from—of all places—Lutterworth to the Channel Tunnel. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made reference to that and to the Great Central Railway.
I looked at the map this morning (I do not look at too many maps) and I saw on the Ordnance Survey map what is called a site of a disused railway. It seems that Lutterworth is on the M.1 motorway which, so far as I understand it, uses the existing track line of the old Great Central Railway all the way to Leicester. So either one digs up half the M.1 and puts back the railway, or one has to construct new tracks. But even
1216
if such a large amount of money were to be spent, would it be the ideal solution? Would the Commission be able to give any financial assistance in a feasibility study, let alone in building the track itself?
There is a second alternative to try to overcome the problem of the differing loading gauges. In paragraph 61 reference is made to four wonderful systems. I was interested to note one, called the Powell Duffryn system, with very small wheels. According to some of the evidence, these particular trucks should be limited to speeds of 100 kilometres to 110 kilometres per hour. But at the moment in France freight is moved at 160 kilometres per hour, which is approximately 100 miles per hour. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, seems to think that within our life span freight will move at 300 kilometres per hour, which would he quite interesting. Paragraphs 61 and 62 of the report point out that there is some possibility of adapting freight transport and combined transport systems so that freight can move from large centres in the United Kingdom to France.
Perhaps I could just take one example of a nation that is mentioned fleetingly in the evidence but which is not part of the Community. Nonetheless, it impinges very greatly on Community travel. I mean Switzerland. There is a new plan in Switzerland—it is spelt NEAT, and goes by the name of Neue Alpine Auto Transport. The Swiss Government have committed 10 billion Swiss francs, which on today's rate of exchange is something in the region of £4 billion, to that particular new form of combined transport, moving freight under the Alps. A completely new rail tunnel of 42 kilometres under the St. Gotthard Pass is planned. It is also planned to improve the Lötschberg Tunnel so that it will be able to take piggy-back transport—that is to say, lorries on load-overs, for 24 kilometres. That is all for an outlay of £4 billion. The Swiss believe that that is a main priority, but they have the Alps and the Jura, which we do not.
I find the report of the committee immensely interesting. It is readable and, above all, thorough. The witnesses provided evidence which was clear and helpful to me and, it seems, to the committee. I conclude by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Ezra, and the committee, for all work that they have done. I support particularly the thrust of their recommendations in paragraphs 90, 91 and 112 on combined transport.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the committee for a most excellent report. It is very interesting to someone like myself who is a complete layman in the matter.
One phrase in the report mentioned today by a number of speakers is that we are on the periphery of Europe. That is an obvious truism. We are an island; we have been on the periphery for many thousands of years. However, in the past our position as an island had not hindered us so far as concerns trade and the movement of passengers and people. In the old days there were ships and sail; then came steam. There are

1217
a number of excellent ports around the coast of this country from which it has been possible to forward our trade as a great maritime nation through a number of centuries. Then came air transport. The chief air route in the world is the transatlantic bridge between the United States and Europe. We have happily been the European end of that bridge. And from Heathrow, the busiest international airport in the world, the services have radiated to other European countries.
To some extent this has bred a false sense of security in our approach to our European competitors and friends, because rail is going to be and indeed is quite different. We are, and have been, on the periphery of Europe in regard to rail for at least 100 years. The rail system of Europe has functioned perfectly well without us and if it continued to go only as far as Calais, that would be perfectly satisfactory to the continentals. It follows that we have to attract continental freight and passengers to this country. We have to attract them positively rather than adopt the relaxed and rather laissez-faire attitude which we have had as a nation for 20 or 30 years.
I was a member of a committee considering a private Bill in your Lordships' House and examining the connection which British Rail was seeking to build between the Channel Tunnel and London. In the middle of the committee's hearings the fast link was postponed for a while. So what was initially thought to be a temporary link now assumes elements of permanency. British Rail is making outstanding efforts to cobble together some form of makeshift line system which will enable trains to travel from the Channel Tunnel to London at a reasonable speed, but it will not be something of which we as a nation can be in the least proud. Passengers and freight, after reaching Calais from other parts of France or from Belgium on the superb trains about which we have heard, will then be transferred to our rail system with its thick commuter traffic in Kent, and will have to proceed at the fastest rate which can be managed on that line given the rollingstock available and the volume of traffic. This is a far from satisfactory state of affairs.
One feature which it seems to me is most necessary to make our rail system attractive has been mentioned by a number of speakers. It is the loading gauge. Continental trucks and wagons apparently cannot pass through our stations and under our bridges in their present form. The committee very properly looked at this critical area and concluded that the modification route was fairly unattractive both to ourselves and, more importantly, to our associates on the Continent, who would be most unlikely to welcome, or perhaps even to permit, the sort of modified trucks that are envisaged with, as I understand it, small wheels.
This seems to a layman a quite unacceptable permanent solution although it might have to be adopted as a temporary measure for a number of years. It seems quite clear that we shall have to modify our stations, bridges and lines to take continental
1218
traffic no matter what it costs. Any such statement normally results in a throwing up of hands in horror and an almost unlimited bill. No doubt it will be very expensive, but you can to some extent stagger your payments. It is not essential for all the lines in Britain to be adapted to the Berne gauge overnight. It is clearly essential that the lines from the Channel to London should be so adapted and it is highly desirable that there should be a line from London running up through the Midland cities within reach of the northern cities to Scotland. However, that can be programmed to some extent in accordance with the money available. It is important to have a firm declaration of intention and a programme that will be stuck to. I do not believe that this is an option we can take or leave. If we want to be integrated into the continental network for passengers and freight we have to act.
The only other point in the report I wish to comment on is combined transport. When we consider railways, not only the inter-continental ones but those in our own country, for carrying passengers or freight, they suffer obviously from one grave disadvantage. Passengers or freight have to go from the start point to a terminal; from a terminal on to the railway to another terminal; and from that last terminal to the final point of destination. There are exceptions as regards bulk freight and so on but, generally speaking, that is true. This seems to me to be a fundamental and profound disadvantage from which all railways suffer. My noble friend Lord Hood mentioned the lack of financial success of railways throughout the world and I suspect that that is the main reason why, on the whole, railways are unprofitable.
The only way to assist, it seems to me, is by engineering ingenuity. Somehow it has to be possible to move loads and passengers from their original point of departure on to the railways very quickly, very readily and very cheaply. I would think that this is primarily an engineering problem, although the report suggests that some taxation measures might assist. It seems to me that until the problem is overcome the railways will be at a permanent disadvantage. Owners of freight wanting to move that freight from A to B will always prefer a lorry, just as all passengers will always prefer a car, if they have one, rather than making a three-tier journey. That is less true over long distances; but over any reasonable distance the railways will always be at a disadvantage until combined transport movement can be made much more effective and efficient than it is at the moment.
We all wish the railways well, and for the reasons that have been mentioned in the debate. They have a great advantage environmentally and also in relation to the extent to which they ameliorate the gross overcrowding on our roads and on our airways. We wish them well, as I say, and in that light I can only congratulate the Commission and the committee for focusing the spotlight upon different problems.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I too am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has been unable to open this debate today. I agree with the comment of my

1219
noble friend Lord Lucas that he provided enormous enthusiasm for this inquiry. I should also like to mention Simon Burton, our clerk, because this is the last report he did for Sub-Committee B and we have had very good support from him over the years. I wish him well in his elevation to new pastures in this House.
We were confident of being able to rely on the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to give a very sound background. He and other speakers have detailed the Commission's proposals and the opinions of our committee compiled from written and oral evidence between July and November last year. It seems much longer than two and a half months since the report and its recommendations thumped down on our desks around Christmas last year. But time is remorseless. I am told, and shall be grateful for correction or verification from the Minister, that the draft proposal is likely to be accepted by the Council of Ministers by a qualified majority no later than June of this year.
It is to be hoped that British Rail is ready for the implications of such a decision. I am told that acceptance is assured. I am sure that British Rail is not ready for anything so radical. I resist the temptation to make any reference to the recent less than mild winter conditions if only because I, luckily—unlike my noble friend Lord Nugent—had no personal experience of train travel over that time.
I find it helpful to remind myself of the reasons why such a relatively small proportion of our freight is carried by rail and whether this Council resolution is likely to change the situation. The first must be the sheer convenience of road transport. For passengers as well as freight, the temptation simply to climb into a car or to load up a van or lorry is so strong that the lure of public transport or freight rail must outweigh that convenience by a number of factors.
The first of those is price. It must be made either too expensive to travel by road or much cheaper to go by rail. Realistically, I predict a combination of the two. The privilege of using a car will have to be properly priced, just as is the convenience of sending goods by road. At the same time, public transport has to become more competitive, comfortable, convenient and reliable. Above all it has to become fashionable, for short journeys or for long, to prevent what I do not believe any of us wish to see—the virtual pricing out of private motoring.
The same revolution must be made in the carriage of freight. The cost and convenience of rail freight, or at least combined transport, must be made—by a combination of quite radical changes in attitudes and working practices with advances in technology and management skills—irresistible or at least very tempting to would-be road hauliers. Again, it must not be by pricing alone that our roads are relieved of speeding juggernauts, although we must all accept that there will be some element of that.
I referred to technology. Such are its characteristics that we are seldom able to predict how technology will assuredly help to ease even our transport problems. Improvements in communications are already revolutionising the ease with which rail networks can
1220
be managed—for instance, by reducing the safe distance between trains, thus greatly increasing the capacity of track. Computers can handle in seconds the vast amount of information that is necessary to manage rail movement.
Trains are being developed which can operate at far higher speeds and with far greater reliability and no longer, I am assured, will British Rail buy second best goods. I understand that it is now choosing new rolling stock for the comfort of its ride as well as other considerations. I wonder what other criteria it used to use. I am sure that regular commuters could tell me.
New materials are being developed which give greater strength and have better insulation properties for less cost. That is the same as saying that they give more safety, comfort, economy and reliability. New technology is also being developed to enable goods to be transferred more easily from a road trailer to a rail wagon and to keep the goods refrigerated over thousands of miles. Perhaps our great markets at Nine Elms and the new Spitalfields at Stratford will be supplied overnight by rail with fresh vegetables from Spain or Italy.
However, for that to happen, more needs to change than the gauge of the lines, as we have heard from other speakers. There has to be a change of attitudes among those who run our railways, or a change of team. There has to be a new incentive, an instilling of commercial acumen and recognition of necessity, a desire to compete and the management skill to offer a service that will attract custom from other forms of transport.
French Rail has done so, at least with passenger trains. I am sorry that we did not ask the SNCF for evidence. I believe that we should have learnt a great deal. I am told that even though French Rail is still state owned, it has developed routes for its TGV which have created their own custom in competition with road and air travel. The TGVs run fully booked, give a positive return on investment, and have rejuvenated the economic activity of the cities to which they run from Paris. Good communications always promote trade. It constantly amazes me that that simple lesson still has to sink in with those who have the task of managing our communications infrastructure.
On the freight side, we understand that France has over 10,000 industrial freight sidings for the embarkation of goods. What was formerly West Germany has 15,000, and goodness knows how many more the East European countries have. Great Britain has 1,500. Perhaps I may quote Mr. Hope, editor of Railway Gazette International for the third or fourth time in the debate. He points out that:
"It is necessary to establish companies who are able to use the railway tracks in the same way as the road haulier uses the road".
Only then will our European friends, let alone this country, make full use of the massive rail infrastructure that has existed for the most part for well over 100 years. Other forms of transport, by road, air or ship, have competed successfully with rail for well over 50 years. However, we now recognise

1221
environmental problems. Roads and airways are becoming saturated. We are soon to become joined to the mainland of Europe with a rail link through the Channel Tunnel. Those are the opportunities that the European Commission has recognised. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will also recognise them.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for so ably acting at short notice as a locum introducing the debate. I have the utmost sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I am grateful to his committee for its excellent report; and to the EC for its stimulating discussion proposals.
The first matter that attracted my eye—as it did so many other speakers—is the need to enable European railways to compete for freight. The notion that three railway managements have control over the transit of a goods trucks from Paris to Lisbon, each having different degrees of autonomy, with three different sets of government attitudes and three different subsidy regimes, serves only to provide a situation of incredible complexity. If one wants icing on the cake—because there is some technical discussion—there is the break of gauge between France and Spain.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminded us that we need greater management autonomy. Commercial freedom to act is essential. It is also essential that such commercial freedom is ongoing rather than at the whim of changes of government. As the committee and several speakers have stated, we need a clear definition of what must be viable and what must be seen as socially necessary. Having established that definition, how do we pay for what is socially necessary?
Given that definition, we clearly need transparency of accounts. I congratulate those members of the committee who visited Sweden on the production of the breakdown of Swedish Railways' operating income which appears on page 28. Those figures have never before been available in any Swedish rail report. One must also congratulate them on the subsequent figures on how the track authority will be funded and how it will apply its funds.
In another context, the accounts of French Rail are not desperately transparent. I should love to know this: I have been told by French Rail that it receives subsidies for defence, social purposes, compensation for infrastructure charges, pension schemes and to enable it to write off interest. It receives subsidies or contributions also from the local départements in terms of certain services; and it derives benefit from the selective employment tax in Paris, which is one reason why Parisian local transport is often held up to us as such a good example. Transparency of accounts will make the whole understanding of European railways, and thus the way that we develop and progress, much more feasible.
The committee was greatly interested in freedom of access. Here, I feel, British experience is of note in that we already have the formidable work done by Foster Yeoman in providing its own locomotives and rolling
1222
stock, relying on British Rail only for drivers, signalling and track. Amalgamated Roadstone followed exactly the same route. We have the charter trains whereby British Rail is hiring a locomotive and driver to companies such as Ford, to fertiliser manufacturers, oil companies and to the coal industry. In addition, we have a limited degree of charter operation, or access for passenger trains; in particular, the Venice-Simplon Orient Express and those trains run by the Steam Locomotive Operators Association. I believe that we lead Europe in terms of the number of railway goods wagons that are in private ownership.
I turn to the committee's wish, which I share, for greater consideration of the track authority concept—BV—as developed in Sweden. I believe that the concept is right for Sweden for a number of reasons; I fear also that it may be wrong for Britain for different reasons. Perhaps greater consideration is called for rather than an absolute cut off. Sweden has a fairly isolated system with only five land frontiers. I admit that Britain has only one. By European standards five land frontiers, one of which is practically defunct in rail terms, makes Sweden fairly isolated. Those land frontiers that are open are with Norwegian neighbours and operate through-pricing, through-locomotive work, through-rolling stock and crew work, which have been around since I started writing about it in the 1960s. Even the voltage is the same. A lot of pan-Scandinavian benefit has been derived.
The second point in regard to the Swedish set-up is the historic attitude that exists towards administration and subsidy of public transport. Before the track authority was set up an aviation authority controlled licensing, airports, air traffic and slots as well as administering subsidy to almost all domestic aviation. As the report reminds us, the roads authority had a road fund income which more than covered investment and maintenance. However, it did not cover the social and specifically the accident costs incurred, though it found time to cover the ferry administrations. There were a considerable number of subsidised ferries. Practically every bus that ran in Sweden was subsidised. The underground trains were subsidised; the few tramways that existed were subsidised. One could almost say that, with the exception of intercity aviation between the very large cities, if it was in the Swedish national timetable it was subsidised.
The Maritime Authority subsidised coastal shipping apart from the ferries. They were regarded as floating bridges and therefore part of the road network. What was more natural, therefore, than to set up a track authority looking after infrastructure subsidy and, it was hoped, staunching the ever-growing demand for railway subsidies? A big black hole is not a term one reads often in a Select Committee report, but it appears on page 30.
The commercial, or operating railway, was given a remit to run services profitably, either on its own account or at the expense of county transport authorities; or, as happened in one case, at the expense of the Government. If they could not be persuaded to

1223
do that they were under no obligation to run the services. Perhaps that is why one is beginning to see signs of closure in Sweden and, more importantly, signs of long distance bus substitution over routes of 300 to 400 miles.
To facilitate the achievements of the profitability remit the operating company was allowed to retain ancillary businesses such as freight forwarding, ferries and bus companies. The situation in Britain is rather different. Those noble Lords who worked the transport patch will remember that British Rail's remit is its core business—running railways—and that is its only remit.
There are other ways in which the situation in Britain is different. Subsidy is not available to civil aviation or to coastal shipping save in terms of estuarial ferries and the highlands and islands services. Long haul coaches are not subsidised. Nowadays there is only selective subsidy for short haul stage carrier work. On rail we have Intercity, freight and parcels on a no-subsidy remit. The network subsidy is being reduced. Only the provincial network is seen as requiring an ongoing element of support.
Another difference between Britain and Sweden is the sheer complexity of the business. BR runs 16,000 services per day; Swedish railway services run around 2,500. Most of British Rail is at least double track. In Sweden it is rather less than 10 per cent. In this country we take for granted half-hourly and hourly services. In Sweden there are almost no routes outside the conurbations which enjoy the hourly frequency of the Intercity service; I believe that there are only two.
I do not wish to see the track authority concept dismissed out of hand. I agree to a certain extent with my noble friend Lord Lucas. The concept deserves further study both within British Rail and on a wider national level. However, I foresee problems, one of which is safety. The evidence of Mr. Hope was impressive. He has been quoted several times. It surprises me that in his written submission, when describing the situation in the States, which uses running powers—a variant of the track authority concept—he did not say that over the past two or three years there have been one or two horrific disasters. I am sure that it was a conscious decision to omit that information. One disaster near Philadelphia involved the death of 70 people.
I am concerned about slots. That topic has cropped up en passant once or twice in our debates and one thinks of Oxford where Intercity runs an hourly service from Reading or beyond to Birmingham and beyond. The network runs suburban services to London and to Banbury and Bletchley. The provincial line runs services to Worcester and Hereford. There are bulk freight carriers transporting all the coal that goes into the Didcot power station. There are wagon and container freights and parcels. If there is a track authority who will allocate priorities for that traffic? Will it simply become an auction with the weakest going to the wall?
It could be said that the track authority concept works in the air. Of course it does; but there is competition. Two or three airlines fly from Sydney to Melbourne at a given time. Unfortunately, that is only
1224
in the peak period. If one wants to travel at any other time there is nothing. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, explored that argument in an earlier debate. A similar situation exists in the States. There is all the competition that one could wish for provided one travels at the time nominated by the competing carriers. Safety is paramount.
Finally, investment has to be considered. We have flirted with a new high-speed network in Britain, which I believe is unnecessary to save between the Channel Tunnel and London. I feel that British Rail's existing Intercity high-speed services, provided that they can be matched between Waterloo and Kings Cross, provide both the frequency and speed which many European railways could not manage.
In Sweden we are told that the track authority is willing to invest £1 billion over the next decade. However, the operating company has put in bids for £4 billion. Where will the truth lie? Will investment be demand-led, as the operating company would like it to be? Or will it be cushioned from demand, which I should not like to see happen, by being purely in the hands of the track authority? How successful will the track authority be in raising money? The report states that it has not been able to raise private funds to pay for the Stockholm version of the Arlanda link.
Perhaps I may return briefly to the high speed railway and the Berne gauge. The conflict that exists between our need for a Berne gauge railway and some people's wish to see a high speed railway deserves a report on its own. My own choice would be Cheriton to London high speed and then, it is to be hoped, Berne gauge. Who will pay for it? I do not believe that we can pay for it. Perhaps it will be the EC. If so, what about that dreaded word "additionality"?
5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we have had a very wide-ranging debate. We have been from Scotland to Palermo and to Sweden and back. It has been a very useful and helpful debate on an excellent report. Like everyone else, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and also regret his absence with 'flu, which is very debilitating. I hope that he recovers quickly and will be back in our midst as fast as can be. If he had to look for a safe pair of hands to pick up the ball and run with it he could have found no one better than my noble friend Lord Ezra. I congratulate him on making two speeches in one. It was a seamless garment.
I take this opportunity to note that, as regards Sub-Committee B, one of the members who does not participate in the report is my late and lamented noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I take this opportunity to say how deeply saddened we are that he is no longer with us. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House will miss him on such occasions in dealing with this kind of report because of the expertise that he brought to the subject.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I also thank the Commission. I would not necessarily give its suggestions a mark of 100 per cent. but it has opened up a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. It is one that should not be shut off until we have

1225
explored every part of it. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will go along with those sentiments. Having read the evidence of the National Union of Railwaymen, I believe that it takes a rather less sanguine view than most of us.
However, there is no question but that this report is timely. Transport is a very important part of Community activity. It accounts for 7 per cent. of employment in the GDP and an amazing 40 per cent. of public investment. I was astonished when I saw that figure but apparently it is true. Transport also accounts for 28 per cent. of energy consumption within the Community. Despite the delays to road vehicles costing between 400 million and 800 million ecus per annum at internal frontiers alone, the environmental cost of pollution and the horrendous figure of 50,000 people killed on the roads of Europe—we should remember that we are here talking about a European dimension and not simply a UK one—and 1.6 million people injured, the proportion of goods travelling by rail has halved in Europe since 1965.
That cannot be right. Therefore it is right and e proper that the Commission should address itself to this matter. It is also wise that our Select Committee embarked on this study. It is a time of opportunity for railways. Paragraph 101 of the Select Committee's report underlines that. Like the committee, I welcome the proposals made by the Commission with a degree of modified rapture. There is no doubt that increased commercial independence and financial autonomy for operators as against the owners of the track may be controversial, but the more one looks at the matter the more attractive it seems to be.
In Blackpool last year my right honourable friend the leader of my party drew attention to the desirability of going down that track. When he said that there was considerable in-drawing of breath by those who had not thought the matter through. There is no doubt that the separation of infrastructure and operation is an idea which is banging on the door at the moment. Of course there must be safeguards, particularly in relation to safety. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to the problems that have occurred in the United States. There are clearly signalling and timetabling problems. The noble Viscount, Lord Hood, referred to the dangers of trains leaving and arriving at the same time.
I think the committee has gone some way to covering that problem in discussing the question of slots. It is not an easy problem to solve but it is surmountable. I am sure that the committee is right to leave the subject in the hands of the infrastructure body. One doubts whether such a scheme would be possible in the crowded areas of South-East England. There may be ways around the problem but one can foresee enormous difficulties in such a crowded area. However, such a scheme would be possible elsewhere. We should examine much more closely where that might be.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I read the handout from British Rail in which Sir Bob Reid said that the proposals simply would not do. He told us that the various components were so intertwined that
1226
attempts to separate them are likely to prove at best impractical and at worst unsafe. I hate to say it, but he would say that, would not he? It is time for us seriously to study these proposals and to bring a fresh light to bear. I am glad to say that the party of which I am happy to be a member is in the process of producing a Green Paper, Vehicles for Change. It is not available until next week when it has its press launch. It is probably safe to say that many of the matters contained in the Select Committee's report may be in the Green Paper when it is unveiled next week. The subject will be debated at our spring conference in Nottingham the following week.

We believe that the private operation of some trains would help to expand consumer choice and increase efficiency of service. On basic principles we on these Benches would not immediately quarrel with the conclusions in the report. There is clearly a need for caution. As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, the Swedish situation is not directly comparable. Mr. Richard Hope is constantly being mentioned in this debate and he is a great guru on these matters. His evidence is worth reading in detail.
Perhaps I may include a small anecdote on that subject. There was an occasion when my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham was invited to attend a well-known early morning radio breakfast programme. He expected to be asked questions about the latest problems of the alliance as it was then. He was surprised to discover that the lead in was a discussion about the latest report from British Rail. It was only when the gentleman said, "Now, Mr. Richard Hope, could you give us your views on this?", that the then Mr. Richard Holme had to say, "I'm sorry, I am no expert on railways". Mr. Hope's evidence is impressive, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. He suggests that the matter is not straightforward but he does not dismiss it out of hand.
It is important to follow the point that he made; namely, that freight is where we should start. In some ways that is where the greatest need is. We are talking about Europe and not just our domestic situation. Freight is the subject on which progress can be made, particularly with the opportunities that have been opened up by the tunnel. It is deeply depressing that we shall be unable to take full advantage of the Channel Tunnel because of, first, the lack of a high-speed link and, secondly, the lack of traction vehicles which can work north of London.
When I went to a meeting of the All-Party Channel Tunnel Group I was appalled to hear British Rail say that it was not at all sure that the rolling stock will be available to take advantage of the Channel Tunnel when it is opened because the people building the locomotives are unable to ensure that when they go north of Willesden they will not turn all the signals green as they go past. It is apparently an electronics problem. Along with members of the All-Party Channel Tunnel Group I had the honour and pleasure of discussing the matter with the Secretary of State. The Government say that this is only a temporary problem and that people will simply have to change platforms at Waterloo. That is not good enough.

1227
The great advantage of the Channel Tunnel is that people can get on trains in Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow and go straight through to their destinations in Europe. If that is to be denied them, then the attraction of the Channel Tunnel disappears for most of them. It is no good the Government and British Rail saying, "It's not our fault. It is the fault of the locomotive manufacturers". If the Government's defence procurement was as bad as British Rail's procurement system we should still be fighting in the Gulf with very little chance of winning. On this matter as on other matters such as engines which do not like a certain type of snow and brakes that are affected by falling leaves in the autumn, as if this were some new phenomenon, British Rail's procurement system leaves a lot to be desired.
At the end of the day we shall have much more road congestion when we had hoped that the Channel Tunnel would alleviate much of it. Once people have got themselves organised to go by road and move goods in that way they will continue to do so. Here is an opportunity which is being missed. Mr. Hope's evidence is very important and should be studied in great detail by us all.
We certainly agree with the committee on two basic points social and economic cost benefit must be included in the analysis when decisions are being made. British Rail has commented, again in a handout that it has used this approach in a few cases: London, the PTE areas, Cardiff and the east-west crossrail. But when one reads the small print it seems that it has only included journey time saving and reduced congestion. It has not been putting into the cost benefit equation the overall environmental impact in relation to the output of gases, the influence on the greenhouse effect and all the other considerations which ought to go into it before decisions are made.
British Rail sometimes gives one the impression that it sees freight as a necessary evil. Its freight terminals are coming on but slowly—it has now designated one or two. Perhaps I may again make a plea for my part of the country. There is to be no freight terminal south west of Bristol. As Speedlink is being taken away from us, what are people down there supposed to do? It adds up to the fact that British Rail is not frightfully interested in freight. That is one reason why I should like to see the committee's proposals, particularly in relation to freight, implemented in order that other people who see a market there are given the opportunity to try to exploit that market.
We have had a considerable amount of discussion on the subject of loading gauges. British Rail is doing nothing to improve the situation. In this case I think it is right to say that improvement cannot be achieved by current funding methods. That is at the heart of the problem. British Rail is right to point to the Section 8 problems. There is also Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act which prevents public money being put into that link. That section should be repealed.
There is need for a proper study of a spine route in this country bringing a route up to UIC standards. I
1228
well understand the impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in a remarkable speech, to which we all listened with admiration. The Government would do well to listen to him because it is crucial. He is probably better able to be decisive on this issue than the rest of us because he knows the background facts and figures. I shall go no further today than to say that there is an absolute need for a clear study to be put in hand immediately to find out where and at what cost such a spine route could be put in place.
Do the Government really want to be part of the European Market after 1992 so far as concerns transport? If they do, they should welcome the committee's report absolutely and unreservedly. If they do not, the alternative is that we remain as a declining offshore island. It is as important as that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him one question. He quite reasonably drew your Lordships' attention, as did my noble friend Lord Mountevans, to the fact that the Swedish railway set up is not comparable to that of the United Kingdom. But would he not agree that the separation of the infrastructure which has been achieved in Sweden has demonstrated quite conclusively where the money goes and which part of the system has the bottomless pit—those are the words used? There is something in that set up which is worthy of study in other European systems, notably in our own.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that in principle—I hoped this had come across in what I was saying—this is something we must study. Whether it is directly applicable is difficult to tell on the basis of the Swedish experience, because Sweden has nothing like the concentration of rail traffic that exists in the South East of England. Certainly it is a useful starting point. One must bear in mind that basically the two Swedish companies are still state-funded and are not necessarily directly private enterprise companies, although one of them is moving that way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that it sets up a very useful indicator that we should be looking at this much more seriously than we are at the moment.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I much regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and wish him well. I know how much he was looking forward to this debate and of his pride in the report which we are considering. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on his opening speech. It has given us an opportunity to see the breadth of the interesting and valuable report before the House.
The European Commission's emphasis is on proposals for the development of international rail services. The proposals have relevance to British Rail but the debate goes wider. It is recognised that road transport is dominant throughout the Community and that the carriage of freight and passengers will continue to be mainly by road. We all accept that. But the Commission takes the view that there is scope for railways to play a much larger part in Europe's

1229
transport. I understand from the report that the committee accepts that as well. We have increasing congestion in road and air; we must also take account of the important environmental benefits which increased rail transport could bring.
The Commission's proposals are directed to providing opportunity for rail to help relieve these problems. The report indicates that the committee considered both the relevance and the practicability of the Commission's proposals. I shall endeavour to avoid any doctrinaire attitude.
Paragraph 7 of the report refers to the Commission's conclusion. It reads:
"A new regime reconciling the public needs with the need for efficient management is now necessary'.
That view is endorsed by the committee in paragraphs 102 and 103 of its report. There is emphasis on the fact that railways cannot at all times be required to make a financial return on their investment and that railways must run uneconomic services which are required by the public sector. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my next query. If not, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be able to do so. I should like to know what the words "while maintaining market discipline" mean. If we are to consider the running of uneconomic services, surely we cannot talk a great deal about market forces.
Although I understand the emphasis on autonomy for railway management, our rail transport must be co-ordinated with a national transport plan covering all transport modes. I note from the report that the CBI made the observation that British Rail is already more autonomous than most Community rail undertakings. Paragraph 15 of the report states that the head of the inland transport directorate of the Commission pointed out the problems that arose because railways knew the amount of grant only at the year end and year by year. We are told that he went on to say that the United Kingdom had gone further in introducing the concept of multiannual programmes. I believe that all of us appreciate the fact that, even though we have these multiannual programmes, they are not firm commitments for subsequent years.
The Commission's proposals accept the need for a system of public service obligation covering unremunerative services. Two issues are raised. The first is the introduction of fixed-priced contracts; the second is the proposal that uneconomic services should be based on a social cost benefit analysis. The report shows that many witnesses were critical of fixed-contract proposals; I cite the evidence of the Institution of Civil Engineers. At paragraph 72 the committee states:
"We recognise that this creates a dilemma".
The proposals for fixed-priced contracts and the social cost benefit analysis change must be considered together. I was pleased to note the reference to the useful experience of grants made by a number of passenger transport authority executives under the Section 20 agreements with British Rail for much needed passenger services—the system whereby the PTAs make grants to BR under special agreements.
1230
That was introduced under the 1968 Act. However, any contracts made under the proposals must include reference to the quality of the services which have to be provided.
It is clear from the report that many witnesses expressed concern about the present difference in criteria for determining road and rail schemes. They urged that both should be treated on the same basis. The cost benefit analysis is applied to road investment, but British Rail is required to earn a return of 8 per cent. on investment in infrastructure and rolling stock. A great deal of evidence, including that of the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Chartered Institute of Transport and the Town and Country Planning Association, was presented in support of the much needed change. Very regrettably, as set out in paragraph 20 of the report, the Department of Transport justifies the present practice and is critical of any proposal for social cost benefit analysis to be applied to rail as it is to road.
In various debates, noble Lords have pressed for social benefits to be taken into account. I am pleased to see that the committee supports that view in paragraphs 71 and 72 of the report. In addition, I should point out that "social benefits" must include environmental considerations.
In its evidence the CBI presented two tables. The first dealt with rail investment as a percentage of GDP from which it will be seen that only Greece has a lower figure than the United Kingdom. The second dealt with the financial support to rail as a percentage of GDP. That showed the United Kingdom at the foot of the list. Throughout all the discussions on finance in the report, there is no reference to the issue of whether consideration should be given to the rights of British Rail to raise loans on the market. That would greatly alter its present financial position.
There are problems in the Commission's proposals for right of access to the railway system. The committee recognises that in paragraph 104. It states that there are technical constraints, but that these do not preclude a degree of access. It is certain that arrangements must be made in connection with international services, especially cross-boundary services, for freight. There has been some criticism of British Rail in connection with freight. I recall the excellent exhibition which I visited and the video presented at that time which was entitled, "Rail Freight '89". BR did its utmost to try to secure additional freight work. The point regarding international agreement is emphasised in a Labour Party document entitled Moving Britain into Europe, produced in addition to our general transport document.
The committee points out that in the United Kingdom private companies are allowed access to the BR system. Moreover, reference was made to the position of Foster Yeomen. Such arrangements are very limited and are carried out under the supervision of BR crews. We understand that at present two-thirds of the freight wagons are privately owned. However, despite that fact and the position of Foster Yeoman, the situation is totally different when considering the suggestion that there should be free access to anyone

1231
who puts in a claim to run any British Rail system. Indeed, it ignores all other factors; namely, safety, common sense, time tabling and so on.
I move on now to consider the separation of infrastructure and operations as proposed by the Commission. The committee dealt with this at some length; indeed, in no fewer than 14 paragraphs. Paragraph 88 indicates that the committee's conclusion to approve the proposal is drawn mainly from development experiences in Sweden. The account of the committee's visit to that country, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said, is extremely valuable and useful. The committee accepts that the rail network is simpler in that country than it is in the United Kingdom, a point knowledgeably made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.
In paragraph 35 the committee says:
"A number of technical problems could … arise".
If one looks through the evidence given to the committee, it will be seen that there was very little support for such a separation. Reference has been made to the evidence given by Mr. Richard Hope. The report states that he has been editor of the Railway Gazette International for 20 years and that he has travelled extensively and examined the performance of railways in no fewer than 67 countries. Therefore, he has gnat experience and knowledge. He is not a person standing at the Dispatch Box whose information must be limited. He says:
"Virtually all the world's railways have been organised on the basis that track and trains form a single transport system and must be under common management. One does not lightly throw aside 160 years of near universal experience".
That is not to say that we should be stick-in-the-mud and never move. But we should take into account evidence presented to the committee.
British Rail drew attention to the increasing interdependence of infrastructure and operations. I noted the lengthy evidence given by the British Rail chief executive Mr. John Welsby. As could be expected, British Rail said that it wished to retain the present integrated system. However, the evidence put forward should not be lightly passed aside. The Central Transport Consultative Committee put forward the view that separation would not be in the interests of consumers. That is explained far more fully if one reads the whole of the evidence.
The Department of Transport, which I have criticised already on another aspect, stated at paragraph 41 that it thought that the Commission's aim was to encourage international services but that that in no way required the proposed separation of structure from operations.
In view of the Commission's aim to encourage international services, I must refer to the evidence given by the Community of European Railways. As most noble Lords will know, that is a body of the 12 rail undertakings of the Community states with the addition of those from Austria and Switzerland. Paragraph 36 states:
"The technical aspects are so cohesive and enmeshed … that European railway companies do not see how splitting the railway companies into an infrastructure company and an operations company could be possible".
1232
In its recommendations at paragraph 106 the committee concedes that there is evidence of severe problems in the proposal for separation. However, it suggests that the problems are not so great as to make the proposal impractical. Without being unfair to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who is not with us, he said in his evidence that problems were there to be overcome. If I said that as regards certain aspects of Labour Party policy, I should be asked for considerably more detail.
In the committee's report there is no reference whatever to a previous report on traffic infrastructure presented by our EC committee in 1989 and debated in your Lordships' House in December that year. That report made no reference to the possibility of separating structure and operations. However, it considered the possibility of a European infrastructure agency and a Community infrastructure fund on which our debate at that time mainly concentrated.
I agree generally with paragraphs 47 to 50 which detail the Commission's proposals for the development of a high-speed network. There are obvious economic advantages, particularly as regards freight. I welcome the suggestion at paragraph 89 that the Community of European Railways should be expanded to take in EFTA countries and nations in the former eastern bloc.
I have had the good fortune to visit the Swiss tunnels. I was able to travel there on the TGV and can testify to what some noble Lords have said about the smoothness and efficiency with which the TGV operates. I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw; we should heed what he said.
I echo and endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about today's report in the Financial Times. British Rail has suggested that it may be impossible to run international trains beyond Waterloo. So those who have been looking forward to the Channel Tunnel affording better access to the North, the Midlands, Scotland and other parts of the country will have their hopes dashed. Will the Minister say whether the report is correct? If it is, what attitude will the Government take in discussions with British Rail to see whether the position can be changed? If finance is the problem, the Government must consider seriously bringing forward legislation in order to cancel out Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act. The last thing the people of this country want to see is the killing of possible developments and encouragement to the British economy as a result of failure to develop international transport beyond Waterloo. A person travelling from Scotland must make his way to a London terminus and then cross the capital to the international terminus at Waterloo. That cannot be right.
As regards failure to deliver equipment, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, perhaps I may refer to a report in today's press of redundancies at BREL. Perhaps BREL is capable of taking over the manufacture of some of the equipment which has been delayed. Perhaps it has available also the skilled workmen.

1233
Paragraphs 22 and 97 on combined transport are welcome. I recall an earlier report on combined transport in 1981–82 which was debated in your Lordships' House in January 1982. That report emphasised that unless proposals to encourage piggy-back lorries remained unchanged, they would be harmful to the development of containerisation. Many noble Lords looking at present conditions may believe that to be a rather strange conclusion.
I welcome the maximum possible development of combined transport. It will make intermodal transport of freight economically viable. On previous occasions it has been stated that the Freight Transport Association does not mind which method is used for the transport of freight but makes it quite clear that for longer distances, freight by rail would be more economically viable and would be seriously considered by many transporters. In addition, combined transport would make a valuable contribution to environmental benefits. I am certain that those in Austria and Switzerland who are plagued by continual lorry traffic from other parts of Europe would welcome that sort of development.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in urging a revision of the criteria for Section 8 grants for freight facilities. The present criteria restrict possible developments. As some noble Lords have mentioned—and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said—the matter badly needs attention. I hope that the Government will give it that attention.
As has been indicated, this matter is affected by the problem of the UK rail gauge. Paragraphs 58 to 64 are devoted to the topic. Great attention was paid by the committee in its questions on the problems. The opening sentence of paragraph 58 is important. It states:
"Britain's track gauge is the same as most other Member States: there is no difference in the distance between the two rails".
The report then points out that the real problem is that the loading gauge in the United Kingdom is different.
British Rail has looked at the matter and said in its evidence that it was satisfied that it does not present a problem for the development of the intermodal market for cross-Channel freight. It is satisfied with its plans and considers that small-wheeled wagons will do the job. It has committed itself to £100 million expenditure for such equipment. However, in its recommendation at paragraph 112 the committee expressed concern over that intention. It recommends that a thorough study be commissioned by the department into the possibility of converting a limited section of United Kingdom track so that the European or Berne gauge can be used.
I have looked at the Labour Party document entitled Moving Britain into Europe to which I have referred. I find that the Labour Party is in favour of such a study. It means considering the practicability and costs of such a conversion. We cannot make a decision unless we have the study. I hope that the department will accept the report's recommendation and move quickly towards commissioning a study into whether we maintain the present position, whether
1234
British Rail's small-wheeled wagons provide a way out, or whether there should be a study to see whether the track in certain areas can be converted to use the Berne gauge.
We have had a useful debate. The Minister has many points to answer. I am sure that had the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, been here he would have been delighted by the many contributions made on this valuable report.
5.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, perhaps I may start by endorsing remarks that other noble Lords have made about the report we have had from the Select Committee. I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the other members of the committee. I regret that the noble Lord is unable to be here this afternoon and I wish him a speedy recovery. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on picking up the baton at such short notice and opening the debate with such skill.
I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity it has provided for a debate on railways of a more far-reaching kind than we are perhaps accustomed to have. As the committee has pointed out, the European Commission has shown a sense of vision that is all too rare in discussions about railways. Even if some of us feel that there are some respects in which the Commission's vision is a little fanciful, much of what it has had to say in tempered by practical realism.
We have had an interesting and stimulating debate. The Commission's initiative in publishing at the end of 1989 its communication on railway policy reflects the widespread revival of interest in railways, and not just in Europe. But the revival is of very recent date. As recently as 1986, the Commission White Paper on the single European market, which had quite a lot to say about transport, made no mention at all of railways; but railways have now risen up the Community transport agenda. That is because in the past few years a number of factors have come together to create a greater public awareness of the potential of railways in the Community transport system.
There is the internal market and the growing realisation that railways have historically been very much nationally oriented and that that has hampered their efficient use for the longer distance transport of people and goods for which they are best suited, which includes transport across national boundaries. There are exciting developments in rail technology, epitomised by the French TGV trains and the big commercial success of the Paris to Lyon TGV route. There is growing environmental concern about the continuing growth of road and air transport and the realisation that in land use, in energy efficiency and in the minimising of pollution the railways have a great deal to offer. So far as the UK is concerned, there is the special additional reason of the opportunities that the Channel Tunnel presents of linking our rail network with that of the Continent on a scale never before possible.
The Government welcome much in the Commission's proposals and agree with a good deal in

1235
the Select Committee's recommendations. We entirely agree that the opportunities are there for the railways to increase their market share in the carriage of both people and goods.
We welcome the Commission's basic objective of making European railways more commercially independent and financially autonomous. The Select Committee has already acknowledged the progress we have made in the UK. We hope that the culmination of that process will be a privatised British Rail. While British Rail remains a nationalised industry there are, quite rightly, limits to its autonomy. The Government's role is to set the overall policy framework, financial and quality objectives and external finance limits and to approve major strategic investments. Within that framework, BR has considerable freedom to manage the railway, and it is for BR to set priorities. For the future, exchanging the disciplines of the public sector for those of the private sector will provide further benefits for BR and its customers.
As the Commission has recognised, in running a more commercial railway the UK has been showing the way in Europe. It may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships to learn that railway operators from other European countries have been coming to British Rail to see how BR does things and what they can learn.
I turn now to rights of access for railway operators. The Government see some attractions in the Commission's remarks on the opening up of access to the railway network, especially in the context of international services. The Commission's proposals on access are at an early stage and need to be clarified. The Commission is discussing its draft directive with member states. However, it seems that the general thrust of the proposals is to free access to the network, which is currently very restricted, both to encourage existing operators to develop new services (such as international services) and to allow new operators to enter the market. There are of course practical difficulties in liberalising access to rail tracks, as the committee recognises, and the problems are genuinely complex. Finding ways to overcome them will inevitably take some time; but the Government share the committee's view that the Commission's initiative in opening up that issue is to be welcomed.
The Select Committee has suggested that a useful precedent for how several operators can be charged for the use of a single infrastructure may be found in the charging arrangements for the use of the Channel Tunnel The tunnel certainly provides an interesting test-bed. Whether the arrangements that have been devised would be suitable for general application I do not know. But I know that they are immensely complicated and that in the usage agreement between Eurotunnel and the British and French railways four closely printed pages are devoted to the calculation of the charges for use of the tunnel.
As regards the provision of non-commercial services, we fully support the Commission's and the Select Committee's objective of greater transparency. Both the operator and the public authority should
1236
have a clear understanding of what is being subsidised and at what price; but there is a limit to the detail of what can be specified. A balance has to be struck in practice between the views of those providing the money and BR's judgment of the market and operating constraints. The Commission's proposals are still under discussion; but we do not envisage much change in our arrangements in consequence of them.
The proposals for separating responsibility for track and trains—if I may use that shorthand for infrastructure and operations—raise a number of very interesting issues to which many noble Lords have referred. The Government entirely accept the Commission's proposal that railway accounts should distinguish track and trains. That is a necessary concomitant of allowing freer access to track. But the issues become more complex when we move on to the next stage of separate responsibility. Before getting into the arguments, I should make it clear that the Commission's proposals as currently drafted require that responsibility for track and trains should be with different divisions of a railway undertaking. They do not require separate ownership, although the Commission clearly envisages that as one possible approach.
Two arguments are put forward for separation of responsibility: promotion of competition and establishment of a level playing field by government subsidies for track. Let me first say briefly why I believe that the level playing field argument is not persuasive. The key requirement for fair competition between modes is that users of each mode pay their full costs, either directly through fares as on the railways or indirectly through taxation as with road transport, where use cannot be directly charged for. Different transport modes do not need to be organised identically to compete fairly. The important factor is to ensure that in each case all relevant costs are captured and paid for.
The better argument for a split of responsibilities is that competition between train operators would be promoted if no train operator had control over the track; that is, if there were a track authority. But this potentially attractive solution brings with it a number of problems. The committee's report recognises that it would not be appropriate to split operations and infrastructure for dense commuter networks. We are considering these questions very carefully, both in relation to the Commission's proposals and to the privatisation of British Rail, where separation of responsibility for infrastructure is one of the options that has been proposed. Our objective must be to arrive at solutions which will work in practice and provide the passenger or freight customer with the best possible service at the best possible price.
The privatisation of British Rail is relevant to a number of the issues raised by the Commission. The Government have decided that it would be right to privatise BR in due course, but we have reached no conclusions yet on the form or timing of privatisation. No structural options have been ruled out.

1237
I turn now to investment appraisal. The Select Committee, perhaps partly influenced by its examination of the Swedish experience, on which my noble friend Lord Mountevans gave us the benefit of his great experience, recommended that social and economic cost-benefit analysis should be applied to railway investment decisions. This is not the moment for a learned disquisition on a subject which has exercised great economic minds for many years. As a simple politician perhaps I can make three simple comments.
First, in the United Kingdom at least most transport needs are clearly more appropriate to either road or rail, so elaborate cost-benefit analysis would not affect the decision. But where there is a real choice —for example, with the new links to Heathrow—both modes are considered and cost-benefit analysis is used. However, for the majority of schemes, the value of investment appraisal is rather to test the viability of projects and to rank them within each mode.
Secondly, an investment should be and normally is appraised on financial grounds. We depart from that only if there is no direct charging structure by which to make the user pay or if there is reason to think that there are significant external costs or benefits which should be reflected in the appraisal. Both those factors are present in road investment schemes. With railways, there is a ready means for ensuring that the user pays. We believe that, at least as far as inter-city and freight are concerned, the externalities are very small.
Thirdly, we see no case for putting public money into rail investment where no clear external benefits can be demonstrated. Any such subsidy would serve only to distort the level playing field. It would result in the wider economic distortion of making transport cheaper than it should be, which far from improving the environment would be likely to damage it.
It follows from what I have just said that the Government do not support increased Community funding of rail infrastructure investment. We support the concept of the development of a network of high-speed rail links in Europe, essentially for passenger trains. We are playing a full part in the work that is going on in Brussels under the Commission's guidance to define an appropriate network of high-speed lines and to identify and resolve the technical difficulties in the way of effective high-speed international passenger services. The group examining these questions made a first report to the Council of Ministers in December and is continuing with its work. But we believe that investment in this network would have to be economically viable, and we shall be looking very critically at any proposals for substantial Community contributions to bring it about.
On combined transport, on which my noble friends Lord Lyell and Lord Elibank concentrated, again the Council of Ministers has asked the Commission, with the assistance of member states and other interests, to identify the measures required for the creation of a European network and the conditions under which it could operate effectively. That will not be an easy task.
1238
There are many different views about what needs to be done and how. The United Kingdom will again be playing a full part in this work. I note the Select Committee's comments about the limitation of the Section 8 grant system for encouraging the transfer of freight from road to rail. In answer to the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Underhill, we have been reviewing the system and will announce our conclusions before very long.
My noble friend Lord Renwick asked when we could expect acceptance by the Council of Ministers of the proposals to which I have referred. The Council is most unlikely to accept all the Commission's proposals this June, not even by a qualified majority. It may agree the instruments on combined transport and on public service obligations; both would be in a watered down form from the original proposals. The Council has also welcomed the work done so far on the high-speed network; but at present it seems unlikely that agreement can be reached as early as June on the directive on railway structure and development. Much discussion has yet to take place.
I also note the committee's suggestion that the Government should commission a thorough study of the costs and benefits of converting a limited number of routes to European gauge for freight traffic. It is true that only fairly rough calculations have been done so far, though it is quite clear from them that the cost would be very high and the disruption extensive. I am sure that BR's initial strategy of using small-wheeled wagons for the larger continental containers is the right one. Whether it would be sensible to undertake a gauge conversion study relating to the longer term future is something which the Government might consider.
I turn now to the various points that have been raised, particularly with reference to the Channel Tunnel link. The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Underhill, referred to the report in today's newspaper about international passenger rail services beyond London. I can assure noble Lords that British Rail has every intention of providing through passenger services between places north of London and the Continent. There will, however, be a delay in providing daytime services. The special train sets required have proved very difficult to design to meet the stringent operating and safety requirements. The manufacturers, an international Anglo-French-Belgian consortium, have not so far been able to come up with completely satisfactory proposals on design and delivery. Thus it will be 1994 before these trains can be in service.
Meanwhile, British Rail is examining ways of running some services from the north into Waterloo to connect with the inter-capital trains to Paris and Brussels. However, British Rail hopes to have night passenger services running from beyond London when the tunnel opens.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked me about the comparative speeds of international trains. British Rail is upgrading the track and signalling, and passenger trains will be able to run at up to 160

1239
kilometres per hour; freight trains at up to 120 kilometres per hour. That is the same maximum speed for freight trains that will be allowed in France.
The noble Lord also asked me whether British Rail rolling stock could be used on the Continent. Passenger stock will be specifically built because of the different power supply systems to which I have already referred and the safety requirement for the tunnel and platform heights and carriage widths. However, many of the existing international freight wagons will continue to be used through the tunnel. Some new wagons will be built especially for carrying containers since some containers on the Continent are larger than the international standard sizes that British Rail already carries regularly.
The noble Lord also asked me about the position of the Ashford international passenger station and whether the proposed station will be built and ready for use when the Channel Tunnel is due to open in June 1993. We are well aware of the importance that people in Kent attach to this station. The Government have only recently received British Rail's investment submission for it. We shall reach a decision as quickly as possible, but in recent months Ministers have confirmed their commitment to the station, subject to it being a viable proposition. I regret that I cannot give an assurance on when the station will open. Apart from the need for government approval, the speed with which contracts can be let and completed is outside the Government's control.
The noble Lord also asked me about the age of the British Rail rolling stock fleet and the write-off period. British Rail's accounting policies are set out in their 1989–90 annual report and accounts which were published on 4th July 1990. Asset lives of 15 to 20 years are used for rolling stock. British Rail is currently reviewing asset lives as part of a general change in its accounting practices. We must remember that these are accounting lives and they do not necessarily reflect the working life of rolling stock. I regret that the Department of Transport does not hold comprehensive information on the age of the BR fleet. However, we know that the average age of the Network SouthEast fleet has been reduced from 24 years to 19 years since 1985, and that by 1993–94 over 95 per cent. of regional railways' diesel fleets will be less than 10 years old.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, rather unfairly criticised the previous Prime Minister's commitment to the railway system. He asked whether there head been any change under the leadership of my right honourable friend the current Prime Minister. I would point out to the noble Lord that government plans allow British Rail to invest up to £4 billion in the next three years. That compares with an investment of £4 billion in the previous five years. That is a higher level of investment in British Rail in real terms than at any time since the early 1960s. If that is not a proof of commitment, I do not know what would satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I must say that he has been most kind in answering my questions. However, the question I
1240
asked was whether there is a programme of payment to British Rail. The figures the Minister has mentioned are exciting and interesting, but how can British Rail plan a future programme of re-investment and an updating of stock if it does not have a plan of capital finance coming in over a five to 10 year period?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have given figures for the next three years. As the noble Lord will be aware, that is the length of time that government financial programmes work on. However, that does not prevent British Rail from planning further ahead itself. I cannot go further than that.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I have tried to deal with as many as possible of the varied matters raised by the Select Committee and by noble Lords during the debate. If I have failed to answer any specific point that any noble Lord has addressed to me, I shall, with permission, write to him.
The Commission has caught the tide of revived public interest in the potential of railways. It has stimulated governments, railway operators and many other interests to think more searchingly and freely about the role of the railways in the single market Community. The Government welcome that stimulus and recognise a kindred spirit at work in Brussels, even if we do not agree with the Commission on all points. The debate will continue. I am grateful to the Select Committee for its contribution to the debate, and for the opportunity we have had today to discuss these issues.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he will be a little more explicit on the subject of cost-benefit analysis. He indicated that this was used in some cases. One assumes those cases are rather rare. Does it take into account the proportionate cost to the public of the number of deaths that I have referred to? I mentioned that 50,000 people are killed on the roads of Europe every year. What contribution to that cost-benefit analysis is considered in relation to exhaust gases from cars and lorries and the impact on the environment generally?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot be more specific on that point at the moment. I shall write to the noble Lord with further details.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be very pleased when he hears of the unanimous tributes paid to his work as chairman of the committee. I hope that that will speed his early recovery. I wish to pay tribute to the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Simon Burton, and to our specialist adviser, Professor Chris Nash of the University of Leeds. They both helped us significantly in our work.

The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in his wide-ranging response drew attention to the element of vision contained in the Commission's proposals. Sadly, that element has been lacking in our consideration of railway affairs over decades. Even if that vision, as put forward by the Commission, may not be entirely accepted, at least it can be invigorating. I believe the majority of us are railway buffs at heart. We genuinely want to see the railways succeed. This country was where the railways were born. Let us

1241
hope that we contribute significantly to their rebirth. I hope noble Lords will accept the Motion and note the contents of the report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I must begin by saying how grateful I am to noble Lords for being so patient about the numerous changes of date which, due to circumstances beyond my control, have occurred with regard to this Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak in the debate this evening. Inevitably, given the changes of date, some noble Lords who wished to speak in support of the Bill are unable to be present today. Among those whose absence I particularly regret, because they are so supportive of the Bill, are a former Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Lord, Lord Coggan, and also the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits. I believe that the debate will be impoverished by the loss of their spiritual inspiration.
Another noble Lord who cannot be present is the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. The noble Lord, together with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, and myself, is a co-sponsor of the Centre for Educational Choice. That centre supports the Bill. Perhaps this coalition indicates that the Bill is not a partisan political initiative but represents principles of freedom of choice and diversity of provision which transcend party political lines. Other noble Lords who support the Bill but cannot be here include the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and a number of my noble friends from these Benches.
I am of course aware that the Bill not only has many supporters but also many opponents. I am also aware that some who support its intentions and principles have serious reservations about its wording. It may therefore be helpful if at the outset I indicate that I am sensitive to noble Lords' concerns. In view of that I am minded to beg leave to withdraw the Motion at the end of the debate. However, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take particular note of the anxieties that the Bill reflects and will perhaps consider ways in which help might be offered to some of the excellent schools which have been involved in this initiative.
I began my speech with a reference to support from two of the spiritual leaders of our time because the Bill originated in response to requests from Christian and Jewish schools which had been established by parents and teachers who were deeply concerned about the situation in many state schools, especially their secularism, their lack of spiritual and moral values and their poor levels of educational attainment. I must emphasise that there are many good state schools. I have no wish to cast aspersions on the entire state
1242
sector. However, the reverend Colin Hodgetts, the head teacher of the Small School in Hartland, wrote on 8th February in the Church Times,
"Illiteracy, vandalism, truancy, teacher stress … we know the problems. While Secretaries of State monopolised the media with their innovations, there has been a quiet, but nonetheless determined response to the crisis in schools. Groups of parents and teachers have been starting their own".
I have visited many of these new schools. I wish all noble Lords could visit them. If they could, I believe they would have great sympathy for the Bill, as the pupils are the best witnesses for the scheme. Inevitably the buildings are often not ideal. They include disused churches and air-raid shelters. However, the children are happy and full of enthusiasm. They are performing very well on traditional academic criteria. Their work is of a standard which is often well above the national average, despite policies of taking pupils across the full ability range and taking a full share of children from problem homes.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. I shall never forget the honour of taking part in the speech day of the John Loughborough School in North London. The school was set up by the Afro-Caribbean community, which was so dismayed not only by the poor educational standards in local schools but also by the lack of spiritual and moral values that it established its own school with the help of its church. The words of a parent governor are engraved on my mind:
"Before John Loughborough was set up, we used to have to send our children back to the West Indies to get a good, old-fashioned, traditional British Christian education. Now this school is here we do not have to send our children 3,000 miles away".

What an indictment of the way our education system failed that community and many others.
Those parents, who come from some of the poorest parts of London, can ill afford the cost of setting up their own school and paying to educate their children. Why should they have to pay to obtain the education they believe is right for their children? That school is giving its pupils an excellent start in life—pupils living in areas where they might otherwise be especially prone to the all too familiar problems of truancy, drugs, underachievement and subsequent unemployment. Instead they are going on to continue their education or to good jobs. Not surprisingly, that school is over-subscribed by a factor of five. However, it cannot expand to meet demand because it cannot obtain more buildings or funding. Parents who are turned away are desperate.
That brings me to the purpose of the Bill. New schools have been springing up throughout the country in response to parents' and teachers' wishes. The majority are Christian schools, but there are others too, providing an excellent education inspired by different commitments. They have joined with the Christian Schools Campaign to support the Bill.
They include the Small Schools Movement, which is trying to maintain small schools in both rural and urban areas, believing in the value of schools of smaller sizes serving local communities as a more appropriate environment for some children than the

1243
typical large comprehensive. Mensa also supports the Bill, its concern being that exceptionally gifted children are often not adequately served in local state schools and are unable to realise their true potential, which causes frustration to the children and loss to the nation.
Others who support the Bill include the Steiner Fellowship, with its distinctive educational philosophy, and also representatives of other faiths. I have already mentioned the support of the Chief Rabbi, the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. In addition there are supporters of Moslem schools such as the Muslim Education Co-ordinating Council and the Islamic Academy.
That brings me immediately into an area of great controversy. I wish to address the issue openly as I fear that it is one about which many people have reservations but on which they may be reluctant to speak frankly. It has been put to me by many people, including some Christians, that they cannot support the Bill because they cannot support the idea of state-funded Moslem schools.
As a Christian I am grieved by that attitude because I believe that, as Christians, we should have enough confidence in our own faith to give our fellow citizens the democratic rights which we have given to ourselves. If it is necessary to offer a spiritual justification for schools from communities of other faiths I can do no better than quote again from Colin Hodgett's article in the Church Times:
"If a case needs to be made then Rabbi Jonathan Sacks's Reith lectures are a good place to start. If, as he argues, hope lies in communities of faith which speak a local language and are renewed by education and inspiration, then that education will not be secular. Secular education cannot renew our values So parents are starting new schools".
Rabbi Sacks makes a powerful point in his Reith lecture:
"In our plural, dangerous, interconnected world we can no longer afford to see God's image only in those who are in our image. It will take courageous leadership to remind us that after Babel, to be authentic to one truth does not mean being exclusive of others. The community of communities needs 2 kinds of religious strength, one to preserve our own distinctive traditions, the other to bring them to an enlarged sense of the common good".
That quotation from Rabbi Sacks echoes a point which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, would have made if he had been able to be here and which he asked should be put on record in support of the Bill. It is essential that home and school teach consistent moral and spiritual values. If there is conflict there is a recipe for moral and spiritual confusion for children.
That is why I believe that arguments which oppose the Bill out of fear of Moslem or Jewish schools are inconsistent with the three fundamental principles underpinning the Bill. Those are, first, the principle enshrined in Article 2 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights:
"that the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".
Moreover, a Labour Government in 1976 signed a United Nations covenant on economic, social and cultural rights whereby, in Article 13, they undertook to:
1244
"have respect for the liberty of parents … to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions".
I look forward to hearing comments from noble Lords opposite on their present position regarding that covenant.
The second principle is the principle of natural justice. In the United Kingdom we have allowed, and in the past encouraged, the establishment of state-supported religion-based schools with our Anglican, Roman Catholic and Jewish voluntary aided and controlled schools. Those have made a much valued contribution. They are immensely popular and most are over-subscribed. Given that situation, natural justice requires us not to deny comparable opportunities to other new good schools, whether they be Christian schools or those of other major religions and/or educational philosophies. To deny the Moslem community comparable rights to Christian and Jewish traditions is, I believe, a violation of natural justice and will be a legitimate cause of grievance.
Thirdly, there are principles to which this Government are ostensibly and publicly committed, principles of freedom of choice, diversity of provision and encouragement of good educational standards.
The schools which I have visited are all excellent. Yet many—such as the Yesodeh Hoatorah schools serving the Jewish community in some of the most deprived areas in North London—have applied for voluntary-aided status and been frustrated either by local authorities or by successive Secretaries of State. All those schools continue to run on faith and a shoestring, at great personal sacrifice by parents and teachers.
Hence the motivation for the Bill. I shall now speak very briefly to its substance and conclude by trying to address some of the objections that I anticipate it will generate.
As I have said, many of those new schools are providing good education in response to parental demand by parents who often do not have much money. It is surely arguable that their entitlement to education compatible with their deepest convictions should be provided within the taxpayer funded system of schools and should not be curtailed by their inability to pay. The Bill would make it a little easier for the schools they have established to be brought into state funding.
I say "a little easier" because the final decision on each application will still rest with the Secretary of State. That means that the Bill does not give an automatic or absolute right to public funding although it would facilitate it in the following ways. Clause 1 provides for some of those new independent schools to opt into grant-maintained status by adding the word "independent" to the appropriate part of the Education Reform Act 1988. However, subsection (3) provides substantial limitations on independent schools which might wish to opt into state funding as grant-maintained schools because it is not the purpose of the Bill to enable every independent school to become state maintained.

1245
Thus, subsection (3) provides for the Secretary of State to designate categories of independent schools which would be eligible. In so designating he is required under the clause to include schools which provide a religious ethos, including those with a Christian ethos. However, the Bill would not limit the provision to Christian schools but would enable other kinds of schools to be considered. I am aware that the wording of this crucial section may not be perfect. Were the Bill to have moved forward to Committee stage I would have welcomed amendments, particularly an amendment to include some independent schools which cater for pupils with special needs.
A further limitation on the eligibility of certain schools to apply for grant-maintained status is contained in subsection (4). That excludes all schools which are already well financed, whether by fees charged and/or by endowments. In essence, Clause 1 provides for certain independent schools to join the state system as grant-maintained schools. It is not irrelevant to note that this is by no means an outrageous, way-out suggestion. There is already a precedent in Northern Ireland where such a scheme is operated by virtue of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
Clause 2 offers an alternative route for certain independent schools which provide a good education but are not financially well endowed to become state funded. That route in its present form goes back to the Education Act 1944 when many church schools which were struggling financially were welcomed into the state system under the provisions for voluntarily-aided or controlled schools. Since 1944 other schools have followed that route, but in recent years the vast majority of applications for voluntary status have been opposed by local authorities and/or successive Secretaries of State. Many of these schools have been well run, with high standards, operating at full capacity and meeting parental wishes and children's needs, yet their applications have been unsuccessful.
The overriding reason most frequently given for turning down those applications is not inadequacy on the part of the school but the existence of surplus places in other local state schools. As long as that reason can prevail there will be virtually no successful applications from new schools, for two reasons. First, with the decline in the number of young children of school age there are already so many vacancies in state schools that the Audit Commission reckons a cost-effective system would need to close the equivalent of about 1,000 state schools. Secondly, a subsidiary reason for some of the empty places is the precise reason why those new schools have been established —parents have voted with their feet and have gone away from schools not giving satisfaction and into new schools which they can ill afford but which they have set up in desperation. It really is anomalous to continue to put public money into subsidising empty places in schools which parents do not want and to refuse to support highly successful schools which parents do want—hence the provisions in Clause 2 of the Bill. Those provisions need to be
1246
seen in the context of the fact that at the moment there is only one statutory principle which the Secretary of State is required to take into account when considering applications for voluntary-aided status.
The Education Act 1944 requires that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the promoters of the school can find their contribution to the money involved. No other criterion is specified in law at the present. However, successive Secretaries of State have compiled their own criteria. On January 16th my right honourable friend reiterated six of the principles he currently applies. In addition to the financial criterion, those include: the overall need for school places in the area; demand for a particular kind of school, including denominational need; local authority support; ability to deliver the national curriculum; and adequacy of premises. Your Lordships will see that Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to remove two of those principles by disallowing the criterion of surplus places and awarding voluntary status even if the local authority objects. Instead, the principle of the desirability of diversity in the state system in accordance with parents' wishes and children's needs is affirmed.
The final point I make on Clause 2 bears on the financial implication of these provisions. Obviously it makes no sense for an authority to pay for empty desks and then to increase the number of school places for which it has to pay. Hence the provision enabling the Secretary of State to direct that the local authority should reduce surplus places, which by definition are empty places not in demand, and to make those places available for the newly-proposed voluntary school, which by definition is in demand and has pupils.
I give one example to illustrate how that principle could work in practice. Avon local authority at the moment has a surplus of 700 senior school places in the north of Bristol. One senior school with a capacity of 700 is operating with only 200 pupils. If Avon were to rationalise those places and hand over one empty school or even part of a school to the excellent Oak Hill Christian School as a voluntary-aided school it would save money on those empty places and help fulfil the criterion of diversity in response to parental and denominational need. In any case, other schools in that area will have to close. Avon would benefit from the inclusion of a very good, popular school which would be contributing 15 per cent. of capital costs from its foundation body.
I do not expect these provisions to be immensely popular with the local authority lobby or those whose educational philosophy motivates them to require all children to attend local state comprehensive schools. Therefore, I briefly address a few of the objections which I expect to be raised. First, there is concern that the Bill will be divisive and promote segregation. I believe pluralism is a precious attribute of western democracy. It is premised on respect for the right of citizens to have different beliefs and to maintain their cultural traditions; of course, within the law of the land. It is also the responsibility of government to protect those rights. The establishment of faith-based

1247
schools is an important aspect of respect for the freedom of parents to have their children educated according to their convictions.
That principle has already been enshrined in the system of voluntary schools, but the system has become stuck in a time warp with no flexibility because of demographic trends, ideological hostility and the vested interests of local authorities. Consequently, there is reluctance to admit new schools to this category, despite the fact that the rights of parents to choose the education offered by those schools is diminished de facto or denied because of lack of funding. Surely, the taxpayer's money should follow children to the schools chosen by their parents. I suggest that in a democracy pluralism and freedom of choice are inseparable principles and are incompatible with forcing everyone into a mould which has become historically crystallised. A democratic society should be a flexible one, responding to the changing wishes of its citizens. The Bill would help our education system move in that direction. Perhaps it may reassure your Lordships to know that other countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands and parts of Canada have already adopted similar policies. I believe those countries are not noted for any particular divisiveness, racism or intolerance. I believe those are good precedents.
In connection with divisiveness, I was particularly heartened to note that the Roman Catholic bishop, Bishop Konstant, in his speech in January to the North of England Education Conference, supported the concept of diversity and the rights of other faiths, including the Moslem community, to have state-funded denominational schools. He also argued that he did not believe this would lead to divisiveness and discounted the argument that the problems of Northern Ireland were attributable to differentiated schooling.
I make only two further brief points concerning the thorny issue of divisiveness. They refer to practicalities. First, the fact is that these new schools, if granted voluntary status, would have to have open and agreed admission policies. A significant number of the new Christian schools in the inner cities already have high proportions of children from Moslem, Sikh and Hindu families. For example, 70 per cent. of the pupils at Shepherd's School in Lewisham come from those backgrounds. So such schools are not exclusivist. If they were to come into the state system they would be required to deliver the national curriculum and to abide by other criteria, such as equal opportunities. That might offer some reassurance to those who are worried about faith-based schools failing to provide a good all-round education for their pupils. To that extent state funding would provide a safeguard.
I return for one moment to the issue of surplus places and double funding. Finally, I must point to an inconsistency in the Government's present policy of rejecting applications from new schools on the grounds of surplus places. That consideration did not weigh with the Government in the establishment of the city technology colleges. Let me hasten to say that I am not against the CTCs. I support them. I object to double standards in the application of criteria. If the
1248
surplus places argument did not militate against the Government's implementation of their own policy for setting up their own new schools, it should not prevail against the establishment of other new schools which reflect the wishes of parents and teachers.
That brings me back to where I began, with the parents and the teachers who have been working so hard and making such sacrifices to provide the kind and quality of education that they passionately want for their children. Many of those who are financially better off have sold houses and cars to help realise the capital to fund those new schools. Others are making great sacrifices to pay their fees.
It is my earnest plea that we respect their rights and, where appropriate, their achievements, which are often very great, and that we consider as a matter of urgency ways in which we as a nation can fulfil our commitment to the principles of freedom of choice and the diversity which must accompany it. It is the purpose of this Bill to suggest, albeit inadequately, some ways in which we might address these principles and put them forward for critical discussion but, I hope, sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Cox.)
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Opposition are unable to support this Bill. We strongly oppose it on grounds of principle and we believe that it will be unworkable in practice. We feel sure that Ministers will share many of our concerns. We understand that the Bill does not have the support of the Church of England, although the right reverend Prelate will confirm whether that is correct. We know that the local authorities consider that the Bill is fundamentally flawed and would be very damaging in its effects on our education system.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I gather that she speaks for herself.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I indicate that the Opposition are unable to support the Bill, but of course I speak for myself. There is a good case to make all publicly maintained schools secular schools, as in the United States of America and many European countries. Religious teaching is then left to the churches and other religious bodies and takes place outside school hours rather than within them. That means that parents can be absolutely sure that the religious teaching which their children receive in the evening or at weekends is truly in line with their own religious beliefs. It also means that children can receive their secular education together without being segregated into separate schools according to their parents' religious faith. That has much to recommend it in a multi-racial, multi-faith society. Despite the noble Baroness's disclaimers, segregation has little to recommend it. However, I do not want to pursue that issue further today.
The history of education in this country means that there are a substantial number of existing church schools—many of them very good—which are fully or

1249
almost fully supported by the state. I shall not go into the details of the 1902 Act or the 1944 Act, each of which embodied a complex settlement with the churches. It suffices to say that the present law allows both the existence of church schools and the creation of new ones. In that respect there is absolutely no need for new legislation. Moreover, it would be quite wrong to create new legislation that puts pressure on successive Secretaries of State for Education to establish new schools, at a cost to the taxpayer and at the expense of the rest of the education system, in order to meet the wishes of very small minorities who want a quite different education for their children from that of the great majority of the population.
Under the existing system all parents have the right to remove their children from religious instruction and religious worship in existing schools if they are inconsistent with their own values and beliefs. That is quite right and proper. If parents want to go a step further and wish their children to be segregated into schools where some kind of alternative religious or philosophical ethos is taught, they have the option to use the independent sector. That is a right which they have and which they should be allowed to continue to have. If they wish to make the sacrifices to which the noble Baroness referred, that is fine. But despite what she said and despite her concerns, I am glad to say that well over 90 per cent. of parents continue to use the maintained system and benefit from the considerable diversity that exists within it.
I turn to the specific proposals in the Bill. First, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a new power to give grant maintained status to independent schools. Secondly, it allows the establishment or the enlargement of voluntary aided schools without regard to existing school provision. To amend the 1988 Act by the inclusion of independent schools in the provisions for grant maintained status is not a minor amendment. The option to seek grant maintained status was never intended to apply to independent schools; nor should it be applied. To do so would involve the Secretary of State stepping into a minefield.
First, let me ask how he will determine whether an independent school which applies has an alternative religious ethos or philosophical ethos (whatever that might mean). Does a secondary school which encourages its pupils to believe in or indeed to practise free love have an alternative philosophical ethos to maintained schools in the area? Can we assume that any Secretary of State will have the requisite knowledge of esoteric religious or philosophical distinctions to determine whether a school is fulfilling a need for an alternative not available elsewhere, quite apart from the question of whether he ought to provide for such needs?
Secondly, the Bill suggests that an independent school would not be eligible if it were well provided for financially or likely to have an adequate private income. Exactly what that means is somewhat unclear. The noble Baroness has just indicated that private income would include fee income. That means that
1250
only those schools which are unable to attract a sufficient number of pupils willing to pay an adequate fee would qualify. In other words, unsuccessful independent schools would be eligible. Can it be right to rescue private schools which have failed at the expense of existing state schools?
The Bill gives independent schools in financial difficulties an incentive to apply for grant maintained status, whether or not they genuinely have some different religious or philosophical ethos. What happens if the school is seriously in debt? Surely, to allow grant to be used to pay off past debts would be wrong; but a school without debts might be considered to have an adequate income and therefore to be ineligible. The Bill is a mess.
Thirdly, there is no provision in the Act for former independent schools with respect to the governing bodies of grant maintained schools. The Bill omits any reference to governors.
Fourthly, in the 1988 Act the provisions on parental ballots to decide whether to seek grant maintained status do not fit at all well with independent schools. Most independent schools have proprietors. Will the parents have a right to a ballot regardless of the owners' views? If such a ballot leads to grant maintained status, will the owners be compensated? After all, their school has in a sense been nationalised against their will
Clause 1 of the Bill is neither desirable in principle nor, as I hope that I have demonstrated, workable in practice. In some ways Clause 2 is even more pernicious. I regret that it reveals a totally irresponsible attitude towards public expenditure and a complete disregard of the need to maintain good working relationships between the Department of Education and Science and local education authorities. Indeed it shows a truly astonishing lack of understanding of the local authorities' role and their responsibilities in planning education and being accountable to their local electorate.
In requiring the Secretary of State to take into account the need for a diversity of schools to satisfy parental demand, the clause more or less empowers any group of parents, however fanatical or nutty they may be, to require the setting up of a new school maintained by the taxpayer regardless of what provision already exists in the area. This cannot be a reasonable or sensible way to construct education law. By ruling out objections from the LEA, the Bill will create a situation in which local authorities will have no say in the quality or nature of the schools that their voters have to finance. In so doing it completely undermines the principle of accountability which the poll tax is actually meant to increase.
The existence of surplus places in maintained schools in the area is not of itself to be a reason for rejecting proposals for new aided schools in the Bill. The Bill gives the Secretary of State extraordinary new powers to direct a local authority to reduce surplus places in its maintained schools and to make surplus places available to a new voluntary school. There is, incidentally, a very odd omission in that there is no

1251
reference to surplus places in aided schools. Why are they excluded? Why refer only to maintained schools? But, more importantly, the Bill omits any reference to the fact that closing schools is subject to clearly laid down procedures of consultation and formal proposals. LEAs cannot simply reduce surplus places by diktat; nor can the Secretary of State. To do so would be to ignore requirements laid down in the 1980 Act. Of course we should take out surplus places, but we should do it as laid down by law.
The Bill reveals an astonishing disregard for the rights of those parents and pupils in schools which happen to have surplus places. Surplus places are not in schools which are already empty but in schools which have pupils and which, although not full at present, may well be quite viable. The Bill appears either to force an existing school to share its premises with a new voluntary aided school or, on the direction of the Secretary of State, to force the closure of an existing school and the transfer of its pupils elsewhere in order to accommodate a new aided school.
What will happen if the parents in that school do not want their children to be transferred in this way? I must say that the scope for parental unhappiness and political conflict as a result of such measures is unbounded. Moreover, these proposals would almost certainly give rise to religious and possibly racial antagonism in the area where they are being implemented. Anyone who has been involved with the closing of schools, as I have, will know what a difficult and sensitive business it is. This proposed legislation is both insensitive and extraordinarily politically naive. It would lead to one group of parents—moreover, a group of parents unwilling up to now to make use of existing maintained or aided schools—having their wishes for a separate education for their children met at the expense of other parents with less exclusive views about their children's education. It is a recipe for disaster.
Finally, there is no reference in the Bill to questions of quality. There are serious questions to be asked about whether existing fundamentalist schools of various faiths which might seek to benefit from this proposed legislation are providing an education of acceptable quality. Some of them, we know, discriminate against girls; many of them have a narrow curriculum and rely on untrained teachers. Local education authorities cannot and should not be expected to pay for such schools. But the fundamental question of principle raised by the Bill is whether new maintained school places should be provided on parental demand, regardless of cost and of the impact on existing maintained schools.
I cannot believe that there can be much support for this Bill either in Parliament or in the country, and I am surprised that it should have proceeded thus far, although I am glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that it will now go no further.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, may I begin these words by apologising to your Lordships for the fact that I may have to leave the debate before it is over. However, I shall read Hansard with great interest later.
The Bill has given rise to certain heart searchings by me personally, although the policy on these Benches is clear enough. May I quote John Stuart Mill on liberty?
"All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity of opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education".
We are great believers in that.
Before going further, let me say something with close reference to what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said. I have not prepared my notes obviously, but our problem in the education system in this country is that most children have to go to the nearest school available for one reason or another. Schools are not made just by educationists, local education authorities, governing bodies or teachers; they are made by the parents, the children and the environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to certain schools which offered something special and had high standards, which is admirable. But that is because the parents want those standards and those values.
However, we are worried about schools where parents do not understand; they may be living in deprived areas; they may feel that they have no alternative, and they are perhaps not very concerned anyway or they do not understand the system. It seems to us that this is where funding should go—to improve the standards of the schools that exist so that the sort of schools of which the noble Baroness spoke become less necessary. She said that parents have voted with their feet, but I would say "some parents". The great majority of parents do not get the opportunity to do that.
Reverting to diversity, I personally happen to believe that the education offered in the Steiner schools is of inestimable value and embodies the best of modern trends and future hopes for education. It is particularly appealing in that it is international, attracting pupils from all over the world and, for example, flourishing in Japan, South Africa and Latin America, including the Favella slums of Sao Paulo, as well as in Europe, the United States and Israel. The Steiner schools in Germany were closed by Hitler, which in itself is a worthy recommendation.
The schools offer the arts and sciences and academic and manual skills for all pupils in a totally integrated way, and they teach modern languages from the age of six. They are totally non-sectarian but teach reverence for all life, in whatever form. They are state supported in New Zealand, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Israel and Finland; but in this country they have always been handicapped by lack of funds. It would be my dearest desire to see these enlightened schools redeemed from the crippling effects of penury.
Another very worthy candidate for consideration is a small school in Hartland in Devon—a school

1253
catering for about 30 children of secondary age—which was founded by parents eight years ago as a human-scale alternative to the 1,800-pupil comprehensive school an hour's bus ride away. The school is based on the philosophy of Dr. Schumacher. The parents and staff at this school are making untold sacrifices in order to enable the children to live the principle that "small is beautiful".
We as a party are concerned when thinking about the larger sections of the community seeking segregation on religious grounds. I am thinking particularly of the Moslem community. I believe it is the case that in this country the Moslem community is divided as to whether its members wish their children to go to all-Moslem schools, if such were freely available, or whether in order to ensure a top-class conventional education they would prefer their children to avail themselves of the state system. We on these Benches appreciate the natural justice of the claim that Moslems should be accorded the same rights as members of the Church of England, Methodists, Roman Catholics or those of the Jewish faith, but we have misgivings that where racial differences are added to fundamental cultural and religious ones our social integration may be threatened by according these rights. We would be chary of encouraging segregation in that way.
However, that is not our real stumbling block. The Bill proposes that applications for public support should take the form of applying for grant maintained status. We have always opposed the grant maintained system on the following grounds. We believe that education should remain locally delivered. The local education authorities, with all their shortcomings, are likely to appreciate local needs better than a central authority appointed to fund the grant maintained schools.
We believe that locally delivered education accords better with the principle of a devolved, decentralised society. The present Government have done much to make such local delivery of education unworkable. How can a local authority plan efficiently and economically if schools in its midst are suddenly removed from its administrative control and handed over to central Government with grant maintained status? It must be rather like captaining a football team but being told that the centre half is taking orders from another manager; or like running a rail network in which some of the stations or lengths of track are to be removed entirely.
Numerous services are organised on a country-wide or borough-wide basis. To have certain schools not part of that organisation and yet to retain certain responsibilities towards them must constitute an administrative nightmare. There is also the somewhat disagreeable implication of the social ladder. If one's children attend a grant maintained school, they are a rung or two above one's neighbour's children who only go to a local comprehensive. It looks as though grant maintained schools will be better funded than the common run of schools and are likely to become increasingly selective. The class system in this country
1254
flourishes. We need to iron out differences rather than to manufacture new social ladders to encourage or perpetuate them.
We should like some categories of independent schools to receive public funding. Apart from other considerations, some are undertaking important pioneering work. But we wish to see it done by the voluntary aided system. Your Lordships will know that a number of the C of E, RC and Jewish schools in the country receive public funds through local education authorities on that basis. The voluntary aided schools own their own premises and enjoy a considerable degree of independence but are funded by county hall as to running expenses and 85 per cent. of capital expenses. They are ultimately under LEA control.
Why may not the schools about which we speak apply for voluntary aided rather than grant maintained status? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that any independent school may already legally do so in accordance with the 1944 or 1980 Education Acts. Section 13 of the latter sets out the terms under which application may be made.
Such an application does not usually have the support of the LEA, as the noble Baroness said. However, when Islamiyah, the large Moslem primary school in Brent, applied for voluntary aided status last year, it was the then Secretary of State who refused permission and the LEA which supported the application. Normally it is the LEA which opposes such applications. But if it were thought desirable to overcome such resistance in the interests of John Stuart Mill's diversity or of pioneering endeavour, an amendment such as that contained in Section 2 might be made.
The nub of our objections to the proposal that we are debating is this. By removing the responsibility for considering such applications and ultimately for administering such schools from the hands of those who live locally and putting it into the hands of remote and faceless officials in Elizabeth House, one would be striking yet another blow at regional devolution.
I wish to press the Minister to give an answer to the million dollar question. For a number of years it has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to cut local education authorities down to size and to make their job more difficult. Is that war of attrition aimed at their abolition? Has the possibility of a neat solution to the poll tax problem suddenly given this long-term aim an added impetus? Do the Government believe or do they not believe in democratic control of state education? We have the right to know their thoughts and to have an open debate on the subject.
We believe that public funding should be available for certain categories of independent school ultimately at the discretion of the Secretary of State after consultation. For example, I refer to schools which undertake important pioneering work or are fulfilling special needs of one kind or another. We are chary of schools which would be exclusive especially on religious grounds. We wish such funding to be done through the democratically controlled local authority and not by the central authority, which would bypass and undermine the devolved system.

1255
For those reasons we are sympathetic to some of the thinking behind the Bill. However, we cannot support it as it stands.
6.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing the Bill. Whether or not she withdraws it at the end of the debate, she has helped us to focus upon some important issues in relation to the educational system in this country. I am unable to support the Bill as it stands. However, I wish, greatly daring, to distance myself from some of the criticisms of the Bill put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, whose clarity and punch I admire but whose opinions I do not entirely share.
I should make it clear that the Bill has been carefully studied by the General Synod board of education. It is in the light of those discussions that I try to express how I believe the Church of England views the proposals.
The first clause provides for independent schools to be eligible for grant maintained status. The Church of England is concerned that we should have an adequately funded pattern of education across the country which ensures that children of all abilities and backgrounds have access to high quality education. We are in partnership with local and central government to that end. If independent schools at present privately financed are brought directly into the maintained system as grant maintained schools, there will inevitably be an increase in public funding requirements. I have heard no indication that the Government are prepared to provide extra finance.
It can be pleaded that any money needed for those new schools can be found through transferring allocations from under-utilised schools elsewhere. However, the Government are giving additional financial incentives to those schools which wish to become grant maintained. I believe that the net effect of the Bill would be to place additional financial pressure on existing schools. That would cause me some concern.
I am not opposed to grant maintained schools on principle. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, indicated that having grant maintained schools in the present system is rather like trying to run a football team with the centre half being given orders from elsewhere. I can ass ire the noble Lord that bishops in the Church of England are well experienced in that art. I have to run a diocese with 50 per cent. of the clergy appointed by other bodies. We are quite used to such curious football teams. Now and again they work. Nonetheless there is concern that if we allow independent schools to jump straight through to grant maintained status, we place undue strains on the present educational pattern.

Furthermore, I am aware that parts of the first section of the Bill state that the independent school is not eligible if it is already well endowed financially, and so on. I wish for a clearer definition. I am not clear about what criteria the Secretary of State would use to designate categories of independent schools; nor how
1256
he would determine any consequential applications. For those reasons I cannot support the first part of the Bill.
I have more sympathy with the second part of the Bill which touches a very real issue. There is need for further discussion. I doubt however whether the proposals in the Bill are the right ones to take us further forward. It would help to remove misunderstandings and a sense of injustice if we could be given a clearer indication of the criteria used by the Secretary of State when determining applications for voluntary aided status. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the Secretary of State having indicated the principles he uses. It is clear that we know what information he wants; it is not clear what are the criteria against which that information is assessed. It is on that point that we want more openness and information.
The information that the Secretary of State requires is not laid down in legislation; it is administratively derived. We are not clear about the criteria that he uses. There is no fixed ordering or weighting of factors. For instance, the views of the LEA are important but not determinative, and although the Secretary of State does not normally approve proposals where surplus places exist in the area, that is not an invariable principle. Where applications are made and are then turned down on the basis of surplus places existing in the area, it might be helpful for there to be some way in which the Secretary of State could refer the matter back to the local authority. That would enable further plans to be brought forward as to how the surplus places could be reduced in a satisfactory overall local scheme. I do not wish to see the importance and responsibility of the local authority undermined or diminished in employing a pattern of education in the country.
The main issue is surely that we need greater clarity and openness. An anxiety exists that the Secretary of State is rejecting voluntary aided applications on technical grounds that surplus places exist in the locality whereas his real grounds lie elsewhere. If we do not face that anxiety and the contentious issues that surround it, there will be the lurking fear that we have bureaucratic discrimination. That would be damaging for our society.
For its part the Church of England, in making use of voluntary aided status, sees itself as working in partnership with government, both local and central, to provide a pattern of education for all. Any voluntary aided school must work on a basis of partnership and not just seek public funding for any private cause or philosophy. There must be ready agreement to accept equality in both race and gender, as enshrined in law. In regard to gender it is surely important that there should be not only equality between boys and girls in the classroom, but also a clear recognition that that equality pervades the whole of life.
We want to see the national curriculum used and taught in such a way that it encourages pupils to develop their critical faculties; there is no place for

1257
indoctrination in education. It is over the issues of partnership, equality and indoctrination that the main controversies and anxieties lie.
I want to place on record that both I and the General Synod board of education are not against voluntary aided status for Moslem or other faith schools, nor for some small Christian schools. But our hope is that any applications for voluntary status will take on board the principles outlined; that is, partnership, equality and the avoidance of indoctrination. I wish to place on record my appreciation of some of the small independent schools, particularly one that I was able to visit and others with which I have been in indirect contact. Those that I have seen impressed me. Some might benefit the maintained system by being included within it. But I am not convinced that the way to achieve that is to prevent the Secretary of State using surplus places in adjoining schools as adequate grounds for refusal. There are wider issues to be faced and other routes which might be followed.
I cannot obscure the fact that the draft Bill has brought before us issues which it would be unwise to avoid. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill and allowing us to consider some of those issues, even though I cannot support the Bill as it stands.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, since coming to your Lordships' House I have much admired the commitment and dedication of my noble friend Lady Cox; especially the amount of hard work that she has put into bringing the Bill before the House. I therefore particularly regret that I am unable to give it my support.
I am conscious that the motivation behind the Bill is of the highest. However, I strongly believe that it does not serve either the interests of society as a whole or of the children. In the present situation—I agree that much of this has been said—all religious schools have the right to apply for voluntary aided status, but they must find 12 per cent. of the funds required and the state provides the balancing 88 per cent. There is no discrimination as to which religious groups are eligible to apply.
The Secretary of State may refuse approval on grounds such as suitability, educational content, and so forth. In addition, as we heard, he may refuse if too many school places are available in that education authority area. The Bill will remove "surplus places" as a reason for refusal. That will mean that the most objective reason for refusal will no longer be available to the Secretary of State. Clearly, if the educational level is not satisfactory it will still be possible to refuse. Any other grounds will be extremely difficult to judge by objective criteria. There is the likelihood of a large number of cases applying for judicial review where the Secretary of State decides not to give his approval to a school.
The Bill further provides for independent schools, or schools which have opted-out from the State
1258
system, to opt in again as grant-maintained schools. That may lead to independent schools being set up with the specific intention of applying for grant-maintained status shortly thereafter. That is a somewhat backdoor way of obtaining access to state funding.
I do not believe in a proliferation of separate religious schools. Changes which open the door any wider need to be resisted. Britain has undergone an enormous change during the past 30 years. Large numbers of immigrants have come to this country from the former Empire and there is now a greater diversity of cultures, races and religions. In our schools we have second and even third generations of British born children of those immigrants and we need to consider seriously the kind of society we want to build for them.
It is a matter of great regret to me that Lord Swann is no longer with us. I had the privilege of serving on his committee of inquiry into the education of ethnic minority children, which produced the appropriately named report, Education for All. We had a lengthy debate on the desirability of separate religious schools and came down firmly against them. We felt that educating children separately would threaten the cohesion of society even further and that there could never come a time when the different groups would begin to feel a part of the same society. That means neither assimilation nor separation. We subscribed to the concept of pluralism but with diversity within unity. I commend to your Lordships most particularly the first chapter of that report under the title "Nature of Society".
I understand and sympathise with the groups who see their religion as a way of life which permeates all aspects of their day-to-day living. That applies particularly to Islam and perhaps also to some of the Christian groups who want these provisions. But we know only too well what separate education can do. We already have an example within the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland. Even on the mainland it was not so long ago that there was considerable antipathy between Protestants and Roman Catholics. With some of the other religious groups there would be the additional element of racial differences to contend with. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has already pointed towards that.
There is another important factor that we must not lose sight of. In many cases there is a desire to control the education of girls through separate schools. Many societies see equal opportunities and education for women as threats to their traditional way of life. Interestingly, many of the societies are changing their views on a number of these issues; but it is the nature of immigrant communities to hold on to the attitudes which they have brought with them, particularly in the face of what they perceive as a threatening environment.
Much has been made of the fact that we already have denominational schools, including Jewish schools. After all, the Church of England and the Roman Catholics were the sole providers of education long before the state took over the task. There was a

1259
need for Catholic and Jewish schools if the Catholics and Jews were to get any education at all. It was not the luxury of parental choice which led to those denominational schools, but sheer necessity.
I take up a point made by my noble friend Lady Cox. She said that many of the Christian schools opened their doors to other faiths and that there are many Hindu, Sikh and Moslem parents who send their children to these independent Christian schools. That may be the case now, but would it be so when they also set up their own separate faith schools? I believe not. Parental choice cannot be paramount. It must be balanced with the needs of society and those of the real consumers, the children themselves. It is their future and ability to compete and function alongside their peers that we should be most concerned about.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Young is unable to be here today. I know that had she been present she would have fully supported these views. I believe that there are now many opportunities for making sure that there is a strong moral and ethical element underpinning our education system. But at the end of the day children spend only a fraction of their time at school. We cannot absolve the parents from their own responsibility for the religious nurture of their children.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, in not preparing a speech for a debate of this kind one falls into the trap of listening to the other speakers and then deciding to reply to them. There is then the difficulty of deciding to whom to reply and still keep one's speech short. I do not believe that because the Bill is to be withdrawn we should not spend time on it. That would be a discourtesy to this House.
There are a few points I wish to make arising from the debate particularly concerning the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. He referred to access to high quality education as an aim, I assume, of the Church of England. I certainly agree with that. Some people would suggest that high quality education means giving children all possible knowledge on certain subjects. One of them, which is a very important part of our lives and which at times seems to be the most important part of some people's lives, as witnessed in Northern Ireland, Beirut and other parts of the world, is religion. Some would say that children should be taught about all the religions and then allowed to make up their minds as to which, if any, they wish to pursue. That is my idea of high quality education, though I may be wrong.
The right reverend Prelate said that he sees no place for indoctrination in education. I wonder whether that applies to teachers taking a crocodile of young children aged about seven or eight, marching them along the street by order, sitting them in a church and then letting them be indoctrinated with the views of that particular church. I see that every day of my life. If that is not indoctrination, I do not know what it is. However, I am glad to see that the Church of England
1260
seems to be changing its mind. No doubt it will have a word with one of the other main faiths in this country.
In proposing the Bill the mover gave us an example of name-dropping at its best. We were regaled with the names of various people who support the principle and fundamental reason for the Bill. I was very impressed. I thought to myself: "This is an important Bill. It has something to do with religion because the rabbi and various bishops were mentioned who all support the Bill". That poses the question as to why it is being withdrawn.
According to the religious people who lecture me, religious belief is the most important thing in the universe. In fact some religions say that they know the answer to the creation of the universe. I was taught that until 1940 when I used to attend my church as a regular supporter. I speak to young children who go to church and they are taught the same. It is blasphemy to suggest that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, the whole Creator. That is blasphemy. That is an important issue. I assume that the intent behind this Bill is contained in that very pointed remark.
The bishops and the rabbi will not give way on their faith. The rabbi does not believe in Christ, but he will not give way on his faith. He believes it is right. He is dogmatically opposed to an atheist. Islam may also know the answer. Persons like me who have been described as pagans in this House do not know the answer. I frankly admit that I do not know the answer. In determining that ultimate answer everybody should be free from indoctrination. They should be taught everything possible about how the religions were created and then they can make up their own minds.
We heard a lambasting of the state schools. If I heard correctly—one can be mistaken, so I shall read Hansard tomorrow with interest—I shall make sure that all the people I know in state schools, particularly the teachers, get to know what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the supporters of this Bill think about our state education.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Maybe he could not hear because there was some conversation going on about him at the time. At the outset of my speech I made a special point of saying that there are many good state schools and I had no wish whatever to cast aspersions on the entire state system.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am grateful for that admission: some of them are bad and some of them are good! We all know that, but the general impression given in the speech was that by and large state schools are not very good at all. That is not my view. My view is that they labour under tremendous difficulties and give our children some of the best education in the world. That is my view. I may be wrong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned the case of people sending their children to the West Indies for a traditional British, Christian education. I have never before heard such arrogance, in this House or elsewhere. I do not know whether I am in the House

1261
of Lords or out on the stump somewhere listening to the Evangelists. It has been said before in the House that secular education cannot maintain our moral values. I resent it now as much as I resented it then. I believe in a secular society.
Our prisons are not full of people who have sat down and discussed the questions of religion and creation and become secularists by conviction. They are usually full of people who have never given any thought to religion at all and who have been reared in that atmosphere. That is the population of our prisons. They are not secularists. They are not people who believe in a secular state. They are not people who will politically support one of the worst organisations in existence in the United Kingdom and then march behind funerals and listen to Christian dissertations upon deaths which they themselves have brought about. They are not people who have given any thought to secularism or morality. They are people who have been reared, as they are today in Ireland, against a background of religious bigotry. Those are the fundamental issues lying behind this Bill.
It is no use talking about education because at the base of it all we have to ask ourselves this question: is a Christian right in suggesting that public money should be used for a religion that is blasphemous against Christianity? I assume that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is a Christian. I thought blasphemy was the worst crime that could be committed. We seem to be getting dangerously near to establishing a case for the abolition of the blasphemy laws, an attempt which I made some time ago.
Perhaps I may say something on the question of the procedure of this House. I moved an amendment to the Education Reform Bill. I spent a quarter of an hour in this Chamber trying to put forward reasons why we should have no indoctrination in our education but should teach all the children about all the religions, let them have a free discussion and make up their own minds. On that occasion I did not hear one word in opposition. There were right reverend Prelates on the Bishops Bench and the government spokesman was present. Everyone refused to accept the challenge and so the vote was taken without any opposition being expressed. I thought that these were important matters. This Chamber is motivated by things other than party politics. This Chamber is sufficiently mature that it can debate fundamental issues. So I proposed a Bill to abolish blasphemy. This is how I relate that matter to this debate. I sought the opinions of Members of the House who are older than I am and more versed in the functions of the House. They came to the conclusion that the time was not right and it would be wasting the time of this House to propose that Bill.
I had a choice. I could have come to this Chamber, moved the Bill and then withdrawn it at the end of the debate. I considered that that was both discourteous and dishonest. When I next move the Second Reading of the Blasphemy Bill I shall not let it die. I have had a lesson taught to me today. I shall bring it here and I shall speak on it. There will be no question of me
1262
withdrawing it at the end. I shall insist that it goes ahead because that is the lesson I have been taught today. It is downright discourteous. It is betraying the elements of the Christian faith to come to this House, debate a Bill and then withdraw it. If it is a fundamental issue, why can we not have a vote on it; or is it politically unwise at the moment from the point of view of both sides of the House to introduce such a Bill? I am not afraid to ask that. If that is the reason then it is a betrayal of anyone who believes in any religion whatsoever.
I quote the new Archbishop of Canterbury, who in some respects seems to be starting off on the right lines. He is quoted in the Independent today saying that religious truths are too important to be fudged. We have heard the religious truths today and we shall no doubt hear some more before the end of the debate. We shall then fudge it at the end by being afraid to vote or by being persuaded by our political masters not to vote. The issues raised not only in words but by implication are very important.
I have spoken for 11 minutes. In view of the fact there is to be no vote Members of the House will want to go home or to other places where they can put their heads down. Although I have two more pages of notes I shall ignore them completely.
I was told once that I must not rubbish faith by asking certain questions or saying certain things that are true. But the Bill proposes to allow the Islamic faith to be taught with the aid of the public purse. I have said some nasty things about the Christian religion in the past. That was before it began to modify its attitude to dogmatism and before it began to modify its attitude to the ultimate question. Nevertheless it was guilty of some terrible crimes. It is an obscene blasphemy for any religion to threaten the life of any man simply because he wants to express an opinion. I would defend to the death that man's right to express it. I would certainly never agree that the Islamic faith should be aided by the public purse in order to carry out that religion, even though it is only following some very good examples set by the Christian Church.
I conclude by suggesting to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that there is another fundamental question. If it is a religious issue, if it is something that strikes at the very heart of relationships between the state and religion, that, as the noble Baroness herself said, transcends politics. Perhaps I may say in a good Liverpool fashion: just have the guts to move the Bill and stick by what you are saying; do not allow your religious convictions to be influenced by party politicians and managers.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I put down my name to speak on the merits of the Bill. I did not realise that I would have the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. I must not allow myself to be unduly distracted. Time is short and in any event it would be quite impossible for me to discuss matters of theology with the noble Lord. With respect, I think he went a little over the top.

1263
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, speaks with great clarity and conviction. I understand exactly what she says. The trouble is that I do not happen to agree with it; but at least I can understand exactly what is being said, whereas I do not have that advantage with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton.
I turn to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. It seems to me that we agree on diversity as a matter of fundamental approach and he is very much in sympathy, as I am, with the direction of funding—for example, in favour of the Steiner schools—but we part company as to how that should be done. Again, that is a matter which one simply cannot discuss within the compass of 11 minutes or so.
As there are many speakers in the debate, and in order to save your Lordships' time, I should point out that I showed the notes from which I was to speak to my noble friend Lady Cox. She did not by any means agree with all of my points. However, every word that the rig it reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said reflects the passages of my notes. I take my stand not only on my own behalf but I also accept and adopt, as being the correct approach without any cavil or qualification, every word he said. That admission will shorten my contribution to some degree. It is the first time in my experience that I have ever found it possible to speak in such a way as regards my relationship with the Spiritual Benches.
The right reverend Prelate took the bold point; namely, that here is the Secretary of State exercising powers to approve or reject the proposition. I looked through the statute quite coldly, as would an ordinary lawyer, and there is nothing to say how he would exercise those powers. I then searched for secondary legislation, but I found none. That meant that I had to consider how on earth this would be done. It seems that he will make up his own rules as he goes along and that there is no control by Parliament. Further, there is no proper provision for making representations; he does net have to give his reasons in writing; and, there is no way that the exercise of this discretion can be challenged in the courts by way of judicial review. Is that not a fine kettle of fish? The right reverend Prelate was right to point out that that is a wholly unsatisfactory way of conducting our affairs.
It appears that the current rules, which were made up by the Secretary of State in connection with Clause 2 and, according to the speech he made on 16th January, state that he must take the following considerations into account. Consideration must be given, first, to the overall need for school places in the area; secondly, to the demand for a particular kind of school; thirdly, to whether the LEA supports the proposal; fourthly, to whether the school will be able to deliver the national curriculum; fifthly, to whether the premises are up to standard; sixthly, to whether the promoters can meet the expenditure; and, finally, to the provision of equal opportunities for boys and girls. However, no one has the slightest idea how those criteria will operate in practice.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton—and I hope he will not be cross with me for so doing—that the value of this occasion is that we can meet,
1264
discuss and hear one another's views. Indeed, I have been able to assimilate views which I have not heard before and I have also been comforted to hear the right reverend Prelate confirm my very tentative approach to the subject. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, I hope that he does not think that I am frightened of debate. It seems to me that there are ways of ensuring that matters are discussed in this House other than introducing a Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Because we are able to discuss the matter a form of consensus, perhaps even including the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, could emerge—I can see the noble Lord nodding in assent—that if the system under Clause 2 is to continue then it should at least be better run. That is one of the aspects which has emerged from the debate which might not have come to light if the debate had not taken place.
Another factor which emerges from the debate is the fact that the Bill is too narrowly drafted. Many problems arise under the 1981 Act as regards children with learning difficulties. I refer to the appellate procedures. I believe that I should now declare an interest, in that I have been involved in many such cases and I am currently concerned with about three of them. I shall not bore your Lordships with the details, but the procedures under Sections 5 and 8 of the Act are in urgent need of review. This is the kind of occasion upon which one can put forward such a proposition. One can say, "Well, if another Bill in a different form is to be introduced at some time which takes account of the objections, perhaps thought might also be given to such and such an aspect of the matter". I hope that that proves to be the case.
Another problem with the Bill is not just the question of drafting; it goes beyond that point. I refer to the concept of categorisation. I hope that that will never come back. If one tries to categorise schools as religious, philosophical (the Steiner type of school), specifically Christian or secular—although no mention is made of secular schools; they were to be introduced in Committee—the process is really not appropriate and could cause considerable offence because of the way it is put forward in a multi-religious and non-religious society. Further, it belies practical application. One of the reasons for that is that the independent schools, and certainly those on the borderline of viability which under these proposals would qualify to apply for grant-aided status, are very often sacred or religious schools as well as being schools which cater for the learning difficulties of children. Therefore, it is quite impossible and impracticable to approach the matter with the concept of categorisation. I hope that I have made that point both briefly and clearly and that the concept will not reappear in another draft. I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton wishes to intervene. I shall, therefore, give way to him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I should stress the fact that we are very interested in what he has to say. But perhaps he could confirm something for the sake of completeness and clarity. When he refers to "categorisation" I assume that he is referring to the issue of whether schools would enter into the,
"county, voluntary or independent school",
status, or the maintained or voluntary agencies. Alternatively, is he referring to both those categories?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, my Lords; I was not. However I am most grateful to my noble friend. That was a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. I was referring to Clause 1(3), which states:
"The Secretary of State shall by order designate categories",
as regards schools which provide a,
"religious or philosophical ethos, including a specifically Christian ethos".
I referred to the fact that no mention was made of the secular category. I was directing my criticism directly to that omission.
The other matter is that the Bill should make it absolutely clear, and it does not, that the true intention of my noble friend Lady Cox, which I support—and it is worthy of further discussion and consideration in a leisurely fashion —is that the Bill is designed to supplement and not undermine the state system by conferring eligibility only upon those independent schools on the borderline of viability which could not meet the reasonable parental demand without grant aid assistance. Certainly, most independent special schools would not qualify, by reason of their endowment.
However, the whole concept must be worked out within current viable financial restraints and provisions. On that I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. I do not believe that that can be done, so to speak, off the cuff. This whole matter raises an important question of education which requires considerably longer discussion and thought, although I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for giving us this opportunity.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, much of what I had originally planned to say has already been said. However, I should like to make one or two brief comments. In his closing comments the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, touched upon what I believe to be one of the saving graces of the Bill, which I believe is otherwise a complete and utter mess and unworkable; that is, that certain types of school in the independent sector should be given some form of assistance.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie pointed out that the voluntary aided schemes are there to give assistance. However the schools with which my noble friend is involved—schools for pupils with special educational needs—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out, need some assistance especially as many are in danger of closing. In spite of the fact that improvements have been made in this sphere in recent
1266
years, we have not got it right yet. For example, as regards dyslexics, the private sector still has to do far too much work. Parents are forced to choose private sector education.
I should like to make a comment on a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. I have a gut reaction against the idea of religious schools. My party believes—and I agree with this—that there should not be a blanket ban on any type of educational school. However, I am frightened and am made angry by the thought of fundamentalism of any description being brought into schools. That is an alarming concept. It does not matter where it comes from. As soon as it is said, "This is the right way to do things, this is the way things should be done", then everybody else is wrong. If everybody else is wrong, it is possible to justify doing almost anything to them. If one puts racial discrimination into that cocktail, then one arrives at a situation which we should take every step to avoid. That is a danger inherent in this Bill as currently drafted. I do not believe that the noble Baroness wants anything like that to come about, but that is a danger. Some of the briefing on schools having the right moral fibre and background offended many people. That is a danger which comes to the fore as we discuss this Bill.
Other points have been covered very well. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the fact that the construction of the Bill is very shaky. I do not wish to say anything further on that other than that the Bill has opened up a huge Pandora's box of issues. I am glad that the Bill is to be withdrawn because, had we stepped into that box at this point, I do not know what would be the outcome.
7.46 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank my noble friend Lady Cox for initiating it. I have a clash of engagements this evening so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not listen to the whole debate. I must leave shortly.
The point about indoctrination has been raised and discussed, particularly after the right reverend Prelate claimed that there was not much indoctrination in his Church. All religious schools are indoctrinating schools. Of course they are. In my Roman Catholic Church the clergy indoctrinate, but I hope that they do so by giving all points of view. We are lucky enough to have some Roman Catholic laity to keep the clergy in order. That is a very important part of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, as I have frequently said.
The key to this Bill lies in the reference to,
"schools … which provide an alternative religious or philosophical ethos, including a specifically Christian ethos, to the existing local maintained schools".
The Bill seeks to make available such schools where there is a demand from parents. As the noble Baroness told the House, there are many Anglican, Catholic and Jewish schools dating back many years. These days there is also a demand from other religious groups, both Christian and non-Christian, such as the Mohammedans. In justice, that demand too should be met.

1267
Roughly speaking, there are 1 million Moslems in this country. They should be given proper recognition. We no longer live in the Middle Ages, with Crusades taking place. The Moslems believe in Islam and a way of life which we should respect. I was rather amazed and saddened by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I believe that she was defending LEAs rather than speaking about education. However, having said that, I leave the point.
Following the legislation of recent years, local education authorities have been under a duty to comply with parental preferences where it is possible to do so. However, those preferences have been limited to the schools available. It should be the duty of the Department of Education and the local authorities to go beyond that and seek to ensure that the availability of schools more accurately reflects the wishes of the parents in the area. In particular, I strongly support the provision in the Bill which will prevent a surplus of places in other maintained schools being used as an impediment to the provision of religious schools for which there is a demand from parents.
I have received many letters on that point from people living in the Wirral where there are vacancies in the maintained schools. There Catholics are seeking greater support for their schools. Where religious groups can show sufficient support from parents for a school of a particular faith and can meet the other conditions required, it is surely wrong that their applications should be refused merely because there is a surplus of places in the maintained school. That must be wrong.
We should take note of what such a surplus of places amounts to. It consists of places not now wanted by parents although they may have been wanted in the past. In most areas the pattern of schools is not of recent origin. In some areas it goes back a long time, although the composition of the population in those areas has frequently changed. I cannot believe that it is right that groups should be denied a school of their faith because of arrangements made by local authorities many years ago in different circumstances and in answer to different needs.
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I seem to agree with the noble Duke, I hope that that will not be put down to subservience towards higher authority in my Church. He is the popular leader of the Catholic laity, but that has not prevented me from differing from him on party and religious matters. Today I agree with him. I support the Bill in principle. I cannot imagine the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, introducing a Bill to promote Christian education which did not secure my support in principle. We all remember that it was due solely to her initiative that the word "Christianity" is in the Education Reform Act. She is entitled to a great deal of respect from anyone who has Christian leanings.
I shall not estimate the contribution Christianity has made to the position of the Labour Party. It has made a large contribution, but it has not been the only
1268
contribution. I do not believe that anyone ever called Sidney Webb or Bernard Shaw Christians. The two former Labour Prime Ministers, my noble friends Lord Wilson and Lord Callaghan, are both Christians. The position of the late Lord Attlee was rather more complex. The House may remember that when he was asked whether he was a Christian he said that he accepted the Christian ethic but could not stand the mumbo-jumbo. That was not a firm Christian affirmation. On the other hand, when he was asked whether he was an agnostic he replied that he did not know. So the humanists cannot claim him as one of their own.
Kenneth Harris's fine biography of Lord Attlee brings out the fact that he was influenced by the Christian traditions of his family and above all by his brother Tom, a Christian pacifist, who went to prison for his beliefs during the First World War. At that time the late Lord Attlee was going through what Winston Churchill described as the heaviest fighting. Perhaps we can refrain from dogmatism with respect to Lord Attlee, but two later Labour Prime Ministers were strong Christians, like many other members of the Labour Party.
I joined the Labour Party before the birth of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox and my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting her. She spoke brilliantly and the adrenaline may flow all the more strongly after an interruption.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is quite right.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, my noble friend can afford to be generous. When I joined the Labour Party I said that I was a socialist because I was a Christian. That was my position then and it is my position today. That is true of very many other members of my party and other parties. Be that as it may, all of us in the House believe strongly in freedom of thought, speech and worship. We must surely all agree that there are matters which are more important than politics. The trouble is that politics tend to interfere in religious matters. That cannot be avoided. Back-Benchers on all sides of the House believe in freedom of speech, but Ministers have to make collective decisions on matters such as how public money is to be distributed.
I am losing the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I hope that I have said nothing to affront him. I thought that I was being innocuous.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My noble friend should try to be controversial.
The Earl of Longford: I shall think of something. Before the noble Lord's departure upset me, I was saying that there are matters deeper than politics. Politics have a way of interfering. The Government have the problem of deciding how the taxpayers' money, for which they are responsible, should be distributed. That brings us to the general issue we are discussing.

The country in general, whatever a few individuals may feel, accepts the voluntary system under which large numbers of children receive state assistance to

1269
attend voluntary schools. I do not believe that any party will disturb that arrangement in the foreseeable future. I shall concentrate on the great majority of children who attend state schools. There, as those of us who took part in the debate two years ago will remember, Christianity is guaranteed its position. It is not a dominant position, but I do not believe anyone will quarrel with me if I say that it has a leading position.
What about the parents who are convinced that that teaching is not being provided in the schools that their children attend? Are those parents to be denied what is provided for in the Act or are they to be given assistance to set up schools of their own? I believe an irresistible case is made out to give some assistance to people in certain circumstances. The Bill is not well drafted. People in my party shrink from the idea of assistance being given to independent schools. That conjures up the idea of public schools receiving assistance.
Lord Peston: Yes.
The Earl of Longford: I do not know whether my noble friend has had time to read the Bill. I expect that he will before he replies. If he reads it carefully he will see that steps are to be taken to prevent public schools from receiving assistance under that heading. That being provided for, I have no worries on social grounds. But I am worried about the drafting of the crucial clause. It is woolly, and if people do not like it, I share their dislike. Christianity seems to be relegated to an alternative status. The reference to a "philosophical ethos" is either meaningless or dangerous. I could not vote for that clause.
I am relieved to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will not take the Bill to a Division. If she had, I should have had reluctantly to support her. I should have had misgivings and I should have promised to make a thorough nuisance of myself in Committee. As she is rightly not taking the Bill to a Division, I hope that she will bring back a Bill which pursues the same ideas but in a much more sensible and acceptable form.
8 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I had better speak. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will not be taking her Bill as it stands further than Second Reading. I am greatly relieved about that. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle behind the Bill, I cannot support it as drafted. At this stage of the parliamentary year it has no chance of becoming law.
Many noble Lords have spoken in favour and against the Bill. Most have made valid points. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, spoke of the problems of Moslem schools and the curriculum. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, mentioned the tendency of immigrant communities to hold on to their ethnic customs. This is an important point. The Scots—and I am one—have been great emigrators for hundreds of years. Families of Scots descent may be
1270
found all over Europe, in Russia and more recently in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In all those countries the descendants of Scots families have risen to the highest rank and office. I shall not bore your Lordships with a list because most of us will be able to think of many examples.
When the Scots emigrate, they integrate, intermarry with the people of their new country and adopt the customs of that country. I hope that I shall not be shouted at for this comment, but they are unlike some English colonists whose great aim seems to be never to go native, as it is called. That is why the Scots flourished as they did. When in Rome they did as the Romans did; they became good Roman citizens. Surely that is what we want our immigrants to do.
That is one reason I am a little worried at the prospect of helping immigrants whose culture is very different and sometimes not altogether compatible with our own to continue preserving their culture in this country. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, is not in his place, but here I beg to differ from him. I do not believe that it is in the interests either of the children of those immigrants or of this country to preserve their culture. Nevertheless, one can naturally very much sympathise with their wish to do so. If people feel strongly that their own culture is the only one acceptable for their children, then they should think carefully before emigrating. All in all, a great deal more consultation is needed before the Bill, having been totally reconsidered and redrafted, is reintroduced.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I also wish to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing the Bill and I congratulate her on her courage in doing so. It strikes me as a Bill with an unusually large number of natural enemies. It even seems to have attracted the hostility of some interests which are usually ranged against each other. That does not mean that it is necessarily mistaken in its purpose.
In supporting the Bill, I hope it will be helpful if I start by looking at some of the interests opposed to it and go on to examine what may be its biggest stumbling block. I suspect that is the prospect of Moslem fundamentalist schools. I shall end by considering some of the Bill's religious and spiritual implications.
First, I take its natural enemies. Because the Bill seeks to widen parental choice in education, it attracts the hostility of the state educational establishment in this country. That establishment is largely secular and in places aggressively atheistic. It is on the whole zealous in its efforts to "permeate the whole curriculum", if noble Lords will forgive the jargon, with the multi-cultural and multi-faith ethos. That ethos, as I have met it, largely in the polytechnic sector, does not respect the separate faiths and cultures now represented in this country. It jumbles them together into an unrecognisable and untenable cocktail, often spiced with a strong slug of neo-Marxism. In doing so, of course, it tries its best to undermine our own cultural tradition as well.

1271

So the Bill commits another crime, because it dares to suggest that religion should not only be taken seriously but that the world's greatest religions should be allowed to form the basis of the culture and education of those who adhere to them. That is sacrilege indeed in the British educational establishment today.
On a more practical front, our local education authorities and those who continue to support them oppose the further erosion of their power envisaged by the Bill. I hope that the Government may regard that as a point in the Bill's favour, since it fits in with the Government's excellent initiatives in setting up grant maintained schools, and in introducing local management of schools, which are also starting to erode local education authority power.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Cox that the "spare places" objection does not seem to have much validity. It seems fairly indefensible to go on keeping 1.5 million spare places, often in bad schools which parents do not want, while denying parents schools which they do want. Both the fact that parents are voting with their feet when they can, and the demographic trend, suggest that there may be a number of schools which should be closed and their resources redirected to new and better schools.
However, as if the antagonism of the educational establishment were not enough, the Bill also seems to be disliked by many of our more evangelical Christians. The reason for this dislike brings me to the Bill's greatest problem. To tell the truth, it may well be its only problem, apart from one or two administrative matters. That problem is the prospect of Moslem fundamentalism becoming too prevalent in a growing number of our schools. That scare is well and truly running, promoted by all the Bill's enemies. Images are being conjured up of schools run by mad mullahs, crazy ayatollahs and, no doubt, dancing dervishes as well, which will turn out growing numbers of violent young fundamentalists who will sweep our declining culture from the face of this land.
I should like to deal with this spectre under two headings; the practical and the religious. First, briefly a practical point. There are already 20 private Moslem schools and whether anyone likes it or not, there will be more. Apart from all the motives of natural justice, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Cox, it must surely be sensible to do what we can to see that these schools follow the national curriculum and, for example, learn British history while retaining their own religious freedom. If we deny them that justice then perhaps we shall deserve it if, in understandable irritation, these schools veer more towards fundamentalism than would otherwise be the case.
However, the word "fundamentalism" brings me to the religious or spiritual dimension of the Bill. I am sure it is a matter of great regret to all of us that the noble Lord, Lord Coggan, and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, are not with us today to take this aspect forward with the authority that they would confer upon it. In their regrettable absence, I propose to rely on my own Christian education and on the friendships I have formed within the Islamic community. Among
1272
the latter I am privileged to count the Imam Sheikh Jamal, who is the highest Islamic authority in this country.
Islamic fundamentalism is often thought to mean a way of life dictated by a fundamental adherence to the Koran. I understand that this is not so. Islamic fundamentalists, whose spectre is causing so much trouble to the Bill, rely on later, more violent texts. They are repudiated by the vast majority of Moslems. My friends estimate that of the nearly two million Moslems living in this country, the aggressive types which we all fear so much number only some 2,000. It can perhaps be said that the vast majority of Moslems are therefore too silent; but that may be because they reflect the true ethos of the Koran itself.
I know that quotations can be taken from most religious texts to justify a particular view. But it is perhaps worth offering your Lordships just two quotations from the Koran. They are two out of several which were given to me this morning by the Imam himself. The first comes from chapter 3 verse 84 and reads as follows:
"We believe in God and what is revealed to us in that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmail, to Isaac and Jacob and the tribes of Israel, and that which the Lord gave to Moses and to Jesus and the Prophets. We discriminate against none of them. To Him we have surrendered ourselves".
The second quotation comes from Chapter 16, verse 125. It states:
"Call men to the path of your Lord with wisdom and mild exhortation. Reason with them in the most courteous manner. Your Lord best knows those who stray from his path and best knows those who are rightly guided".
Those could scarcely be milder verses. They are reminiscent of many Christian passages, perhaps particularly of Chapter 13 of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians about Christian charity and love. I remind the evangelical community of that text at this time.
The picture I have from Islamic friends here, and indeed elsewhere—it appears to be supported by the Koran—is not at all the violent one so often portrayed in discussions on the Bill.
People of any religious persuasion are justified when they say that they do not want their children to be educated in our largely secular and amoral comprehensive system. Those who raise the fundamentalist scare often suggest that Moslem girls may not get a proper education in Moslem schools. However, with proper inspection under grant maintained or voluntary aided status, I do not see why that should be so. Certainly our society offers the families of those girls at the moment something which in many ways is not very reassuring to them. For instance in 1988 in the United Kingdom for every 100 conceptions by girls under the age of 20, 36 led to abortion, 46 led to illegitimate births and only 18 led to births within marriage.
I do not believe that our society is in any position to resist the thrust of this excellent and courageous Bill.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as a comparative newcomer to your Lordships' House I cannot pretend to be an expert on the procedures of the House. However, I was surprised and concerned to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, say at the beginning of her speech that she intended to withdraw her Motion. I do not wish to attribute any motive to the noble Baroness, but that statement seemed to me to border on an abuse of the procedures of the House.
I have been present throughout the debate. Frankly, I consider it to be something of a charade. We have heard a number of noble Lords refer to parts and lines of the Bill knowing full well that the Bill will not be presented. We have had, and are having, a phantom debate. I believe I can speak for at least some of my noble friends on these Benches when I say that we would like to know—perhaps in writing from the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, who are not present but I make no complaint about that—of any previous occasion when the Second Reading of a Bill was not pressed. This occasion may well be a precedent. If that is the case, that must be a matter of deep concern to all Members of your Lordships' House.
I must go a little further. I think the least we could have expected from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was a reason for such an important step. However, we were not given a reason. I hope that when the Minister replies she will repair that omission. Some of us believe that there is nothing more important than education. A debate of this nature is important and valuable. The Bill might well have continued through all its stages, despite the possibility of amendment in Committee. I hope noble Lords will share my view that this is much too important a matter to be withdrawn.
However, I leave that point. I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that I disagreed with practically everything she said. However, I shall mention only one point that the noble Baroness made quite frequently. I do so as I feel strongly about it myself. On a number of occasions the noble Baroness referred to the value of diversity in education. No one in your Lordships' House would disagree about the value of diversity in education. However, the noble Baroness and the supporters of the Bill simply mean religious diversity. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, shakes her head. Perhaps she can explain that point a little further because the whole purpose of the Bill is to extend religious schools.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he has been present throughout the debate. Therefore, he must know that I gave a considerable number of examples of the other kinds of schools which would be included in the provision and which form part of the coalition behind the Bill—it is a non-party political issue—such as the Small Schools Movement, the Steiner Fellowship and MENSA. I spelt out all that. I agree that there was a lot of noise on the Opposition Front Bench. Noble Lords on that Front Bench were talking for some of the time when I was trying to speak. Therefore, the noble Lord may not have heard
1274
me when I spelt out at great length the other kinds of schools involved in the coalition. They are part of the movement for educational choice which is cosponsored by the noble Lords, Lord Grimond and Lord Young of Dartington. I stressed that the coalition did not simply consist of communities of faith schools although they constitute a sizeable proportion of the movement.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand that definition of diversity, though I do not agree with it. Before I went to another place I had for a long time been very much involved with state education in this country. I believe the schools in this country are as rich in diversity as any in the world. However, I accept what the noble Baroness said. I hope I have made my point that on the whole matter of diversity generally, we have no cause to be defensive.
I cannot proceed to the main part of my speech without referring to the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. I was astonished to hear him admit that indoctrination took place in religious schools. I have never heard that sentiment expressed so plainly and bluntly. I had a lot to do with Roman Catholic schools in my time as a chief education officer. However, today we have heard that sentiment from the head of the Catholic laity. That remark was sufficiently interesting, but the noble Duke added that Roman Catholic schools present all points of view. Perhaps I misinterpreted the noble Duke's words but, to my mind, those two statements presented a contradiction.
Among my objections to this Bill is a fundamental one. I do not believe it is the proper role of the state to propagate religious or any other beliefs that are a matter of substantial controversy. That is not, I believe, a proper use of taxpayers' money. Schools should adopt an educational and neutral approach towards religion in which pupils are taught what the various religions stand for and what they teach. However, tutors should not support any religion. My noble friend Lord Sefton of Garston made that point strongly in his speech. He may be interested to know that when I was a young teacher the headmaster of my school asked me whether I would teach religious knowledge to the third year classes. I told him that I was a humanist and an atheist and that I did not accept religious beliefs. However, he told me he was not asking me to teach religion but rather to teach what was called an agreed syllabus. I am sure some noble Lords will recall that. In those circumstances, I felt that I did not infringe upon religious beliefs. However, I have no doubt I taught the subject very badly. In my view religious teaching relating to specific beliefs is a matter for the home, the Church, the mosque or the synagogue.
Some of us would argue that if religious beliefs are to be part of a school's curriculum then non-belief—the humanist view—should also have a part to play. We remember only too well that in the Education Reform Act 1988 the word Christianity was introduced for the first time into any education Act in this country. The noble Baroness played a large part in that.

1275
There is some justice in the position suggested by the noble Baroness. Proposals for new Jewish and Moslem aided schools are rarely approved, while literally hundreds of Christian schools already exist and proposals for new schools are usually accepted. By the same token there is some logic in the Bill before the House today. However, the right way to correct that injustice is not to create more schools propagating minority religious beliefs but to have a phased withdrawal of all state subsidies to religious foundations unless they adopt a purely educational approach on the same lines as local authority schools.
I believe that by their very nature religious schools are divisive. There can be no better illustration of that than that part of our country called Northern Ireland. That point was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and I was grateful for confirmation from the other side of the House. Such schools do not contribute to social cohesion, tolerance and understanding. One would have thought that achieving such an aim was a fundamental objective of any educational system. Most people would accept that local authority schools have a very good record in that respect.
The Bill would also open the way for, or encourage public funding of, schools run by fringe religious cults such as the Moonies and Scientologists, about which we have heard a great deal in the past few years. There would not be much enthusiasm among tax payers for such freedom, if one can so describe them.
It is not possible to say on the basis of the Bill's proposals what the additional public expenditure would be. However, if there were to be an increase in this type of school there can be little doubt that it would be substantial. So far in the debate no one has referred to expenditure. For the next minute or two I should like to talk about that aspect.
Your Lordships will know that under present legislation the DES provides grant aid at a rate of 85 per cent. of governors' capital expenditure on voluntary aided and special agreement schools. The Secretary of State must also pay to the governors of such schools a maintenance contribution equal to 85 per cent. of expenditure. The Secretary of State may also at his discretion grant up to 85 per cent. of any sums expended by the governors on the provision of a site or on a significant enlargement of a school's premises.
Let us consider for a moment the cash sums involved. I shall give the figures for the three years from 1987 to 1990. I shall not give the figures for the past two years, 1990 to 1992, as they are not comparable with previous years because following the passing of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 the DES issues a capital guideline to each local education authority which is only one element in the calculation of each local authority's basic credit approval announced by the Department of the Environment. I mention that because there was a significant increase in the two years 1990 to 1992 and it might have been felt that the figures were somewhat misleading.
1276
The total cash grants for 1987 to 1990 were respectively £32 million, £43 million and £56 million—a total of £130 million. That is not exactly peanuts. Your Lordships will have noticed the large increase in each succeeding year. We are all concerned about inflation. On an index of 100 at 1981–82 prices the figures for those three years are 97, 123 and 150. Your Lordships will agree that that is a considerable increase.
I believe that I am correct in saying that the current expenditure of the voluntary schools—teachers' salaries, books, equipment and so on—is paid wholly from the public purse. Some of us are deeply worried by that level of expenditure and the increase that would have arisen if the Bill had been moved and accepted by your Lordships.
Expenditure on education is a constant source of worry and difficulty, perhaps more so now than at any other time. Two or three noble Lords have mentioned small schools. Like many people, I am very sympathetic to small schools. However, it is not realistic to think that a small village school can provide the range of facilities which modern education, and not least the national curriculum, requires —laboratories, gymnasium, special rooms and so on. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but she knows very well that we are not talking about thousands of pounds but about millions of pounds. That is not sustainable, much as we love small village schools.
In such circumstances, how can additional expenditure on such a controversial matter be justified? If there had been a sudden and overwhelming surge in church-going it would have been understandable if not justifiable. However, the reality is that many churches have been demolished or converted to other uses while the churches that remain are nearly empty. Opinion polls also suggest that fewer people than ever have any religious faith.
It is evident that the proposals will further concentrate power in the hands of central government and in particular in the hands of the Secretary of State for Education. The National Union of Teachers says that the Secretary of State's powers under the Education Reform Act are in the form of and in excess of 450 discretions and powers to make delegated legislation. As I understand Clause 1(3) (7A), the Secretary of State would be required to determine what constitutes an alternative religious or philosophical ethos to those available in existing local schools. The Secretary of State would need a knowledge of religious and philosophical distinctions the like of which we have not seen in any previous Ministers of Education. That aspect more than any other shows how far from reality the Bill is.
There are a number of proposals affecting local authorities which ought to be dealt with in some detail, but because of the time factor I shall mention only one. I find it astonishing that the Bill contains the words:
"A surplus of places in other local maintained schools shall not in itself be a sufficient reason for the rejection of proposals by the Secretary of State".

1277
Excess capacity is a very real and difficult problem for LEAs at the present time and, in my view, will continue to be so for a long time to come.
The Government, and more recently the Audit Commission, have been putting tremendous pressure on LEAs to get rid of surplus places. The only way in which that can be done is by closing or amalgamating schools. Nowadays when schools are threatened by such action they frequently apply to opt out, which destroys plans to rationalise provision and thereby conserve resources. The proposal in the Bill would exacerbate that position by allowing an increase in the number of schools to be maintained by the authority. The LEAs' already inadequate supply of money would be spread even more thinly with resultant damage to existing local provision.
As one who for many years had to wrestle with the problem of surplus places I have great sympathy with the local education authorities and the Government—even this Government—in trying to find satisfactory solutions. There are now 1.8 million surplus places in schools throughout Britain. To end the Government's power to reject an application on the ground of surplus places is not only unrealistic but, in my view, unreasonable.
Those of us who oppose the Bill are as concerned as its supporters about high educational standards and moral values. Those virtues are not the monopoly of people who have a religious faith. We are also concerned about parental choice but recognise the practical difficulties involved in adequately providing that choice. One of the difficulties is the provision of resources for the many goals which parents and their children wish to achieve. I am as concerned about freedom as is the rest of the House. One part of me says that if parents wish to have their own religious schools they should have them, but the two main strong reservations I have mentioned lead me to object to the Bill.
I conclude by briefly repeating those objections. Parental choice on such a controversial issue as religion cannot be sustained by the public purse, and having hundreds of schools reflecting different faiths must inevitably be divisive to some degree. Of one thing I have no doubt. Over the century there has been a great decline in religious faith, and on that basis alone the Bill is at best unnecessary and at worst an irrelevancy.
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, even as a rather solid and substantial phantom, I support the principles of the Bill of my noble friend Lady Cox, although I agree with her and the thoughtful and thought-provoking speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and the speeches of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and other noble Lords that there are many aspects of it that need to be clarified or altered.
The policy of the Government has been to widen and extend parental choice in the education of children. That must be a reasonable view, for if there were no parents there would be no children, and if
1278
there were no children there would be no schools. Under the Education Reform Act 1988 the Government have given schools the opportunity to opt out of the control of local authorities while remaining in the state system. The principle of the Bill simply tidies up the edges by extending parental choice a bit further.
The categories to which the principle would have applied if the Bill had been amended are threefold: first, religious —there are currently 65 new Christian schools, a number of Jewish schools, 19 Moslem schools and so on; secondly, philosophical—in Great Britain there are 25 Steiner schools; thirdly, schools for special categories of pupils —either pupils handicapped in some way or those who have a MENSA standard of intelligence.
It may be argued that the Bill would immediately empty the present state schools. That surely is a denial of market forces. Parents will always opt for the best education they can obtain for their children. A little healthy competition does no harm to anyone.
It has been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that the Bill would open the way for Moonies, Scientologists and many other undesirable cult religions—perhaps schools for witches and black magicians. But the final decision about funding these schools would rest with the Secretary of State. Surely he could be expected to sift the wheat from the chaff without stepping into a minefield and perhaps could ascertain that the school had suitable premises, suitably qualified teachers, was able to deliver the national curriculum, had enough pupils who wanted to enroll and an agreed admissions policy. In addition, any school which became voluntary aided or grant maintained under the scheme would be subject to school inspectors.
I hope your Lordships will give favourable consideration to the further freedom of choice to parents in this Bill when, as I hope, it re-emerges in a different form.
8.34 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I was very honoured when the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked me to speak in support of her Bill. She asked me to speak particularly about Moslems. We have already heard some very interesting remarks on this subject, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
I spent the greater part of my adult life—some 35 years —in the Moslem world and I think I am fairly well in touch with Moslem thinking. It is encouraging that in this context my views coincide broadly with those of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Although I have not consulted the same sources, I can assure noble Lords that I have consulted some of the highest Moslem authorities in this country.
We have heard varying figures about the number of Moslems and Moslem schools in this country. It is very difficult to get precise statistics. I believe I can say that there are between one and a quarter and one and half million Moslems in this country now. What is more important—I have mentioned this on several occasions when I have spoken on similar subjects—is

1279
that there are now more Moslems in this country than Methodists or Jews. As to the number of schools, I was given the figure of approximately 30 for the country as a whole. Of those, I must admit that the majority are small and poorly organised with very slender finances. Those schools would not expect to be granted maintained status.
However small and ineffective those schools may be (I am certainly not saying they are all ineffective; it is just that they lack the resources to be more effective than they are), I think our minds can be put at rest about Moslem fundamentalism. I can see no danger of it spreading through those separate schools, nor can those Moslem divines to whom I have spoken.
Apart from the majority of schools, I am told there are something like eight or nine schools which are effective and contain something like 50 to 100 or more pupils each. There are two schools in London. One is the Islamiyah School in Brent, whose application for grant-maintained status was recently refused, although it was supported by the local education authority. There is one school in Glasgow; there are two in Birmingham; and there are one or two elsewhere. Those schools feel they have a good case for grant-maintained status.
I must emphasis at this stage that many Moslems support the idea of integration. That point was made effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. I know many Moslems who send their children to local schools, and they are satisfied with the education received. The point the Moslem community want me to emphasis strongly is that they do not want to be treated in an entirely separate way.
In that case, why should those eight or nine schools feel they have grounds to make an application for maintained status? The first reason I can give is that, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her opening speech, the parents consider the present schools unsatisfactory in various ways. They consider that the standard of education the children receive is inadequate and that moral standards are in some cases deplorable and very far from the Moslem ethic. The second reason is that the governors and parents of these schools feel strongly that the teaching of the Koran and Arabic language should be incorporated within the general syllabus. I might mention that Arabic is certainly one of the hardest languages in the world to learn. I have been speaking it on and off for 35 years and still feel that I am only at its outer fringes. I feel that they have a good case in that respect.
I must also emphasise that throughout the Islamic world there has been growing tolerance. Basically, Moslems do not like co-education. They much prefer single sex schools. That of course is unacceptable to a great many local education authorities. However, some are beginning to accept the practice.
Another difficulty is the Moslems' dislike of nudity. That was mentioned when we discussed the subject during the passage of the 1988 Education Reform Bill. Many Moslems find it quite unacceptable that children should have showers in the nude.
1280
Many noble Lords will agree—those who are in contact with Moslems, and a surprising number of your Lordships appear to be, which pleases me greatly —that on the whole Moslem children are hardworking and well behaved. I do not say that all Moslems are better than all Jews or Christians. I would not say anything like that at all. However, in the schools that I have visited the standard of discipline is good and the children have a great desire to learn, which I am afraid is not apparent in a great many of our state schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, quoted from the Koran. I shall quote from what are called The Traditions or the Hadith and say to your Lordships:
"Seek ye knowledge even as far as China".
I shall not speak for much longer. The main point that I want to make is that the governing bodies, parents and even the children of those seven or eight schools that I mentioned seek only equality of status with Christian—Church of England and Catholic—and Jewish maintained schools. So far as possible they want integration. They want to follow the general curriculum which is compulsory in other schools. But they need separate education in Arabic and the Koran, as I said. They do not press for anything difficult to achieve or out of harmony with the general education proposals in this country.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said in her opening speech, many of those schools are run on a shoestring. The teachers are underpaid and overworked. They look with envy at grant maintained schools in the Christian and Jewish sectors.
In conclusion, one ought perhaps to study what has taken place in Holland. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to certain other countries but I should like to speak in particular of Holland where there are six wholly Moslem schools. They are well run and have not created any degree of separatism or fundamentalism or anything of that kind within their communities. I greatly hope that your Lordships will accept this Bill. It may not be ideal but in terms of the Moslem community only, about which I speak, I believe that it is wholly just and wholly desirable.
8.44 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I have a number of problems with this Bill but I should also like to express my strong support for my noble friend Lady Cox for having introduced it. I believe that it has a valid principle. I do not propose to go into the details of why I support it. Most points have been adequately proclaimed from all sides of the House.

I should like to put forward a few points that I feel have not been adequately covered. First, I refer to the Christian dimension of some of the schools that could be brought into the ambit of the Bill. Today the English Church Census was launched. It shows the Churches of Roman England sadly declining but the independent Churches strongly growing. The latter have increased something like 40 per cent. over the past 10 years. It seems to me that the Christian schools which are the subject of the Bill are those that are linked to the independent Churches today. Therefore the Bill proposes to do the same that has been done in

1281
the past for the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. Those Churches are now on the decline—we hope that it will not be for long—but the independent Churches are booming. They, just like the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, have spawned schools. It seems to me eminently fair that those schools should have the chance of government help.
There is a second point I should like to make about Christian schools. At lunchtime today I was talking to someone who is involved in running such a school. He said that it was not a question of religious teaching. He did not think that his school had any religious teaching at all. He said that it concerned the underlying tenet. All parents are told that it is a Christian-run school and that the underlying teaching of the school expresses the Christian ethical truth throughout. That is why the schools are popular with Moslems and other ethnic families; it is because of the strong morality that they present. They provide for what is often called the traditional values—honesty, compassion and respect for authority—which Moslem families endorse as strongly as do Christian families.
Reference has been made to indoctrination. I should have thought that what is true in the Roman Catholic Church is probably just as true in a humanist-run church where, I understand, humanism is indoctrinated just as far as Christianity may be indoctrinated in other churches. I do not think that one can get away from that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount but is he under the impression that there are some humanist voluntary aided schools in this country?
Viscount Brentford: I am sure that there are, my Lords.
Lord Peston: I am afraid, my Lords, that there are not.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, the noble Lord is saying that there is no humanist teacher in any voluntary aided school.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Viscount again: it is slightly discourteous of me. However, I think we should at least get our facts right. We have been debating religious voluntary aided schools in this country. There are no humanist voluntary aided schools in this country. There could not be because they would be against the law. Therefore, the remarks that the noble Viscount makes about humanists are completely wrong.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I was not talking specifically about voluntary aided schools. I was talking about the general run of schools. I was about to say that any teacher imparts to his pupils his own philosophy, whether it is Christian or humanist. I have no objection to that. That is a fact of life. I was not talking specifically about voluntary aided schools or grant maintained schools.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. Under
1282
the present Act, if a teacher were, as the noble Lord says, teaching humanist views, he would be breaking the law.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I was talking about imparting a teacher's underlying philosophy rather than what he teaches. To say that Roman Catholic schools indoctrinate is not to demonstrate a unique tenet of life.
The second point I should like to make concerns the very strong community basis which so many of these schools have. They usually cater for all socioeconomic classes and take referrals from the social services, who have a very high regard for them.
Thirdly, I should like to mention the question of fees and the financial status of these schools. It has been implied once or twice that the schools which, it is suggested, could apply for government help, are more or less insolvent. From my experience of them I do not believe that that is the case. The problem is that they are dependent on fees which are always incredibly low. Therefore it is not the bank balance that suffers. The sufferers are the teachers, who get very low pay.
Also, there are very bad facilities in these schools. This does not necessarily affect the calibre of the teaching, which is usually extremely high, but I do not think the Government would have the responsibility of taking over insolvent schools. It would have the effect of increasing substantially the teachers' salaries month by month.
In conclusion, I should like to refer to Moslem schools, which seem to come high on the rating at the end of our debate tonight. I do not have the experience or the contacts of my noble friend Lord Pearson or of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. I am merely expressing my personal view. It seems to me just and reasonable today that the Government should be able to assist those of the Islamic faith who want to run schools in the same sort of way as the Church of England, the Roman Catholics and the Jews in the past. The question is whether they should be able to hold Islamic holidays rather than Christian holidays. There may be practical problems, but I can understand the view and I am sympathetic towards it. I believe that there should be the chance to learn Moslem culture in these schools with the benefit of government aid.
However, I have some caveats. If the schools were to be brought into the state system in any way at all—I am not talking about whether voluntary-aided or grant maintained—they must be subject to the national curriculum in the same way as every other government school. We all want to see the educational standards in this country raised. I am not talking only about government schools now but about every school where pupils are taught. We need standards raised. I believe that the question of standards in schools is important and that the need for schools to be scrutinised would enhance the standard of the teaching.
Another great benefit to the country if Moslem schools were absorbed in part into the state system is that pupils would learn English culture, English

1283
customs and the English language as fully as everybody else. The point has been raised once or twice during the debate. It is important that pupils are fully integrated into the customs and culture of this country, even if they have an overseas background. I see nothing but benefit coming from these schools being brought into the state system. I believe that if we did that it would put us in a much stronger position in this country in arguing for similar treatment for Christian schools in Islamic-governed countries.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I rise as a strong supporter of the Bill which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has introduced. I do so because I see the Bill—not necessarily every word of it but in its general intent, drift and purpose—as being designed to strengthen the public education system of this country by ensuring a new deal for non-fee-paying independent schools which can be to the benefit of poorer people.
We have what I think will in the long run be an untenable situation, where richer people can start and support any kind of school of any religious persuasion or almost anything else that they wish to support in schools which their children attend. They can do almost whatever they like, but poorer people cannot. Some poorer people by dint of considerable sacrifice have managed to start what amounts to a new wave of independent, non-fee-paying schools. This has been referred to by several previous speakers, and I do not think this new movement can be disregarded. At some point—perhaps not very far in the future—this new movement needs to be recognised and brought within the public education system.
My particular interest is in small schools like the now justly famous school at Hartland, in experimental schools, in progressive schools and in Steiner schools, which have been mentioned previously. However, one cannot be in favour of giving support to parents who want to start schools of that kind and not also in favour of the same kind of freedom for parents who want to start schools of a religious persuasion.
I had hoped prior to this debate that it would not be a party matter but I am not now so sure. I am very sorry to have to disagree with my noble friend Lady Blackstone but unfortunately I must. I rest my case on a kind Of Koran which might perhaps appeal even to her. The Labour Party, in what was called the Final Report of Labour's Policy Review for the 1990s, put the case as well as it could be put. It summarised a larger document called Schools and Multicultural Education and said this:
"We set out our approach to ensuring that children and their patents, from all ethnic backgrounds, should feel confident that schools are sensitive to their cultural needs and aspirations. It is an approach which must permeate all aspects of the curriculum and school life".
Then there is the question of voluntary-aided, religious based schools.
"The right to such status already exists in law and it has been exercised and enjoyed in practice by Anglicans, and Roman Catholics. In equity, that right cannot be denied to others.
1284
This right is not about the establishment of new schools but about the basis on which existing schools should be permitted to opt into voluntary aided or controlled status within the maintained sector. The exercise on the right must depend upon any applicant school meeting clear criteria about their educational standards and their ability to meet the requirements of the national curriculum. It would also depend on the acceptance of some degree of secular control over the admission policy and ethos of the school".
That has not been thrown on one side, at least so far as I know. Jack Straw has not marched on the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, but has been speaking the same language on this point as the noble Duke, whom we heard earlier today. Jack Straw has not marched on Mecca either.
It cannot be right that the religious settlement of 1944 will be fixed in concrete for ever. The social, ethnic and religious composition of the country has changed greatly since then. That needs to be recognised in our education policy. How can we say to the people of Southall that they are never to have a Hindu school on the same basis as Anglican or Catholic schools in the district? How can we say to Moslems in Brent that they are never to have a school on the same basis as Catholics and Anglicans in Brent? How can we say to Sikhs in Bradford that they are never to have a Sikh school in the way that Anglicans and Catholics are allowed to have a school with state support? How can we say to the Buddhist group which may be about to set up a Buddhist school that they have no hope of going through the portals that Catholics and Anglican schools went through long ago? It is not tenable that we continue to say that for ever. The situation is bound to change.
Demography alone will change it. It is only a question of time. It is a matter of how soon we recognise that we must shape our education system better to fit the new social and religious composition that has been brought about by the great immigration of the past decades.
Very little has been said about the experience of other European countries. There has been some mention of Holland but nothing about Denmark. In Denmark any group of more than 28 parents can start a maintained school. One consequence is that there are no private fee paying schools in Denmark. If Britain went the same way, in the end there would be no fee paying public schools; and that I would greatly welcome because I believe that they have a divisive influence on British society.
The effect of these principles on the newly emerging education systems of Eastern Europe is less well known. A new body, the European Forum for Freedom in Education, has recently been established. It is shortly to have its first large conference in Helsinki, with delegates from almost every East European country, all the Scandinavian countries and large numbers from Germany, Holland and Denmark, but unfortunately very few from this country.
In Hungary large numbers of independent but state supported schools are being set up. If Estonia achieves full independence from the Soviet Union, it is clear that it will go the same way. East Germany has moved in the same direction.

1285
When Karl Marx Stadt changed its name back to Chemnitz a new, free choice school was started. The ideas that have been put forward today are sweeping through Eastern Europe. We cannot put up walls and say that we shall not pay attention. Although there will be no vote on the Bill today, it could be a milestone on a road which will give us a new notion of voluntary aided status and a much healthier diversity in the education system of this country—of which by and large we can be so proud.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, in warmly supporting the principles of the Bill. However, like others who have spoken I consider that it needs some redrafting, although not for some of the reasons given, if I may say so with respect.
My noble friend Lady Cox, to whom I am deeply indebted, intends to seek leave to withdraw the Motion for Second Reading. However, this interesting debate has nevertheless served a valuable purpose. I say that because all legislation is experimental. That is especially true of our education statutes. Education has to evolve. It has to be adapted from time to time to reflect the changes in society, population, social attitudes and the ever-increasing needs of our technically sophisticated society.
Education is evolving. Under the 1988 Act, to which the Bill refers, we already allow some schools to contract out of local education authority control while remaining in the state system as maintained schools. I suggest that it is logical and proper to allow some other schools to contract in so long as they accept the basic principles laid down by statute and already required, plus the factor of making better use of the existing school buildings. I shall come to that again later. We should he grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for telling us that there are 1.5 million empty spaces in those schools. That is one of the main reasons why I support the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Blatch—who already carries such a heavy load as Government spokesman, and, if I may say so, does it so well, although she does not always convince me—may oppose the Bill for some of the reasons expressed in the debate. However, I am sure that she will wish to tell my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State of the anxieties expressed by those of us who support the principles of the Bill.
In particular I wish to support the suggestion put forward first by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, that the Rudolf Steiner schools should be allowed to contract in. I happen to know about them because my severely handicapped daughter attended one of them from the age of five to the age of nine. It took two years to teach her to walk, albeit with support, and I was very grateful for that. However, she had to move elsewhere due to her extreme difficulties.
There are 25 Steiner schools in the United Kingdom plus a number of kindergartens. They are
1286
nonsectarian and have pupils from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds. Their teaching, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, mentioned, stresses moral values. For those who are fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of the academic teaching, their standards, are among the very best. The schools would like maintained status while retaining their independence; under the present law they cannot do so.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will not express agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I feel bound to say that the strong epithets used by the noble Baroness in relation to the Bill were not appropriate to the debate or indeed to any debate in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could illustrate to what he is referring. I am a little bemused by his statement.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not want to repeat the expressions used by the noble Baroness. They will appear in Hansard tomorrow. I intended to say that some of the points made by the noble Baroness were contradictory. For example, she said that the Bill would be an irresponsible use of public expenditure. On the contrary, to the extent that the Bill would enable 1.5 million places in school buildings to be taken up, that would be a good use of public money. It would enable better and more full use to be made of school buildings.
The noble Baroness asked why private schools should be allowed in at the expense of state schools. The answer is that there would be no need to do so if the state schools met the public demand. I hope that the noble Baroness does not suggest that there should be a monopoly of state education.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I made it perfectly clear in my speech that there should not be a monopoly of state education. I said that it was the right of parents to make sacrifices to purchase places in independent schools if that is what they wanted to do. I made that absolutely clear.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad that I brought the noble Baroness to her feet to explain that. I took a note of her words, which were, "Why let private schools in at the expense of existing state schools?" That is a very strange comment. Within the state system there exist the voluntary aided schools, which are to that degree independent, and some maintained schools would be independent also. However, tempted though I am—I have a great many notes of what the noble Baroness said—I shall leave your Lordships and the outside world to read what she said in Hansard.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, with whom I nearly always agree—though it is in the nature of those of us who happen to be concerned with the law sometimes to disagree—and others, overlooked the significance of the words "include" and "including" contained in subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. It is a matter of small print. I concede the point before it is made. Time is moving in.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am afraid my noble friend will not shut me up as easily as that. I shall briefly make the point. It is relevant to our debate.
When the Secretary of State is given a duty to include religious factors, it does not prevent non-secular schools from being given maintained status. I agree that that is not as clear as it should be in the Bill but that is the position and intention as I understand it.
I conclude by saying that the Bill is, among other things, an extension of religious freedom about which I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, agrees. It increases freedom of choice by parents as to how and where their children should be educated. Education is evolving. Although the Bill will not make any further progress in this Session of Parliament, this valuable debate should be regarded as an expression of the next steps which might be taken to secure the better evolution of our education system.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is the usual courtesy to thank, in this case the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing the Second Reading of a Bill. I stand second to none in my desire to be courteous and so I thank her. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, listens to my words precisely. I have listened to the noble Baroness's speech, which I believe to be misguided and immensely damaging, in particular to the cause of religious education in this country. I hope the noble Lord heard those words because I mean to speak plainly.
The 1988 Act on the subject of religion and religious education was a compromise. Some of us thought that it went too far in one direction; others that it did not go far enough. In the end we did our best and produced a compromise. I strongly oppose this debate and I am sorry that it is taking place. I do not believe that it has been helpful. My judgment is that we should allow the compromise several years more to see how it works in terms of religion. Despite the protestations of the noble Baroness, this debate has been about religion, religious schools and religious education. When a noble Lord rises to demand that we extend voluntary-aided status to a humanist school that will be the day on which I withdraw that kind of remark. This debate is about religion and money for it. In my judgment we should still give the 1988 Act a chance to work.
My views on the subject of religion are well known. I went enormously out of my way to argue for the compromise and for religious tolerance. Because it is part of the tradition of our country I took the view that it was reasonable and right that all children who attend cur schools should know something about the Christian religion. I speak as someone who does not remotely believe in the Christian religion but I thought it overwhelming that it was important in education. That is the position I maintain.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I spoke only on the secular aspect. I am absolutely flabbergasted to hear the noble Lord, for whom, as he knows, I have
1288
the greatest respect, say that this debate is only about religious education. That was not my true understanding of the intention of the Bill.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord. If that is what he says he was talking about, I entirely accept it. All the speeches that I have heard have been concerned with religion except that of the noble Lord. I admit that his speech had some slight problems for me because there were technicalities of a legal nature in it which I could not understand. What I have just said is my main position.
I wish to state another matter most forthrightly in support of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. The Labour Party is opposed to this Bill on the basis of one of the most fundamental issues of party policy.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend—
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may finish what I am saying so that my noble friend understands me. Then he can interrupt what I am saying. The party's position is that we are opposed to spending public money on private schools. We do not disguise that from noble Lords and we have never done so. As someone who buys the liberal tradition in all matters of discourse, I do not seek to dissuade or prevent my noble friends from taking a different view. It is an undoubted fact that we are opposed to spending public money on private education. My noble friend Lady Blackstone was entirely right in saying that we oppose the Bill. That does not stop any of my noble friends or any noble Lord from saying what they wish to say. One would not wish to do that. That is our party policy.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, my noble friend is wrong. He is entitled to his view because he is an important man here. But I consulted the Leader of the Labour Peers in this House and also the Chief Whip. I was told that there is no party policy applicable here and we are all on the same footing. That is what I have been told. I cannot do more than that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take the point. I simply repeat my point, and I am not going to argue it any further. Out of respect to my noble friend Lord Young, I point out that the party is opposed and has been opposed for a great many years, and as far as I am concerned will continue to be opposed, to using public money for private education. Other noble Lords can say they favour it. I am merely saying that that is Labour Party policy.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I have the greatest sympathy for what my noble friend has been saying about humanist schools and the like. However, I cannot see how he squares what he has just said with the Labour Party policy document from which I quoted at some length.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if my noble friend will give me a moment I shall get to that. It is another characteristic of logical discourse that one is supposed to do things one at a time, and I was dealing with one point. We have said that we are opposed to the Bill. I hope that we shall at least get a forthright statement from the Government. I ask the Minister point blank: are the Government opposed to this Bill? I should like

1289
an answer to that question. That is the least that we can expect.
Perhaps I may deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington. He quoted from our document that we are sensitive and believe schools ought to be sensitive to the cultural needs and aspirations of individuals and parents. That is true, but our party's policy is that that should be, can be and will be done within the maintained system. The difference between our party and some noble Lords opposite is that we support the state system. We do not make speeches undermining the state system; we do not accuse teachers of being atheists, Marxists and so on. We are supporters of the schools to which we ourselves went, to which our children go and to which we hope to see our grandchildren go. That is the policy of the Labour Party. My noble friend Lord Young of Dartington and I have argued a great deal over the years about freedom of choice in this area. He may one day win the argument, but I have to tell him that for the moment he has lost it.
Lord Young of Dartington: I thank my noble friend for that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the debate has also been something of a peculiarity. On the one hand I thought we were debating the Bill, except that we are not going to debate the Bill because it is no longer a Bill. On the other hand, we seem to be debating voluntary aided schools, which is a different subject. It is an interesting subject and it is one for which I must admit I do not have a simple and straightforward answer. Anyone who goes back to the 1944 settlement—my noble friend said that it should not be set in concrete—must appreciate that it did not remotely envisage that we would be extending the range of religions for which we provided voluntary aided schools; nor did it envisage that the number of voluntary aided schools would rise to the large number we now have.
One of my reasons for objecting to the introduction of these matters by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is that she called into question, as I did when I interrupted the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the whole future of voluntary aided schools. If we are to ask these questions then others who disagree are entitled to ask, as my noble friends have asked, whether we need to spend any state money on religion at all. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, wants to place that issue before your Lordships and the public at large. She may find that the answer will not be what she wants. I should have thought that the kind of pragmatic compromise which we have had over the years and which I understand at least suits the Church of England might be one with which we could blunder on for a few years more. So I ask the noble Baroness to think a little about that.
The question of money has come up. I must admit that I find it odd that noble Lords opposite who have been so keen on financial probity and the care of public funds do not see a problem when it comes to this matter. I state again our position. If there is any money around for education this is not where I or my noble friends want to spend it. I ask the Government
1290
again; if there is any money around, are they willing to find the money to finance these private schools? Is that where the Government's priorities lie? I ask the question. It will be interesting to know. We do not wish to go down that line.
Perhaps I may say a word on a question which also relates to being sensitive to the needs of parents. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to at least two declarations of parental rights. She knows that neither of those declarations is other than about parents' rights to choose using their own money. Nothing in those declarations says that the state has to find public money in order that parents can make choices that they want to make. The noble Baroness may argue that she thinks the state ought to find such money, but the idea that those declarations of parental rights are to do with state money is simply a misunderstanding.
Perhaps I may just finish this point on money. It is odd that I should be advising noble Lords opposite who are supporting the Bill. But one thing follows from state money, and that is state control. If noble Lords really want to finance these schools using state money they ought to reflect on the fact that Secretaries of State change, times change and whoever provides the money interferes with what goes on. Again, I do not want to advise noble Lords on where they want to go, but I am not clear that people who support independent schools should really wish to go down the line of taking state money.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I shall be very brief in what I have to say. Article 2 of the protocol, into which we entered with substantial reservations, bound the United Kingdom as regards state and private education. I sought only to correct the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as I understand it, the protocol bound the United Kingdom, to use the words of my noble friend, to be sensitive to parental desires; it did not say that the state should finance private education. That is the point at issue. Of course, many states do not do so as it is illegal in some countries. I should add that such countries do not stand second to us on the issue of religion. However, that is yet another matter. Nevertheless, I ask noble Lords to reflect on such considerations.
I do not have much more to say because the Bill is to be withdrawn. But whatever view one takes of Clause 1(3) the fact remains that it states:
"The Secretary of State shall by order designate".
I noticed that, when it was suggested that all sorts of weird religions could be included under that clause, the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said she would rely upon the Secretary of State to decide the matter. Again, I wonder whether within our tradition of education we really want a Secretary of State who decides what is a religion, a philosophy or an appropriate ethos. We have managed to get ourselves out of such a position. I am not sure that I want us to return to it. I repeat the point that I have already made; namely, that Secretaries of State change.
I have spoken for longer than I originally intended, but that is because the subject is inclined to encourage

1291
one to become a little worked up. It is always interesting to discuss education in your Lordships' House and it is equally interesting to discuss religion. Although I know that I am in a minority, I must conclude by saying that I do not believe the discussion has served any useful purpose. I hope that it will be quite some time before we have another such debate.
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Cox spoke persuasively in support of the Bill. However, I believe that she has been seriously misinterpreted during the course of this debate, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
In many respects the Government share the objectives which the Bill is intended to promote. We wish to see a strong and thriving grant-maintained sector. We wish to see parental choice increased and a strong and healthy voluntary-aided sector. But, in considering how best to further those objectives, we must take account of the reforms that have already been set in hand, of the needs of the education system as a whole, and of the public expenditure implications that would flow from the proposals that are before us. I should like to consider each of the proposals set forth in the Bill to identify those issues to which careful thought needs to be given before we reach a view on whether or not to give it our support.
The first clause of the Bill would extend eligibility for grant-maintained status to certain categories of independent school. Subsection (4) excludes from this category independent schools that are already well endowed financially or are likely to continue to have adequate private income. By their nature, independent schools are self-financing and are expected to be able to attract sufficient private funds through fees and other means. No responsible organisation would establish a private school without first assessing its financial viability. The intention behind the establishment of the grant-maintained sector was therefore not to enable independent schools to obtain public funding but to enable schools already in local authority control to opt out, taking with them the recurrent funding which they would have received from their local education authority.
The availability of grant-maintained status, recently extended to primary as well as secondary schools, was designed to strengthen the position of maintained schools by giving them the opportunity to achieve greater autonomy. The independent sector has a different role and we have to consider very carefully a proposal to offer independent schools a status which would, inevitably, give them less autonomy, in return for the financial support of the taxpayer. There could be a significant additional burden on public funds and we would need to be sure that it was a high priority.
The question here is whether the taxpayer should be invited to assume responsibility for supporting schools which are currently self-financing and parents who have chosen to meet the cost themselves. There are already pressures for additional funding for a range of public services. In particular, there are many
1292
calls for increased funding for the education service. But resources are necessarily limited. Therefore, one must consider whether it is sensible to add this new burden to the taxpayer. If the schools are good and are meeting parental wishes they are likely to be able to fund themselves.
The alternative is to try to squeeze these extra schools into the public funding total without an overall increase in resources; but that could only be done at the expense of other schools within the maintained sector.
It is true that there are large numbers of surplus places in the maintained system and, in principle, funds could be redeployed. I understand that the figure is 1.8 million—780,000 in the primary sector and approximately 1 million in the secondary sector. If those children opted into the state system individually the money would have to be found to educate them. The parents of those children are paying their taxes in order to fund the public services.
However, it should be recognised that the dividend from removing surplus places takes time to realise. In many cases we are not talking about entire schools just waiting to be closed down so that the full amount of their budgets can be redeployed. Many surplus places are in fact to be found scattered across large numbers of schools which remain viable in their own terms, but each of which has rather more places than pupils; a point made by the noble Baroness.
We would also want to look at the consequences of supporting a Bill which would encourage a host of applications from schools which would be unable effectively to provide for the national curriculum and which the Secretary of State would accordingly be compelled to reject. There is a balance to be struck between encouraging diversity and raising unrealistic expectations on the part of the prospective GM schools.
As noble Lords will know, the second clause of the Bill is intended to make it easier for schools to obtain voluntary aided status. To achieve this the Bill proposes that two changes should be made in the way that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science considers proposals for voluntary aided status published under Section 13 of the Education Act 1980. I should like to consider each of these proposed changes in turn.
I believe that the European Convention on Human Rights was raised by my noble friend, but noble Lords opposite did not respond although invited to do so. The European Convention on Human Rights requires the Government to respect the right of parents to ensure that education provided by the state is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. However, I am advised that it does not require the state to provide education in accordance with particular religious or philosophical convictions. It follows that the European Convention on Human Rights does not place an obligation on the Government to shoulder the cost of providing schools

1293
currently outside the state system. Nothing in the Government's current policy or practice is contrary to the convention.
First, the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State may approve proposals submitted under this section even where the maintaining local education authority objects; and in taking his decision he shall take into account the need for a diversity of schools within the maintained sector in a particular area.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government's existing powers under Section 13 of the Education Act 1980 are already sufficient to allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to approve proposals which are contrary to the views of the local education authority; though its views must be taken into account on any analysis, since an LEA inherits significant financial responsibilities when a new school is established. Not only must the authority meet the cost of the teachers' salaries, it has to pay for other items such as the provision of playing fields, dining rooms and kitchens, and must also thereafter maintain the internal fabric of the school.
Voluntary aided schools traditionally enjoy a certain level of independence of local control, but it is vital that they work in partnership with their local education authority. It would therefore clearly be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to take a decision without giving any consideration to the views of the local education authority. Indeed, this Bill does not suggest that he should and, therefore, in fact goes no further in this respect than the provisions of Section 13 of the 1980 Education Act.
I can also assure your Lordships that in taking his decision about particular proposals the Secretary of State already gives very careful consideration to the wishes of parents. That is why the existing procedure under Sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 provides a two-month period for local government electors for the area, the governors of a voluntary school affected by the proposal and any other local education authority concerned to submit their objections to any proposals published under the Act. As DES circular 3/87 makes clear, in considering proposals the Government are committed to giving the fullest possible effect to parental preferences for particular schools. But that commitment is not entirely open ended: it has to be tempered by considerations of the efficient use of resources and the limits on public expenditure.
A large volume of expressed parental commitment to a particular school will be a consideration, sometimes a very telling one, which the Secretary of State takes into account in deciding proposals. But as is implied by the wording of Clause 2, it cannot be an overriding consideration if the educational and/or financial arguments point the other way. The Secretary of State has made it clear that there are particular aspects of parental preference which he is anxious to preserve where demand warrants it. Among those are preferences for selective schools, denominational schools and single-sex schools. Such
1294
schools need, no less than others, to be educationally effective. The existing procedures under the Education Act 1980 provide ample opportunity for the Secretary of State to take account of those factors before reaching a decision on a particular proposal.
The second change proposed is that a surplus of other places within the maintained sector shall not be a sufficient reason for the Secretary of State to reject a proposal for the establishment of a new voluntary aided school. Also the Secretary of State may direct an authority to reduce any surplus places in its maintained schools and may direct that such surplus places shall be made available for a proposed voluntary school.
I understand the thinking that has led to that proposal. As your Lordships will know, the Government have made considerable efforts to persuade local education authorities to rationalise their existing school building stock in order to reduce the number of surplus places. We recognise that there is still much more that could be achieved by authorities and the promoters of voluntary schools. But in the Government's view the time is not ripe to alter the present balance of responsibilities in this matter. More open enrolment and the funding arrangements for the local management of schools could make it easier for LEAs to identify failing schools and to demonstrate the cost of maintaining them.
We also need to recognise that the removal of surplus places is not always the simple issue that it might at first sight appear. To start with, we are only just beginning to see the effect of the far-reaching educational reforms that we have introduced. Those for the national curriculum will place increased demands on the premises currently available to schools.
Secondly, although an authority may have a considerable number of surplus places they are in many cases not conveniently parcelled together in one school. To achieve a reduction in the number of surplus places it will often be necessary for an authority to publish complex reorganisation proposals. That may involve closing schools or making a significant change in their character—perhaps by a change in the size of the school or a reduction in its age range. It would be inconsistent with the duties of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for him to be responsible both for issuing directions to the authority and for reaching an impartial view on a particular closure proposal that might itself be fiercely resisted by another group of parents who equally believe they should have a right to the school of their choice.
The Government certainly want to see surplus places removed where that improves efficiency and effectiveness. We take every opportunity to make that clear. But in the Government's view it would not at present be practicable to direct an authority on the use to be made of its spare accommodation. The authority may have determined a legitimate and worthwhile

1295
purpose for vacated school property, bearing in mind its duty to serve the interests of the community as a whole.
The requirement that an authority should free redundant property for a new aided school would not reduce the burden on the taxpayer since the cost of providing the premises of a new voluntary aided school rests with the proposers and not with the LEA. The Secretary of State pays grant aid of up to 85 per cent. of the cost of purchasing premises for any new aided school. Even where the ownership rested with the local education authority, the providers of the school would need to purchase these premises at a cost to the voluntary aided schools budget of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Those of your Lordships with a special interest in voluntary aided schools will know of the considerable demand for funds beyond that which is available.
Perhaps I may clear up one or two points raised in the course of the debate. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway suggested that there was no means of challenging decisions taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on voluntary aided proposals. I am happy to say that that is not correct. If those putting forward proposals consider that my right honourable friend has in reaching his decision acted unreasonably or otherwise unlawfully, they are free to challenge his decision on public law grounds in the courts through the judicial review process.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? I apologise, but she is speaking from a departmental brief which is inevitably inaccurate in this regard. The situation is simply that what she calls and what is written as "unreasonableness" is something that in practice is impossible to prove. Those who gave her the instructions well know that to be true.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not talking about the difficulty of proving unreasonableness. I say that there is a right to challenge unreasonableness in the courts. What the courts do about it is very much a matter on which to test the merits of the case. It is of course correct, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, that apart from the financial requirements set out in the 1944 Education Act, the factors which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should consider are not set down in legislation. However, I must stress that each case is considered on its individual merits. There is thus no fixed ordering or weighting of the factors since individual circumstances will differ. In reaching his decisions the Secretary of State will have before him the views of parents and others, including statutory objections submitted in accordance with the procedures of Section 13 of the Education Act 1980. Thus we believe that he is well placed to make a judgment on each proposal.
Potential proposers for voluntary aided schools are told, if they ask for the information, of the various factors that the Secretary of State will consider in order to assist them in preparing their proposals and applications. These factors are not intended to be an
1296
exhaustive list, but when a decision is made the Secretary of State will indicate the reasons for the rejection of a proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, queried the 100 per cent. costs of voluntary aided schools. He is of course right. The recurrent costs are met in full by the local education authority. However, he also suggested that financial difficulties have never been greater in our state schools than they are now. I have to say—and this is not a departmental brief, it is my own information that I have gleaned over the years —that teachers' pay in real terms is greater than it has ever been, pupil-teacher ratios are the highest they have ever been, spending per pupil is greater in real terms than it has ever been and class sizes have continued to improve over recent years. The real crisis was prior to 1979 when not only pupil-teacher ratios, teachers' pay, class sizes and spending were worse in real terms, but there was no national curriculum, no assessment, no financial management and no identifiable framework comparable with that of the Education Reform Act 1988.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, overstated her case, I believe, to the point of distorting many of the objects and intentions behind the Bill. Much of what was said by my noble friend Lady Cox showed that she intended that any school entering the state system by way of this amendment would be subject to the Education Reform Act in its entirety. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, ever has the opportunity to see a television recording of this debate, I believe she will see that the tone that she set was most unfortunate. As I understand it, any school that would be subject to entry to the state system under the terms of this Bill would be bound by the national curriculum. Additionally, it would have to satisfy the Secretary of State—my noble friend Lady Strange mentioned this—on such matters as viability and suitability as regards fulfilling the requirements of the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, posed rather a provocative question. He asked whether it was the policy of this Government to cut LEAs down to size. He further asked whether we were waging a war of attrition, and whether we really believed in democratic involvement at a local level. Only a week ago we had more than six hours of debate on these very issues and whether we believed in local government. We discussed the role of LEAs in that debate. A review is under way, but I made it absolutely clear that the Government believe very strongly in local government. I also stated that the Government believe that local education authorities have a very important role in local government.
I repeat a point I made earlier, that the power already exists to introduce into the state system new aided schools. It is open to any school, including those supported by my right honourable friend, to discuss proposals for voluntary aided status with its local education authority to determine whether it would be in the common interest to transfer an existing school

1297
into the state system by making use of premises that would become available as a result of local rationalisation.
As I have said, I have fully accepted that my noble friend Lady Cox intended that any school applying for entry into the state sector under the legislation, as amended by her Bill, would be fully subject to the terms of the 1988 Act. On behalf of the Government I have sought in my response to point to some of the practical difficulties that could or may be presented by the assimilation of the Bill into the Education Reform Act. I invite your Lordships to take account of the points that I have raised when considering this Bill. As requested by my noble friend Lord Renton, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the views and concerns expressed by your Lordships in the debate this evening so that he may consider the Government's position.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope I may ask her exactly what the Government's position is on the Bill. I found some of her comments ambiguous. I was also rather surprised by her comments on my speech as we seem to be in agreement on a great many matters. Most of the criticisms that I made of the Bill have also been made by the noble Baroness speaking on behalf of the Government. As regards my tone, I should say that I believe this Bill is misguided and wrong. I further believe that it is not terribly well drafted. When I make such comments, I make them with conviction.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe the tone of the noble Baroness was unfortunate as she concentrated on different points to the logistical points that I made. My noble friend Lord Renton has already referred to one or two areas of contention between noble Lords on the Opposition Benches and noble Lords on these Benches.
It has always been the convention of all parties in both Houses to remain neutral on the outcome of Private Members' Bills. I have asked the House to consider seriously some of the consequences of accepting the Bill and some of the practical difficulties that would need to be thought through if the Bill were to progress through this House and another place.
9.50 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I have been deeply encouraged by the support which has come from many noble Lords on different sides of your Lordships' House. I and my colleagues will benefit greatly from many of the criticisms which have been made. I believe some of those criticisms will help us in reformulating subsequent initiatives. We are grateful for the criticisms too. We shall be wiser for them and profit from them.
However, there are some criticisms which we shall not be able to accommodate: those springing from what is essentially an antithetical philosophy of education. The debate has highlighted a polarity of positions. First, there are those who wish to maintain
1298
very largely the status quo and to send everyone, as far as they can, to local state schools. That is a position which in essence represents a form of imposed integration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, accused the Bill of being insensitive. I might reply—and I believe that other noble Lords share the same perception—that the somewhat strident denunciation by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was itself a little insensitive to the many parents and teachers who have fought so hard to set up these schools. Her speech may appear to exhibit a callous unconcern for those parents and teachers who have made such sacrifices to try to obtain an education for their children.
Lord Peston: That is a little unfair.
Baroness Cox: Perhaps I may finish my sentence because I believe that the noble Lord himself adopted that precedent at great length. They have made great sacrifices to set up and run those schools, sometimes out of desperation. Parents feel trapped in a state system which fails to give their children the education which they believe they need. I am delighted to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. The debate is getting a little out of hand. This will be my last intervention. If the noble Baroness reflects she will realise that she is criticising my noble friend for something she did not say. My noble friend paid tribute to those people. She simply said that it was not the duty of the state to provide the money to do so. I repeat that. I too am impressed by people who do things on their own initiative, but it is not the duty of the state to provide the money to do so. That is a different point and the noble Baroness ought to try and understand it.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord because he has just shown how impetuous he is. My next sentence addresses that very point. Perhaps if he will just listen he will find that I have understood the point.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was simply trying to defend my noble friend. Accusations have been made several times against my noble friend and it is about time they stopped.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may address the point that I intended to address before that intervention.
The point has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others, that there is no requirement on the Government to fund such initiatives and education which is in accordance with parents deepest convictions. One of the points that I made in my opening speech, a long time ago, was that to pay to set up, run and send their children to such schools is beyond the financial means of many parents. Therefore, in some respects that is a spurious freedom because it presumes a freedom to pay. Some parents cannot afford the fees even for those schools which run on faith and a shoe string and are therefore in effect denied that freedom.

1299
I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it is very unlikely that the request that he put forward for humanist schools would be forthcoming from these Benches, or from any other quarter, because at the moment many state schools provide that kind of education very adequately, and I speak as someone with personal experience of the state sector. That may be one reason why parents have left the state sector in order to set up schools which respect spiritual and moral values. That is one of the reasons behind the Bill.
That brings me to the alternative position which the polarity I mentioned earlier adopts. That is the commitment in broad terms in educational philosophy which respects diversity and choice and the de facto rights of parents to education for their children in accordance with their deepest convictions. It is impossible to reconcile those fundamental conflicting philosophies. It is very useful that the debate has highlighted that fact. It may help us to clarify that distinction and the implications of those different commitments. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for drawing out those issues in a most helpful and constructive way.
I have been challenged by two noble Lords opposite about my decision to withdraw the Motion at the end of the debate. Perhaps I may explain why I was prevailed upon so to do. The reasons are largely logistical and due to continual changes of date, to which I made reference at the outset. Some of those changes were made for the convenience of your Lordships' House. The initial date would have meant that your Lordships would have had to sit very late, given the amount of interest that the Bill has generated and the number of noble Lords who wished to speak.
I was not going to be churlish enough to mention the reason for the second change of date but I am now provoked to do so. It was prompted by a request from noble Lords opposite to enable noble Lords, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to take part in the debate. In order to accommodate the noble Baroness I agreed to that change in the date of the debate and in the process lost some speakers who would have spoken very strongly in support of the Bill, including the noble Lord, Lord Coggan, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacobovits, It was on the advice of my seniors and betters with regard to the logistics of the parliamentary timetable that, given the delays, there was no way we could go through all the stages and that it would be more of a waste of your Lordships' time to proceed to Committee and Report than not to continue and to ask for leave to withdraw the Motion for Second Reading. That explains why I have adopted this position. Perhaps I may add that I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Peston,
1300
expressed surprise over this matter, since I informed him last Thursday that that was the decision I should be taking.
I conclude by saying that I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for responding so fully. I think it is helpful to all of us to know the Government's position. I still dare to hope that my noble friend the Minister and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State will on reflection be able to seek further ways in which the Government may be able to help some of the excellent new schools we have been discussing to obtain the funding which they need and which I believe they deserve, thereby enabling them to enhance the quality of the state sector of education in this country.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she realises the difference between moving a Second Reading and the procedure to have a debate in the House? If, as is usual, we had had a debate in the House, the mover of the debate would at the end have thanked the rest of the Members of the House and sat down. The noble Baroness has now had the privilege of replying to the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, tells me that is not true. Perhaps he will tell me what is true.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the truth is that when people reply to debates they ought to make final speeches.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, they do but it is against the traditions of the House. Normally, when someone puts down something for debate the mover merely replies formally and thanks the people who have spoken in the debate. What the noble Baroness has done is to establish a precedent. From now on, if anybody wants a debate he or she will be able to move a Second Reading.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can we not call it a day? We have had a debate. Let us part in good humour.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, on the strength of that may I say that it was on the advice of my seniors and betters, given through the usual channels, that I adopted the line I took? Therefore, deferring to that wise advice and in a spirit of humility and gratitude, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Second Reading.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Oversea Superannuation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.

  BUSINESS COSTS: COMPARISON
  BUSINESS COSTS: COMPARISON
  ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: TREASURY IMPLEMENTATION
  ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: TREASURY IMPLEMENTATION
  UNESCO: UK WITHDRAWAL
  UNESCO: UK WITHDRAWAL
  UNHCR: FUNDING
  UNHCR: FUNDING
  NHS FACILITIES FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS
  NHS FACILITIES FOR MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS
  "DEATH ON THE ROCK": REPEAT BROADCAST
  "DEATH ON THE ROCK": REPEAT BROADCAST
  THE GULF WAR: PARTICIPATION IN AIR BATTLE
  THE GULF WAR: PARTICIPATION IN AIR BATTLE
  ARMS MANUFACTURERS: FUTURE PRODUCTION
  ARMS MANUFACTURERS: FUTURE PRODUCTION
  MOTOR RALLIES
  MOTOR RALLIES
  TYRE BURNING AND POWER GENERATING PLANTS: ADVICE
  TYRE BURNING AND POWER GENERATING PLANTS: ADVICE