Sitting of 6 March 1991

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

    Mortgage Arrears
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are in arrears with mortgage payments; and how many houses have been repossessed as a result of mortgage default during the last year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Information on the level of mortgage arrears and the number of repossessions is not available for Scotland.
    Mr. Home Robertson: How convenient for the Minister. Does he accept that mortgage default is now one of the major causes of homelessness in Scotland and that 130 people in East Lothian became homeless last year because of mortgage default? That is about 15 per cent. of the official homelessness figure in my constituency. Is he further aware that a significant proportion of such folk bought their district council houses at a discount and are now having to be rehoused by the same local authority? Will he please admit that the Government's cockeyed housing policy has now made a crisis into a disaster of homelessness for many people?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that only 4 per cent. of homelessness applications were attributed to that cause by the applicants. I stress that Clackmannan district council operates a scheme for tenants who are aspiring owners but find themselves in difficulty. Any other district council may operate that scheme if it so wishes. We have also developed a cash incentive scheme for housing associations to assist homeless families. Few people become homeless because of mortgage default and the figure is well below the number in England.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that figures from the building societies show that about 96 per cent. of those with mortgages in the United Kingdom are not in default of any kind? Every trader would love to be able to present such figures. Does my hon. Friend also agree that there has been considerable interest in the extension of the rents-to-mortgages scheme, and can he tell me something about it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. First, 0·47 per cent. of all mortgage holders in Britain have been subject
    266
    to repossession. That is well below 1 per cent. and the percentage in Scotland is lower because market values are lower. My hon. Friend asked me about the rents-to-mortgages scheme. We launched our publicity on the scheme on Friday, and there have been more than 4,000 expressions of interest from local authority tenants throughout Scotland. That shows that many people believe that this is the bargain of the century.

    Homeless Youngsters, London
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance his Department has given to agencies catering for homeless young Scots in London.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Responsibility for homeless persons in England, including the funding of voluntary agencies, rests with the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and the local authorities concerned, but the Scottish Office is making available £50,000 a year for three years to voluntary bodies to assist projects to discourage young people from Scottish cities moving to London.
    Mr. Watson: That is a pathetic response. There is a problem here and now, involving hundreds of young Scots in London, of which the Minister should be aware. Half of them come from Glasgow and many of them have a social work care background. The Minister should have read the booklet that was sent to him called, "Living on the Borderline", which was published last week by Borderline, Centrepoint and Shelter (Scotland). It tells a tragic tale. The Irish Government provide £500,000 to London agencies to deal with their young homeless. When will the Scottish Office take similar responsibility for young Scots in London?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The £50,000 is designed, exactly like the Irish scheme, to discourage young persons from leaving home. The scheme's purpose is to encourage people to obtain accommodation in their home areas. We have other initiatives. Some £72,000 has been allocated to the centre for housing research in Glasgow, which will carry out a study to see how social work can prevent homelessness. We have also provided £48,000 to the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. Over and above that, we have made an additional allocation to the four cities of Scotland and we have invited bids from the towns which have most homelessness—Renfrew, Dumbarton, Falkirk and Kirkcaldy. We think that that will be of substantial assistance.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the cities in Scotland were to allocate their empty council houses, that would help homelessness in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If a substantial proportion of the 26,000 empty houses were brought back into use, that would be of assistance. The code of practice that we will issue shortly takes into account the £50,000 project which seeks to discourage young persons from leaving their home areas.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent meetings he has had with political parties in relation to the reform of local government finance.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I had a meeting on 12 February with representatives of the Scottish National party at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was present. I will meet representatives of the Scottish Liberal Democrats later today. Proposals made at those meetings will be taken into account in the current review of community charge matters.
    Mr. Douglas: Is not it now becoming increasingly clear, as a result of those meetings and others, that local government finance in Scotland is in a state of crisis and that the indebtedness that has resulted from the past two years of the poll tax is well in excess of £500 million? Is the Secretary of State so sanguine as to think that he can persist with the concept of the poll tax in Scotland, or will he face up to his responsibilities and recognise that, if he does not rule it out, the electorate will rule him out?
    Mr. Lang: The term "crisis" is hardly appropriate to a system in which 98 per cent. registration has been achieved and in which 95 per cent. collection is anticipated for the first year of the charge. Nine out of the 12 levying authorities have already collected 95 per cent. Their task would be eased considerably if Scottish National party Members would adopt a more responsible approach to the funding of local government. It is disgraceful that those who seek to make laws in this place should seek to break them when it comes to funding local authorities.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the additional support for capital allocation projects that he announced yesterday and which was welcomed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will be extremely beneficial and will allow many local authorities to get ahead with valuable projects in the coming financial year?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. I was particularly glad to be able to allocate more than £500 million in capital allocations to local authorities with particular emphasis on the improvement of school buildings, on general services, including the provision of factories where they are needed, and on the improvement of water services and sewerage, in respect of which we plan to increase funding by almost two thirds during a three-year period.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the growing problem caused by people who have hitherto paid the poll tax but who say that they intend to deduct from next year's poll tax the amount that is attributable to non-payment? In those circumstances, and bearing it in mind that my party has encouraged its members to pay, will he further acknowledge that the sooner the Government announce the abolition of the poll tax, the easier it will be to remove the problem of non-collection?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is grossly unfair that those who have paid their community charge should be expected to pay an SNP surcharge to cover non-payment by others. I urge everybody to make a
    268
    full contribution to local government and not to break the law. We are reviewing the community charge and considering possible methods of funding local government and I look forward to my meeting with the Liberal Democrats later this afternoon to carry those discussions further.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating both the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on coming to the conclusion that a property tax is a better idea than a poll tax? Is not it the case that the property tax is electorally attractive, as was demonstrated in last year's regional elections when the Labour party won a considerable victory, and that if we introduce such a tax it will leave the Minister of State looking something of a lulu?
    Mr. Lang: I do not know how it will make the hon. Gentleman look when I remind him that, according to the opinion polls, the Labour party's roof tax proposal was more unpopular than the community charge has ever been and that fewer than 20 per cent. of the Labour party's own supporters supported it.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of councils such as Eastwood is that Conservative councils provide efficient services with a relatively low community charge? Is not it a great pity that not more councils in Scotland are controlled by the Conservative party so that the poll tax could be lower?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right, for that is the lesson to be learnt from the outrageously high tax that is imposed in places such as Edinburgh, where the community charge is £584. The lesson for Edinburgh's residents is to vote for a Conservative administration in next year's district council elections, which will produce better government and a lower community charge.
    Mr. Dewar: Did the Secretary of State have time this week to study the admirable article by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who was until recently Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he argued that the poll tax
    "is a tax so fundamentally flawed that no amount of tinkering or refinement, of amendment or reform, can make it acceptable. Abolition is the only course."?
    He went on to argue trenchantly for a radically reformed rating system as the answer to local government finance. Does not the Secretary of State accept that there is a growing body of support—which includes the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the Secretary of State for the Environment—for a property-based system and that the Secretary of State's intemperate attacks on that proposal are making him look silly? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman started to eat his words and to admit that he has got it wrong?
    Mr. Lang: I remember when the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) were used almost verbatim to criticise the domestic rating system, which led us to introduce the community charge when my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore a senior member of the Government. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) invites me to speculate on the outcome of the review. I will say only that we are considering carefully all the options and will present our solutions in due course.

    School Repairs
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of education funding within Highland region, with specific regard to the needs of building repair and refurbishment.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Schools throughout Scotland will benefit from a 19 per cent. increase in resources for building and repair, making a total of more than £73 million. Highland region's share will be £3·8 million—an increase of 36 per cent.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge that, based on the region's submission to the Scottish Office last November, that increase—however welcome—is still less than half the amount that the region identified as the bottom line expenditure required over a five-year period, to bring the condition of its schools up to a tolerable standard? The funding provided does not take account of population growth and higher new-build costs on the west coast—which is of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Does not he accept that the overall expenditure pattern will fail woefully to provide schools in the Highland region that are protected against the wind and rain? What will he do to change that?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that if Highland region wants to spend more, it is free to do so. Although I do not carry figures around in my head with great accuracy, I believe that I am right to say that the funding provided is almost £1 million more than the region was expecting and represents a substantial increase in resources. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged the failure of some local authorities to tackle such problems in the past and they are now being tackled as a consequence of the priority that he set.

    Housing
    Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss housing in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I expect to meet representatives of the housing committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in September.
    Mrs. Adams: When the Minister meets COSLA's representatives, will he listen to them this time, and reinstate housing support grant in Scotland? That would give Renfrew district council in my constituency a grant of £16,289,000 at 1979 levels, which would enable it either to reduce rents by £3 a week or to take on board a more extensive housing repair system.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: During the past 10 years, we have targeted housing benefit directly at the individual, rather than make huge sums of housing support grant available. We have made sure that the cost of hostel provision and the deficits are covered by housing support grant. A considerable number of councils have come into housing support grant as a result. Scottish
    270
    Homes is undertaking considerable expenditure in Ferguslie park, in the hon. Lady's constituency, which will total at least £3·6 million next year. That will help.
    Mr. McAllion: One housing item for discussion, which should be of interest to the Minister when he meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, is the level of house building. Does he realise that, had the Government maintained the level of house building which they inherited from Labour in 1979, there would be more than 50,000 additional new houses in which to house the homeless and with which to reduce waiting lists? Is not his failure to maintain that level of building absolutely disgraceful? Since he cannot possibly defend such a record, will he now take the only honourable course open to him and tender his resignation, along with the rest of that broken-backed crew on the Front Bench?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since 1979, 220,000 houses have been built in Scotland. If housing association units are counted in with the public sector, almost 60,000 units were built in the public sector. In 1989–90 more than 1,200 local authority houses were completed. If Dundee district council wants building more council houses to be a priority, it can be, provided that it is a priority within the council's allocation.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When my hon. Friend meets COSLA to discuss housing, will he also discuss the needs of ex-service men and their families, who have had great difficulty finding accommodation—especially accommodation to buy—when they leave the services? Will he try to impress upon local authorities the fact that they should give more priority to them? If he cannot make progress in that direction, might he be prepared to involve housing associations more?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am in touch with the Ministry of Defence on that matter at present and I am interested in the suggestion that my right hon. Friend has made. I shall certainly follow it up in discussions with the Ministry.

    Health Boards
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which bodies were consulted before appointments were made to the 15 reconstituted health boards in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: The bodies consulted on appointments to the reconstituted health boards were all health boards, local health councils and local authorities, various trade unions, universities, health service professional bodies, voluntary bodies and a number of leading Scottish firms.
    Mrs. Michie: It seems from what the Secretary of State says that democracy has gone out of the window for the health service in Scotland and that there is a clear and urgent case for a portion of health board members to be directly elected. What criteria were used for the election of health board members to the reconstituted boards? Was election based on ability or knowledge of the health boards, or was it—as it appears to us—based on affiliation to the Conservative party? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many members of health boards are card-carrying members of the Tory party or hold office in that party?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady demeans herself. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that appointment is based on political affiliation. In the vast majority of cases the political affiliations of members of health boards are not known. They are chosen for what they can contribute to the good running of the health boards and that is why we consult so widely with all the bodies that I mentioned.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety felt throughout Falkirk district council about the absence of any residents of Falkirk district on the new Forth Valley health board, and that that anxiety is shared even by leading Tories such as Bill Hughes and Councillor Malcolm McNicol? In view of the blatant political bias, as well as the geographical bias, will the Secretary of State now take steps to try to achieve a better balance, instead of allowing his colleague, the Minister responsible for health, blatantly to abuse his political power to appoint his friends, such as Mrs. Isbister and a lot of other Tory party hacks who seem hell-bent on trying to wreck the national health service when they should be defending and improving it?
    Mr. Lang: As I have already said, members of health boards are not chosen for their political affiliations, which are not known in most cases. They are chosen for what they can contribute to the work of the health boards, based on the advice of a wide range of bodies. Geographical representation is not a relevant factor in the appointment of health boards. The proper means to represent interests of that type is through health councils.

    NHS Patient Care
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives are planned to improve patient care in the national health service in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: New initiatives such as heart-lung transplant surgery, the helicopter ambulance service, the provision of nuclear magnetic resonance scanners and the introduction of a cochlear implant service are some of the examples of innovation in the health service to build on the Government's outstanding record.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the substantial extra funding awarded to the Dumfries and Galloway area health board will enable it to improve patient care substantially in the coming year? Will he congratulate the board—and, in particular, Dr. Christopher Isles—on the introduction of a new renal dialysis unit in Dumfries, which will benefit local patients enormously?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work being done by the board. I had the opportunity to meet some of its staff recently. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the progress being made in bringing kidney dialysis to patients in rural areas. That is part of a general policy that has been implemented in the Borders, preventing patients from having to travel long distances.
    When we conducted a survey of patient satisfaction a couple of years ago, the Dumfries and Galloway health board emerged with one of the highest scores. I am sure that that is because management, doctors and staff are so committed to its purpose, which is to improve patient care.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the medical innovations described by the Minister, but why is he putting all that at risk by persisting with the completely discredited policy of allowing hospitals to opt into the NHS trust system? Will not the finances of trusts effectively be controlled from the centre? Their only freedom will be to seek permission to spend money from the Scottish Office, rather than deal with the matter locally through the health boards. Why, despite the widespread and total rejection of the scheme, do the Minister and the Government persist in acting against medical and public opinion?
    Mr. Forsyth: Every time the hon. Gentleman says that there is no interest in the scheme, we seem to receive another application. Six hospitals throughout Scotland have now expressed interest. The proposal for Forresterhill in Aberdeen has come from consultants and management, because they believe that it will result in improved patient care. Once the Scottish Office has received a proposal, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will examine it and decide whether to give it the go-ahead on the basis of whether it will improve patient care.
    The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the ability of hospitals to spend money without Scottish Office approval. The whole point of self-governing hospitals in the NHS trust system is that they will be free to make decisions at local level that would otherwise have been made over their heads. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the idea of giving local communities a chance to run and manage their hospitals.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome any news from my hon. Friend about the extension of dialysis treatment for kidney patients. Is he aware, however, that a kidney patient on dialysis who is given erythropoetin will become almost as well as a normal man? Can he assure me that Scotland has enough funds to provide that drug for every renal patient who could benefit from it?
    Mr. Forsyth: I know my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks. Notwithstanding reports that have appeared in some sections of the media, the position is clear: if a consultant believes that the drug should be prescribed, it should be prescribed, and the resources must be found to pay for it. I have corresponded with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) about this, and the position is on record.
    Mr. Galbraith: Was not the Minister entirely wrong to say that expressions of interest in trust status are coming from hospitals? In fact, they are coming from a small clique within those hospitals. Has the Minister not read what was said recently by John Cooper, chief executive of the Royal Free hospital, an opting-out hospital, in London? He said:
    "All elements of financial management are being effectively controlled centrally. The only freedom we have is freedom to ask permission, and we can do that already."
    Opting-out hospitals are run not by the health boards but by accountants in the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am interested by the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question. I take it that, if self-governing status indeed means that decisions are made at local level, the hon. Gentleman will support it. I am happy to assure him that there is no question of self-governing hospitals'

    273
    being managed centrally. The whole point is that they will have contracts with the health boards and will remain a part of the NHS, and that doctors and management will have an opportunity to run them locally. What I said earlier was that the proposals for NHS trusts were coming from doctors and management who believed that it would improve patient care. I believe that those proposals should be evaluated on the basis of their merits, not on the basis of Labour party dogma.

    Development and Enterprise, Borders
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote development and enterprise in the Borders.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government are putting in place specific arrangements to give local control to the promotion of development and enterprise in the Borders.
    The Borders local enterprise company will work in partnership with the private sector, local authorities and other agencies in the area to deliver the Government's economic development, training and environmental improvement programmes in the manner best suited to the needs of the area.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister think that adequate cash or investment programmes are available to local and statutory authorities in the Borders? Is he aware that the Borders local enterprise council made a bid for £12·6 million, to invest in capital developments but was awarded only £8·5 million which represents the biggest cut for any local enterprise company in Scotland? Is he further aware that Borders regional council asked for £4 million for future capital development but was awarded only £1 million? How can statutory authorities buy the necessary sites, set up advance factories and support local industry if they have inadequate resources to enable them to do so?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The allocations represent a significant increase. The allocation to Borders Enterprise represents an increase of 27 per cent. over comparable spending in the area this year and Borders Enterprise will have grant powers to encourage the provision of advance factories. It is keen to use those powers rather than to provide the property itself. District councils in the region received capital allocations totalling £1·8 million, an increase of £260,000, and Borders regional council received an allocation of £1·2 million, which was an increase of £350,000. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and we recognise the need to provide premises for alternative sources of employment to diversify the local economy. The increased allocations reflect that. In addition, local enterprise companies will have authority to commit up to £250,000 on any project and discretion to devise specific initiatives to reflect local circumstances. Those matters can be followed up with the companies.

    Beer
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the reforms to the licensed trade following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommendations is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I confirm, however, that the orders made by him under the Fair Trading Act 1973, in response to the MMC report, apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that although the MMC report and the subsequent legislation cover the United Kingdom, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 does not cover Scotland? As a result, licensed trade tenants in Scotland are dealt with less favourably than those south of the border. That is particularly serious in view of the haste with which brewery managed and tenanted houses are being exchanged in order to fulfil the MMC's requirements. Will my hon. Friend undertake to meet representatives of the licensed trade in Scotland to hear how, in practice, the MMC report is leading not to increased choice and competition or cheaper beer but to a raw deal for licensed house tenants?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable on these matters, rightly says that there is a legislative difference between north and south of the border. The purpose of the Landlord and Tenant Act was to bring pub tenants in England and Wales in line with other business tenants. It does not apply to Scotland, but Scottish licensees are on a par with other business tenants under the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949.
    The Scottish Licensed Trade Association is an extremely responsible body, the president of which is a resident of Eastwood. I assure my hon. Friend that either my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for home affairs or I will be happy to meet a delegation to discuss the matter.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently unemployed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: In January 1991, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland was 201,300. Despite the small upturn during the past quarter, unemployment in Scotland has fallen by almost 140,000. It is now 40 per cent. lower than four years ago.
    Mr. Brown: Does the Secretary of State realise, despite his phony figures, that Scotland has been devastated by unemployment? In my constituency, for example, GEC Ferranti has closed a plant and is paying off many of its employees, and the same thing is happening at the Rank Hovis McDougall Caledonian mill. On top of that ICI is closing, or intends to close, Scottish Agricultural Industries, which produces fertilizers, because of Government opposition to the Kemira takeover bid. That is clearly a tragedy for the Scottish economy and for the local economy of Leith. Will the Secretary of State ask his Tory friends at ICI to hold fire in the meantime? Will he meet me to discuss the local problems of my constituents who clearly want to defend local skills and local industries, which the right hon. Gentleman's Government do not intend to do?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the answer that I gave to the main question when I explained that unemployment, far from rising, had fallen by 140,000 in the past four years. In the year to September 1990, manufacturing employment in Scotland increased by 9,000, and the civilian work force has increased by 200,000 over the past three years. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, unemployment has fallen by no less than 43 per cent. in the past four years, with a total fall of 3,000.
    Mr. David Marshall: On behalf of Glasgow Labour Members, I wrote to the Secretary of State seeking a meeting with him to discuss unemployment in the city of Glasgow, where more than 48,000 people were idle in January. Does he accept that his reply, which was received today and stated that the level of unemployment in the Glasgow travel-to-work area—not the city of Glasgow —is better than that of many other areas in Scotland and that the time is not appropriate to meet us to discuss unemployment, is an unbelievably callous answer? Just what level does unemployment have to reach in the city of Glasgow before the right hon. Gentleman will agree to meet us? Is he still not aware that the eight constituencies with the highest levels of unemployment in Scotland are all in Glasgow?
    Mr. Lang: Of course unemployment in Glasgow is still too high, but the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that it has fallen substantially in the past four years—by between 2,000 and 3,000 in every constituency in Glasgow. That is reflected in the overall figures which show, as I have said, that unemployment has fallen by almost 140,000 in the past four years. What I look forward to seeing in Glasgow, as elsewhere throughout Scotland, is Scottish Enterprise and the new local enterprise companies getting down to tackle the problems in each local enterprise company area and going about their business with their budgets which, in total, including Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, exceed £0·5 billion, to tackle the problems in ways which relate directly to the individual problems of each area.
    Mr. Holt: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend heard the reply that was recently given in the House by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when I asked a question about the activities of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which are leading directly to the closure of the factory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), and which could have a knock-on effect in my constituency by bringing to an end the viability of the only potash mine in this country. That would adversely affect the country as a whole, our balance of payments and unemployment in both Scotland and England. It is still not too late to pull this one round, but it would mean a Secretary of State who arrogantly said that no Minister had ever gone against the recommendations of an MMC report for the first time standing up, being a man in his own right and refusing to accept the MMC's recommendations.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend may wish to pursue that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I am sure that he will agree that one of the merits of the MMC is its arm's-length method of operation. The MMC looked closely at all the implications of the decision before reaching its conclusions.
    Mr. Worthington: All Opposition Members are deeply cynical about the way in which the Secretary of State uses dates. I remind him that the Government have been in power for 12 years, not four, and that unemployment has mounted over that time and is rising again. As we enter a recession which is affecting Scotland, why are local enterprise companies being faced with a cut in their budgets which means that less will be spent in each area in Scotland this year on the functions of the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency than was spent last year? Why is it that in Lanarkshire, of all places, when a bid was put in for £50 million, in real terms only £30 million was allocated?
    Mr. Lang: With regard to the budget for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, whose figures are largely speculative and widely inaccurate for the most part, the combined budget of the two new bodies will exceed £500 million. On training we are spending about six times what the Labour Government spent 12 years ago. Far from the Government having a bad record on unemployment, we have seen a dramatic improvement in the last few years as we got away from the after-effects of the Socialist Government and all the damage that they did to the Scottish economy. Unemployment in Scotland is now below the EC average. Long-term unemployment continues to fall; it fell by 12 per cent. last year—the sharpest fall anywhere in the United Kingdom—as a result of the improvements in the economy brought about by the Conservative Government.

    Warrant Sales
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of warrant sales to enforce poll tax payments in Scotland.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I am satisfied that the powers available to local authorities in Scotland for the collection of community charge arrears are adequate for that purpose.
    Mr. Wray: Will the Minister explain why he is always misleading the House on percentages? He has referred to a collection rate of 92 per cent. in quite a number of local authorities throughout Scotland. He knows very well that since 31 January Strathclyde regional council, the largest local authority in Scotland, has collected only £247 million —less than 60 per cent. of the £457 million for which it sent out poll tax bills? It has cut the final notices to 38,000 and sent out 754,000 warrants. Surely the Government must recognise that the poll tax will not work. Local authorities are still jackbooting the most vulnerable people in society by operating warrant sales.
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Local authorities have collected, or expect to collect, 95 per cent. of their budgeted income for last year. Strathclyde has failed to use warrant sales so far and the comptroller of audit has rightly criticised the performance of authorities in failing to implement collection procedures in accordance with the statutory timetable.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As has already been mentioned, there is a deep resentment among those who pay and obey the law as regards those who will not pay. Is my hon. Friend aware that the resentment is compounded in areas

    277
    such as Kincardine and Deeside, where the percentage collection is good, but where next year people will have to pay more than a proportion of what is uncollected in that area because other district councils, such as Aberdeen, have collected a lower proportion of the community charge that is due? Is it fair that community charge payers in Kincardine and Deeside will have to pay more, not just to compensate for those who fail to pay in their own area?
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. A tide of outrage is sweeping Scotland among law-abiding citizens who have to pay the SNP surcharge. I can perhaps reassure my right hon. Friend about the position in Grampian. He may have seen an article recently in The Scotsman headed,
    "Labour rift as warrant sales approved".
    In the article it was announced that Grampian region had decided to go ahead with eight warrant sales for non-payment. The article stated that the Labour leader, Councillor Jurgen Thomaneck, said:
    "It would be asking too much of us to condone illegal acts by people who evade the poll tax in a way that is to the detriment of other poll tax payers."
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree with that. I hope that those sentiments will get a ringing endorsement from the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Wilson: In the last months of the poll tax, will the Minister finally seek to bring some common sense to at least some parts of its operation? Will he relieve local authorities of the need to pursue this blunderbuss approach in the legislation which means that the poorest people in the land, who are in arrears on a proportion of the poll tax of up to 20 per cent., have to be pursued in exactly the same way as the wealthiest people in the community who default voluntarily, with which I have no truck whatever? Will the Minister bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the possibility of getting rid of the 20 per cent. minimum payment? Does he agree that if the poorest people in Scottish society, who are being hounded for 20 per cent. of the poll tax, were taken out of the equation much of the administrative shambles, chaos and misery that surround the poll tax would disappear with them?
    Mr. Stewart: There will be no amnesty. The community charge benefit is widely available to assist those on low incomes. Some of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers may have built up a large level of debt. In many cases, the fault lies not with the Opposition Front Bench but with many of the hon. Members behind him and with the Scottish National party.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Surely the effectiveness of warrant sales must be called into question, bearing in mind the large number of Scottish Members of Parliament who still have not paid their poll tax. What does my hon. Friend the Minister think of a party which aspires to law-making but condones so much law-breaking in its own ranks?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was referring to the Labour party or to the Scottish National party. Almost certainly, he was referring to both. Of course, he is absolutely right. Scottish local authorities have failed so far to use warrant sales and they have been consistently criticised for the delay. In some authorities, such as Borders and Fife, payment levels are extremely high. If Borders and Fife can do it, so can Lothian and Strathclyde.

    Special Educational Needs
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the educational pack "Taking Up The Challenge", funded by the Scottish Education Department, and published by the Committee on Special Educational Needs in January 1991; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: "Taking Up The Challenge" is part of a concerted effort by the Government to provide additional help and support to children with moderate learning difficulties.
    Mrs. Ewing: On two occasions in the past 10 days the Minister has said that he will make available additional funding for learning support in primary schools. Will he spell out exactly what he means by that increased level of support? Will it mean additional teachers or additional resources? How much money is involved? When will it happen? Or is this just a smokescreen to draw attention away from national testing?
    Mr. Forsyth: Far from being a smokescreen, it is a response to the representations that we have received as a result of the introduction of national testing, including representations from the hon. Lady. We are currently considering how we can target resources to help children in primary schools who are having difficulties with the three Rs and who have been identified as a result of the introduction of national tests and the new five to 14 programme. We currently have a pilot scheme under way. Once it is concluded, we shall be in a position to assess the level of response and the most appropriate form of response.

    Hospitals, Glasgow
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the future of general hospitals in the Greater Glasgow area.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Greater Glasgow health board's proposals for rationalising and improving its acute services have been approved by my right hon. Friend following consultation.
    Mr. Martin: Is the Minister aware that there is anxiety in the north of the city about Stobhill? He will know that new maternity facilities are to be built at the royal infirmary. Many people in the north end of Glasgow believe that that could be the end of Stobhill as a general hospital. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there is a future for Stobhill and that it will continue as a general hospital?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has been a doughty fighter for Stobhill. The proposals in respect of the maternity services are before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and are still under consideration. As the hon. Gentleman said, they include building a new maternity hospital at the royal infirmary. I can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. Stobhill will gain additional facilities, including renal services and an additional 15 accident and emergency beds. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I know of no future proposals for changes at that excellent hospital.
    Mr. Dewar: As the Minister knows, in Glasgow there are hospitals which are on the hit list for the opting out procedure. I remind him that, in approaching this matter, he said that one of the tests would be a substantial commitment of those likely to be involved in the new management. Does he agree that that does not mean six persons—any six persons in any hospital? The consultants in South Ayrshire hospital voted by 50 to nine against opting out, and those in Aberdeen Royal infirmary voted by 82 to seven against. Does the Minister agree that, even in his Looking Glass world, that cannot be equated with a substantial commitment on the part of those who will be involved in new set-ut? He talks about local choice and local democracy. Does he agree that forcing opting out through on that basis would be offensive and indefensible?
    Mr. Forsyth: No Government—not even any previous Labour Government—have taken decisions concerning the future of hospitals on the basis of votes or ballots. The criteria for the approval of applications for self-governing status are set out in the working paper, which the hon. Gentleman has seen, and they are perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman referred to a "hit list". I regard that as a fairly offensive term. In hospitals throughout Scotland, people are looking behind the Labour party's rhetoric and seeing the opportunity to improve patient care. In the case of the South Ayrshire hospital, in respect of which an application is coming into the Scottish Office, the leading person responsible is a consultant with a distinguished history in the national health service. I do not believe that people of that calibre would do anything other than go forward with proposals that they thought were in the best interests of patients. That is the sole criterion on which my right hon. Friend's decisions will be based.

    Forestry
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has to develop forestry within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lang: The Government remain fully committed to the expansion of forestry in the United Kingdom, and are providing substantial grants to encourage tree planting. Woodland management grants will be introduced from 1 April 1992.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. I wonder whether, in his busy programme, he could find time to come and visit the forests in south Dorset, for which he is responsible in terms of policy. Can he given us some indication how forestry has developed in the past 10 years, and whether any changes in policy have been brought about by the farm woodland scheme and other schemes intended to take farmland out of food production?
    Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation to visit south Dorset. I should certainly like at some stage to take it up, as my responsibilities for forestry stretch throughout the United Kingdom. I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that there has been a major expansion of forestry in the past 10 years, with about 250,000 hectares of new planting. In addition, the processing industry has been revitalised, with investment of about £1 billion. The farm woodland scheme, which we are currently reviewing, has led to about 2,200 applications
    280
    to plant about 15,000 hectares—a high proportion of the trees being broad-leaves. The forestry industry is in good heart and in good shape.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the timber industry based on planting in the northern part of the Highlands has been set back by the designation process of the Nature Conservancy Council? Will he ensure that the regional council gives impetus to the review of policy? Its first intervention has not produced the resolution of the dispute between the parties that was hoped for.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that my predecessor as Secretary of State for Scotland gave this matter very close attention and sought a solution that would reconcile the conflicting interests of land use in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, having regard in particular to the important environmental aspects, but also to the need to generate employment through tree planting and in other ways. I hope that these matters will proceed more satisfactorily and more effectively once Scottish Natural Heritage is fully established. Indeed, our proposals on natural heritage areas, which we shall make clear very shortly, may well have considerable application to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    Smoked Salmon
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce temperature controls on the distribution of smoked salmon produced in Scotland and posted from there.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: We propose that food delivered by mail order, including smoked fish, will be exempt from the regulations requiring temperature controls for the distribution and storage of specified foodstuffs.
    Mr. Steen: I congratulate the Secretary of State on making regulations after research has been done and not, as happens in England, making regulations first and then conducting the research to see whether they were needed. Does the Minister agree that the Government seem to be getting more and more neurotic and hysterical about food hygiene? Are there any known cases of food poisoning from smoked salmon, smoked cheese or any other smoked products? Will he confirm that he will ease off making regulations until thorough research has been done showing that there is evidence of food contamination or food poisoning?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to my answer. The Government are completely committed to food safety. Such issues are never entirely black and white; we must ensure that we have controls that are practical and not disproportionate to the risk. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have commissioned research at Torry and we shall be able to review the matter once that research is to hand.

    Scottish Economy
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the Scottish economy and unemployment.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend has received no request from the convention for a discussion of economic issues.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware that my constituents are outraged at the decision to postpone yet again the upgrading of the A8 from Baillieston to Newhouse, with all the job implications that that entails? Does not he feel that his new role of looking after Lanarkshire has been specifically undermined? Does he accept that, in the past 99 days, yet another appalling decision under so-called new management means the same old story of job losses and lost opportunities for my constituents, who are anxious to get rid of the new management as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I may point out to the hon. Gentleman the progress that has been made with the M74, which is crucial to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Preparation work on the Shawhead-Newhouse scheme is continuing and is expected to be completed by 1994. I share the hon. Member's concern about jobs in Lanarkshire and throughout Scotland. That is more than can be said for the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be going to extraordinary lengths to find some overseas appointment to enable him to avoid attending the Scottish Labour party conference at Aberdeen—but who can blame him?

    Primary Testing
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has had (a) in favour and (b) against primary testing.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Some 400 representations have been received covering a complete spectrum of views on testing.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Minister aware that throughout Scotland, where parents have been balloted, an overwhelming number of decisions have been made against the tests? In my constituency, in the schools of St. Mark's, St. Columbkilles Hallside and St. Bride's, 70 to 80 per cent. of parents are opposed to the tests. It is clear that those tests are part of the Minister's promised bloody revolution for education in Scotland. Even at this late stage, will he consider withdrawing the tests and seeking consensus for the sake of our children's future?
    Mr. Forsyth: The regulations on testing were approved by the House without opposition in debate from any Opposition Member. They place a clear duty on education authorities to administer the tests and——
    Mr. Worthington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: It is the last two minutes.
    Mr. Worthington: We prayed against the regulations on 26 October, they appeared on 25 October and we demanded a debate on them.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for answers given from the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Forsyth: The point——
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is unseemly behaviour.
    Mr. Forsyth: The point that I made—that the regulations were not opposed in debate in the House—is correct. They place a clear duty on the education authorities to administer the test. Until now, the Labour party and the EIS have argued that parental choice and involvement should not extend to the curriculum and to professional matters. Their conversion is as rapid as it is unexpected. I have no doubt that, having released this genie from the bottle, education authorities will be reflecting on the implications. Are parents to be able to withdraw children from physical education, music, computer studies and the technical and vocational education initiative, for example, or to insist on the inclusion of their children in classes on a subject? Once the pilot testing round has been completed, we shall consider what further action is necessary.

    Gulf Casualties
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the reception facilities in Scottish hospitals for service personnel returning from the Gulf.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: With the rapid and successful conclusion of the ground offensive to liberate Kuwait, the need for Scottish hospitals to maintain special arrangements to receive service personnel injured in the Gulf conflict has now passed. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in thanking all NHS staff involved for the admirable way in which they have responded.
    Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister rises to answer the debate on 15 March on health problems in the middle east, will the Scottish Office submit some kind of memorandum offering advice as to what it can do about the appalling problems of typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and other diseases, in which we have an expertise that is desperately needed in the middle east?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the expertise in Scotland on tropical and contagious diseases. I shall be happy to discuss with him how we can be of assistance.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. On page 2426 of the Order Paper today, you will see that the first question is in my name. This question has been transferred from the Department of which I originally asked the question to another. In the process, it has been rewritten, and as a consequence of that rewriting, nonsense has been made of the original question. I asked the question originally of the Attorney-General, and if he had answered my question I might have been enabled to put a supplementary question to him concerning the scandals on the Isle of Man and the way in which people have been defrauded by those who run that island.
By virtue of what has happened, I am once again denied that opportunity. If every time I table a question to the Attorney-General it is automatically transferred to the Home Secretary, I shall never get an answer to the question that I am tabling.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?
Mr. Holt: I am asking you, Sir, whether it is in order not merely to transfer questions but to rewrite them so that the consequential content of the question is changed. I asked the Attorney-General what contact he had had; I did not want to know what contact the Home Office has had. If I cannot ask that question, the people whom I represent will be denied the opportunity for justice.
Mr. Speaker: In answer to the first question, it is in order to transfer questions. I refer the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, to page 286 of "Erskine May", which says:
"It is a long established principle that decisions on the transfer of questions rests with Ministers and it is not a matter in which the Chair seeks to intervene."
I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that.
As to the question whether his question has suffered a material change, I shall look into the matter, but if it simply directs the question from the Attorney-General to another Minister, I am afraid that that would be covered by the ruling that I have already given.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Now, Mr. Ewing.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise if you feel that this is boring. I accept that you are not responsible for ministerial answers, but surely the time has come to do something about the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who, not once but three times today—he must know this—deliberately distorted facts and deliberately misled the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would allow "distorted", but not "misled". Will the hon. Member please withdraw that remark?
Mr. Ewing: The Minister, unknowingly or accidentally, misled the House. Whatever approach he took, he is certainly guilty of leaving an impression with the House that is totally contrary to anything that the facts will bear out. This is becoming a regular feature of the Minister's approach to the House of Commons——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that no occupant of the Chair can be responsible for the answers given to questions. I thought that the matter had been put right for the Opposition by the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why, despite your earlier strictures, we continue to suffer lengthy exchanges between the Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen during Scottish questions? May I ask why you continue to persist in calling English Members, which means that Scottish Members are ignored?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, he is frequently called on questions about Scotland and England. This is a United Kingdom Parliament. I well understand the hon. Member's frustration at not being called——
Mr. Ron Brown rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) at not being called on Question 7, but I must seek a balance in calling Back Benchers who have questions on the Order Paper. It seems to me—I hope that the House agrees—that if an hon. Member has been fortunate enough in the shuffle to have a question on the Order Paper, he should be given some precedence. I have tried today to ensure that that happened.
Mr. Ron Brown rose——
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to raise a point of order or something else?
Mr. Brown: Trust me, Mr. Speaker. As a socialist and a Scot, I seek your guidance. Clearly the acoustics in this place are not good. Sometimes we do not hear what the Government say. As I understand it, the Government are offering, perhaps slightly hypocritically, to help the Iraqi people in their hour of need and are offering to send out medics and perhaps engineers and others. Are the Government really offering to do that? Whatever the politics of the situation, the Iraqi people suffered unnecessarily because of the Government's evil intentions——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not use a point of order to make a political and debating point. That has nothing to do with me.

BILLS PRESENTED
  RAILWAY RE-OPENINGS (TRIBUNAL)
  Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. Peter Snape, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Tony Speller and Mr. Nigel Spearing, presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a tribunal to examine proposals for the re-opening of railway lines; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July. [Bill 102.]
FORESTRY
Sir Hector Monro, supported by Mr. Calum Macdonald and Mrs. Margaret Ewing, presented a Bill to increase from 9 to 12 the maximum number of members of a regional advisory committee maintained under section 37 of the Forestry Act 1967: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March. [Bill 101.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Employment Protection (Government Communications Headquarters)
3.38 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for persons employed at the Government Communications Headquarters to have the right to belong to an independent trade union of their choice; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would once again allow GCHQ employees to belong to an independent union of their choice. Just over seven years ago, on 25 January 1984, the then Foreign Secretary announced in the House that unions would be banned at GCHQ. Indeed, on 1 March this month, it was the seventh anniversary of the time limit given to the employees at GCHQ to sign what was described as an option form. That form states:
"I, … have read and understood General Notice 100/84 and wish to continue to be employed at GCHQ. I agree to resign from membership of any trade union to which I belong. I also undertake not to join a trade union or to engage in its affairs or to discuss with its officials my terms of employment or conditions of service or any other matter relating to my employment at GCHQ. I understand, however, that I may join a Departmental Staff Association approved for the time being by Director GCHQ."
That was an infamous document, and no British citizen should be forced to sign such a document. No one should be surprised to learn that 25 January, when the Foreign Secretary announced the ban, and 1 March, when everyone had to sign that form in order to continue as an employee at GCHQ, are well remembered. This state of affairs is totally unacceptable to trade unions and the labour movement.
At the time of the ban, much was made by Ministers about industrial action that had occurred at GCHQ, particularly in 1979 and 1981. It was argued that the ban on union membership would ensure that there was no more disruption. The then Foreign Secretary, however, when trying to justify the ban, conceded that no threat to the nation's security resulted from industrial action that had taken place at GCHQ. Sir John Nott, Defence Secretary in 1981, said that an industrial dispute had not in any way affected operational capability.
Hon. Members may argue that, as we have just been through a war, that justifies even more the ban on union membership.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook indicated assent.
Mr. Winnick: I note that the hon. Member believes that.
Union membership was allowed of course at GCHQ in 1982 during the Falklands war. Sir Brian Tovey, then director general at GCHQ, sent a telegram to all the employees in Cheltenham and the outstation after the Falklands war. That telegram read:
"High level praise. There can be no doubt that this praise has been well deserved. It has been earned by hard and dedicated work by you as individuals."
Less than two years after that telegram had been sent, the Government showed their thanks by taking away the basic right of those dedicated individuals to belong to an independent trade union.
It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving), who represents so many of the people who work at GCHQ and live in Cheltenham, was highly critical of the Government ban. He made a courageous speech in

287
the House when he said that there was never a hint of disruption at GCHQ during the Falklands campaign, and that to imply otherwise had hurt and infuriated the staff. He also said that the slur that union membership at GCHQ involved the risk of putting people's lives in danger was completely beyond the bounds of decency and truth.
In December 1989, the certification officer made a decision on the application for a Government communications staff federation—one can imagine what type of organisation that is. He considered whether that represented an independent trade union, and, not surprisingly, he came to the view that it was not an independent trade union at all. He said that the staff federation functions subject to the approval of the director at GCHQ.
I am myself an active trade unionist, and I believe that it was an impertinence in the first place that any such application was made. How can a staff association that is bound by the organisation in which the employees work be described as an independent trade union?
The International Labour Organisation, which largely functions under the auspices of the United Nations and works closely with it, has repeatedly called on the Government to rescind the ban and to negotiate with the unions. In recent weeks, we have heard much about binding Security Council resolutions. The House knows that I believed that those resolutions had to be implemented, but when the International Labour Organisation has told the Government that the ban is wrong and that they should negotiate with the unions surely it is only right and proper for the Government to take notice. The Government have completely ignored all its requests.
I imagine that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when Prime Minister, was the most enthusiastic member of the Cabinet urging a ban on union membership. We are told that since her departure various matters have been looked at and that there is a different kind of Government who are more caring and less dogmatic. They are even looking at the poll tax, for which we are told that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. No doubt we shall know more about that after tomorrow's by-election. If they are really a different kind of Government, why have they not rescinded the ban on union membership at GCHQ? If the right hon. Member for Finchley was largely responsible for that ban, as I believe she was, why will the Government not do away with that dogma and prejudice, because that is what it is?
Anyone who thinks that the issue will go away and that, as it arose seven years ago, it is a dead issue could not be more wrong. We intend to keep the issue very much alive. We intend to ensure that people are reminded, as they are year after year by the demonstrations at Cheltenham, that in January 1984 a basic right of British citizens was taken away. I understand that no Conservative Member wants to oppose the Bill. [Interruption.] If the ban is right, I hope that a Conservative Member will have the guts to stand up and defend it.
The ban should be removed now. This Tory Government remain the same as they always were, regardless of who leads them. If they do not remove the ban, the next Labour Government will do away with it and
288
will ensure that employees at GCHQ have the same rights as the rest of us to belong to an independent trade union. The sooner that that comes about the better.
3.46 pm
Mr. Bill Walker rose——
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Walker: I do. I oppose the Bill because the record on this matter must be properly set straight so that the people of this country are able to understand it. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that the trade unions at GCHQ had not merited the ban and that it was wrong. I shall give a history of the events. The trade unions at Cheltenham always knew, and were never in any doubt, that, because of the unique nature of their work, if they took part in any kind of industrial action, the Government of the day, of whatever complexion, would have no option but to bring in measures to remove the right to such action. That applied under Labour and Conservative Governments.
Mr. Winnick indicated dissent.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North shakes his head. Let me tell him that, for six and a half years, I was a trade union representative, and in the 1960s I represented the largest union at GCHQ. That was during the period of office of a Labour Government. I was an employee when sensitive and delicate work important to our security was being carried out. That required 365 days of work a year, 24 hours a day, and the civil service and the military were closely involved. Lives could have been put at risk in various parts of the world, and that was properly and fully understood by the trade unions and their representatives.
Government action was taken for two reasons. First, the trade unions took action at Cheltenham even though there was an unwritten agreement that they would never take such action. Secondly, the trade unions were exposed because of publicity generated by trade unions and political activists throughout the country who tried to make political capital out of the situation. They were prepared to put the nation's security at risk for purely political ends. Such action had not occurred in all the years that GCHQ had functioned so effectively and well looking after the nation's security.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North has obviously not made any attempt to study the history of the matter, nor has he spoken to the vast majority of the people who work at GCHQ. If he had, he would understand that they would have no truck with such a measure.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
Hon. Members: Aye.
Hon. Members: No.
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Winnick(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pressure is being applied by the Government Whip to stop the Division.
Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for the Tellers to come to the Chair.
Mr. Jerry Hayes(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been disgracefully suggested that pressure has been applied on me by the Government Whip. I can assure you that that is not the case. It never has been. Perish the thought.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is the type of Member who would allow any pressure to be put upon him.
Question agreed to.
Mr. Winnick: Conservative Members do not have the gumption to vote against my Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Michael Foot, Mrs. Maria. Fyfe, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Gavin Strang.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS)
Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to provide for persons employed at the Government Communications Headquarters to have the right to belong to an independent trade union of their choice; arid for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 May and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As there has been a dramatic change of mood in the House since the ban on the trade unionists at CGHQ took place and there is now a universal desire to have trade union rights there re-established, and as the Bill will now go through the House unopposed and with the support of the Government, will you advise us how we can enable this simple and uncontrovercial measure to pass quickly through the House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has named 17 May. We cannot do much about that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, when ten-minute Bills are spoken against, they should be followed by a vote. The principle is simple. If an hon. Member declares that he wishes to speak against such a Bill but does not vote, he could, in some circumstances, deprive another Member of the opportunity of opposing the Bill who wanted to vote.
When the two voices on the Conservative Benches said, "No," including that of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) who spoke against the Bill, it was noticeable to all hon. Members that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), a Government Whip, went across to those two hon. Members and convinced them not to vote. It is almost certain, Mr. Speaker, that we would have won a handsome victory, which would have been clear in the Lobbies. I fear that, on the day set down for the Second Reading, a Tory Whip will rise in his place on the Government Front Bench, object to the Bill, and kill it. We need the power to carry the Bill through into legislation.
Mr. Winnick rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong to say that opposition to the Bill must be carried to a Division. That is not so. However, if a right hon. or hon. Member seeks to oppose a Bill, he must say the word "No" when I put the Question, and that was done. It is not always necessary to have a Division, as the hon. Member knows from frequent occasions in the past. Furthermore, I cannot be held responsible for what is said in private conversations.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is in order for a right hon. or hon. Member to enter the Chamber to hear the case that is being made for a Bill before making up his mind whether or not he should oppose that particular Bill? I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and anyone who listened to my own will have realised that I was opposing his Bill. That is exactly what I set out to do, on the basis of his remarks.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is right. I would normally receive prior notification that a Bill was to be opposed, but I did not receive such notification today.
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often stated that the ten-minute Bill procedure should not be abused. On the last occasion that I raised a point of order on that subject, you confirmed that my remarks were correct. Is it right for a right hon. or hon. Member to oppose a Bill but not to force a vote? Even more important is the fact that we all saw the Government Whip approach the two Conservative Members concerned and tell them not to force a Division. Those two hon. Members are guilty of being spineless and behaved despicably.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Member is so concerned about. After all, his Bill obtained an unopposed Second Reading. What is he worried about?
Mr. Donald Thompson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The incident to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred was not obvious to all. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was merely seeking the opinions of my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Harlow (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. Speaker: I have no idea what happened.

NORTHERN IRELAND(EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise or require payments into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding that such provisions could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on consideration of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill to provide for the enforcement of orders and the punishment of offences outside Northern Ireland.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 5

  CONFISCATION ORDERS
  '.—(1) Where a person is convicted in the Crown Court of a relevant offence the court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, make a confiscation order if it is satisfied that he has (whether before or after the coming into force of this Part of this Act) benefited from terrorist-related activities engaged in by him or another; and that order shall require him to pay an amount equal to what the court assesses to be the value of his proceeds of those activities.
  (2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—

  (a) a person engages in terrorist-related activities if he engages in activities which consist of or involve the commission of one or more relevant offences;

  (b) a person benefits from terrorist-related activities if he obtains money or other property as a direct or indirect result of those activities; and

  (c) a person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities are the money or other property obtained by him as mentioned above.

  (3) A court shall not on convicting a defendant of a relevant offence make a confiscation order against him unless—

  (a) he is in the same proceedings convicted of another relevant offence committed on a separate occasion (whether before or after the coming into force of this Part of this Act) since the beginning of the period of six years ending when those proceedings were instituted; or

  (b) he is shown to have committed another relevant offence as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

  (4) In subsection (3)(a) above the reference to an offence of which a person is convicted includes a reference to an offence taken into consideration by the court in determining his sentence.
  (5) A court shall not on convicting a defendant of a relevant offence make a confiscation order against him unless it is satisfied that, at some time since the commission of that offence, the realisable property held by him has exceeded £20,000 or such other amount as is for the time being prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.
  (6) A court shall not make a confiscation order if the defendant satisfies the court that the circumstances in which the terrorist-related activities in question were engaged in would make it unfair or oppressive for such an order to be made.
  (7) If when making a confiscation order the court is satisfied that the amount that might be realised in the case of the defendant at that time is less than the amount which the court assesses to be the value of his proceeds of terrorist-related activities, the order shall require him to pay the amount that might then be so realised.
  (8) For the purpose of assessing the value of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities in a case where a confiscation order has previously been made against him, the court shall leave out of account any of his proceeds of such activities that are shown to the court to have been taken into account in determining the amount to be paid under that order.'—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clause 6—Provisions supplementary to section (Confiscation orders).
  Government new clause 7—Relevant offences.
  Government new clause 8—Realisable property, value and gifts.
  Government new clause 9—Assumptions as to benefit and value of proceeds.
  Government new clause 10—Statements, etc., relevant to making confiscation orders.
  Government new clause 11—Assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities.
  Government new clause 12—Concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities.
  Government new clause 13—Enforcement and supplementary provisions.
  Government new clause 14—Interpretation of confiscation provisions.
  Government amendments Nos. 18, 21 to 31, 15, 32, and 34 to 38.
  Mr. Brooke: New clause 5 is the first of a series of 10 closely related new clauses. Together with an associated new schedule, they will, if approved, provide for the confiscation of assets belonging to persons who have benefited from terrorist-related activities. The new provisions are aimed at those persons who have involved themselves, or who may be tempted to involve themselves, in the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland. If they become law, persons who are convicted of a range of offences—of a type known to be committed by terrorist financiers—will be liable to personal financial loss, as well as to whatever penal sanction the court convicting them may impose. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if, when introducing new clause 5, I also say something about the confiscation scheme as a whole—the background to it, its rationale and its main features.
  You and other hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, will note that the 10 clauses and the schedule contain a good deal of technical legal language. You may therefore be somewhat reassured to know that much of this is necessary repetition, for the purposes of this Bill, of very similar language contained in comparable provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which provide in England and Wales for the confiscation of the assets of persons involved in drug trafficking, and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which deals with the confiscation of the proceeds of involvement in other serious crime. Moreover, many of the paragraphs in the text now before us repeat, almost word for word, provisions in the Northern Ireland (Criminal Justice) (Confiscation) Order 1990, which reproduces, for Northern Ireland, the substance of the two Acts which I have just mentioned.
  First, I will give some background. The Government are convinced that an effective strategy for the eradication of terrorism in Northern Ireland must be one which includes effective measures for tackling terrorism at its financial roots. Finance is the life blood of terrorism. It is required not simply for the acquisition of weapons, explosive and other terrorist material, some of it very sophisticated and expensive; it also pays the so-called

  293
  "volunteers"—those who carry out acts of terrorism on behalf of their organisation. The provisions before us represent an important additional element in what we intend should he a comprehensive range of measures for curbing the financing of terrorism, itself an increasingly diversified activity. There is, I suggest, little doubt that such measures are necessary.
  It is well known that terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland and those who handle money on their behalf are becoming ever more sophisticated in the means by which they raise and launder funds. Increasingly, persons of substance, including business men and accountants, are involved. It is a particularly worrying feature of the current scene that persons known to be involved with terrorist organisations are involved in the running of what may be regarded as legitimate businesses, with the principal objective of using those businesses to raise or launder funds intended to finance terrorism. There is good reason to believe that some of these people have been involved in such terrorist-financing activity for several years and that they have derived substantial personal benefit from their involvement.
  There is in the Government's view—a view which is fully shared by the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a serious risk that, unless effective action is taken soon, persons acting on behalf of terrorist organisations will succeed in establishing a commercial or business infrastructure capable of providing long-term support for terrorism. Perhaps just as much a matter for concern is the risk that, even after a cessation of political violence, such an infrastructure might remain in place, able to sustain a potential for more straightforwardly criminal racketeering. No one would wish to see the creation of a Mafia-style society anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  It was against this background, and with the concerns that I have just outlined, that the Government considered how they might use the opportunity created by this Bill to strengthen the law to allow more effective action against terrorist financiers. There were two principal outcomes of this consideration. The first was the new investigative powers for non-police officers, which were introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee, and which are now to be found in clause 47 and schedule 4. An ability to invoke these powers, and to secure the involvement in a financial investigation of persons with the special skills required for this task, should considerably ease the task of the RUC in bringing to justice those involved in such activities.
  The second main outcome of our consideration of possible new measures is the scheme for confiscation which is now before us. It addresses a gap in the existing law. As Lord Colville has pointed out in his recent report on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, the present law, while providing some machinery for the confiscation of money or property which it can be proved is intended for terrorist use, does not provide any means of depriving "terrorist financiers" of the personal benefit which they derive from their involvement in such activity.
  It is a matter of regret to me that the very extensive and detailed work that was necessary before these provisions could be brought forward could not be completed quickly enough to allow them to he considered in Committee. They were, however, tabled at what was the earliest
  294
  possible moment after the necessary preparatory work had been done, and I am grateful for the indulgence of the House.
  Despite their length and technical complexity, the provisions that make up the new scheme have a simple purpose, and their intention can be expressed in straightforward terms. In essence, they provide that, if a person is convicted in the Crown court of a relevant offence as defined in new clause 7, and if certain conditions have been fulfilled, the court will be required to make a confiscation order. The amount of that order will represent either the value of the person's proceeds from terrorist-related activity during the six years preceding his conviction, or the value of his realisable property—as defined in new clause 8—at the time when proceedings are instituted, whichever is the less. The relevant offences will be the scheduled offences identified in new clause 7 from the commission of which persons are most likely to benefit or which are most closely related to terrorist finance.
  There are five matters, identified in new clause 5, about which a court must be satisfied, after it has convicted someone of a relevant offence, before it can make a confiscation order. It must be satisfied first that the defendant has engaged in terrorist-related activities; secondly, that he has benefited from such activities; thirdly, that at some time since the commission of the offence the defendant has had realisable property exceeding £20,000 in value; fourthly, that, in the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted, the defendant has committed another relevant offence on a separate occasion; and, fifthly, that in the particular case, having regard to the circumstances of the offences, the making of the order would not be unfair or oppressive.
  Terrorist-related activities are defined in new clause 5(2)(a) as activities that consist of, or involve the commission of, one or more relevant offences, and it will be provided that a person benefits from such activities if he obtains money or other property as a direct or indirect result of such activities.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As my right hon. Friend has said, the wording of the new clause is somewhat extensive, and difficult for anyone to understand completely. Will one of the conditions to be met before the court can make an order be that the defendant must be given notice that, if he is convicted, an application for such an order will follow? Or will an order be made in any event against anyone who is convicted of such an offence?
  Mr. Brooke: As I said a moment ago, the court will be required to bring in a confiscation order if the relevant circumstances obtain.
  To assist the court in its task of determining whether the conditions have been fulfilled, the scheme will provide certain assumptions which the court. in the absence of evidence to the contrary, will be obliged to apply. They include the assumption that any property appearing to the court to have been held by the defendant at any time since his conviction, or to have been transferred by him at any time during the six-year period ending when proceedings were instituted, was received by him as a benefit from terrorist-related activities.
  As with other confiscation schemes, such as the 1990 Northern Ireland order that I have already mentioned, provision will be made for restraint and charging orders. Those are required to enable assets to be frozen at an early

  295
  stage so that they are available to meet any confiscation order that may be made if the defendant is convicted. There will also be provisions creating offences aimed at persons who attempt to avoid confiscation.
  The power to make confiscation orders will be available only to the Crown court in Northern Ireland, but the funds subject to such orders may be held elsewhere. For that reason, the scheme will enable provision to be made by Order in Council for the enforcement in England and Wales, Scotland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man of confiscation and restraint—but not charging orders—made in Northern Ireland. The offences provisions in new clauses 11 and 12 will also be capable of application in those separate jurisdictions.
  It is intended that restraint orders should normally be granted by the High Court in Northern Ireland. However, it will also be provided that, in certain closely defined circumstances, the power to grant such orders should be exercisable by the Secretary of State. The circumstances will be that the Secretary of State should be satisfied on all the matters on which a High Court judge would have to be satisfied before granting such an order, and that in addition it should appear to him that the disclosure of information that it would be necessary to provide to the judge in support of such an application would be likely either to place someone in danger or to prejudice the capability of members of the RUC, or an authorised inquiry, to investigate offences to which the scheme applies.
  I readily acknowledge that these provisions appear severe. Indeed they are severe, which is their intention. They are intended to make people who have deliberately involved themselves in financial activity in support of terrorist organisations, or who may be thinking of so involving themselves, to think twice about that involvement. I remind the House that, in principle, the provisions are no different from or more severe than provisions that Parliament accepted for those who profit from their involvement in drug trafficking. The Government, and I hope the House, regard the deliberate financing of terrorism as an equally heinous activity. That is why I introduced the provisions and am commending them to the House.
  The Government amendments are all consequential on the new clauses to which I have referred.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: To some extent, we welcome the new clauses. We question them not because of a lack of good will towards them—we welcome their purpose and hope that they will be speedily and readily effective—but because we believe that they should be part of the general law of the land. I understand that a Home Office committee is considering their provisions, but we would have preferred them to be part of the general law on preventing anybody from benefiting from criminal offences.
  It is of the utmost importance that no one should be able to benefit financially from the proceeds of terrorist offences. It is important that such proceeds, whether they be from extortion, illegal rackets or bank robbery, do not find their way into the normal channels and thereby make it appear that they came from legitimate businesses. That is very dangerous because, if the criminal elements—the IRA, some Protestant paramilitaries or the mafia—were to
  296
  gain control of our economy, it would make us a very sick society. We cannot allow that, so we welcome the new clauses.
  We regard the Bill as proper anit-terrorist legislation. To deal with terrorism, we must get at terrorists' financial routes and cut their ability to finance their enterprises. It is perhaps not a spectacular way of dealing with it. It is not immediately emotive and it will require much hard police work, but in the long term we believe that it is far better than any knee-jerk reaction to terrorist offences.
  The Secretary of State has said how the system will work and it seems to contain adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. Unless all the conditions are fulfilled, seriatim, no orders can be made against individuals. Again, we welcome that.
  We should not wish a legitimate business to go out of existence merely because its financial control was in the hands of terrorists or terrorists' front people. Legitimate jobs may be placed at risk and many innocent people may suffer. One would like to think that there was some way of thinking this matter through so that those points were covered.
  Finally, I turn to the tracing orders that will be made for the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Is there any provision that would enable funds to be followed to other Community countries—because of the free movement of capital that now exists within the Community—or to countries outside the European Community where they could be used to buy arms? It would be a great benefit to terrorist organsiations to have apparently legitimate funds in such countries.
  With those general caveats, we welcome the provisions. We believe that they will be effective and hope that they will form part of the general law of the land. As this is emergency legislation, let us hope that, when the Home Office inquiry is concluded, we see such provisions as part of general legislation and included in our ordinary Criminal Justice Acts.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: It is gratifying for all of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to debate a Bill, not an Order in Council, because the benefits that will flow from that will enable people from all walks of life in Northern Ireland to feel that their views have been expressed both in Committee and on Report.
  We hope that we can illustrate the inaccuracy of the advice that is sometimes given to the Secretary of State, to the effect that, if the Government legislated by Bills as a matter of course for Northern Ireland, that would place an intolerable burden on the time of the House. My colleagues on this Bench, and, I hope, all those in the House, will do our best to illustrate that that is not an accurate assessment. We can all help. I make a plea to my colleagues of all parties who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to help by making their contributions crisp, accurate and concise, and not to waffle on at great length on matters which, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with the provisions under discussion.
  We are aware of the hurried introduction of some of the new clauses and the thinking behind them. If there had been a longer period for consultation—if the provisions had been tabled, even in outline, on Second Reading or earlier in Committee—we would all have had the benefit of receiving some input from interested bodies and

  297
  experienced persons in Northern Ireland. We might then have been able to assist the Secretary of State and his colleagues to improve the legislation still further.
  I find it difficult to understand why we appear to have been caught on the hop. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) reminded the Committee—I put it on the record now—that some of us had read in The Sunday Times as far back as 21 October 1990 that the Northern Ireland Office had it in mind to introduce legislation on this subject akin to what applies in the United States of America. However, there appears to be a curious dichotomy in the Government's thinking as a unit. Not all Departments in Whitehall seem to be alive to the possibilities of the legislation and the potential effectiveness of clauses such as those which have now been introduced. All honour to the Secretary of State and his colleagues for perhaps defying the advice that they have received from certain other quarters, to the effect that they should take their time and put off this matter until after a general election. That would not have been desirable.
  I find it curious that we have not been given more time, but I appreciate the problems and the fact that discussions probably took place in Government at various levels, so I shall not press that point too far today.
  My colleagues and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State seemed to say that he was providing for the application of certain provisions to Great Britain by order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being precise because, like his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I find it difficult to take all these matters in at one bite. Nevertheless, if that is what the Government have in mind, it would be highly desirable. Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I go further and suggest that thought should be given to a wider application, where possible, to overseas finance houses if co-operation could be secured.
  At various stages of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann has made pleas for greater precision in drafting. Having listened to the Secretary of State, I hope that he will not close his mind to further suggestions about how precision could be attained. In various respects, the new clauses represent a considerable improvement on the outline made available in Committee, but I hope that, in our examination of the new clauses and amendments, we can give further help to the Secretary of State to achieve greater precision.
  I assume that, even when Royal Assent has been obtained, the Secretary of State and his colleagues will pay heed to expert advice and opinion—I use those words deliberately—about closing loopholes which terrorist godfathers, like tax dodgers, will inevitably discover in the legislation. I assure the Secretary of State and his colleagues of the co-operation of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in the House, first, on the passage of the remaining stages of the Bill and, secondly, in helping him to scrutinise the effectiveness of the legislation when it is applied to doing something significant to contain terrorists, wherever they may be found.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Signals from the Labour Front Bench were trying to attack me through the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), but they should remember that example is better than precept.
  298
  Of course hon. Members from Northern Ireland welcome the fact that we are discussing a Bill in the House. We should not be over-enthusiastic, because I do not think that the Government are in any way converted to the view that all legislation for Northern Ireland should be done through Bills. This legislation is being done by Bill because of certain regulations connected with it. However, I do not think that the Government have been down a Damascus road and have been persuaded that the House should legislate for Northern Ireland in the same way as it legislates for other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I hope that I did not give the impression that it was a fait accompli. Is my hon. Friend prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps we will all travel hopefully.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have my doubts about the Government, so I can give them the benefit of the doubt at all times.
  I regret that, when the Government introduce a Bill, we have all these changes and additions. It would be easier for Northern Ireland Members to discuss a measure on Second Reading if they knew the full content of the Government's mind. Of course, the Government may not know the content of their own mind, and may therefore be in difficulty about delivering it earlier.
  The Government are trying to do what needs to be done. Money should be clawed back immediately from anyone who benefits financially from terrorist activity. Everyone is in full agreement on that. I have tried to be concise.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: For once, I shall try to follow the example of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  Again, I am disappointed that this new legislation has been introduced in the manner in which it has. The Minister of State was good enough to consult members of the parties from the north of Ireland in the concluding phase of drawing up the legislation, but we now have 10 new clauses, a complete new schedule and almost a complete new Bill on Report. It may be easy for people with legal expertise to deal with such legislation, but those of us who are not so qualified find great difficulty with it. It is not fair to hon. Members to introduce what is essentially almost a new Bill at this stage, because the Bill is not open to the investigation and examination that is required.
  Another important factor is that, if the changes to the Bill had been dealt with in Committee, we would have a much clearer idea of the import, impact and effectiveness of the Bill. I have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). One of the difficulties with emergency legislation—I made this point on Monday—is that we end up with a patchwork quilt. The Government have drawn a little from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, a little from the prevention of terrorism Act, a little from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a little from the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and a little from something else, and have ended up with a panoply of measures which is like a patchwork quilt, with no central unity. It is almost impossible to deal with such a measure as a single piece of legislation. That is what has happened, and that is why the changes have been made so late.

  299
  The Bill seeks to take provisions from the ordinary law, to put them into emergency legislation and to make them apply to proscribed organisations and scheduled offences. The patchwork quilt approach has continued. It does not seem the right way to deal with the matter.
  I regard wealth or money which is obtained through violence or as a result of violent activity as nothing less than blood money. [Interruption.] I am not terribly sure why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has given me a glass of water. Is there a Freudian message within it, or is there something stronger?
  Mr. McNamara: It was what the doctor ordered for the hon. Gentleman's throat, and it is suitable for Lent.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. I know that, when it comes to that which goes into a glass, he is an expert on the implications of Lent.
  Money earned as a result of violence is simply blood money. I and everyone else who lives in the north of Ireland have seen the way in which some people have become wealthy on the back of the sufferings of others, so no one would question the need for legislation to deal with it. It is a difficult area of operation, and the problem has been with us for several years. The reason why it became so widespread and so much a part of the sub-culture of the north of Ireland was that successive Governments were not willing enough to get to grips with it. It is on record in the House through the years that organisations such as the Housing Executive, which is charged with providing housing in the north of Ireland, have paid out millions upon millions of pounds—in protection money and other forms of racketeering. Part of the problem was a reluctance to come to grips with it, because it was a conduit for intelligence. That is a reality which people may not like to hear, but it is one of the difficulties. As a consequence, racketeering has become part of the sub-culture of the north of Ireland. That is why it has reached the stage that it has.
  I have reservations about certain elements of the new clauses. I am worried about the families of those who may come under scrutiny. I am fairly certain that in some cases a woman has no control whatsoever over the activities of her husband. Such a woman might find that her home was subject to confiscation. In other words, a woman and her children could lose their home through no fault of their own. I am not sure that such sensitive matters are dealt with clearly. Let us hope that the Secretary of State will be able to clarify the situation.
  My other fundamental reservation concerns the fact that, once again, the onus of proof is on the suspect. Throughout these new clauses, the suspect is required to prove his innocence. That represents not just weak law but also a weak approach to law.
  4.30 pm
  The provision concerning compensation is particularly ambiguous. Compensation may be paid if the High Court decides that there has been some serious default on the part of a person concerned in the investigation or prosecution of the offence. Surely the provision must be made much more precise. Is not proof of innocence sufficient to establish entitlement to compensation under this type of legislation? It seems to me that there is a high degree of subjectivity in the definition of serious default by
  300
  the High Court. Once a person has been absolved, he should be entitled, without this subjective element, to compensation. The provision would substantially weaken the subject's position. As this is emergency legislation, we should be especially concerned about the protection written into it. It is not enough to provide for the punitive element.
  I repeat that there is a need for this type of legislation. It is not confined to proscribed organisations. Indeed, some of the most serious racketeering in the north of Ireland is indulged in by an organisation that some people deem no longer to exist. Those of us who live there know how potent it still is. We know how much money it puts through its hands every year—and its members through their pockets. We know that it works very closely with what many people now regard as a legitimate political party. The fact that it is not proscribed shows the difficulties that could be faced in the application of the law to such racketeering. There are weaknesses in the new clauses. We must always look for means of protecting accused people.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: This new legislation manifests the determination of the Government and of the people of Northern Ireland not to let up, even for a moment, in the attempt to throttle the evil men—on whichever side of the divide—who parade themselves as patriots. The legislation can grab hold of what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to as the blood money which has been screwed out of the people of Northern Ireland by the terrorists, in particular by the Provisional IRA.
  I have some reservations about the legislation. As the Secretary of State said, it is based on legislation dealing with drugs in England. The courts have not been determined in grabbing hold of all the money that drug dealers have accumulated. They have interpreted the laws extremely strictly and dealt kindly with the relations of the defendants in the dock. The laws should be tougher. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, we must be able to follow funds that go to other parts of the world—for example, the tax havens in the West Indies.
  The IRA is extremely astute at manipulating money. Those funds have been and are being accumulated for the express purpose of terrorism, but the terrorists also have in mind the day when peace will come—as it surely must—to Northern Ireland and put the money away for their retirement. It is said, although I cannot produce any proof, that IRA funds have been used to buy property in my constituency. Some people act as front men for the terrorists.
  I only hope that, when the legislation is enacted, it will be fully implemented, with the greatest determination. As the Secretary of State said, money is the life blood of the terrorist. We must cut off that money and, in so doing, we shall help bring down the evil men who have haunted Northern Ireland for more than 20 years, and whose day of reckoning has come.
  Mr. William Ross: The legislation, which was introduced late in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, is full of good intention. However, I have been in the House for 17 years and have lived through the problems and troubles of Northern Ireland since the day they began, and I have seen much

  301
  legislation pass through the House that was full of good intentions. But good intentions are not enough; the practical consequences of those good intentions are what count. If the Secretary of State thinks back on all the legislation brought before the House that was supposed to produce good consequences, but which gave birth to nothing of the sort, I have no doubt that he will share my reservations about the legislation before us.
  The Secretary of State knows perfectly well, because he referred to it, that the legislation is based on the powers contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 How much money, and on how many occasions, and how much property has been seized as a result of the application of that Act against people committing drug offences? Similar powers, relating to the seizure of bank accounts, were contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989: how many bank accounts have since been seized?
  If the Secretary of State asks us to pass such legislation, surely he should tell us the practical consequences of earlier, similar legislation, but he did not do so. The House has a right to hear the answers to those questions and to know whether similar legislation has been effective. I fear that it is not effective in those two situations. Whenever he says that business men and accountants are now involved in these matters, he inadvertently proves to the House and to the country that all this talk about mindless violence committed by members of the IRA is utter nonsense. The IRA and its fellow travellers are not engaged in mindless violence. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that I, for one, have never accepted the belief that they were mindless thugs. They are directed by clever, efficient and ruthless people. By telling the House that business men and accountants are now involved, the Secretary of State has given us proof positive that these organisations—not only but principally the IRA—have got the thing down to a fine art.
  These people are being well advised by able people. Therefore, a botched job will be no good. It will only bring the law being formulated against them into grave disrepute. That does no good to anyone: in fact, it makes the matter a great deal worse. Therefore, I hope that, when the Secretary of State, his colleagues and his advisers were dreaming up these new clauses, they asked themselves how the provisions could be circumvented. As soon as they appeared, the IRA and other terrorist organisations had their boys on the ball trying to figure out ways round them.
  I have no doubt that, when the Secretary of State and the police proceed against the first targets that they have in mind, they will find that those people have discovered ways round the new law. They will have found the loopholes and expanded them until an elephant, never mind a mouse, can get through. This is a serious issue, and I hope that the Secretary of State and his advisers, and the police officers and accountants who have to investigate such matters, have put themselves into the minds of terrorist organisations, have tried to, discover the loopholes, and as a result have created nets-to ensure that those people are caught in one way or another.
  The hon. .Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the situation in the building trades in Northern Ireland. That has been an open scandal for more years than any of us cares to remember. The consequence is that, whenever a legitimate builder looks for work in Northern Ireland, he is confronted with two problems. The first is that many believe that building firms are under
  302
  the control of these evil organisations. If even one tenth of what we hear is to be believed, firms have been paying large sums to terrorist organisations on every building contract that has been put through in an area ruled by such an organisation.
  The second problem is partly the result of the DHSS in Northern Ireland still falling down on its job. We hear tales from the small builders of how they can no longer compete because these fellows are doing the double, working for £20 a day. Will the DHSS be called in to close that aspect of the building trade? That concerns every legitimate builder in Northern Ireland.
  New clause 5 says that the value of the realisable property has to exceed £20,000. I should like an explanation of that figure. Am I to take it from that that persons can acquire a maximum of £20,000 from terrorist organisations or activities before the legislation catches them? Many people would like £20,000 if they thought that they could get it without any danger to themselves. It might be a powerful incentive to some of these folk to go ahead. If that is so, can we close that loophole?
  The third line of new clause 5 says:
  "whether before or after the coming into force of this Part".
  That implies retrospective legislation. Nobody likes that but the fact that it is necessary in this case shows that the Government are a minimum of six years late in introducing this measure.
  Mr. Mallon: Twelve.
  Mr. Ross: I think that it is rather more than 12, but we shall only try to catch the latter half of the 12, even if that is incorrect.
  I appreciate the need for retrospection in this case, but I regret that it is needed, because it is not the sort of Bill that any hon. Member would like to accept or willingly pass. Retrospective law is generally bad law, and I do not like it. However, in this case it is necessary.
  4.45 pm
  I also noted that the individual who is convicted cannot be caught by these provisions for only one proven offence. He has to be convicted of more than one. I should like the Secretary of State to comment on that. The implication is that we are trying to catch not the one-off offender, but the committed, continuing offender. If that is so, I should welcome it.
  New clause 14 speaks of "property wherever situated". As has already been said, property owned by these organisations, and income-producing property at that, can be anywhere—the United States, Canada, the Irish Republic or England. I can understand that the Secretary of State is referring to property in Northern Ireland and probably in the United Kingdom and adjacent British Isles. However, is he saying that he will try to find out the situation in foreign states such as the Irish Republic? If he is not, here is the first great gaping hole. We need to have that cleared up. I do not believe that the IRA has invested all its ill-gotten gains in Northern Ireland. A lot of it is invested elsewhere, where it is safe.
  The new clause seems to be aimed at individuals who have benefited, but we are not dealing with terrorists as individuals. Individuals get caught, but they are only part and parcel of the terrorist machine. I am curious about what consideration has been given to how we can get at the whole machine. Although the person who has been caught may have benefited, he is only a tiny part of the machine.

  303
  How about the money held by the organisation that owns the property and employs the individual, perhaps as a consultant, a worker, a director or a simple, straightforward employee or alleged employee? These matters need to be addressed, because these organisations are super-mafias.
  I wonder whether the powers that the Government have taken unto themselves are sufficient, draconian though they are. Will they hurt these organisations where it matters—in their pockets? That is where we want to hurt them. We do not want to attack the minor individual who has made a small profit, take the money off him and leave the whole organisation with its property and money and resulting income intact.
  I am curious to know whether, if one of these individuals has been paid as an employee and has benefited over the past six years to the tune of £10,000 or £12,000 a year, we will tell him that he will have to pay such wages back. What will be the practical consequences of such a move? The person does not have money in the bank, because he was paid the money and has spent it on living. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to recover that money.
  I welcome the fact that any compensation that the convicted individual has to make will have priority over any other claim. I am happy to see that, because those who have suffered injury and may be able to claim compensation from the individual who has committed the offence will be protected, and their interests will be safeguarded. It is unusual that the individual rather than the Crown will be first in line for the money. If that policy were applied generally, many people in the business world would be happy to see the tax man's demands. I do not think that the Secretary of State will ever convince the Chancellor to adopt that approach to debts.
  Under new clause 6(8), the courts will have to state the reasons for their actions. I am curious about whether that is necessary, because we may create a precedent which, instead of being helpful, turns out to be an albatross. Perhaps the Secretary of State and his advisers would like to consider that measure again. If the right hon. Gentleman puts himself into the position of the courts or the terrorists, he may think of some of the possible problems.
  You will have gathered from my comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not think that this is a good curate's egg overall. It looks good. No doubt the hen's intention in laying it was good. It is a pity that the egg was kept in the nest for six or seven years too long and went bad. However, good intentions are welcome. We hope that, with increasing knowledge of the capacity of the wicked organisations at which the Bill is aimed, the Government will understand that this is a fair beginning but is not yet a good or successful end.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I support and welcome the Bill, which we hope will prevent racketeers from using normal businesses to make money for terrorist purposes. As a former plumbing contractor and one who worked in the construction industry, I have taken great exception to the threats against business people and tradesmen in the building industry and the protectionism practised by terrorist groups and racketeers.
  Many jobs have been lost because of changes in certain areas of Northern Ireland. Many tradesmen and other workers in the construction industry are on the dole
  304
  because threats mean that they cannot work in certain places because of threats. Sadly, people who went to work in such places were murdered because they came from a different area. It is disgraceful that a person who is trying to earn money for his family should be treated in that way.
  The threats are made by cowards, not by people who express their views to workers. They are made by telephone calls and by "a word to the wise". That is absolutely disgraceful. Unfortunately, the cowards are getting away with it. It is a tragedy that people who wish to work cannot do so. If the Bill has any effect on such actions, I should very much welcome it on behalf of those who work in the construction industry. Attempts are made to extract money from people so that they can work in particular areas—and, sadly, workers are paying it. That is another tragedy.
  The Bill is the other side of the coin from the terrorists who prevent workmen from going to certain areas or certain camps to carry out their building trade. Workmen are murdered to prevent them from doing their work. Firms are intimidated. I have been sadly disappointed by certain firms that backed down when threatened. For years, workers who have travelled into and out of these areas have been intimidated and threatened but have gone to work; but as soon as some firms are threatened or intimidated, everyone loses his job. I have been sadly disappointed that business people should do that.
  Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend will be aware that, whenever a firm is forced out because of such activity, it can be replaced by a firm whose workers will comply with the terrorists' demands.
  Mr. Forsythe: Unfortunately, that seems to be the case.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is there not a Government failure in providing proper protection for those firms? I am sure that the hon. Member would not like to castigate a firm which has been seriously threatened and which, when it asks for protection, is told by the police that they cannot do much to help. I am sure that such firms cannot carry on in view of a threat against not only the business people but all the workers, as recently happened in Ballymena in my constituency.
  Mr. Forsythe: I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I was coming to that point. It is sad that firms are placed in that position and that they feel that they can no longer depend on security measures to look after them and their workers.
  In such circumstances, workers are put on the dole. The fellow travellers of those who carry out the threats and murders then wring their hands in despair about unemployment in Northern Ireland. The hypocrisy of such actions is beyond belief and is treated by the people of Northern Ireland with the contempt that it deserves.
  I am sure that the racketeers and the terrorists will not listen to anything that I say or, indeed, to what the House says, but they are not wanted by people in any area in Northern Ireland. They should let the rest of us again have the quality of life that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. I plead with the Government to enforce the laws.
  Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Member not find it strange that, on numerous occasions in my constituency, the IRA has set off large bombs which have destroyed many premises, yet the first people on the scene to board up and replace windows happen to be from

  305
  the same grouping, from Sinn Fein or the IRA? The Government are ready to fill its coffers with payment for doing those jobs.
  Mr. Forsythe: Sadly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that has happened on a number of occasions.
  Mr. Mallon: It would be entirely wrong to give the impression that everyone working in the building trade in the north of Ireland is, first, a member of that nationalist community and, by implication, a member or a supporter of Sinn Fein or the IRA. The real racketeering in the building trade is organised by the loyalist paramilitary groups, and hon. Members who represent Belfast know that. They also know that the people who have been killed on building sites because of racketeering are, by and large, Catholics who have come to those sites from other areas.
  5 pm
  The consensus that we should seek to achieve should mean that anyone who runs any racket is guilty and should be found guilty before the law. We should not indulge in the type of snide remarks that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has introduced into the debate.
  Mr. Forsythe: I made my position clear at the beginning of my speech.
  Rev. William McCrea: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would have the honesty to condemn the despicable actions that have often occurred in my constituency. Whenever the IRA blows up a town and destroys properties owned by people right across the community, IRA personnel then come in under disguise as contractors, and they lift the coffers from the Northern Ireland Office. That is a despicable situation and it should be condemned by everyone in the House.
  Mr. Forsythe: I am sure that hon. Members heard what the two hon. Gentlemen said and they will draw their own conclusions. I made it clear at the beginning of my speech how disgraceful I thought it was that building trade workers were not allowed to go about their business without intimidation and threats. I stand by that.
  Mr. Mallon: All building trade workers.
  Mr. Forsythe: Yes, all. I was one myself, and I support them fully.
  If the Government intend to introduce new legislation, I plead with them to ensure that it is implemented for the good of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I wish to make it clear at the outset that I support the new clause and the others grouped with it. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, however, I believe that they should have been tabled much earlier so that more detailed consideration could have been given to them.
  When considering this type of legislation one must consider the overview and ask whether such measures are necessary in the present circumstances. The present circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that it is clear that further measures are necessary to curtail the activities and membership of terrorist organisations.
  One has only to consider the actions of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland in the past 48 hours to appreciate that it is attempting to take away people's livelihoods. In
  306
  my constituency, Mountpottinger police station was attacked. The area surrounding that police station is largely Roman Catholic and a number of properties were affected by the attack which, once again, the IRA got wrong. A large and vital area of industry in east Belfast is Short's. The Provisional IRA has also damaged that company—it has not damaged the structure of the building so much as the credibility of the firm. The Provisional IRA is attempting to undermine that firm and its attempts will be condemned by everyone in the House. Such damage affects the employment of many people and casts aspersions on many. The Provisional IRA may send one person out to infiltrate an organisation and, as a result, that person may cause damage. However, the finger of suspicion is pointed at many when all but a few are not entitled to be viewed with such suspicion.
  The Provisional IRA is the master of taking away the livelihoods and finances of others. If I have any criticism of the new clause, it is that it does not go far enough. I cannot see the logic behind simply going for the terrorist who has been involved in profiting from acts of terrorism. There are those terrorists who cause loss to others by their terrorism but who live very nicely thank you in Northern Ireland.
  A bomber from the Provisional IRA or any other paramilitary organisation may cause damage worth £100,000 to a public house in Northern Ireland. That person may be found guilty of that terrorist crime and convicted, and the police may have evidence to prove that that individual owns property to the value of more than £100,000. Why should the state compensate the person who has lost his public house when the person who carried out that damage has goods to that value and more? I urge the Secretary of State to consider taking away benefit, by whatever means it may have been acquired, from the terrorist who is prepared to cause damage and loss in society and the public purse. Such confiscation is entirely justified.
  I have some scepticism about the general premise advanced by the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has argued that the new clause represents a major way in which to deal with terrorism. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that the new clause deals with the problem on the periphery and that we should be cautious about how advantageous the new clause turns out to be.
  If the powers in the new clause strike at the pockets of the terrorists, it will do good, but I do not believe for a moment that touching the finances of the godfather of terrorism or other terrorists will effectively deal with terrorism. The new clause deals with the problem on the periphery; there is no alternative to strong, resolute military activity against terrorists.
  Touching the finances of the terrorist will have a marginal effect. Political stability in Northern Ireland will have a marginal effect on terrorism, but I believe that it would have a greater impact on terrorism than touching the terrorists' finances. To defeat terrorism one must take strong, resolute military action against the Provisional IRA and its fellow travellers. No one who supports the new clause should think for one moment that we have cracked the problem and that we have the means to defeat the IRA. At best, we have a marginal advantage on the previous legislation.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I was sorry that at one stage in the debate it sounded as though we were entering into a squabble about something on which we all basically agree, but perhaps we have passed that stage now.
  One can level criticism at the Government for the procedural avenues on which they have decided. It is a pity that we have before us 22 pages of amendments, including a huge schedule, all of which could readily have been included in the original Bill and debated properly on Second Reading. Hon. Members who disagree with the Government amendments and new clauses could have tabled amendments to them. There are five Opposition parties in the House with the resources to do that. However, Report stage is not the same as Second Reading, after which a Bill goes to Committee for detailed scrutiny, at which point amendments can be tabled. Hon. Members who do not have the resources of political organisations are affected by this. There are better opportunities to introduce amendments in that way than if the Government suddenly introduce a bundle of proposals almost like a new Bill.
  I do not know why the Government have introduced so many new proposals at this late stage. The proposals could form a separate piece of legislation rather than being included in the Bill, and thus allow the usual processes of proper scrutiny of a measure which in principle might be widely supported. Such legislation could have been fine-tuned and improved.
  The Bill seeks to tackle the laundering of money from criminal to legitimate areas. Much of that money is obtained by dubious practices, such as theft and exploitation. Funds collected from overseas are also fed to paramilitary organisations and some of those funds finish up in the kind of businesses that hon. Members have described. People need to be told how money collected in America finishes up with the IRA and how it is used. The people who carry the collecting tins say, "It is for our boys." We must spell out what happens to the boys and girls and the adults of Northern Ireland as a result of paramilitary activity.
  Yesterday representatives from a group called Families Against Intimidation and Terror were present in a Committee Room. The group was set up by Nancy Gracey in Downpatrick following the knee-capping of her son, who had been involved in some trouble on a bus. The bus passengers were called together by the IRA which meted out its dubious method of justice. Nancy Gracey's son was taken out and knee-capped. Even if he had been guilty of some crime, there was no ground for such punishment. The fracas was about someone who had been in the IRA and had been in prison.
  Nancy Gracey was so incensed by what happened that she made a brave stand and the result was an organisation which operates in both Protestant and Catholic areas and involves people suffering at the hands of their own sectarian organisations. The situation has become worse and the proposed legislation should have been introduced earlier. Organisations continue to grow and develop. Extreme organisations, such as the Baath party, the Nazis and Stalinists attract to themselves all sorts of thuggery because they employ methods which ignore law and order and the normal checks and balances in a democratic system. That leads to massive exploitation because such organisations have the freedom to act unlawfully.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman spoke about funds collected in the United States. Has he any observations on the amount of money which the supposedly defunct Official IRA raises on the west coast of the United States and launders back to the north of Ireland every year? It is interesting to note how an organisation that is supposed to be defunct operates probably the biggest international scam of the lot.
  Mr. Barnes: Once again we seem to be on the verge of confrontation, which is inevitable when we discuss Irish issues. My knowledge of the Official IRA is in terms of its successor bodies and the developments which led to the establishment of the Workers party. That shows that the democratic process offers opportunities and hope to people and can help to transform the situation. That needs to be taken into account when people consider what action to take about Sinn Fein and whether it should be banned in the same way as the IRA. We might finish up with the same people wearing a different hat. However, the attractions of having to use the ballot box to achieve political change can help to transform organisations. The changes that have taken place are welcome, although the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) may wish to stress problems that have arisen.
  The measure is essentially directed at banned paramilitary organisations and deals with the misuse of their funds for further exploitation. Such organisations engage in the legitimate collection of money and use it to build up or retain their strength. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that such a measure was welcome. He also said that it was by no means the main method of dealing with terrorism. I agree. But terrorism cannot be overcome only by massive police and military action to search out and remove terrorism at every stage. Such actions tend to become part of a pattern. The way forward is the long-haul solution which seeks to undermine the very conditions which lead to terrorism. The economic and social agenda, such as Monday's debate on the Northern Ireland (Appropriation) Order, which is equivalent to the Budget, is important and needs to be seen in the context of other issues.
  The other avenue is the democratic one of people coming together and standing up for the sort of society that they wish to see. Nancy Gracey's organisation has stood up and campaigned and organised in Downpatrick to such an extent that the official organiser for the IRA has moved out of the area. The argument is being won by people who put forward alternative solutions.
  Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply to the debate. I shall allude first, because it has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, to the delay in bringing forward the legislation. I understand the feelings of the House. I have thanked the House for its indulgence and, in the context of the language that has been used in the debate, I thank the House for its patience and understanding.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was understanding of some of the circumstances which might have given rise to the delay. It is better that the legislation should have come forward than that it should be delayed further, but I recognise the difficulties in

  309
  which the Government have placed the House and I appreciate the understanding that has been shown towards us.
  A number of points have been made and I will do my best to respond to them. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), in welcoming the general principles of the legislation on behalf of the Opposition, asked why the new provisions could not be part of general law. The new provisions rely on the concept of scheduled offences and are therefore unique to Northern Ireland. They cannot be applied in England and Wales where there are no scheduled offences. They are also designed to deal with a particular situation in Northern Ireland. However, I understand the sentiment which underlay the hon. Gentleman's question and I am grateful to him for his tribute to the police for their hard and painstaking work.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about legitimate businesses. A legitimate business, properly so called, has nothing to fear from these provisions, but somebody who provides a legitimate service but who also helps terrorists will be vulnerable under the legislation. The hon. Gentleman asked a question which was also raised subsequently about a move into Europe and overseas. That is not possible under the present law, but it is not impossible in the longer run. We might be able to take powers to enter into reciprocal enforcement arrangements. That is a proper matter to have been raised and it is something which we would seek to pursue.
  I expressed my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley for his understanding and I assure him that, with regard to what he said about loopholes and the provision of expert advice and opinion, we shall welcome all the help that we can get to obtain the maximum benefit from the legislation and to prevent loopholes occurring.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) had a small internal debate about the Government's practice in the legislative procedures in the House. I noted that the phrase "the benefit of the doubt" crept into the debate. That phrase derives much from the game of cricket. I apologise if I have in any way polluted Northern Ireland debate by introducing such metaphors. My experience is that one is given out as often as one is given not out and that they balance out over the years. I hope that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley will feel that his optimism was more justified than the scepticism of the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked me a series of questions. It is always a source of pleasure to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) should have had an ancestor who was a Member for Newry and that I should have had an ancestor who was a Member for Armagh. We watch the hon. Gentleman's progress with care and we take perhaps greater interest in his development than that of any other Northern Ireland Member.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for his felicitations. Can he make any observation on the fact that his noble antecedent represented one part of Newry and Armagh and that of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) represented the other part, while I have to represent both on my own?
  Mr. Brooke: Ever since the hon. Member entered the House I have much admired his productivity.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the onus of proof. The onus remains on the Crown throughout to prove all the matters set out in new clause 5. Assumptions are provided to assist the Crown in establishing some of these matters, but all those assumptions can be rebutted by a defendant on the lowest civil standard of proof—the balance of probability.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation. The provision in the schedule is in exactly the same form as appears in the other compensation schemes such as those in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act and the prevention of terrorism Act, which have apparently worked without difficulty. The fact that the provisions are broadly paralleled and mirrored in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act will, I hope, help the House in its consideration.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the position of children and spouses. All that can be confiscated are the proceeds of terrorist-related activities. I think that he cited the house. If the house represents the proceeds of such activities, it is right that it should be confiscated. However, if the defendant can show that, on the balance of probabilities, the house was come by legitimately, it cannot be the subject of an order.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) expressed the expectation that peace would come and in so doing endorsed the legislation, and I am grateful to him.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) asked me a question relating to the amounts secured under earlier legislation. The Home Office started collecting statistics on restraint orders issued under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act in 1989, but the returns received were so unreliable that it was not felt safe to quote the figures. Customs and Excise does not collect figures and there is no obvious evidence from, for example, bank evidence to Select Committees, that the banks have any figures.
  However, against that background, statistics are available for confiscation orders under the Act—a matter which I think also underlay the hon. Gentleman's question. That is the stage that comes after restraint orders. Statistics are as yet available only for England and Wales where, in 1987, 200 offenders were ordered to pay £1·2 million on confiscation orders. That was the year after the Act came into force. In 1988, 540 offenders were ordered to pay £8·1 million and in 1989, 800 offenders were ordered to pay £7·8 million. Therefore, a significant sum of money is coming into the public coffers as a result of the legislation.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why we had not introduced legislation before.
  Mr. William Ross: What does the right hon. Gentleman say about sums of money recovered under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989?
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind me that he raised that question. No restraint or forfeiture orders have yet been made in Northern Ireland under that Act, but I remind the House of what I said earlier. As Lord Colville pointed out in his recent report on that Act, the present law, while providing some machinery for the confiscation of money or property which it can be proved is intended for terrorist use, does not prevent any means of

  311
  depriving terrorist financiers of the personal benefit which they derive from their involvement in such activity. That gap is filled by this legislation.
  The hon. Gentleman was free with criticism of the legislation. I did not catch in his speech much detail of the alternative legislation that he would like to see against the problem which I think we all acknowledge exists. I agree with what he said about mindless violence. There is no question but that manipulative skills of a high order are employed within the terrorist movement, and it is an index of the purpose of the legislation that it is being directed against just such skills. The hon. Gentleman saw that point and I can confirm that it is true. He will recall the 62 establishments which were raided simultaneously in the latter part of last year on warrants signed by myself for the collection of documentation which was then taken away for analysis.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about builders, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsyth). I recognise that that is not specifically contained in the legislation except as a side-wind. It is a complex matter, because one must be certain to introduce powers which, although they will defeat terrorists, do not impose impossible burdens on honest business men throughout the Province. The Government are continuing to pursue that matter, and are determined to bear down on those sources of finance.
  Mr. William Ross: I made specific reference to persons on the double. Will the Government make a serious attempt to deal with that problem—even in the case of individual houses, where Housing Executive grants are paid?
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. The Government are determined to bear down on all sources of finance. Today, we are adding to our armoury a contribution to that process.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked why there should be a £20,000 cut-off. The scheme is deliberately targeted at persons who make a practice of, or living from, financing terrorism—in other words, the major players—and to ensure that a requirement on the courts should not be imposed when someone is convicted of a minor, albeit relevant, offence but who has received no benefit or hardly any benefit personally from his actions. Any cut-off point is arbitrary, but a figure of £20,000 seems about right. It can be varied by order, and we would be perfectly happy to return to that question. The hon. Gentleman, in his remarks about the commissioning of more than one offence, correctly interpreted the Government's intentions.
  A confiscation order will apply to property anywhere in the world. If the prosecution can establish that the defendant has realisable property in Australia, for example, it will be included in the order. If the defendant does not pay, he will be sentenced to imprisonment in default of not having done so. The location of the asset is not significant.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked whether the scheme will apply to property owned by a terrorist organisation. It does not, but such property is
  312
  already liable to forfeiture under schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East for a most agreeable culminating phrase, when he commented that the clauses are not a good curate's egg overall. I shall treasure that phrase, and whenever I quote it I will give the hon. Gentleman the credit for having originally uttered it.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke of the measures as being on the periphery, and referred to the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East about the particular persons to whom the legislation is addressed. I repeat that terrorism will be brought to an end by exercising pressure on terrorists across the whole front. I am the first to acknowledge that the aspect dealt with by clause 5 is not a decisive element, but it is much better to exercise pressure across the whole front so that the terrorist is made to realise that there is no way he can win.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) argued, perfectly properly, for a doctrine of perfection. As I said earlier, I should have been delighted if these measures could have been introduced on Second Reading. However, the best can be the enemy of the good, and it was desirable to bring forward this measure only when it was ready. I appreciate the understanding that the House has shown in that regard.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Secretary of State prepared to take from a terrorist who was involved in the destruction of property a sum equal to its value?
  Mr. Brooke: We have been examining that aspect, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I commend the new clause to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

  PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION (CONFISCATION ORDERS)
  '.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a confiscation order shall be made by the court before sentencing or otherwise dealing with the defendant for the offence or offences in respect of which he is before the court.
  (2) If a court considers that it requires further information before making a confiscation order against a defendant, it may, subject to subsection (3) below, postpone making such an order for a period not exceeding six months after the date of conviction for the purpose of enabling that information to be obtained; but, without prejudice to Article 11 of the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, the court may notwithstanding such postponement proceed to sentence or to otherwise deal with the defendant in respect of the conviction.
  (3) If during the period of postponement notice of appeal or of application for leave to appeal is given under section 16(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 the court may, on the application of the prosecution, extend that period to a date up to three months after the date of the determination of the appeal.
  (4) A court shall not impose any fine or make an order such as is mentioned in subsection (5)(b) or (c) below before a confiscation order is made.
  (5) Where a court makes a confiscation order against a defendant in any proceedings, the court shall, in respect of any offence of which he is convicted in those proceedings, take account of the order before—

  (a) imposing any fine on him; or

  (b) making any order involving any payment by him, other than an order under Article 3 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (compensation orders); or

  (c) making any order under Article 7 of that Order (deprivation orders),

  but subject to that shall leave the order out of account in determining the appropriate sentence or other manner of dealing with him.
  (6) No statutory provision restricting the power of a court dealing with an offender in a particular way from dealing with him also in any other way shall by reason only of the making of a confiscation order restrict the court from dealing with an offender in any way it considers appropriate in respect of a relevant offence.
  (7) Where—

  (a) a court makes both a confiscation order and an order for the payment of compensation under Article 3 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 against the same person in the same proceedings; and

  (b) it appears to the court that he will not have sufficient means to satisfy both the orders in full,

  it shall direct that so much of the compensation as will not in its opinion be recoverable because of the insufficiency of his means shall be paid out of any sums recovered under the confiscation order.
  (8) Where a court decides not to make a confiscation order against a defendant convicted by it of a relevant offence the court shall state its reasons for that decision.'—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

  RELEVANT OFFENCES
  '.—(1) In this Part of this Act "relevant offence" means—

  (a) a scheduled offence falling within paragraph 12(a), 20(b), (c) or (e) or 21(aa), (h), (ha), (hb), (j) or (k) of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

  (b) an offence which by virtue of Part II of that Schedule is to be treated as if it were such an offence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

  (2) In so far as this Part of this Act applies in relation to a relevant offence committed before the coming into force of this Act "relevant offence" also means—

  (a) a scheduled offence within the meaning of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 falling within paragraph 13(a) or 16(b) or (c) of Part I of Schedule 4 to that Act; and

  (b) an offence which by virtue of Part II of that Schedule was to be treated as if it were such an offence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

  (3) An order under section 1(3) above amending Schedule 1 to this Act may also amend subsection (1) above.'—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

  REALISABLE PROPERTY, VALUE AND GIFTS
  '.—(1) In this Part of this Act "realisable property" means, subject to subsection (2) below—

  (a) any property held by the defendant; and

  (b) any property held by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by this Part of this Act.

  (2) Property is not realisable property if an order under—

  (a) Article 7 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (deprivation orders);

  (b) section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (forfeiture orders); or

  (c) section 13(2), (3) or (4) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (forfeiture orders),

  is in force in respect of the property.
  (3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the amount that might be realised at the time a confiscation order is made is—

  (a) the total of the values at that time of all the realisable property held by the defendant, less

  (b) where there are obligations having priority at that time, the total amounts payable in pursuance of such obligations,

  together with the total of the values at that time of all gifts caught by this Part of this Act.
  (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, an obligation has priority at any time if it is an obligation of the defendant to—

  (a) pay an amount due in respect of a fine, or other order of a court, imposed or made on conviction of an offence, where the fine was imposed or order made before the confiscation order; or

  (b) pay any sum which would be included among the preferential debts (within the meaning given by Article 346 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989) in the defendant's bankruptcy commencing on the date of the confiscation order or winding up under an order of the court made on that date.

  (5) Subject to the following provisions of this section, for the purposes of this Part of this Act the value of property (other than cash) in relation to any person holding the property—

  (a) where any other person holds an interest in the property, is—

  (i) the market value of the first-mentioned person's beneficial interest in the property, less

  (ii) the amount required to discharge any incumbrance (other than a charging order) on that interest; and

  (b) in any other case, is its market value.

  (6) Subject to subsection (9) below, references in this Part of this Act to the value at any time (referred to in subsection (7) below as "the material time") of any proceeds or of a gift caught by this Part of this Act are references to—

  (a) the value of the proceeds or gift to the recipient when he received it adjusted to take account of subsequent changes in the value of money; or

  (b) where subsection (7) below applies, the value there mentioned,

  whichever is the greater.
  (7) Subject to subsection (9) below, if at the material time he holds—

  (a) the property which he received (not being cash); or

  (b) property which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represents in his hands the property which he received;

  the value referred to in subsection (6) above is the value to him at the material time of the property mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, as the case may be, of the property mentioned in paragraph (b) above so far as it so represents the property which he received, but disregarding any charging order.
  (8) A gift (including a gift made before the coming into force of this Part of this Act) is caught by this Part of this Act if—

  (a) it was made by the defendant at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him; or

  (b) it was made by the defendant at any time and was a gift of property—

  (i) obtained by the defendant as a direct or indirect result of terrorist-related activities engaged in by him or another; or

  315

  (ii) which in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented in the defendant's hands property received by him as proceeds of such activities.

  (9) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—

  (a) the circumstances in which the defendant is to be treated as making a gift include those where he transfers property to another person directly or indirectly for a consideration the value of which is significantly less than the value of the consideration provided by the defendant; and

  (b) in those circumstances, the preceding provisions of this section shall apply as if the defendant had made a gift of such share in the property as bears to the whole property the same proportion as the difference between the values referred to in paragraph (a) above bears to the value of the consideration provided by the defendant.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

  ASSUMPTIONS AS TO BENEFIT AND VALUE OF PROCEEDS
  .—(1) The Crown Court shall, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities and, if he has, of assessing the value of his proceeds of those activities, make the following assumptions, except to the extent that any of the assumptions are shown to be incorrect in the defendant's case—

  (a) that any property appearing to the court—

  (i) to have been held by him at any time since his conviction; or

  (ii) to have been transferred to him at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him,

  was obtained by him, at the earliest time at which he appears to the court to have held it, as a result of terrorist-related activities engaged in by him;

  (b) that any expenditure of his since the beginning of that period was met out of the proceeds of such activities engaged in by him; and

  (c) that, for the purpose of valuing any property obtained or assumed to have been obtained by him at any time as a result of such activities, he obtained the property free of any other interests in it.

  (2) Where the court decides that any assumption mentioned in subsection ( 1 ) above is incorrect in the defendant's case it shall state its reasons for that decision.
  (3) As respects property or expenditure in relation to which the foregoing assumptions do not fall to be made the standard of proof required of the prosecution on the question whether the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities and, if so, as to the value of his proceeds of those activities shall be that applicable in civil proceedings.'—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

  STATEMENTS, ETC., RELEVANT TO MAKING CONFISCATION ORDERS
  '.—( 1) Where—

  (a) there is tendered to the court by the prosecution a statement as to any matters relevant in the case of a defendant who has been convicted of a relevant offence—

  (i) to the determination whether the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities; or

  (ii) to the assessment of the value of his proceeds of those activities; or

  (iii) to the determination whether the requirements of section (Confiscation orders)(5) above are satisfied; and

  316

  (b) the defendant accepts to any extent any allegation in the statement,

  the court may, for the purposes of that determination and assessment, treat his acceptance as conclusive of the matters to which it relates.
  (2) Where—

  (a) a statement is tendered under subsection (1)(a) above; and

  (b) the court is satisfied that a copy of that statement has been served on the defendant,

  the court may require the defendant to indicate to what extent he accepts each allegation in the statement and, so far as he does not accept any such allegation, to indicate any matters he proposes to rely on.
  (3) If the defendant fails in any respect to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above, he may be treated for the purposes of this section as accepting every allegation in the statement apart from any allegation in respect of which he has complied with the requirement.
  (4) Where—

  (a) there is tendered to the court by the defendant a statement as to any matters relevant to determining the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made; and

  (b) the prosecution accepts to any extent any allegation in the statement,

  the court may, for the purposes of that determination, treat the acceptance by the prosecution as conclusive of the matters to which it relates.
  (5) An allegation may be accepted or a matter indicated for the purposes of this section either—

  (a) orally before the court; or

  (b) in writing in accordance with Crown Court rules.

  (6) No acceptance by the defendant under this section that any property was obtained by him as a direct or indirect result of terrorist-related activities engaged in by him or another shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings for an offence.
  (7) If the court is satisfied as to any matter relevant for determining the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made (whether by an acceptance under this section or otherwise), the court may issue a certificate giving the court's opinion as to the matter concerned and shall do so if satisfied that the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made is less than the amount the court assesses to be the value of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities.'—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

  ASSISTING ANOTHER TO RETAIN PROCEEDS OF TERRORIST-RELATED ACTIVITIES
  '.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, if a person enters into or is otherwise concerned in an arrangement whereby—

  (a) the retention or control by or on behalf of another (referred to hereafter as "A") of A's proceeds of terrorist-related activities is facilitated (whether by concealment, removal from the jurisdiction, transfer to nominees or otherwise); or

  (b) A's proceeds of such activities—

  (i) are used to secure that funds are placed at A's disposal; or

  (ii) are used for A's benefit to acquire property by way of investment,

  knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that A is a person who engages in or has engaged in such activities or has benefited from such activities, he is guilty of an offence.
  (2) In this section references to any person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities include a reference to any property which in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented in his hands his proceeds of such activities.
  (3) Where a person discloses to a constable a suspicion or belief that any funds or investments are derived from or used in connection with terrorist-related activities or any matter on which such a suspicion or belief is based, then, if he does any act in contravention of subsection (1) above and the disclosure relates to the arrangement concerned, he does not commit an offence under this section if—

  (a) the disclosure is made before he does the act concerned and that act is done with the consent of the constable; or

  (b) the disclosure is made after he does the act but on his initiative and as soon as it is reasonable for him to make it.

  (4) In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section it is a defence to prove—

  (a) that he did not know or suspect that the arrangement related to any person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities; or

  (b) that he did not know or suspect that by the arrangement the retention or control by or on behalf of A of any property was facilitated or, as the case may be, that by the arrangement any property was used as mentioned in subsection (1) above; or

  (c) that—

  (i) he intended to disclose to a constable such a suspicion, belief or matter as is mentioned in subsection (3) above in relation to the arrangement, but

  (ii) there is reasonable excuse for his failure to make disclosure in accordance with that subsection.

  (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or a fine or both;

  (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

  CONCEALING OR TRANSFERRING PROCEEDS OF TERRORIST-RELATED ACTIVITIES
  '.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

  (a) conceals or disguises any property which is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, his proceeds of terrorist-related activities; or

  (b) converts or transfers that property or removes it from the jurisdiction,

  for the purpose of avoiding prosecution for a relevant offence or the making or enforcement in his case of a confiscation order.
  (2) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities, he—

  (a) conceals or disguises that property; or

  (b) converts or transfers that property or removes it from the jurisdiction,

  for the purpose of assisting any person to avoid prosecution for a relevant offence or the making or enforcement of a confiscation order.
  (3) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities, he acquires that property for no, or for inadequate, consideration.
  (4) In subsections (1)(a) and (2)(a) above the references to concealing or disguising any property include references to concealing or disguising its nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership or any rights with respect to it.
  (5) For the purposes of subsection (3) above consideration given for any property is inadequate if its value is significantly less than the value of that property, and there shall not be treated as consideration the provision for any person of services or goods which are of assistance to him in terrorist-related activities.
  (6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or a fine or both;

  (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

  ENFORCEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  '. Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the enforcement of confiscation orders and otherwise for supplementing the provisions of this Part of this Act.'—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

  INTERPRETATION OF CONFISCATION PROVISIONS
  '.—(1) In this Part of this Act—

  "charging order" means an order made under paragraph 6 of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act;

  "confiscation order" means an order made by a court under section (Confiscation orders) above;

  "defendant" means a person against whom proceedings have been instituted for a relevant offence (whether or not he has been convicted);

  "gift caught by this Part of this Act" has the meaning given in section (Realisable property, value and gifts)(8) above;

  "interest", in relation to property, includes right;

  "proceeds of terrorist-related activity" has the meaning given in section (Confiscation orders)(2) above;

  "property" includes, in addition to money, all other property, real or personal, heritable or moveable, including things in action and other intangible or incorporeal property;

  "realisable property" has the meaning given in section (Realisable property, value and gifts)(1) and (2) above;

  "relevant offence" has the meaning given in section (Relevant offences) above;

  "statutory provision" has the meaning given in section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954;

  "terrorist-related activities" has the meaning given in section (Confiscation orders)(2) above.

  (2) This Part of this Act applies to property wherever situated.
  (3) References in this Part of this Act to offences include references to offences committed before the coming into force of this Part of this Act but nothing in this Part of this Act imposes any duty or confers any power on any court in or in connection with proceedings against a person for an offence if the proceedings were instituted before the coming into force of this Act.
  (4) References in this Part of this Act to property obtained as a direct or indirect result of terrorist-related activities include references to property obtained partly in that manner.
  (5) The following provisions also have effect for the interpretation of this Part of this Act.
  (6) Property is held by any person if he holds any interest in it.
  (7) References to property held by a person include a reference to property vested in his trustee in bankruptcy or liquidator; and references to an interest held by a person beneficially in property include a reference to an interest which would be held by him beneficially if the property were not so vested.
  (8) Property is transferred by one person to another if the first person transfers or grants to the other any interest in the property.
  (9) Proceedings for an offence are instituted—

  (a) when a summons or warrant is issued under Article 20 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 in respect of that offence;

  (b) when a person is charged with the offence after being taken into custody without a warrant;

  (c) when an indictment is presented under section 2(2)(c), (e) or (f) of the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;

  and where the application of this subsection would result in there being more than one time for the institution of proceedings, they shall be taken to have been instituted at the earliest of those times.'—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1A

  IDENTITY CARDS
  'The Secretary of State may make regulations—

  (a) requiring all persons ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland to possess an identity card;

  (b) requiring such an identity card to contain a photograph; and otherwise prescribing the format and content of an identity card;

  (c) prescribing the circumstances in which passports may function as identity cards and providing for the issue of identity cards to visitors to Northern Ireland not carrying a passport;

  (d) specifying the circumstances in which a person may be required to produce an identity card; and

  (e) specifying penalties for failing to produce an identity card.'.—[Mr. Trimble.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations that provide for identity cards in Northern Ireland. It is deliberately drafted in a permissive form to give the Secretary of State leeway in introducing such a system. That is not to undermine or devalue the need for identity cards. Given the situation in Northern Ireland, there is clearly a need for a system of identity cards to enable everyone moving within its jurisdiction to be identified.
  One of the major tools used by the security forces when trying to contain terrorism is the widespread operation of vehicle control points, road blocks, and road checks. Earlier this week, the Secretary of State himself, while commenting on the regrettable series of incidents of the past few days, referred to an increase in the number of vehicle control points in the hope that that would inhibit the movement of terrorists and their ability to carry out ghastly acts.
  It is essential that those who man VCPs are able to identify people who pass through them, and an identity card system is necessary for that purpose. In Committee, the Minister of State commented:
  "on the face of it, we can see how a common identity card could be of help. It might help security forces who come to the Province for a relatively limited time and then leave, and do not have the benefit of developing detailed knowledge of the
  320
  people in whose areas they serve, as does the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There might be therefore a certain security advantage in that regard."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 January 1991; c. 326–7.]
  I welcome those comments, but the Minister was taking far too limited an approach. Not just Army personnel serving in the Province for a short time require the help given by identity cards; members of the RUC need it. RUC officers may come to know all the people in rural areas with small populations but they cannot know everyone in areas with a population of tens of thousands. It would be impossible for RUC members to know everyone in such areas, let alone all the suspected terrorists. The Minister's remarks point to the need for identity cards to help all the security forces.
  Identity cards should be linked to some form of computer databank from which other security intelligence would be available, so by cross-referencing the card, the security forces and others would have available a wide range of information about suspects. To a certain extent, that happens at present. Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are familiar with the extent to which it happens. We have documents which are used for identity purposes. I have in my hand a Northern Ireland driving licence; I referred to it in Committee. Unlike licences in England and Wales, it carries a photograph and is produced in plastic.
  Car licence plate numbers are held on a central computer. We know that there is a certain amount of tagging of such numbers. At vehicle checkpoints one regularly sees a member of the security forces reading car registration numbers into a microphone. The general understanding is that that information is transmitted to a central point and checked on the records to find out whether there are any tags in the computer for the registration numbers concerned. The security forces can then decide whether to pull in a car and its occupants for closer examination.
  The system that I am arguing for exists to a certain extent already through driving licences and car number plates, but that is a partial, rather than an effective, system.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Should it not also be underscored that this House, in its wisdom, has decided that people must carry an identity card of some type when they vote, and have listed the only identity cards that are accepted on such an occasion?
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is perfectly correct, and the fact that the House decided that evidence of identity should be produced for one function underscores the need for it. The hon. Member will know that the multiplicity of documents available to prove identity for voting purposes is a weakness of the system. A coincidental benefit of new clause 1A is that it would provide for a single, common identity card which could be used instead of all those other documents. That is an incidental benefit, but I am afraid that, in Committee, the Minister was confused into thinking that it was one of the main planks of the proposal. We are arguing for an identity card system to help the security forces, so we need a comprehensive system.
  Some people have reservations about identity cards. When one mentions computer records and other information being held centrally they get even more upset. They think that the existence of such information will undermine civil rights or infringe their human liberties in

  321
  some way. Like some other hon. Members, I find it difficult to see any merit in that argument. There is nothing unusual about identity cards. Indeed, we are all wearing one. If one looks around the House, one can see several hon. Members who are clearly wearing the required identity card. Hon. Members obviously do not find that the personal use of an identity card is an infringement of their civil liberties because when the requirement to wear one was extended to Members of Parliament it was accepted without murmur or complaint.
  Coincidentally, this week's edition of the magazine of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which is supplied to all hon. Members on a complimentary basis, includes an article on identity cards which describes the situation in other European countries. It says:
  "Spain: A compulsory system comes into force from the age of 14 onwards. Germany: Identity cards are required from the age of 16."
  In some other countries, such as France and Italy, cards are voluntary, but the federation understands that they are used on almost all occasions.
  The article also refers to the seventh report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, published last July, which recommended the introduction of a common identity card system and discussed the arrangements in Europe. There is a slight conflict between the report and the article about Denmark, but we need not go into that. One states that identity cards are compulsory there and the other says that they are not.
  I refer to European practice because I want to emphasise that identity cards are known and are used on a wide scale in Europe and do not cause any problems for civil liberties or infringe human rights. I feel that that objection has no merit.
  In Committee, one practical objection to identity cards was mentioned. Persons from the Republic of Ireland come across the border to a number of towns to do their shopping. We would not want to discourage that. Such people might not have identity documents with them. That is an anomaly, which should perhaps be considered more comprehensively. It is anomalous that the United Kingdom still refuses to recognise the independence of the Republic of Ireland in some respects. The anomaly flows from legislation of 1949, in which this Parliament said that it would not recognise the Irish Republic as a foreign country. In some respects that is not a privilege which is being extended to citizens of the Irish Republic, but a subtle refusal to——
  Mr. William Ross: It is an insult.
  Mr. Trimble: Yes, as my colleague says, it is, in a sense, an insult because it refuses to recognise their independence.
  Common travel arrangements, which may have been convenient in other respects, flow from that anomaly. To some extent, there is a strong argument—we dealt with it here on Monday night—for extending proper passport controls and the sort of regime that applies to other countries to the frontier in Ireland. That argument should be studied, rather than allow the present anomaly to persist.
  I realise that the Bill may not be the appropriate vehicle to tackle the common travel area in the British Isles. Moreover, with 1992 just around the corner, it may be inappropriate to refer to passports, or to give instructions
  322
  to increase their number, because if there is to be free travel throughout the European Community post-1992, we may not want to increase passport arrangements.
  The new clause would enable identity cards to be issued to visitors to Northern Ireland, although the regulations that we suggest could also provide for passports as identity cards. Both could be used which should keep the inconvenience caused by the proposal to a minimum.
  This may be a temporary provision—much less temporary than the provision that we discussed on Monday—because post-1992 it is probable that there will be a common European standard on the use of identity cards. If there is to be a common travel area in the entire Community and no passport controls at borders, some other form of identification will be required. It is likely that common identity cards will be introduced as a European requirement to deal with the security implications post-1992. If that is the case, the new clause would he temporary because it covers us only for the period between now and the common regime likely to be introduced through the European Community. However, that is like looking into a crystal ball.
  The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations for identity cards, which we believe are necessary. To a certain extent, such provision exists, but it must be put on a better comprehensive footing so that we have a common identity card which is used throughout Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I support the new clause, which has been ably and convincingly proposed. The wording is admirable, as it does not place an obligation on the Government, but would enable the Secretary of State to nudge his Cabinet colleagues and to say that the time has come when we should introduce identity cards in the country as a whole.
  The discussion about whether we should follow the lead given by other members of the European Community and introduce compulsory national identity cards has reached a stage at which the arguments for and against are fairly evenly divided. The argument in favour has strengthened. Originally, it was suggested that, apart from its convenience for law enforcement and other purposes, the system would assist immigration control. Subsequently, the question of terrorism has arisen.
  The argument for compulsory introduction of identity cards in the United Kingdom as a whole has now been largely accepted. A fortiori, we should surely introduce them in Northern Ireland, where the problems of the security authorities are so much greater and terrorism is a constant threat. The public there need to be reassured that the Government are doing everything possible to defeat terrorism and restore law and order. Because I am sure that the Government are indeed determined to do everything possible, I hope that they will accept the new clause and pass the necessary enabling legislation.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: For two reasons, I am surprised at the new clause and its source. First, I gather that the same proposal was made in Committee, but was defeated. Secondly, the new clause would make Northern Irish people second-class citizens, as only they would be required to carry identity cards: Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and citizens of the Republic would

  323
  not be subject to the same requirement. Usually, my hon. Friends want Northern Irish people to be treated in the same way as everyone else.
  The new clause has been described as permissive rather than mandatory. I do not trust Secretaries of State with permissive legislation. With the best will in the world, they are inclined to use whatever powers they have, often—although perhaps not under the present regime—unwisely, hastily and without due consideration. I think that legislation should always be mandatory, especially when it deals with the rights of the individual and with restrictions on freedom of movement.
  Currently, anyone who ventures abroad without some form of identification to present on demand at the legitimate and numerous vehicle check points on every road and byway is acting very foolishly. Nearly everyone, apart from very young people, has identification of some kind. The mind boggles at the idea that identity cards will carry some special mark meaning, "I am not a terrorist" or, indeed, "I am a terrorist", or, "I am a suspected terrorist"; unless we bear in mind the earlier suggestion that the card be linked to a data bank where the holder might be placed, unknown to him, in one of those categories. He would then have no chance to defend himself.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It would be possible to ensure, without the need for a data bank, that different categories were included on the cards. When a card is taken away from someone who is being investigated, the information can be added without anyone knowing. That would have applied to the "smart cards" that were proposed for football fans.
  Mr. McGrady: That is true. Anyone who has had the misfortune to buy a secondhand car that, unknown to him, has been tagged will find himself the subject of intense interrogation at vehicle checkpoints. Identity cards cannot further the information that is available to the security forces at vehicle checkpoints. As Northern Ireland Members know, security intelligence in Northern Ireland is extraordinarily intense. I am certain that I could not move a couple of miles from my home without my movements being known and my category well understood at any vehicle checkpoint.
  The practicalities make my argument even stronger. Some of the new clause is very vague. It refers to the penalties incurred by those without identity cards. What administrative nightmare will be created, and what new judicial processes will evolve to bring to book those who have forgotten their cards? At what age, for example, will young people be required to produce them? Will it be 18 —the age at which they can vote—or 17, 16, 15, 14, 12 or even 10? Young people need to be free to go about their daily business, whether it be school or leisure. Unless everyone is tagged from the cradle to the grave, the position will become nonsensical. I do not think that even those who tabled the new clause would argue that young people, who are constantly subject to military searches —both personally and when in vehicles with others—should have to carry identity cards to school with them.
  Mr. William Ross: Secondary schoolchildren carry bus passes with photographs.
  Mr. McGrady: That proves my point. All of us already possess some form of identification.
  The new clause involves another administrative nonsense. There is currently a big drive to bring more tourists into Northern Ireland. As soon as they reach either the land border or the sea border—perhaps it is the border with the English channel—tourists must apply for and obtain an identity card. A traveller from the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, the continent, America or anywhere else—intending, perhaps, to do some shopping—must obtain such a card. God knows the problems that hon. Members experience when travelling to and from Belfast under the present security arrangements will be nothing compared with the problems that will arise when a whole queue of people travelling to Belfast with British Airways or British Midland must produce not only passports but identity cards. The poor old sod who has forgotten his card, or does not even know that he should have one, will hold up the whole plane load.
  The new clause is unnecessary, because of the plethora of identification that people already hold. More important, however, it takes yet another bite out of personal liberty and freedom. I am talking not merely about the identity card itself, but about the motivation behind its introduction. Information will be in data banks that the individuals concerned will never know about.
  6 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: I listened with care to some of the spurious arguments advanced by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He showed that he has not read new clause 1A, which was moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
  The hon. Member for South Down was surprised that the hon. Member for Upper Bann should have tabled new clause 1A. Surely it is right and proper that we should debate it. The hon. Gentleman did nothing wrong in tabling the new clause, or it would not have been accepted.
  The hon. Member for South Down made an interesting point about second-class citizens. He made the strongest integrationist speech that I have heard from a member of the SDLP. People outside will note carefully that the SDLP is concerned to ensure equal status.
  Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my speech. I said that it was an unusual argument for an Ulster Unionist Member to advance.
  Rev. William McCrea: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and we shall read his speech tomorrow.
  Mr. Mallon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is an integrationist wing in the SDLP.
  Rev. William McCrea: This is probably the first time that we have heard of it. Perhaps the cuckoo is coming out of the nest, or perhaps there is a major policy split in the SDLP.
  My hon. Friends, and I am sure other hon. Members, were surprised when the hon. Member for South Down said that he was worried about people in the Province becoming second-class citizens. SDLP Members were happy to force on the people of Northern Ireland the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which does not apply in any other part of the United Kingdom and which makes the people

  325
  of Northern Ireland second-class citizens. That was a weak part of the hon. Gentleman's argument against identity cards.
  I support the new clause. In Committee, some hon. Members took exception to it on the ground that it would infringe civil liberties and civil rights. That was going over the top. Hon. Members carry an identity card.
  Mr. Mallon: Where is the hon. Gentleman's identity card?
  Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was happy to wear his for each Committee sitting, and he is happy to be wearing it again today.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is not it a rule of the House that hon. Members need not wear their card in the Chamber?
  Rev. William McCrea: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that Opposition Members are still learning the etiquette of the House.
  If identity cards infringe civil liberties, why is the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh wearing his? There must be another reason for the opposition to the new clause.
  How can the Government justify refusing to accept the new clause when they were happy to introduce identity cards for football fans? If cards would have stopped hooliganism and protected fans at football matches, why would not they ensure the safety of the people of the Province? People are required to wear identify cards for less important functions than the safety of the nation.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the introduction of identity cards at Luton football club not one arrest has been made?
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Luton has no support.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Its takings have increased from £1 million to £5 million, and it has had record attendances. It has not, whether the House likes it or not, had one arrest at its ground. That shows that identity cards work.
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. If the Government were happy to accept identity cards for football, why will not they accept them to ensure the safety of people in the United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland?
  In Committee, some hon. Members said that they would accept a national identity card. Conservative Members were happy to accept that proposal, and suggested to the Minister that the Government should act to implement a scheme.
  In 1992, there will be a European identity card. Will Opposition Members object to that as an infringement of civil liberties that makes people in the Province second-class citizens? They will happily accept that card. It will be interesting to see how a distinction is made between Community countries. The citizens of Northern Ireland will probably have to wear an identification card that will show a Union Jack, which will be rather hard for some to swallow.
  It was strange—I shall not say hypocritical—that the Government were happy to introduce legislation that made people wear identity cards when exercising the greatest civil and democratic right—the right to vote. No citizen in Northern Ireland is allowed to vote without having identification. Strangely, SDLP Members do not object to that identification card, which can allow or deny
  326
  a person the right to vote. Even if someone's name is recorded on the electoral register, he will not be allowed to exercise his right to vote without an identity card.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: A presiding officer may know someone and may be able to take an oath to say that it is that person, but he is not allowed to give him a ballot paper without an identification card.
  Rev. William McCrea: Yes.
  Mr. McGrady: Surely, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman has made the point that I was making: the people of Northern Ireland can already prove their identity and the new clause is not necessary.
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—at least in respect of the legislation, but not in terms of the person sitting in the Chair.
  I am arguing for something that would do away with the load of regulations in favour of only one identity card, which could be easily carried. One of the problems that all our constituents face when they go to vote is that they think that they have the proper identification with them, but are told that it is out of date or that what they are carrying is not one of the accepted identity cards. That is a fact; that is what is happening, as hon. Members of all parties in Northern Ireland know. A common identity card would resolve that problem. Instead of the evidence disproving my case, it actually proves that a common identity card is necessary and would be of great assistance to our people both in the exercise of their franchise and for the safety of the community as a whole.
  The hon. Member for South Down made great play of the fact that the provisions might affect visitors at a time when we need tourists. The hon. Gentleman might have found it helpful to read the new clause. Perhaps it would be a good thing if he were to read it now because paragraph (a) states:
  "requiring all persons ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland to possess an identity card".
  He would also find that paragraph (c) covers another aspect of this matter:
  "prescribing the circumstances in which passports may function as identity cards".
  A visitor need not apply for a special identity card, because his or her passport will be accepted as an identity card. Therefore, the legislation will not in any way stop citizens entering Northern Ireland as tourists.
  Mr. McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an Englishman must bring his passport when visiting Northern Ireland?
  Rev. William McCrea: What we have been suggesting is a national identity card——
  Mr. Harry Barnes: That is not in the legislation.
  Rev. William McCrea: That is correct; that is not in the legislation, because we are dealing with Northern Ireland provisions. However, we are suggesting that it should be a provision of our legislation, and that it should be extended so that a person from England, Scotland or Wales would also have an identity card. Indeed, they will have one in the future. Although some hon. Members may find the idea of an identity card absurd, that is what we shall have in 1992 whether they like it or not.
  Mr. Mallon: Is it not a fact that we are discussing emergency legislation? If those responsible for security expressed the need for such an identity card, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government would introduce it? I am sure that he will share my healthy scepticism of the way in which Governments treat the susceptibilities of people in the north of Ireland. I repeat that, if there were a security need for such a card, one would have been introduced long ago by the Government. The Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the marvellous phrase about the curate's egg. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in many ways, this is a bit of a parson's nose?
  Rev. William McCrea: Without continuing those clerical references, I suggest that, even if the Government proposed such provisions, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would oppose them. He does not want this legislation or anything that clearly identifies an individual. Why should we run away from that when we are happy to have identification cards in this House?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the police have come out in favour of identity cards over and over again? It is totally false for the authorities to say that nobody in security wants identity cards, when the law officers and those who execute the law have made such calls. I have heard police officers on our own television saying that it would be a good thing if they could immediately eliminate the people whom they do not need to cross-examine once a bomb has gone off because they know their identities and know that they are no longer needed in connection with the case.
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. Now that it is known that the provisions are supported by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I am sure that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will be ready to support and vote for them in the Lobby, given that that was the basis of his argument a few moments ago.
  It is true that the security forces have requested, and still desire, such identity cards. It would do the community of Northern Ireland a service if the House were to pass the new clause.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said that my hon. Friends and I always want to be treated the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. In case he thought that we were slipping away from that principle, may I reassure him that we do indeed want to be treated exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. What is good enough for Members of this House should be good enough for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind whenever he tries to poke fun at us because anything that we say is soundly based on the principle of the Union and its maintenance.
  Members of this House now wear an identity card and, as far as any of us is aware, we all do so without a word of protest. My wife says that I look pretty good on my identity card—I am not sure that anyone else would agree —despite the colour, which some of us do not really like. We wear the identity card for a simple reason—it is part of the defence of the House, its Members and staff against the actions of the same terrorist violence from which we suffer
  328
  in Northern Ireland. If the authorities of the House, the Government, and the leaders of the major parties in the House have all decided that the card is necessary for the defence of Members and the House, and we have agreed, I believe that there is now an excellent precedent for saying that identity card provisions could be applied more generally throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: If the hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on the precedent of the cards that we are all wearing around our necks at the moment, does that mean that the people of Northern Ireland will have to clip on their cards or wear chains so that the identity card itself can be generally seen when the wearer is travelling around?
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman sometimes makes a show of being ridiculous, and he is trying——
  Mr. Barnes: It is a ridiculous card.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is a ridiculous card, but it is his photograph on it. As I have said, my wife likes my photograph on the card —I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's wife will like his.
  The card is considered necessary in the House. We would not have to wear the card around our necks in Northern Ireland. We wear these cards around our necks in the House for the sheer convenience of the guardians of the House and its Members, and for our own protection. People would not be expected to wear an identity card on their collar or around their necks in Northern Ireland.
  An identity card would be useful in all sorts of ways. One way that has not yet been mentioned relates to those who use plastic money in shops. Because of the rates of interest, people may not be anxious to use their credit cards in the future, but we should remember that it would be useful to shopkeepers if purchasers showed not only their credit card, but also an identity card bearing their photograph. There would then be no doubt about identity. Of course, I am assuming that the photographs would be better than those that usually appear on passports.
  As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster pointed out, the provision would be useful, in that a single mode of identification could be used by everyone. It would have the advantage of bearing the photograph of the individual. Most of the documents which are used for identification when casting a ballot do not have a photograph. The identification document which we propose would be extremely useful. It would enable a citizen to go about his normal business with minimum inconvenience, because he would have a simple, straightforward means of identification. I have no objection to wearing identification in the House, given the current position. I would have no objection to carrying it and producing it on demand in Northern Ireland, any more than I object to producing my driving licence or my firearms certificate, which also bear my photograph.
  People could be made to carry identification if there were a small on-the-spot fine. If we make a hullabaloo about it, involving court proceedings and a huge fine, people would resist it and would become heroes for refusing to pay. If there were an on-the-spot fine of £1, £2 or £3 every time a person did not produce the identification, everyone would soon catch on. It is a matter of attrition, because only the wicked would refuse to produce identification.

  329
  As to personal freedom, I objected to the legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts, but I wear one now, as a law-abiding citizen. I suspect that most people would take the same attitude to the use of an identity card. Personal freedom is damaged far more by terrorist action. Our civil rights are injured far more by the activities of the IRA and other terrorist organisations than they would be by the carrying of a positive means of identification. The format would be a matter for discussion, but the introduction of an identity card would be one of the most useful things that the Government could do for the convenience of citizens of Northern Ireland.
  As has already been pointed out, after 1992 we may be forced to produce an identity card for the entire United Kingdom. If so, I suspect that the civil rights, personal freedom and all the other objections which have been bandied about, not only today but on every other occasion when the matter has been debated, will vanish like a morning mist. There will not be a cheep, especially from those who are in favour of the Common Market.
  The objections to the new clause are spurious. There is no good reason, apart from Government cowardice, for opposing such a provision. It should have been done long ago. It should be brought into operation without further delay, because there is no good reason for delay.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not propose to prolong the debate, since I spoke on the subject on Monday. May I inform the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that I dealt with it in the context of the entire United Kingdom? We are asking that it should apply not only to Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. We are not as brainless as the hon. Gentleman may think. There are some brains north of Newcastle as well as south of it. I should point out to him that the Bill before the House relates only to Northern Ireland.
  Why do Northern Ireland Ministers not want to take up the proposal? Has it to go before the Anglo-Irish Conference? Has the Secretary of State to persuade Mr. Collins that it would be a good idea? Has he to exercise his great talents of persuasion and to use all possible pressure to get agreement? We know what happened with conscription in Ireland when we were at war. Pressure from the south kept conscription from the north. Let me put it on record that, nevertheless, there were many volunteers from the south and the north in both world wars. We remember the nationalist community from the south who fought so bravely at the battle of the Somme in world war 1.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Might not it mean that Mr. Collins would have to bring his passport when coming to see the Secretary of State, because he would not have an identity card?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland Ministers were glad to put the passport of the Irish Republic on a level with the passport of Her Majesty's Dominions as a means of identification for voting, so no doubt they would have no twinge of conscience about accepting anything, including even a pass to a bar in Dublin. An on-the-spot fine might change the Secretary of State's mind: he might decide to get payment from Mr. Collins for not having a pass.
  Police officers on both sides of the water have often spoken to me about the importance of eliminating people
  330
  on whom they do not need to waste time when there has been terrorist activity. The way to do so is to have proper, on-the-spot identification.
  I had a letter from the Secretary of State the other day telling me that he intends to bring in an additional means of identification. The Government are going to add yet again to the list of acceptable identification documents. I suggest that he abolishes all those means of identification and introduces one identity card to do the job at election time.
  Mr. Forsythe: I am amazed at the great reluctance of hon. Members representing the major parties to countenance an identification document. Points have been made about the number of identification documents which we have and it has been said that we do not need an identity card. I think that makes the case. When we consider the number of items that a person could have, I cannot see any reason for not having an official identification document.
  There is a passport, a driver's licence, a national insurance number, a student's pass, a House of Commons pass, a Visa card, an Access card, an American Express card and bank cards. If we have to travel on public transport, our names are put on tickets on planes, on boats and on rail. Hon. Members are proud to display their photograph and their party affiliation on election literature and posters. When a person is employed, he may have a clock number, a pay number and even a VAT number. When the major parties hold conferences, delegates have conference passes. Even people playing football have numbers on their backs for identification, as do rugby players. I understand that cricketers may have to put their names on their cricket kit.
  I was disturbed to learn recently that if someone applies for a telephone, British Telecom will approach credit companies for information about the person. If the applicant has had difficulty with credit in the past, British Telecom will make that person pay a deposit for the telephone. In all, we have an amazing number of means of identification.
  I am surprised that there are those in the United Kingdom who are afraid to identify themselves and are not proud to take their pass out of their pocket and hand it to whoever asks for it. They wish to hide their identity. I am afraid that most of those people fear that in certain circumstances such identification would be a disadvantage to them.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. David Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that with modern technology all the identifications that he has described can be put on one identity card?
  Mr. Forsythe: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman pointed that out. That could be a case for introducing a single identification card to cover all those matters. I agree that perhaps such a measure should extend to the whole of the United Kingdom rather than apply only to Northern Ireland.
  Of course, such identification cards are very handy for elections in Northern Ireland. I wonder how the major parties would react if there were a close result in an election or by-election—[Interruption.] No, I am not prophesying. If identification documents were required and perhaps 500

  331
  people were not eligible to vote because they had no identification document, that might make people think differently as regards the position in Northern Ireland.
  In wartime, identification documents had to be obtained. We feel that we are in a war situation in Northern Ireland and see no reason why we should not have identification documents.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was incorrect on only one point—his point about what occurred in Committee. A motion similar to the one before the House now was dealt with in Committee and was withdrawn. Had it not been withdrawn, we should not be debating a similar motion now. The new clause is slightly different from the proposal in Committee because a flaw in the previous proposal in respect of what would happen to people who had come from outside Northern Ireland has been covered by a provision allowing passports to be used as identification. The new clause is more consistent than the previous proposal, but it is no more correct.
  The last place in the United Kingdom and perhaps in the world where identity cards should be introduced is Northern Ireland. That is partly for the reasons stressed by those who want to introduce them—that when incidents take place, the police can get hold of information quickly. Identity cards would be a godsend to terrorist organisations. Identity cards could be inspected by terrorist organisations and fed into their databanks and computers. We have just discussed a measure on how we could confiscate the vast funds that terrorist organisations hold. Undoubtedly, they have great strength of organisation, and their organisation would be further strengthened by introducing identity cards which people would be expected to carry with them all the time.
  Enough problems are already caused by terrorists getting hold of identification documents. People might choose to go about without identification, not simply to avoid the security forces but to avoid being tackled by terrorists and their friends. Furthermore, the technology referred to by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) which allows cards and smart cards to bear all sorts of information seems terribly dangerous. Such cards can be impregnated with invisible information which can be read only by those who have the proper machinery. Not only the security forces may have such machinery. In any case, there may be worries about the security forces and the police having access to such information. Terrorist organisations may get hold of the machinery and add all types of information, including basic information about whether they judge the person to be a Protestant or a Catholic, which they could use on future occasions.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the first line of the new clause, which says,
  "The Secretary of State may make regulations"?
  Surely such regulations would be subject to scrutiny in the House and surely the House would lay down the information which could be put on the card. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the officials who would create the cards would carry out the instructions given to them, how would he deal with such people?
  Mr. Barnes: If officials were given cards which could be impregnated with information other than that which they
  332
  had been requested to put on it and the House made regulations which prohibited them from doing so, an extra problem would be created in respect of the acceptability of the cards in Northern Ireland. Vast elements of the population may come to believe that the cards would be misused even though the regulations prohibited it. If it is possible to impregnate the cards with various information, the IRA and Protestant paramilitary organisations would hardly be put off by regulations passed by the House.
  There are further serious reasons to be added to the points made by the hon. Member for South Down about why the measure is incorrect and will be counterproductive. It is a dangerous measure and that is why the House should vote against it.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: You may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, except for some minor alterations, the new clause was debated at some length in Standing Committee. We have had a longer debate this evening, with one or two new players. Unfortunately, contrary to the idea of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), they did not have numbers on their backs, so we found it difficult at times to identify them. With the exception of the idea of soccer numbers and, I presume, rugby numbers and perhaps even innovations for cricket teams—about which the Secretary of State may tell us in a future debate—no new arguments have been made in the debate.
  Mr. William Ross: Yes, they have.
  Mr. Marshall: No new argument ever comes from the mouth of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). No new arguments have been made in the debate.
  There is an argument for identity cards. I do not agree with them but I admit that there is an argument. There is a genuine debate about identity cards, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe. That may be a factor which we shall have to face post-1992.
  The only justification for introducing such a scheme into the Province and not into the remainder of the United Kingdom is that it would improve security and enhance the position of the security forces vis-à-vis terror groups in the Province. All the information that I have received, and certainly the view advanced on behalf of the Government by the Minister of State in Committee, runs counter to that argument. The information from the mouth of the Minister of State is that that is not a requirement of the scheme.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the cards which we wear in the House of Commons are a waste of time? Would he wish us not to carry them?
  Mr. Marshall: That is a red herring. You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not wear my identification card in the Chamber. If right hon. and hon. Members see me around the building, they will know that I do not wear it then either. I take the view, rightly or wrongly, that as an elected Member of this place who represents the people who send me here the security forces have a duty and responsibility to recognise me and all the other elected Members. For that reason, I reject the argument of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), who has only just entered the Chamber, and similar arguments that were made by Ulster Unionist Members.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman were stopped and asked to produce his identity card, would he do so?
  Mr. Marshall: If I am stopped and asked for identification—not in this place, because as an elected Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, I am supposed to be known to the security people—[Interruption.] That is true, but it is a different argument.
  If I were stopped by the police, on suspicion that I had committed an offence, and were asked to produce identification—not on the spot, but at a place of my choosing, in agreement with the police—I should do so. But that point is totally different from the one concerning the general introduction of identity cards in the Province of Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in his interpretation of the Minister's response in Committee to his amendment, sought to mislead the House to some extent. I shall quote what the Minister said in the Standing Committee on Thursday 31 January. He will forgive me for quoting him. On the other hand, perhaps he is pleased, as I may be saving him the problem of quoting himself. On that occasion he said:
  "If his argument"—
  the argument of the hon. Member for Upper Bann—
  "was for security, on the face of it we can see how a common identity card could be of help. It might help security forces who come to the Province for a relatively limited time and then leave, and do not have the benefit of developing detailed knowledge of the people in whose areas they serve, as does the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There might, therefore, be a certain security advantage in that regard."
  Those are the words that were quoted by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister used the conditional tense throughout that part of his statement. But he went on to say:
  "However,"—
  note the change—
  "I am not aware that the security forces or the police have major difficulty identifying people. Indeed, I know from our debates that at least some in the community think that the ability of the police and security forces to determine people's identity is over-extensive, almost to the point, of being intrusive. So the argument that a security lacuna needs to be filled does not convince me."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 January 1991; c. 326–27.]
  Hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, should bear that in mind when this new clause is put to the vote. In the Government's view, identity cards in the Province alone would not affect the security situation a great deal. I think that I am right to say that the hon. Member for Upper Bann misled the House a little when he prayed in aid the remarks of the Minister of State: In fact, the Minister of State was using a slightly different, and stronger, argument to refute the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
  6.45 pm
  In another debate, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) argued that identity cards should be supported if it were thought that they would provide extra security assurance. Like the Government, I believe that identity cards would not provide additional assurance against acts of violence, or enhance the position of the security forces in the Province. In Committee, the Minister could not think of any overriding security need to justify the introduction of such cards—and I am sure that his officials were putting their minds seriously to the subject.
  334
  The argument stands or falls on the basis of the security question alone. For that reason, if for no other, I oppose this new clause.
  The Minister also mentioned reasons of convenience. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has sought to rectify the fault in the new clause by introducing paragraph (c), but the basic argument still applies. The Province has many visitors, not just from overseas and from the Republic, but also from the remainder of the United Kingdom. I travel to Northern Ireland fairly frequently, though not as often as some of my hon. Friends think I should. If I had to produce my passport or an identity card —a card for which I had had to be photographed—or were further inconvenienced in what can already be a very trying journey, even I might find that a deterrent. Such an additional restriction, as well as deterring visitors and tourists from the remainder of the United Kingdom, could well have a detrimental influence on business people travelling to the Province. I refer to business men not just from abroad but also from the remainder of the United Kingdom. Surely it is such people that the Province is most anxious to attract, on the ground that inward investment and jobs are so important. The convenience argument is as strong now as it was when the Minister of State used it in Committee on 31 January.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr.Beggs) has just walked into the House. I gave way to another hon. Member who had only just entered the Chamber, and I do not intend to repeat the practice this evening.
  Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly observed that I have not been present for the entire debate. There is a good reason for that. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had attempted to mislead the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would not want to mislead the House by suggesting that travel to Northern Ireland is always a trying experience. Perhaps he will admit that he could travel more than 100 miles in Northern Ireland without being stopped by a member of the security forces.
  Mr. Marshall:When I talked about travel I was not referring to travel within the Province. I suppose that I really ought not to reply to the hon. Gentleman's point, as it is really a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, as the point of order was really directed at me in the form of a question—[Interruption.] That is a lesson that I never fail to learn in debates with Ulster Unionist Members, including the hon. Member for Antrim, East, with whom I have spent some happy hours in the Province. Travel within Northern Ireland has never presented me with any problem. If that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants, I am happy to give it. However, as he must know, the journey from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is sometimes trying. That is what I was referring to.
  I want, finally, to repeat something that I said in Committee. As the Minister will know, in Committee my speech on this matter was very short. My party and I find it ironic that the new clause should be introduced by a political party that believes in selective internment on the ground that the terrorists are already well known to the

  335
  security forces. If that proposition is correct—it is put continuously by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—and the people are already known to the security forces, why would identification cards make their job any easier?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give a ruling on whether hon. Members are required to produce their identity cards outside the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am not an authority on those matters, but my understanding is that hon. Members are not required to wear their identity cards in the Chamber, which is a matter for the discretion of the individual. My responsibility does not go beyond the Chamber, but I understand that hon. Members are required to wear their identity cards in the Palace of Westminster and advised not to wear them outside it. I am speaking on matters for which I have no authority outside the Chamber, but I think that that is the general position.
  Mr. Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not seeking to involve you in a squabble that does not concern you as it does not relate to order in the Chamber, but the red herring was introduced by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). My understanding is that the letter from the Serjeant at Arms contained a request, not an order.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that is so, why are hon. Members stopped by the security officers and the police and asked to produce identity cards? [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."] They have been. I came to the House the other day without my identity card, I was stopped at the door of the House and asked where my identity card was. I said that it was in Belfast. I was asked to produce my identity card and I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consult Mr. Speaker because I think that the occupant of the Chair should be able to give us a proper ruling so that we know the facts. The majority of hon. Members believe that they have to produce identity cards and if they are wrong, they had better know the truth. We are informed that, outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, we are expected to wear our identity cards and produce them on request.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that hon. Members are not obliged to wear their identity cards in the Chamber, but are expected to wear them in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster outside the Chamber, and are advised not to wear them outside the Palace because they may make themselves vulnerable. The precise obligation on hon. Members outside the Chamber, but within the precincts, is a matter dealt with in the guidance issued by the Serjeant at Arms. It is right that the security authorities of the House should have the power to challenge an hon. Member about whose identity they may have doubts, so that the identity is put beyond doubt.
  As I understand it, no hon. Member has been refused admission to the precincts of the Palace of Westminster because he or she was not, at the time, wearing his or her identity card. Identities are challenged, but once they have been established the hon. Members are admitted. It would
  336
  be unwise for me to seek to go beyond that. I have given as comprehensive a reply as I can and I hope that we can now get back to new clause 1A.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make it perfectly clear that the police officer who challenged me knew me and did not try to stop me, but asked for my identity card.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would have been astonished if any of our security staff did not recognise the hon. Gentleman on sight. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the vigilance of the security forces on that occasion.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): At the beginning of our proceedings, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) encouraged all of us to be concise and not to waffle. I shall seek to follow the sterling example of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this and other speeches that I have to make during the evening, being careful at the same time to answer the arguments of the individual debates. In that context, it may be helpful if I start by clarifying one or two issues, so that I do not have to come back to them as I review this interesting debate.
  First, this is emergency legislation as it relates to Northern Ireland, and is not United Kingdom legislation. There may be arguments on both sides of the fence for an identity card scheme in the United Kingdom, but, as I made clear in Committee, that is not what the legislation is about, and neither I nor the Northern Ireland Office have responsibility for such a scheme in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that the House, like the Committee, will not allow me to become sidetracked by that argument.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has consistently supported the introduction of an identification scheme throughout the United Kingdom, for which I pay tribute to him and do not argue with him, but that does not relate to this debate. I recognise the legitimacy of the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who spoke on Monday about an identity card system in the United Kingdom. That was perfectly legitimate. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, there is an argument relating to such a scheme on a United Kingdom basis, although he does not support it, but it does not relate to the Bill, so I do not wish to get involved in that argument tonight. Exactly the same argument applies to the issue of 1992. There may be discussions about having identity cards after 1992, but that is not a matter for the Northern Ireland Office or for me, and I do not want to include it in my reply.
  Secondly, this is emergency legislation, so if identification cards were to be introduced under it, it would have to be—as the hon. Member for Leicester, South said—for an overwhelming or compelling security reason, not for administrative convenience or any other reason. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). There is an argument that, on purely administrative grounds, one form of identification is better than six or seven. Another argument to be made is that six or seven forms of identification provide a degree of convenience. But those are not the issues before the House in relation to the new clause. This is emergency legislation, so security should be paramount.

  337
  As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said, we debated this matter in Committee. The original clause was withdrawn and was reproduced as clause 1. I suspect that, following the debate in Committee, new clause 1A was added to address the issue.
  Mr. Trimble indicated assent.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I see that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) nods in agreement. I do not believe that he sought to mislead the Committee, although I understand why the hon. Member for Leicester, South said so. The hon. Member for Upper Bann quoted what I said in Committee to support his argument, but in Committee he made it clear that he is much too good a lawyer not to expect other hon. Members to quote different parts of my speeches in Committee to counter his argument. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, South for doing so and for saving me the trouble.
  I repeat what I said in Committee: the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces already have considerable powers to examine and establish people's identities. There is no evidence that the RUC experience any major problems in establishing people's identities. This point was made in Committee by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and it remains as true now as it was then.
  I am told that it would be technically feasible to produce an identity card and even one that would be difficult to forge, although there would be no guarantee that it would be impossible to forge. However, even if such a card were produced, all it would show was that it had been issued by the appropriate authority. It would not necessarily identify the individual who was holding it. It would not prove, for example, that the card had not been fraudulently applied for, or that the information on it was accurate. Accordingly, a sophisticated screening system would be necessary to prevent fraudulent applications.
  7 pm
  Given the scope for abuse with postal applications, a system of personal applications would probably be necessary. The population at which an identity card system would be particularly targeted—terrorists and their supporters—represents considerably less than 1 per cent. of the total population. Whether certain persons fall into this category would not be known to the issuing authority, and, given that consideration, the RUC would probably be the most appropriate issuing authority. However, this would present major resource difficulties for the RUC, and there would also be security reasons for not allowing too much public access to police buildings.
  When the hon. Member for South Down raised some of the practical difficulties, most people could identify with them, whether or not they found them compelling. However, there are even more fundamental difficulties associated with such a scheme in the context of Northern Ireland that the House must bear in mind.
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the argument have asked what would happen to those wishing to come to Northern Ireland who were not normally resident in the Province. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has tried to solve that problem, but the new clause does not answer some of the fundamental difficulties associated with it.
  It is all very well saying that people from the Republic or from Great Britain could get an identity card before
  338
  coming, but where would they get it, from whom and on the basis of what information? How would that information be checked so that we could be sure that it was accurate?
  There are serious problems at the heart of the issue. If that of dealing with people living outside Northern Ireland is put in the context of the United Kingdom, as it might be, some of the difficulties would be lessened, as they would be if it were put in the EC context, but that is not the issue before the House. We are dealing with these two clauses, which relate just to Northern Ireland.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that such a scheme is likely to be a deterrent not only to visitors but to those who have an investment commitment to the Province. Ministers and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies spend a lot of time out and about around the world singing the praises of Northern Ireland—its beauty, its hospitality, the generosity of its people to visitors and the advantage of investing there for the creation of jobs. It does not make sense then to introduce regulations which have no compelling security argument behind them but which would be detrimental to that process.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann for his consistency. He said in Committee that he was not impressed by the civil libertarian argument against identity cards, and he repeated that this evening. Nevertheless, such arguments exist, and they are compelling for some people.
  Rev. William McCrea: When the Minister says that there is no security argument for such a system, is he speaking with the authority of the Police Federation or in his capacity as the responsible Minister?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Member must have seen me turn to address the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to answer that point. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about hearing police officers on television or personally saying that they are in favour of such a system. I do not question what he has told the House. He will want to know that the RUC were consulted on this subject, at senior level, during a major security review in 1988 and they said that they were not in favour of an identification card scheme—for two reasons. First, they did not believe that such a system was necessary; secondly, they said that there would be formidable problems in administering an effective scheme. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point. That is the best and most up-to-date information that I have.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Was that information given by the present Chief Constable or the former Chief Constable, Sir John Hermon, who was always against identity cards?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The advice was given in 1988; the hon. Gentleman will be able to work out the answer to his question from that information.
  We have had a good debate and aired important issues that the House should consider. However, I am not convinced that the uncertain advantages of a compulsory identity card system outweigh the practical difficulties and penalties associated with it, or that the security arguments are compelling in the Northern Ireland context. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann will follow

  339
  the good precedent that he set in Committee and not push the new clause to a vote. If he does so, I must ask the House to resist it.
  Mr. Trimble: As the Minister said, we have had a good debate. It was much longer than the debate we had in Committee, and a wider range of views have been expressed. One of the advantages of the debate is that we have now had a longer and more considered response from the Opposition. In Committee, the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) limited himself to two interventions.
  I am sure that the hon. Member will understand when I say that I must take exception to his suggestion that I intended to, or did, mislead the House. No one could reasonably hold that view. I quoted precisely the words that the Minister used in Committee. The limited and tentative nature of his support for an identity card system was clear from the words that he used and, after quoting those words, I went on to disagree with them in some respects. No one could have been misled then, but if they were, I hope that I have made it clear now.
  The burden of the observations of the hon. Member for Leicester, South and the Minister was that the security forces do not want an identity card system. I am not privy to the advice given by some senior officers in the RUC in 1988 but, like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I have often heard members of the security forces refer to this system. I believe that the Northern Ireland Police Federation, like the Police Federation of England and Wales, as evidenced by the article that was coincidentally published this week, is in favour of it.
  It is a constant wonder to those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland how advice from senior levels of the RUC so often seems to contradict our experience and what we hear at almost all other levels of the RUC from those people to whom we speak when we come across them. Those views never seem to be expressed by people speaking to us. We could all benefit from such experiences.
  The Minister of State said that this was a debate on Northern Ireland emergency provisions, not a debate on the United Kingdom or Europe. He was right to say that, strictly, some of these matters are not relevant, but such a narrow approach is not altogether realistic. Issues overlap, and form part of the background. I appreciate that there would be difficulties in operating this scheme on a purely Northern Ireland basis, but I am convinced that, even on that limited basis, there would be advantages, and that we must explore these matters further.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) was worried about tampering with identity cards, and he referred to smart cards. Last year, the Home Affairs Select Committee argued in its seventh report for smart cards. I hope that the hon. Gentleman noticed that I did not argue for them. Cards could be tampered with. The system could be broken into and be open to abuse. I am not an expert and am prepared to be guided by those who are experts in this matter, but it may be safer to have a simpler card that relates to information held in security force data banks.
  The new clause does not attempt to deal with all the points of detail. It is an authorising, empowering provision, which leaves it open to the Secretary of State to
  340
  make regulations. We would expect regulations to deal with many of the points made in the debate, particularly some of the Minister's.
  Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties that would arise for visitors, and I agree that they would arise. I do not think that they can be avoided if security measures are to be taken. Significant numbers of people move back and forth between Northern Ireland and other places. At certain times of the year when thousands of people travel, hon. Members are occasionally caught up in huge queues at Heathrow, but the people involved travel year in and year out; they would need to get an identity card only once, or they could use other identity documents, if that were provided for by regulations. The problems could be overcome.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) raised some interesting points which got him into some difficulty with hon. Members, especially when he said that it was strange that such an argument should come from our Benches, because it suggested that we wanted to create second-class citizens. He was not being integrationist; he was using the words ironically. I am sure that he appreciates the danger of irony because it often backfires; he will learn from that experience.
  The hon. Member for South Down asked about the age from which people would carry identity cards. I am not old enough to remember it personally, but I believe that identity cards were carried by the entire population during the war. That answers his point.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what the penalties would be. They would be a matter for the regulations. We have referred in previous debates to European precedents. In France, citizens are arrested if they cannot produce an identity card and are given four hours to find it. In Spain, people are given time to produce their card on request. Similar arrangements exist in Germany. A range of procedures could be followed, but I suspect that the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) would be the simplest procedure.
  The hon. Member for South Down complained about my suggestion that the identity cards could be used in connection with information held in security force data banks and was worried about what that might lead to. This week, an article in Police states:
  "In Denmark … they record data from the cards onto computers. This information includes health service numbers, criminal records and even the number of a library ticket."
  That procedure does not seem to have worried the Danes. We should bear that information in mind when objections are made on a civil liberties or human rights basis.
  The hon. Member for South Down referred to a practice which I mentioned earlier, whereby identity cards are logged on security force computers and tagged by reference to their owners' perceived activities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulties that people face when buying second-hand cars. He will realise that an identity card system would remove those difficulties, because the information would be tagged by reference to the identity card rather than the vehicle. I trust that there will not be a market in second-hand identity cards.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. McGrady: The hon. Member obviously did not pick up my point correctly. I said that, as many members of the security forces are on short-term duties in Northern

  341
  Ireland, presentation of an identity card by, for example, me would assist them in determining whether I was a terrorist or suspected terrorist. That could happen only if that card were accompanied by computerised data about which I knew nothing but which showed whether I was such a person. If that information is not attached, the card is just a piece of plastic which is entirely useless for security purposes.
  Mr. Trimble: That is what I said in introducing the new clause—that there should be a link between an identity card and a computer database. That system exists. The hon. Gentleman talked earlier about the difficulties that some card owners would face. My point is that they would not get into difficulties if there were an identity card system.
  Mr. McGrady: I would not know what information was held about me.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman has repeated his concern about not knowing what data were held on him. I do not know what data are held on me.
  Mr. McGrady: The hon. Member should know.
  Mr. Trimble: People in Northern Ireland do not know what data are held on them. I am not sure that we should know. I am not sure that I want to know. By a roundabout route, I once discovered information held on security force files about me that was utterly wrong, but I thought that it was quite a joke. That would make an interesting story which I will not repeat. Anyone who wants to find out the whole story can see me outside.
  Mr. McGrady: On a point of information, let me explain what has happened in other circumstances. Some of my constituents have lost their jobs because of incorrect data held by the security forces. On only one occasion was I successful in getting an accusation rebutted and the person involved restored to his job. One has no control over the data. If that is acceptable to the hon. Member, democracy is down the drain.
  Mr. Trimble: We could pursue that matter at some length. There are several unknowns. One cannot assume that the information is always incorrect. We appreciate that there is a serious risk in Northern Ireland and that serious measures must be taken in response, just as they have been and will continue to be taken. Occasionally, inconveniences fall on innocent people. We expect people in the community to support the need for these measures and to accept inconveniences where they arise. That is necessary and it applies in respect of identity cards as well.
  I was encouraged by some support during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who expressed his support, just as he did in Committee, although he supported cards on a United Kingdom basis. Perhaps such a system will end the anomalies that may arise by operating on a Northern Ireland basis only.
  The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) also supported an identity card system, although on a United Kingdom basis. I can think of no better way of concluding than by quoting the hon. Gentleman's exact words, and I hope that I do not mislead the House by doing so. The hon. Member said:
  "I see no reason why an identity card should not be used throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern
  342
  Ireland. I firmly believe that the only people who would object are cranks and those who are up to no good—the latter are the very people we want to trace quickly and bring to justice". —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 January 1991; c. 325.]
  That sums up the matter in a nutshell.
  In view of the wide-ranging discussion we have had on this matter, my hon. Friends and I are confident that this cause will continue to progress. We believe that there is significant support for an identity card system, and we are encouraged that we are winning the argument on this matter. Consequently, I do not intend to press the motion to a Division but will seek to withdraw it, as I did in Committee. I am sorry if I have disappointed hon. Members who sought otherwise.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

New Clause 2

  MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE
  'If the Attorney General for Northern Ireland is of the opinion that a conviction may be unsatisfactory or unsafe in the light of relevant evidence which was not available to the court at the time of conviction and at the time of any subsequent upholding of the conviction, he shall refer the case to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal for further consideration.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The purpose of the new clause is to uncover Government thinking on miscarriages of justice in Northern Ireland. We are also thinking of the consideration that the Secretary of State is giving to the case of the Ulster Defence Regiment Four, otherwise known as the Armagh Four. The new clause also deals with possible mechanisms that could be introduced to deal with suspected failures of justice.
  The report of Sir John May on the implications of the Guildford Four case for the criminal justice system in England and Wales will soon be submitted. The conclusions that Sir John reaches, having examined all the factors involved, must be tackled by Northern Ireland Ministers. The new clause seeks to explore Government thinking on that and it gives hon. Members who wish to do so the opportunity to raise issues that they believe to he relevant to the case of the UDR Four.
  We do not make any pretence that the new clause represents the best or the only way in which to tackle problems of miscarriages of justice in Northern Ireland. We do not intend to suggest that such miscarriages of justice are excessively frequent in Northern Ireland. Fortunately, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland has a good reputation, particularly on the supergrass trials. There is only one case that has gone to that court that has aroused great emotion and confusion in the community —that of the Armagh Four.
  There is a need to consider ways in which such miscarriages of justice can be resolved, especially given the sensitive nature of public confidence in the administration

  343
  of justice in Northern Ireland. That is a fragile commodity and there is a paramount need for an effective, corrective mechanism in Northern Ireland.
  The present law is embodied in section 14 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which gives the Secretary of State discretionary power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal when he believes that some new evidence or factor not available at the time of the trial has come to light. It is on the basis of that particular power that the Secretary of State is now considering the fresh material submitted by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland in the case of the UDR Four.
  Our solution to the problem is to take away the Secretary of State's present role when considering possible miscarriages of justice. It is hard for the ordinary citizen to distinguish between the semi-judicial and political roles of the Attorney-General, but it is infinitely more difficult for people to distinguish between the high profile political role adopted by the Secretary of State and his quasi-judicial one when he discusses evidence before him. We believe that the Attorney-General, in his capacity as Law Officer, would be more suitable than the Secretary of State to handle such cases. It might be thought that the Secretary of State has responded to particular political pressures in certain cases.
  The case of the Armagh Four is happily the only major case of possible miscarriage of justice in Northern Ireland. On this island, however, we have had the cases of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire family. The Armagh Four are four members of the UDR who are contesting their convictions for murder. It is not for me to declare their guilt or innocence, but the Secretary of State will know of my concern from correspondence that I had with his predecessor. Members of the families of some of those convicted have approached me and I am aware of the unease felt not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom about the safety of the convictions.
  Obviously, the interests of justice and public confidence in the criminal legal system demand that the evidence collected by the supporters of the Armagh Four, some of whom may speak later in the debate, should be scrutinised by the Court of Appeal as quickly as possible. We hope that the Government will introduce a long-term mechanism that will obviate the need for my previous remarks, and prevent the need for such long-drawn-out campaigns by many people in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
  7.30 pm
  The interests of justice demand a self-correcting mechanism in the criminal legal system which will remove the need for outside pressure. A booklet has been produced by campaigners who support the case for the retrial of the UDR Four. Point 8 in the introduction makes an interesting and valid comment on which I should like the Minister of State to comment. The compilers of the dossier say:
  "We contend that the referral of this case to the Court of Appeal will have been brought to the point of inevitability by the contents of this dossier."
  That is a matter for judgment, but it is the opinion of the people who prepared the dossier, which continues:
  344
  "However, the Secretary of State might also like to consider whether or not it would be more appropriate that there be a police inquiry by another force … such as preceded the resolution of the Guildford case. More particularly, not that an investigation has commenced, the scope and remit must be widened and the legal representatives of the men should be given access to all the relevant material."
  That is important and it is necessary for it to be carried out.
  The May report will no doubt contain many important recommendations, but it is not for us to guess what they will be. It is important carefully to consider the need for an independent forensic service in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That has been shown by the English cases, and the need has also been shown by what is happening, or may have happened, in Northern Ireland.
  Cases such as that of the Armagh Four always arouse great emotions. In a contentious situation the attitude of the Secretary of State or any other Minister is bound to create controversy on both sides of the community. It is vital that both sides of the community have absolute confidence in the administration of justice. Taking away decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State because of the existing law and putting them in the hands of the Attorney-General or into some other mechanism, if one can be found—we are not bound by the details of our proposal—would make a judicial decision less politically flawed. Already, too many decisions in Northern Ireland have caused grave questions to be asked not about the judges, but about Ministers.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful to the Opposition for the new clause because it enables us to debate a case that is vital to the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. I approached the Secretary of State about this matter and he graciously responded and said that he certainly would be prepared to consider any evidence that we would prepare and put to him. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were appointed by our party to consider the preparation of a dossier. The remit was widened and a committee of all interested parties was set up and prepared the dossier from which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has quoted.
  The Secretary of State has received that document and has assured me and my colleague, the leader of the Official Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), that he is giving it careful attention. The Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in this matter. I urge on him the necessity of a speedy decision because at the end of the day his decision is really a referral to a court which will decide whether there is a case to be answered and whether the weight of the new evidence is such that it would be unsafe to uphold the verdict of a previous court.
  I am convinced that the weight of the new evidence and some of the facts that have come to light cast considerable suspicion and a shadow upon certain witnesses upon whose word the judge largely depended in his summing up. The statements of those witnesses have been challenged and seem to be seriously flawed.
  I am alarmed by a matter that was brought to light by Mrs. Mairead Maguire, who was better known to many of us as Mairead Corrigan during the high days of the peace movement in Northern Ireland. Mrs. Maguire has been looking at the case of the UDR Four and at the part played by two well-known Roman Catholic priests, Father

  345
  Faul and Father Murray. In a letter Mrs. Maguire says that she accepts what the dossier states about her role in this matter. There is no challenge to what is contained in the dossier.
  Mrs. Maguire said that the two priests had collected certain evidence against the UDR in this case but that they would not give it to the Royal Ulster Constabulary until they had undertakings from the Chief Constable and higher authority. Those undertakings were:
  "1. That an entire UDR patrol, operating in the North of the city, should be arrested by Police Officers from another locality.
  2. That the UDR soldiers should be taken to a holding centre other than Gough Barracks, namely, Castlereagh.
  3. Interrogating Officers should be of Senior Rank and again the majority of these officers, preferably completely unknown to any of the Soldiers."
  Until those undertakings were given and carried out, the priests were not prepared to present the evidence that they had collected.
  It is troubling to know that certain people can go to the authorities and ask for something to be done before they are prepared to bring forward evidence. I am alarmed at the fact that it has been established beyond doubt that when RUC officers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment are brought before a court on charges relating to violence or terrorist crimes, the authorities go the double mile to make the defence case difficult to present. In prison, they even lose the facilities that are given to members of the IRA and other organisations. In case after case, I have had great difficulty obtaining even the elementary parole that was due to some police officers. I have raised that matter before and I find it difficult to understand.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that all classes in Northern Ireland should feel that they have recourse to justice and that justice will not only be seen to be done but will eventually be done. Whoever it is, that should he established in their mind. But when I talk to the families of police officers and members of the UDR who have been charged with such crimes, it is apparent that even in prison their membership of the security forces is held against them, and that is not right. I trust that the Secretary of State will take that on board this evening.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling the new clause, but he knows that I do not agree with it. I do not want the Attorney-General to have this power because if he did we would not be having a debate such as this. All sorts of judicial barriers would be put up and Mr. Speaker would be telling us that we should proceed in accordance with the motion and it is unlikely that I would be able to table such a motion so there would be no opportunity to discuss such a matter. Therefore, I am arguing tonight that the Secretary of State should retain and exercise the power.
  I come to the authority upon which the judge seemed to rest when he gave his verdict—witness A. I am sure that all hon. Members will be amazed to hear something of what happened to witness A. Witness A had some terrible things to say when she appeared on Radio Telefis Eireann about how she found herself having to give evidence against the UDR men. There is also a typescript of a telephone conversation between witness A and Mr. Hegan. In that, she states clearly that the two officers who were interrogating her said that
  "they were bad boys and that no judge in the land would ever let them out. He said that if they get out and they kill someone, he says, it will be your fault for letting them out …
  346
  because they'll murder all round them. I said I didn't believe they done it. He said 'They done it all right'. So what d'you want me to … what do you expect me to believe?"
  We cannot try anyone in the House, nor can anyone be tried on television, but when a question mark is placed over evidence given on oath on which the judge largely relied, and said that he did, there must be an inquiry. I urge the Secretary of State to do his level best to bring his inquiries to a speedy conclusion. As I have said, he is not passing a verdict——
  Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the UDR Four request and desire is that justice now be done and be seen to be done in their case?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. That is why I say that the Secretary of State is not asked to give a verdict; he is asked to say that the court should have another look at the evidence. We are asking the Secretary of State for a referral.
  7.45 pm
  I am also worried about the electrostatic data analysis reports from the police. I do not know why those have riot been made available. I have talked to the Chief Constable about the matter. The fact that he has set up an inquiry into the matter arouses suspicion. If he feels that he has to appoint a high ranking officer to investigate the ESDA reports, there must be something to investigate. Those reports need to be made public. Certainly the lawyers for those four young men should have them. I urge the Secretary of State to come to a speedy conclusion on the matter.
  As I have said in an early-day motion, this matter affects a wide range of people in Northern Ireland. It casts its shadow across the Province. If some members of the police force have acted wrongly and illegally, they must be brought to justice and dealt with. There cannot be and must not be any cover-up. After all, those four young men put their own lives at risk by joining the UDR. They could have had their lives taken from them; they could have been shot by the IRA if they had continued to serve in the regiment.
  Bearing in mind that the four were members of the UDR, a regiment of the British Army set up by the House, and bearing in mind what the people who are not sympathetic to the Loyalist position have been saying—I salute them because they are prepared to face up to the matter—it is imperative that the Secretary of State refer the matter to the court as quickly as possible. I make that personal plea tonight with all the passion of my heart, having known the young men and their families for years and having known what they have gone through. Then the court can give them a proper trial and the allegations in the dossier can be tested in a court of law. The people against whom they have been made will have the opportunity to rebut them if they are able to do so. No man should be seen as guilty before he is proved guilty.
  There are many other matters in the dossier that I could read to the House, but I will not do so. Through the extracts that I have read, I have tried to show just how serious the matter is. I urge the Secretary of State tonight to give some hope to the four young men and to their families that the country that they have sought to serve so faithfully and well is prepared to give them the right that every British citizen should have—the right to British justice.
  Mr. William Ross: New clause 2 is entitled "Miscarriages of Justice". I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and to his hon. Friends for giving the House an opportunity to debate the unfortunate consequences of such incidents.
  Given human nature, there is always a chance that something will go wrong with the legal process. When miscarriages of justice occur, they are blots not only on the police, as the investigating officers, but on the the defence and prosecution solicitors and barristers, the judiciary, and the community in general. We have every right to feel deeply concerned when miscarriages occur, and we should do all that we can to make amends.
  I was once involved in a case in which an individual admitted to murder when questioned by the police, pleaded guilty to murder—it was a particularly vile murder at a farmhouse—and was given a long sentence. As a constituent of mine, he subsequently wrote to me. Like most Members of Parliament who are contacted by prisoners, at first I wondered whether he was not just another of the innocent men of which prisons seem to be full whenever one speaks to their inmates. That prisoner also wrote to Mr. Douglas, who represented a Londonderry constituency at Stormont—and as the murdered man was a neighbour of his, both Mr. Douglas and myself started our own investigations.
  Mr. Douglas visited the farmyard where the murder took place. By then, we both had a good idea of the contents of the convicted man's statements. We discovered that he had described not the yard in which the murder had actually been committed, but one a mile or so down the road. We were left in an extremely difficult situation. Mr. Douglas and I went to see the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who was then a Northern Ireland Minister. If the Secretary of State cares to talk to the right hon. Member for Chelsea, I am sure that he will recall this clearly. We put our views to that Minister, having discussed the case at considerable length with the police. Eventually, the right hon. Member for Chelsea, the police, and ourselves were thoroughly convinced that something was wrong, but we were in some dilemma as to what could be done.
  The matter was eventually resolved when another individual made a statement to the police indicating that he had driven the car that had taken a group of robbers to the farmhouse where the murder had taken place. Unfortunately for my constituent still in prison, that witness subsequently committed suicide. We found ourselves in an even more difficult situation. We were in possession of a confession from a dead man, another man was in prison, and there was evidence that seemed to cast a deep shadow of doubt over the safeness of the conviction.
  As it happened, my constituent was released some months later. Nevertheless, that experience brought home to me the necessity of collaborative evidence. It is well known that whenever a murder occurs—the more vile its nature, the more likely this is to happen—there is a queue of people waiting to claim the credit for it. That happened even when the death penalty was still in force.
  Police questioning techniques have moved on, and the police can play on the psychology of the suspect and exert considerable pressure. There is a danger that people admit to crimes that they did not commit, which is why we need more than a signed confession. When the innocent are
  348
  convicted, or convict themselves, the unfortunate consequence is that the guilty escape due retribution for their wicked deeds. The case that I described makes me view with somewhat less jaundiced eyes those individuals who, having been convicted, then claim that they are not guilty. I begin to wonder whether they are not further examples of the type of case in which I was involved.
  I know nothing of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, or the Maguire family, because they have little to do with Londonderry, East. Nor have I concerned myself with the case of the UDR Four, to which a large part of the debate has been devoted, because they were from the constituency of a late colleague, Mr. Harold McCusker. I well remember his reaction whenever a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment was charged with murder. He was exceedingly angry that the regiment was once again being besmirched.
  When Harold McCusker first talked to the UDR Four, he was a very troubled man—and he was not a fool, as those right hon. and hon. Members who knew him can testify. He undertook extensive investigations, and I understand that his wife is still associated with the committee involved with the UDR Four. The more he examined the facts, the more convinced he became of the innocence of those individuals and that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice.
  I have not been personally involved, but since Harold's death, other hon. Members have taken an interest in that case—not least the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), party leaders, and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who has reported fully to the members of his party. Having myself heard the results of investigations, I have grown more and more concerned. The powerful case being made for the UDR Four should be fully investigated, and a completely fresh look should be taken at what appears to be a most dreadful miscarriage of justice, with four soldiers serving life sentences for murder.
  Complaints are sometimes made about the fragility of justice in Northern Ireland. However, in the face of the most dreadful provocation and difficulties, it has proved far more robust than in England—to judge from the number of people apparently being found not guilty after serving many years in prison.
  Frankly, I am not one of those to call for speedy decisions, in the light of my experience in investigating one such case. I want careful and deep consideration to be given to this matter, and not a precipitate announcement. I want the matter to be thoroughly investigated and I want the truth to come out for the good of all concerned, because that is the safest and the wisest way to proceed.
  In all four cases with which we have been concerned —three in England and one in Northern Ireland—where people have been tried and convicted, it would appear that in England the police reached quick decisions and acted upon them, that people were convicted and that on every occasion the guilty have escaped.
  8 pm
  Certain questions follow on from that regarding police activities after the trials were over and convictions had been handed down. Did the police consider that their work was done in each of those cases? Did they stop asking questions? Did they close the files? Did they forget about the 21 people who died in a Birmingham pub? Did they forget about all the folk who died as a result of the alleged

  349
  activities of the other accused? If so, people are walking around who committed those murders and who have got away with them because the police did not do their jobs properly and because, frankly, the courts and the lawyers did not do their jobs properly. That is a real blot on the legal system in this country, and it must be tackled and corrected because the people of this country cannot afford to lose faith in the judicial system or in the capacity of the police—whether the RUC in Northern Ireland or any of the police forces in England—to carry out efficient, in-depth investigations that enable them to lay their hands on the guilty, rather than condemn the innocent. It is a serious matter, which will not go away.
  We are grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and to his hon. Friends for tabling the new clause. Our discussions have perhaps wandered rather far from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill but this matter had to be aired in the House, and aired rather bluntly.
  I have investigated one such case in my constituency. The individual concerned was eventually released on licence. In the light of all that has happened since, I wonder whether that decision should not also be reconsidered and a fresh trial granted to that man, who has now been free for some years. The fact that he is still under licence is not a satisfactory outcome for him.
  If the four Ulster Defence Regiment men, or any of the other people mentioned, were to be released on licence, the blot would remain. That blot must be removed if they are innocent; and if they are not, proof of the guilt should be put beyond any reasonable doubt.
  There is more to say, but I think that all the necessary things have been said about these cases many times over. I should prefer the matter to remain with the Secretary of State for a decision rather than going to the Attorney-General. I find it easier to talk to another politician than to a legal man. No matter how much I may disagree with the politician, at least we can keep on hammering at him, time after time, in this place. That is a good reason to let the matter rest with the Secretary of State for a decision, and that is the only quibble that I have with the new clause.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will carry the provisions of the new clause into effect. In his opening remarks he said that the reason for the new clause was to explore the Government's mind. The hon. Member may rest assured of one thing—he has put his view, hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have put their views, and we now wait with interest to find out what the mind of the Government is.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I should like to add my voice to those who have thanked the shadow Secretary of State for tabling this new clause, which has given us an opportunity to speak on an issue of some considerable importance to people in Northern Ireland, none more so than the four men who have been imprisoned for the past seven years as a result of a miscarriage of justice.
  At least in its more candid moments, the House will recognise that miscarriages of justice occur. Happily, however infrequently that may happen, this is not a perfect world. From time to time, either people who enforce law and order in Northern Ireland or members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland make mistakes. It is quite clear that one such mistake was the conviction of four men arising out of the murder of Adrian Carroll on 8 November 1983. Four of the six men who appeared before the court were
  350
  convicted—all were members of an Ulster Defence Regiment patrol. The men were charged with murder and the basis of the Crown case against them was that together, and with others, they had conspired to murder a well-known republican, Adrian Carroll, and that they had done so in a premeditated fashion.
  The Crown described the way in which they had carried out the murder. To support its contention, it had signed statements from five of the men before the court and a statement from a witness, known as Mrs. A. The Crown had another and, in my view, more important witness—indeed, the only witness who was able to give evidence that she saw the gunman. She was the only eye-witness to the killing of Adrian Carroll. She was brought by the Crown to the court and was never broken down during cross-examination or by evidence in chief. She testified that the gunman she saw on the day of the killing was smaller than she was—she is 5 ft 4 in—and that he was not the person charged with murder, Neil Latimer. That was the evidence given by the Crown's eye-witness.
  The eye-witness to the event had clearly testified that, not only was the person in court and arraigned as being the gunman not the gunman; it was someone considerably smaller. Neil Latimer is 5 ft 10 in and the estimated height of the gunman is 5 ft 2 in. There were a number of other witnesses to a pattern of events on the day of the killing which was considerably different from the pattern suggested by the Crown. Mrs. A, who was not at the scene of the crime, identified Neil Latimer close to Armagh on that day in dress similar to that which Elaine Faulkner, the single eye-witness, had said that the gunman was wearing. That produced a link for the Crown between the evidence of witness A, who said that she had seen Neil Latimer, and the events that took place in Abbey street in Armagh.
  To all intents and purposes, the signed statements of the men in question led to their convictions. As I said, more than four men appeared before the court, but the case against one man was thrown out precisely because the court recognised that undue pressure had been applied to him under interrogation. It recognised that the police had behaved in a way in which they were not entitled to behave to secure a signed confession from the man. The same judge could not, however, accept that the same pressure could have been applied to the four other men before him, or that their signed statements could have resulted from physical or mental torture by the RUC.
  The four men gave evidence to the effect that they had not signed their statements willingly, and that the statements had not been written by them but had been concocted by others. The most important evidence against the four was represented by those signed statements of admission, which suggested a pattern of events that fitted the evidence of witness A.
  As the two pillars of the case against the four were their signed statements and the evidence of witness A, the judge, in finding the four soldiers guilty, was disregarding the evidence of the one eye-witness who had testified that the accused was not the gunman, the evidence of the Archbishop's gardener, who had seen the gunman depart in a different direction from that mentioned in the Crown case, the evidence of a police patrol who had been on the road by which, according to the Crown case, the gunman had left, but had not seen him, the evidence of a resident of Abbey street who said that the man who had shot Adrian Carroll had left by a different route from that described by the Crown, and the evidence of other

  351
  members of the UDR who had been in the same patrol as the four men. If the four were guilty, they were not guilty alone; nine other guilty men are outside prison. The Crown case was that the entire patrol was involved in the murder. I should add that the judge also went against the evidence of the four men.
  Since the appeal, much new evidence has come to light. Like the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), I live some distance from the constituency, and I felt that the matter did not directly involve me. No one from the constituency had come to see me. Some years later, however, I met the mother of one of the four men by chance at a wedding. She told me, "My son is serving a life sentence in prison for a crime of which he is not guilty."
  I confess that at the time I thought, "Well, she would say that, wouldn't she?". Naturally a mother would find it hard to believe that her son might be guilty of murder. The lady—Christian lady that she was—said that she would send me some papers to try to convince me. Of course, I expressed willingness to read any papers that she sent. I was rather surprised when, about a week later, the papers arrived. She had sent me the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It struck me as strange that someone who was trying to convince me of her son's innocence should send me the judgment that had convicted him rather than, for instance, her counsel's summation of the case in his defence.
  I read the judgment. On five or six occasions, the Lord Chief Justice had had to consider whether to take the side of the Crown or that of the defence in order to settle a matter of contention. Each time, he had come down in favour of the Crown. Whenever there was doubt, he gave the Crown the benefit of the doubt. I had always thought that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused, especially in murder cases, in which sentences of life imprisonment can be imposed.
  8.15 pm
  After reading that lengthy judgment, my initial scepticism diminished. I was no longer sure that the conviction was safe. I could not and did not say at that stage, either publicly or privately, that I believed the men to be innocent, but I asked the lady to send me more documentation—a request that I regretted somewhat on the arrival of a 4ft-high pile of transcripts of both the original trial and the appeal.
  As I waded through those papers, I became convinced beyond doubt that the conviction was insecure. The more I read, the more doubt I felt. I met the families of the convicted men. At that time, the only campaign for their release was the one promoted by their families. They had no new evidence then, apart from a transcript of what had been said by witness A on an RTE programme. That transcript had been given to the Secretary of State's predecessor, who had judged that it did not amount to new evidence that would justify the referral of the case to the Court of Appeal with a recommendation for a retrial.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was, however, promised that, if we provided a dossier of new evidence, the Secretary of State would consider it carefully. About 18 months ago, we set about putting the dossier together. We suspected then that it might take us two or three weeks, but the more that we
  352
  delved into the case, the more doubt entered our minds, the more queries were raised and the more new evidence was unearthed.
  At that point, the two props that had held up the prosecution case in court were pulled away. There can be only two ways of drawing the statements signed by the two men into question, both of which are forensic. The most direct is a test known as syntax analysis—a linguistic test involving the examination of the formation of words and sentences, from which it aims to determine whether the words and sentences used in the text in question could have been uttered or written by its supposed author. The authority on that test is Professor Andrew Morton, of Edinburgh university. He has considerable expertise, and has been employed in cases elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as well as in the United States and Australia. He has written many books about his work, which is considered completely accurate.
  Professor Morton was given copies of letters written by the four UDR members, and their so-called statements of admission. When he compared the two, he reached a definite conclusion and when I spoke to him on the telephone, he described his findings plainly. I approached the subject almost sideways. I did not want to imply an answer in the terms in which I put my question; I made it clear that I wanted his view. I asked him whether any concern arose from his study of the letters and the statements of admission. He replied:
  "There is cause for more than concern, there is cause for alarm. They"—
  the confessions—
  "are quite unsatisfactory. Not one of them is a genuine confession of the accused."
  That man has considerable experience in the subject. He studied each of the confessions and determined that not one of them was genuine. In more detail, he suggested that the statements had been concocted by more than one person, which fits with the views expressed by the four men concerned, who said that their so-called confessions were concocted by the interviewing officers and that they were forced to sign them. Syntax analysis establishes that the so-called statements of confession were not made by the four purported authors of them.
  The second way to assess the accuracy, and therefore the relevance, of signed confessions is the electrostatic data analysis technique. The legal representatives of the families of the four men asked the RUC to carry out ESDA tests on the interview notes. The Chief Constable of the RUC was given a preliminary report by the forensic science laboratory, presumably because of its concern about the results of the tests. The preliminary tests showed that a considerable number of alterations had been made.
  The laboratory considered about 200 documents, and the ESDA tests showed that changes had been made to almost every page of the interview notes. In some cases, there was a multiplicity of changes in the interview notes.
  The initial test results fuelled the concern of the Chief Constable who, rightly and properly, before awaiting the final document, asked one of his senior officers to carry out an investigation. He would not have ordered such an investigation because somebody had not spelt a word right, because their grammar was not right or because they got the name of a town or place wrong. Such an investigation would be ordered only if changes of some significance had been made. The Chief Constable admitted by his statement that the ESDA tests caused some concern

  353
  about the authenticity of the interview notes. The syntax and ESDA tests question the correctness of the so-called signed statements of confession, which were one of the main pillars, if not the main pillar, of the prosecution case.
  As the statements were supported by the evidence of witness A, we must consider how that evidence stands up in the light of the fresh evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North mentioned how the process began. Witness A called in two parish priests who assisted her—I use that term having considered fully the consequences of it—to put her statement into writing. During the court case, it was recognised that she signed her name on seven blank pieces of paper and that the statement was included afterwards.
  As I understand it, the priests went to the local police chiefs and said, "We have evidence which implicates members of the Ulster Defence Regiment in the murder of Adrian Carroll." The natural response of the police chief to whom they spoke was, "I hope that is not true." On hearing that, the priests felt that the police were reluctant to take action against the UDR men and said, "We shall take our statement elsewhere."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North said, according to Mairead Maguire of the peace people and Mr. and Mrs. Bell, the father and mother of one of the four UDR men, Father Faul admitted to them that he went to see the Chief Constable and someone higher. I shall not abuse the rules of the House by naming that person because I have no evidence against him, but as it is an hon. Member I am being particularly cautious. They were given three undertakings before they handed over the statement: first, that the RUC would arrest a patrol of the UDR; secondly—this was a fairly understandable concession—that they would be interviewed by officers who did not know them and who were senior in rank, which is normal interrogation procedure; and, thirdly, that they would be interviewed in Castlereagh holding centre and not Gough barracks. Hon. Members are wondering why on earth Father Faul, who has castigated Castlereagh holding centre, would want the men held there rather than at Gough barracks. Presumably, he sought to get them moved further from the location in which they were known. Therefore, before the statement of evidence was given to the Chief Constable of the RUC, an undertaking had been given to arrest a patrol of the UDR.
  Mr. Trimble: If the account that we have heard is correct—I believe that it is—a decision to arrest was made before the evidence was to hand. Therefore, the arrest was not only unlawful but the decision to arrest people was taken with the participation of someone higher than the Chief Constable. If it transpires that that person was an hon. Member and perhaps a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, that was grave interference by a member of the Executive in a quasi-judicial decision, which is quite unprecedented and has grave constitutional implications that should be explored.
  Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right. That incident has given rise to wide-ranging ramifications —if Father Faul's statement is true. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the Secretary of State was being asked to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for retrial and to consider whether it might be appropriate for a further investigation to be
  354
  carried out. That is an important point that needs to be underlined, especially given the special circumstances of this case.
  8.30 pm
  In relation to witness A's statement, the agreement had apparently been entered in before it was in the hands of the police or even of its Chief Constable. That would be very bad if it happened in connection with any member of the general public, but we are talking about a patrol of the British Army—about members of our security forces. The fact that an undertaking was given to arrest members of the security forces without seeing any evidence against them seems totally absurd. However, I shall not labour that point because my general point relates to the validity of the evidence of witness A.
  After her statement was handed over, the RUC presumably started to question witness A and to get details from her. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North has said, a transcript is now available of a telephone conversation between witness A and the father of one of the four men who has been convicted. It is available in the dossier and I have the original tape. It contains several points of importance suggesting that witness A was pressurised at various stages when she was giving evidence.
  In court, when the accused person to whom I referred earlier was discharged because it was felt that undue pressure had been applied to him, witness A telephoned the parents of one of the four UDR men and said, "I am unhappy at what is happening in court and I intend to retract my evidence." One can imagine the feelings in the home of the parents of that young UDR man when they were informed that the witness upon whom the prosecution was relying intended to retract her evidence. Naturally, the parents informed their legal representative who, next day, sought to have witness A recalled so that she would be in a position to retract. During that day, the court was informed that witness A was not available, but that she would be brought to court on the following Monday. The telephone transcript showed that witness A was not only available, but was ready to go to court. However, instead of being brought to the court, she was deliberately taken instead to Mahon road police station where she was pressurised not to retract, but to stand by her evidence.
  According to witness A's own mouth, therefore, the police had deliberately obstructed justice from being done and the Crown counsel had unknowingly misled the court by stating that the witness was unavailable, no doubt on the basis of the information that had been received from the police. As has already been recorded in Hansard, the remarks were attributed to witness A because she was told that those men were murderers; that the police knew that they were murderers, and that if she did not stand by her evidence, the blood that they would shed in the future would be upon her.
  If witness A is to be believed, there are serious consequences for the RUC. However, I do not believe that witness A is to be believed. It was unknown to us at the time of the trial, at the time of the appeal and until recently, but it has been established, that witness A has twice been in a mental institution for what was termed "a psychopathic personality". I am informed that her medical history notes that:
  "(a) she is a danger to herself and to her children.
  (b) she is … persecuted.

  355
  (c) she is inclined to be jealous.
  (d) she is very unstable, emotionally varying from depression to aggressive tendencies … demanding to get out of hospital yet due to her attitudes and threats one could not allow her to do so.
  (e) she is suffering from a mixed psychoneurotic reaction.
  She was recorded as suffering from:—

  (1) Obsessional fears or thoughts.

  (2) Disturbance of behaviour and activity.

  (3) Delusions and misinterpretations."

  I repeat that the Crown's key witness is someone whose mental history shows that she suffers from delusions and misinterpretations.
  Under the new clause, it will be the Attorney-General—at present it is the Secretary of State—who has the job of referring such cases to the Court of Appeal. Knowing what we now know about witness A's background and the evidence about the confessions, I ask the House how anyone could possibly believe that, if the judge at the trial or the judges at the appeal had had that information available to them, they would not have arrived at a different conclusion. In my view, it is a probability—at the very least, it must be a distinct possibility. Furthermore, there is other and additional new evidence. Therefore, the job of the Secretary of State, or what would be the job of the Attorney-General if we adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, is to decide whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal so that it might consider the strengths and depths of the new evidence that is available to us.
  There is no longer any need for the Secretary of State to wait for the final report from the RUC, the result of its investigations into the ESDA tests, or of the investigation into the interviewing officers who have to explain away why changes were made in the interview notes. If one sets aside the ESDA tests, there are still compelling reasons—indeed, an irresistible case—why the Secretary of State must refer that case to the Court of Appeal for a retrial. If he was to do otherwise, it would bring into discredit the whole process of law in Northern Ireland.,
  I happen to believe that, simply because a mistake has been made in the judicial system or in the police system of law and order enforcement, that does not mean that the system is rotten or that it needs to be dragged down; it simply means that a mistake has been made and that it has to be put right. We damage the system more by pretending that a mistake has not occurred and that everything is all right when everybody of four years of age and upwards in Northern Ireland knows that it is not all right. If we were to suggest that our courts and our police are infallible, we might fool ourselves, but we would not fool the people of Northern Ireland or the general public anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
  Mistakes can be made and a mistake has been made. I urge the Secretary of State at the earliest opportunity to send this case to the Court of Appeal. He does not have to decide the innocence or guilt of the four men—and he will be glad that he does not have that onerous responsibility —but he has a responsibility to judge whether there is sufficient new evidence or significant new factors to merit the case going before the Court of Appeal. Having heard what I have said in the past few minutes outlining a part
  356
  of the new evidence, the Secretary of State has an unanswerable case for passing the detail to the Court of Appeal.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I had not intended to speak, but on reflection I felt that I should, because for some time I have been pressing at business questions for the Secretary of State or the Attorney-General to come to the House to make a statement on the case of the UDR Four. Therefore, if I do not speak now, some people may think that I am running away from the issue on the only occasion that we have been able to debate it.
  I should be happier if the new clause referred to the Secretary of State rather than the Attorney-General. I welcome the understanding that the new clause has been tabled to tease out Government thinking. So long as matters are in the realm of the Secretary of State, it will be possible for hon. Members to raise them sooner or later in the Chamber. One can choose different ways of doing so. If a matter is kept strictly within the sphere of the legal fraternity, we cannot get the necessary debate and scrutiny.
  I have been interested in the case since shortly after the four men were arrested and detained in custody prior to trial. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) will remember, if he reads the debate, that I was in correspondence with him about the trial being brought forward quickly, for two reasons. First, I still believe that justice delayed is justice denied. Secondly, I have had grave misgivings over the years about servants of the Crown being imprisoned in the same place as terrorists and ordinary criminals who know their background. Having spent a couple of day in Her Majesty's "hotel" at Crumlin road, and having been there when a young British soldier was brought in, I know the feeling of prison inmates that he should not have been there.
  I pressed for the trial to be brought forward. I was convinced of the innocence of the four men. The case had been brought to my attention by the prison chaplain who asked me, at their request, to visit them. I listened carefully to their story, because I have been around long enough to realise that most people want to paint the best picture of their case. As I probed them, I was absolutely convinced that they had not been party to the crimes of which they were accused. Time elapsed before the trial. I will not go into detail on the trial, but several points lend credence to the belief that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The time has come to put it right by an open examination of the facts.
  I think that it was a previous Secretary of State who suggested in a letter to a colleague that the retraction of the evidence of witness A was unimportant in so far as her evidence did not lead to the conviction but only to the police being able to extract confessions. I may be naive, but I am speaking now in tribute to my young colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Edgar Graham, who was murdered by the IRA. He was one of the brightest young legal brains in the United Kingdom, and respected equally in the United States.
  Sitting on the Assembly bench in Stormont, I said to Edgar, "I cannot understand how anyone would confess to a crime which he had not committed." He said, "I know what you are saying, but all I can say from my legal background is that I have seen it happen time and time

  357
  again. People can be conditioned into saying things that lead to their conviction when they have not been party to the crime."
  Thereafter, I began to look afresh at the case. We have an opportunity in the Chamber to highlight a miscarriage of justice, in the opinion of many people in Northern Ireland. There should be a proper appeal procedure to examine the evidence again and to bring out a new verdict, which I believe, in the light of the information and evidence now available, will be not guilty.
  Servants of the Crown have as much right as others to the protection of the legal system. If we are prepared to allow a right of appeal to others who, so far as we can see, have been improperly convicted, servants of the Crown should not be penalised simply because they were servants of the Crown and there was a reaction because it was felt that they had let the side down. That seems to be the real reason why the case has gone so far.
  I support the thrust of the new clause but dissociate myself from the terminology which would put the Attorney-General in place of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State, who has been listening carefully to the debate, will in the near future come up with the good news that he has asked the Court of Appeal to re-examine the case.
  8.45 pm
  Dr. Mawhinney: We have had an important debate about serious matters. The new clause is headed, "Miscarriages of justice". It is common ground that when miscarriages of justice occur that is an unhappy state of affairs. We are also united in believing, happily, that they do not happen often.
  When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) moved the new clause, he said that he was doing so in a probing fashion, explicitly to permit hon. Members who wished to do so to comment on the case of the UDR Four, as it is commonly known. He has succeeded in that purpose.
  I must deal first with the new clause. As it is a probing new clause, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the probe and will withdraw it. If not, I will have to ask the House to reject it for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary, as it seeks to confer on the Attorney-General a power which, in substance, is already possessed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Secondly, the new clause is drafted in terms which would apply to a conviction for any criminal offence. It is in any case inappropriate for inclusion in an Act which is temporary and is concerned only with an emergency situation. The proper context within which to consider a change of the kind proposed by the hon. Gentleman is legislation on the general criminal law.
  The hon. Gentleman set out the existing law. Under section 14 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. That power is not unique to Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman did not suggest that it is, but I think that he suggested that it is more difficult for someone in a political role to exercise that power. In accordance with the practice followed in England and Wales, and in Scotland, successive Secretaries of State have been prepared to
  358
  exercise the power only when some new evidence or new consideration of substance which was not available to the trial court or at any previous appeal came to light.
  The new clause seems to envisage a reference being made by the Attorney-General in almost exactly the same circumstances. The Attorney-General would refer a case when there was
  "relevant evidence which was not available to the court at the time of conviction and at the time of any subsequent upholding of the conviction".
  The Government's view is that a power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal because there are doubts about the justification for a conviction would more appropriately be exercised by the Secretary of State than the Attorney-General. I think that I am right to say that all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, except the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North sustained that view. It is more appropriate to the Secretary of State, not least because the Attorney-General has responsibilities in connection with the prosecution of certain offences with which the new power might not sit comfortably. We further believe that it would make no sense for similar powers to be possessed by both the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General.
  As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been present throughout the debate. It is worth making that clear for the record. He has listened carefully, as I have, to everything that has been said on the case of the UDR Four. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for expressing his appreciation and, I expect, that of his hon. Friends and others, of the "careful attention"—I use his phrase—which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is giving to the dossier provided to him. That was appreciated. I have also noted that he wishes the matter to be tackled as speedily as possible. That view is endorsed by other hon. Members, but I am sure that they also accept the view of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that processing and consideration should not be so speedy that it is not exhaustive and detailed.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not be justified in referring the case of the former UDR soldiers to the Court of Appeal unless some new and substantial evidence which was not available at the time of the trial or the appeal came to light. The dossier on the case presented to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), to which much reference has been made and from which quotations have been given to the House, was handed over on 10 January this year. As the hon. Gentleman told us, it took more than a year to prepare. It is currently being given vigorous and detailed consideration. The dossier raised several issues on which the advice of the Chief Constable of the RUC has been sought.
  As has been said, the RUC was already conducting an inquiry on foot of receipt of a report from the forensic science lab on the outcome of electrostatic deposition analysis tests on the original police interview notes from the interviews with the four men. The result of that inquiry by the Chief Constable will be reported to the Secretary of State and will be an integral part of his further consideration of the case.
  The House will have heard the views that hon. Members have expressed about the case and the conviction with which they were expressed, but the House will also

  359
  understand that I am in no position to comment on any of them. They reflect what is in the dossier and the dossier is being given detailed consideration as speedily as is appropriate in all the circumstances.
  I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will feel that the debate has been worthwhile—I believe that it has—that his probe has been answered and that the views of the Government have been made clear on both the substantive motion and, as far as I am able to go at this point, on the UDR Four. I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. McNamara: I thank hon. Members from the parties of Northern Ireland for their kind words about my hon. Friends and myself. We felt that it was important that an issue of such concern should be given an airing, particularly as hon. Members from the area have tried to raise the matter in different ways. It seemed to us that to table a new clause on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill would give hon. Members an opportunity to make their points, however it was calculated and provided that it was selected. However, I would point out that the UDR Four were convicted of scheduled offences so the emergency powers legislation, which creates scheduled offences, is the right place to raise the matter.
  I was not aware until now that the Secretary of State was so popular with the hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The wind of good will which has blown through Belfast town hall during the past few days must have affected the Chamber, too. They have shown their confidence that he is the right person to hold his position.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Has it escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I have been engaged in harmonious, civilised discussions with the Secretary of State for well over 13 months? It is to our mutual regret that we have not made more progress than we have, but that is the fault of others and not ours.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure that everyone involved in the discussions has had a harmonious relationship with the Secretary of State. We all hope that the discussions will be carried forward to such a point that talks will take place shortly on the three points which all parties have accepted should be the basis of any talks.
  But I digress. If hon. Members are prepared to accept that the Secretary of State should have the power to refer cases, they should also be aware that there are anxieties about whether matters even come before the courts and whether prosecutions are ever carried through. There was a decision not to prosecute on the Whiterock killings and on the Armagh killings, otherwise known as the shoot-to-kill killings. The attitudes of the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in those circumstances perhaps gave substance to the anxieties expressed by hon. Members. That may be why they preferred that the Secretary of State should have the power.
  Three further points are important. I hope that the Northern Irish Members will consider them when considering other legislation which has been before the House or might come before the House in future. First, hon. Members objected to the way in which the UDR
  360
  Four were originally arrested. I share their objection, but they voted to give that power to the police on Monday night when the Labour party suggested that the power to trawl should not be allowed. That power was vigorously defended by the Home Secretary.
  Secondly, Northern Ireland Members are concerned about uncorroborated confessions. Opposition Members have emphasised the dangers of accepting uncorroborated confessions, whether in this part of the Kingdom or in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said that he had been concerned time and time again about what his friend the late Edgar Graham had told him about people being tricked or persuaded or pressured into making uncorroborated confessions.
  In this context, I have to draw attention to amendments which were tabled but not selected by the Chair. Of course, I make no criticism of the Chair. I refer to amendments concerning cases involving scheduled offences. Despite some of the difficulties of which the police talk, interviews ought to be tape-recorded. That could be done with appropriate safeguards. Interviews could even be videoed. The essential point is that if the dossier evidence that we are asked to believe is true—evidence about the pressuring of the four soldiers; evidence about the intensity of interrogation—allegations of verbal or other ill-treatment would be revealed. Such recordings were recommended by Lord Colville. However, the Government refused to accept his recommendation and, regrettably, it did not have the full support of Northern Ireland Members.
  9 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I should like to know whether the concern expressed by Labour Front-Bench Members who, by initiating this debate, have enabled the UDR to be discussed—the expressions of concern were picked up by Northern Ireland Members—is shared by other Back-Bench Members. I am one of those who have been in correspondence with two of the UDR Four. I have written to the Secretary of State. I think that there is wider concern than has been reflected in this debate.
  Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. Miscarriages of justice should be the concern of all Members, and all such allegations must be examined very carefully.
  We have had an opportunity to discuss the issue. I felt that we had a duty to the people of Northern Ireland to make sure that their feelings were ventilated. That having been done, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

  ARMY OMBUDSMAN
  '.—(1) There shall be established in Northern Ireland the office of ombudsman for the army.
  (2)No holder of the office of ombudsman for the army shall be or have been either a member of Her Majesty's Forces or a member of any police force in the United Kingdom.
  (3) The term of office of the ombudsman for the army shall be five years, renewable for a second term of five years.
  (4) The ombudsman for the army shall be responsible for overseeing the investigation of complaints made to the Royal

  361
  Ulster Constabulary against members of Her Majesty's forces serving in Northern Ireland, including members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  (5) The ombudsman for the army shall be informed of every complaint under subsection (4) above within one week of every such complaint being made.
  (6) A complaint under subsection (4) above may be made directly to the ombudsman for the army, in which case the ombudsman for the army shall refer the complaint to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and subsection (5) above shall not apply.
  (7) The conduct of the investigation of complaints under this section shall be the responsibility of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, acting in accordance with the statutory instrument issued under subsection (8) below.
  (8) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the ombudsman for the army, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Committee for the Administration of Justice, issue a statutory instrument setting out the procedure for the investigations referred to in subsection (7) above.
  (9) The ombudsman for the army shall publish an annual report detailing the number of complaints made in the relevant year, the nature of the complaints made, the way in which such complaints were dealt with, the outcome of each such complaint, and any other matters which may be required under the statutory instrument made under subsection (8) above.
  (10) Every annual report issued under subsection (9) above shall contain an assessment of the complaints procedure in place during the year in review and shall contain any recommendations for improvement which the ombudsman for the army judges it appropriate to suggest.
  (11) The Secretary of State shall make an order setting out the terms and conditions under which the office of the ombudsman for the army is to be held, subject to subsections (2) and (3) above.'.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This new clause deals with the appointment of an ombudsman for the Army—an independent person who could deal with complaints against Army personnel in Northern Ireland. The Minister will recall that this topic was discussed at some length in Committee, but I make no apology for returning to it. In our view, it is of paramount importance that the security forces—specifically, the Army —in Northern Ireland have such a structure, so that it may be shown beyond any shadow of doubt that many of the complaints levelled against the Army are malicious and untrue. If that can be done by means of independent machinery, the Army's position will be enhanced, and the public's confidence in it will be increased, resulting in an increased flow of information to the security forces generally.
  No doubt the Minister agrees that if such an appointment were made the Army would be brought formally into line with the RUC in this respect. Lord Colville devoted a large section of his latest report to the subject of complaints. He pointed out that an effective complaints procedure is essential, for at least two reasons —first, to avoid the creation of more terrorists as a result of counter-terrorist measures; secondly, to ensure that relations with the civilian population are such as to guarantee a ready flow of information to the security forces. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
  362
  intend to quote Lord Colville's report at some length. I apologise for having to do so, but I hope that I shall not be accused of making the mistake of which I accused the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—making selective quotations to support a case.
  Lord Colville stressed the importance of this issue. Paragraph 5.51 of his report says:
  "So long as emergency laws are in force effective complaints procedures must take equal rank with training and sensitive planning, in ensuring that the operations which constitute the campaign against terrorism do not end up by alienating the civilian population."
  Paragraph 5.5 states:
  "The fundamental reason for trying to satisfy the public is that the security forces are there only to bring order according to the law. There is an operational reason to reinforce this".
  That reinforces the point that I have already made twice. The report continued:
  "the majority of crime is reported by the public, and the majority of the solutions depend on information given by the public. Assistance will come more readily from those whose contacts with the security forces are such as to encourage them."
  At paragraph 5.7 the report continues:
  "There is then the battle for hearts and minds. The winning of that is no one-way trade. The armed forces seek to instill confidence through sensitivity and politeness whereas it is greatly to the terrorist's advantage to mar that image."
  At paragraph 5.12, Lord Colville quotes from the instructions issued by the commander land forces in 1988 on the consequences of the effective investigation of complaints. The report states:
  "Effective investigation of complaints may have the following desirable consequences: (a) Justice is done and seen to be done. (b) Good order and military discipline are properly enforced and seen to be so. (c) Public confidence in the armed forces is maintained and improved. (d) False accusations are properly and, if necessary, publicly refuted, thus countering terrorist propaganda and preserving the reputation of the armed forces, individually and collectively."
  Lord Colville concludes in paragraph 5.26:
  "I believe it to be in the public interest, and of great potential value to the security forces as well as the community, that serious thought should now be given to devising acceptable supervisory systems".
  I recognise that there are informal mechanisms for the handling of complaints—the Minister referred to some of them in Committee—but the new clause rectifies the anomaly that the police are subject to a statatory procedure while the Army is not. What I have said shows that the new clause is inspired by a suggestion made by Lord Colville—page 22 of the report, paragraph 5.25—that an ombudsman-type official could be responsible for the investigation of complaints against the Army.
  In Committee the Minister gave signs of his intention to consider ways of bringing that about. He said:
  "I said that we intended to return to the matter on Report, and that remains our intention. I did not undertake to return to the matter in Committee because I did not think that we would be in a position to do so, and we are not.
  That answer may not give the hon. Gentleman great insight into the thinking of my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence"—
  that is true—
  "but I reiterate my assurance on 17 January that we are considering the matter and that when we have something to report we shall return to the House. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the motion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 January 1991; c. 354.]
  In the first part of that quotation the Minister made a specific commitment—he said that he intended to return to the matter on Report. In the second part of the quotation, he was a little more evasive and said that the Government

  363
  were considering the matter and would return to the House when they had something to report. I am prepared to accept that the Minister intends to present some proposals at some stage, but it would have been far better for all of us if he had been able to present them on Report. We regret that he has not been able to do so, which was one of the primary reasons why we reintroduced the new clause on the ombudsman.
  The new clause is designed to probe the Government's present thinking on the procedure. If the Minister deflects our probe or even refuses it and makes it clear that he will reject both our proposal and Lord Colville's thinking on complaints against the armed forces, we shall press the new clause to a Division. I hope that we are not driven to that course of action, but a great deal will depend upon how the Minister responds to the points that I have made.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I do not quite understand why the word "ombudsman" was used. I am not criticising the official Opposition, because I understand Lord Colville used that word, although he said, "ombudsman-like". The function of an ombudsman is to investigate complaints of maladministration, and such a complaint is usually laid —sometimes by Members of Parliament—against Departments of Government, in this case the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. Such complaints could be made only against Ministry of Defence agents—in this case, the Army—for example, because of damage to a vehicle or a house after or during a search.
  The mechanism set out by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) already exists for complaints against individual soldiers, and I should have thought that that was sufficient. I know of many cases in which it has been the instrument for disciplining soldiers who, like all of us, occasionally step out of line when they are in uniform.
  Like the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), I noted the point made in an earlier debate on the desirability of common citizenship of the United Kingdom and of avoidance of second-class citizenship anywhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is peculiar that we are now contemplating having second-class treatment for the element of the Army that serves in one part of the United Kingdom.
  Wherever it is based, the Army supports the civil authorities. It has been used in support of civil power in this capital city of the United Kingdom. For example, the Special Air Service was used, with great success, to storm the Iranian embassy. The troops in Northern Ireland and in the Ulster Defence Regiment have not chosen to be shot at in the course of their duties. British military personnel have borne and used arms in many places on the continent, notably in West Germany. There too they are in contact in the course of their duties with the civil population. Will this proposed clause be applied to those troops? If not, why not?
  To go a little further afield, some of us have noticed that parts of the Army are dealing with civilians in a place called Kuwait and have also been at some considerable risk, and risk of complaint. I understand that some parts of the Army are still in Iraq and no doubt they are doing their best to win the battle for hearts and minds in that country. I have great sympathy with our serving soldiers because of the manifold restrictions already imposed on
  364
  them. I doubt that our 1st Armoured Division would have advanced so swiftly across the desert last week if its soldiers had been told by their commander before they started, "Watch it boys: the ombudsman will be looking over your shoulder at all stages," and if they had been warned that they would be court-martialled if they happened to ram an Arab camel in the dead of night.
  If we are to have this device in Northern Ireland alone, we should face up to the fact that we need an entirely new force rather than a rotating element of the Army serving there. There must be a special permanent force, presumably a special unit of the Army, perhaps in conjunction with the Ulster Defence Regiment. I hope that no further burdens will be imposed on the soldiers who risk their lives in defence of all of us when they happen to be posted to Northern Ireland.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Mallon: I should like to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). No comparison can be made between an army during a declared war, as in the desert in Kuwait, and an army that fulfils a policing role, as in the north of Ireland.
  Mr. Molyneaux: What about Germany?
  Mr. Mallon: Substantial differences occur in Germany compared with the north of Ireland, especially in terms of confrontation and manoeuvres. The policing role that the Army performs in the north of Ireland is, of necessity, of great sensitivity.
  Any army is a blunt instrument, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said. Either it has a policing role or it is involved in a war. The Government tell us at great length why the Army is not involved in a war. One need only remember the former Prime Minister's references in a European country to a war in Northern Ireland to recognise the hasty way in which the Government's position was clearly put. The implications are immense and far-reaching, and are not always conducive to solving the problem.
  An Army complaints procedure is needed. The present mechanism is not sufficient, because it is not a complaints procedure but merely an informal method. A young person who wishes to complain has three options. First, he can go to the RUC. He will be told that, unless violence was used against him or threatened or a criminal offence was committed, it is not a matter for the RUC. The second option is to go to an Army base. One can imagine the reception that that young person would get when he arrived at the outside gate of any Army base and said that he would like to make a complaint against the Army.
  The third option is what is termed the informal choice —to process complaints through Members of Parliament, local councillors and people who have standing in the community, such as clergymen. Such people would consider the case at third hand, which is a difficulty in itself. We cannot deny a proper means of processing legitimate complaints and not provide the necessary means to do that while somewhere in between relying on an informal process and hoping for the best, which is what happens at present.
  Difficulties arise for officers in the armed forces. If a complaint involves a disciplinary matter, they can investigate and deal with it speedily and efficiently, as they

  365
  do now. As well as being a blunt instrument, an army tends to have a strong discipline base, and its commanders have a strong sense of authority.
  It is possible for someone like myself to process a complaint and to receive certain satisfactions because such and such an action was taken against a certain person on a certain date. One accepts that such disciplinary action is used in certain circumstances.
  What happens when it is suggested that a complaint should be taken to law? Do the officers try a soldier twice? Is he subjected to the disciplinary process within the Army and an official investigation by the police at the same time? The difficulty is that, in 99 cases out of 100, when there is a threat of or actual violence, invariably there are no witnesses. When that happens, the person who is aggrieved must put his word against that of five or six members of an Army patrol. When the case goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions and he takes a cursory look at it—it is right to be cursory, as there is no supportive evidence—it is stamped "no case".
  It is bad for everyone that we do not have a formalised, clearly defined statutory way in which such a complaint can be processed. We should not be glib about this, because it is bad for morale, for people and for those soldiers against whom unfounded complaints are made. I am aware of circumstances in which that happens and, in those cases, I am the first to recognise that that is unjust to the soldier involved. Such cases should not be allowed to stand, but when a genuine complaint is made there must be a proper way in which to proceed with it.
  One hon. Member said that he wanted to bring complaints against the armed forces into line with complaints against the police. He should read Lord Colville's report—I referred to it on Monday—which, in implied scathing terms, referred to the success, or lack of success, of the Police Complaints Commission in the north of Ireland. From more than 400 complaints to that commission, not one disciplinary charge resulted. That tests the credibility of anyone who knows the tinder box that is the north or Ireland and the sensitivities that exist.
  There is something wrong with that complaints procedure, but it is not the fault of the legislation. I was in the House when that legislation was passed. It is good, and it has laid down procedures to ensure that there is a full and adequate investigation of a complaint and adequate redress. Is it not time to consider the 400-odd cases that have gone before the commission and to ask what is wrong? Lord Colville's report contains a strong implied criticism of and comparison between the effectiveness of the police complaints procedures in England and Wales as opposed to those in the north of Ireland.
  The Secretary of State should look carefully at the Police Complaints Commission in the north of Ireland, although I accept that it is a bit late to do that, because new appointments have been made. Suffice it to say the facts speak Tot themselves.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for the way in which he introduced his new clause. He did so in the same measured and responsible manner as he acted in Committee. No one objected to the references to Lord Colville—indeed, the hon. Gentleman did the House a service.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) repeated the arguments he put in Committee and affirmed his belief that some new measures are necessary.
  366
  I understood the point that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) made. Bearing in mind his typical grace, I know that he will not mind if I do not follow him into the sands of the desert and the autobahns of Germany.
  I shall start in the spirit with which I tried to conduct proceedings in Committee by seeking common ground in the House. I am sure that it is common ground that the public have a right to expect the highest standards of behaviour from police officers and members of the armed forces. Activity or actions falling short of those standards will never be condoned.
  The Government believe that anyone who has a genuine cause for complaint about the conduct of a police officer or a member of the armed forces should use the existing procedures for the investigation of such complaints. It was against that background that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House on Second Reading that the Government were paying special attention to what Lord Colville and indeed others have had to say on this particular subject. He said that we would return to the subject as the Bill progressed. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South reminded the House, we returned to the issue in Committee.
  As Lord Colville observed in his review, the Independent Commission for Police Complaints was established by the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 in order to provide an independent element in the scrutiny of complaints against the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In Lord Colville's view, which the Government share, the commission is now making a valuable contribution, and should continue to be the main vehicle for reinforcing public confidence in the handling of complaints involving police officers. The commission has wide powers. As well as supervising the investigation of all complaints alleging death or serious injury, it can decide to supervise the investigation of any complaint. It does that to good effect and I understand that it intends to supervise even more of these cases in the future.
  Ensuring that complaints against the armed forces are investigated promptly and thoroughly is no less important, as the military authorities fully recognise. In recent years, as Lord Colville has pointed out, the Army has therefore consistently sought to improve the way in which complaints are dealt with. The latest in a series of improvements will be the establishment, next month, at Army headquarters in Northern Ireland of a central complaints office to improve the monitoring and handling of complaints against the armed forces. I am sure that the House welcomes that initiative.
  However, such measures do not of themselves answer Lord Colville's arguments in favour of bringing the complaints process under some form of independent scrutiny. Allegations of criminal misconduct by the armed forces are already, and will remain, subject to independent investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That is an important point for all hon. Members to bear in mind.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South reminded the House that in Committee I said that I intended to return to this matter on Report, and I now propose to fulfil that commitment. The Government have considered most carefully the arguments advanced by Lord Colville, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and others, including members of the Committee who expressed their

  367
  view when the matter was debated there. Therefore, I am pleased to tell the House that we have decided in principle to introduce an independent element into the scrutiny of the armed forces' procedures for handling those complaints which fall short of allegations of criminal misconduct.
  This matter falls primarily within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As I told the Committee, we have accordingly been discussing the matter with our ministerial colleagues in that Department, including how to give effect to our decision. As hon. Members will recognise, the subject is important and some care must be taken in drawing up proper arrangements. This will take a little more time, and my noble Friend the Paymaster General will therefore return to the subject in another place.
  The Government are confident that, for the reasons set out by Lord Colville and others, this measure—in addition to all the other improvements in complaints systems either introduced in recent years or about to be introduced—will be of value to the community. It will also be of value to the armed forces in helping to build and retain the confidence and support of all men and women of good will from both traditions in Northern Ireland.
  The Government are already addressing the important issues raised by the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South feels that his probing clause has been satisfactorily met. It would have been convenient to the House if we had been able to bring forward the specific ideas that we have in mind. That has not proved possible, but at least I have made the commitment in principle. I hope that that will be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman and that, consequently, he will not press his new clause to a Division.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I welcome the Minister's final comments, but before I speak at greater length on what he had to say I must comment on what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said. Like many of his hon. Friends from the Province, he fails to distinguish between the Army acting in its usual role—he highlighted the warfare in the middle east theatre over the past few weeks—and in its role in support of the civil security force in the Province. There is a huge difference between the two roles.
  I express no opinion on the recent war in the middle east, and clearly the restrictions that we seek to impose on the Army when it operates in the Province would not, could not and should not be imposed in an acknowledged theatre of war. But when the security forces are there to support and buttress the civilian security force, it is our duty to ensure that the Army is as nearly as possible subject to the same degree of control and scrutiny and to the same adherence to the law of the land as we expect from our police forces, whether in the Province or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the point in his penultimate sentence. He implied that one could not expect soldiers from a unit which had not been accustomed to service in Northern Ireland to behave as though they were local bobbies on the beat, and I accept that. It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that
  368
  some years ago, when I had the freedom and privilege to drive my own car, soldiers belonging to a regiment which was withdrawn recently from the British Army of the Rhine, at a time when there was more tension in Germany than there is nowadays, would haul me out of my car at least three times a week, often in pouring rain, and frisk me, spreadeagled across the car. The car was searched and they would address me in terms that I shall not use in the House. It never occurred to me to lodge a complaint against any of those soldiers because, being an ex-service man myself, I recognised that they were not trained in community relations. They were trained to be the spearhead of the British Army of the Rhine. I hope that I have made the point that if an element of the 1st Armoured Division should, in the course of the rotation of units, be brought to Northern Ireland to do duty, it would almost need a special induction course. It could not be expected to behave like a London bobby.
  Mr. Marshall: I shall not be tempted to follow all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but the House realises that soldiers going to the Province for the first time will have a naivety that one would not expect from soldiers who have been there on more than one visit. The right hon. Gentleman must know that that is recognised by the Army authorities. The Army tries to teach such soldiers how to behave in a civilian role. I presume that it does it as well as it possibly can, although one might argue that it could be better done.
  Mr. Molyneaux: The Army will have to make allowances for the fact that the offender was serving in the Province for the first time, and could not be expected to behave in the same way as a soldier who had been there for two years.
  Mr. Marshall: I have already stressed that there is clearly a difference between the inexperienced soldier who is serving in the Province for the first time and the service man who has been there on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, inexperience does not excuse certain types of behaviour.
  The Army acknowledge that first-time soldiers need to be educated as to the way they should operate in a civilian theatre. It knows more than anyone else that without the support and co-operation of the civilian population its role will be made more difficult by an order of magnitude than would otherwise be the case. That is why the Army emphasises the need for civility, but that point is one that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley sometimes fails to understand.
  I welcome the establishment of a central complaints office within the next few weeks, and the Minister's decision in principle to establish also an element of independent security in respect of allegations against the armed forces. I appreciate that there are caveats and that discussions must take place. I am sure that the Minister realises that there must be fuller debate on that issue both in another place and in this House at the appropriate time.
  Is it the Government's intention to introduce in another place amendments to the Bill?
  Dr. Mawhinney indicated assent.
  Mr. Marshall: So it is the Government's intention to introduce further amendments to cover the points that we discussed, which we will then be able to debate when the Bill returns to this House.
  Dr. Mawhinney indicated assent.
  Mr. Marshall: I am pleased that the Minister nodded more than once, as though to tell me to resume my place as quickly as possible.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Our present intention is as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to the Minister. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

  ORGANISATIONS IN RECEIPT OF PUBLIC FUNDS
  'Where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that an organisation in receipt of public funds is furthering the aims of a proscribed organisation, he may seek an order from the High Court permitting him to terminate such public funding.'.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause deals with an issue which has been a matter of some contention in the Province for a number of years, but more particularly in recent months in respect of a specific case. It would provide judicial control over the Secretary of State's power to end the public funding of organisations that he believes promote the interests of proscribed organisations. The intention is to limit the present arbitrary and unfair system, rather than to make it easier for proscribed organisations to obtain access to public funds. I wish to make that clear.
  The present power of the Secretary of State is exercised under the terms of policy set out by the present Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), in his written answer of 27 June 1985. It is not my intention to read out that answer, but the House will recognise that it gives the Secretary of State wide powers and wide discretion to stop financing certain organisations.
  Our new clause recognises the fact that it may be necessary to stop funding if it might be of benefit to proscribed organisations. However—this is where our clause differs from Government policy—it places the exercise of such power on a statutory basis and provides for independent scrutiny of the power by the courts.
  As the Secretary of State recognises, under the existing system there is no right of redress, despite the severe consequences that groups, individuals or communities may suffer if funds are removed. Appeals can only be made to, and heard by, the Secretary of State—the very person who made the decision in the first place. Such a practice creates an image of arbitrary and, in some cases, unfair government.
  A few moments ago, I referred to a specific case—the Glor na Gael affair—which will come as no surprise to the Secretary of State. For whatever reason, he removed funding from that Irish language group. Unfortunately for him, no one—including, apparently, the RUC—believes that his decision was either sensible or correct.
  The present system makes it difficult to reverse such decisions, which are essentially political, without causing embarrassment to the Government, and, as we all know, no Government likes deliberate political embarrassments. The new clause would provide judicial scrutiny before such decisions were taken. We recognise that that is not a
  370
  perfect solution, but at least it would reduce the arbitrary nature of such decisions, while meeting any Government objections based on security grounds, since the flexibility of a system of judicial review is such that it can be conducted without any security risks.
  I commend the new clause in the hope that it will find favour with the Government. Even if the Secretary of State cannot accept it as it stands, I hope that he will reflect the bipartisanship shown by his Minister of State in our previous debate and will be able at least to accept the spirit and intent of the new clause.
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: How does the Secretary of State form his opinions on these organisations? Does he receive advice or information from someone or some group who may be against the activities of such an organisation? They might be motivated by petty jealousy, because the organisation in question is maintaining and making progress in community and social activities. Such individuals or groups may have political or other aspirations and may believe that they are reduced because of the beneficial activities of such an organisation.
  What appeals can such an organisation make against an adverse opinion or complaint by the Secretary of State? Is machinery to be set up to investigate such complaints?
  Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) illustrates the weakness of the new clause. It would transfer responsibility from the Secretary of State to a High Court judge with no rules, motivation or purposes, and without limiting the judge's discretion in any way. It has been admitted that the decisions concerned involve political considerations. Are we content to transfer responsibility for them to a judge who, for these purposes, would be superior to the Secretary of State, who is himself responsible to Parliament? That is absurd. The new clause is fundamentally misconceived.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Trimble: I share the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I think that the new clause would cause more problems than exist now.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) mentioned an Irish language organisation from which funding had been withdrawn. It is interesting to note that that organisation subsequently sought support from the Irish Government—unsuccessfully; I do not know what that implies. Another interesting fact, which the hon. Gentleman failed to mention, is that it applied for a judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision, and failed in that as well.
  I think that what the hon. Member for Leicester, South said was inaccurate. The existing law provides for the challenging of decisions to withdraw funding made by the Secretary of State or others. Applications can be made for judicial reviews, and, if an organisation can show that the Secretary of State had arrived at his decision unreasonably, a remedy, albeit limited, is available.
  How would the court proceed if the existing judicial review procedure were replaced by new clause 15? Under the new clause,
  "Where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that an organisation … is furthering the aims of a proscribed organisation, he may seek an order from the High Court".
  What does the High Court do then? Is it bound to grant the order? Must it consider whether to grant it, and, if so,

  371
  on what evidence must it proceed? How can such procedures be adopted, given that the Secretary of State may be in receipt of confidential information?
  I hope that I am not misquoting the hon. Member for Leicester, South—if I am inadvertently misleading the House, no doubt he will correct me—but I believe that he said that the flexibility of the judicial review system is such that it can be implemented without any security risk. What does that mean in this context? Does it mean that the Secretary of State's opinion will be conclusive, allowing him not to divulge any information that would carry a security risk?
  The new clause refers to
  "furthering the aims of a proscribed organisation".
  Proscribed organisations have many aims. I believe that one of the IRA's aims is the promotion of the Gaelic language. Does this mean that funds should be withdrawn from all organisations that promote the Gaelic language?
  Mr. Brooke: This novel measure seeks to substitute the judgment of the court for that of the Secretary of State in a matter that is manifestly the domain of the executive —as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) pointed out.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) was concerned about the manner in which the Secretary of State exercises his discretion in discharging his responsibility to protect public funds where there is a grave risk that the provision of support would assist a paramilitary organisation, directly or indirectly. He did not quote the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State—who is now Foreign Secretary—on 27 June 1985, and I shall not do so in full. The heart of that answer was in the words
  "However, I am satisfied, from information available to me."
  This is a matter properly for the Government, not the courts.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the courts have acknowledged that judges should not make decisions on policy. Lord Diplock, in Council of Civil Service Unions v. The Minister for the Civil Service in 1984 —a case to which, ironically and coincidentally, reference was made this afternoon in the debate on the Employment Protection (Government Communications Headquarters) Bill—made that clear when he said that the application of Government policy involves the weighing of competing policy considerations—
  "a balancing exercise which Judges by their upbringing and experience are ill qualified to perform."
  To give the courts the role that the new clause suggests would conflict with our well established and sensible separation of powers. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, the new clause does not make clear what the High Court should take into account in considering an application by the Secretary of State for an order permitting him to terminate public funding. It would be most unusual if the court were empowered to examine the merits of the Secretary of State's opinion and substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State should it see fit.
  Hon. Members can be assured that all decisions to withhold public funds in line with current Government policy are taken by the Secretary of State after most careful consideration.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to seek an order from the court. Under the law in Northern Ireland, is it possible for an organisation whose public funds have been terminated by the Secretary of State to appeal to the court?
  Mr. Brooke: I shall deal with that later, but there is the right of appeal to myself in the first instance.
  Decisions to withhold public funds are taken by the Secretary of State after the most careful consideration. The policy is even-handed and has been applied in respect of republican and loyalist paramilitary interests. Ignoring the four cases in which the decisions were reversed after fresh evidence was put before the Secretary of State, the pattern of the withholding of public funds shows that just under 60 per cent. have been in connection with republican paramilitary groups and just over 40 per cent. with loyalist groups.
  Political opinion is not an issue. Decisions are subject to review and can be changed in the light of a change in circumstances. That is what happened in the four cases in which the decisions were reversed. That is not an answer to the legal question that I was asked but it is a response to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker).
  It is not possible, for security reasons, to divulge the information on which decisions are based. I do not accept that the introduction of a court in a supervisory capacity, as proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester, South, is appropriate or would lead to an improvement in the quality of decision making. Well established arrangements for the judicial review of administrative decisions—this answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—recognise the different responsibilities of Ministers and the courts. Any organisation that considers that it has been unfairly treated by a decision of the Secretary of State can apply to the courts for a review of the decision, as happened recently. I see no reason to introduce any further judicial scrutiny.
  It is not practicable—this answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, North—either at present or under the proposed new clause to advise an organisation of the precise grounds for the Secretary of State's belief that withdrawal of grant is justified. Such decisions are taken on the basis of confidential security advice, the disclosure of which could reveal to those engaged in unlawful activities involving paramilitary organisations the extent of the information known about them, how it is evaluated and possibly its source, with consequential risk to those involved in its procurement.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South referred to the case of Glora na Gael. The decision to withdraw funding from the west Belfast committee and the procedure by which such decisions are taken are subject to judicial review. The hon. Member for Upper Bann thought that it had been turned down, but the case is still under review.
  In those circumstances, the House will understand if I am constrained in what I say on such matters. I do not accept that the present arrangements are unreasonable or inappropriate; nor am I prepared to be drawn on the detail of the arrangements or the nature of the information relied upon.
  In view of those overall considerations, I must ask the hon. Member for Leicester, South to withdraw his new clause or the House to vote against it.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I and my party are naturally disappointed with the Secretary of State's reply. Within a matter of minutes, we shall be showing our dissatisfaction by supporting our new clause in the Lobby. I ask the House to support us in that action.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said that, in his view—I recognise that it is his view only—our new clause is to be described as "absurd". His reason for using that word was that he claimed that only the Secretary of State and only the Government can make political decisions. There is no disagreement between us on that point. Politicians and Governments are there to make political decisions. If the Secretary of State was to come to the Dispatch Box to say, "I have made this decision on political grounds; these are my reasons for doing that," there would be no disagreement between the two sides, because I recognise that that is the nature of politicians and of Governments.
  However, that is not the point at issue. These judgments are not supposed to be based on political considerations; they are supposed to be based on security considerations. In those circumstances, we have every right to say that, if it is a matter of judgment and of balance, a judge and the system of judicial review are able to make that decision and to judge that balance. We are not asking the judges——
  Mr. Stanbrook indicated dissent.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Orpington is shaking his head, but we are not asking the judges to make political decisions; we are asking them to decide whether, on balance, they believe that the Secretary of State has acted fairly or unfairly when weighing up the security risks to make his decision.
  The altercations between myself and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) are increasing. He always accuses me of misrepresenting his case and of making half a case myself. I tend to believe that my assertions about him are always correct and that his assertions about me are always wrong. He is clearly wrong in the specific point that he has made in this debate. The Secretary of State supports and buttresses my point when he reminds the hon. Gentleman that the case of Glora na Gael is still in the process of judicial review.
  In case he has forgotten, I remind the hon. Member for Upper Bann that the Secretary of State has made it even more difficult for that organisation to defend itself and to put its case to the judicial review because the right hon. Gentleman has introduced a public interest immunity certificate, which is signed by him, the Secretary of State, and which has prevented that organisation or its counsel from gaining access to specific papers that it believes would assist it——
  Mr. Brooke: The case is sub judice.
  Mr. Marshall: The Secretary of State reminds me that the case is sub judice. I am referring not to the details of the case, but to the actions that the Secretary of State has taken which make it more difficult for that organisation to present its case at the judicial review. The Secretary of State has issued a public interest immunity certificate which refuses the organisation access to certain documents which it thinks would support or further its case at judicial review. I think that the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann in the specific instance is spurious.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as he prefaced his remarks by comments, which I thought inappropriate, about what I had said. The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question which I put to him: if his clause is adopted, and if the Secretary of State has to make an application to the court, on what basis is the court to proceed? I am grateful to the Secretary of State for pointing out the stage which the case has reached. There is in existence a judicial review procedure——
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Trimble: I was asking the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) to state how the court should proceed. Will it accept the opinion of the Secretary of State? Will it ask itself whether that opinion was made unreasonably, in which case it is doing exactly the same as the existing judicial review procedure, or will it examine the merits of the case itself? If it is examining the merits of the case——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an interjection in the middle of a speech.
  Mr. Trimble: I think that I have said enough to make my point clear.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman always says more than enough. The answer clearly is that the judge would decide whether the Secretary of State's action was reasonable in the light of all the evidence, based upon security considerations, that the Secretary of State had available at the time. I do not see anything wrong with that.
  Mr. Stanbrook: That is not the point that is included in the new clause. The new clause says:
  "Where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that an organisation in receipt of public funds is furthering the aims of a proscribed organisation".
  No decision is made; the Secretary of State is simply of the opinion, and he then may seek an order from the High Court. In other words, the whole decision is transferred to the High Court. It is not a question of confirming, or of some sort of review, under the wording of the new clause. The new clause is talking not about judicial review but about transferring responsibility for the decision from the Secretary of State to a judge. That is entirely and utterly wrong, and I still think that it is absurd.
  Mr. Marshall: I am not pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman still thinks that the new clause is absurd. We are seeking to reverse the present procedure. If the new clause was adopted, before the Secretary of State took a decision, he, his ministerial colleagues and his officials would have to realise, in the light of all the security considerations available at the time, that any decision they took was likely to be upheld or turned down by the judge. The position seems to be clear.
  The Secretary of State repeated many of the points put forward by the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He seemed to imply that many of his decisions were taken on political rather than security grounds. I am sure that he did not

  375
  mean to give that impression, but he made the point. I accept that he makes the decisions not on political but on security grounds.
  Mr. Brooke: I gave the statistics so that the House might have a clear picture that we were talking about an even-handed policy addressed to paramilitary organisations. I think that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). As the new clause is drawn, he is asking the judiciary to take on an executive role which in the past it has been disinclined to take.
  Mr. Marshall: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] I am receiving advice from all quarters. Perhaps I could put it to the Secretary of State this way. Our view remains that the present system must be changed. There must be a movement away from the present arbitrary and unfair system. Our view is and remains—and we shall press it in the Lobby—that the new clause represents a step in the right direction. If the Secretary of State says that there are inadequacies in it, I make this offer to him. If he is prepared to support us in the Lobby or even to accept the spirit of the new clause, we will sit down with him and draft a new clause which meets his criticisms and those of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I see that the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept that compromise, so we intend to press the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 150.

  Division No. 88]

  [10.05 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Illsley, Eric

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Beckett, Margaret

  Lamond, James

  Bellotti, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Leighton, Ron

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lewis, Terry

  Canavan, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Livsey, Richard

  Clelland, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McGrady, Eddie

  Cohen, Harry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Corbett, Robin

  McMaster, Gordon

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Crowther, Stan

  Madden, Max

  Cryer, Bob

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Mallon, Seamus

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Meale, Alan

  Dewar, Donald

  Michael, Alun

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Fearn, Ronald

  Nellist, Dave

  Flynn, Paul

  O'Brien, William

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Galloway, George

  Prescott, John

  George, Bruce

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Strang, Gavin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Turner, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Vaz, Keith

  Home Robertson, John

  Wallace, James

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  376

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Alexander, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Lord, Michael

  Amos, Alan

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Ashby, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Maclean, David

  Beggs, Roy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Madel, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Malins, Humfrey

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Maples, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Chapman, Sydney

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Chope, Christopher

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Conway, Derek

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Mudd, David

  Cran, James

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Needham, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Evennett, David

  Norris, Steve

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Favell, Tony

  Paice, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Patnick, Irvine

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Pawsey, James

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Forth, Eric

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Redwood, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Franks, Cecil

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Freeman, Roger

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  French, Douglas

  Rowe, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Gill, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Speller, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Ground, Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hannam, John

  Stern, Michael

  Harris, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Summerson, Hugo

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hill, James

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thorne, Neil

  Irvine, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Trimble, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Watts, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Wells, Bowen

  Knowles, Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Knox, David

  Whitney, Ray

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  377

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 17

  LETHAL FORCE
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a code of practice in connection with the use of lethal force by police officers and members of Her Majesty's Forces in dealing with suspected terrorists; and Schedule(Code of practice on lethal force) shall be the first code under this section.
  (2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 50 of this Act shall apply to a code under this section as they apply to a code under that section.
  (3) A failure on the part of a police officer or a member of Her Majesty's forces to comply with any provision of such a code shall constitute an offence punishable on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'. —[Mr. McNamara.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 39, a new schedule—Lethal force—

  GENERAL RULES
  1. In all situations the minimum force necessary must be used. Firearms must only be used as the last resort. Where their use is unavoidable they must be used with restraint, in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved, and so as to minimise damage and injury and to respect and preserve human life.
  2. Superior officers shall ensure that members of the security forces are equipped with appropriate self-defensive equipment and appropriate non-lethal incapacitating weapons with a view to restraining the use of weapons capable of causing death or serious injury. Superior officers shall be responsible for any breach of these rules by members of the security forces under their command in cases in which they did not take all measures in their power to prevent such a breach.

  Opening fire
  3. Firearms must always be made safe. No live rounds are to be carried in the breech of a firearm and automatic weapons are not to be made ready for firing unless they are about to be fired or an express order to that effect has been given by a superior officer.
  4. Firearms shall not be used against a person except in the following circumstances—

  (1) in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury;

  (2) to prevent the commission of a particularly serious crime involving a grave threat to life;

  (3) to effect the arrest of a person immediately presenting such a threat.

  In all these cases firearms must not be used unless there is no other way to prevent the danger and it is strictly unavoidable to protect life.
  5. The following are examples of acts endangering life, depending always on the particular circumstances—

  (1) firing or being about to fire a weapon;

  (2) planting, detonating or throwing an explosive device.

  6. In cases where the use of firearms is unavoidable the following rules must be observed—

  (1) only aimed shots are to be fired;

  (2) no more rounds than are necessary to prevent the danger referred to in rule 4 above are to be fired;

  (3) all reasonable precautions are to be taken not to injure anyone other than the person presenting that danger.

  Warning
  7. Where the use of firearms is justified in accordance with these rules members of the security forces shall identify themselves and shall give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would expose others or themselves to undue risk or would be clearly pointless or inappropriate in the circumstances.
  8. The words "Army/Police: stop or I fire" or words to similar effect are to be used.

  Medical attention
  9. Assistance and medical aid are to be rendered to any person injured at the earliest possible moment.
  Informing relatives
  10. Relatives or close friends of any person injured or affected by the use of firearms shall be notified at the earliest possible moment.
  Reporting
  11. In all cases where firearms are used a report on the circumstances shall be made promptly to a superior officer.

  Access
  12. The police shall have immediate access to a member of the security forces who has used or is reasonably suspected of having used lethal force.'.
  Mr. McNamara: In Committee, the use of lethal force by the security forces was considered on several occasions. There has been a continuing debate on the issue—the matter was raised when last we had a full review of the Act in the previous Parliament. The new clause and the amendment attempt to deal with subsequent developments in the debate.
  Amendment No. 39 seeks to complement the codes of practice issued under sections 48 and 49 of the Act by including guidance to the security forces on circumstances in which it is legitimate to use force. Given the controversies over the use of force by the security forces, and the implications for public confidence in the security forces, such a guide would help to clarify the nature of security force operations.
  In his penultimate report, Lord Colville stated that the major difficulty for the administration of justice stemmed from deaths caused by the security forces. We have only to think of the Armagh killings and the Whiterock bookies shop case and other incidents to understand the passions and problems involved. Large sections of society believe that the security forces are immune from the law, and a number of killings by the security forces are not regarded as unavoidable or representing the legitimate use of force.
  The new clause and the amendment are a response to the concern expressed by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights last February. The new schedule copies the draft code of practice proposed by SACHR. It says that it is a "tentative draft" to provide a focus for proper consideration of the issue, but if the Government were to accept the principle of what we are urging we should be happy for them to produce a better

  379
  draft. The key elements of the draft code suggested by SACHR are as follows. The minimum possible force should be deployed, force should be used only when it is unavoidable, and senior officers should be held responsible for the actions of their subordinates if they permit violations of the code of practice.
  The first principle differs from the existing provision in so far as it replaces the concept of reasonable force with the concept of minimum force. Such a standard would facilitate public understanding of the limits of legitimate use of force by the security forces. Using force only when it is unavoidable also differs from existing practice in so far as the existing law allows for the use of lethal force to apprehend a person who cannot otherwise be arrested. The logic behind it is that the failure to arrest an individual may allow that person to escape and commit further crimes of violence at a later date. While that is understandable, the practical consequences have been damaging as it has become lawful to use lethal force to apprehend a person who, it subsequently becomes apparent, is not a terrorist. The code of practice is designed to prevent recurrence of such incidents by ensuring that firearms can be used to effect an arrest only if there is immediate danger of a grave threat to life.
  The purpose of making superiors responsible for avoidable breaches of the code of practice is to provide an incentive to maintain high standards of discipline. In addition, given that the preparation of an operation by superior officers may have a substantial influence on the behaviour of subordinates during an operation, the code of practice considers the responsibility of those who plan and those who conduct operations.
  Paragraph 12 of the schedule deals with a problem that has caused some concern. When members of the security forces are involved in incidents where lethal force is used, RUC officers investigating such operations have experienced some difficulty gaining access to carry out questioning. The schedule would require access to be granted, thus eliminating any suggestion that such incidents are not properly investigated by the authorities.
  Lord Colville has paid great attention to this issue over several years. In it report on the concept of the taking of human life, the other place also paid attention to the proposals, some based on the Australian code of practice, made by Lord Colville. Our proposal is based essentially on the recent proposals of SACHR. The code embodies what it is seeking and what it believes, in the interests human rights, should be adopted in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the schedule in the amendment setting out the code of practice is based on the tentative views of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and it says that its proposals are based in part on a draft resolution prepared by a United Nations body. That makes one a little concerned—I say a little because in some respects I support the objective behind the new clause. There is merit in having a code of guidance on the use of potentially lethal force and in spelling out in more detail the rather old terms of section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. That is the ordinary criminal law base from which the security forces operate in the use of potentially lethal force, in all circumstances, not just in the emergency provisions.
  380
  An examination of the draft code shows that there are problems, which SACHR acknowledged. Comparing its document with the yellow card, it states:
  "the yellow card expressly permits the use of lethal force to effect an arrest of someone who has just killed or injured another person, where there is no other way to make an arrest, while the UN Basic Principles permit the use of lethal force to effect an arrest only where the person continues to present an imminent threat of death or serious injury and where less extreme means are insufficient. It should be noted that this difference is probably an accurate statement of the current judicial interpretation of the terms of section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967".
  The code is not an accurate statement of the law.
  Paragraph 7 of SACHR's report—which I think hon.
  Members received—states:
  "In the second place the UN Basic Principles include more detailed provisions in respect of the responsibility of superior officers for the actions of their subordinates. There is no such provision in the yellow card. This again reflects a distinction which is inherent in the prevailing judicial interpretation … in … section 3 of the Criminal Law Act."
  SACHR acknowledges that its code does not correspond with the law.
  If the code were enacted, we should have to change section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. If we enacted the code at present, we would be inaccurate and would give effect to something much narrower than section 3. Under new clause 17, failure to comply with the code will be an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment for two years. The code is inappropriate. I have great difficulty understanding how one could comply with it.
  According to paragraph 3 of the proposed schedule,
  "No live rounds are to be carried in the breech"
  unless a weapon is about to be fired. In that way, members of the security forces will give terrorists that extra vital second or two that it takes to make a weapon ready for use. Paragraph 4 states:
  "Firearms shall not be used against a person except in the following circumstances—

  (1) in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury;

  (2) to prevent the commission of a particularly serious crime involving a grave threat to life".

  How does one work out that the commission of a serious crime will involve a "grave threat to life"? How does one work out that there will be
  "imminent threat of death or serious injury"?
  The paragraph refers to "serious" injury rather than just injury. A soldier is expected to deal with those complex issues in the agony of the moment, when a terrorist may use lethal force without the slightest compunction. Having decided that his action comes within those provisions, he is not to use force unless he gives the warning, "Army: stop or I fire", or words to that effect. The proposed schedule states that those words "are to be used". If they are not used, it will mean a failure to comply, which is an offence punishable by imprisonment for a certain term. That is not an appropriate measure.
  I am not familiar with United Nations proceedings, so I do not understand why the United Nations document is only a draft resolution and did not proceed further perhaps it was because it was unrealistic. I hesitate to add to my criticisms of SACHR on other occasions, but I am not surprised that it adopted an unrealistic set of principles. SACHR does not have the competence to draw up such a code because it does not understand the position that soldiers and policemen will face. Although SACHR pointed out the difference betweent the code and the law,

  381
  it did not give due weight to the fact that under the law soldiers and policemen are under a duty to arrest persons whom they believe to be law breakers. They must use such force as reasonable to achieve that arrest. The code appears to weaken the duty on the police and the Army. The net effect will be that persons guilty of crime, or those whom the security forces suspect to be guilty, will go free.
  I know that tragic mistakes have been made in Northern Ireland which have affected all sides of the community. Sometimes one wonders about the mistakes that generate concern and the principles that operate in such circumstances.
  10.30 pm
  No one likes to see mistakes made, but they are unavoidable. The recent conflict in the Gulf has served to show that in a war, or in a situation where arms are used, mistakes will be made. When those mistakes occur, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate responsibility for them rests with those who have created the violence. When members of the security forces act negligently and incorrectly and mistakenly kill others, we must not forget that the ultimate responsibility lies with the terrorist organisations.
  Although I feel some sympathy with the concept of a code of practice, the present code of practice is not good. I do not like the provision in subsection (3) of the new clause to make that code of practice legally enforceable with criminal sanctions. For that reason, I cannot support the new clause or the schedule.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). If one looks at the current situation in Northern Ireland realistically, one must recognise that the schedule would put the terrorist at a tremendous advantage compared with the security forces.
  I do not believe that the House appreciates the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland. A close friend of mine is approaching the end of his life in the Royal Victoria hospital. I cannot go to visit him without three Land Rovers of police and three Land Rovers of soldiers. I was speaking to another clergyman who also visits that hospital and he goes there in the same way. We are up against a serious situation in Northern Ireland.
  Members of the security forces seek to provide protection and to defend the community against terrorism. If they were not allowed to draw their guns unless a superior officer tells them to do so, and so on, those people would have no defence and would be shot down. Terrorists will look upon the code of practice as a magna calla for success. We must be realistic.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann that there should be such a code of conduct, but it must be realistic in view of the terrorist threat. The code of practice is unrealistic. Members of the security forces may as well not be armed if they are unable to defend themselves and those who need to be defended. The code of practice envisaged in the new clause would make it impossible for members of the security forces to provide such protection from the current terrorist threat that we are up against.
  Mr. Canavan: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who moved the new clause.
  We all agree that there is far too much use of lethal force in Northern Ireland and that there is too much killing. Both sides of the House deplore the use of force by
  382
  paramilitary organisations. We should also deplore the unjustified use of force by members of the security forces. Such unjustified use of force by the security forces is even worse in a sense than the use of lethal force by terrorist organisations. When the security forces resort to the unjustified use of lethal force, they are not just placing themselves at the same level as the terrorists they are supposed to be combating, but reducing if not eradicating respect for law and order. That can have serious repercussions in any society.
  Sadly, over the past 20 years or more, there have been far too many instances of the use of unjustified force by members of the security forces. Hon. Members have said that mistakes are made, but we have a responsibility to try to create a legislative framework that will minimise the possibility of mistakes which may result in people being wrongfully killed. The account of former Assistant Chief Constable Stalker and his evidence points to a shoot-to-kill policy by the RUC. The Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment have killed people in circumstances which, to say the least, have been questionable.
  Quite apart from those killed by the use of what might be called conventional weaponry, some people have been killed by plastic bullets fired by the security forces. We should not lose sight of that. Three or four years ago, I introduced a Bill that sought to abolish the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom. At that time, the statistics showed that about 15 people had been lethally injured by plastic or rubber bullets. Most of them were children or young people who by no stretch of the imagination could have been described as suspected terrorists. Some of them were killed by plastic bullets fired at point blank range.
  I do not know whether amendment No. 39 covers plastic bullets. I suspect that they might be covered, because that amendment refers to people "about to fire a weapon" and mentions "an explosive device".
  Hon. Members spoke about the yellow card and the existing code of conduct, which may or may not be observed in all circumstances. It is plain that the code of practice is grossly inadequate, so we should accept the new clause and its related schedule.
  Mr. Mallon: I invariably shudder when I hear the word "accident" used in relation to lethal weapons. I vividly remember an occasion when Mr. Gerry Adams spoke on behalf of the organisation that he leads after a baby had been shot in Belfast. He pontificated to the world and said there would always be accidents when firearms were used, but he offered his organisation's apologies to the baby's mother and father and to all concerned for the death of the child. That is appalling. It is also appalling to use the word "accidents", especially in relation to circumstances in which there were other alternatives.
  Public concern in the north of Ireland has made a clear distinction down through the years between a soldier, perhaps under threat from a sniper or a sudden movement, acting instinctively and using his weapon, and those incidents which have become issues of great contention, almost all of which happened during a concerted effort by the armed forces—in other words, when they were involved in a specific manoeuvre which would itself have made possible an arrest with the minimum use of force, not a matter of being overpowered or of superior fire power

  383
  coming from those whom the armed forces might have intended to arrest. In the real shoot-to-kill incidents, those people were unarmed.
  If we look at the trend through the years, we see that not only have such incidents arisen during a manoeuvre, but they have been accompanied by erroneous intelligence. Almost invariably, when there is a controversial incident, one finds that the Army personnel involved were pumped up with adrenalin as a result of intelligence which ultimately proved faulty. I can be specific about that. We have only to look at the last three serious incidents in the north of Ireland to see that grossly faulty intelligence was at the root of them.
  The problem is that, once an Army patrol is given intelligence and is primed to believe that, at a certain place and time and in a certain way, it will be facing dangerous and heavily armed people, the men in that patrol will naturally be in an aggressive frame of mind. When they are working on crucially faulty intelligence, the guilt lies with those who presented them with that intelligence and the direction under which they are operating. That is the substantial difference between what are now known in the north of Ireland as shoot-to-kill incidents and other incidents in which people have been killed as a result of other circumstances.
  I remember clearly in my constituency when a bus
  384
  driver was shot at the permanent checkpoint in Middletown as a result of a conversation that he was having with a member of the security forces. Does one class that as a shoot-to-kill incident? That was a tragic circumstance for that man and his family, and for the young soldier involved. But when people have been stopped and searched and it has been established that they are not in possession of weapons and within a short time and less than 100 yards they are shot dead, one has to ask substantial and serious questions. Therein lies the difference.
  I accept some of the criticisms of the new clause and schedule. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) himself acknowledges how difficult it is to draft with a high degree of accuracy a schedule that meets every situation. Nevertheless, I support the schedule, because I do not accept the Gerry Adams thesis that in a war—we talked earlier about the use of that dangerous term—there will always be accidents. That argument plays right into the hands of people such as Mr. Adams, who spuriously apologised for the killing of a little child some years ago.
  The new clause is the nearest that we have come to facing a problem that the Bill does not address, and I hope that it will be supported on the ground that a substantial change is needed.
  10.45 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: I oppose the new clause. We have seen tonight that there is no shortage of armchair critics who know little about facing terrorists and what it is for a young man to go out to defend the innocent people of a community and risk being shot at any and every corner.
  It is easy for hon. Members who sit in the comfort of the House and do not have to share the experiences of our soldiers, UDR members, police and reserves, who have to face the terrorist threat in our community. It is disgraceful to link our security personnel and their responses to anything that has come from the lips of the hypocritical Gerry Adams. That is not worthy of any further reference.
  Some hon. Members—perhaps one cannot blame them for this, because they are far removed from the situation —seem to think that we in Ulster are in the midst of a picnic rather than in the midst of cruel warfare. Irrespective of whether the Government want to face this fact, the IRA has openly declared war on the British establishment and the British Ulster people. Sinn Fein means "Ourselves Alone'—and that certainly does not mean the British Ulster man or woman.
  We are facing a bloodthirsty animal in the IRA terrorist. One might also think—if one attaches any credence to some of the remarks made a few moments ago —that our security forces are on the rampage, looking for innocent victims to shoot to kill, and that they have not performed their duties with great honour and diligence. I want to place on record the fact that our security forces and the forces of the Crown have acted with great courage and exemplary restraint over the past 20 years of murder and destruction in Northern Ireland.
  No doubt everyone can recount an incident in which someone has stepped outside the law—but they will have received their proper and due judgment. I wish, however, that hon. Members who are so quick to criticise and find fault were equally eloquent when it came to giving due praise to the security forces in the Province for facing the dastardly enemy in our midst.
  Our security forces operate under a severe disadvantage every time they go out. Unfortunately, they are often reacting—the Government: have decided on a policy of reaction—rather than acting against the terrorists and their enclaves. The advantage is in the hands of the terrorists. For example, they have the element of surprise.
  Terrorists can watch the movements of the security forces. Doubtless they can watch a young man walk up the street to go on duty. They can watch young UDR men as they leave and return to their homes and establish what time they go on duty. That has happened too often. They have been allowed to go up the road safely for as long as a year, but then they let down their guard and the IRA murders them on their way to the UDR camp or the police station. That chapter has been written over and over again.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. William McCrea: In 'it moment.
  We must sit back for a moment and reflect on whether we should make it more difficult for members of the security forces to carry out their duties. It is easy to say that they should have done it differently. With hindsight, it is easy to pontificate about the manner in which they should have arrested someone and to question whether minimum force was used.
  386
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) talked about Stalker, but I do not remember how many times Mr. Stalker had to face an IRA bullet or bomb. I cannot recall the number of times that he was out on duty in Northern Ireland and faced terrorists on the streets. I cannot remember the number of times that he went on duty to find out the reality of the situation. If people put their minds together they will find, I think, that he was never on the streets of Northern Ireland in uniform. It was easy for him, who came from the comfort of some plush office, with his airs and graces, and had no understanding whatsoever of reality.
  Hon. Members have paraded the shoot-to-kill policy in the House tonight. Yes, there is a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. The IRA has a full-blooded shoot-to-kill policy and intends to shoot every policeman, every UDR man and every Army lad or lassie who comes to the Province. That is the reality, and there is little or no hindrance whatsover to their efforts. The House ought to give credit and honour where it is due—to members of our security forces.
  In relation to the plastic bullet issue, it was suggested that no young person could be responsible for terrorist activity. If the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) were listening, they would find it interesting to learn that there is a new terrorist cell in our locality. We have information that those who are being trained as the major gunmen are between 14 and 16 years of age. That is a new departure. I do not know whether they cannot get older people into the IRA groups. However, it is interesting that information from the security forces shows that, in our locality, the people who are going out to pull the trigger are very young.
  Mr. Mallon: I hope that I misheard the hon. Gentleman. Did he confirm that the information that formed the basis of the allegation came directly from the security forces in the north of Ireland? Is he willing to put that on record?
  Rev. William McCrae: I do not think that that was what the hon. Gentleman wanted to say when he tried to intervene earlier. Let me tell him, however, that the people of Northern Ireland have often heard him parading, in the media, what he has been told by some member of the security forces. It is ridiculous for him to suggest that he alone should be allowed to hear things on the grapevine.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. William McCrae: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I want to finish what I am saying.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that no one could suggest that young people would be involved in the use of plastic bullets. Does he not realise that the IRA do not care who they use as a human shield—that fancy term that was coined during the Gulf war? They do not care if the child whom they put in the front line is killed by a plastic bullet. In the past, they have been willing to put not only women and children but even their own members in the front line, as long as they benefit from the propaganda.
  I vividly remember the tragic case of the two young soldiers in west Belfast—two young men in a car who thought it wiser to hand themselves over to the republicans

  387
  than to draw their guns to defend themselves. They were killed. Anyone who remembers that incident will know that there was nothing pleasing in it: it was one of the most despicable, disgraceful and horrifying things that have ever been witnessed, as the films and photographs that were taken at the time will confirm. Many observers believe that those two young men died because they were afraid to break the yellow-card restrictions, fearing that, if they escaped with their lives, they would end up in court being treated as criminals.
  I oppose the new clause, and I think that anyone who has any knowledge of what it is like to be a serving member of the security forces will do the same.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I have two main objections to the new clause and amendment No. 39. First, if they were adopted, the substantive law on self-defence would be fundamentally and radically changed in a way that would have important consequences for our criminal law. The Opposition have cooked up an amendment which they admit is based on tentative conclusions derived from a draft document laid before the United Nations. That gives no authority to the proposition that the general law of this country should be changed. If it is to be changed—if there is anything in the contention that the existing law is inadequate or wrong—surely the matter should be properly discussed outside the House.
  The opinions of military and legal experts should be obtained and, if possible, some agreement should be reached. Until that is done, it would be highly irresponsible to accept such changes to the substantive law.
  11 pm
  My second objection is that the new clause is rather airy-fairy. It is an idealised conception of what rules can be imposed on persons who must act in the agony of the moment. Her Majesty's forces are trained to use their weapons at such times, but no hon. Member can imagine what he would do. It is virtually impossible to lay down rules governing their behaviour in such circumstances.
  Amendment No. 39 says:
  "No live rounds are to be carried in the breech of a firearm … unless they are about to be fired."
  What an absurd suggestion, given the realities of war, violence and terrorism and the possibility that lurking around a corner ahead of a soldier is an armed man ready to open fire. Those rules will be imposed not on the IRA but on our representatives, who are protecting the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. It is absurd that we should say to them, "You cannot carry a live round in the breech of your gun because you have not had your superior officer's permission to do so. You must wait until you see your adversary aiming a gun at you before you are entitled to put a round in the breech of your gun."
  That is so manifestly unreal that one reaches the conclusion that the Opposition have no faith in what they are doing but simply want to handicap the Government in their prosecution of the war against terrorism in Northern Ireland. For that reason, the new clause is a perfectly reprehensible idea.
  Dr. Mawhinney: When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) moved the new clause he said that we had discussed the use of lethal force several
  388
  times in Committee. It is right that we should do so again this evening because it is of considerable importance. As has been reflected in the debate, it leads to misconceptions. It is not frequently understood that split-second decisions must be taken when an incident is in progress. It also leads to the mistaken perception that there is, or has been, a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland.
  I acknowledge the strength of the concern expressed about the use of firearms by the security forces and the emotiveness of the issue in parts of the community in Northern Ireland. I recognise the argument advanced by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights that a code, as proposed in the new clause, would provide a clear set of rules, with statutory effect, on the circumstances in which the security forces might use firearms, thereby showing the Government's commitment to the principle that the security forces are tightly governed by the rule of law and recognising the special circumstances in which the security forces operate in Northern Ireland.
  The issues involved are complex. As he did in Committee, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), with his legal training, illustrated some of the complexities and difficulties associated with the issue and with these proposals in particular. As I said in Committee, the use of firearms and the law on the use of force are matters that go beyond the emergency provisions legislation, since they affect the criminal law as a whole. It would be anomalous, in the Government's view, to make special provision for the circumstances in which policemen might open fire in dealing with suspected terrorists, but not in a range of other circumstances. We must also consider whether it would be desirable that the law on such a fundamental matter as the use of force in Northern Ireland should be distinct from that in England and Wales. These are thus issues which take the new clause and the amendment outside the scope of the Bill.
  A statutory code of practice on the use of force, if such were to be introduced, would more properly belong in the ordinary criminal law, where the law on the use of force is to be found. As I explained to hon. Members in Committee, however, the Government will keep the issues under consideration. My Department accepted the offer of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to prepare a draft code so that we could see what it might look like and whether it was feasible or practicable for such a code to be drafted.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have listened intently to the exchanges. In the analysis of a draft code of practice, will the Minister and his officials examine comparative evidence? Is it the case that such codes of practice exist in other states?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I am sorry that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's last question. Certainly, we would want to take wide cognisance of whatever information was available to us in the drafting of such a code, were we to decide to proceed in that way.
  Mr. Mallon: My question is much more fundamental. It relates to the central thrust of what the Minister has said so far. Is he of the opinion that a war is taking place in Northern Ireland?
  Dr. Mawhinney: What is taking place in Northern Ireland is a lot of criminal activity by criminals, by people

  389
  who are called terrorists and by thugs, but it is certainly not anything comparable to what we have just seen in the Gulf states. That was a war. I am not sure whether there is a lot to be gained from debating the semantics of the position.
  We all recognise that there is the illegal use of force in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) was right. There is a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland; it is conducted by terrorists, primarily by the Provisional IRA, but also by others, including loyalist terrorists. Whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) wants to call that war is a matter for him. The House clearly understands the circumstances of what is happening in Northern Ireland and the need to address those circumstances in a way which is within the law, but nevertheless gives the security forces the opportunities to respond on behalf of the people whom they are there to serve and to protect to the maximum possible extent.
  Mr. Mallon: The Minister has used the word "semantics". I agree that the debate is not about semantics. He has surely referred to the nub of the problem. He said in his answer that criminals are involved. Criminals are answerable to the law. Yet in all our debates we have the juxtaposition of one hon. Member saying that it is a war situation, the next saying that it is a matter for the ordinary law, and the next saying that it is a question of criminality. Certainly, some of the speeches made by Conservative Members show the need to make it clear that we are not talking about war. That is exactly what the Provisional IRA want us to talk about. It wants us to regard the situation as such because of the implications of that for the IRA. We are talking about trying to cope with criminal activity with the most normal law available to us.
  Dr. Mawhinney: It is for right hon. and hon. Members of the House to make their own speeches. I am not responsible for the speeches of other hon. Members. I am responsible on this occasion for expressing the view of the Government. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we are talking precisely about the law. That is what we have before us this evening. We have before us a Bill which, subject to the wish of this House and of another place, will become the law of the land. It will become the legal framework which governs the activities of security forces, police and others, in relation to those who go about terrorising, killing, maiming and breaking the law in Northern Ireland. The Bill will be used as law within the legal system for the protection of those who live in Northern Ireland. On that the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely there is a distinction between dealing with ordinary criminal activity and facing up to terrorist activity. Surely the Minister agrees that in Northern Ireland we face intense terrorist activity by people who are prepared to kill by all possible means.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If I may bring us back to the Bill, it is emergency provision legislation. It is an emergency provision for the reason that the hon. Gentleman has so eloquently stated, but it is still legislation. That is the way in which the House must proceed and the framework within which the security forces also have to proceed.
  390
  As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, the new clause appears similar to that which the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has produced, as indeed it is. It is a useful contribution to our consideration of the issue. We have been giving our thought and consideration to that issue since we received the proposal from the commission, and our dialogue with the commission will continue—it has not ended just because we have had a suggestion from the hon. Gentleman.
  The House will appreciate, however, that such issues require careful consideration. Indeed, some of the reasons why they need to be carefully considered were mentioned by several hon. Members. The consideration that the issues deserve and require will take the matter well beyond the immediate timescale of the Bill. Indeed, I understand that the commission itself said that it would have preferred to have more time to consider the proposals that it made to the Government.
  Against the background that I have described, I invite the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to withdraw his new clause. It raises issues which go beyond the Bill. Therefore, and for the reasons that I have stated, the Government are unable to accept it. But I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall continue to review the position with SACHR in the weeks ahead.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for what the Minister has just said, but I am afraid that I am not satisfied with it. Before I press the new clause to a Division, I would like to respond to some of the points made by other hon. Members.
  Part of the code would require that firearms always be made safe. That was laughed at. Should firearms be unsafe? Is that what the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) are saying?
  I spoke about warning and said that the words "army", "police", "stop or I fire", or words to that effect, should be used. Should they not be used when the code says that security forces
  "shall give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would expose others or themselves to undue risk or would be clearly pointless or inappropriate in the circumstances."?
  One cannot be allowed to get away with partial quotations. People delight in using partial quotations when they do not like a concept that is proposed. In this case, the concept is that members of the security forces who are in possession of firearms of tremendous power ought to use those firearms responsibly. Normally, the arms should be carried safely, and anyone who appears to have used a weapon wrongly should be answerable under the law. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Upper Bann to say, "It is terribly sad if a member of the security forces negligently or mistakenly discharges a firearm and kills somebody." The hon. Gentleman used the words, "negligently or mistakenly"; I took them down. It is indeed very unfortunate if a person is killed. Victims too have certain rights.
  Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  11.15 pm
  Mr. McNamara: Not at the moment.
  We are not arguing that this House should give way to terrorists. Nor are we suggesting that there is equality

  391
  between terrorists and the armed forces. There is no such equality. Terrorists are terrorists—people with a shoot-to-kill policy. No one should deny that for one moment. Indeed, it has been driven home by the events of the past week, but that is not what the argument is about. The argument is about the proper use of force. The security forces act in our name, under the rule of law, so their use of force must be controlled.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman quoted me as having used the words, "negligently or mistakenly". He seemed rather surprised that I should have done so. Is he seriously suggesting that when a mistake is made—even if there is negligence—criminal sanctions should follow?
  Mr. McNamara: The answer is yes. "Negligently" means without taking due care or precautions.
  Mr. Trimble: And criminal sanctions should follow?
  Mr. McNamara: Criminal sanctions should follow. Indeed, that is already the law.
  Mr. Trimble: It is not.
  Mr. McNamara: Under military law, it is a criminal offence to discharge a firearm negligently. Anyone doing so ends up in the glasshouse.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we should be changing the law if we were to pass this new clause. Of course we should. We introduced the new clause because we want to change the law. It cannot be acceptable to the House that a person who cannot be charged with murder must be discharged. In respect of the use of firearms, there are different levels of culpability.
  There are cases in which people kill others as a result of negligent, mistaken or careless action. In such circumstances, the crime may not amount to murder as such, but the people involved must be held responsible. Under current criminal law, that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman says that this should be part of the general law of the land rather than of emergency law, but we are concerned here with the emergency use of troops in support of the civil power. This legislation is designed to deal with that situation, and that is our reason for tabling the new clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 131.

  Division No. 89]

  [11.19 pm

  AYES

  Canavan, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Clelland, David

  Mallon, Seamus

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cryer, Bob

  Meale, Alan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Nellist, Dave

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Prescott, John

  Dixon, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Strang, Gavin

  Haynes, Frank

  Turner, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McGrady, Eddie

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Harry Barnes.

  McNamara, Kevin

  392

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Alexander, Richard

  Maclean, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Amess, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Amos, Alan

  Maples, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ashby, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Beggs, Roy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Boswell, Tim

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Mudd, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Needham, Richard

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

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

  Norris, Steve

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Page, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Paice, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Conway, Derek

  Patnick, Irvine

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Pawsey, James

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Day, Stephen

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Evennett, David

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Fallon, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Favell, Tony

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Forth, Eric

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Franks, Cecil

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Speed, Keith

  French, Douglas

  Speller, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stern, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Green way, John (Ryedale)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Gregory, Conal

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hannam, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Harris, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hayward, Robert

  Thorne, Neil

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Tracey, Richard

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Trimble, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Irvine, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Wallace, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Waller, Gary

  Kilfedder, James

  Ward, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Watts, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Knowles, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Yeo, Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lord, Michael

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  McCrea, Rev William

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 18

  POWERS OF ARREST AND SEIZURE OF MEMBERS OF HER MAJESTY'S FORCES
  11.30 pm
  Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 13, line 5, after 'seize' insert
  ',and detain for not more than four hours,'.
  The amendment gives effect to a commitment which I gave in Committee. Clause 18(4) provides a new power for the armed forces to seize items which are, have been or are intended to be used in the commission of an offence under clauses 24 or 25.
  I gave a commitment to the Committee to consider whether it would be desirable to limit the new power of seizure to a maximum of four hours, as with the power to arrest and detain persons under clause 18(1). The Government have decided that it would be desirable to make this change, and the amendment makes the necessary provision.
  The effect of the amendment is that, if after four hours the items had not already been returned to their owners, they would have to be returned, unless the police considered it necessary to retain them under their powers in clause 17(3).
  I hope that the House will welcome the amendment.
  Mr. McNamara: On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to say that I am glad that the Government have met our concerns. I am happy to accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

  POWER TO SEARCH FOR MUNITIONS, RADIO TRANSMITTERS AND SCANNING RECEIVERS
  Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 13, line 28, after 'above' insert 'reasonably'.
  Clause 19(4) enables members of the police and armed forces carrying out a search of a dwelling house or any other premises to place restrictions on the movements of the occupants of the place of search, or to require other persons to refrain from entering it, where they believe that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of effectively carrying out the search or of preventing the frustration of its object.
  In Committee, I undertook to change the statutory test in clause 19(4) to require the police and armed forces reasonably to believe that it is necessary for the purpose of effectively carrying out a search or of preventing the frustration of its object before imposing restrictions. The amendment gives effect to my undertaking. I hope that the House will welcome it.
  Mr. McNamara: Again, we are happy to accept the amendment. We are happy that, at least on this occasion, the Government have met our wishes.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

  EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 15, leave out lines 31 to 48.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments No. 40 and 41.
  Mr. Marshall: I hope that amendment No. 5 obtains the unanimity given to Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
  Clause 22 gives the security forces the power to examine and remove documents found in the course of searches of premises, vehicles or persons. As the Minister will remember, in Committee we tried to amend the clause. I believe that he had some sympathy with our arguments but was not prepared to accept our suggestions.
  We are returning to this subject because we are still unhappy with clause 22 and we are not convinced that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 will be an improvement. We believe that they will make the clause unworkable. That is why we continue to press for the emasculation of the clause. The amendments, if agreed to, would make the clause ineffective.
  Lord Colville of Culross ruled out the proposed innovation in the Province until such time as the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act provisions had been tested in the courts. The Minister will recall that that statement appears in paragraph 2.9.6 of Lord Colville's report. Lord Colville alluded to difficulties that the proposed power would create:
  "I have a reluctance to recommend extensions of emergency powers, especially when they expand the powers to search. Private papers are not lightly to be laid open to a rummage."
  That is strong language for Lord Colville. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the consequent confrontations could give rise to considerable potential friction between the security forces and members of the public.
  As we said in Committee, we believe that the penalties
  that are attached to refusal to co-operate are excessively severe. It should be recognised that many ordinary people will be incensed by these draconian powers. Any premeditated attempt to disrupt a search is already covered by existing law—for example, obstruction, breach of the peace and other offences within the criminal code. The penalties that are attached to offences under the clause are excessive and unnecessary, given the provisions of the criminal law.
  I congratulate the Government on tabling amendments Nos. 40 and 41, to the extent that the Minister accepted some of the arguments that we advanced in Committee. I presume that the Government's amendments are designed in part to try to meet the criticisms that we expressed at that stage. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, we prayed in aid in support of our views the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Bar Council. I hope that the Minister has had discussions with those two bodies. I hope also that he will be able to convince us that those two bodies think that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are suitable.
  As I understand amendment No. 40, it is an attempt to introduce the concept of legal privilege so that certain documents will be exempt from the power that is defined

  395
  in the clause. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that concept was absent as the clause was drafted originally.
  We welcome the concept of legal privilege. Indeed, it is one that we introduced in Committee. We have grave doubts, however, about the practicality of the clause if amendment No. 40 is agreed to. On what basis is it possible for a soldier at a checkpoint to determine whether an item is subject to legal privilege? A check can be made, but that will involve the soldier reading the material, and by reading it he would be committing an illegal act. How can the Minister reconcile that? A soldier can only ascertain that a document is legal by reading it, but, by doing so, he commits an illegal act.
  The new subsection 2A strengthens the argument for the complete removal of an unworkable and counterproductive clause. Given the Government's view on the operation of PACE in the Province, the remainder of Government amendment No. 40 is ironic. In Committee, the Government rejected the PACE-type safeguards we proposed on the ground that they would lead to unnecessary bureaucracy.
  Amendment No. 40 is a cynical attempt to amend the unamendable rather than accept that clause 22 is impractical. Unless I receive assurances from the Minister, we intend to press amendment No. 5 to a vote. We have grave doubts about the practicalities of amendments Nos. 40 and 41—we trust that the Minister will be able to give us further reassurances about them—but, despite those doubts, we do not intend to oppose the amendments in the Lobby.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) used the word "cynical", as it was a departure from his normal generosity of spirit when we have not agreed on the Bill on the past. I am also sorry that he believes that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are so unappealing.
  One of the terrorist's most vital weapons is intelligence and the collection of information. I am sure that most people would agree with that statement. I therefore find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman believes that amendment No. 5 should be pursued and that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are "unworkable and unnecessary". If the terrorist sets such store by the collection of information—he needs that information to target his attacks on individuals or places—surely it must be appropriate for the House to address that issue. At present, the security forces are poorly equipped to profit from such opportunities as they may have to get hold of such information.
  Although it is an offence to possess information which is likely to be of use to terrorists, there is no related power to examine material that may be found during the course of a lawful search to ascertain whether it contains such vital information for the terrorists. We went over this in Committee, and it is the basis of clause 22. The existing provisions in the PACE order, which require prior application for a warrant, are not adequate for this purpose.
  As the law stands, it works greatly in the terrorists' favour. The Government regard the new powers in clause 22 as an appropriate way in which to enhance the security forces' ability to obtain evidential material, as well as
  396
  offering the potential to deter and disrupt terrorist operations. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we believe that these powers are justified and necessary. Nevertheless, I announced in Committee on 15 January that we had received representations from a number of bodies about the scope of the powers in clause 22. As the hon. Gentleman said, we had a thorough debate about the issue in Committee, when concerns were expressed by both sides about that clause.
  The bodies that made representations to us included the Law Society for Northern Ireland, the Bar Council, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Committee on the Administration of Justice. I told the Committee that we would consult further on the issues, and we have done so.
  After consultation with the interested parties, we have reflected on all the issues to establish whether we can provide greater protection for certain categories of document without sacrificing the essential security purpose of the power contained in the clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I will simply have to agree to differ on that fundamental issue.
  I take some pleasure from being able to tell the House that we have been able to introduce some important safeguards. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leicester, South does not share that pleasure. The proposed changes are in amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
  First, amendment No. 40 provides that the power in clause 22 shall not be taken to authorise the examination, removal or retention of a document or record when there is reasonable cause for believing it to be an item subject to legal privilege. That was urged on us in Committee and it is an important limitation on the scope of the new power. The point was made to us by a number of bodies, including those to which I have just referred, that legal documents are given absolute protection under the ordinary law and should be similarly protected under clause 22. That was also urged on us in Committee. After careful reflection, we have concluded that it would be right to exclude such documents from the scope of clause 22.
  11.45 pm
  Secondly, the amendment places a duty on the police and armed forces to make a written record where a document or record is examined under clause 22, and to provide a copy of the record to any person whose documents have been examined. The record would also state the date and time when any document or record was removed and retained for examination, and it would identify the constable or member of the armed forces making it. The record would therefore constitute a receipt where documents are removed and retained for examination. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights considered that point to be important.
  Thirdly, the amendment would set limits on the length of time that any document or record may be removed and retained for examination by the police or armed forces. It is right and proper that documents should not be removed for an indefinite period. The amendment would require the police and armed forces to return retained documents to their owners before the expiry of 48 hours from the time when they were removed, unless they were seized for evidential purposes.
  However, we have thought it right to provide the police with powers, exercisable only on the authority of an officer of the rank of chief inspector or above, to extend the

  397
  period for another 48 hours in cases of particular difficulty, making a 96-hour maximum. Authorisation by a relatively senior police officer is an important safeguard against the possibility of documents being held for longer than is absolutely necessary.
  Finally, the amendment prohibits the photographing or copying by the police and armed forces of any document or record which is examined. That should provide valuable reassurance that the confidentiality of documents will be respected.
  Amendment No. 41 deals with a consequential change to clause 26. It simply provides that, where a document or record is found in the course of a search of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, then the copy of the record of the examination shall be provided to the person in charge of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft, and will contain appropriate details.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked a practical question about what he saw as the difficulties of ascertaining whether a document was subject to legal privilege, and of someone having to read it in order to make that judgment. A police officer or member of the armed forces can examine documents only so far as is reasonably required to ascertain whether the document contains information likely to be useful to terrorists. The term "reasonably required" means that the matter is a subject for the courts.
  The Government believe that the powers in clause 22 are necessary and justified. We listened to representations by members of the Committee, as we were urged to do, and to representations by others. We have responded to those representations, and we propose to provide important protection for legal documents and to build into the clause a series of procedural safeguards. I hope that, if amendment No. 5 is pressed to a vote, the House will feel able to reject it and to accept amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: First, I should like to comment on my use of the word "cynical". I do not usually reflect and then agree that I may have used an inappropriate word. On this occasion I have thought about the use of the word "cynical" and I agree that it was perhaps inappropriate to use such a word at this juncture. I put my use of it down to the lateness of the hour. I realise that I cannot get the Hansard reporter to change the word, but I should like the record to show that I have withdrawn the word "cynical" and would have liked to use the word "sceptical" instead.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gracious withdrawal.
  Mr. Marshall: Before the Minister is too grateful, I suggest that he looks at the dictionary definitions of "cynical" and "sceptical"—but let my retraction stand.
  There is not much difference between the Government and the Opposition on the use of documents by terrorist organisations and the need for security forces to have some powers to inspect such documents. As the Minister will appreciate, however, in Committee we placed great emphasis on legal documents. The Minister said then that under existing criminal law such documents have absolute privilege, but from what the Minister has now said, that will clearly not apply under this emergency legislation.
  Again we come back to the old conundrum of who will judge reasonableness and at what stage in the process it will be ascertained. I presume that a judge or a court will decide, but that will be at a stage far removed from the
  398
  soldier looking at the document and having to read either a short or long extract before he is able to decide whether it is subject to legal privilege.
  That is why we are sceptical of Government amendment No. 40. The introduction of the concept of legal privilege is good and coincides with the Opposition's view, but in practice it will have little or no effect, and the average legal document which should be subject to privilege will be treated no better or worse than any other document.
  That is the basis of our doubts about Government amendment No. 40. As I have already said, however, it is not our intention to oppose it. Nevertheless, despite the Minister's criticism of amendment No. 5, we shall seek to divide the House on that amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 22, Noes 126.

  Division No. 90]

  [11.52 pm

  AYES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Canavan, Dennis

  Mallon, Seamus

  Clelland, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Meale, Alan

  Cryer, Bob

  Nellist, Dave

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dalyell, Tam

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Derek

  Strang, Gavin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Turner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McGrady, Eddie

  Mr.Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Don Dixon.

  McNamara, Kevin

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Amess, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Amos, Alan

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Irvine, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Janman, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Kilfedder, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Brazier, Julian

  Knowles, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

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

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cash, William

  Lord, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chope, Christopher

  McCrea, Rev William

  Conway, Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Maclean, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fallon, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Favell, Tony

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Forth, Eric

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Franks, Cecil

  Moate, Roger

  Freeman, Roger

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gale, Roger

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mudd, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Needham, Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, John

  Norris, Steve

  Harris, David

  Paice, James

  399

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Tracey, Richard

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Trimble, David

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wallace, James

  Shelton, Sir William

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Watts, John

  Speller, Tony

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Stern, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stevens, Lewis

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 40, in page 15, line 40, at end insert—
  '(2A) This section shall not be taken to authorise the examination, removal or retention of a document or record by a person at a time when he has reasonable cause for believing it to be an item subject to legal privilege (within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989).
  (2B) Where a document or record is examined under this section it shall not be photographed or copied.
  (2C) Where a document or record is examined under this section the person who examines it shall make a written record of the examination at once or, where it is not practicable to make one at once, as soon as is practicable.
  (2D) A record of an examination of a document or record which is made under this section shall specify—

  (a) a description of the document or record;

  (b) the object of the examination;

  (c) the address of the premises, or a description of the place, where the document or record was found;

  (d) where the document or record was found in the course of a search of a person, the name of that person;

  (e) where the document or record was found in the course of a search of any premises or other place, the name of any person appearing to the person making the record to be the occupier of the premises or other place or to have had custody or control of the document or record when it was found;

  (f) where the document or record was removed for examination from the place where it was found, the date and time when it was removed from that place; and

  (g) where the document or record was examined at the place where it was found, the date and time when it was examined.

  (2E) Such a record shall identify the person by whom the examination was carried out—

  (a) in the case of a constable, by reference to his police number; and

  (b) in the case of a member of Her Majesty's forces, by reference to his service number, rank and regiment.

  (2F) Where a record of an examination of a document or record is made under this section a copy of the record shall be supplied—

  (a) in a case where the document or record was found in the course of a search of a person, to that person; and

  (b) in a case where the document or record was found in the course of a search of any premises or other place, to any person appearing to the person making the
  400
  record to be the occupier of the premises or other place or to have had custody or control of the document or record when it was found.

  (2G) Subject to subsection (2H) below, a document or record may not be retained by virtue of subsection (2) above for more than forty-eight hours.
  (2H) An officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of chief inspector may authorise the retention of a document or record by a constable for a further period or periods; but no such authorisation shall permit the retention of a document or record beyond the end of the period of ninety-six hours from the time when it was removed for examination from the place where it was found.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 26

  SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
  Amendment made: No. 41, in page 18, line 15, at end insert—
  '(1A) Where a document or record examined under section 22 above was found in the course of a search of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, the references in that section to the occupier of the premises or place where it was found shall be construed as references to the person in charge of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 27

  DIRECTING TERRORIST ORGANISATION
  12 midnight
  Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 19, leave out lines 10 to 13.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in page 19, line 10, leave out ', at any level,'.
  No. 11, in page 19, line 10, after 'the' insert 'criminal'.
  No. 2, in page 19, line 10, leave out 'an' and insert 'a proscribed'.
  No. 3, in page 19, line 11, leave out 'which is concerned in' and insert 'with regard to'.
  No. 12, in page 19, line 13, leave out 'imprisonment for life' and insert
  'imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years'.
  Government amendment No. 33.
  Mr. McNamara: Clause 27 was introduced by the Government, rather strangely, during the final stages in Committee. It creates a new offence of directing
  "the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism",
  the punishment for which shall be life imprisonment.
  There are several objections to this clause. It creates a new offence, but fails to define it. The concept of directing is totally unknown in existing law. Concepts such as permitting, allowing, suffering and controlling all exist and have a definite meaning, but there is no such precision in this clause.
  It is also noteworthy that the draft criminal code drawn up by the Law Commission in 1989 does not refer to the concept of directing anyone in the commission of any crime. Given that lack of precision and definition, the Government are likely to argue—as they did in Committee —that the courts will provide the necessary definition. Such an argument amounts to claiming that good judges in Northern Ireland will rescue us from bad law passed by the House of Commons.

  401
  Not only does the clause lack precision; it is unnecessary. It is already illegal to take part in the preparation, instigation or commission of acts of terrorism. The definition is already wide enough to encompass any behaviour that could legitimately be considered to direct the activities of an organisation involved in terrorism. Furthermore, the clause is, to a degree, dishonest. Its practical effect would be to make virtually every member of a proscribed organisation liable to a life sentence. As such persons would inevitably be involved in directing activities at some level, almost any involvement in any such organisation would make them so liable. If the Government intend to increase the penalties —there may or may not be an argument for that—they should say so openly, arid do it directly rather than through the back door.
  It can be argued that the failure to keep sentences proportionate to crimes poses an additional danger for the security forces, as there would be little difference between the consequences of less severe crimes and those of murder. The provision of the new offence would have strange, almost absurd, consequences. It relates not to the direction of terrorist activities, but to the direction of organisations concerned in such activities. Anyone responsible for bringing about a decision to cease terrorist activities would be liable to life imprisonment. People who engaged in conversations with terrorist organisations with the aim of persuading them to lay down their arms and pursue their goals democratically would be penalised by the clause.
  Clause 27 is not tied to the present emergency, in that it does not confine itself to terrorist activities engaged in by proscribed organisations, or to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It seems to be an example of the consequences of an error known to the Central Intelligence Agency as "blowback". "Blowback" occurs when official propaganda feeds back into official policy-making—when people act on the belief that their own propaganda is necessarily true. The theory behind it is that of the godfather hypothesis, which posits the existence of a directorate that plans, but does not carry out, acts of terrorism. Apart from the fact that anyone so involved is already guilty of a wide range of criminal offences, everything that is known about terrorism in Northern Ireland suggests that the credibility of the paramilitary leaders among their supporters depends on their being, or having been, personally implicated in specific acts of terrorism. A surprising number of them have been found by the courts to be involved in specific crimes.
  We cannot accept clause 27. The Government have not said that they are prepared to accept any of the amendments. Amendment No. 1, which was tabled by Ulster Unionist Members, seeks to make clause 27 more specific. It removes the phrase, "at any level", thereby restricting its scope to the leaders of proscribed organisations. If they push it to a vote, we shall vote for it.
  Amendment No. 2 would ensure that the clause applies only to organisations that have been proscribed, so that leading an organisation that may be involved in violent incidents does not lead to conviction unless it has been proscribed. I am not too happy with the amendment because a front organisation may condemn some acts of violence while sponsoring terrorist activity or benefiting from it. The amendment will need more careful consideration.
  402
  Amendment No. 3 makes the clause more specific by restricting guilt to those involved in the direction of terrorist activities. The legal activities of the organisation would not be covered. My hon. Friends in the SDLP have tabled an amendment to achieve a similar purpose, and I should have thought that it would recommend itself to the Government.
  In amendment No. 12, my hon. Friends in the SDLP seek to change the blanket charge or the indeterminate or mandatory life sentence to up to 10 years' imprisonment. Given the vagueness of the clause and the possibility of conviction under it for varying responsibilities for paramilitary campaigns, preserving judicial discretion would allow for sentences to be proportionate to the offence.
  Clause 27, which has no parallel in criminal legislation, introduces a dangerous new concept. In Committee, the Government said that it is necessary, yet members of the various terrorist organisations are already caught by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. By creating a new offence to pretend that they are doing something about the godfathers, the Government are not helping the fight against terrorism. The new clauses that we discussed earlier contained sensible provisions, but clause 27, which seems to be an emotional spasm, should not be in the Bill.
  Mr. Mallon: I should like to speak specifically to amendments Nos. 1 and 12, which were tabled by SDLP Members.
  Amendment No. 1 inserts "criminal" before the word "activities".
  Mr. Trimble: That is amendment No. 11.
  Mr. Mallon: Amendment No. 11.
  Under clause 27, any person who directs the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism is guilty of an offence. The clause is open to an interpretation that could be quite erroneous. Someone could direct several activities within an organization—an organisation that supports and is involved in terrorism—that are not terrorist acts and that could not be considered criminal acts. The clause must be clearly defined, or it will rightly be described as loose, imprecise and bad legislation.
  In Committee, it was suggested that we shall rely on good judges to protect the accused from bad law. I described clause 27 as resembling something that had been written on the back of an envelope by someone on his way home on the Underground—if the Underground had not been disrupted by someone who had been directing the activities of an organisation involved in terrorism.
  The purpose of amendment No. 12 is to try to soften the notion that somehow such activity merits a life sentence. The clause invites the judge to consider a life sentence. The Minister of State will argue that it would be nonsense for a judge not to use his discretion. If discretion is being left to the judge, that should be defined in the legislation. It is for that reason that we tabled the amendments.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Trimble: When the clause was discussed in Committee, we said that we could see merit in its general objective, but we were concerned about the width of its terms. In Committee, I put a number of questions to the

  403
  Minister of State on the point. In the light of his answers, we decided to table amendments to put on record our reservations, doubts and unhappiness about some aspects of the clause. I should like to speak to those briefly.
  Reference has been made to amendment No. 1, which would delete the phrase "at any level". As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, the object is to tighten the legislation. If it inflicts life imprisonment on the person who directs the activities of the organisation at any level, it will sweep up people who are engaged in low-level activity. We think that life imprisonment may not be appropriate when members of a proscribed organisation pay heavy penalties simply through membership, and any criminal activity that can be proved will carry its own penalty.
  The object of the clause is to give a special additional heavy penalty in the shape of life imprisonment to people who are, as is said, the godfathers. The godfathers are not the small fry. We can see merit in the legislation, because it is reasonable to believe that there are circumstances in which persons who are not members of proscribed organisations are directing their activities. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, but in some cases they are former active members of proscribed organisations who have moved on to other activities which are not formally proscribed but none the less, from that position of relative safety, they still direct terrorist activities. It is right that severe penalties should be available for them. I should like to think that they would be used, but we will wait and see.
  In Committee I asked the Minister of State why the clause was not directed specifically to proscribed organisations. He said that he did not want to refer to proscribed organisations because of the width of the power to proscribe. In clause 28(3), the Secretary of State may proscribe an organisation if it
  "appears to him to be concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it."
  The Minister of State said that he did not want to cover all those organisations. He did not want to cover organisations that were simply promoting or encouraging terrorism; he wanted to focus on organisations which were concerned in terrorism. The spirit of his reply was that "proscribed" was too wide, that he wanted a narrower focus.
  In framing the amendments, I tried to get the best of both worlds by referring to proscribed organisations and then by making it clear that the offence would apply not just to directing any activity of a proscribed organisation but to directing the terrorist activities of proscribed organisations. I think that in those circumstances life imprisonment is not inappropriate.
  With regard to other organisations which are not proscribed, there are two answers—either the organisation should be proscribed or the criminal or terrorist activities themselves could be brought in. The clause would bring in other organisations not proscribed where it might not be appropriate.
  In Committee the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North gave an example. He referred to the Animal Liberation Front as an example of an organisation which has been engaged—or there is reason to believe that it has been engaged—in activities which would come within the definition of terrorist activities. In this clause, a person
  404
  who directs any activity, whether criminal or non-criminal, within a body such as the Animal Liberation Front could be exposed to life imprisonment. We felt that was perhaps a little too draconian.
  If we are to have a penalty of this nature, it is appropriate that it be more narrowly focused. We tabled the amendments to put our position on record and I hope that the Government will consider the matter further.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Several important amendments have been tabled to the clause, and several hon. Members have spoken to them. I will do my best to meet the standard that I set myself at the beginning of the proceedings to be as concise as possible but to do justice to the arguments made.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not like clause 27. He did not like it in Committee, and he does not like it today. He has the virtue of consistency and we all admire him for that. I like clause 27. We have the same consistency and it seems that we shall have difficulty in achieving a meeting of minds on the subject. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the ordinary, common-sense meaning of this simple clause. A significant feature of all the amendments is that they focus on individual words.
  Clause 27 is short and needs to be taken in the round. The word "directing" has its ordinary common-sense meaning. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North does not like the word "direct"—he wants it to be defined—but if the House defined "direct" the courts would still have to reach a judgment about what the words meant. It seems much better that they should have to interpret a simple sentence with its common-sense meaning rather than complicated definitions of the word "direct", which they would still have to interpret. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked up the definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The meaning of the word "direct" is clear and straightforward.
  Amendment No. 1 is designed to remove the phrase "at any level". I advise the House that that phrase was included deliberately in the provision. Indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) acknowledged that I made that clear in Committee. The phrase was included to make it clear that anyone who directs the activities of one of the organisations, whether at headquarters, regional or local level, is equally open to prosecution.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested that the clause was not necessary because those involved in terrorist organisations could always be got for something else. But some of them cannot be got for something else. That is precisely why the clause has been inserted in the Bill.
  As I said in Committee, the expression "at any level" was chosen to give specific recognition to the types of structure that terrorist organisations adopt. I am slightly surprised at the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I should have thought that, with his knowledge, he would have recognised that the structures of terrorist organisations gave the phrase "at any level" genuine meaning. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has never accepted that concept, either in Committee or today, but I should have thought that the hon. Member for Upper Bann would recognise it.
  Mr. Trimble: Perhaps in my haste to make progress I passed over that point when I should have dealt with it in detail. I remember the points that the Minister made in Committee. He referred to cell-like structures, and so on. I formed the opinion then—and I am still of the opinion now—that the Bill would catch people directing cells of terrorist organisations if it simply used the phrase "directing the activities". I believe that "at any level" is still too wide.
  Mr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for explaining his view. I am afraid that we shall have to agree to disagree. It is gratifying that he recognises that there are structures which make the inclusion of the words "at any level" arguably defensible, even if he is not persuaded by the argument.
  As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, the purpose of amendment No. 11 is to narrow the scope of the offence. It would apply to those directing the criminal activities of organisations concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism. Of course, I accept that in certain circumstances some of the activities of terrorist organisations may not be overtly criminal—that is to say, they may not, in themselves, be breaches of the criminal law. For example, activities which may be directed by a person holding the position of quartermaster may not in themselves be criminal activities. It is not a criminal offence to purchase or acquire items such as gloves, balaclavas, overalls, two-way radios or walkie-talkies. On the other hand, we can have no doubt about the purpose behind the quartermaster's direction that such items should be acquired. I therefore suggest to the House that it is right that those against whom there is evidence of the direction of such activities, even when those activities may not in themselves be unlawful, should be open to prosecution.
  With regard to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, it may interest the hon. Member for Upper Bann to know that when the clause was being drafted our initial inclination —in line with the hon. Gentleman's own thinking—was to define the offence in terms of proscribed organisations. Clearly, it was—and is—our expectation that, in practice, it is against the leaders of those organisations which are currently proscribed, at whatever level, that the offence will be used. It became apparent, however, that there could be potential complications in using that definition. As hon. Members will recall, clause 28(3) empowers the Secretary of State to add to the list of proscribed organisations
  "any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it."
  The use of the definition "proscribed organisation" for this offence would have opened up the theoretical possibility that those who might be directing the activities of organisations which had been proscribed only for promoting or encouraging terrorism, rather than because they were concerned in terrorism, would be open to prosecution for this serious offence. That is not a situation that we wish to see arise.
  I see difficulties also in respect of amendment No.3. It is clear that, as the amendment is drafted the offence applies to anyone involved in directing the activities of terrorist organisations without seeking to put limits on the types of activities concerned. The point here is that every organisation is composed to some extent of different groups with different specialisations. In addition to those who actually plan and carry out acts of terrorism, there are
  406
  those who perform other functions such as intelligence-gathering, recruitment and quartermastering which are vital to the existence of the organisations. It is therefore right that those responsible for those various functions should be subject to prosecution for the offence if there is evidence of their directing role, although in individual cases that role may well not be such as to justify the maximum penalty.
  Mr. Trimble: I understand what the Minister is saying about activities other than those of a directly terrorist nature—gathering information, for instance—but he must realise that the cooks and bottlewashers are included.
  Mr. Mawhinney: If cooks and bottlewashers are members of terrorist organisations, it is possible that we are gathering them in.
  Amendment No. 3, however, appears to limit the application of the offence solely to those directing the activities of these organisations with regard to actual acts of terrorism. Not only would that represent an unacceptable narrowing of the offence, but it would place an additional heavy burden on the prosecution to demonstrate that that was precisely the suspect's role within the organisation's command.
  The purpose of amendment No. 12 is straightforward —it would reduce the maximum penalty for the offence from life imprisonment to 10 years. The Government cannot support that amendment. As hon. Members know, the offence is aimed at those who direct the activities of terrorist organisations, and it simply would not be credible for those in control of such organisations to be subject to a lesser maximum penalty than their subordinates. Rank and file members of those organisations are liable to sentences of life imprisonment where serious offences are committed, and it is right that those who are responsible for directing such activities should be subject to no less a penalty.
  The purpose of Government amendment No. 33 is to add the offence in clause 27 to the list of scheduled offences in schedule 1. It would clearly be inappropriate for the offence to be dealt with before juries, and the amendment will ensure that cases will be dealt with in accordance with the procedures in part I of the Bill.
  For all those reasons, I invite the House to resist amendments Nos. 6, 1, 11, 2, 3 and 12, but to accept Government amendment No. 33.
  12.30 am
  Mr. McNamara: It is not my intention to keep the House long, but the Minister of State has confirmed the point that we made earlier—he is boxed in by his own propaganda. He accused me of being consistent. On this issue, I am consistently right and he is consistently wrong and has dug a big pit for himself. He started by saying that everyone knew what "directing" meant. I asked him what he meant, and he replied that it would be foolish to define it. The Bill contains clauses that consist of nothing but definitions, so everything will be defined except the major new offence.
  The Minister said that we needed the new offence because there would be occasions when the people involved would not otherwise be, to use his charming and immortal word, "got". He did not give an example of what he meant, but he then said that he had thought of one and talked about quartermasters who, when sending out

  407
  people to collect items such as balaclavas and two-way radios, would be directing. They would be caught under clause 30 on obtaining possession of items intended for terrorist purposes.
  The Minister gave a list of other examples. He rightly said that it would be wrong for people who direct terrorism to be given more lenient prison sentences than those who carry out the crimes. But there are offences, including being an accessory to a crime and conspiracy, that cover every example given by the Minister. Someone felt that the Government had to appear to be tough. The proposal is nothing but an emotional spasm, and we should get rid of it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 123.

  Division No. 91]

  [12.32 am

  AYES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Canavan, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Meale, Alan

  Cryer, Bob

  Nellist, Dave

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Don

  Strang, Gavin

  Foster, Derek

  Turner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McGrady, Eddie

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  McNamara, Kevin

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Amess, David

  Irvine, Michael

  Amos, Alan

  Janman, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Kilfedder, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ashby, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beggs, Roy

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Knowles, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Lord, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

  McCrea, Rev William

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Maclean, David

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Day, Stephen

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fallon, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Favell, Tony

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Forth, Eric

  Moate, Roger

  Franks, Cecil

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Freeman, Roger

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gale, Roger

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mudd, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Needham, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gregory, Conal

  Norris, Steve

  Hague, William

  Paice, James

  Hannam, John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Harris, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Pawsey, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  408

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tracey, Richard

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Trimble, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shelton, Sir William

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wallace, James

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Speller, Tony

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Summerson, Hugo

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 52

  RIGHT TO COMPENSATION
  Amendment made: No. 18, in page 34, line 44, at end insert—
  '(8) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done under Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act or Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 54

  RESTRICTION OF PROSECUTIONS
  Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 35, line 20, leave out from 'prosecution' to 'except' in line 21 and insert—
  'in respect of an offence under this Act shall not be instituted in Northern Ireland'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 20.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Clause 54 provides that no proceedings for an offence under the Bill shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I am sure that hon. Members agree that private prosecutions for an offence under the Bill would be inappropriate.
  The offences in relation to authorised investigators apply to England and Wales and to Scotland and the offences in relation to the confiscation scheme are capable of being extended to those jurisdictions.
  Dr. Godman: I ask for the Minister's tolerance and sympathy. As a Scots Member, I am puzzled about why there is no mention of Scotland. When I was on a local review committee inquiring into Edinburgh prison, I had to assess for parole purposes a number of men who were in gaol in Scotland for committing terrorist acts involving groups in Northern Ireland. I ask the question because the Director of Public Prosecutions has no responsibility in Scotland. Why is there no reference to Scotland in the clause?
  12.45 am
  Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to move on to the next paragraph of my reply, his question would have been answered.

  409
  To ensure that there are no private prosecutions for offences under the Act, the amendments provide that proceedings in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the respective Directors of Public Prosecutions. No equivalent provision is necessary for Scotland, because private prosecutions cannot be brought in Scotland. I understand that prosecutions in Scotland have to be brought by the Lord Advocate.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 20, in page 35, line 22, at end insert
  'or in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 56

  ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
  Amendments made: No. 21, in page 36, line 4, leave out from '(2)' to 'shall' in line 5 and insert
  'No order under section 1 or 28 above or 58(3) below or paragraph 18(1)(a) of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act and no regulations under section 48 above'
  No. 22, in line 12, leave out from '(3)' to 'shall' in line 13 and insert
  'Orders and regulations under the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) above'
  No. 23, in line 16, after 'made', insert 'such'
  No. 24, in line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  '(4) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any order under section 25, Schedule 3 or paragraph 6(1)(d) of Schedule 4 or any order under regulations made by virtue of section 48.
  (4A) Any regulations under section 8 and any order under section 14(5), 15(8), (Confiscation orders)(5), 50 or 51 above or under paragraph 7(3) of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 58

  COMMENCEMENT, DURATION, EXPIRY AND REVIVAL OF PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
  Amendments made: No. 25, in page 36, line 35, after 'Act', insert
  'except Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities)'.
  No. 26, in line 36, at end insert
  'and that Part shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.'
  No. 27, in line 37, at end insert
  'and Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities)'.
  No. 28, in line 41, leave out second 'and'.
  No. 29, in line 42, at end insert
  ';and

  (c) paragraph 19 of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions),'.

  No. 30, in line 44, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (3) below'.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 60

  SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 31, in page 38, line 23, leave out 'section 47, Schedule 4 and paragraph 2(2) and (3)' and insert
  410
  'sections (Assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities), (Concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities) and 47, paragraph 18 of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions), Schedule 4, this Part of this Act so far as relating to those provisions and paragraphs 2(2), (3), (7) and (8)'.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

New Schedule
  CONFISCATION ORDERS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

    Interpretation
    1.—(1) Section (Interpretation of confiscation provisions) of this Act also has effect for the purposes of this Schedule.
    (2) The following provisions have effect, in addition to those of that section, for the interpretation of this Schedule.
    (3) Proceedings for an offence are concluded—

    (a) when (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time) there is no further possibility of a confiscation order being made in the proceedings;

    (b) on the satisfaction of a confiscation order made in the proceedings (whether by payment of the amount due under the order or by the defendant serving imprisonment in default).

    (4) An order is subject to appeal until (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time) there is no further possibility of an appeal on which the order could be varied or set aside.
    (5) References to "acting as an insolvency practitioner" shall be construed in accordance with Article 3 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 except that for the purposes of such construction paragraph (5) of that Article (which provides that nothing in the Article is to apply to anything done by the official receiver) shall be disregarded; and the expression shall include the official receiver acting as receiver or manager of the property.
    (6) References to the Registration of Deeds Acts are to the Registration of Deeds Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and every statutory provision for the time being in force amending that Act or otherwise relating to the registry of deeds, or to the registration of deeds, orders or other instruments or documents in such registry.

    Application of procedure for enforcing fines
    2.—(1) Where the Crown Court makes a confiscation order against a defendant, section 35(1), (2) and (4) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (powers of Crown Court in relation to fines) shall have effect as if—

    (a) the amount which the order requires him to pay were a fine imposed on him by the Crown Court; and

    (b) in section 35(2) (imprisonment in default), for the reference to twelve months there were substituted a reference to the periods set out in the second column of the following Table applicable respectively to the amounts set out opposite thereto—

    An amount not exceeding £50

    Table 7 days

    An amount exceeding £50 but not exceeding £100

    14 days

    An amount exceeding £100 but not exceeding £400

    30 days

    An amount exceeding £400 but not exceeding £1,000

    60 days

    An amount exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £2,000

    90 days

    An amount exceeding £2,000 but not exceeding £5,000

    6 months

    411

    An amount exceeding £5,000 but not exceeding £10,000

    9 months

    An amount exceeding £10,000 but not exceeding £20,000

    12 months

    An amount exceeding £20,000 but not exceeding £50,000

    18 months

    An amount exceeding £50,000 but not exceeding £100,000

    2 years

    An amount exceeding £100,000 but not exceeding £250,000

    3 years

    An amount exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding £1 million

    5 years

    An amount exceeding £1 million

    10 years

    (2) Where—

    (a) a warrant of commitment is issued for a default in payment of an amount ordered to be paid by a confiscation order in respect of an offence; and

    (b) at the time the warrant is issued, the defendant is liable to serve a term of custody in respect of the offence,

    the term of imprisonment or of detention under section 5 of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (detention of persons aged sixteen to twenty-one for default) to be served in default of payment of the amount shall not begin to run until after the term mentioned in paragraph (b) above.
    (3) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to the term of custody which the defendant is liable to serve in respect of the offence is a reference to the term of imprisonment or of detention under section 5 of the said Act of 1968 which he is liable to serve in respect of the offence; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph—

    (a) consecutive terms and terms which are wholly or partly concurrent shall be treated as a single term; and

    (b) there shall be disregarded—

    (i) any sentence of imprisonment or order for detention suspended under section 18 of that Act which has not taken effect at the time when the warrant is issued; and

    (ii) any term of imprisonment or detention fixed under section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 for which a warrant of commitment has not been issued at that time.

    (4) An amount payable under a confiscation order is not a fine, costs, damages or compensation for the purposes of section 76 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (enforcement of fines imposed on young offenders).
    (5) This paragraph applies in relation to confiscation orders made by the Court of Appeal, or by the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal, as it applies in relation to confiscation orders made by the Crown Court, and the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above to the Crown Court shall be construed accordingly.

    Interest on sums unpaid under confiscation orders
    3.—(1) If any sum required to be paid by a person under a confiscation order is not paid when it is required to be paid (whether forthwith on the making of the order or at a time specified under section 35(1) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945), that person shall be liable to pay interest on that sum for the period for which it remains unpaid and the amount of the interest shall for the purposes of enforcement be treated as part of the amount to be recovered from him under the confiscation order.
    (2) The Crown Court may, on the application of the prosecution, increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order under subsection (1)(c) of section 35 of the said Act of 1945 (imprisonment in default of payment) if the effect of sub-paragraph (1) above is
    412
    to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (2) of that section as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(b) above.
    (3) The rate of interest under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be that for the time being applying to a money judgment of the High Court.

    Cases in which restraint orders and charging orders may be made
    4.—(1) The powers conferred on the High Court by paragraphs 5(1) and 6(1) below are exercisable where—

    (a) proceedings have been instituted in Northern Ireland against the defendant for a relevant offence;

    (b) the proceedings have not been concluded; and

    (c) the court is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities.

    (2) Those powers are also exercisable where—

    (a) the High Court is satisfied that, whether by the making of a complaint or otherwise, a person is to be charged with a relevant offence; and

    (b) it appears to the court that there is reasonable cause to believe that he has benefited from terrorist-related activities.

    (3) For the purposes of paragraphs 5 and 6 below at any time when those powers are exercisable before proceedings have been instituted—

    (a) references to the defendant shall be construed as references to the person referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above;

    (b) references to the prosecution shall be construed as references to the person who the High Court is satisfied is to have the conduct of the proposed proceedings; and

    (c) references to realisable property shall be construed as if, immediately before that time, proceedings had been instituted against the person referred to in subparagraph (2)(a) above for a relevant offence.

    (4) Where the High Court has made an order under paragraph 5(1) or 6(1) below by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, the court shall discharge the order if proceedings in respect of the offence are not instituted (whether by the making of a complaint or otherwise) within such time as the court considers reasonable.

    Restraint orders
    5.—(1) The High Court may by order (a restraint order) prohibit any person from dealing with any realisable property, subject to such conditions and exceptions as may be specified in the order.
    (2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above, a restraint order may make such provision as the High Court thinks fit for living expenses or legal expenses.
    (3) A restraint order may apply—

    (a) to all realisable property held by a specified person, whether the property is described in the order or not; and

    (b) to realisable property held by a specified person, being property transferred to him after the making of the order.

    (4) This paragraph shall not have effect in relation to any property for the time being subject to a charge under paragraph 6 below.
    (5) A restraint order—

    (a) may be made only on an application by the prosecution;

    (b) may be made on an ex parte application to a judge in chambers; and

    (c) shall provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order.

    (6) A restraint order—

    (a) may be discharged or varied in relation to any property; and

    413

    (b) shall be discharged when proceedings for the offence are concluded.

    (7) An application for the discharge or variation of a restraint order may be made by any person affected by it.
    (8) Where the High Court has made a restraint order, the court may at any time appoint a receiver—

    (a) to take possession of any realisable property; and

    (b) in accordance with the court's directions, to manage or otherwise deal with any property in respect of which he is appointed,

    subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified by the court; and the court may require any person having possession of property in respect of which a receiver is appointed under this section to give possession of it to the receiver.
    (9) For the purposes of this paragraph, dealing with property held by any person includes (without prejudice to the generality of the expression)—

    (a) where a debt is owed to that person, making a payment to any person in reduction of the amount of the debt; and

    (b) removing the property from Northern Ireland.

    (10) Where the High Court has made a restraint order, a constable may, for the purpose of preventing any realisable property being removed from Northern Ireland, seize the property.
    (11) Property seized under sub-paragraph (10) above shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions of the High Court.
    (12) The prosecution shall be treated for the purposes of section 66 of the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (cautions) as a person interested in relation to any registered land to which a restraint order or an application for such an order relates.
    (13) On the application of the prosecution, the Registrar shall, in respect of any registered land to which a restraint order or an application for such an order relates, make an entry inhibiting any dealing with the land without the consent of the High Court.
    (14) Subsections (2) and (4) of section 67 of the said Act of 1970 (inhibitions) shall apply to an entry made on the application of the prosecution under sub-paragraph (13) above as they apply to an entry made on the application of any person interested in the registered land under subsection (1) of that section.
    (15) Where a restraint order has been protected by an entry registered under the said Act of 1970 or the Registration of Deeds Acts, an order under sub-paragraph (6) above discharging the restraint order may direct that the entry be vacated.
    (16) In this paragraph "Registrar" and "entry" have the same meanings as in the said Act of 1970 and "regisitered land" means land the title to which is registered under Part III of that Act.

    Charging orders in respect of land, securities, etc.
    6.—(1) The High Court may make a charging order on realisable property for securing the payment to the Crown—

    (a) where a confiscation order has not been made, of an amount equal to the value from time to time of the property charged; and

    (b) in any other case, of an amount not exceeding the amount payable under the confiscation order.

    (2) A charging order—

    (a) may be made only on an application by the prosecution;

    (b) may be made on an ex parte application to a judge in chambers;

    (c) shall provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order; and

    414

    (d) may be made subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit and, without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph, such conditions as it thinks fit as to the time when the charge is to become effective.

    (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, a charge may be imposed by a charging order only on—

    (a) any interest in realisable property, being an interest held beneficially by the defendant or by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act—

    (i) in any asset of a kind mentioned in subparagraph (4) below; or

    (ii) under any trust; or

    (b) any interest in realisable property held by a person as trustee of a trust if the interest is in such an asset or is an interest under another trust and a charge may by virtue of paragraph (a) above be imposed by a charging order on the whole beneficial interest under the first-mentioned trust.

    (4) The assets referred to in sub-paragraph (3) above are—

    (a) land in Northern Ireland; or

    (b) securities of any of the following kinds—

    (i) government funds or stock;

    (ii) stock of any body incorporated within Northern Ireland (other than a building society);

    (iii) stock of any body incorporated outside Northern Ireland (other than a building society incorporated in Great Britain) or of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, being stock registered in a register kept at any place within Northern Ireland;

    (iv) units of any unit trust in respect of which a register of the unit holders is kept at any place within Northern Ireland.

    (5) In any case where a charge is imposed by a charging order on any interest in an asset of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(b) above, the High Court may provide for the charge to extend to any interest or dividend payable in respect of the asset.
    (6) The High Court may make an order discharging or varying the charging order and shall make an order discharging the charging order if the proceedings for the offence are concluded or the amount payment of which is secured by the charge is paid into court.
    (7) An application for the discharge or variation of a charging order may be made by any person affected by it.

    Charging orders: supplementary provisions
    7.—(1) Subject to any provision made under paragraph 9 below or by rules of court, a charge imposed by a charging order shall have the like effect and shall be enforceable in the same courts and in the same manner as an equitable charge created by the person or persons who are entitled to make such charges over the realisable property.
    (2) Where a charging order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 or the Registration of Deeds Acts, an order under paragraph 6(6) above discharging the charging order may direct that the entry be vacated.
    (3) The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph 6 above by adding to or removing from the kinds of asset for the time being referred to there any asset of a kind which in his opinion ought to be so added or removed.
    (4) In this paragraph and paragraph 6 above—

    "building society" has the same meaning as in the Building Societies Act 1986;

    "dividend" includes any distribution in respect of any unit of a unit trust;

    "government funds or stocks" has the same meaning as in the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;

    415

    "stock" includes shares, debentures and any securities of the body concerned, whether or not constituting a charge on the assets of that body;

    "unit trust" means any trust established for the purpose, or having the effect, of providing, for persons having funds available for investment, facilities for the participation by them, as beneficiaries under the trust, in any profits or income arising from the acquisition, holding, management or disposal of any property whatsoever.

    Restraint and charging orders made by the Secretary of State
    8.—(1) The power to make a restraint order or charging order under the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 6 above shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State in any case in which it appears to him that the information which it would be necessary to provide in support of an application to the High Court or a judge under those provisions would, if disclosed, be likely to place any person in danger or prejudice the capability of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or a person authorised under section 47 of this Act to investigate a relevant offence.
    (2) In their application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above paragraph 4 to 6 above shall have effect with the necessary modifications and as if references to the High Court were references to the Secretary of State.
    (3) An order made by the Secretary of State by virtue of this paragraph may be varied or discharged under those provisions by the High Court; and the High Court may under paragraph 5(8) above appoint a receiver where a restraint order has been made by the Secretary of State.
    (4) A person who contravenes a restraint order made by virtue of this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable—

    (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both;

    (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

    Realisation of property
    9.—(1) Where—

    (a) a confiscation order is made;

    (b) the order is not subject to appeal; and

    (c) the proceedings in which it was made have not been concluded,

    the High Court may, on an application by the prosecution, exercise the powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) below.
    (2) The court may appoint a receiver in respect of realisable property.
    (3) The court may empower a receiver appointed under sub-paragraph (2) above, under paragraph 5 above or in pursuance of a charging order—

    (a) to enforce any charge imposed under paragraph 6 above on realisable property or on interest or dividends payable in respect of such property; and

    (b) in relation to any realisable property other than property for the time being subject to a charge under that paragraph, to take possession of the property subject to such conditions or exceptions as may be specified by the court.

    (4) The court may order any person having possession of realisable property to give possession of it to any such receiver.
    (5) The court may empower any such receiver to realise any realisable property in such manner (including the manner of conveyance or transfer of property which is land) as the court may direct.
    (6) The court may order any person holding an interest in realisable property to make such payment to the receiver in respect of any beneficial interest held by the defendant or, as the case may be, the recipient of a gift caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this
    416
    Act as the court may direct and the court may, on the payment being made, by order transfer, grant or extinguish any interest in the property.
    (7) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) above do not apply to property for the time being subject to a charge under paragraph 6 above.
    (8) The High Court shall not in respect of any property exercise the powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (3)(a), (5) or (6) above unless a reasonable opportunity has been given for persons holding any interest in the property to make representations to the court.

    Increase in realisable property
    10.—(1) Where—

    (a) by virtue of section (Confiscation orders)(7) of this Act the amount which a person is ordered to pay by a confiscation order is less than the amount assessed to be the value of his proceeds of terrorist-related activities; and

    (b) the High Court is satisfied, on an application made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) below, that the amount that might be realised in the case of that person is greater than the amount taken into account in making the confiscation order (whether it is greater than was thought when the order was made or has subsequently increased),

    the court shall issue a certificate to that effect, giving the court's reasons.
    (2) An application under sub-paragraph (1) above may be made either by the prosecution or by a receiver appointed under this Schedule in relation to the realisable property of the person mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
    (3) Where a certificate has been issued under subparagraph (1) above the prosecution may apply to the Crown Court for the amount to be paid under the confiscation order to be increased.
    (4) The Crown Court may on an application under sub-paragraph (3) above—

    (a) substitute for the amount to be paid under the order such amount (not exceeding the amount assessed as the value of the proceeds of terrorist-related activities) as appears to the court to be appropriate having regard to the amount now shown to be realisable; and

    (b) increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the order under subsection (1)(c) of section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (imprisonment in default of payment) if the effect of the substitution under paragraph (a) above is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (2) of that section as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(b) above.

    Application of proceeds of realisation and other sums
    11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the following sums in the hands of a receiver appointed under this Part or in pursuance of a charging order, that is—

    (a) the proceeds of the enforcement of any charge imposed under paragraph 6 above;

    (b) the proceeds of the realisation, other than by the enforcement of such a charge, of any property under paragraph 5 or 9 above; and

    (c) any other sums, being property held by the defendant,

    shall first be applied in payment of such expenses incurred by a person acting as an insolvency practitioner as are payable under paragraph 17(2) below and then shall, after such payments (if any) as the High Court may direct have been made out of those proceeds and sums, be applied on the defendant's behalf towards the satisfaction of the confiscation order.
    (2) If, after the amount payable under the confiscation order has been fully paid, any such sums remain in the hands of such a receiver, the receiver shall distribute them—

    417

    (a) among such of those who held property which has been realised under this Schedule; and

    (b) in such proportions,

    as the High Court may direct after giving a reasonable opportunity for such persons to make representations to the court
    (3) The receipt of any sum by the proper officer on account of an amount payable under a confiscation order shall reduce the amount so payable, but the proper officer shall apply the money received for the purposes, and in the order, specified in this paragraph.
    (4) The proper officer shall first pay any expenses incurred by a person acting as an insolvency practitioner and payable under paragraph 17(2) below but not already paid under sub-paragraph (1) above.
    (5) If the money was paid to the proper officer by a receiver appointed under this Schedule or in pursuance of a charging order, the proper officer shall next pay the receiver's remuneration and expenses.
    (6) After making—

    (a) any payment required by sub-paragraph (4) above; and

    (b) in a case to which sub-paragraph (5) above applies, any payment required by that sub-paragraph,

    the proper officer shall reimburse any amount paid under paragraph 13(2) below.
    (7) The proper officer shall finally pay any compensation directed to be paid out of any sums recovered under the confiscation order under section (Provisions supplementary to section Confiscation orders)(7) of this Act.
    (8) Any balance in the hands of the proper officer after he has made all payments required by the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall be treated as a fine for the purposes of section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (application of fines).
    (9) Where under sub-paragraph (3) above a sum falls to be applied in payment both of compensation and of other outgoings—

    (a) the person entitled to the compensation shall be liable to pay into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom such an amount as bears to the remuneration or expenses the same proportion as the amount payable in accordance with the direction mentioned in sub-paragraph (7) above bears to the total amount payable under the confiscation order;

    (b) the proper officer shall deduct from the amount falling to be applied in payment of the compensation an amount equal to the amount of any liability arising by virtue of paragraph (a) above;

    (c) notwithstanding the deduction under paragraph (b) above, the person entitled to compensation shall be treated as having received the whole of the amount which falls to be applied in payment of it; and

    (d) the amount deducted shall be treated as a fine for the purposes of section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.

    (10) In this paragraph "the proper officer" means the appropriate officer of the Crown Court.

    Exercise of powers by High Court, Secretary of State or receiver
    12.—(1) This paragraph applies to the powers conferred on the High Court and the Secretary of State by paragraphs 5 to 9 and 11 above, or on a receiver appointed under this Schedule or in pursuance of a charging order.
    (2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the powers shall be exercised with a view to making available for satisfying the confiscation order or, as the case may be, any confiscation order that may be made in the defendant's case the value for the time being of realisable property held by any person by the realisation of such property.
    (3) In the case of realisable property held by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift
    418
    caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act the powers shall be exercised with a view to realising no more than the value for the time being of the gift.
    (4) The powers shall be exercised with a view to allowing any person other than the defendant or the recipient of any such gift to retain or recover the value of any property held by him.
    (5) An order may be made or other action taken in respect of a debt owed by the Crown (including the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland).
    (6) In exercising those powers, no account shall be taken of any obligations of the defendant or of the recipient of any such gift which conflict with the obligation to satisfy the confiscation order.

    Receivers: supplementary provisions
    13.—(1) Where a receiver appointed under this Schedule or in pursuance of a charging order takes any action—

    (a) in relation to any property which is not realisable property, being action which he would be entitled to take if it were such property;

    (b) believing, and having reasonable grounds for believing, that he is entitled to take that action in relation to that property,

    he shall not be liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from his action except in so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence.
    (2) Any amount due in respect of the remuneration and expenses of a receiver so appointed shall, if no sum is available to be applied in payment of it under paragraph 11(5) above, be paid by the prosecution or, in a case where proceedings for a relevant offence are not instituted, by the person on whose application the receiver was appointed.

    Variation of confiscation orders
    14.—(1) If, on an application by the defendant in respect of a confiscation order, the High Court is satisfied that the realisable property is inadequate for the payment of any amount remaining to be paid under the order the court shall issue a certificate to that effect, giving the court's reasons.
    (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above—

    (a) in the case of realisable property held by a person who has been adjudged bankrupt the court shall take into account the extent to which any property held by him may be distributed among creditors; and

    (b) the court may disregard any inadequacy in the realisable property which appears to the court to he attributable wholly or partly to anything done by the defendant for the purpose of preserving any property held by a person to whom the defendant had directly or indirectly made a gift caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related provisions) of this Act from any risk of realisation under this Schedule.

    (3) Where a certificate has been issued under subparagraph (1) above, the defendant may apply to the Crown Court for the amount to be paid under the confiscation order to be reduced.
    (4) The Crown Court shall, on an application under sub-paragraph (3) above—

    (a) substitute for the amount to be paid under the order such lesser amount as the court thinks just in all the circumstances of the case; and

    (b) substitute for the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the order under subsection (1)(c) of section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (imprisonment in default of payment) a shorter term if the effect of the substitution under paragraph (a) above is to reduce the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (2) of that section as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(b) above.

    Bankruptcy of defendant
    15.—(1) Where a person who holds realisable property is adjudged bankrupt—

    (a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order made before the order adjudging him bankrupt; and

    (b) any proceeds of property realised by virtue of paragraph 5(8) or 9(5) or (6) above for the time being in the hands of a receiver appointed under paragraph 5 or 9 above,

    is excluded from the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of Part IX of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
    (2) Where a person has been adjudged bankrupt, the powers conferred on the High Court and the Secretary of State by paragraphs 5 to 9 and 11 above or on a receiver so appointed shall not be exercised in relation to—

    (a) property for the time being comprised in the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of that Part of the said Order of 1989;

    (b) property in respect of which his trustee in bankruptcy may (without leave of the High Court) serve a notice under Article 280 or 281 of that Order (after-acquired property and tools, clothes, etc. exceeding value of reasonable replacement); and

    (c) property which is to be applied for the benefit of creditors of the bankrupt by virtue of a condition imposed under Article 254(2)(c) of that Order.

    (3) Nothing in that Order shall be taken as restricting, or enabling the restriction of, the exercise of those powers.
    (4) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not affect the enforcement of a charging order—

    (a) made before the order adjudging the person bankrupt; or

    (b) on property which was subject to a restraint order when the order adjudging him bankrupt was made.

    (5) Where, in the case of a debtor, an interim receiver stands appointed under Article 259 of the said Order of 1989 and any property of the debtor is subject to a restraint order, the powers conferred on the receiver by virtue of that Order do not apply to property for the time being subject to the restraint order.
    (6) Where a person is adjudged bankrupt and has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act—

    (a) no order shall be made under Article 312 or 367 of the said Order of 1989 (avoidance of certain transactions) in respect of the making of the gift at any time when proceedings for a relevant offence have been instituted against him and have not been concluded or when property of the person to whom the gift was made is subject to a restraint order or charging order; and

    (b) any order made under either of those Articles after the conclusion of the proceedings shall take into account any realisation under this Schedule of property held by the person to whom the gift was made.

    Winding up of company holding realisable property
    16.—(1) Where realisable property is held by a company and an order for the winding up of the company has been made or a resolution has been passed by the company for the voluntary winding up, the functions of the liquidator (or any provisional liquidator) shall not be exercisable in relation to—

    (a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order made before the relevant time; and

    (b) any proceeds of property realised by virtue of paragraph 5(8) or 9(5) or (6) above for the time being in the hands of a receiver appointed under paragraph 5 or 9 above.

    (2) Where, in the case of a company, such an order has been made or such a resolution has been passed, the powers conferred on the High Court and the Secretary of State by
    420
    paragraphs 5 to 9 and 11 above or on a receiver so appointed shall not be exercised in relation to any realisable property held by the company in relation to which the functions of the liquidator are exercisable—

    (a) so as to inhibit him from exercising those functions for the purpose of distributing any property held by the company to the company's creditors; or

    (b) so as to prevent the payment out of any property of expenses (including the remuneration of the liquidator or any provisional liquidator) properly incurred in the winding up in respect of the property.

    (3) Nothing in the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 shall be taken as restricting, or enabling the restriction of, the exercise of those powers.
    (4) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not affect the enforcement of a charging order made before the relevant time or on property which was subject to a restraint order at the relevant time.
    (5) In this paragraph—

    "company" means any company which may be wound up under the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989; and

    "the relevant time" means—

    (a) where no order for the winding up of the company has been made, the time of the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up;

    (b) where such an order has been made and, before the presentation of the petition for the winding up of the company by the High Court, such a resolution had been passed by the company, the time of the passing of the resolution; and

    (c) in any other case where such an order has been made, the time of the making of the order.

    Insolvency officers dealing with property subject to restraint order
    17.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 or any other statutory provision, where—

    (a) any person acting as an insolvency practitioner seizes or disposes of any property in relation to which his functions are not exercisable because it is for the time being subject to a restraint order; and

    (b) at the time of the seizure or disposal he believes, and has reasonable grounds for believing, that he is entitled (whether in pursuance of an order of the High Court or otherwise) to seize or dispose of that property,

    he shall not be liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from the seizure or disposal except in so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence in so acting; and a person so acting shall have a lien on the property, or the proceeds of its sale, for such of his expenses as were incurred in connection with the liquidation, bankruptcy or other proceedings in relation to which the seizure or disposal purported to take place and for so much of his remuneration as may reasonably be assigned for his acting in connection with those proceedings.
    (2) Any person who, acting as an insolvency practitioner, incurs expenses—

    (a) in respect of such property as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above and in so doing does not know and has no reasonable grounds to believe that the property is for the time being subject to a restraint order; or

    (b) other than in respect of such property as is so mentioned, being expenses which, but for the effect of a restraint order, might have been met by taking possession of and realising the property,

    shall be entitled (whether or not he has seized or disposed of that property so as to have a lien under that paragraph) to payment of those expenses under paragraph 11(1) or (4) above.

    Enforcement of orders outside Northern Ireland
    18.—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the enforcement of confiscation orders and restraint orders—

    (a) in England, Wales and Scotland; and

    (b) in any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

    (2) An Order under this paragraph may apply or modify any of the provisions of this Schedule so far as appears to Her Majesty to be appropriate for the purposes of the Order.

    Compensation
    19.—(1) If proceedings are instituted against a person for a relevant offence or relevant offences and either—

    (a) the proceedings do not result in his conviction for any such offence; or

    (b) where he is convicted of one or more such offences—

    (i) the conviction or convictions concerned are quashed; or

    (ii) he is pardoned by Her Majesty in respect of the conviction or convictions concerned,

    the High Court may, on an application by a person who held property which was realisable property, order compensation to be paid to the applicant if, having regard to all the circumstances, it considers it appropriate to make such an order.
    (2) The High Court shall not order compensation to be paid in any case unless the court is satisfied—

    (a) that there has been some serious default on the part of a person concerned in the investigation or prosecution of the offence concerned, being a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below; and

    (b) that the applicant has suffered loss in consequence of anything done in relation to the property by or in pursuance of an order under this Schedule or Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act.

    (3) The High Court shall not order compensation to be paid in any case where it appears to the court that the proceedings would have been instituted or continued even if the serious default had not occurred.
    (4) The amount of compensation to be paid under this paragraph shall be such as the High Court thinks just in all the circumstances of the case.
    (5) Compensation payable under this paragraph shall be paid—

    (a) where the person in default was or was acting as a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or as a person authorised under section 47 of this Act, by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland;

    (b) where the person in default was a member of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

    Transitional provisions
    20.—(1) In the case of a confiscation order made before the coming into operation of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, section (Realisable property, value and gifts)(41) of this Act shall have effect as if for paragraph (b) there were substituted—
    "(b) pay any sum which, if the defendant had been adjudged bankrupt or was being wound up, would be among the preferential debts.";
    and in that paragraph "the preferential debts"—

    (a) in relation to bankruptcy, means the debts to be paid in priority under Article 19 of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (assuming the date of the confiscation order to be the date of the order of adjudication); and

    (b) in relation to winding up, means the preferential debts listed in Schedule 18 to the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (assuming the date of the confiscation order to be the relevant date for the purpose of that Schedule).

    (2) Until the coming into operation of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, paragraphs 11(1) and (4) and 17 above shall have effect as if for references to an insolvency practitioner there were substituted references to an Official Assignee, trustee, liquidator, provisional liquidator or a receiver or manager appointed under section 68 of the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act 1872.
    (3) In any case in which a petition in bankruptcy was presented, or an adjudication in bankruptcy was made, before the coming into operation of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, paragraph 15 above shall have effect with the following modifications—

    (a) for references to the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of Part IX of that Order there shall be substituted references to the property of the bankrupt for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Acts (Northern Ireland) 1857 to 1980;

    (b) sub-paragraph (2)(b) shall be omitted;

    (c) for the reference in sub-paragraph (2)(c) to Article 254(2)(c) of that Order there shall be substituted a reference to Articles 28(4), (5)(c) and (11) and 30(6)(c) of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980;

    (d) for the reference in sub-paragraph (3) to that Order there shall be substituted a reference to the Bankruptcy Acts (Northern Ireland) 1857 to 1980;

    (e) for the reference in sub-paragraph (5) to an interim receiver appointed under Article 259 of that Order there shall be substituted a reference to a receiver or manager appointed under section 68 of the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act 1872; and

    (f) for the references in sub-paragraph (6) to Articles 312 and 367 of that Order there shall be respectively substituted references to section 12 of the Bankruptcy Amendment Act (Northern Ireland) 1929 and paragraph 16 of the Conveyancing Act (Ireland) 1634.

    (4) In any case in which a winding up of a company has commenced, or is treated as having commenced, before the coming into operation of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, paragraph 16 above shall have effect with the substitution for references to that Order of references to the Companies(Northern Ireland)Order 1986.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Schedule 1

    THE SCHEDULED OFFENCES
    Amendments made: No. 32, in page 41, line 43, at end insert—
    '(e) paragraph 25A(4) of Schedule 4 (restraint orders by Secretary of State).'
    No. 33, in page 42, line 3, at end insert—
    '(aa) section 27;'.
    No. 34, in line 10, at end insert—
    '(ha) section (Assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities);'.
    (hb) section (Concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities);'.
    No. 35, in line 11, at end insert—
    '(j) paragraph 8(4) of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions);
    (k) paragraph 4 of Schedule 4.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

  Schedule 4

    AUTHORISED INVESTIGATORS
    Mr. Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 47, line 36, leave out from beginning to 'require' and insert
    'A circuit judge may, on an application made by an authorised investigator,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 14, in line 41, leave out from beginning to 'require' and insert
    'A circuit judge may, on an application made by an authorised investigator'.
    Mr. Mallon: In Committee, I opposed giving to a lay person powers that are normally reserved for a police officer. The amendments are designed to introduce a judicial requirement into an order for a person to attend and answer questions, or an order to produce documents. The legitimate power of a police officer should not be given to a lay person, however qualified. A lay person should not be able to initiate and continue a specialised investigation. That is why the amendment provides that the powers should be given to a judge and not an authorised lay person.
    Mr. Trimble: I am puzzled by the drafting of the amendment, which refers to a circuit judge. Are there circuit judges in Northern Ireland? Is the hon. Gentleman not confusing Northern Ireland with the Republic, where there are circuit judges?
    Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows his youth. When I was about the hon. Gentleman's age, county court judges were known as circuit court judges. I happen to live close to the border and I have some knowledge of judges south of the border, who are also known as circuit court judges.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The amendment would confer on circuit court judges a novel inquisitorial role. As drafted, it would authorise them to require persons to attend before them. Such a person would be required to answer questions put by the judge. I suspect that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) may not have intended to introduce such a far-reaching reform, and that his intention was to require an authorised investigator to obtain authority from a ciruit court judge before exercising the powers that are set out in paragraph 2(1) of schedule 4. If that was the hon. Gentleman's intention, I must tell him that it has not been achieved by the amendment. I therefore hope that he will be willing to withdraw it.
    I must tell the hon. Gentleman also that amendment No. 14 is defective for the same reason. I hope that he will feel able not to move it.
    Mr. Mallon: I do not accept that the amendment is defective. If someone is required to attend, to produce documents and to answer questions, his attendance should be the result of a judicial decision and not that of a lay person. Given the time of night, however, and an ever-bludgeoning thirst, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Schedule 5
    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 36, in page 50, line 43, at end insert—
    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

      'The Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
      1A. In Article 3(2)(a) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 the reference to a fine or other sum adjudged to be paid by or imposed on a conviction does
      424
      not include a reference to an amount payable under a confiscation order made under section (Confiscation orders) of this Act.

      The Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980
      1B. Article 31 of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 shall have effect as if amounts payable under confiscation orders made under section (Confiscation orders) of this Act were debts excepted under paragraph (1 )(a) of that Article.

      The Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
      1C. In Article 17(2) of the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 after paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
      "(j) the Table in section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.".'
      No. 37, in page 51, line 36, at end insert—
      '(7) In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4, in the definition of "a Northern Ireland order" after the words "paragraph 23" there shall be inserted the words "or 25A".
      (8) In paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 4, in the definition of "a Northern Ireland order" after the words "paragraph 23" there shall be inserted the words "or 25A".
      (9) After paragraph 25 of Schedule 4 there shall be inserted—
      "25A.—(1) The power to make a restraint order under the provisions of paragraphs 23 and 24 above shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State in any case in which it appears to him that the information which it would be necessary to provide in support of an application to the High Court or a judge under those provisions would, if disclosed, be likely to place any person in danger or prejudice the capability of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or a person authorised under section 47 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 to investigate an offence under Part III of this Act.
      (2) In their application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above paragraphs 23 to 25 above shall have effect with the necessary modifications and as if references to the High Court were references to the Secretary of State.
      (3) An order made by the Secretary of State by virtue of this paragraph may be varied or discharged by the High Court under paragraph 23(5) or 24(2) above.
      (4) A person who contravenes a restraint order made by virtue of this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable—

      (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both;

      (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.".'

      No. 38, in page 52, line 7, at end insert—

      'The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
      4. Article 255 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 shall have effect as if the reference to a fine included a reference to a confiscation order made under section (Confiscation orders) of this Act.

      The Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990
      5. In Article 2(4)(b) of the Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 after "1989" there shall be inserted the words "or a relevant offence within the meaning of Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991".' —[Mr. Brooke.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      12.49 am
      Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Today we have had serious and constructive debates on the important issues relevant to the Bill. In the past four months, the House has given most careful consideration to the proposals. I recognise the strength of feeling that hon. Members have brought to that consideration of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that, where they have been unable to accept the arguments advanced by the Government, the Government have nevertheless listened carefully to what has been said and have sought to respond with genuine argument.
      I acknowledge and thank those outside the House who have played their role in our consideration, who have taken an active interest and made contributions. I have particularly in mind the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Committee for the Administration of Justice, the Northern Ireland Law Society and the Bar Council. I hope that those organisations feel that their contributions have been taken seriously and have added to our considerations.
      It would be wrong if I did not refer again to the crucial contribution made by Lord Colville. His report formed the backbone of our debates and I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that his report did us all a service. Lord Colville, through his skilled and penetrating analyses, laid out clearly for us the various issues that needed to be addressed.
      The Bill has benefited from the consideration that right hon. and hon. Members have given it, here and in Committee. I am grateful to all those who took part for the spirit in which they have contributed to the debate. I also thank and pay tribute to all those who have advised and worked with Ministers as we have studied the issues involved in the Bill.
      Those who served on the Committee will appreciate that the Bill has sought to find a balance, which is always a matter of judgment. That important balance is between the need for effective security legislation that offers protection to the people of Northern Ireland against those who would kill and maim and use the bomb and bullet because their arguments are not persuasive at the ballot box and the powers that are given to the security forces and police. When granting such powers, we must be aware of the rights of individuals and the fact that they too require protection in a democratic society. The Government have been conscious of that need for balance throughout the proceedings on the Bill. We believe that we have achieved that balance.
      We believe that the Bill will be a valuable and important contribution to security in Northern Ireland. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
      12.53 am
      Mr. McNamara: The Opposition do not intend to divide on Third Reading, nor on the order that follows.
      We have already demonstrated our hostility to the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Because of the situation in Northern Ireland, we recognise that paramilitary campaigns of violence require emergency legislation. We do not believe, however, that the Bill represents the best instrument to meet that threat.
      We have tried to adopt a rational approach to the Bill. Terrorism arouses understandable emotions, but we
      426
      cannot allow those emotions to override the necessity for a rational response to the threat posed. After all, terrorism represents a failure of reason. Democracies cannot surrender reason.
      All of us who have given serious consideration to the Bill are mindful of the fact that it has serious consequences for those who are charged with operating it on our behalf. The members of the security forces have to live and work with the legislation, so the House must be careful not to place them in positions which make their task more difficult, nor which condemn them to further decades of conflict in Northern Ireland. Too many elements of the Bill would do so.
      In Committee and on Report, the Minister of State often referred to the need for balance within this legislation. We accept that the Government have had to use their judgment in choosing between sometimes conflicting demands. Our objection is that they have systematically and continuously come down on the wrong side of the argument. Nowhere is that more clearly seen than in the Government's treatment of Lord Colville's careful and thorough reports. Glowing tributes have been paid to his work; then most of it has been ignored.
      Lord Colville's reviews have provided a focus for reasoned argument over the logic and nature of emergency legislation. If devolved institutions emerge in Northern Ireland, and when perhaps security powers are transferred, the people of Northern Ireland will be able to ensure proper democratic scrutiny of much of this legislation.
      Too many of Lord Colville's recommendations have been travestied or ignored by the Government. For instance, clause 30 on the possession of items connected with terrorism contains a completely distorted version of a proposal by Lord Colville. Similarly, Lord Colville proposed a switch to the certifying in of scheduled offences rather than scheduling out. This modest reform, which would have helped to ensure that the Diplock courts were employed for the purpose for which they were designed —trials involving terrorist offences—was completely ignored.
      Worst of all has been the Government's decision to pay no attention to Lord Colville's eloquent plea for the removal of the power of internment from the statute book. The Opposition are convinced that that is a serious mistake which undermines the credibility of efforts to create a normal and democratic society in Northern Ireland. It represents a commitment by the Government to cling to every last ounce of arbitrary executive authority. It is a hangover from the special powers Act. It reveals a state of mind which is not conducive to a focused, rational and intelligent security policy.
      Hegel may be alive and well in Craigavon, and he is also active in Hillsborough, but Belfast and Northern Ireland in the 1990s should not be confused with Berlin in the 1820s. To the Opposition, order and freedom do not appear as conflicting alternatives. We believe that political order is best guaranteed by freedom.
      Lord Colville's recommendations provided the Government with an opportunity to make a fresh start in a difficult and sensitive field. They came down on the side of coercion rather than reason. Eventually the Government will have to accept that reason alone is the main weapon to defeat terrorism in all its forms.
      12.57 am
      Mr. Mallon: After 44 hours of debate on the Bill, which has twice been in the House, and in Committee, concluding in the week in which we had to deal with a motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, we should not prolong the agony. I thank the Minister and officials for their courtesy during our consideration of the Bill. I also thank the Chairman of the Committee for his unfailing help and courtesy at all times.
      12.58 am
      Mr. Canavan: I am not in favour of giving the Bill an unopposed Third Reading, and I shall briefly explain why.
      The Bill is indicative of the hypocrisy and double standards of the British Government and the whole British establishment. The Government claim to believe in the unity of the United Kingdom and they say that Northern Ireland is and should remain a part of the United Kingdom. If the unity of the United Kingdom means anything, the Government should be consistent and ensure that equal standards of justice apply to all parts of the United Kingdom.
      The Bill reinforces and continues inferior standards of justice in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. The people there are subjected to powers of arrest, search and detention, and, above all, are deprived of the opportunity of a fair trial according to the principles and standards of justice which apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
      The Government's excuse for that is the emergency situation in Northern Ireland. How long will the emergency last? An emergency, by its very nature, should be temporary. When this legislation was first introduced in the early 1970s, it was considered to be a temporary measure. Then it was renewed and now we are getting further measures, albeit with some amendments.
      The Government have lamentably failed to solve the problems of Northern Ireland. Their cure is clearly not working. People are still being killed almost daily in Northern Ireland. To imagine that those problems will be solved by more and more repressive legislation is naive, or worse, it is to try to fool the people inside and outside the House. Those problems will never be solved simply by repressive legislation. It is about time that the Government started to look more seriously at the underlying political reasons for the insecurity and instability in Northern Ireland.
      It could be argued that Northern Ireland has been an unstable entity since its inception. It has been unstable politically, economically and socially. That instability is inherent within the system and the constitution of the Province. The sooner that the Government recognise that problem and address it and work towards the peaceful reunification of Ireland the better.
      1.2 am
      Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) suggested that the Bill is inadequate. I agree, but I do not agree with much of the rest of his analysis about how to begin to solve the problems of Northern Ireland. It is oversimple to suggest that a move to a united Ireland would in some way solve the problems.
      428
      Measures which allow the use of extra force to establish the authority of the state begin to make the state less acceptable to minorities which might be disenchanted and see their loyalties as lying elsewhere. We need serious measures to improve economic and social welfare in Northern Ireland. The Government's enterprise culture in Northern Ireland and the unemployment there have not assisted in that.
      We need to tackle the basis of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Emergency powers may be necessary in certain periods, but other factors are more important.
      Next week, the House will debate Northern Ireland appropriations—which will be like discussing Northern Ireland's budget. We can debate then matters of significance, rather than problems such as whether windows need to be fitted correctly in the Divis flats and other issues that, unfortunately, hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies sometimes choose to raise rather than bread-and-butter matters.
      Democracy is difficult to achieve in the circumstances because of the need for people to share and to interconnect. Democracy in Northern Ireland in terms of a devolved Government could be possible with a Bill of Rights that guaranteed minority rights. In certain circumstances, Protestants can find themselves in the minority and feel oppressed, just as Catholics do—although their experience in that respect may be greater. That is why we must introduce measures such as fair employment legislation.
      Even more important is the need to encourage all those brave people in Northern Ireland who take a stand against terrorism and try to take the ground from under it. Earlier, I mentioned Nancy Gracey and the movement comprised of families who campaign against intimidation and terror techniques such as knee-capping. I must refer also to those who run the peace trains between Belfast and Dublin, who attempt to ensure that the line is not disrupted by IRA terrorism of the kind that we are now experiencing to some extent in this country. We should aim to share to some degree our responses with the people in Ireland.
      There also exist three New Consensus groups. One operates from Northern Ireland, another from Ireland, and the third from this country. They stand for the principles of devolved government, a Bill of Rights, and integrated education. The latter should start with teacher training colleges. It is an obscenity that one such college is Protestant-controlled and that another is Catholic-controlled, and that the only integrated teacher training is at Belfast university.
      There is a trade union movement that says, "Hands off my mate", which seeks to defend people against oppression. There is much that is good in Northern Ireland, and it should be promoted more.
      The failure in Northern Ireland is the failure of the Northern Ireland politicians on all sides— —
      Rev. William McCrea rose——
      Mr. Barnes: —one of whom is trying to intervene, who in essence represent sectarian divisions and do not do enough to gain support from other groups.
      We should be seeing from the Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists an attempt to alter their stance and gain support from the Catholic community, while the SDLP should try to gain support from the Protestant community. Only two Northern Ireland parties are

      429
      attempting to do anything of that kind, but they are finding it difficult to get any grounding. I refer to the Workers party and the Alliance party, which at least try to have a broader appeal.
      Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. The hon. Member said that there is in Northern Ireland one Catholic-controlled university and one Protestant-controlled university. I have lived in Northern Ireland all my life, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to name the university that he says is Protestant-controlled.
      Mr. Barnes rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that we are dealing with the Third Reading of the Bill and that he must relate his remarks to the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Barnesour agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall briefly respond to that intervention. I understand that there are two teacher training colleges, one which is essentially Catholic-influenced and the other which is Protestant-influenced—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members may correct me on the details. I understand that a third avenue for teacher training exists in the university, and is more clearly integrated. I know that some Protestants go to the Catholic-dominated teacher training college and vice versa. I know that some Protestant Members of Parliament have been to the Catholic-dominated college. Nevertheless, that influence needs to be broken down. If we are to get integration in education, it needs to begin with teacher training. Perhaps I am a little short of detailed information— —
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is again straying from the Bill.
      Mr. Barnes: I shall conclude my speech now. I was trying to argue that the emergency provisions could have been different if Lord Colville's full recommendations had been taken into account and that they would then have been more acceptable. Such provisions, even if they are in an ideal form, can be acceptable only if economic and social welfare, democracy, devolved government, a Bill of Rights and community involvement are taking place at the same time, because they are what takes away the grounding for terrorism and, in the end, they are more important than emergency provisions, although I realise the significance of this legislation.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 3.

      Division No. 92]

      [1.12 am

      AYES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Amess, David

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Amos, Alan

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      430

      Ashby, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Beggs, Roy

      Moate, Roger

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Mudd, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Norris, Steve

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Paice, James

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Paisley, Rev Ian

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

      Pawsey, James

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Chope, Christopher

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Day, Stephen

      Shelton, Sir William

      Fallon, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Franks, Cecil

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Freeman, Roger

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Stern, Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Gregory, Conal

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Hague, William

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Hannam, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Harris, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Trimble, David

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Irvine, Michael

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Janman, Tim

      Wallace, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Waller, Gary

      Kilfedder, James

      Ward, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Watts, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Wells, Bowen

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Knowles, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Leigh, Edward (Galnsbor'gh)

      Wood, Timothy

      Lord, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Maclean, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

      Malins, Humfrey

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      NOES

      Cryer, Bob

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nellist, Dave

      Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

      Skinner, Dennis

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

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      Resolved,
      That the draft northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provision) (continuance) order 1991,which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved. —[Mr. Brooke.]

      Tin Mining (Cornwall)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      1.22 am
      Mr. Matthew Taylor: The last Adjournment debate that I secured on the Cornish tin industry, in 1988, began at 2.26 am. It is a relief that tonight's debate is not starting quite so late.
      I thank the Minister for being present. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is here and I know that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) will be here shortly.
      In the debate in 1988, we regretted the loss of 200 jobs in the industry. It is always tragic when jobs are lost because of the suffering that is caused, not least to the individuals involved. Tonight, we are debating the loss of 415 jobs; 415 families will be devastated.
      We are probably now discussing the end, at least for the foreseeable future, of tin mining in Cornwall, purely as a result of a Government decision. It is a tragedy for those who will lose their jobs and for the surrounding communities and it is an untimely death blow to a tradition of mining in our county which goes back 2,500 years. I have no hesitation in blaming the Government for that.
      I blame the Government because Carnon has been operating on the basis of a support scheme to which the Government were apparently committed and on the basis of money already promised. The Government have reneged on that commitment. They have broken their promise in a disgraceful manner, informing the company without warning late on Friday afternoon, and without letting hon. Members know what was coming.
      The most extraordinary point about the decision is that it defies all logic. The Government had promised a further £1·7 million loan to the mines and RTZ was due to invest, on the back of that, a further £2·4 million, which it is withdrawing as a result of the Government's decision. Having invested £23 million of public funds so far, for the Government to pull out now to save £1·7 million is senseless and a tragic letdown for the people.
      Let us remember that the package came about by agreement and set certain targets. The company had to keep to those targets. Had it not done so, the Government decision might have been justified, but the company did keep the targets—indeed, it exceeded them—so what justification can we find for the Government's decision?
      The Government might have argued that they could not afford it, but that patently is not the case. Apart from anything else, the money was earmarked and the company asked for not a penny more than it had been promised.
      The Government might also have argued that the company had not met its targets for cost cutting, but that is not so. The company had been successful in beating the cost reduction targets set by the Department. The break-even point in 1988 was £6,734 per tonne. For 1990, it was down to £4,340 a tonne. For the last quarter for which figures are available, it was down to £3,703 a tonne and it was still falling dramatically, week by week, day by day. Tin is currently being sold at £3,000 per tonne, so the company is getting close to the break-even point. As most analysts predict that the price of tin will rise in the next year, the company could soon be in a position to make profits once again, as it was only a few months ago.
      432
      Why would the Government not give the company a chance? The projected break-even point in the Department of Trade and Industry plan was £3,500 per tonne by 1993. That has already been more than surpassed, as the figures that I have given make clear, so how can the Government justify their decision? The only people who did not meet their targets were the Government themselves. When the deal was agreed, exchange rates were projected at under $1·50 to the pound. If that were so today, the company would be highly profitable. If anything has failed to meet targets, it is Government economic policy.
      Another possibility occurs. Perhaps the Government do not believe that the area needs the support that tin mining provides economically and socially. Perhaps they believe that the area is wealthy enough, or sufficiently full of job opportunities. Let me put the record straight. Carnon has a loyal labour force who have not received a pay rise for four years, precisely to improve the chances of making the company a success. The job losses come at a time when employment prospects in the area are particularly bleak. In the Redruth-Camborne area—the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who represents the area, will seek to intervene in a moment —unemployment is running at 15·7 per cent. and nearly one in four males in the area are unemployed. Unemployment in Cornwall as a whole has reached a percentage in the teens and is rising more rapidly than anywhere else in the south-west, or in almost the entire country. So it cannot possibly be that the area does not need the support that the Government were in a position and had pledged to provide.
      The Government might have argued that the decision was to save taxpayers' money, but in truth they cannot justify such an argument. The costs of unemployment benefit to those losing their jobs will amount to £1·2 million per year, and the indirect knock-on effect on other jobs—on previous occasions the Government have talked about the other jobs supported by the investment—means that the figure is more likely to be £2 million per year. That discounts the loss of tax and national insurance payments. Even if we assume that not all the people will join the unemployment queues directly, it is certain that there will be no net financial gain to the Treasury.
      More than that, the Government are in the process of writing off not just a £1·7 million loan but the whole £23 million of public money that has so far been invested in the mines. That is short-sighted, mean-minded and an ill-thought-through waste of public money.
      As I speak, the water level in Wheal Jane mine is rising. As it does so, it guarantees that that mine will never be reopened. It is an extraordinary, wasteful and despicable action that the Government have taken. I refuse to accept that it saves the Treasury money in any respect. It may save the Department of Trade and Industry money, but it simply costs the Department of Social Secirity and other Departments money.
      If the Government seriously argue, as they argued this morning, that they do not justify their actions in such terms and that it is not for the DTI to consider other costs, perhaps it is time for the Prime Minister or someone more broad-minded and with a little more sense to reverse the decision that has been taken.
      Lastly, the Government may argue that the tin price will not pick up, that current low prices will stretch far into the future and that Cornish tin mining will never be profitable. Where is the evidence for that? I do not believe

      433
      that the decision is based on sound reasoning. It is purely political, and bad politics at that. Most analysts predict that the price of tin will rise in the next year. It is hard to argue that it will not rise sooner or later, given that most mines around the world operate at substantial losses.
      Even if Ministers are right, the company believes that if the rest of the loan had been paid, the investment would have allowed South Crofty to break even within the year and would have paid for Wheal Jane to be kept on care and maintenance until a rise in the price of tin occurred. Even if we accept that the current price will not increase, there is no logic in pulling out the investment because if it had been allowed to go ahead we could still have seen the company at least on an even keel for the foreseeable future.
      The company's figures might have been wrong, but those involved with the company had a lot to lose personally if the figures were wrong. Surely the betting was good enough to put in £1·7 million of Government money, which had already been promised, especially when the cost of not doing so was to write off the £23 million Government investment so far and to put 400 or more people on the dole at a yearly cost in excess of the £1·7 million involved. The mines could have been kept open, men could have been kept in jobs and Cornwall's tin mining tradition could have been kept alive.
      For a Government who claim to favour business-like practice, they have adopted an appallingly short-sighted and extremely unbusiness-like approach. I return to my original question: what possible justification is there for their decision? I believe that there is no possible justification.
      In response to my Adjournment debate in March 1988, the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), said:
      "The Government are convinced that Carnon can win through—that is why we have continued our support—but it will require considerable—and I emphasise 'considerable'—efforts by all those concerned with the company. I feel sure that this effort will be forthcoming."—[Official Report, 29 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 1064.]
      The truth is that the effort was indeed forthcoming. The targets were met, but the Government let us down all the same. They did not stick with it when the company and the people there stuck with it through thick and thin.
      Do the Government have the courage to make the change to help now? Will they help first and foremost by reversing the decision? If not, will they at least help by suspending the loan rather than pulling out of the deal altogether? Will they at least give the company and the men the chance to come back and make it work? They should not rule that out. I know that everything will be done to protect South Crofty so that it might open again if the price of tin revives sufficiently. Will the Government at least consider renewing support if that happens? Will the Government help not just the company but also all the men who fear for their redundancy compensation, as well as the supplying firms that fear for their debts, by guaranteeing tonight that the outstanding Government loan will not be called in?
      At our meeting with the Minister this morning we learned that the Government have decided only for now not to call in the loan—apparently to see if the company will survive, subject to a satisfactory scheme. Can the Minister suggest what such a satisfactory scheme might be? What is meant by the words "satisfactory scheme"? At this morning's meeting the Minister said, "At a point in
      434
      time, if the company failed, we would have to put in a submission"—a submission to call in the loan. That would bankrupt the company, and it could also bankrupt many of its suppliers and rule out much-needed redundancy payments for the work force. That is a crucial aspect of the Government's position.
      What we were told earlier today was more worrying than the indications that had been given publicly up till then. Can the Minister give a pledge that the loan will not be called in? If the jobs do go, will the Minister help by investing the money that the DTI has already set aside in new jobs in this area—an area of high unemployment in a county where wages are already below the national average? Will the Minister pledge to invest the money withdrawn from the mines in job creation measures for the area?
      In response to my Adjournment debate in March 1988, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West, said:
      "I think I can say that Cornishmen have a good friend in the Government, and that our generosity, while not necessarily unprecedented—that would be too strong a word —was certainly considerable".—[Official Report, 29 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 1060.]
      This week, the Cornish have found out just how lacking in generosity the Government really are. They have discovered the pain of betrayal. They have discovered that they have no friend in the Government.
      All Cornwall Members feel outraged by what has happened. I know that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne wants to speak, and I look forward to his contribution.
      1.37 am
      Mr. David Mudd: I shall not repeat the arguments that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has put forward so eloquently and succinctly. I endorse his every word and his every sentiment. I must however, question some of the seeming inconsistencies in the reasons given by the Department of Trade and Industry over the past 10 days for its decision to end support.
      It has been said that the depressed price of tin is a factor. Yet, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Truro, the Government's friends in the City—the commodity analysts—have come up with a totally different prediction. It is amazing that the DTI will accept some advice from these people but, when it suits, reject other advice.
      It has been suggested that the DTI's precipitate decision was based on an unseemly scramble for safety when it was pointed out that, as Carnon Consolidated was technically insolvent, the Department would be acting illegally in making any more money available.
      There are two basic tests of insolvency. The first is cash flow—the ability to pay debts as they fall due. Certainly, for the last three years Carnon has paid all its bills on time, and it continues to do so. It therefore cannot be argued that Carnon is insolvent on that score. On the basis of the second test—whether liabilities exceed assets—the company is technically insolvent because it has £31 million of loans on the balance sheet. However, this peculiar status was arrived at through the DTI's suggested rescue package of 1986. So if that technical argument is put forward, the Department made it inevitable that the company would operate while insolvent and quite improperly advanced it

      435
      £23 million. Either way, it seems that over a period of four years there was a leisurely acceptance or accommodation of convenience, which culminated in a mad-dash disengagement decision—a decision taken, and announced, on the evening of 22 February.
      I may be a simple soul, but I see a possible scenario which might explain that strange situation. The Treasury wants immediate savings from the DTI; the DTI looks at its books, and Carnon emerges as the most convenient instant victim. The DTI does not want to pull the plug, but is reminded that the alleged failure to comply with the package gives it a let-out. Of course, if the DTI still wants to carry on with the finance, a word to the Public Accounts Committee might be awkward and embarrassing. Afraid of the Treasury heavies on one side and the PAC nasties on the other, the DTI rushes into instant disengagement. Whether that is fact or fantasy, time alone will tell—I suspect that we shall not know tonight.
      Something else nauseates me about the Department's attitude and position. It claims that, six months ago, it was beginning to consider suspending support to Carnon. In six months it could have at least prepared contingency plans to offset the predicted loss of jobs and the already recognised worsening economic situation in Cornwall, but it did not and still has not. It claims that since west Cornwall already gets every permitted form of assistance, everything possible is already being done.
      Even now, I would like my hon. Friend's assurance that he will consider a few suggestions. First, that the withdrawal of finance should be regarded as a moratorium on payment rather than a cut-off. Secondly, that during that moratorium, the Department of Trade and Industry loans will be restructured to be of a low principal, high premium nature, thus getting the loan off the balance sheet and opening the door to external investment if that is what the Department wants. Thirdly, that during the moratorium, the Department will help meet the costs of keeping South Crofty's pumps operating. Fourthly—the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) touched on this—if £1 million or £1·6 million is theoretically being saved, it is money that has already been allocated to jobs and industries in west Cornwall. I would like an assurance that that money will be allocated immediately to the regeneration, sustaining and attraction of more industrial opportunities in west Cornwall.
      In the meantime, for reasons that have still not been explained to my satisfaction or that of many other people, two tin mines, more than 400 jobs, countless small enterprises and the communities that lie between Camborne, Redruth and Truro are under a death threat because, if I am correct, the DTI is scuttling away from what it fears could have been an embarrassing squeeze between the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee.
      As I waited to see my noble Friend the Minister for Industry, I picked up a brochure in the lobby of the Department of Trade and Industry. It lists its objectives, thus:
      "Our objectives will be to produce a climate which promotes enterprise and prosperity. In all our work we will take account of the differing circumstances of the region and of the inner cities to enable those who live there to help themselves."
      436
      Once, that remark would have caused a ripple of ironic laughter in Cornwall, but tonight, tragically, there is no laughter in Cornwall's mining communities.
      1.43 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) are much concerned about the state of Cornish tin mining and the effect on the local economy. I regret the current situation, and appreciate their concern. I pay tribute to the assiduous way in which they argue on behalf of their constituents. I also pay tribute to the assiduous manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is present tonight, acts on behalf of his constituents.
      The Department has strongly supported the South Crofty mine in Camborne and the Wheal Jane mine near Truro since 1986. Geology has made Cornwall a land of great beauty. Likewise, geology gave it great mineral wealth. That has been exploited over the years for arsenic, copper, tin, and china clay. I understand the pride Cornishmen feel in their mineral industries, and the way "Cousin Jacks" have spread their mining skills around the world. Trade in metals has long been international. Today, international competition is at the root of the Cornish tin problems.
      Hon. Members have expressed concern at the number of jobs lost. Until the recent redundancies, Carnon Holdings Limited employed 415 workers, 160 of whom were to be made redundant anyway from the closure of Wheal Jane announced last year and reductions at South Crofty. The extra number of tin miners losing their jobs is therefore about 255. Most of the workers live in the Camborne and Truro travel-to-work areas. We are advised that some 150 workers are being re-engaged temporarily to run down the South Crofty-related operations on to a care and maintenance basis.
      These people have worked hard, justifying the position taken by the Department in 1986 when it offered Carnon, then owned by RTZ, a loan of £15 million. In 1988, at the time of the management buy-out, the £15 million loan was continued and a further £10 million loan was offered. Both loans are interest-free. Repayments are due only if profits rise above a threshold, so the management buy-out received further substantial advantages. The loans were for a project of capital works to lower costs, but they were not automatic. To safeguard the taxpayer, the Department had to be satisfied about the future viability of the company—I stress those words.
      As part of the management buy-out in 1988, RTZ offered an interest-free loan of £10 million. In all, the Department has lent Carnon £23·35 milion, and RTZ £7·7 million. Under the buy-out, a workers' trust received 20 per cent. of Carnon's equity. It also has a seat on the board. Two non-executive directors served on the board for a period. In spite of all this, the company has been unable to achieve what it set out to do when the loans were offered to the buy-out in 1988.
      In January 1990, the tin price was £4,000 per tonne, although the previous year, 1989, it had averaged –5,300. There was concern that the tin price had shown no sign of recovery even though experts had been taking bullish

      437
      views late in 1989. By the end of 1990, the price had not even maintained its January 1990 level. On the contrary, it had dropped to £2,900.
      From early 1990 therefore, the company's officials sought to bring new equity and other finance into the Carnon group. Their aim was to gain a buffer to secure the tin business's long-term future. They sought our help in this. We agreed in principle that, as one element of any acceptable deal, we would restructure our loans.
      In the middle of last year, it was apparent to us that, without additional finance, tin mining on the then proposed basis was no longer viable. I remind hon. Members of the stress that I laid on the viability of the company. We were therefore compelled to declare the project in jeopardy. Under the loan agreement, this meant that we were not obliged to make further loan advances. Nevertheless, despite serious and growing doubts about the project's future, we took the view that a prospect of loan repayment remained and, at the company's request, we advanced more money during the second half of 1990. We advanced another £400,000 to the company and RTZ more than £800,000 to give the company every chance successfully to finalise its negotiations to raise further equity finance. However, in spite of its efforts, it was, in the event, unable to do so.
      Given this situation, and after careful study of Carnon's latest plans, we had to conclude that the project was not viable in the longer term. I stress that this was a decision that took account of all relevant facts, including payment of the remainder of the DTI and RTZ loans.
      Today—as I have shown, we have been here before—experts expect the tin price to rise, a point made by the hon. Member for Truro. The question is when, by how much, and sustained at what average level. Brazilian producers increased their output from around 7,000 tonnes in 1978 to 44,000 tonnes in 1988. That was out of world totals of 200,000 tonnes in 1978 but only 155,000 tonnes in 1988. Prices have dropped. Other producers have had to cut their output. The upside for prices is limited by the ability of producers overseas to produce more if prices rise, and by the existence of sizeable stocks.
      Costs are the other side of the picture. Tin is the company's only substantial revenue-earning activity. It
      438
      has a number of outgoings to support. Costs can vary depending on how much is spent on capital works and how much is spent on mine development necessary to replenish reserves of ore as they are consumed. It should be possible to cut costs per tonne in the short term at the expense of the longer term. The analysis of South Crofty's position is certainly not straightforward. Moreover, many other tin producers have been under the same acute pressure to reduce their costs. Carnon's efforts, including the wage deals accepted by the workers, have not therefore given Carnon the relative advantage for which one might have hoped.
      All those and other factors were studied before we decided that it would not be a proper use of public funds to advance more money for the project. I hope that I have convinced the House that we have made every effort to secure the future of the Cornish tin industry—short of spending taxpayers' money in a financially improper way.
      Hon. Members raised some wider issues about Cornwall. Despite our five years of support, we have been accused in the local press and elsewhere of bad faith and of ignoring the needs of Cornwall—a point made by the hon. Member for Truro. I accept that unemployment in parts of Cornwall is—as regrettably it is elsewhere—far too high. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne made that point. Trying to keep unemployment down by sustaining jobs in uneconomic areas of activity is no answer. It has been tried before—in steel, shipbuilding and the motor industry. Inevitably it failed.
      The only answer is to provide jobs producing goods and services that people want to buy and to do so at a profit. For that reason, my Department tries to help business to improve its competitiveness. We have done much in Cornwall in recent years to that end. In the past two years, more than 1,000 Cornish businesses have sought our help under the enterprise initiative. More than 330 small companies have received a total of more than £2 million in support under regional enterprise grant schemes, and £3·5 million in regional selective assistance has been offered. We will continue to give all the regional aid help that we can.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Light Dues
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions he has taken about light dues in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  After three successive years in which light dues have been reduced, I regret that increases in costs over that period make a 6·7 per cent. increase in the light dues tariff unavoidable this year. This is not unexpected and was anticipated in the light dues statement of my predecessor a year ago. Even with this increase, which is below the rate of inflation, light dues are still below their 1987 level and are at the same cash level as in 1981. In real terms the burden has been reduced by about half in a decade.

  Coupled with the tariff change there are two measures which will particularly benefit the regular payers of light dues. First, I am satisfied that there is room for a second year of the "bargain break" introduced in 1990–91 whereby the maximum number of chargeable voyages in the cargo sector will be reduced from seven to six. This will benefit shipping which has contributed in the past to the strength of the liquid funds of the general lighthouse fund. For individual ships the "bargain break" represents a 14 per cent. reduction in their annual liability.

  Secondly, in response to representations from the shipping industry, I am revising the dues liability for ships paying on a per voyage basis. From April such ships will be required to pay dues on no more than one voyage per month; and "month" for this purpose will be a rolling, rather than calendar, month. This replaces the present rule under which ships of less than 25,000 net tonnage have been liable to dues on two voyages per calendar month (up to the exemption limit) and ships of 25,000 net tonnage and over have been liable to dues on one such voyage. This will have significant cash flow benefits for most cargo shipping, and for some ships the total liability in the year will also be reduced.

  The necessary order to give effect to these changes will be laid shortly.

  I have not yet reached a conclusion on the recommendations in the British Ports Federation report about the extension of light dues to pleasure craft, but this matter is being actively considered. Any change here would almost certainly require primary legislation.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much he expects his Department to spend on road construction in 1991–92; and what new schemes are expected to start construction.

  Mr. Chope
  Spending on road construction, including land acquisition, in 1991–92 will total over £1,300 million.148
  A total of 53 new schemes, as listed, are expected to be started. Whether and when individual schemes start depend on the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures.

  New Starts 1991–92

  Eastern

  A14 (M1–A1) Contract 2

  A14 (M1–A1) Contract 3

  A14 (M1–A1) Contract 5N

  A14 (M1–A1) Contract 8

  A14 (M1–A1) Contract 9

  M25 Junction 15–16 widening

  A12 Gorleston relief road

  A11 Thetford-Bridgham

  A602 Little Wymondley bypass

  A5 Little Brickhill bypass

  A41 Kings Langley bypass

  A41 Berkhamsted bypass

  A47 East Dereham-North Tuddenham

  All Four Wentways-Newmarket

  All Besthorpe-Wymondham

  A11 Newmarket-Red Lodge

  A47 Narborough bypass

  South East

  M20 Junction 5–8 improvement

  A20 Court Wood-Dover

  A20 Folkestone-Court Wood Contract 2

  A23 Warninglid-Sayers Common

  A41 Wendlebury-Bicester

  A27 Westhampnet bypass

  A27 Crossbush bypass

  A23 Handcross-Pease Pottage

  A2 Hardshoulders

  M25 Clackett Lane motorway service area

  A3 Milford bypass

  A339 Basingstoke bypass

  A420 Kingston Bagpuize bypass

  North West

  M66 Denton-Middleton Contract 4

  M56 Junction 4–6 widening

  A568 Widnes Eastern bypass

  A585 Fleetwood Dock Street

  A59 Greengates-Gutteridge

  London

  Hackney-M11 Contract 4

  A40 Long Lane

  A13 Blackwall/Cotton Street

  A13 Butcher Row improvement

  West Midlands

  M5 Junction 6–8 widening

  A5 Fazeley, Two Gates and Wilnecote bypass

  A423 Southam bypass

  A38 Fradley Lane

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  A638 Doncaster North Bridge relief road

  East Midlands

  A16 Ludborough bypass

  A16 Stickford bypass

  Northern

  A595 Egremont bypass

  A596 Wigton bypass

  A590 Dalton bypass

  A1 Marshall Meadows improvement

  A1Brownieside improvement

  South West

  A30 Okehampton-Launceston

  A39 Wadebridge bypass

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Only one: the chairmanship of the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Of the Department's current staff of 15,274, 187 are registered as disabled (1·24 per cent.). A further 188 staff, who have indicated that they have disabilities, have not registered their disability.

  Antares Inquiry
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 4 March 1991]: I understand that the inspector's inquiry is likely to be completed by the early summer.

  Under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations, a minimum of two months will then be needed while the report is considered by persons whose reputations are likely to be adversely affected. Unless the Secretary of State finds good reason not to publish, this will follow as soon as possible after the chief inspector has submitted his final report.

  Inland Waterways
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to carry out his duties under section 13 of the Transport Act 1978 to promote a policy for the use of inland waterways for commercial transport.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government wish to see maximum use of rivers and canals for freight transport where it is commercially sensible. But they take the view that customers should be free to choose the mode of transport best suited to their needs. The Government's role is to ensure that conditions of competition are fair and subject to proper safety and environmental standards.

  However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport may give grants under section 36 of the Transport Act 1981 towards inland waterway freight facilities. This brings environmental benefits by reducing the number of lorries on unsuitable roads.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Property Marking
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Attorney-General whether it is the policy of the departments for which he is responsible to mark property with an indelible mark or similar means of identification.
  150
  The Attorney-General
  The Departments for which I am responsible do not at present have a policy of indelibly marking equipment. Each Department records the serial number of equipment where such equipment is so marked.

  The Crown prosecution service requires all offices to maintain a register of valuable items of equipment recording serial numbers or other identification marks. Line managers are required periodically to check equipment against the register.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department is introducing an asset register identifying assets within the Department and recording date of purchase, type of asset, and its location.

  Katyn Massacre
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 140, if he will now reconsider the status of the eight documents contained on the file with Public Record Office references FO 371/34563–345900 and currently identified as withheld.

  The Attorney-General
  The eight papers referred to from the 1943 Foreign Office file on Polish-Soviet relations are retained by that Department under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is satisfied, on advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that the documents are properly retained in accordance with the arrangements set out in paragraphs 28 to 31 of the White Paper "Modern Public Records", Cmnd 8531, March 1982.

  Omar Bakri Mohammed
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will initiate proceedings to prosecute Omar Bakri Mohammed for incitement to murder.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that the Metropolitan police are investigating possible offences by Omar Bakri Mohammed in the light of statements attributed to him by the media. The result of the investigation will be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor has decided whom he proposes to appoint as members of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board.

  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has today appointed the following people to serve as members of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board.

  Alan Brakefield

  Tamara Goriely

  Alan Mills

  Kate Mortimer

  June O'Dell, OBE.

  The chairman of the board is John Sadler CBE, whose appointment was announced by the Lord Chancellor on 20 December 1990.

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor has decided whom he proposes to appoint as members of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct.
  151
  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has today appointed the following people to serve as members of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct:

  Mrs. Liliana Archibald

  Professor Richard Card

  His Honour Judge John Gower, QC

  Eric Hammond, OBE

  Brian Harvey

  John Hosking, CBE

  Patrick Lefevre

  Luke March

  The Reverend Dr. Colin Morris

  Dr. Claire Palley

  Ms. Usha Prashar

  Nicholas Purnell, QC

  Peter Scott, QC

  Graham Smith, CBE

  David Ward

  David Wilkins.

  The chairman of the advisory committee is Lord Griffiths MC, whose appointment was announced by the Lord Chancellor on 16 October 1990.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement on the progress of monitoring exercise carried out in the civil service in accordance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Mr. Renton
  Departments, agencies and the Civil Service Commission continue to make good progress in carrying out monitoring exercises and taking follow-up action in accordance with the Commission for Racial Equality and Equal Opportunities Commission codes of practice. My office monitors overall progress.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Building Control Fees
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent the increase in building control inspection fees and planning fees has fallen behind inflation since 1980.

  Mr. Needham
  Building control inspection fees are related to the cost of providing the service rather than the rate of inflation. Fees were first introduced in 1982. The retail prices index shows an increase of 65 per cent. between January 1982 and January 1991. Building control fees for the erection, alteration or extension of small domestic buildings rose by 52 per cent. in the same period. The sliding scale of fees for larger construction work is linked to the cost of the works.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when he will establish a policy for 1991 renewables non-fossil fuel obligation in respect of Northern Ireland.

  (2) what action he proposes to encourage hydro-electric generation from sites in Northern Ireland.
  152
  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) on 11 February 1991 at column 324–25.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards implementation of the recommendations contained in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report of June 1989 on the bus services in Northern Ireland provided by Ulsterbus Ltd. and Citybus Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The initial response announced to the House on 24 April 1990 indicated that there had been a positive reaction to the recommendations, none of which was rejected. The follow-up response, which I have today placed in the Library of the House, confirms that 32 of the 58 recommendations have already been implemented and the remaining 26 are in the process of implementation. The response was produced in consultation with the Northern Ireland Transport holding company and the bus companies.

  I am pleased to report that, among the more important developments, a new market-led approach with emphasis on customers' needs is now firmly established; capital expenditure on all major projects is subject to investment appraisal and post-completion audit; and a new unit, under an inspector general, ensures that quality of service is accorded high priority.

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will keep the implementation of the recommendations under periodic review to gauge the improvement in bus services and management of the companies. I will report the progress to the House in due course.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no part-time posts in public bodies in Northern Ireland remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the percentage of those waiting for non-urgent operations who wait longer than(a) six months, (b) one year and (c) two years, (i) nationally and (ii) in the South Manchester health authority area;

  (2) what was the number and percentage of patients waiting for non-urgent operations in 1980, 1985 and 1990 (i) nationally and (ii) in the South Manchester health authority area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the tables. Since March 1987 information on waiting lists has not been classified according to urgency of condition. Figures for 1990 therefore relate to all patients waiting for in-patient treatment in the surgical acute specialties.
  153
  It is the time people wait which is important. Since 1980 the number of patients waiting for over one year for in-patient treatment in the surgical acute specialties has fallen by 1 per cent. in South Manchester health authority and by nearly 11 per cent. in England as a whole.

  Numbers of non-urgent cases waiting on surgical specialty lists for in-patient treatment

  Year

  England

  South Manchester

  March 1980

  580,596

  5,781

  March 1985

  614,217

  4,875

  Total numbers waiting on surgical specialty lists for in-patient treatment

  Year

  England

  South Manchester

  March 1990

  723,447

  7,122

  Percentage waiting on surgical specialty lists for in-patient treatment by time waiting at March 1990

  England

  South Manchester

  6 months +

  45

  54

  12 months +

  24

  32

  24 months +

  9

  15

  Source: KH06/7/7A—March 1990

  SBH 203—1980 and 1985

  Devon Health Authorities
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what brief has been given to Touche Ross regarding a merger of North Devon, Torbay and Exeter health authorities; on what date this survey was commissioned; and by what date it will report.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that South Western regional health authority has commissioned Touche Ross to conduct a preliminary examination of the case for mergers between health authorities in Devon. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Charles Stuart, the chairman of South Western regional health authority for details.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy not to approve formally any merger between Torbay and North Devon health authorities without prior consultation with the right hon. and hon. Members representing the county;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 28 February, what is the timetable for any regional decision, consultation and formal approval for any merger between Exeter, Torbay and North Devon health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that South Western regional health authority is still considering whether to propose any amalgamation of health authorities in Devon. Should it decide to do so, it would formally consult all interested parties, including right hon. and hon. Members representing the county. The regional health authority would consider the responses before deciding whether to recommend any amalgamation of Devon health authorities to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State.

  New Hospitals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what effect including a calculation of capital charges in a business plan for a bid to build a new hospital would have on its financial viability;

  (2) how capital charging has affected the planning of the building of new hospital projects.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The existing methodology for appraising options for NHS building plans takes account of the costs of capital, including the opportunity cost. The introduction of capital charges will have a similar effect in appraising options.

  From April 1991, when considering plans to alter service provision, provider units will also need to ensure that purchasing authorities are willing and able to meet any additional costs which may arise.

  Census Enumerators
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many advertisements for census enumerators were placed in jobcentres in January; and how many of these vacancies were filled by Friday 1 February.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the General Register Office for Scotland made arrangements with the employment service to display a special poster advertising census enumerator posts in all job centres throughout Great Britain from early January 1991. A total of 117,550 enumerators are due to be appointed by 22 March 1991. By 1 February 91,041 people had applied, either to jobcentres or direct to the census offices; and 2,324 appointments had been made. The latest information available centrally is for 20 February. By then 185,960 people had applied and 24,671 appointments had been made.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for approximately 1,213 part-time appointments to public bodies. Details of these posts can be obtained from the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1990". A copy of which is available in the Library.

  None of our part-time or full-time posts receives salaries in excess of £50,000 per annum.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A total of 0·74 per cent. of staff working in the Department are registered as disabled. The Department also employs a number of people with disabilities who are not registered as disabled.

  Mortality Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update his replies to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East on 21 October 1987,Official Report, columns 808–09 and 2 December 1988, Official Report, columns 439–40, regarding mortality statistics.

  Number of deaths by month of occurrence and age group

  Males

  Females

  Persons

  65 +

  75 +

  60 +

  75 +

  75 +

  England and Wales, 1987

  January

  20,835

  12,812

  26,067

  19,115

  31,927

  February

  17,262

  10,609

  21,379

  15,617

  26,226

  March

  18,662

  11,407

  22,975

  16,530

  27,937

  April

  16,717

  10,095

  20,788

  14,890

  24,985

  May

  16,736

  9,977

  20,525

  14,567

  24,544

  June

  15,930

  9,523

  19,995

  14,047

  23,570

  July

  15,771

  9,383

  19,836

  14,112

  23,495

  August

  15,557

  9,304

  19,427

  13,978

  23,282

  September

  15,404

  9,192

  18,782

  13,353

  22,545

  October

  17,460

  10,557

  21,788

  15,612

  26,169

  November

  17,358

  10,488

  21,554

  15,537

  26,025

  December

  20,183

  12,517

  25,135

  18,313

  30,830

  England and Wales, 1988

  January

  19,994

  12,411

  24,840

  18,290

  30,701

  February

  18,486

  11,571

  23,179

  16,906

  28,477

  March

  19,911

  12,402

  25,661

  19,022

  31,424

  April

  17,439

  10,666

  22,067

  16,097

  26,763

  May

  16,608

  10,064

  20,711

  14,939

  25,003

  June

  15,686

  9,558

  19,638

  14,124

  23,682

  July

  15,915

  9,682

  19,563

  13,991

  23,673

  August

  16,071

  9,667

  19,879

  14,218

  23,885

  September

  15,569

  9,504

  19,099

  13,729

  23,233

  October

  17,025

  10,427

  21,007

  15,229

  25,656

  November

  17,774

  10,990

  22,189

  16,056

  27,046

  December

  19,924

  12,584

  25,647

  18,914

  31,498

  England and Wales, 1989

  January

  19,576

  12,340

  24,787

  18,306

  30,646

  February

  16,734

  10,431

  20,769

  15,174

  25,605

  March

  18,114

  11,351

  22,731

  16,713

  28,064

  April

  17,317

  10,706

  21,370

  15,531

  26,237

  May

  16,866

  10,576

  20,755

  15,237

  25,813

  June

  16,173

  10,053

  20,235

  14,785

  24,838

  July

  15,795

  9,909

  20,030

  14,703

  24,612

  August

  15,294

  9,454

  19,134

  13,923

  23,377

  September

  15,486

  9,589

  19,032

  13,851

  23,440

  October

  17.030

  10,693

  21,366

  15,545

  26,238

  November

  18,087

  11,308

  22,539

  16,604

  27,912

  December

  27,909

  18,587

  37,589

  28,894

  47,481

  England and Wales, 1990 1

  January

  21,018

  13,589

  27,279

  20,606

  34,195

  February

  17,182

  10,924

  21,290

  15,864

  26,788

  March

  18,036

  11,387

  21,963

  16,277

  27,664

  April

  17,154

  10,898

  21,532

  15,881

  26,779

  May

  16,977

  10,584

  20,775

  15,243

  25,827

  June

  16,125

  10,088

  19,916

  14,578

  24,666

  July

  16,087

  9,922

  20,043

  14,771

  24,693

  August

  15,400

  9,610

  19,501

  14,306

  23,916

  September

  15,588

  "9,765

  18,956

  13,814

  23,579

  October

  16,778

  10,587

  20,594

  15,182

  25,769

  November

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 1990 data are provisional and the later months in particular are likely to be affected by late registration.

  156
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  The data for 1990 are provisional, and the later months in particular are likely to be affected by late registration.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set a date to give every prisoner the right of access to prison education and to make the escorting of prisoners to education classes a duty for prison officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are already considering the recommendation of the third report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee on this matter and will now wish to take into account the various recommendations that have been made by Lord Justice Woolf and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumim in the report of their recent inquiry into the prison disturbances, April 1990. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that the Government plan to issue a White Paper later this year, but we have already made clear the importance which we attach to education as part of a positive and constructive regime and that we want to see more prisoners taking up education courses. Escorting inmates, where necessary, to enable them to attend educational classes or to take part in other regime activities is already part of the task of prison officers.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The chairman of the Independent Television Commission is the only post in a public body to which I have appointed someone who is part-time and remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Homicide
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded cases of homicide remain unsolved since 1960; whether these files remain open; and what guidance his Department is giving to police forces on whether to pursue investigations of unsolved homicides.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No central record is kept of the number of recorded cases of homicide which remain unsolved since 1960. Figures for recorded homicides where no subject was charged during the year in question are set out in the table; figures for years prior to 1979 are not available. The police are always ready to investigate unsolved murders further. Decisions about whether to pursue such investigations are operational matters for chief officers of police. The clear-up rate for homicide cases is high; in 1989 it was 92 per cent.

  Recorded offences of homicide where no suspects are charged

  Number

  1979

  32

  1980

  19

  1981

  24

  1982

  50

  1983

  31

  1984

  38

  1985

  34

  1986

  36

  1987

  35

  158

  Number

  1988

  35

  1989

  57

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Home Office currently employs 138 registered disabled persons, which represents 0·32 per cent. of the total number of staff. No record is kept of staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Data Protection Act 1984
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to review the registration fee payable under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The triennial registration fee is intended to recover the costs of the Office of the Data Protection Registrar. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary order, the Government propose to increase it from £56 to £75 from 1 June 1991.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mojisola Soetan, Gena Aina and Aderinjola Absosede Agbabiaka who escaped from East Sutton Park on 5 April 1990 and 22 April 1990 have since been recaptured.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. These three women are still unlawfully at large.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Bernadette Ambrose, Mavis mary Sasu and Kudi Balogun who escaped from Drake Hall on 4 February 1990 and 25 February 1990 have since been recaptured.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Bernadette Ambrose has been recaptured. The other two women remain unlawfully at large.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many absconders from open prison were recaptured in 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A new system of recording data on the recapture or surrender of absconders was introduced in November 1990. From that date until the end of 1990, a total of 190 prisoners unlawfully at large from open prisons were recaptured or surrendered. This figure includes prisoners who had failed to return to prison having been granted temporary release. The information requested prior to November 1990 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners absconded from open prisons in 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  During 1990 1,148 prisoners absconded from open prisons.

  Iraqi Citizens (Entry Visas)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if entry visas have been granted to the Iraqi citizens M. Ibrahim Hammadi and Qahman Al Azzawi since January 1986.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have been unable to trace any record of the issue of a visa or of the entry to the United Kingdom of a Mr. Hammadi or a Mr. Al-Azzawi from the information provided.

  Police
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 700 extra police posts approved by him have been taken up by the local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend announced on 20 December 1990 the allocation in 1991–92 of 564 police posts for the provincial forces, 100 for the Metropolitan police and 36 for the regional crime squads. Of the 564 extra posts that have been allocated to 34 provincial forces 26 have not yet been taken up, by two police authorities which have so far been unable to confirm that they will be able to meet their share of the additional cost.

  Private Medical Treatment
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who entered Britain on a visa, in the last year for which figures are available, did so for the purposes of receiving private medical treatment; what proportion were required to produce medical records; and what is the procedure if their medical records are not available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Those coming for medical treatment are not distinguished in statistical records from visitors arriving for other purposes. Under paragraph 23 of the published immigration rules passengers may be required to produce evidence that arrangements have been made for consultation or treatment but production of medical records would not normally be a matter for the immigration officer.

  Crime, Leicestershire
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage reported crime has increased in Leicestershire since 1979; and what proportion of that increase was in crimes of violence.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the 12 months to the end of September 1990, the number of recorded crimes in Leicestershire was 122 per cent. higher than in 1979. Six per cent. of the increase was attributable to crimes of violence.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the location of premises selected for the European bank for reconstruction and development; and if he will make a statement.
  160
  Mrs. Chalker
  The choice of a permanent headquarters building will be made by the European bank for reconstruction and development. Meanwhile the Government have provided transitional accommodation for the bank in the City. I refer the hon. Member to the Overseas Development Administration departmental minute laid before the House on 17 December 1990.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens are to be employed by the European bank for reconstruction and development; and what roles they will perform.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The president-designate of the bank is responsible for staff recruitment from among member states of the bank and he will make his choices on merit. I am pleased to note the bank has selected Mr. John Flemming, previously with the Bank of England, for the senior position of chief economist.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the cost to Her Majesty's Government of the establishment of the European bank for reconstruction and development in London.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 17 December 1990. In addition, we are meeting transitional accommodation and office support costs estimated at £2 million to enable the bank to prepare for operations.

THE ARTS

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Renton
  The appointments which I make of trustees, board members, etc., to posts in public bodies, are part-time. None is remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum; most are unpaid.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of mortgage interest relief that would be withdrawn per £1 billion existing relief per year if the relief percentage were reduced by (i) 1 per cent., (ii) 5 per cent. and (iii) 10 per cent. in England and in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  Available estimates for the United Kingdom in 1990–91 are given in the following table.

  Reduction in the rate of mortgage interest relief

  Reduction in mortgage interest relief per £1 billion of relief

  Percentage points

  £ million

  1

  40

  5

  190

  10

  370

  161
  Separate estimates in respect of England are not available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the exchequer what is the total amount of mortgage interest relief that would be saved per £1 billion existing relief per annum if the eligible loan ceiling for such relief for standard rate payers were reduced to (i) £29,000, (ii) £25,000, (iii) £20,000 and (iv) £15,000 in England, the United Kingdom and London and the south-east.

  Mr. Maude
  Available estimates for the United Kingdom in 1990–91 are given in the table. They relate to all mortgagors and exclude behavioural effects. Estimates for England, London and the south-east are not separately available.

  Limit on Mortgage interest relief £

  Direct revenue yield per £1 billion of relief £ million

  29,000

  10

  25,000

  90

  20,000

  190

  15,000

  330

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of mortgage interest tax relief going to each economic planning region of the United Kingdom in 1990–91; and what is the average amount of subsidy per person in each region with a mortgage.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Broad estimates, based on the regional distribution of mortgage interest relief recorded in the family expenditure survey for 1988 and 1989, are as follows:

  United Kingdom manufacturing investment (including leased assets) £ million 1985 prices

  Year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Actual Investment (a)

  10,264

  9,656

  10,185

  11,505

  12,421

  11,738

  Difference from 1978–79 average (a)—£10,937

  -673

  -1,281

  -752

  + 568

  + 1,484

  + 801

  1979 Investment Projected at 1974–79 average rate of change (2·1 per cent.) (b)

  12,639

  12,905

  13,176

  13,453

  13,735

  14,023

  Difference from actual level (a)—(b)

  -2,375

  -3,249

  -2,991

  -1,948

  -1,314

  -2,285

  1979 Investment projected at year on year per cent, changes11for:

  Japan

  not available

  not available

  not available

  not available

  not available

  not available

  France

  11,365

  11,801

  12,449

  13,838

  —

  —

  USA

  11,103

  9,905

  9,980

  10,897

  —

  —

  West Germany

  11,680

  12,589

  13,293

  —

  —

  —

  OECD2

  not available

  not available

  not available

  not available

  not available

  not available

  Source:

  1 OECD National Accounts Volume 2 1976–88. The percentage changes are based on figures, at 1980 prices, of gross fixed capital formation by owners engaged in manufacturing. The coverage is therefore not exactly comparable to the United Kingdom figures which differ, in particular, by the inclusion of leased assets.

  2 Figures of gross fixed capital formation in manufacturing are not available for a number of OECD countries. It is not possible to produce average change figures covering the group of countries for which figures are available because all figures are expressed in national currencies.

  Inflation
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual rate of inflation for the fiscal years 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what is his estimate of the rate of inflation for fiscal year 1991–92.
  162

  Mortgage interest relief 1990–91

  Total cost £ million

  Average cost per mortgagor £

  Northern

  360

  680

  Yorkshire

  530

  670

  North West

  770

  680

  East Midlands

  490

  720

  West Midlands

  620

  710

  East Anglia

  310

  890

  Greater London

  1,130

  1,090

  Other South East

  1,960

  1,000

  South West

  750

  870

  Wales

  260

  670

  Scotland

  530

  810

  Northern Ireland

  90

  750

  United Kingdom

  7,800

  830

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend does not make any appointments to posts which are both part-time and remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide the information on United Kingdom manufacturing investment given in his answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 5 June 1990,Official Report, column 406, at constant prices for the latest year available.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The table provides revised and updated information for the years from 1985.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: All items RPI inflation averaged 7·8 per cent. in the financial year 1989–90. The comparable figure for the market price GDP deflator was 6¼ per cent. (adjusted for the distortion caused by the abolition of domestic rates). Complete data for 1990–91 are not yet available. The autumn statement forecast was for an increase in the GDP deflator of 8 per

  163
  cent. in 1990–91 and 6 per cent. in 1991–92; no such forecast is published for the RPI. A new forecast will be published with the Budget.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each year since 1979, for each of the G7 countries, the amount of(a) civil research and development expenditure undertaken by private firms, (b) civil research and development expenditure undertaken by governments and (c) each of the above as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: In 1989 civil research and development undertaken by industry in the United Kingdom was £5,730 million which represents 1·1 per cent. of GDP. Prior to 1989 information collected did not distinguish between civil and defence R and D. Comparable information for other countries is not readily available.

  The available information on Government civil R and D in G7 countries (except Canada) is given in tables 6.8 and 6.9 of the 1990 edition of the "Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mortgage Rates
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of(a) annual and (b) six-monthly changes in mortgage rates set by building societies on fluctuation in the monthly figures for the retail prices index.

  Companies Receiving BES Investments

  Industry

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Number of companies

  Amount of investment £ million

  Number of companies

  Amount of investment £ million

  Agriculture, Horticulture, Forestry

  21

  9

  13

  1

  Fishing

  20

  6

  11

  1

  Manufacture of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals

  32

  3

  21

  1

  Mechanical Engineering

  26

  2

  7

  1

  Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  51

  5

  26

  1

  Manufacture of Transport Equipment

  20

  7

  11

  4

  Instrument Engineering

  20

  2

  7

  1

  Food and Drink Industry

  30

  2

  12

  —

  Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry

  24

  1

  7

  —

  Manufacture of Paper and Paper Products

  40

  3

  33

  3

  Other Manufacturing Industries

  49

  4

  40

  3

  Construction and Real Estate

  50

  34

  30

  3

  Wholesale Distribution

  41

  7

  42

  4

  Retail Distribution

  88

  27

  51

  3

  Distribution and Repair of Motor Vehicles

  24

  3

  11

  1

  Hotels and Catering

  74

  43

  42

  4

  Transport and Storage Services

  28

  1

  21

  9

  Business, Professional and Technical Services

  69

  6

  64

  4

  Medical, Educational and Social Services

  38

  30

  26

  1

  Recreational, Hairdressing and Personal Services

  59

  4

  38

  2

  Private Rented Housing

  —

  —

  1,948

  365

  Others

  14

  2

  15

  2

  Total

  818

  200

  2,476

  416

  The average size of investment per company is as follows:
  164
  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The mortgage interest payments component of the RPI is calculated using the current rates of interest charged by building societies and banks in order to reflect the changes in liabilities as they accrue for typical mortgage payers. The RPI is an index of prices rather than payments and it is not appropriate to reflect the various arrangements where payments are fixed for set periods.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total revenues to the Exchequer from North sea oil since May 1979, expressed in 1990 prices.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The total over the period since 1979–80 is estimated at around £98 billion at 1990 prices.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each of the years of the existence of the business expansion scheme, what was(a) the regional distribution of BES funds and the associated cost to the Exchequer, (b) the distribution of BES investments by two-digit SIC and (c) the average size of investment.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Information on the companies receiving investments through the business expansion scheme is published in chapter 7 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1990". Further information that is readily available is as follows:

  £ thousand

  1983–84

  147

  1984–85

  183

  1985–86

  224

  1986–87

  222

  1987–88

  245

  165

  £ thousand

  1988–89

  168

  11989–90

  240

  1 Provisional.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual reduction in income tax for a person on an annual income of(a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £30,000, (d) £40,000, (e) £70,000 and (f) £150,000 as a result of income tax changes since the 1988 Budget.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: The information is in the table, which compares the income tax liability in 1990–91 with liability under 1988–89 rates of tax with allowances and thresholds indexed to 1990–91 levels by reference to movements in the RPI. The calculations are for a single, non-aged person with no reliefs or allowances apart from the personal allowance.

  Annual income £

  Increase in tax liability £

  10,000

  0

  20,000

  0

  30,000

  225

  40,000

  225

  70,000

  225

  150,000

  225

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average individual cumulative gain(a) in current prices and (b) in 1990–91 prices to those earning £5,000, £10,000, £15,000, £20,000, £25,000, £30,000, £40,000, £50,000, £60,000 and £70,000 a year as a result of changes in income tax since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Latest estimates of the annual change in income tax liability resulting from the changes in tax rates, allowances and thresholds are in the table. The 1978–79 income tax regime has been indexed to 1990–91 levels of reference to the statutory formula, and allowing for independent taxation.

  For the purposes of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the income base of 1990–91. In practice, retention of the regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  1989–901

  1990–912

  Group of income taxpayers

  Total earned income

  Average earned income

  Total investment income

  Average investment income

  Total earned income

  Average earned income

  Total investment income

  Average investment income

  £ billion

  £ per annum

  £ billion

  £ per annum

  £ billion

  £ per annum

  £ billion

  £ per annum

  Top 1 per cent.

  17·8

  82,800

  6·9

  32,200

  20·6

  78,800

  7·4

  28,200

  Top 5 per cent.

  49·7

  46,000

  12·2

  11,300

  55·4

  42,200

  13·0

  10,000

  Top 10 per cent.

  78·5

  36,300

  15·6

  7,300

  85·6

  32,500

  16·7

  6,500

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  134·2

  8,900

  11·6

  880

  150·1

  8,200

  13·5

  870

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  79·4

  7,400

  7·5

  820

  88·7

  6,800

  8·9

  830

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  10·2

  4,800

  n/a

  n/a

  11·2

  4,300

  n/a

  n/a

  All taxpayer

  292·3

  13,500

  33·6

  1,700

  321·7

  12,200

  37·1

  1,600

  1 Counting married couples as one unit.

  2 Counting husbands and wives as separate individuals under independent taxation.

  n/a Estimates not available.

  166

  Average reduction in income tax per individual1 in 1990–91 compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1990–91 (£)

  Average reduction at 1990–91 prices (£)

  Under 5,000

  130

  5,000 to 10,000

  360

  10,000 to 15,000

  650

  15,000 to 20,000

  930

  20,000 to 25,000

  1,250

  25,000 to 30,000

  1,680

  30,000 to 40,000

  2,340

  40,000 to 50,000

  4,000

  50,000 to 60,000

  6,830

  60,000 to 70,000

  9,980

  Over 70,000

  36,430

  Total

  910

  1 Individuals paying income tax under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax units and individuals had(a) earned income and (b) total income in the top (1) 1 per cent., (2) 5 per cent. and (3) 10 per cent., and the bottom (i) 10 per cent. and (ii) 50 per cent. of the earnings and income distribution, respectively.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 27 February 1991]: In 1990–91 it is estimated that there are 26·5 million individuals liable to income tax of whom 26·3 million have earned income. Information is accordingly as follows:

  Thousands

  Number of individual taxpayers in 1990–91

  Earned income distribution

  Total income distribution

  Top 1 per cent.

  300

  300

  Top 5 per cent.

  1,300

  1,300

  Top 10 per cent.

  2,600

  2,600

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  2,500

  2,600

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  13,100

  13,200

  Incomes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total and average investment income and earned income in 1989–90 and 1990–91 of(a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) the bottom 70 per cent., (e) the bottom 50 per cent., (f) the bottom 10 per cent., of taxpayers and (g) all taxpayers.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 February 1991]: Estimates are in the table.
  167
  All estimates are provisional and subject to a wide margin of error since they are based on a projection of the 1988–89 survey of personal incomes and the coverage of investment income in the survey is incomplete. In some cases investment income on which basic rate liability is satisfied by deduction at source is not reflected in the survey. Information on the investment income of the bottom 10 per cent. of taxpayers is not available.

  European Regional Support
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to ensure that moneys provided by the European Community in support of regional need are neither classed as items of United Kingdom public expenditure nor limited because of any curb on public spending imposed by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Mellor
  The estimated moneys provided by the European Community in support of regional need, as with other receipts from the European Community, are taken into account in setting our public expenditure programmes, which are thus higher than they would otherwise be.

EMPLOYMENT

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 480, his Department was aware of the involvement of E C Harris, quantity surveyors, in the proposed new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters building project prior to 24 September 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department was aware before 24 September that E C Harris has been commissioned by South Glamorgan TEC to undertake some preliminary work which preceded the tendering process.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Howard
  The public bodies sponsored by the Employment Department Group are listed on pages 18 to 22 of the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1990" which is available in the House of Commons Library. The list shows the appointments and the salaries paid. Part-time appointments are printed in light type and bold type denotes full-time appointments.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Employment Department Group employed 3·2 per cent. registered disabled staff at 1 June 1990, which is the latest available figure. The group also employs people with disabilities who have chosen not to register. The group complies with the code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities issued by the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service, and aims to 168
  increase the representation of those with disabilities especially at higher grades. The group as an employer has adopted the disability symbol it recently launched.

  Nursery Courses
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will restore funding to the nursery nurses course at Basford Hall college of further education, Nottingham to enable those students currently on the course to complete their studies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department's Greater Nottingham area office is seeking ways to support the continuation of training for trainees currently undertaking NNEB courses in nursery nursing at Basford Hall college of further education.

  All trainees will be given the opportunity to complete their period on employment training.

  Gulf Casualties
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans have been made to provide suitable jobs for service personnel permanently disabled in the Gulf.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: It is too soon to say how many United Kingdom service personnel who sustained injuries in the Gulf crisis might be discharged on medical grounds.

  Service personnel who are medically discharged because retention in the relevant service is not a possible option are helped by the resettlement officers of each service both before and after discharge. These officers work in close liaison with disablement resettlement officers (DROs) from the employment service, and with a variety of other organisations which can provide resettlement, rehabilitation and training assistance, to ensure that the needs of the service personnel when re-entering civilian life are met most effectively.

  In particular, DROs are invited to resettlement panels run by the services and can offer advice and guidance there. Anyone who requires further help, perhaps in their home area, in identifying, gaining and retaining suitable work can obtain it from the employment rehabilitation service and from DROs and other employment service staff.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to issue guidance on conflicts of interest to the chairmen or women and all board members of all training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The revised TEC operating agreement which will come into force from April this year includes new clauses on conflicts of interest.

ENERGY

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the location and estimated reserves of natural gas in Scotland.
  169
  Mr. Moynihan
  Exploration and appraisal to date indicate only minor amounts of natural gas in onshore oil and gas discoveries in Scotland.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. Wakeham
  At 1 June 1990, 1·18 per cent. of my Department's staff were registered disabled persons.

  My Department's staff also included at this date other people with disabilities who had chosen not to register. No separate records are kept of unregistered disabled people.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufactured Trade Balance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the balance of manufactured trade between(a) Britain and the United States of America and (b) Germany and the United States of America in 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is in the table. Figures for 1990 are not available for Germany's trade with the United States of America.

  Crude trade balance1 in manufactures2 with United States of America

  US$ billion

  Federal Republic of Germany

  United Kingdom

  1980

  2·6

  -2·4

  1983

  4·9

  -1·7

  1986

  15·0

  1·6

  1988

  12·6

  -0·4

  1989

  8·1

  -1·3

  1990

  n./a.

  -3·7

  1 The crude trade balance is exports (fob) less imports (cif).

  2 Manufactures = SITC divisions 5 to 8.

  Source: OECD Series C.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what was the value of goods and services supplied to Iraq last year; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the value of goods and services supplied to Libya last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This information is available in Business Monitor MM20: Overseas Trade Statistics for the United Kingdom (December 1990) Table 1b. A copy is available in the Library.

  Data on United Kingdom trade in services are not available by partner country.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Leigh
  The chairmanship of British Shipbuilders.

  Rechar
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what expenditure has been undertaken under the terms of the European Rechar programme in the United Kingdom and in each of the other EC member states.

  Mr. Leigh
  The question does not arise, since implementation of most Rechar programmes, including those in the United Kingdom, has yet to begin. Decisions from the European Commission are awaited.

  Argentina
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what subjects the Minister for Trade raised with the Argentine Government on his recent visit.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 March 1991]: Among the subjects discussed were the improvement in relations between Britain and Argentina, the increase in our bilateral trade, the progress of the Uruguay round, opportunities for British investors and exporters, the Argentine economy and the country's plans for privatisation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid out as(a) incentive bonuses and (b) rebates to persons opting out of (i) SERPS and (ii) occupational pension schemes for each year since 1986; and how many persons opted out in each case during each of these years.

  Mr. Jack
  The main objective of the pensions reforms was to reduce the long-term costs of SERPS by encouraging the growth of alternative forms of pension provision.

  The Government Actuary estimates that the numbers opting out of SERPS (either in contracted-out occupational schemes or with personal pensions) are as follows:

  Great Britain, Millions

  Number in contracted-out schemes

  Number with personal pensions

  Total contracted-out

  1987–88

  9·1

  3·1

  12·2

  1988–89

  9·3

  3·1

  12·4

  1989–90

  9·4

  4·0

  13·4

  The revenue forgone in respect of rebates and incentives is estimated to be as follows:

  Great Britain, £ billions

  Rebates to schemes

  Rebates to personal pensions

  Rebates Total

  Incentives to schemes and personal pensions

  1987–88

  4·7

  1·0

  5·7

  0·3

  1988–89

  4·8

  1·0

  5·8

  0·4

  1989–90

  5·3

  1·5

  6·8

  0·6

  The amounts paid are shown against the year to which they relate rather than the year in which payment was made.

  Maternity Pay
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average amount of maternity leave taken, in weeks, by women in receipt of statutory maternity pay;

  (2) if he will estimate the proportion of women in receipt of statutory maternity pay who receive the lower rate only throughout the maternity pay period;

  (3) if he will publish figures showing the number and proportion of women in receipt of statutory maternity pay who receive less than the maximum 18 weeks' statutory maternity pay entitlement.

  Mr. Jack
  Detailed statistics about statutory maternity pay are not collected centrally from employers. It is not possible, therefore, to provide sufficiently accurate estimates of the information requested at this time. It is hoped that the information will be available to allow such estimates to be made when a survey of maternity rights being carried out by the Policy Studies Institute is published later this year.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many women lost entitlement to the earnings-related element of statutory maternity pay as a result of the 1987 changes which changed the qualifying week to the 15th week before expected confinement.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not available of the numbers of women who either gained or lost the earnings element of statutory maternity pay (SMP) as a result of the 1987 change in the qualifying week.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance he will issue to local adjudicating officers on arrangements for care for claimants in former local authority homes who(a) are existing residents in a former local authority home, (b) are new residents nominated by the local authority entering the home after transfer, (c) are new residents not nominated by the local authority and (d) live in homes where (i) staff employment remains the local authority's responsibility, but the new provider manages the scheme, (ii) property is leased to fall-back provisions and (iii) a fund is made available by the local authority to cover necessary top-ups of fees;

  (2) what guidance he will issue to local adjudicating officers to assist them in determining the eligibility of individual claimants to enhanced levels of income support when local authorities have transferred elderly residents' homes to independent trusts or voluntary bodies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Eligibility for income support is defined by regulation. Decisions regarding claims to benefit will be made at local level by the independent adjudication officers, who are provided with guidance on the interpretation of the regulations by the chief adjudication officer in the published adjudication officers' guide.

  No special arrangements have been made for when homes are transferred out of local authority control. The existing guidance issued to adjudication officers is available to assist in determining eligibility for income support in such cases.
  172
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he will give to local adjudication officers about eligibility of claimants to income support when they are in nursing homes where arrangements made by health authorities rely on patients claiming income support and where(a) premises are transferred from health authorities to independent providers, (b) beds are reserved through health authority contracts, (c) health authorities have arranged with a third party for sums of money to be available for top-up of income support and (d) health authorities retain rights, or continue to employ staff directly.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Eligibility for income support is defined by regulation. Independent adjudication officers are provided with guidance on the interpretation of the regulations by the chief adjudication officer (rather than my right hon. Friend) in the published adjudication officers guide.

  The NHS has a responsibility for providing medical and nursing care. This is mainly provided in NHS accommodation. Health authorities (HAs) can enter into contractual arrangements with independent nursing homes for the treatment of NHS patients. They cannot charge people when they do so. Patients in private homes under these arrangements are NHS in-patients and cannot be charged and therefore cannot receive income support as that benefit is designed to provide help with actual charges. HAs cannot make topping-up payments.

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

  Miss Widdecombe
  General guidance on security matters recommends that portable equipment should be given an identification mark. In addition, standards laid down for the housing of IT equipment emphasise the need for it to be kept in secure accommodation.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual total saving to his Department derived from reducing the level of income support payment granted to asylum seekers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Asylum seekers are entitled to 90 per cent. of the appropriate personal allowance. If the full allowances were paid, the estimated additional cost would be around £2·5 million per year.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people, excluding asylum seekers, are granted less than 100 per cent. of the normal rate of income support payments since the change in social security legislation in April 1988; and if he will outline the reason for not granting the full rate of income support in such cases.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Income support urgent cases payments are available to certain people from abroad, including asylum seekers, and to people who have not
  173
  received income which they are due and who would, in consequence, suffer hardship. The personal allowance for adults is reduced by 10 per cent. because recipients are not entitled to (or are entitled to less) income support under the normal rules. Allowances in respect of any children together with any premiums are paid in full. No information is available about the number of people receiving urgent cases payments.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average state earnings-related pension scheme payment for people retiring in the April of each year since 1979 who are in receipt of SERPS.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The available figures are as follows:

  People retiring in

  Gross additional pension payable1 £

  8 months ending 30 November 1979

  0·70

  6 months ending 31 May 1980

  0·83

  13 months ending 30 June 1981

  1·54

  6 months ending 31 May 1982

  2·43

  6 months ending 31 March 1983

  3·52

  6 months ending 31 March 1984

  4·47

  12 months ending 31 March 1985

  5·65

  6 months ending 31 March 1986

  7·37

  12 months ending 30 September 1987

  9·32

  6 months ending 31 March 1988

  10·43

  6 months ending 31 March 1989

  12·10

  1 Includes a notional amount which would have been paid to those who were contracted out of the state earnings related scheme.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State makes the following part-time appointments to public bodies:

  Public Body

  Number of appointments

  Attendance Allowance Board

  8

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  17

  Occupational Pensions Board

  13

  Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions

  25

  Social Security Research Policy Committee

  8

  Total

  71

  My right hon. Friend does not make any part-time appointments where remuneration is in excess of £50,000 per annum.

  Local Offices
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the level of funding of community care loans and grants at his Department's offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow; what has been his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No representations have been received concerning either office. However, following a recent 174
  exercise to identify offices whose budgets were under severe pressure, an additional allocation of £30,000 for the loans budget at Greenock was made on 22 February.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what change there has been in the numbers of claims and the time involved in(a) the assessment of a claim and (b) the notification of the assessment to the claimant in Greenock and Port Glasgow, following the installation of computer systems.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The installation of the computer systems in Greenock and Port Glasgow local offices to assess and pay claims for income support and retirement pension was completed in August 1990.

  From the latest information available, in January 1991, Port Glasgow local office received 341 claims for income support which were cleared in an average of 0·7 days. Prior to computerisation, in May 1989, the office received 327 claims for income support which were processed in an average of 1·7 days. In January 1991, the office also received 21 claims for retirement pension which were dealt with in five days. In May 1989, 25 claims for retirement pension were received which were also cleared in five days.

  In January 1991, Greenock local office received 850 claims for income support which were cleared in an average of 0·7 days. Prior to computerisation, in March 1990, the office received 626 claims for income support which were processed in an average of 1·3 days. In January 1991, the office received 113 claims for retirement pension which were dealt with in 9·7 days. In October 1989, 112 claims for retirement pension were received which were cleared in 19·4 days.

  In general, the time taken to receive notification of entitlement depends on the type of payment. If payment is due within three days a girocheque is issued automatically by the computer system and sent by first-class post, with the entitlement notice enclosed. Alternatively, if payment is by order book, the book is issued to the Post Office by first-class post, and the pick-up notice, with entitlement information are sent second class direct to the recipient.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the operations, or relocate workloads, from or to his Department's offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow; what plans he has to reduce staffing levels in these two offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The management of the Department's local office network is being restructured because changes as a result of the operational strategy project and the setting up of the Contributions Agency meant that the existing offices no longer formed viable management units. This restructuring will result in a modest overall staff saving at managerial level, but there are no plans to reduce the number of offices open to the public. A voluntary redundancy scheme is in place for staff.

  District managers will be responsible for drawing up detailed plans to provide the best possible service to local customers in the most effective way. These plans will be drawn up in consultation with interested parties, including constituency Members.

  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the total number of consultants to medical appeal tribunals in Scotland who are aged(a) under 40 years, (b) 40 to 50 years, (c) 50 to 65 years and (d) over 65 years;

  (2) how many female consultants have been appointed to medical appeal tribunals in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of medical appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals, His Honour Judge Derek Holden. The hon. Member may care to contact his office direct to obtain this information.

  Child Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children are expected to be in receipt of the higher-rate child benefit from 1 April in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Jack
  Information relating to child benefit is available only on a national basis and cannot be given for particular areas.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 22 November 1990 at column 214.

  Care Home Trusts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has now made of the likely financial implications for his Department of the creation of local authority care home trusts.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 29 January 1991]: Decisions on eligibility for income support are made individually for each case by local adjudication officers, and data on these decisions is not collated centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance he has issued to local adjudication officers with regard to the payment of income support to residents in local authority care home trusts;

  (2) what guidance he has issued to local adjudication officers regarding the eligibility for income support of individuals suffering from senile dementia who are unable to exercise personal choice and are placed by a local authority in a care home trust.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answers 29 and 31 January 1991]: Eligibility for income support is defined by regulation and is available in respect of fees, up to certain limits, to residents of registered residential care homes and
  176
  in certain other types of homes. Independent adjudication officers are provided with guidance on the interpretation of the regulations by the chief adjudication officer (rather than my right hon. Friend) in the published adjudication officers guide. Where an individual suffering from senile dementia is unable to act for himself a suitable person would be appointed to act on his behalf and eligibility for income support would be determined in the usual way, taking account of all the relevant circumstances.

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claim income support at the local offices of his Department in(a) Leeds, West, (b) Leeds metropolitan district council area, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) England both as a figure and as a percentage of total population.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 4 March 1991]: Data are not available for the total adult population on the date and for the precise geographical areas to which the information relates. The number of claimants receiving income support is as follows:

  Number

  Leeds West

  10,830

  Leeds Area

  62,244

  West, Yorkshire

  181,528

  England

  3,693,297

  Note:

  All data derived from 30 November 1990 count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Claimants
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are dependent on(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) housing benefit broken down into claimants, dependants and children for (i) Leeds, West, (ii) Leeds metropolitan district council area, (iii) West Yorkshire and (iv) England.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 4 March 1991]: Information for Leeds, West, Leeds metropolitan district council area and West Yorkshire is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information in respect of England is as follows:

  Income Support1

  Family Credit2

  Claimants

  3,429,000

  264,000

  Dependants

  599,000

  164,000

  Children

  1,688,000

  569,000

  Total

  5,716,000

  997,000

  1 Data derived from 1989 Annual Statistical Enquiry

  2 Data derived from 5 per cent, sample of Family Credit caseload at 31 July 1990.

  Information for Leeds, West is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information in respect of the metropolitan borough of Leeds, West Yorkshire and England is as follows:

  177

  Claimants1

  Dependants1

  Children

  Total1

  Metropolitan Borough of Leeds

  63,700

  18,0002

  n/a

  81,700

  West Yorkshire

  159,100

  44,8002

  n/a

  163,900

  England

  3,153,000

  902,0002

  n/a

  4,055,000

  Income Support, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claims in the Leeds metropolitan district council area are from (i) pensioners, (ii) families, (iii) single parents and (iv) people with disabilities as a figure and as a percentage of all income support claims.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 4 March 1991]: The information is not available in the form requested. It is, however, possible to identify the number of current claims from pensioners and lone parents aged less than 60 in the five local offices in the Leeds metropolitan area. This information is in the table.

  Total number of claims

  Percentage of claims in the Leeds area per cent.

  Pensioners

  23,198

  38·5

  Lone Parents

  11,016

  18·3

  Note:

  Data derived from 30 November 1990 count of cases in action, which include a number of cases where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

WALES

  Common Land
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the progress made with the designation of common land in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the registration of common land in Wales.

  Current information on the progress of registration is not held centrally as statutory responsibility for this function lies with local authorities.

  The Arts
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of people attending events associated with the arts in Wales in each of the past five years; what was the total amount spent by the general public on arts events during the same period; what has been the total turnover of the arts in Wales over the past five years; and what are the total figures for employment in the arts over the past five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Local Authority Complaints
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each year since the establishment of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales (i) the number of complaints submitted against each local authority, (ii) the number of complaints investigated, (iii) the number of complaints of maladministration upheld and (iv) the number of (iii) as a ratio of the electorate of the local authority area.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The investigation of maladministration by local authorities in Wales is a matter for the Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales. Much of the information the hon. Gentleman requires can be obtained from a study of the annual reports of the Commissioner published each year since 1975.

  Secure Accommodation (Juveniles)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the requirement for secure establishments in Wales for juveniles awaiting trial to be provided and operated by commercial companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None. Private provision of secure accommodation for young people was ruled out during the passage of the then Children Bill; the Secure Accommodation Regulations 1991, to be made under the resulting Children Act 1989, will specifically prohibit the provision of secure accommodation in voluntary or registered children's homes.

  Administrators
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report, for each local authority in Wales, the number of administrators employed in (a) education departments and (b) social services departments.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on the numbers of administrators employed in local authority education departments is not held centrally. The following staff, who are not directly employed in the delivery of services, were employed in local authority social service departments at 30 September 1990.

  Number

  Whole time equivalent

  Clwyd

  167

  156·0

  Dyfed

  139

  127·9

  Gwent

  203

  190·0

  Gwynedd

  111

  105·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  339

  319·0

  Powys

  52

  48·5

  South Glamorgan

  240

  225·6

  West Glamorgan

  183

  178·1

  Wales

  1,434

  1,350·1

  Note: The following staff groups are included:

  Senior directing, managing, professional and advisory staff who carry a high level of responsibility for particular areas of work (eg consultants, advisors, inspectors, etc.), senior staff concerned with administration, finance or resources and also telephonists and other administrative, clerical and secretarial staff based at headquarters, area offices and hospitals.

  Multi-disabled Young People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many multi-disabled, visually impaired young people under the age of 20 years there are in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The chairmanship of the Welsh Development Agency—four days per week at a salary of £58,750.

  Amputees
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the secretary of State for Wales if he will review the national health service contract with Vessa Ltd. for the supply of artificial limbs and appliances for amputees in Wales in the light of the proposed 30 per cent. rundown in local supply, fitting and manufacture at the ALAC centre at Rookwood hospital, Cardiff.

  Industry

  Capital1 investment

  Profitability1

  Manpower2

  Output/man shift

  Output

  £ million

  £ million

  ('000 tonnes)

  ('000 tonnes)

  1979

  Steel

  8—

  8—

  355,274

  6—

  6,935·7

  British Coal (Deep Mines)

  35·9

  -15·9

  428,581

  1·46

  8,560

  British Coal (Opencast)

  1·5

  10·2

  5310

  6—

  156·822

  180
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The terms of the contract with Vessa Ltd. and any issue of contract compliance are matters for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from ex-service men's organisations and others regarding the artificial limb and appliance services available to amputees in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None. Nor would I expect to since management and operational responsibility for the artificial limb and appliance service was transferred to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority on 1 April 1988.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to restore the standard supply of one spare artificial limb to amputees requiring artificial limbs.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Decisions on such matters are for the management of the service taking account of the specialist clinical advice available to it. I understand that there has been no change of policy on the supply of spare artificial limbs.

  Libraries and Information Services Council
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the reports produced by the Libraries and Information Services Council for Wales in each year from 1986 to 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 27 February 1991]: Year and publication.

  1986

  Annual Report 1985–86.

  1987

  Annual Report 1986–87.

  1988

  Annual Report 1987–88.

  The Report of a Working Party on Public Library Services.

  1989

  Annual Report 1988–89.

  A survey of Information Technology in Academic Libraries in Wales.

  Into the 21st Century: A Plan for the Development of Library and Information Sevices in Wales.

  1990

  Annual Report 1989–90.

  The Report of a Working Group on Libraries in Maintained Secondary Schools in Wales.

  Coal and Steel
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of investment profitability and manpower in the coal and steel industries in Wales in 1990 and in 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 4 March 1991]: The information is given in the following table:

  181

  Industry

  Capital1 investment

  Profitability1

  Manpower2

  Output/man shift

  Output

  £ million

  £ million

  ('000 tonnes)

  ('000 tonnes)

  1990

  Steel

  8—

  8—

  318,000

  6—

  75,792·6

  British Coal (Deep Mines)

  12·4

  -7·09

  43,000

  3·17

  4,040

  British Coal (Opencast)

  4·2

  20·5

  5213

  6—

  92·862

  1 Details relate to the financial year 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  2 Details as at 31 December 1979 and 1990.

  3 Source: Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  4 Figures relate to men on colliery books.

  5 Figures only include employees of British Coal Opencast Executive.

  6 Information on output/man shift not available.

  7 Latest figures from the Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  8 The information on the level of investment and profitability of the steel industry in Wales is not separately available from that for the whole of the United Kingdom.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. Curry
  After a number of regional pilot studies in the early 1980s the Department completed its survey in 1987 of the ethnic origins of staff by means of voluntary questionnaires. The database is kept up to date with the addition of information on new staff and leavers.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1–7) and overall in the Ministry are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested, as at 1 April 1990, is set out in the table. Ethnic origin figures derive from a voluntary questionnaire which about 90 per cent. of staff completed. Programmes of action to achieve equality of opportunity for women and people of ethnic minority origin in the civil service are in place in the Department.

  By grade and grade equivalent

  Number of women

  Women as percentage of total staff

  Ethnic minority respondents to ethnic origin questionnaire

  Ethnic minority respondents as percentage of total respondents

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  4·2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  10

  9·0

  1

  0·93

  6

  10

  7·6

  1

  0·79

  7

  121

  12·5

  9

  0·99

  All staff

  4,624

  44·7

  399

  4·10

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Ministry.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is committed to a policy of equal opportunities. Senior grades are recruited on the Department's behalf by the Civil Service Commission following the principles of fair and open competition. The Commission has taken a series of measures to aid recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities including action on publicity, training and selection policy.

  Illegal Poisoning
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of reported incidents of poisoning of(a) birds, (b) wild animals and (c) household pets by illegal baits in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The current figures for England and Wales for 1990 are as follows:

  Total number of incidents of suspected poisoning reported was 343

  Numbers reported

  Confirmed involvement of pesticides

  Illegal poisonings by pesticides

  Birds

  132

  50

  37

  Wild animals

  102

  15

  11

  Household pets

  96

  40

  31

  Note: Animals from more than one category may be involved in a single incident.

  In addition, there were 16 suspected illegal poison baits reported. Of these, nine were confirmed as illegal baits.

  The hon. Member will be pleased to know that a long-term campaign against the illegal poisoning of wildlife has been launched today. It is a joint initiative by this Department together with the other Agriculture Departments, the Department of Environment, and many non-government organisations which have interests in farming, gamekeeping and conservation. It will give a clear message—that the practice is cruel, dangerous, a threat to wildlife, and unnecessary.

  To back up the campaign we will be co-ordinating the efforts of enforcement agencies; ensuring that those landowners, gamekeepers and farmers with genuine pest control problems know where to go for advice; and keeping a careful check on the present statutory controls on those substances most abused.

  The campaign is a long-term one aimed at changing permanently the attitudes of the minority who abuse pesticides, thereby safeguarding our wildlife against cruel and unnecessary suffering.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Curry
  All ministerial appointments to public bodies are listed in "Public Bodies" published annually by
  183
  the Cabinet Office (OMCS), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. All such appointments by MAFF are part-time, but none is remunerated at more than £50,000 per annum.

  Fruit Juices
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has been carrying out quality and sample tests of fruit juices for domestic consumption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  As stated in the reply of 8 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), a report from the food safety directorate on "Comparison of Methods for the Detection of Added Substances in Orange Juice" indicated that a large proportion of samples of orange juice on retail sale did not fully match the description on the packaging. Ministry officials are now carrying out further investigations into the sources of these wrongly described products.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 4 and 5 March.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, the Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  There was a first debate on the Commission's proposals for 1991–92 farm prices. I offered broad support for the Commission's proposals, but suggested a number of detailed ways in which they might be improved. I stressed in particular the need to adapt policies so that expenditure can be contained within the guideline in 1991 and the following years. I emphasised that proposals must be consistent with the need to increase agricultural efficiency and avoid discrimination between producers or member states.

  The lack of realism among many member states in the face of the mounting budget overrun was particularly disappointing.

  Veterinary Investigation Service
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review of the veterinary investigation service.

  Mr. Gummer
  I set up a review team, led by Dr. P. S. Dawson, the assistant chief veterinary officer with responsibility for the veterinary investigation service (VIS), to examine ways of improving the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the services provided by the VI centres. My concern was to ensure that the VIS is organised and equipped to provide the highest quality of diagnostic, advisory and consultancy services to Government and to the livestock industry generally.

  I have now received the report of the review team and I have accepted its main conclusions.

  The report recommends that the work of the VI service should be concentrated on a smaller number of centres where the facilities available and the level of expertise should be upgraded. The recommendation is that we
  184
  should move from the present structure of 19 centres in England and Wales to one based on 13 centres. The centres at Wye, Truro, Bangor and Lincoln will, therefore, be closed. The VIS quality control unit at the Lincoln VIC will be relocated in new purpose-built facilities at another centre.

  The statutory and policy work carried out at the centres to be closed will be transferred to one of the remaining centres. The work from Wye will go to the Winchester VIC, that from Truro to the Starcross VIC, that from Bangor to the Aberystwyth VIC and the Lincoln work to Sutton Bonington VIC. Private veterinary surgeons will be asked to submit samples for examination to these alternative centres.

  The Cambridge and Norwich centres, both of which are inadequate for present-day needs, will close and their work will be amalgamated at a new purpose-built centre near Bury St. Edmonds. The existing centre at Worcester, which again is unsatisfactory, will be relocated at another new purpose-built centre in Warwickshire. This relocation and the enhancement of the facilities at the Winchester VIC will enable the Reading VIC to be closed.

  The closures at Wye, Truro, Bangor and Lincoln will go ahead as soon as possible. The other changes, including the construction of the new centres at Bury St. Edmonds and in Warwickshire, will be completed over the next three to four years.

  A programme of investment in new capital equipment and up-to-date technology is being carried forward to enable the VIS to achieve the highest quality standards as laid down in "The Principles of Good Laboratory Practice". Staffing levels will be increased in some centres to enable additional workloads to be handled. The reorganisation will involve the loss of some posts. Everything possible will be done to help staff find alternative jobs and to keep redundancies to a minimum.

  I believe that the implementation of these recommendations from the review team will result in significant improvements in the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the VI service. This is important if we are to have a VI service which is well equipped to meet our national needs over the years ahead.

  I am placing a copy of the findings of the review team in the Library of the House.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I make appointments to part-time posts in the magistracy and shrievalty of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside and to various educational bodies. None of the individuals appointed is remunerated.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Spelling and Grammar
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment his Department has made of the degree to which changed requirements for accuracy of spelling and grammar in the 1991 examination syllabuses may act as a discouragement for some children.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend's intention is to encourage pupils and teachers to pay greater attention to spelling. He sees no reason why this should discourage them from entering for GCSE examinations. The only significant group of pupils who might reasonably be discouraged are those suffering from dyslexia. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has therefore invited the three main dyslexia organisations to suggest what concessions might fairly be adopted to enable dyslexic candidates to compete on an equal basis with their peers when the change is introduced.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations took place between his Department and(a) the examination boards and (b) local education authorities concerning the policy of setting aside a proportion of examination grading for spelling and grammar before this policy was introduced.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have not considered it necessary, in view of the widespread public concern, to conduct formal consultations on the desirability of using GCSE examinations to improve spelling standards. The School Examinations and Assessment Council has, however, consulted the GCSE examining groups on the various policy options for effecting change in this area and is currently consulting the groups on the specific proposal, subsequently put to them by my right hon. and learned Friend, that up to 5 per cent. of marks should be deducted for poor spelling. The local education authorities have not been specifically consulted.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research his Department proposes to undertake or commission into fundamental causes of spelling difficulties in children.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department is supporting a £250,000, three-year research project to study the problems of dyslexic children and how schools can tackle them, based at the Harris city technology college in Croydon. There are no immediate plans to commission research into causes of spelling difficulties unrelated to dyslexia. Teachers already have expertise in using a range of techniques for tackling spelling difficulties.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations his Department has received concerning the timing, relative to the 1991 examination cycle, of the introduction of the policy to set aside a proportion of examination grades for spelling and grammar from(a) parents, (b) examination boards and (c) local education authorities; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have received about 250 representations, concerned primarily with the timing of the introduction of this policy,186
  from parents and pupils. None has been received from examination boards or local education authorities. We have responded by saying that we see no unfairness in introducing this change at an early date since what is proposed does not differ greatly from what the groups do at the moment, and examination candidates can hardly be unaware that they need to spell correctly in their GCSEs, just as they need to write legibly and present their work well generally.

  Student Teachers
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the average A-level scores of teacher recruits were in 1980, 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Fallon
  Information is given in the table.

  Initial teacher training in England

  United Kingdom domiciled first-year undergraduate students with A-level entry qualifications

  Academic year

  1980–81

  1985–86

  11989–90

  Total number2

  4,220

  6,005

  6,201

  Average A-level points score3

  5·4

  5·4

  5·7

  1 Data for academic year 1990–91 are not yet available.

  2 Covers students studying BEd., Cert. ED and other undergraduate ITT with qualified teacher status.

  3 Refers to the average A-level points score of those recorded on USR and FESR as having A-level entry qualifications. A-level points scores have been calculated in the customary way, by allocating 5 points for an A grade, 4 points for a B grade, etc.

  Source:

  University Statistical Record for University Departments of Education.

  Further Education Statistical Record for Polytechnics and Colleges.

  Haberdashers' Aske's CTC
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) on what date the funding agreement for Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college was signed and executed on his behalf;

  (2) what security will be provided by the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham college trust to guarantee its capacity to make any repayments of capital grants that may fall due under the provisions of section 105(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988;

  (3) whether the terms under which the land and buildings of the existing Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham schools will be leased for the purposes of establishing the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college have been agreed and approved by the Charity Commissioners.

  Mr. Eggar
  A funding agreement with the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college trust was signed on 21 December 1990. The entry into force of this agreement is conditional on the granting of a lease of the schools and their premises to the trust in a form agreed with the Secretary of State. Discussions on this subject between all concerned, including the Charity Commissioners, are currently taking place. Paragraph 24(A)iv of the funding agreement describes how repayment would have to be made.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the items of works and supplies on which he has determined the total amount of his contribution towards the capital costs of establishing
  187
  the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, including his current estimate of the cost of each item; and in respect of the building works, whether they are planned to be carried out on the boys' or the girls' site of the city technology college.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to make available £5·5 million towards the capital costs of establishment of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, which may be apportioned as follows:

  £K

  New Build

  2,090

  Repairs/refurbishment

  1,420

  External works

  330

  Furniture and Equipment

  700

  Fees

  460

  VAT

  500

  Total

  5,500

  An approximately equivalent amount is to be spent on refurbishment of both sites, although some additional 15,000 sq ft of new build is to be provided at the girls' site, but this will be for shared use.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of any overrun on initial capital costs of establishing the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college he has agreed to meet under the equivalent of paragraph 8(iv)(a) of the model CTC/CCTA funding agreement placed in the Library on 31 October 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to meet up to 80 per cent. of any overrun of initial capital costs which, in accordance with paragraph 8(iv)(a) of the model funding agreement are deemed necessary and could not have been foreseen at the time the cash limit was set.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) under the funding agreement for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, what is the total cash limit that has been agreed for the capital expenditure necessary to establish the college; and how much of this capital expenditure will be borne by him and how much by the private sponsors of the city technology college;

  (2) what account he has taken of the availability of cash in private sponsorship towards the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college in determining the amount of capital funding required from public sources to establish the college; and what part of this will be contributed toward the initial capital costs of the college;

  (3) how the private contribution towards the capital costs of establishing the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college will be divided between (a) the value of the land and buildings of the existing Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham schools and (b) other capital costs of establishing the college; and on what basis the value attributed to the private sponsors under (a) has been varied from the earlier assessment of the district valuer referred to in his reply of the 13 November 1990, Official Report, column 101.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has agreed a total cash limit for the project of £8·945 million, of which he will provide £5·5 million and the sponsors a188
  99-year lease of the sites and premises of the schools, currently valued at £3·445 million, for educational purposes. No further valuation has been sought from the district valuer since my reply of 13 November 1990, Official Report, col. 101. In addition, the Haberdashers' Company has agreed to underwrite sponsorship of £1 million, which may be contributed towards capital costs.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements have been written into the funding agreement for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college relating to the payment, including the timing of the payments, of capital costs for establishing the college.

  Mr. Eggar
  As stated in paragraph 8(iv) of the funding agreement, the arrangements, including the timing of capital payments, will be in accordance with annex 2 of the agreement.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has included any variations from the terms of paragraph 9 of the model CTC/CCTA funding agreement placed in the Library on 31 October 1990 in the funding agreement for the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are several small amendments to the funding agreement to take account of the circumstances relating to this particular project.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of pupils(a) under and (b) over school leaving age that he has agreed to fund at the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college from September 1991; and what is the total number of pupils in each age group that is planned for the college once it has reached its full capacity.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is intended that the college will open at capacity with 900 pupils under school leaving age and 200 pupils over school leaving age on roll. Actual numbers may vary slightly from these figures.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. Eggar
  Of the Department's staff, 2·7 per cent. are registered as disabled. There are other staff in the Department with disabilities who have chosen not to register and who are not included in this figure.

ENVIRONMENT

  Labelling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he will be making at the EC Environment Council on 18 March in respect of a Community-wide labelling scheme for environmentally friendly products.

  Mr Baldry
  My right hon. Friend will be welcoming the fact that the Commission has now tabled a draft proposal and will be calling for rapid progress. He will, however, be making a number of comments on the detail of the scheme designed to make it more effective and less bureaucratic.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he will be making at the EC Environment Council on 18 March in respect of an international operation to alleviate the environmental effects of the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 February to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) at column 531.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution Her Majesty's Government are making towards rescuing the natural environment in the Gulf region; what representations he will be making to allied coalition partners in respect of the clean-up operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The actions taken as part of our initial response to the oil spillages in the Gulf were set out in my letter of 6 February to hon. Members, a copy of which is in the Library. I will continue to assess urgently any specific requests we receive from the Gulf states. The International Maritime Organisation has continued to co-ordinate offers of assistance from member states, including coalition members, and I welcome their establishment of a trust fund to facilitate further clean-up action in the Gulf.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress he has to report on combating oil pollution in the Gulf.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I set out some of the initial steps we have taken in response to oil spills in the Gulf in my letter to hon. Members of 6 February, copies of which are in the Library. Since then we have continued to look closely at how we can respond further to requests from the Gulf states and the international organisations seeking to co-ordinate assistance. These include the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the specialised agency of the UN concerned with shipping and oil pollution issues, which has co-ordinated offers of assistance of expertise and equipment from Governments of member states.

  Recently it has become clear that while deflection operations and protective booms have been successfully deployed, extensive damage has occurred and substantial quantities of oil remain at sea. On 1 March the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organisation called for establishment of a trust fund to facilitate provision of equipment and services to tackle oil pollution in the Gulf. Reports available to me indicate that there is now an urgent need to begin oil recovery operations if further damage to ecologically sensitive sites is to be minimised.

  In order to assist the Governments of the Gulf states my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I are together contributing £1 million to the International Maritime Organisation Gulf oil pollution disaster fund. Each Department is contributing £0·5 million.

  With other contributions which the International Maritime Organisation is seeking from its members and
  190
  the resources of the Gulf states this should enable those on the spot to put into operation the plans now being developed by the responsible national agencies assisted by international experts, including those from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his Department's latest estimate of the area of water in the Gulf that is currently affected by oil slicks;

  (2) what is his Department's latest estimate of the length of coastline around the Gulf that is currently affected by oil slicks.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The reports available to us indicate that oil has affected most of the Saudi Arabian coastline between Khafji and the island of Abu Ali. This includes 400 km of coastline, with the worst damage occurring in the heavily indented southern part of the coast. Around 50,000 tonnes of oil in this area are estimated to remain at sea. In addition areas of light oil or sheen have been observed up to 70 miles offshore and up to 50˚ 20' east and 29˚ 5' north. No detailed information is yet available on coastal or offshore pollution within the former war zone in the northern Gulf.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Heseltine
  The Department undertook a voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff in post in 1987. This was supplemented by a series of follow-up surveys in 1990. A final survey is about to be carried out, in addition to a continuous survey of job applicants.

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

  Mr. Heseltine
  There are few top grade posts filled by direct recruitment. Where necessary, it is carried out through the Civil Service Commission; posts are advertised in the national press and relevant specialist publications on the basis of fair and open competition. Advertisements state that the Department is an equal opportunities employer.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Heseltine
  The latest available information on the numbers of(a) women and (b) ethnic minorities in grades 1 to 7 in my Department is:
  191

  (a) Women at 1 March 1991

  (b) Ethnic minorities2 at 1 February 1991

  Grade

  Number of Women

  Percentage of Women

  Grade

  Number of ethnic minorities

  Percentage of ethnic minorities

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0·0

  2

  1

  13

  2

  0

  0·0

  (two from 30

  (25 from 30

  April 1991)

  April 1991

  3

  15

  113

  3

  0

  0·0

  4

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0·0

  5

  24

  16

  5

  2

  1·4

  6

  19

  7

  6

  2

  0·7

  7

  122

  16

  7

  5

  0·7

  Total

  170

  13

  Total

  9

  0·8

  All Grades

  3,210

  43

  All Grades

  450

  7·1

  1 Changes at Grade 3 level consequent on promotion to Grade 2 not yet determined.

  2 Based on information gained from voluntary surveys of staff; non-respondents not included.

  Antarctic
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what members of his Department were represented at the special consultative meeting of the Antarctic treaty parties in Chile, and if his Department will be represented at the April meeting of the Antarctic treaty parties which will discuss environmental protection for the Antarctic.

  Mr. Heseltine
  One official from my Department was a member of the United Kingdom delegation for the special consultative meeting in Chile. United Kingdom representation for the April meeting has not yet been decided.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on(a) the reasons why individual council tenants fell into arrears with rent, (b) the number in arrears who are in receipt of housing rebate, (c) the level of income per household of tenants in arrears, and (d) the number of children per household of tenants in arrears; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The most recent available information on the characteristics of tenants in rent arrears asked about in the question was given in my Department's report "Preventing Rent Arrears", which was published by HMSO in 1983, when copies were placed in the Library. My Department is currently planning a repeat of this large-scale study, the results of which will be available towards the end of 1992.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Heseltine
  This information is contained in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1990", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Responsibility for appointments to the Sports Council and the regional councils for sport and recreation was transferred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 29 November 1990.

  None of the appointments to public bodies created since 1 July 1990 for which I am responsible attracts
  192
  remuneration of more than £50,000 per annum. The bodies are the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. All the appointments to these bodies are part-time.

  Rechar
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those projects which have been or will be directly assisted by European moneys under the Rechar programme; and whether these payments have been classed as public expenditure as far as United Kingdom financial monitoring is concerned.

  Mr. Yeo
  No projects have been aided by the European Commission Rechar programme as the Commission has not yet approved the United Kingdom's proposals which are currently being considered, nor do we know, at this stage, which projects will be aided as they will have to be submitted to and approved by the relevant programme co-ordinating committee, once the programme itself has been approved.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those projects within South Yorkshire which have been assisted by the European Rechar programme.

  Mr. Yeo
  None, as the Rechar programme for South Yorkshire has not yet been approved by the European Commission.

  Dearne Valley
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made in his assessment of funding levels for the local authorities of the annual cost which will be incurred by the current plan for regeneration of the Dearne valley; how many years he expects this project to take; and what central support he expects to provide during this period.

  Mr. Key
  We are today announcing a package of additional Government assistance for the Dearne valley including increased derelict land grant and urban programme allocations to the local authorities of Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham and two city grants to the private sector to stimulate economic regeneration in the area. Revenue support for local authorities is assessed
  193
  annually. This is based on a broad set of principles which take account of the social, demographic and physical characteristics of each area.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the toxic waste held at Wath upon Dearne, Rotherham which arrived in the summer of 1989 to be removed; and if he maintains contact with the appropriate agencies and Rotherham borough council in regard to the problem.

  Mr. Baldry
  There is no immediate prospect of the waste being removed by agreement, for the reasons we have explained in correspondence. The Department is no longer in contact with those previously involved in discusssions about the waste but we are, of course, prepared to consider any further initiatives that they and the local authorities might wish to offer.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many compulsory purchase orders have been issued by Leeds development corporation in each financial year of its existence.

  Mr. Portillo
  Sixteen compulsory purchase orders have been promoted by Leeds development corporation; three in 1988–89, seven in 1989–90, and six in 1990–91. Of these, decisions have been issued on six of the orders, five orders were withdrawn by the development corporation prior to determination and five orders are currently proceeding to inquiry.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment of the sites affected by compulsory purchase orders issued by Leeds development corporation; how many have been subject to redevelopment; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Portillo
  Land at Lowfold, South has been redeveloped. Work on three sites at Skelton Grange road, Goodman street and Sardinia street is currently under way and work will shortly be commencing on two sites at Knostrop and at Beza road.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those firms which have been relocated by Leeds development corporation and the sites to which they have been moved.

  Mr. Portillo
  Some of this information was provided to the Leeds development corporation on a commercial-inconfidence basis. I advise the hon. Member to discuss with the chairman of the development corporation what information he is free to divulge.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those firms, and the numbers employed, which have been moved since the inception of the Leeds development corporation because of development plans initiated by that corporation.

  Mr. Portillo
  The list of the relevant firms is as follows:

  LIST OF FIRMS RELOCATED

  Name of Firm

  Relocated to:

  Flight 451

  13/15 Hunslet Road, Leeds

  J. Ingham

  Lower Briggate, Leeds

  194

  Waldene Card Co

  Canal Wharf, Wyther Lane, Leeds

  E. Farrell trading as Highgate Motors

  Goodman Street, Leeds

  WP Design for Print

  Stourton, Leeds

  Leeds Graphic Press

  Balm Road, Leeds

  Moore Signs Ltd

  Harrogate

  Crosby Windows

  Hampshire

  Impact Insulation (UK) Ltd

  Castleford

  The Beetle People

  Morley, Leeds

  Mr. A. Sellers

  Goodman Street, Leeds

  L. Bainbridge and Sons

  Swinnow View, Leeds

  D. Cherrington Slates Ltd

  Cross Green, Leeds

  Leeds Trailers

  Snaith

  Tudorgrade

  Stourton, Leeds

  Stanton Roofing

  Rotherwell, Leeds.

  Local Authority Dwellings
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authority dwellings (a) were vacant and available for letting on 1 April 1989 and (b) became available for letting between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 (i) through new build, (ii) through acquisition, modernisation or conversion and (iii) through other means in (1) inner London, (2) outer London, (3) non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) metropolitan areas outside London and (6) England as a whole;

  (2) how many households local authorities accepted between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 (a) as homeless and (b) as homeless and in priority need, in (1) inner London, (2) outer London, (3) non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) metropolitan areas outside London and (6) England as a whole;

  (3) how many households were registered on the local authority housing waiting lists on 1 April 1990 in (a) inner London, (b) outer London, (c) non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (d) non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (e) metropolitan areas outside London and (f) England as a whole;

  (4) how many dwellings were let by local authorities between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 (a) to new secure tenants and (b) to new secure tenants who were homeless households in (1) inner London, (2) outer London, (3) non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) metropolitan areas outside London and (6) England as a whole;

  (5) how many dwellings were let by local authorities between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 (a) to new non-secure tenants and (b) to new non-secure tenants who were homeless households in (1) inner London, (2) outer London, (3) non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) metropolitan areas outside London and (6) England as a a whole;

  (6) how many households and how many homeless households took up nominations by local authorities to housing association dwellings between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 in (a) inner London, (b) outer London, (c) non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (d) non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (e) metropolitan areas outside London and (f) England as a whole;

  (7) how many dwellings were let between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 (a) in total and (b) to homeless

  195
  households (i) through the national mobility scheme, (ii) through HALO and (iii) through other mobility schemes in (1) inner London, (2) outer London, (3) non-metropolitan areas of the south-east, (4) non-metropolitan areas outside the south-east, (5) metropolitan areas outside London and (6) England as a whole.

  Local authority lettings 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Inner London

  Outer London

  Non-metropolitan areas in South East

  Non-metropolitan areas outside South East

  Metropolitan areas outside London

  England

  Dwellings let to:

  New secure tenants

  13,500

  11,500

  23,700

  73,100

  85,000

  206,800

  of which homeless households

  8,300

  7,200

  7,400

  20,200

  20,500

  63,600

  New non-secure tenants1

  5,500

  4,200

  4,600

  4,000

  2,400

  20,700

  of which homeless households2

  5,200

  2,100

  4,000

  3,200

  1,300

  15,800

  Dwellings let through:

  National mobility or local authority mobility scheme (NMS/LAMS)

  2,500

  1,000

  1,100

  1,900

  1,800

  8,300

  of which homeless households

  1,000

  100

  —

  —

  —

  1,200

  Housing association liaison office (HALO)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  of which homeless households

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other mobility schemes

  100

  100

  200

  200

  100

  500

  of which homeless households

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dwellings let to homeless households referred by other local authorities under section 68, Housing Act 1985 between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990

  400

  100

  100

  200

  100

  1,000

  Nominations to housing associations

  2,800

  1,400

  2,000

  7,200

  7,500

  21,000

  of which homeless households

  1,200

  600

  500

  800

  1,200

  4,300

  Total households accepted as homeless3 1989–90

  21,600

  12,800

  17,900

  37,900

  42,700

  153,000

  of which in priority need

  19,200

  12,500

  17,300

  36,600

  35,300

  120,900

  Households on waiting lists at 1 April 1990

  136,900

  92,200

  192,500

  494,000

  340,000

  1,255,500

  Dwellings vacant and available for letting on 1 April 1989

  2,900

  1,500

  3,500

  7,200

  9,700

  24,800

  Dwellings coming into management during 1989–90 which were:

  (a) Newly built

  1,100

  900

  4,900

  6,300

  1,200

  14,300

  (b) Acquisition etc.

  1,900

  700

  1,700

  4,000

  4,400

  12,700

  (c) Acquired on short leases

  3,400

  2,700

  1,000

  400

  —

  7,500

  Other dwellings which became available for letting

  26,600

  23,300

  53,600

  130,000

  147,200

  380,600

  Total dwellings available for letting 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  35,900

  29,100

  64,600

  147,800

  162,400

  440,000

  Note: = less than 50.

  1 Many of these are lettings of dwellings held on short-term leases.

  2 Mainly accommodated temporarily.

  3 For whom local authorities accepted the duty to secure accommodation.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department employs 68 staff who are known to be registered disabled and a further 86 who are known to have a disability without being registered. The total represents some 2·5 per cent. of the DOE work force.

  Waste
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish advice to local authorities on the separation of their functions as waste regulators and as waste disposers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have today issued a draft circular which gives guidance on the new arrangements under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the separation of
  196
  Mr. Yeo
  Following are estimates from local authorities' annual housing investment programme returns (HIP1) for April 1990:

  waste disposal and waste regulation functions in local authorities which are both waste regulation authorities and waste disposal authorities under the Act.

  The draft circular gives guidance on the functions assigned to waste regulation and waste disposal authorities under the Act and on the extent of separation that will be required.

  From May this year, local authorities will have to arrange for the administrative separation of the two functions so that the waste regulation authority can set the highest practicable environmental standards free from pressures arising from the local authority's role as a waste disposer. It is vital that waste regulation decisions are fair to all waste disposers and seen to be fair.

  These changes with other provisions of the Act, particularly those on the transfer of local authority waste disposal operations to arm's length companies or to the private sector announced on 22 February, will help provide the basis for higher standards and fair competition.

  Wrecks
  Sir Gerrard Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the payment of commission to receivers of wreck in respect of historic material recovered from wrecks.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to be able to announce that further to the measures announced in the Government's response to the "Heritage at Sea" report on 20 December, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has agreed that receivers of wreck will no longer charge a commission of 7·5 per cent. of the value of any property delivered to them. It has also been decided that museums purchasing coins over 100 years old from receivers will not be required to pay that proportion of the price which has until now been retained by the Crown. Both these changes will be introduced for items recovered from wreck sites on or after 1 April next.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant per poll tax payer is received by(a) Salford, (b) Wigan and (c) Westminster.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: Government grants in 1990–91 consist of revenue support grant, special grants, specific grants in aggregate external finance, community charge benefit grant and transitional relief grant. Government grants per head of relevant population in 1990–91 are £565 in Salford, £306 in Wigan and £980 in Westminster.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  COCOM
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals were put by the United Kingdom delegation to the most recent COCOM meeting; and what decisions were agreed at the meeting.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The main United Kingdom objective for the COCOM meeting held at executive committee level on 27 to 28 February was to achieve as much progress as possible in the exercise to reform the COCOM controls by drawing up a new "core list" of industrial dual-use equipment and technologies.

  Much progress was made. Agreement was reached on new control parameters in most sectors. Work continues to solve remaining issues so that the next COCOM high-level meeting can establish the core list.

  The executive committee meeting also agreed to extend to Poland the provisions of a procedure under which greater access to dual-use items is allowed on the basis of safeguards against diversion. Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic have already had the procedure extended to them.

  The Gulf
  Sir Richard Luce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Hong Kong Government have agreed to make a contribution to Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of general work in the Gulf following the liberation of Kuwait; and if he will make a statement.
  198
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Hong Kong Government announced on 8 February 1991 a contribution to the United Kingdom of approximately £15 million towards the cost of the Gulf operation. We very much appreciate this generous gesture.

  News Department
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number of staff working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's news department and the expenditure on that department for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Staffing levels, including administration, clerical and secretarial support, in, and expenditure for, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing news department and the aid wing press office are as follows:

  Year

  Staff

  Running costs £ million

  1983–84

  26

  ·43

  1984–85

  26

  ·43

  1985–86

  26–5

  ·53

  1986–87

  25–5

  ·53

  1987–88

  19

  ·45

  1988–89

  18

  ·45

  1989–90

  18

  ·56

  1990–91

  18

  ·56

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had with the Secretary General of the United Nations on the ongoing occupation by the Turkish army of northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We maintain regular high-level contacts with the UN Secretary-General and all parties involved in the intercommunal dispute and actively support the Secretary-General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made in respect of Mikhail Lidsky of Kiev who has been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can certainly raise Mr. Lidsky's case with the Soviet authorities, but to make our representations most effective we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made in respect of Iosef Meerson who has been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can certainly raise Mr. Meerson's case with the Soviet authorities, but to make our representations most effective we shall need further details.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's expenditure on(a) advertising and (b) press and public relations for each year from 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on advertising from 1979–80 to 1989–90 and estimates for 1990–91 are:

  FCO (Dip Wing)

  FCO (ODA Wing)

  1979–80

  110,226

  214,739

  1980–81

  116,532

  145,697

  1981–82

  162,988

  207,964

  £ million

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Payments to Central Office of Information for Overseas information material and related activities

  17·4

  18·8

  18·3

  18·7

  19·2

  18·3

  18·1

  15·6

  Other information services

  0·9

  0·8

  0·9

  0·7

  0·9

  0·9

  3·3

  6·4

  Running costs of Diplomatic Wing Information/News Department

  1·8

  1·4

  1·9

  1·9

  2·0

  1·8

  2·4

  3·6

  Running costs of ODA Wing Information Department

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·4

  0·4

  Costs of information staff at overseas posts

  12·4

  12·8

  13·6

  14·6

  17·6

  17·5

  18·8

  20·7

  Total

  32·8

  34·1

  35·0

  36·1

  39·9

  38·8

  43·0

  46·7

  Figures for the period before 1983–84 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the British Government will be taking to protect Palestinians who are currently in Kuwait; and if he will discuss in the United Nations the future of Palestinian workers who fled Kuwait during the invasion and who now wish to return.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are seriously concerned at these reports. We have urged the Kuwait authorities at a high level to ensure that law and order is restored in Kuwait as quickly as possible and at all costs to avoid a witch-hunt against suspected collaborators.

  Information Department
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number of staff working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's information department and the expenditure of the information department for each year since 1983; and if he will break down these figures into (i) guidance and

  £ million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–912

  Publications

  2·5

  2·4

  2·2

  2·1

  2·2

  2·7

  2·9

  Overseas Press including Guidance and Verbatims

  5·4

  5·3

  4·2

  3·9

  3·5

  3·2

  3·5

  Information Policy and Administration

  2·3

  2·4

  2·2

  2·9

  2·6

  2·3

  2·3

  Overseas Visitors and London Correspondents' Service

  4·1

  4·3

  4·9

  5·1

  4·8

  5·3

  5·6

  Wilton Park

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  30·6

  30·6

  30·4

  Exhibitions

  2·0

  1·9

  1·8

  2·0

  1·8

  2·8

  3·2

  Films, Television and Radio

  3·2

  2·8

  4·0

  4·0

  3·7

  4·5

  4·1

  Sub Total

  19·6

  19·2

  19·4

  20·1

  19·2

  21·4

  22·0

  BBC World Service

  81·0

  90·0

  102·4

  102·0

  121·1

  126·0

  147·3

  Total

  100·6

  109·2

  121·8

  122·1

  140·3

  147·4

  169·3

  200

  FCO (Dip Wing)

  FCO (ODA Wing)

  1982–83

  229,711

  135,506

  1983–84

  205,247

  252,691

  1984–85

  149,932

  234,050

  1985–86

  160,535

  271,084

  1986–87

  335,754

  228,347

  1987–88

  195,000

  351,000

  1988–89

  289,184

  714,000

  1989–90

  395,782

  1,048,000

  1990–91

  948,000

  972,000

  Expenditure on press and public relations from 1983–84 to 1989–90 and the estimate for the current year are as follows:

  verbatims, (ii) publications, (iii) overseas press, (iv) information policy and administration, (v) overseas visitors and London correspondents' service (vi) BBC World Service and Wilton Park (vii) exhibitions and (viii) films, television and radio.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of staff working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's information department since 1983 have been:

  Year

  Number

  1983

  66

  1984

  59

  1985

  59

  1986

  57

  1987

  58

  1988

  55

  1989

  52½

  1990

  52½

  1991

  1 128

  Information Department expenditure since 1984–85 has been:
  201
  1Includes Overseas Visitors and London Correspondents' Service staff transferred from COI to Information Department on 1 October 1990.

  2Forecast Outturn.

  3Includes expenditure on major refurbishment programme.

  Research Department
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number of staff working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's research department and the expenditure on the research department; and if he will list the functions of the research department, for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Staffing levels, including administration, clerical and secretarial support, and expenditure for research and analysis department are as follows:

  Year

  Staff

  Running costs £ million

  1983–84

  89

  1·8

  1984–85

  89

  1·8

  1985–86

  89

  2·0

  1986–87

  90

  2·1

  1987–88

  91

  2·3

  1988–89

  93

  2·5

  1989–90

  92

  3·1

  1990–91

  90

  3·4

  The function of the department is to contribute to the formulation of overseas policy through the provision of assessments and advice based on specialist experience.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Indian and Pakistan Governments concerning the situation in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As I told the House on 14 February, in our regular contacts with the Indian and Pakistani Governments, we have made clear our belief that their dispute over Kashmir should be settled by peaceful agreement between them. At the same time we have condemned the use of violence for political ends and emphasised our concern that human rights must be respected.

  Public Bodies Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The most recent information available for part-time public appointments for which the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible is as follows:

  Public body

  Number of appointments

  Imperial War Museum (Board of Trustees)

  2

  British Council Board

  2

  Imperial College of Science and Technology (Governing Body)

  1

  Great Britain China Centre

  1

  Great Britain East Europe Centre

  1

  Great Britain USSR Association

  1

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  10

  202

  Public body

  Number of appointments

  Universities China Committee

  1

  School of Oriental and African Studies (Governing Body)

  3

  Advisory Board to the Wilson Chair of International Politics, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

  1

  Irish Pensions Appeal Tribunal

  2

  Commonwealth Institute:

  Chairman of the Scottish Committee

  1

  Commonwealth Institute:

  Board of Governors

  12

  Sightsavers

  2

  Commonwealth Foundation

  1

  Diplomatic Service Appeal Boards

  8

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  17

  Commonwealth Institute:

  Chairman of the Board of Governors

  1

  Lloyd Foundation

  1

  Advisory Committee on Economic and Social Resources Overseas

  18

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  15

  Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases

  6

  Overseas Service Pension Scheme

  4

  Indian Family Pension Scheme

  8

  Institute of Development Studies

  21

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  8

  Crown Agents

  7

  Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine

  2

  No part-time appointments are remunerated at more than £50,000 a year. This figure applies to only one full-time appointment—the managing director of the Crown Agents, who in 1989 received a salary of £63,000.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The proportion of registered disabled staff currently employed in the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is 0·38 per cent. The proportion in the aid wing is 1·4 per cent.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also employs a number of non-registered disabled staff but holds no statistics on them.

  Global Technical and Management Services International
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has on the activities of the firm Global Technical and Management Services International in Iraq prior to 29 March 1990.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not—and never has been—the practice to reveal details of our contacts with individual companies.

  Military Equipment Experts
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which international forum the export of lethal and non-lethal military equipment is discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are several forums including the co-ordinating committee for multilateral export controls, the missile technology control regime, groupings of nuclear suppliers and the Australia group, whose aim is to strengthen export controls on chemical and biological weapons. The subject is also discussed in the United Nations.

  EC Political Union
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference on political union on 4 March.

  Mr. Hurd
  The ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference on political union on 4 March, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I attended, discussed democratic legitimacy and the powers of the European Parliament. Both democratic legitimacy and a common foreign and security policy were also discussed at an inter-institutional conference between the European Parliament and the member states on 5 March.

  At the IGC, my hon. Friend the Minister of State took the opportunity to emphasise the importance we attach to the role of national Parliaments. Following consultation on both sides of this House and in another place, he outlined ideas for recognising the role played by national Parliaments and reinforcing the links between them and the European Parliament.

  The Minister of State suggested a recognition of the importance of national scrutiny procedures for EC legislation and the desirability of encouraging their application in all member states; an undertaking that Council procedures should provide adequate opportunity for national scrutiny in advance of final decisions; improving the flow of Information about Community business to national Parliaments; encouraging closer contacts between European and national Parliaments.

  Foreign Ministers will consider common foreign and security policy in detail later this month. The United Kingdom has put forward proposals on this, building on the success of European political co-operation and the provisions of title III of the Single European Act. Our proposals would strengthen the obligation on the Twelve to formulate and implement a common foreign and security policy.

  In the increasing number of areas where our interests converge, the Twelve should play a more active role on the international scene, but member states should not be obliged to accept policies contrary to their national interests. We are therefore insisting on retention of the principle of consensus.

  Our proposals also set out the Twelve's relationship with NATO and the Western European Union. We favour intensifying discussion among the Twelve on security issues such as non-proliferation. We also think it right that Europe should take on greater responsibility for its own defence, but without in any way undermining the collective
  204
  security provided by NATO and the WEU. The mutual defence commitments undertaken in these organisations will continue to make an essential contribution to Europe's security. We believe the right way forward to be through strengthening the WEU which, by developing links with the Twelve, can act as a bridge between the Twelve and NATO. We do not envisage the Twelve taking on a defence role.

  Finally, our proposals would improve the efficiency and speed of the machinery by which the Twelve conduct foreign and security policy.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 4 March.

  Mr. Hurd
  A meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council took place in Brussels on 4 March. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I represented the United Kingdom.

  Ministers reviewed the situation in the Soviet Union and approved in principle measures to provide some £177 million food assistance and £350 million as a credit for food purchases for the Soviet Union, subject to strict monitoring to ensure that the food went to those in need. The Council asked the Commission to resume preparatory work for a proposal to give technical assistance to the Soviet Union. A decision on whether to implement this proposal will be taken by the Council later in the light of the prevailing political and economic situation. Ministers also approved in principle £70 million food and medical assistance for Romania and Bulgaria.

  Ministers discussed EC assistance to Israel and the occupied territories to counter the effects of the Gulf war. They agreed in principle that the Community should guarantee a loan of some £110 million to Israel, to be raised commercially with £19 million interest rate subsidy from the Community budget, and should provide the occupied territories with £42 million in grants.

  The Commission reported progress in the GATT Uruguay round. The United Kingdom and most other member states welcomed the resumption of negotiations and called for an early and successful outcome.

  The Commission reported on the negotiations with EFTA and identified the outstanding issues. It was agreed that work on this dossier should be intensified.

  Over lunch, Ministers discussed the need to strengthen EC-Turkey relations. They also discussed Yugoslavia and agreed that the presidency would appeal to all Yugoslav parties to continue their dialogue.

  Ministers discussed the situation in the Gulf and middle east following the suspension of hostilities. Ministers agreed to a Commission proposal to remove Kuwait from the scope of the EC embargo. They confirmed their support for the efforts of the countries of the region to ensure its future stability.

  They agreed on the importance of maintaining close contact with those countries and with the United States and the Soviet Union. In this connection, the presidency is arranging ministerial troika visits to the middle east. Ministers confirmed their support for an international peace conference at an appropriate time, but agreed that

  205
  the present situation called for urgent, quick diplomatic efforts within a visible framework of contacts and discussions.

  Ministers discussed the situation in the Baltic states. They noted that the results of the referendums held in these states could not be ignored and their satisfaction that they had taken place in peace and without interference. They called for an early opening of a serious and constructive dialogue between the Soviet and Baltic authorities.

SCOTLAND

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much is public expenditure per head in Scotland in the current year.

  Mr. Lang
  In 1989–90, the latest year for which a figure is available, identifiable public expenditure per head in Scotland was £2,962.

  M8 Motorway
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made any assessment of the environmental impact of increased usage of the M8 motorway.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An assessment of future traffic growth on the M8 motorway is being carried out as part of the trunk and key principal road network review. Should plans for any major improvement schemes on the M8 be adopted in the light of the review's findings these would be the subject of detailed environmental assessments in the usual way.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when all Scottish drinking water sources will conform to European Community safety standards for aluminium.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The EC standard for aluminium in drinking water is based on aesthetic considerations and is not a safety standard. Most of the 129 supply zones for which improvement undertakings have been given by water authorities are programmed to meet the standard before the end of 1994.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy not to approve applications for national health service trust status which are not supported by the majority of the relevant medical staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Neither this nor previous Governments have made decisions on major changes in the national health service dependent on this criterion.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which hospitals in Scotland have now expressed an interest in trust status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Six expressions of interest have been received from South Ayrshire, Foresterhill (Aberdeen), RSNH (Larbert), Forfar, Victoria Infirmary (Glasgow) and the west Grampian group of hospitals.

  A77
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the progress being made in upgrading the A77.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Considerable progress is being made in upgrading the A77. The Balsalloch-Balcreuchan realignment scheme was completed in December 1990 and the adjoining Benane Hill bypass is at present under construction. Extensive safety fencing work has been undertaken on central reserves. Six further major schemes are in preparation. My right hon. Friend has recently allocated Strathclyde regional council an additional £1·4 million capital consent, to enable the council to make early progress on advance earth works on the local road section of the Ayr road route between the M77 and the Glasgow city boundary.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the number of homes sold under the right-to-buy legislation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Almost 205,000 homes in Scotland were sold under the right-to-buy legislation from October 1980 to end December 1990. Some of the Scottish Homes properties were sold under voluntary arrangements. The total level of sales demonstrates clearly the success of the Government's policy of extending the level of home-ownership in response to the aspirations of a large percentage of the population in Scotland.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends meeting the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss its budget.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I met the chairman of Scottish Homes on 4 March to discuss Scottish Homes budget.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will approve the regional allocation of the budget for Scottish Homes for 1990–91.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In approving Scottish Homes programme for any year, my right hon. Friend agrees the amounts which Scottish Homes proposes should be spent on particular functions. The allocation of funds to specific areas is then a matter for Scottish Homes.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proportion of Scottish Homes grant-in-aid allocations has been spent in Dundee in 1989–90 and 1990–91, giving both the percentage figure and the actual cash sums spent.

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report Tayside district's share of the allocation to the north region of grant-in-aid to Scottish Homes for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, where those figures are available;

  (3) if he will publish in the Official Report the bids made by north region for its share of the grant-in-aid allocations to Scottish Homes in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, and the actual allocations to north region in each of those years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The information sought is not held by the Scottish

  207
  Office Environment Department as allocations to Scottish Homes regions or districts are a matter for Scottish Homes itself.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider giving Scottish Homes grant-in-aid allocations for three years to enable longer-term planning between Scottish Homes, local authorities, housing associations and communities in peripheral estates.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: No. The present system permits sufficient flexibility. In preparing its strategic plan, Scottish Homes is given planning indicators of Government funding for the forward year. This itself gives an indication of the future funding levels since Scottish Homes has the ability to forward commit up to 80 per cent. of its current year programme into the next. This enables the agency to plan for future years, but allows sufficient funding for new priorities or projects emerging in the following year.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the grant-in-aid to Scottish Homes in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what was the allocation to north region in each of those years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The grant-in-aid for Scottish Homes is set out in the table:

  £ million

  1989–90 (Actual; including £36 million National Loans Fund repayments)

  229·1

  1990–91 (Estimates Provision; including £7·7 million National Loans Fund repayments)

  266·4

  1991–92 (Estimates Provision; including £169 million National Loans Fund repayments)

  443·2

  The allocation of these totals to Scottish Homes regions is a matter for Scottish Homes.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the estimated figures for capital receipts in the capital allocations to Scottish Homes in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what were the actual outturn capital receipts in those years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The information requested is set out the the table:

  Estimated £ million

  Outturn £ million

  1989–90

  110

  115

  1990–91

  110

  1

  1991–92

  100

  —

  1 Not yet available.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the capital allocations to Scottish Homes in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, showing both budget and outturn figures where those are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1991]: The information in relation to Scottish Homes total gross expenditure is set out in the table:
  208

  Planned £ million

  Outturn £ million

  1989–90

  349

  348

  1990–91

  357

  1

  1991–92

  543

  —

  1 Not yet available.

  Tourism
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish tourist board on joint promotions with the Northern Ireland tourist board of both regions.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I have had no such discussions.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss future steel investment in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has, at present, no plans to meet the chairman of British Steel. My right hon. Friend met the company's chief executive on 21 February, when he was informed of the decision to reduce Ravenscraig to single furnace working. The Scottish Development Agency's study of the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland has identified two potential opportunities and these will be discussed further with British Steel.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the poll tax review.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is continuing to discuss with colleagues a wide range of options concerned with the financing and structure of local government.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the representations he has received on the case for abolishing or reviewing the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about different aspects of the community charge arrangements. These are being considered carefully as part of the current review of the community charge.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the qualifying date relating to residence in a property for eligibility for the community charge reduction scheme in Scotland in 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The community charge reduction scheme will operate with backdated effect from 1 April 1990. Reductions to personal community charge liabilities will be calculated on the basis of the difference between a person's or a household's former rates liability and their actual personal community charge (not including water) at 1 April 1989. One of the criteria for eligibility, therefore, will be that the charge payer is resident in the same
  209
  property as he or she was solely or mainly resident on 1 April 1989. If the person moves after 1 April 1990, the date from which the new scheme is effective, entitlement will normally cease on the day of moving.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the maximum number of assumed poll tax charges that will be used per household for the purposes of calculating help under the community charge reduction scheme in Scotland in 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The community charge reduction scheme is to be based on actual community charges (less water charges) set by local authorities in 1989–90 and will operate with backdated effect to 1 April 1990. A maximum of two charges per household will be used for calculating entitlement. Additional assistance is available for the elderly and the disabled who were not former ratepayers.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people benefited from the poll tax transitional relief scheme in Scotland; and what was the average annual payment to each person who qualified.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Regional and islands councils are required to provide information on the numbers of people who have received relief under the original and the enhanced transitional relief schemes together with information on the total amounts of relief disbursed when making their claims for reimbursement to the Department. Final claims have not yet been received from all local authorities and the information requested is therefore not yet available centrally.

  Red Deer
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to increase the number of red deer in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no proposals to increase the number of red deer in Scotland. The Red Deer Commission has the general function of furthering the control and conservation of red deer. The Commission has recommended that the hind population of around 160,000 should be reduced by approximately 50,000 to achieve a hind/stag ratio of no more than 1·3 to 1.

  Erythropoetin
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many renal patients in Ninewells hospital, Dundee, receiving treatment with erythropoetin, had the drug withdrawn because of lack of funds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. Everyone involved recognises that clinical judgments about which drugs to prescribe for patients should not be inhibited by financial considerations. That has always been the case and has not changed. Of course, health boards are entitled to debate with clinicians whether the treatments that they propose to offer patients are the most cost-effective or whether there are better and more economical alternatives that could be considered. And many hospitals have drug and therapeutic committees and subject prescription practices to peer review. But, if ultimately a clinician's judgment is that a particular drug is the only suitable treatment for a patient, the board's responsibility then becomes finding the resources necessary to enable that treatment to be offered.
  210
  The drug erythropoetin (EPO) was the subject of trials being conducted in Tayside health board. Those trials have now been completed. However, Tayside health board has confirmed that it is to find the resources to provide EPO when prescribed to all who require it.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reduce unemployment in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  There has been a fall of 6,600 in seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland over the past year. The Government will continue to pursue sound monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies to reduce inflation, and to promote investment, enterprise and the recovery of economic growth. This is the best means of reducing unemployment. Moreover, for those without a job, there is a wide range of employment and training measures available, particularly for the young and long-term unemployed, to help them back into employment.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of job losses in the period 1 June 1990 to 1 February 1991 in(a) the Greenock travel-to-work area, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Information in the form requested is not available. There are no comprehensive statistics on redundancies. The following table shows the number of confirmed redundancies involving 10 or more workers notified to the Employment Department from June 1990 to January 1991 for the areas requested.

  Confirmed redundancies1 2 June 1990 to January 1991

  Greenock TTWA

  Strathclyde region

  Scotland

  1990

  June

  Nil

  383

  1,007

  July

  Nil

  533

  981

  August

  Nil

  111

  560

  September

  Nil

  281

  683

  October

  Nil

  615

  1,115

  November

  Nil

  326

  1,439

  December

  Nil

  244

  1,086

  1991

  January

  Nil

  113

  370

  Total

  Nil

  2,606

  7,241

  1 All figures are provisional.

  2 For a variety of reasons, not all redundancies are notified to the Employment Department, and not all those that are notified are eventually confirmed.

  Job losses, however, should not be viewed in isolation: in any dynamic economy, jobs are also being continually created. Over the latest year for which figures are available (to September 1990), the civilian work force in employment in Scotland increased by 48,000, or by over 900 per week.

  Representative Office, Brussels
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had calling for his Department to establish a representative office in Brussels.
  211
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I am aware of the views that some hon. Members and others have expressed. The Scottish Office is already represented very effectively in Brussels by the United Kingdom permanent representation and we have no proposals for change.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's interest rate policy on the levels of unemployment in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The reduction in United Kingdom inflation seen over the last few months is the result of the Government's firm commitment to a prudent interest rate policy.

  Reducing inflation is the best means of promoting investment, enterprise and economic growth in Scotland. Only in this way can Scottish unemployment be set on a sustainable downward trend.

  Personal Disposable Incomes
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the trends of personal disposable incomes in Scotland over the past 15-years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Over the 15-year period between 1973 and 1988, personal disposable income per head in Scotland increased by over a third in real terms, to £5,236 per head by 1988. Personal disposable income per head in Scotland grew slightly faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole—from 94·6 per cent. of the United Kingdom average in 1973 to 97·3 per cent. in 1988. In 1988, personal disposable income per head in Scotland was higher than in all parts of the United Kingdom except the south-east and south-west.

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

  Mr. Lang
  The methods used to protect official property are kept under constant review and measures are taken as appropriate.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the policy of the Lord Advocate's departments to mark property with an indelible mark or similar means of identification.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not the policy of the Lord Advocate's departments to mark property with an indelible mark. Where appropriate, property is identified with a discreet security marking.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how statistical data are collated in respect of the employment and training of people with disabilities in Scotland by his Department or other Government offices or agencies; and if he will publish the most recent statistics.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Statistics on the employment and training of people with disabilities in Scotland are 212
  available in a number of different formats from various sources. The main sources of information on the employment and training of disabled people in Scotland are described as follows.

  Data on those on Government training programmes who have disabilities are based on information supplied by the training provider about each trainee starting a training programme. Providers are asked to identify disabled trainees on the basis of
  "those who on account of injury, disease or congenital deformity are substantially handicapped in obtaining or keeping employment or undertaking work on their own account of a kind which apart from that injury, disease or deformity would be suited to their age, experience and qualifications".

  The latest information for Scotland is that, between April and December 1990, some 1·2 per cent. of those who started on YT and 5·6 per cent. of those who started on. ET were recorded as disabled by their training provider.

  Some data are collected about registration as disabled under the terms of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958, and on the extent to which employers are complying with the provisions of the quota scheme —which was established by the 1944 Act.

  This Act places a duty on employers who have 20 or more workers to employ a quota of registered disabled people. The standard quota is at present 3 per cent. of an employer's total work force. It is not an offence to be below quota. However, when in this situation an employer has a further duty, under the Act, to engage suitable registered disabled people if any are available when vacancies arise. An employer who is below quota must not engage anyone other than a registered disabled person without first obtaining a permit to do so from the employment service's local disablement resettlement officer, and must not discharge a registered disabled worker without reasonable cause. The provisions of the Act are not legally binding on the Crown, but Government Departments and the national health service have undertaken to accept the same responsibilities as other employers.

  The disabled persons register is kept at the employment service's local offices and local education authority careers offices. The numbers registered are counted annually in April to provide local, regional and national totals.

  The employment service's local offices, which also monitor compliance with the provisions of the quota scheme, conduct an annual inquiry, which takes place in May and is concluded on 1 June, into the extent to which employers in their areas who are subject to quota are employing registered disabled people.

  In April 1990 there were 34,082 registered disabled people in Scotland; and on 1 June that year, the average percentage of registered disabled people in the work forces of Scottish-based employers subject to the quota provisions was 0·7 per cent. This latter figure compares with 0·8 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole.

  However, data about registered disabled people and their employment under the quota scheme do not provide an accurate picture of the employment position of people with disabilities. Registration as disabled is voluntary, and it has been established by recent research commissioned by the employment service—"Employment and Handicap", SCPR 1990, a copy of which is in the Library—that the majority of people with disabilities who would be eligible

  213
  to register choose not to so so. Data on compliance with the quota relates only to registered disabled people and to employers with 20 or more workers.

  There is a further complication, in that the quota responsibilities are placed on employers in respect of their total work forces, not separately for individual branches or establishments. In the case of employers with more than one branch, compliance is monitored by the employment service's local office in which the employer's headquarters is located. As a consequence, statistics provided from local office records in Scotland do not take account of registered disabled people working in Scotland for employers whose headquarters is elsewhere in Great Britain, but will include data in respect of those working elsewhere in Great Britain for employers based in Scotland.

  In the spring of each year, the Department of Employment publishes an article in the Employment Gazette showing the number and proportion of registered disabled people employed by a range of public sector employers. Information is given for the main central and local government employers including those in Scotland. The latest article, which gives information for May 1990, was published in the February 1991 edition.

  Until January 1990, the employment service maintained information on the number of disabled people registered for work at jobcentres and careers offices. However, this information needs to be treated with considerable caution because, from October 1982, it has not been compulsory to register for employment as a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit. Because of their limited value, the collection of these figures was discontinued in January 1990. At that date, there were 1,928 unemployed registered disabled also registered for work at jobcentres and careers offices in Scotland, and an additional 4,521 unemployed people with disabilities registered at jobcentres and careers offices who were not also registered as disabled.

  The annual "Labour Force Survey" collects a wide range of information about the United Kingdom labour market. This is a sample survey of households which can provide analyses for the Scottish labour market. Some information is collected in the survey about those with health problems or disabilities in response to the question
  "Do you have any health problems or disabilities which limit the kind of paid work you can do?"

  This covers a much wider range of people than those recorded as disabled on Government training programmes and than those registered as disabled under the 1944 Act. It should also be noted that, since the "Labour Force Survey" is a household survey, disabled people living in hostel or institutional accommodation will not be included in the survey.

  The latest information from this survey is that of an estimated 444,000 people of working age in Scotland in spring 1989 with health problems or disabilities which limit the kind of paid work they can do, 34 per cent. were in employment, 10 per cent. were unemployed and 56 per cent. were economically inactive.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many assisted places pupils attended each of the schools involved in the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:214

  School

  Number of assisted pupils in 1989–90 school year1

  Aberlour House School, Moray

  5

  Albyn School for Girls, Aberdeen

  20

  Ardvreck School, Crieff

  1

  Beaconhurst Grange School, Bridge of Allan

  3

  Belhaven Hill School, Dunbar

  4

  Belmont House School, Newton Mearns

  21

  Blairmore School, Huntly

  2

  Butterstone House School, Dunkeld

  2

  Cargilfield School, Edinburgh

  3

  Clifton Hall School, Midlothian

  6

  Craigclowan Preparatory School, Perth

  6

  Craigholme School for Girls, Glasgow

  38

  Crawfordton House School, Dumfriesshire

  8

  Croftinloan School, Pitlochry

  4

  Daniel Stewart's and Melville College, Edinburgh

  288

  The Mary Erskine School, Edinburgh

  Dollar Academy

  63

  Drumley House School, Ayrshire

  6

  Edinburgh Academy

  46

  Fernhill School, Glasgow

  28

  Fettes College, Edinburgh

  31

  Fort Augustus Abbey School

  34

  George Heriot's School, Edinburgh

  237

  George Watson's College, Edinburgh

  240

  Glasgow Academy

  42

  Glenalmond College, Perthshire

  34

  Gordonstoun School, Morayshire

  24

  Hamilton College

  11

  The High School of Dundee

  177

  The High School of Glasgow

  40

  Hutchesons' Grammar School, Glasgow

  135

  Keil School, Dumbarton

  71

  Kelvinside Academy, Glasgow

  58

  Kilgraston School, Perthshire

  52

  Kilquhanity House School, Castle Douglas

  18

  Lathallan School, Montrose

  6

  Laurel Bank School, Glasgow

  58

  Lomond School, Helensburgh

  43

  Loretto School, Musselburgh

  29

  Merchiston Castle School, Edinburgh

  56

  Morrison's Academy Crieff

  179

  New Park School, St. Andrews

  3

  Oxenfoord Castle School, Midlothian

  5

  Park School, Glasgow

  59

  Park Lodge School, Helensburgh

  1

  Rannoch School, Perthshire

  27

  Robert Gordon's College, Aberdeen

  59

  Rudolf Steiner School of Edinburgh

  61

  St. Aloysius' College, Glasgow

  154

  St. Columba's School, Kilmacolm

  40

  St. Denis and Cranley School, Edinburgh

  28

  St. George's School for Girls, Edinburgh

  17

  St. Leonard's School, St. Andrews

  24

  St. Margaret's School for Girls, Aberdeen

  18

  St. Margaret's School for Girls, Edinburgh

  65

  St. Mary's School, Melrose

  2

  Strathallan School, Forgandenny, Perthshire

  41

  Wellington School, Ayr

  47

  Westbourne School, Glasgow

  54

  1 provisional figures

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Lang
  The posts in public bodies to which I appointed individuals as at 1 July 1990 are set out in pages 77 to 88 and 113 of the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1990", a copy of which is available in the Library.
  215
  The majority of these appointments are on a part-time basis, none of which is remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Strathclyde Police
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional uniformed police officers have been authorised to be added to the strength of the Strathclyde police force in each year from 1975 to 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. Strathclyde regional council made only one application—in 1983—during this period for the Secretary of State's consent to an increase in the authorised police establishment of Strathclyde police. Consent was withheld on the ground that the force was being required by the council to operate substantially below its existing authorised establishment.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many crimes were(a) recorded and (b) detected by the Strathclyde police force in each year from 1975 to 1990.

  Deaths from cervical cancer in each health board area in Scotland 1980 to 1989

  Health board area

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  SCOTLAND

  187

  201

  208

  213

  227

  214

  199

  188

  191

  205

  Borders

  1

  2

  0

  3

  4

  8

  10

  3

  4

  4

  Forth Valley

  13

  8

  6

  8

  14

  17

  8

  12

  11

  6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10

  2

  6

  8

  6

  5

  11

  10

  6

  4

  Fife

  17

  15

  19

  23

  22

  18

  12

  11

  12

  17

  Grampian

  16

  19

  12

  14

  21

  16

  15

  13

  12

  20

  Highland

  5

  8

  6

  10

  10

  3

  10

  8

  7

  10

  Lothian

  17

  37

  29

  30

  31

  28

  25

  25

  31

  27

  Tayside

  15

  16

  13

  10

  13

  19

  12

  17

  13

  12

  Orkney

  2

  3

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  I

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  4

  2

  0

  1

  Argyll and Clyde

  17

  15

  19

  19

  19

  19

  17

  14

  27

  24

  Ayshire and Arran

  15

  13

  25

  10

  20

  13

  20

  13

  18

  21

  Greater Glasgow

  44

  45

  43

  43

  49

  34

  33

  42

  37

  37

  Lanarkshire

  14

  17

  25

  33

  16

  32

  22

  15

  13

  22

  1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth revision.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cervical smear tests have been carried out on women for each year since 1980 in each of the health board areas; and by health board area how many have yet to be dealt with by the appropriate medical agencies.

  Number of cervical smears examined in each health board in Scotland: 1980–89

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Scotland

  282,510

  1293,105

  285,105

  315,044

  322,484

  356,747

  361,626

  420,361

  448,752

  2441,287

  Argyll and Clyde

  25,243

  25,990

  23,829

  27,151

  28,946

  35,195

  33,554

  33,180

  40,985

  38,517

  Ayrshire and Arran

  19,946

  19,753

  18,497

  21,218

  22,827

  29,219

  30,098

  31,139

  34,452

  34,359

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11,250

  11,653

  11,710

  12,235

  12,164

  13,661

  14,331

  15,015

  15,019

  14,300

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16,327

  18,050

  Forth Valley

  12,316

  14,002

  12,784

  15,074

  15,925

  19,509

  19,353

  19,600

  21,904

  23,863

  Grampian

  30,603

  33,014

  32,726

  35,164

  37,783

  43,539

  45,077

  53,603

  51,146

  53,708

  Greater Glasgow

  51,860

  53,143

  49,752

  54,276

  51,916

  59,990

  56,068

  84,460

  80,682

  268,749

  Highland

  16,585

  16,656

  17,094

  19,174

  18,671

  21,577

  21,016

  22,127

  21,720

  22,256

  Lanarkshire

  23,631

  125,766

  25,949

  28,423

  27,174

  34,250

  33,966

  35,820

  38,981

  40,672

  Lothian

  63,857

  65,070

  64,408

  70,713

  74,668

  63,272

  72,122

  88,922

  90,032

  87,927

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  28,219

  28,823

  28,356

  31,616

  32,310

  36,535

  36,041

  36,495

  37,504

  38,886

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Estimated.

  2 Provisional.

  Notes:

  These figures relate to smears analysed by laboratories in each health board area.

  Smears taken from women in one health board area may be analysed in laboratories in other health board areas.
  216
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics of crimes and offences recorded and cleared up in each police force area are published annually in the reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland, copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  Cervical Cancer
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women have died from cervical cancer in each of the past 10 years; and if he will give the figures by health board area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of deaths in each health board area with malignant neoplasm of the cervix uteri (ICD1 180) recorded as the underlying cause of death is shown in the following table.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of tests carried out from 1980 to 1989, the latest available year, is shown in the table. Information is not collected centrally about the number of smears outstanding. Since December 1990 health boards have been set a target of 14 days maximum for reporting of test results, which is to be achieved no later than 31 May 1991.

  Bankruptcies
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many companies have gone into liquidation or have declared bankruptcy in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in each of the past three years; and in which areas of economic activity they were to be found.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The table gives the available information on Scottish registered companies for the past three years. There is no information on company liquidations for areas within Scotland. The term bankruptcy does not apply to companies.

  Notified liquidations of Scottish registered companies:

  Year

  Number

  1988

  651

  1989

  674

  1990

  689

  Industrial analysis1

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Agriculture and horticulture

  3

  7

  2

  Manufacturing

  103

  95

  116

  Construction

  72

  75

  75

  Transport and communication

  15

  19

  16

  Wholesaling

  17

  11

  12

  Retailing

  90

  73

  79

  Financial institutions

  1

  5

  6

  Business services

  42

  38

  41

  Hotels and catering

  17

  17

  22

  All other industries and businesses

  85

  69

  51

  Total

  445

  409

  420

  Source: Register of companies

  1 Compulsory liquidations and creditors' voluntary liquidations only. Members' liquidations are excluded from the analysis.

  Surplus School Places
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the current level of surplus places in each education authority in both primary and secondary schools.

  Specialty

  Total

  In-patient waiting list, waiting for 1 to 2 years

  More than 2 years

  Total

  Day case waiting list, waiting for 1 to 2 years

  More than 2 years

  Argyl and Clyde Health Board

  General surgery

  1,232

  131

  60

  705

  7

  13

  Orthopaedic surgery

  547

  103

  58

  83

  10

  4

  ENT surgery

  977

  83

  34

  21

  —

  —

  Ophthalmology

  533

  1

  —

  31

  —

  —

  Oral surgery and oral medicine

  48

  1

  —

  17

  1

  —

  General medicine

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  —

  Dermatology

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gynaecology

  489

  20

  10

  91

  4

  1

  Plastic surgery

  2

  —

  —

  84

  —

  —

  Geriatric assessment

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Geriatric long stay

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Young chronic sick

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Geriatric psychiatry

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3,863

  339

  162

  1,041

  22

  18

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  General surgery

  2,128

  126

  8

  836

  25

  1

  Orthopaedic surgery

  2,023

  214

  9

  124

  14

  3

  ENT surgery

  1,782

  109

  1

  72

  3

  —

  Ophthalmology

  1,832

  125

  5

  133

  4

  —

  Urology

  1,287

  170

  22

  508

  12

  2

  218
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The current level of surplus places in schools in Scotland is substantial. It is for education authorities to assess the scale of the problems in their area and to seek to achieve rationalisation of their school provision accordingly.

  Community Charge
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has held recent discussions with local authorities concerning the subject of the reimbursement of poll tax income forgone by those service men and service women serving in the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 19 February in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) a special scheme to compensate local authorities for community charge income forgone where service personnel normally resident in their area have been posted to the Gulf. The announcement made it clear that the scheme would apply in Scotland and my Department wrote to all Scottish authorities about the matter on 26 February. I am arranging for a copy of their letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the current waiting list for each specialty in(a) the catchment area for the Argyll and Clyde health board and (b) the Greater Glasgow health board; and what is the number of people in each area who have waited (i) for one year and (ii) for more than two years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Figures are currently available as at 31 March 1990. These are set out in the tables. The figures relate to each health board area and not to area of residence of patient.
  219

  Specialty

  Total

  In-patient waiting list, waiting for 1 to 2 years

  More than 2 years

  Total

  Day case waiting list, waiting for 1 to 2 years

  More than 2 years

  Oral surgery and oral medicine

  1,015

  148

  125

  68

  1

  1

  General medicine

  494

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dermatology

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Respiratory medicine

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Surgical paediatrics

  335

  17

  —

  115

  —

  —

  Gynaecology

  1,386

  31

  1

  137

  3

  —

  Neurosurgery

  114

  18

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  792

  79

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Plastic surgery

  1,708

  373

  685

  2,311

  509

  1,126

  Neurology

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Radiotherapy (consultive)

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Geriatric long stay

  135

  11

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Young chronic sick

  5

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Mental illness

  143

  30

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Geriatric psychiatry

  181

  43

  16

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  15,435

  1,498

  899

  4,305

  571

  1,133

  Inverclyde
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most up-to-date estimate of the number of jobs that have been created by the Inverclyde initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The latest information available shows that the total number of jobs created by projects which have been assisted by the Inverclyde initiative between March 1985 and May 1990 is approximately 3,840. The initiative's period of operation officially expired in March 1990.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most up-to-date estimate of the jobs that have been created by the Inverclyde enterprise zone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The latest information available on jobs in the Inverclyde enterprise zone shows that at September 1990, 356 new jobs had been created with 362 existing jobs secured. In addition, 1,083 new jobs were forecast in companies locating in the zone.

  Private Care Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions are made to recompense social work departments for the cost implications of administering private care homes which are struck off the register.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no specific statutory provisions relating to these circumstances. Local authority functions relating to the registration and inspection of such homes are financed by a combination of charges on owners of homes and provision in aggregate external finance.

  Ambulance Service
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present established strength of officer, control assistant grades and ambulance crews of the ambulance service; and what plans there are for changes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The current establishment is 149 officers, 79 control assistants, 1,347 accident and emergency and 587 non-emergency crew staff. From the 220
  additional £8 million which I have made available to the ambulance service for 1991–92, plans are being formulated to improve the service by increasing double manning and the number of staff with extended training skills.

  Industrial Development
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss industrial development.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the chief executive of the Scottish Development Agency; but he did meet the chairman of the agency informally last week to discuss a range of matters of mutual interest.

  Forestry
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government have to improve the delivery of their forestry policies and to reorganise the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government's forestry policies have been developed and refined over recent years. We are encouraging more planting on better quality land than hitherto and the creation of forests close to major centres of population. As noted in the Environment White Paper, the Government have also taken steps to build environmental objectives into forestry policy. A much greater emphasis is being placed, for instance, on the planting of broadleaves and on the conservation of existing forests and woodlands. At the same time, the value of forestry output is increasing in line with the steady rise in timber production and processing. We are committed to the concept of multi-purpose forests, with all that they can offer in economic, social and environmental terms.

  Against that background, we have been concerned to ensure that the Forestry Commission is organised to take full advantage of the new opportunities now opening up for forestry. This will require a strong and flexible Commission, which can focus its resources to deliver our policies for the development of forestry as cost-effectively as possible. To this end, we see advantage in changes being made to the Commission's management structure to

  221
  achieve a clearer administrative distinction between those staff concerned with its regulatory and advisory duties as a Government Department and those engaged in the management of its forests. We have therefore endorsed a proposal by the Forestry Commissioners that the commission should be reorganised along these lines.

  The commission's staff will be given more precisely defined responsibilities and goals. This will improve the effectiveness of the authority, which will have a responsibility to oversee the work of the enterprise as well as the private sector. Enterprise managers will be free to concentrate on the efficient management of the commission's forest estate, with clear commercial, environmental and social objectives.

  I emphasise that this will be an internal reorganisation. Last year, in responding to its report "Land Use and Forestry", we rejected a recommendation by the Agriculture Committee that the commission should be split up. This reorganisation fully accords with that decision.

  The implementation of the reorganisation will now be put in hand by the Forestry Commissioners.

  Residential Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what is the estimate of the number of empty residential properties in the private sector; and what is the estimate of the percentage this represents of the total number of residential properties in the private sector.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 February 1991]: Information is not collected on the private sector alone. It is estimated that at 30 June 1990, some 99,000 dwellings in Scotland were vacant: this represented 4·7 per cent. of the total housing stock. In addition, it is estimated that there are about 29,000 second or holiday homes; a total of some 127,500 houses may be vacant all or part of the time.

DEFENCE

  The Gulf
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the postal service to troops serving in the Gulf; and what further measures his Department has taken to ensure the provision of a low-cost and efficient postal service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of representations have been received about the postal service to troops serving in the Gulf.

  Forces concessionary rate mail, in addition to the forces free airletter facility, provides a low-cost and efficient postal service to the Gulf. I also welcome the initiative by United Parcels in helping to deliver parcels at low cost or free of charge to the defence postal and courier service depot in London. All forces mail to the Gulf is being carried by RAF aircraft which depart daily.

  Over 1 million kilograms of mail has been moved to the Gulf from the United Kingdom, as well as over 100,000 kilograms from Germany. I believe that the postal service has performed well, often in difficult circumstances. The situation is regularly monitored, but at present I have no plans to introduce any change to current arrangements.
  222
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United States armed forces contingency hospitals based at RAF Feltwell, Bicester, Little Rissington, Nocton Hall, Upwood, Kemble, Bordan, Newton and Waterbeach will be available for the treatment of United Kingdom armed forces casualties returning from the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States armed forces have activated their contingency hospitals at RAF Little Rissington, Bicester and Nocton Hall. Although these contingency hospitals are primarily designed for the treatment of United States military personnel, casualties from any allied nation would be admitted in an emergency.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops there are in the Gulf from each allied country; and how many tanks and armed personnel carriers from each allied country are in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on 25 February at column 389. The United Kingdom committed about 43,000 personnel to the operation in the Gulf.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the targets of British aircraft during each of the last three days of the war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF aircraft continued to attack military targets and facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, particularly in support of coalition ground forces.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government will offer United Kingdom medical facilities in the Gulf to Iraqi non-prisoner wounded where capacity is available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No injured or wounded person of any nationality would be refused emergency medical treatment in United Kingdom medical facilities in the Gulf.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if studies undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board on the morbidity rate of service personnel involved in nuclear tests on Christmas Island have been subject to independent review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The NRPB/Imperial Cancer Research Fund study covered mortality and cancer incidence in United Kingdom participants in nuclear tests in both Australia and Christmas Island. It was based on mortality rather than morbidity rates, though incomplete data on cancer incidence (morbidity plus mortality) for the limited period over which United Kingdom records exist were not at variance with the main conclusions. The report was subject to stringent peer review before it was accepted for publication in the British Medical Journal.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make available to hon. Members the records of the environmental monitoring studies relating to British nuclear tests.
  223
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence holds extensive records of raw environmental monitoring data. Some records of environmental monitoring were published in 1985 by the Australian royal commission into United Kingdom nuclear tests in Australia. Further monitoring around Maralinga was carried out by the Australian technical advisory group (TAG) which reported in November 1990. We have no plans to prepare and publish a compilation of these extensive data.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what unpublished records of nuclear tests are held by his Department; and what plans he has to publish them.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD holds a very large amount of unpublished, classified information on the United Kingdom nuclear tests. This is reviewed for possible release to the Public Record Office 30 years after creation, as is the practice for all other classified MOD reports. Decisions on publication are based soley on consideration of national security.

  There are no plans to review and publish all these reports though all available information on exposures of test participants to ionising radiation has been released to NRPB and was analysed in their report published in 1985.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have existed for veterans of British nuclear tests to undergo medical examination.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During their service, test participants would have had access to medical examination whenever it was required. Civilian test veterans, including ex-service personnel, would no doubt seek advice from their general practitioner when appropriate.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what published records for which his Department is responsible are available of previous nuclear tests; where they are held; and when were they published.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records of previous nuclear tests, compiled for the Australian royal commission into United Kingdom nuclear tests in 1985, are at the Public Record Office at Kew, class description DEFE 16. Other documents are lodged in the British Library. A comprehensive list of such documents could not be compiled without disproportionate cost.

  Mr McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to arrange for the medical examination of the children and grandchildren of British nuclear test veterans; whether such tests have been carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no current plans to arrange for the medical examination of the children and grandchildren of British participants in the nuclear test programme, nor have such tests been carried out in the past.

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

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It would not be practicable or necessary to mark every item of MOD property, but many are readily identifiable. Stores and equipment are protected by a range of security measures.

  HMS Endurance
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what duties are performed in the south Atlantic by HMS Endurance.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Endurance undertakes a range of representational, scientific and support duties, including assistance and support to the British Antarctic survey on an ad hoc basis.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to withdraw HMS Endurance from her station in the south Atlantic.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 19 February at col. 138 to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field).

  RAF Fairford
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are taken to inform the local fire brigade when bomb-laden aircraft take off from RAF Fairford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A close working relationship exists between the local fire brigade and the United States Air Force fire department at RAF Fairford, but advance notification of operations is not given to civil agencies for operational security reasons.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which posts in public bodies he appoints individuals where the posts are(a) part-time and (b) remunerated by more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None. I refer the hon. Member to "Public Bodies 1990" issued by the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service; pages 12 to 14 list Ministry of Defence appointments.

  Walter Somers Ltd.
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now state the nature of the two telephone conversations between Walter Somers Ltd. and a Ministry of Defence metallurgical expert in 1988, referred to in his reply of 2 May 1990,Official Report, column 601.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The conversations were concerned with technical aspects of the steel tubes which Walter Somers Ltd. proposed to export to Iraq.

  Equipment
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts regarding the distinction between lethal and non-lethal defence equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the financial effect on his equipment procurement budget of the export of British defence equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not possible accurately to quantify the full effect.
  225
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the activities of the Space Research Corporation that relate to the actual or possible export of non-lethal or lethal defence equipment, referred to in his answer of 2 May 1990,Official Report, column 602.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The assessment of my Department is that SRC was not directly involved in the production and export of the equipment referred to. This was undertaken by another firm, ATI, which was controlled by SRC's founder, Dr. G. V. Bull. It is believed that the equipment consisted of large calibre gun parts destined for Iraq.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his policy to discuss arms sales to non-NATO countries with other NATO countries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As the need arises, I discuss the sale to non-NATO countries of collaboratively developed defence equipment with participating NATO partners. Defence officials are involved in discussions with appropriate NATO and other countries, bilaterally and multilaterally, on matters relating to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, missile technology control regime and measures to prevent chemical and biological weapon proliferation.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the conference of national armaments directors has discussed arms sales to non-NATO countries; and whether there are any plans for the conference of national armaments directors to discuss arms sales to non-NATO countries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No substantive discussion of this subject has taken place in the conference of national armaments directors and we have no plans to raise the subject in this forum.

  Iraq
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his assessment of the effect that the activities of the Matrix Churchill Company have had on the development of the Iraqi defence industry;

  (2) what is his assessment of the effect that the activities of the Ali Arabi Trading Co. have had on the development of the Iraqi defence industry.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ali Arabi Trading Company was the ultimate holding company for the British Company, Matrix Churchill. In the light of charges laid against individuals and continuing investigations being carried out by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise it would not be appropriate to comment further.
  226
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the source of the technology used by the Iraqi defence industry to manufacture 155mm artillery shells.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Iraq has acquired technology for its defence industry from a large number of countries.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information was supplied to the commanders of British forces in the Gulf region relating to British exports of non-lethal defence equipment to Iraq.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The commander of the British forces in the Gulf region was fully briefed on the known composition of enemy forces.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been supplied to his Department by foreign Governments regarding their exports to Iraq of defence equipment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Her Majesty's Government have been in contact with allied and other Governments about their past defence exports to Iraq. Details of any information received remain confidential.

  Middle East
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts regarding the development of defence industries in the middle east region.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of those employed in his Department are disabled.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Some 0·9 per cent. of staff in the MOD are registered disabled. In addition, there are a number of staff with disabilities working in the MOD who have not formally registered themselves as disabled.

  Defence Quality Assurance
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider 14MU RAF Carlisle for the relocation of the directorate general of defence quality assurance.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We are considering a number of options for the relocation of DGDQA and will come to a decision as soon as possible.

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

Cleveland: Employment Prospects
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many new companies and new jobs are currently expected to be created in Cleveland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in 1989 there were an estimated 1,700 new registrations for VAT in the County of Cleveland. The net increase was over 600, or 6.5 per cent. That is a faster rate of increase than the national average. Early indications are that nationally there was a continuing net increase in 1990.
There are no recent employment figures for Cleveland, but in the Northern region as a whole the number of people in employment rose by an estimated 21,000 in the year to September 1990. There are no projections of future changes in any of those figures.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. It is good news for an area which has experienced exceptionally high unemployment. Can my noble friend say what contribution is being made by the Teesside Development Corporation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Teesside Development Corporation has been very successful. There have been 109 successful projects since September 1987, when it was created, resulting in a total of over 3,000 jobs. That is forecast to rise in due course to 7,000 jobs.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, have the Government sought advice from any well-run companies in the area regarding how more new jobs might be created?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. Cleveland is covered by the Teesside Training and Enterprise Council which has been fully operational since 27th April 1990. The TECs play a vital part in the national training network. It is their local knowledge which is important in devising the change of skills in older companies and industries needed for the new and more modern industries that are developing in Cleveland.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Minister was almost right. Is he aware that the Teesside Development Corporation has already created 3,082 jobs? When the projects already committed to the area are completed a total of 7,500 jobs will have been created in the area. As the deputy chairman of the corporation, I do not wish to boast, but does the Minister agree that that is a commendable record achieved over the short period of
1386

three years that the corporation has existed? Will he accept that Cleveland County Council's imaginative proposals for a light rail transit are commendable? Will the Government look sympathetically at the Section 56 application from the council when it is received?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that he has done for Teesside Development Corporation. I hope that that indicates the support of his party for development corporations. He is correct; a further 84 projects are planned to create a further 6,700 jobs. I understand that 60 per cent. of the activities involve inward investment especially from Scandinavia and the United States. That is a very good plan. I shall bear in mind his second point and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that one additional reason for the relatively satisfactory situation in the North East as a whole, as well as Cleveland, is due to the activities over the past 10 years and more of organisations such as Business in the Community, local enterprise agencies and all the other activities which have encouraged business generally to play a larger role in the community?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Business in the Community launched the Teesside Tomorrow team to provide a focus for economic and social development in the Teesside area, and to complement the initiative of the Teesside Development Corporation. Cleveland City Action Team received £350,000 additional funding from the DTI. It now has a budget of £1.1 million, which is the largest in the country.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I was the Member representing Middlesbrough, Cleveland was one of the most flourishing areas in the country? Alas, it is not so today. However, thanks to the Teesside Development Corporation prospects are looking brighter.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord says.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the gloom in the rest of the country, will the Minister consider putting the Teesside Development Corporation in charge of the whole country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is the Government's express desire to bring those benefits to the whole of the country.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the Teesside Development Corporation was one of the first bodies in Britain to instruct small companies to treat their accounts not as a tax dodging enterprise but as a management instrument. Does the Minister agree that that was effective in Teesside?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not entirely aware of the facts which my noble friend brings to my attention. The figures I gave in my original Answer indicate that it is not only the Teesside Development

1387
Corporation that has been successful in creating businesses; a large number of small businesses have been set up in the locality.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, while we always appreciate the efforts of my noble friend Lord Dormand in all his works, is it not worth bearing in mind that the unemployment rate in Cleveland in January 1991, on the Department of Employment count, was 13.9 per cent. of the active population? Does the Minister agree that it is worth bearing in mind that the Cleveland County Council itself says that, based on past trends and current knowledge, it expects to have about 150 new companies coming to Cleveland next year but, because of job losses in large companies, there will be zero net growth in employment in Cleveland?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in part. The unemployment rate in Cleveland is one of the highest in the country. However, Cleveland has had a history of even worse unemployment figures when the industries that had been established there were wound down and before new industries were brought into play. Unemployment in Cleveland has dropped from 40 per cent. between 1986 and the present day. That indicates that there is room for improvement and a history of job creation in that area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree with Cleveland County Council that the increase in employment in 1991 will be zero?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is pure speculation. I have indicated that in 1989 there was an increase of 21,000 jobs in the area.

The Brain Drain
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response, if any, they have made or intend to make to the open letter about the brain drain signed and sent to the Prime Minister by 72 scientists.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have noted the views expressed in this and in letters putting forward similar views sent by the Chairman of British Scientists Abroad to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State whose responsibilities include science.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has agreed to meet a deputation of representatives from British Scientists Abroad to discuss the issues they have raised.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. As regards the brain drain, is the Minister aware that if the present cuts are carried out the nuclear structure facility based at Daresbury near Warrington may have to close in two years' time? That establishment is involved in the most
1388
advanced research on a wide variety of subjects including nuclear physics and Alzheimer's disease. Is the Minister further aware that over 500 letters have been received by Sir Mark Richmond, most of which have come from scientists overseas, pointing out that if this facility is closed we shall be losing probably the most advanced research development facility of its kind in the world? Does the noble Lord agree that we shall suffer terrible consequences in the future if we allow that to take place?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) has announced that the nuclear structure facility at its Daresbury laboratory near Warrington will probably be closing earlier than previously planned. It seems likely that it will close in 1993. I appreciate the great disappointment of those working in this field of science, but it is SERC's decision based on its assessment of scientific priorities in its programme. I further understand that SERC is setting up a study to look at the longer-term future role of nuclear structure physics in its overall programme. That would seem to be the right approach. The chairman of SERC, Sir Mark Richmond, emphasised that overall the great majority of the programme remains in place and that it is all of excellent quality.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology is presently engaged on a speedy inquiry into the crisis in science funding and hopes to report within a month? Therefore, I hope that more questions of this kind will be answered. Does the Minister feel that any part of the brain drain is due to serious underfunding for academic salaries due to government cuts?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we look forward to receiving the findings of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. We refute the suggestion that there is a brain drain or that science has been affected by underfunding. The figures just published by the universities' statistical record reveal that for the seventh year in succession there has been a net inflow of academic staff from abroad.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the problems is that some of our older and more distinguished scientists emigrated a little while ago and that they then recruited a great number of the very bright young men whom they knew to be working in this country? Does the noble Lord agree that a difficulty arises in trying to get these young people back because we have not got the money to do so? Does he further agree that that will make for a very bleak future in the next 10 years or so, when we shall be very short of the more experienced scientists, and that their age range will be getting older and older?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thought that I had investigated every area of the subject, but I

1389
have not studied the age breakdown. I shall he pleased to look into the point which the noble Baroness has raised and I shall write to her.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the Minister referred to the closure as being likely to take place in 1993. Is he correct in saying that that is SERC's assessment on the basis of its programme? Would it be more correct to say that it is SERC's assessment on the basis of the budget within which it is having to work? Do the Government agree that national prestige is involved here? Does the noble Lord agree that we should do everything possible to ensure that these very prestigious projects are continued without phasing out the smaller and important projects?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, overall government support for science has increased in real terms by 23 per cent. since 1979–80. The underlying trend continues undiminished. SERC has been undertaking a thorough-going review of its forward programme. I do not think that it is for government to interfere with the individual decisions it makes.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report in the Guardian that,
"President Bush has been telling US scientists that research and development will enjoy the largest increases in government spending"?
In the light of that, can he tell the House how many centres of scientific research in the United Kingdom have publicly stated that their research programmes are in danger of closure because of underfunding and the brain drain?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we maintain that they are not underfunded. Just two years ago the science budget had a stepped increase of 8 per cent. That uplift in real terms has been sustained through the planning period to 1993–94. The real measure of the state of British science can be assessed by the number of learned papers that are produced. This country produces the greatest number of learned papers with the single exception of the United States of America.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in spite of what he said about the real increase in science funding in this country, by comparison with other European countries the percentage of GDP spent on science research is very much lower? Does he not agree that, when deciding whether to return or to stay abroad, what young scientists as well as older scientists will look at is the relative position and not the absolute position in the United Kingdom? When his right honourable friend meets representatives of British scientists abroad, will he be able to say that there will be some increase in United Kingdom funding to enable us to catch up with our European and United States competitors?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, spending as a proportion of GDP, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is higher in this country than in either Japan or the United States, although similar comparisons with Germany and other European
1390
countries would not be favourable. I see no particular logic in the idea that spending on R&D should be tied to a certain percentage of GDP.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, can the noble Lord at least confirm that, in the event of atomic scientists being restricted in this country, we shall maintain our connection with the collective programme at CERN and that our scientists will maintain their connection with it?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that that is the case.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with my experience that when 50 or more academics sign one letter to the newspapers they always get their facts wrong?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. In fact there were some 200 signatures to the letter.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I agree that underfunding is a problem, but does the Minister accept that there is another problem which contributes towards the brain drain? I refer to the question of age discrimination in employment generally. That affects not only scientists but skilled craftsmen at all levels and in all industries. They are irreplaceable.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord's comments relate to a previous Question. I am afraid to say that I do not know about age discrimination.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord. Of course he is in order but most noble Lords seem to think that we have spent quite a long time on this Question and that it might be appropriate to move on to the next one. However, if the noble Lord wishes to put a question, he may do so.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. Does the Minister agree that his statement that there is no brain drain is most astonishing? There has been a brain drain for as long as I can remember. There was one in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. The question is whether the quality of those leaving the country is higher than the quality of those recruited from other countries to take their place. Will he ask Sir Mark Richmond to make an assessment of that factor?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there is and there should be movement of academic staff. With regard to the brain drain, if it exists, far fewer people leave—a factor of 30 per cent.—than in the 1960s. The matter is largely in balance with an inflow of about a dozen. I shall certainly ask Sir Mark Richmond the question which the noble Lord asks.

Elderly People in Residential Care Homes
2.55 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the finding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that elderly people in residential care homes are suffering unacceptable levels of anxiety and stress due to the shortfall between income support levels and the fees charged by such homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the findings of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report Beyond the limit are at variance with the findings of the survey commissioned from Price Waterhouse by the Department of Social Security into the costs of providing residential care. In October 1990 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced increases to the limits payable in residential care and nursing homes of some £225 million to take effect from April this year. The basic income support limit for the elderly in residential care homes has increased faster than inflation over the last five years.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. He will know that the report revealed a substantial number of cases of severe hardship. Is he aware that government policy in this matter was clearly stated in a circular from the Department of Health, HC 89/5, which says that no one should be placed in residential or nursing care against their wishes if that meant that they or their relatives became personally responsible for the charges? If that is government policy, why are the Government unable to accept the proposal in the NACAB report that, as an interim measure until the community care plans are implemented, the benefit levels should be topped up by the Department of Social Security in these cases of severe hardship?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows well, it has never been our intention to meet all the fees, however high they might be. It must be a matter for the homes and the clients in them to negotiate their fees. In response to the findings of the Price Waterhouse survey and other evidence before us we have announced real increases of some £225 million from this April. The suggestion that the noble Lord repeats from the NACAB report would quite simply have the effect of pushing up the fees to whatever limit the homes agreed to put them.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a serious problem in residential care homes which is exacerbated by the Government's failure so far to implement the community care programme and to uprate benefits annually in line with the rate of inflation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, community care is another question. The matter of income support limits in residential homes will remain with us after the implementation of community care. As I said in my original Answer, we have increased support for the elderly by more than the rate of inflation over the past
1392
five years. I also remind the noble Lord that increases this year for the very dependent elderly have risen by even more than the standard £155 to £160. The amount has gone up by £15 to £185.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report by the Council for Caring for the Elderly which came out just a few weeks ago confirms the evidence in the NACAB report? Does he accept that there are some disturbing cases both in care homes and in nursing homes where people are being asked to top up fees on behalf of their relatives, thereby reducing their savings to nothing, and elderly people—sometimes very elderly people—are being asked to leave the homes because they cannot pay the full fee? Is that not absolutely wrong? Should not some action be taken to ensure that private care homes do not act in that way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in setting the limits my right honourable friend looked at a great deal of evidence. In particular he looked at the Price Waterhouse report which considered the costs—I stress the word "costs"—and not the charges in some 700 homes and was the widest detailed analysis of this matter ever undertaken. As a result, my right honourable friend was able to increase income support limits. The evidence we have at the moment suggests that at least half the homes are at the level of income support or below. If we followed the line suggested by the noble Lord of raising income support limits willy-nilly to whatever figure he cared to put forward, we should find that the charges would go up and up and the noble Lord would find that that had a serious effect on those not in receipt of income support.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord has replied to a question that I did not put to him. I was not arguing the case for raising the levels. I drew his attention to the problem and I asked whether the department could take action about private nursing homes which are asking elderly dependent people to leave because they are not able to pay the full fee required.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said earlier, it has never been our intention to meet all the fees, however high they may be, in any individual home. There will always be homes, and indeed there are homes in all parts of the country as the Price Waterhouse survey showed—that is, both nursing and residential homes—which fall within the limits we have set.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of these homes were started as a result of the business opportunity schemes and that the owners are therefore obliged to charge very exorbitant fees in order to satisfy their shareholders?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that point. Those responsible for any home will want to try to set a fee level which will attract clients to the home.

Bangladesh Elections
3 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Commonwealth Group monitoring the elections in Bangladesh has ascertained that all the candidates standing are out of prison and able to canvass.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Commonwealth and the British parliamentary observers have found the elections free and fair. Candidates under detention were not able to canvass in person, but their representatives canvassed on their behalf. Some of those under detention won seats.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that most satisfactory reply. However, is he aware that acting President Shahabuddim Ahmed of the Bangladesh Government specifically invited a British CPA team of investigators to monitor the election? Is he also aware that former Vice President Moudud was imprisoned and actually won his seat and that it is thought that he will now be released from prison? Is he further aware that the results of the election were that 140 seats were won by Begum Zia, 95 seats by the Awami League of Sheikh Hasima and 35 seats by the Jatiya Party of former President Ershad?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I shall start by dealing with my noble friend's first two questions. I am aware that a team of 12 Commonwealth observers attended the election, which included two British representatives, Mr. Roger Barltrop, the former British High Commissioner to Fiji, and Mr. George Foulkes, MP. We have; agreed to meet up to 30 per cent. of the costs incurred by the observer team. We believe that former Vice President Moudud is being held in Dhaka central gaol. We understand that he is being charged with corruption but that he has indeed been elected to parliament.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we warmly welcome the report that the elections in Bangladesh were free and fair, does the Minister agree that the need in that country is now for political and economic stability? Can he give the total amount of British aid to Bangladesh at present? Further, can he tell the House what support we are giving to the NGOs in the area?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we also welcome the fact that the elections were free and fair. Their successful organisation is a tribute to the interim government headed by acting President Shahabuddim Ahmed. Our aid to Bangladesh, which is one of the world's poorest countries, is substantial at over £50 million a year. It is all on grant terms and we expect to maintain it at that level.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the three-hour debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 11 minutes and that in the two-hour debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. Of course, that is dependent upon speakers sitting down either before or at the precise moment that the figures 11 and 10 respectively appear on the Clock of the Chamber.

Gaming (Bingo) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Gaming Act 1968 with respect to the advertising of bingo. Under the procedures of the House, only one name may be attached to the Bill at this stage. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, has indicated his willingness to be associated with it. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Transport in London and the South East
3.5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis rose to call attention to the transport problems of London and the South East; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in every debate on transport over the past seven or eight years, the script read by a succession of Conservative Ministers has been virtually the same: a litany of statistics suggesting a roseate picture of a transport system that has never been better, but, in reality, characterising a purblind and misleading approach to the essentials.
Of course, the travelling public know the truth. They experience it day in and day out, whether they are travelling by road or rail. They suffer utterly deplorable conditions. For example, frustrated drivers and passengers are obliged to sit in private cars on hopelessly congested roads and motorways; Network SouthEast and London Underground are congested, expensive and dirty, with concerns about safety and quality standards combining to represent, in comparison with our main European competitors, a very sorry picture.
All those problems were recently brought to a head when traffic virtually came to a grinding halt in the snow. British Rail experienced "the wrong sort of snow" which led to additional chaos for the

1395
commuter. Of course, it is true to say that the situation was compounded by the appalling outrages which took place at Paddington and Victoria stations and elsewhere; and by unforgivable hoax calls for which clearly no administration could be blamed. However, those distressing facts should not be allowed to deflect attention from where responsibility truly lies for the transport chaos.
The Government's transport policies in London and the South East, and indeed nationally, have been utterly confused. They have been confused in terms of refusing or failing to recognise the need for an integrated transport system, utilising the different modes of transport in a complementary way; by failing to ensure that analyses in relation to what is required are always undertaken right across the different modes; and also by failing to ensure that the overall value of any transport activities are judged by quality of life objectives.
For nearly 12 years the Government have compartmentalised their thinking in relation to transport. They have applied wholly different rules to each mode and distorted competition between them. Cars and lorries are most certainly given preferential treatment over rail so far as concerns infrastructural costs. That ignores the fact that rail is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of surface transport. It also ignores the fact that, according to the CBI, the costs borne by industry—and thus by consumers—of road congestion amount to something in the order of £15 billion a year nationally. Moreover, London and the South East, which represent the most populous part of our country, bear a very high proportion of that burden.
However, over and above all that, one has to add the cost of environmental damage—that is, increased noise and pollution and the destruction of local communities—whereby the quality of life in inner London, and also in towns and villages in the South East, is hugely impaired. There can be no doubt that that abdication of responsibility over so long a period threatens the economic well-being of our country, especially as we move towards 1992.
In London, the ideological obsessions of the Government have demolished the possibilities of real strategic planning. It is the only major city in Europe which is denied a strategic planning authority which could reconcile different travel, environmental and planning needs and thereby meet the demands of all sectors of society.
I suppose that all that is not altogether surprising, having regard to what I referred to before as "a succession of Conservative Ministers" of Transport. Indeed, since May 1979 there have been no fewer than eight Secretaries of State. That represents a shelf life of 16 months and three weeks for each of them. There have also been four Ministers of State and 11 Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, the shelf life of whom is even more limited. I suppose that we should be thankful for small mercies in that the House is pleased that at least the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has been returned to the fold.
Although it is the Opposition's contention that it is essential that we should look at the various modes of transport in the South East as a whole, for convenience in the debate I shall identify, albeit briefly, the main problems, as I see them, affecting each of the individual modes of transport in the region, although I shall not have time to deal with aviation. I deal first with railways: the Financial Times stated in an article on 23rd February:
"At bottom there were only two possible causes for the widespread collapse of BR services in this month's well-forecast cold snap: blundering incompetence on an epic scale, or inadequate investment".
The chairman of British Rail, Sir Bob Reid, went on what he called "a voyage of discovery" after taking on the full-time chairmanship last October. He came to some remarkable conclusions in relation to his original conceptions. He concluded:
"Although a big investment programme was under way in projects such as the electrification of the East Coast Main Line and works related to the Channel Tunnel, the routine refurbishment of the railways existing assets was still being neglected".
He identified outdated signalling systems and rolling stock maintenance depots falling into a state of decrepitude. He went on to say:
"If you want a modern, reliable railway, you have got to spend money".
What is needed are not huge government subsidies but for British Rail to have the freedom to borrow on the capital markets to fund new rail services. It is abundantly plain that a much higher level of investment is required, going well beyond the borrowing limit of £653 million a year. British Rail is inhibited from doing that because loans of that kind count as public sector borrowing controlled by the Treasury. Why should British Rail not be free to enter into joint ventures with the private sector, major construction companies or City firms to promote new services?
I only wish that government transport Ministers would go on a similar voyage of discovery—although in their case I see no reason why they should feel under any obligation to make a round trip; a one-way ticket would suffice. In the South East, the consequences of government policies have been less service, fewer seats, greater overcrowding, increased cancellations and inadequate investment in rolling stock and infrastructure. The average age of the geriatric rolling stock of Network SouthEast is 18 years. According to evidence given last Friday to the Cannon Street inquiry, the worst damaged coaches were more than 60 years old and did not meet international construction guidelines. How on earth can that be acceptable?
In the 1988–89 annual report of the passenger watchdog body (the Central Transport Consultative Committee) the following appeared:
"The Committee was unanimous in the view that the quality of British Rail services have been adversely affected by the reduction in subsidy and … Senior BR staff often cited this as a reason for cuts in service quality".
Despite that, the Government have set Network SouthEast a target of breaking even by 1992–93. No other railway system in a major conurbation operates

1397
on such a basis. The effect of that ideological approach is to slow down modernisation, accompanied as it is by income from property sales which have been severely hit by the recession, and the cash box is increasingly diverted into eliminating subsidy. Lower capital investment also means a less safe railway. So it is no small wonder that the quality of Network SouthEast is deteriorating rapidly. There is overcrowding, poor arrival times, longer ticket waiting times, more people inconvenienced on trains by having to stand throughout their journeys, trains becoming shabby and dirty and journeys taking much longer. Fares on average rose by about 22 per cent. between January 1989 and January 1991.
Notwithstanding all that evidence, the Government continue to assert that they are providing real help to British Rail while they phase out the PSO grant. In the end, it will fall to the consumer to pay for the investment needed—and pay through the nose.
So far as the Channel Tunnel is concerned, plans which were designed to equip Kent with 100 mph electrified Networker class trains, station improvements and other possible electrifications have been deferred. What a commentary when one considers that the French TGV will travel up to 200 mph through France right up to the Channel. What a contrast with Britain. Our trains will travel at a relative snail's pace—40 mph to 50 mph—a real case of L'escargot anglais.
The tale is similar so far as London Transport and London Underground Limited are concerned. Although it is true that the Government have increased London Transport's external financing limit for 1990–91 by £55 million and will change its 1990–91 EFL from £448 million to £510.55 million, that will self-evidently not produce an answer to London's transport problems. Demand for the tube and buses is not declining, although that was senior management's prediction. What is happening is that London Transport is cutting staff levels and train services. The inevitable result will be the generation of even less revenue and therefore more cuts in the future—a sure prescription for disaster. Special provision, apart from other investment, needs to be made for safety following the King's Cross, Charing Cross and Clapham incidents. London Underground Limited should not, in our judgment, be forced to borrow from next year's EFL to stave of its present crisis.
The truth is that the Government have been bent on an ideological mission to try to establish that British Rail can manage without subsidy. Its passengers have been treated as guinea-pigs as part of an experiment unique in the world of railway policy. The truth is that on both Network SouthEast and London Underground tight financial targets imposed by the Government (after all Network SouthEast has to become commercially profitable by 1993 and London Underground operationally profitable by the same date) are causing short-term cuts in the quantity and quality of service.
Peak hour services on the Central, Northern and Victoria Lines are to be reduced. Booking offices outside central London will in the main be closed in the evenings. Extra security introduced on the
1398
southern branch of the Northern Line in 1988 is to be withdrawn. On London Underground, safety investment and Central Line improvements only are certain to continue. Major investments have been cancelled. The reality is that the actual levels of investment for 1990–91 and 1991–92 will be considerably less than the Government have claimed.
So far as the roads are concerned, the degree of congestion is exemplified by the fact that peak hour traffic speeds in central London are now little more than 11 mph. That is a problem that extends way beyond London to other urban centres. Congestion on the M.25 is notorious. Future traffic flow projections look extremely pessimistic. The Government themselves believe that there will be road traffic increases of between 80 per cent. and 142 per cent. by 2025. The Government's responses to those problems are hopelessly flawed.
As I do not intend to enter into a statistical battle of the Somme with the Minister, let me summarise what we believe needs to happen. First, there is need for a new, directly elected strategic body responsible for co-ordinating transport in the capital. Secondly, there has to be a long-term investment programme in new cross-London rail and Underground links. Thirdly, steps must be taken to reduce the use of the private motor car. Traffic congestion and further traffic growth will make a terrifying impact on the environment, particularly with carbon dioxide emissions.
Fourthly, major action must be taken to reduce overcrowding and improve service quality on Network SouthEast and the London Underground. It is intolerable that many of the Network SouthEast lines are underused while other parts of the system are grotesquely overcrowded.
Additional trains, increased train capacity, improved signalling and the extension of some platforms to cope with peak time demand are required. Outside these periods, extra trains are needed to make the service more attractive. Extra staff are also essential. On London Underground, additional and higher capacity trains and a wide range of improvement works at stations which suffer the worst congestion are required. The Underground ticket barriers contribute to congestion and also represent a safety hazard. London's buses are becoming older and are often unserviceable. They must be given priority by increasing the number of bus lanes and bringing in more bus priority schemes such as traffic signals and bus access only to main shopping areas.
Public transport in London is worse and more expensive than in most other European capitals. That is not good enough. We must have a planned expansion of rail and tube networks. Light rail schemes should be encouraged, particularly in outer London on suburban networks and radial links. Women passengers must be given important priority in terms of transport services as regards safety, frequency and reliability. The same applies to people with mobility handicaps.
Taxis are an important part of the transport system. Insurance and safety standards of minicabs

1399
must be brought up to those of the traditional black cabs. We shall review the roads programme, bearing in mind the high cost of environmental damage. The ill-conceived red route system, imposing intolerable strains on local commerce and the London boroughs affected, should go.
We need tougher penalties and enforcement of the law to discourage illegal parking. We need steps to ensure that the provision of company cars and other related perks, such as free petrol or free private parking, are fairly taxed. That is certainly not the case at present.
We need a range of measures to restrict car use in the most congested areas, including the use of road pricing. Pedestrians must be helped through greater pedestrianisation and better facilities for crossing roads. We need a network of strategic cycle routes along the lines suggested by the London Cycling Forum.
I do not have time to engage in the argument about the importance of freight but it is critical to our economic objectives. We need to encourage better priority for essential road freight within a traffic restraint system.
I conclude on the most important note of all: the need to ensure that we make the best use of the different modes of transport within the capital and the South East. As many on both sides of the House reminded the Government during the course of recent transport legislation, the Government pay inadequate attention to the environmental consequences of their misbegotten policies at their peril, but, infinitely more important, at the peril of the communities of London and the South East. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the introduction of this subject. However, one has a feeling of déjà vu. Against a background of 30 years of dereliction in investment by governments of all persuasions, we arrive at today's situation which the noble Lord eloquently and somewhat rhetorically described to us.
That there are problems no one has ever denied. It is inevitable that any remedies we seek to put in place will take time. Time is the least of the elements available; certainly money alone cannot provide all-embracing solutions.
If there were time, I could go through the extraordinarily long catalogue of measures which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, sees as necessary and which are presumably part of the Labour Party's transport manifesto. However, what he did not and cannot say is how much it will all cost and where the money will come from. Noble Lords on his side of the House continually beg that question.
On the contrary, the present Administration have proposed some good ideas which I shall discuss in a moment. I shall not follow the noble Lord in his tirade against the railway system. I had my say about that in rather more modest form on Monday. I merely
1400
suggest that it is intolerable that South-East region commuters should have to travel under such difficult and sometimes disgusting conditions.
My concern is frankly more about roads. In considering the problem, I welcome the Goverment's intention to spend £16 billion over the next three years. The commitment has been given and I hope that my noble friend the Minister, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will reaffirm it. Much of the £16 billion will be spent on public transport improvements in London and the South East.
I welcome many of the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Bill now in another place for their contribution to the relief of congestion particularly in London. I shall not discuss today measures contained in the Road Traffic Bill which will shortly come before your Lordships' House. I shall however wish to discuss it at some length over the next few weeks.
Within the £16 billion of government expenditure to which I have just referred, the road programme in England includes the improvement of 600 miles of existing motorway, the conversion of 175 miles of all-purpose dual carriageway, the construction of 45 miles of new motorway and the upgrading of about 1,500 miles of single carriageway. Again, much of this is in the South East. The programme includes widening between Rochester and Gillingham junctions; widening to the Frimley junction; the motorway at Winchester; the construction of the missing link from Maidstone to Ashford and so on. There are innumerable plans in progress which will give some but not total relief from the congestion which the South East sadly suffers.
I welcome very much the appointment of Mr. Alan Whitfield in my noble friend's department. He is the New Road Programme Director. In a recent talk to the all-party roads study group, he gave an indication of new thinking on how better use could be made of existing roadways. He mentioned widening, the use of central reservations and so on. The one point which I am not entirely happy about is the proposed experiment on the Chertsey-Leatherhead section of the M.25, reducing lane widths and speed. I do not believe it will be tremendously successful, but it is only an experiment.
What worries me about the roads programme is whether it is adequate. It is extensive, but there are a number of concerns. There is the question of the delivery of the programme. Even with the substantially greater funding now to be made available, it really is inadequate to deliver the programme in the 10 years promised by the former Secretaries of State, Paul Channon and Cecil Parkinson. I hope that my noble friend can say a few words about the 10-year programme. We recognise that planning difficulties exist. We have discussed them in your Lordships' House. We recognise that there are problems with planning periods and timings. The compensation factor should help there.
Huge and massive improvements could be made to the radial roads in London. There is a case too for improved orbital roads. The abandonment a year ago of the proposals in the London assessment studies left

1401
huge gaps and a vacuum. So far we have heard little about how the vacuum might be filled. That is a matter of some concern. To some people the proposals had brought an expectation of traffic relief and improvement in their quality of life. The abandonment of the studies means that those people do not know what will happen.
I have mentioned road widening and road extensions. Before anyone suggests that we shall end up with a great concrete jungle, I wish to make two points. First, it is an absolutely fanciful notion that much fright or many passengers can be transferred from road to rail. Road is the dominant transport mode in this country and will remain so.
I admit that I take the following figures available in some isolation. However, one can see that the land take from roads in West Germany accounts for a figure of 1.7 per cent. In Belgium it is 3.5 per cent. and in the Netherlands it is 2.3 per cent. In Great Britain it is only 1.2 per cent. If one considers the matter in terms of kilometres of roads to total kilometres of land, one finds that the same proportions result. On the international basis of calculation, one finds that in the South East, including Greater London, 1.9 per cent. of the land is taken up by roads and in the North-West of England 2.9 per cent. I accept that those are narrow figures; nevertheless, they reveal that there is room for further road construction.
The problem is one of population imbalance and the attraction of London and the South East for commerce and business. We should reinvigorate our efforts to encourage the internal migration of people, business, commerce, and perhaps government departments. We should certainly improve car storage and car parking in the central area. That could be achieved through planning requirements. Undoubtedly we need to improve public transport facilities which are frankly falling apart largely because of the negative attitudes the providers of public transport bring to their planning. I mentioned this matter on Monday; I repeat it today. Traffic management schemes are available and a host of new efforts could be brought to bear to make a much better fist of what is a very indifferent service.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for introducing this debate on the transport problems of London and the South East. By my reckoning it is the ninth debate on one or other aspect of this subject to be held in Parliament in the past two years. The frequency with which the issue is debated reflects the continued concern of Members of both Houses about the very serious transport problems in this part of the country.
I propose in my remarks to concentrate on the problems in London. The sobering fact is that, unless radical solutions are devised and put in hand quickly, the present transport congestion and delays in the capital could grow far worse within the next decade. It is estimated that by the year 2001 there could be an increase or at least 20 per cent. in the number of cars used in the capital and an equivalent increase in the
1402
demand for public transport. It is difficult to visualize how the already overcrowded roads and the already over-utilized public transport services could cope with such a situation.
While it cannot be denied that certain measures have been taken to extend the rail and Underground facilities serving the capital, and it is intended to introduce the so-called "red routes" to speed up traffic on selected priority roads, these measures do not go nearly far enough to cope with the problem. A major difficulty is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has so effectively emphasised, there still does not appear to be an overall strategy for dealing with London's transport problem. There are a number of piecemeal measures, some relatively large, some smaller, which are introduced from time to time. The situation is complicated by the large number of different authorities involved in transport in London. Apart from the 32 separate London boroughs, there are some eight additional authorities including various government departments. It is impossible to visualize how a co-ordinated approach can be applied in such a situation.
There is an essential inter-relationship between the various modes of transport and the skill is to find the right balance between them. At present the balance has been tilted too far in the direction of the motor vehicle. The need is to persuade more people not to bring their cars into London and to use public transport instead. But this is difficult to achieve as public transport facilities are already generally overcrowded and considered to be unreliable.
Let me start with the Underground. There is little doubt that an improved, more efficient, more reliable, less crowded Underground system could do much to syphon off road traffic. We are continually being reminded that there was a sudden upsurge in use of the Underground from 1985 onwards. How long have we to wait before this is reflected in increased facilities? This is not just a question of adding new lines, which necessarily takes a great deal of time and capital expenditure. The permanent way of the existing lines has suffered from years of neglect. There has not been a carefully thought-out policy for asset replacement and renewal. Such a policy could considerably increase the capacity of the system and also its safety, which has been a matter of such concern following the King's Cross disaster. Rolling stock and stations need refurbishment. Closed-circuit TV systems need to be installed for greater security.
Of course these developments would cost money—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, emphasised that—perhaps up to 50 per cent. more than is presently being spent each year. But this would be entirely justified expenditure. It would be vastly less than the cost of congestion as estimated by the CBI and said to amount to no less than £10 billion per annum in London and the South East.
A similar approach is necessary with respect to the buses. Here the major problem arises from traffic congestion on the roads. Unless there can be better control of parking and some diminution in the number of cars coming into the capital, the buses will

1403
not be able to perform their task. Better control of parking can be achieved only by having more people doing the job. Again, that extra expenditure could be justified on the basis of social benefit. Reducing the number of cars coming into the capital can be achieved only by offering an effective public transport alternative and at the same time by some measure of disincentive. Road pricing has often been debated and should be looked at again, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned.
As with the Underground, so with the buses. An effective asset replacement policy needs to be introduced. There are many buses on the roads today which have exceeded their acceptable timespan. A more regular upgrading of the bus fleet would make for greater comfort, efficiency and safety. It would also give encouragement to the manufacturers to devise new models and penetrate export markets with greater confidence.
Other desirable measures would be the installation of video cameras on all buses, which could have the effect of reducing vandalism and petty crime. While they would be costly to install their payback would be a significant reduction in repair costs.
The problem which assails all intending bus passengers is to know when the next bus is coming. There is a need for passenger information at bus stops. That could be similar to the information provided at many Underground stations. It would advise passengers of the delays to be expected in the arrival of buses travelling in different directions. I understand that trials which have been carried out of such a system have been enormously welcomed by passengers. Finally, work must continue to make buses more accessible to people with disabilities.
One of the factors contributing to road congestion is coach traffic. Coaches provide an important transport service and benefit large numbers of people who wish to move around at relatively low cost and with some degree of flexibility. Nevertheless, the tendency of coach operators in London to park at will and to take on and discharge passengers at any point convenient to them adds seriously to traffic congestion. Some greater degree of regulation is essential if that particular traffic problem is not to become worse.
An additional problem connected with coach traffic is the Victoria coach station. It is the only coach station in London and was never designed for the purpose. I must declare an interest here because I am chairman of the local residents' association. The existence of the coach station in an already congested area is causing serious and continuing difficulties. There have been many proposals either to move the station elsewhere or to diminish its size. So far all the proposals have come to nought. The result is that the coaches overflow into residential streets, causing serious environmental disadvantage.
London Transport, which operates the coach station, has now decided to refurbish it at a cost of some £4 million. That will no doubt provide better
1404
facilities for passengers, but it will almost certainly lead to increased coach traffic in the surrounding residential streets. Some limit must be imposed on the coaches' use of those residential streets. I know that Westminster council is studying the problem and it is to be hoped that it will soon take appropriate action.
To sum up, London's transport problem, which is already serious, could get far worse in the next decade and beyond. The measures so far taken to deal with the issue are inadequate. Above all, they lack co-ordination. A more comprehensive and imaginative scheme is required to diminish the number of cars coming into London and to increase and improve public transport facilities. The cost involved could be saved many times over in economic and social benefit.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, this is a sad little debate. I am as gloomy as was my noble friend. I noted that even the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who loves the internal combustion engine and its fast-rolling wheels, fell into despair when he discussed public transport. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was equally depressed, but at least he gave us some practical ideas for some immediate remedies as well as looking at the strategic position as a whole.
A variety of ills as well as a variety of benefits confronts the London citizen of today. One of the grosser ills, alongside the mortgage, the noise, the pollution and the poll tax (unless he lives in a couple of favoured areas), is the daily struggle to get to work and then to get home again. It is surprising how long it took for that grievance to enter the political arena. I always thought that it should be there, and there was a time when I madly contemplated running for election on that single issue—"vote for the commuter's best friend". However, I lacked the nerve and left the subject to gloomy conversations and furious letters to local newspapers.
Today we have before us, for the ninth time, the plight of the millions who live in and around this enormous capital and who have to earn their daily bread by a daily penance. Even that is becoming harder as the SouthEast is now in the forefront of the rise in unemployment.
Nobody knows today how long a journey will take, even without the bomb scares. Diligent workers may arrive late, tired and frayed before they start their day's work. As their journeys are more costly than anywhere else in the kingdom, and possibly most places in Europe, their employers have to pay them more in wages. In a time of recession that may be a contributory cause of employers in the service industry cutting down on staff or closing their businesses.
The travel problem might have been tackled more successfully in the days of the Thatcher economic miracle than it could be now. However, in those days there was little action, but many studies. Mr. Ridley set up four in 1984 at a cost of £10 million. But seven years later it is no easier to move around London and the environment is no better. The trouble has been that too many people in positions of power have made

1405
a basic assumption that everybody must be able to drive everywhere at any time. So they have tried to identify ways of relieving congestion by road building, road widening, road tunnels, bridges, underpasses, and flyovers. The contribution that has to be made by better public transport was disregarded for a time by the eminent consultants.
However, the citizens of London, regardless of their party loyalties, set up pressure groups and a series of societies making expert studies of traffic around London. One of these days they may produce a Napoleon of Notting Hill. Those people made it clear that the road options would not work and last year Mr. Parkinson wisely dropped them—or was obliged to drop them. However, as there has been no significant advance in public transport in 1991 the situation, is worse than it was in Mr. Ridley's day.
Mr. Channon, however, called for a rail study and a report was published in 1989. The report's chart outlined in red all the routes on Network SouthEast and the Underground on which there was not just overcrowding but excessive overcrowding. Noble Lords may wonder what constitutes non-excessive overcrowding. It seems that tolerable overcrowding only occurs when there is only one person standing for every one person sitting on an Underground train. It is all right in a modern South-East network carriage if there are only 35 passengers standing and they do not have to stand for more than 20 minutes. Most of the radial routes in Greater London were outside those modest standards and were coloured red on the chart: unacceptable overcrowding.
A number of options were provided for remedial action: extension to the Jubilee Line, an east-west crosslink joining St. Marylebone with Liverpool Street and a new Chelsea to Hackney underground line. I should like to ask the Minister what progress has been made with those schemes. I understand that during the next 12 months the Bill for the Jubilee Line will be passed and the line should be working by 1996. That is hardly rapid relief. However, it seems that the east-west crosslink will be even slower to appear. The Bill is expected late this year—one year after Mr. Parkinson promised it—and with luck the trains may be rolling before the end of the millenium.
For the Chelsea to Hackney line the prospects are less certain than they were. Last month the line was safeguarded, but that is all. There is no timetable. It seems that everything depends on whether the money can be found. So I must ask: will it ever be built? Can the Minister say what its future will be? After all, the Department of Transport, British Rail, London Transport and London Underground in their joint report said that a package of that sort was essential if the worst overcrowding were to be ended. Even if all that goes ahead, according to the most optimistic timetable there will still be grotesque and dangerous overcrowding until the end of the century.
The road engineers thought that the rail developments in prospect would do no more than ease the journeys of existing passengers. They did not think that they would be sufficient to persuade car commuters to take to rail. They are probably right.
1406
The present rail system, which carries three-quarters of the commuters into London, will need not just the uplift that is promised but a transformation if the workers of London are to get to their work in time and reasonable comfort every day.
Yet the fact is that there is no shortage of rail projects which together could end all the overcrowding and also do much to clear the congestion from the roads. Alas, the political will is not there. As the central London rail report makes clear, government policy is to approve investment in railways where it will earn a commercial return. The Government believe that the best returns on capital should be on those schemes which best meet the needs of passengers as assured by their willingness to pay for them. Only in rare cases will the Government be convinced that there are sufficient non-user benefits to justify a grant. In other words, the passenger, the man or woman travelling between home and work, will have to pay much more for his fares if there is to be some kind of final relief for the present situation.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, the problem demands strategic planning and long-term investment. Traffic and travel problems are strangling the South East. If the Government are not warned by the sight and consequences of overcrowding and congestion they will have to pay a political price for their ideological blindness, mismanagement, lethargy before a soluble problem and lack of concern for the hard-working people of the South East.
3.55 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I start by making my usual declaration of interest: I am in receipt of a small pension from British Rail. For seven years I was Assistant Public Relations Publicity Officer at Waterloo Station dealing with the Southern Region (as it was then). I travel every day on Network SouthEast and every day on London Underground. Sometimes I wonder whether I travel on a completely different set of Underground trains and Network SouthEast trains than do other noble Lords.
I did not attend the debate last Monday but I understand that one noble Lord who happens to live in the South East complained about snow. He said that there were only two or three inches of it. I live just outside Aldershot and as a matter of interest at that time I took a steel rule and measured the snow. When I went to bed there was no snow on my car roof but when I got up in the morning three inches of snow had fallen and there were up to five inches of snow in the garden. That is quite a difference.
At the Underground stations one can see a train which comes in crowded and people push themselves on board. If one walks to one end of the platform one can get on an Underground train and usually find a seat. If one cannot do so, one can wait for the next train, which will probably be almost empty. The fact remains that people leave their work at a certain time and want to catch a particular train. They know that if they travel in a certain compartment they will stop near the exit. When the train stops they all rush out and cram the escalators and passageways. If, for

1407
example, they arrive at Waterloo, they go to the same platform and pour themselves on to the same train. If only they would be willing to wait for just a short time, the following train would probably get them to their destination just a few minutes later and they would have been able to travel in comfort.
I admit that I am lucky because I do not have to travel in the morning rush-hour. That is my luck. But one cannot blame British Rail for overcrowding. It is not British Rail's fault. It is the responsibility of the employers in London who want all their workers in their offices and factories at one and the same time. What is British Rail expected to do? One cannot have longer trains on Southern Region because many of the platforms are not long enough. If one were to put on longer trains, filling up the first half and then moving the train up to fill the second half, it would delay them for far too long.
If one looks at the railroad line map one will see outside most stations of British Rail Southern Region that there are masses of points, cross-overs and so on. In order to extend the platform the track would have to be realigned, which would be very expensive. I sometimes think that if there were a survey which asked the average traveller on Network SouthEast what his ideal train service would be, he would reply, "Well, I should like to get to the station in the morning and catch my train. I should like that train to run non-stop from my station to a London terminus". What would he say in the evening? "I wish to get on my train at Waterloo. I want it to run non-stop to my home station".
Mention has been made of the south coast route. I received communications from people who complained that unless Ashford International Station is built, they will lose business and people will make unnecessary journeys. When I was with British Rail we undertook a survey about the south coast route. We asked people, "Do you use it?" If the answer was yes, that was fine. If not, we asked, "Why not?" The most important question was, "Do you want to retain the south coast route?" The vast majority said, "Yes". The catch question was, "Why?" The answer was, "For when my car is off the road". I do not joke. People wanted a rail system along the south coast for those times when the car was off the road or the wife or husband was using it. One cannot run such a rail system. The cost would be prohibitive.
I have referred to overcrowding and whose fault it is. With regard to filth on the trains, BR does not employ one single person to throw litter on trains or concourses. The people who do so are the passengers. They are no longer called passengers; they are customers. It is the customers who make the mess, not British Rail. Yet everyone complains about British Rail. They say, "British Rail crams us on trains under conditions which would be illegal if we were cattle". They are not cattle; they are meant to be thinking people. If they do not like the conditions, let them take an earlier train or even a later train. It is up to them. One cannot blame British Rail for every single ill.
1408
If one wishes to blame the Government, I believe that there is one single factor involved. Investment has not been forthcoming. If we do not receive investment, the system closes down. My home station is often closed in the late evening. That is a danger especially for lady passengers. If there are no taxis and they do not have a car, they do not even have the satisfaction of knowing that there will be a British Rail employee present to look after them.
On Monday a noble Lord who is not present—I shall not mention his name—said quite casually that British Rail staff are disloyal. I do not believe that. It may happen on some lines; but on the line from the coast through Basingstoke to London the staff are kind, thoughtful and courteous. There was a hold-up the other day. The excuses are always met with a grin. The reason why I arrived late in your Lordships' House was that we were stuck outside Clapham Junction because the police had switched off the current. They had lost one of their prisoners and were trying to find him. Everyone said, "That's a new excuse for British Rail"—but it happened to be true.
There was reference in the papers today to the fact that people wanted to open some of the lines closed during the Beeching axe. It sounds lovely in theory. But why were those lines cut? It was because they were uneconomic and did not have the passengers or freight to make them viable. One must remember such factors.
There has been reference, quite rightly, to the use of old stock, which is wrong. I do not blame British Rail for that. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the coaches in one of the accidents which were badly damaged were all old stock. I refer your Lordships to an accident which took place at Eltham Well Hall. The train came off the rails. It was being driven too fast on a curve. I was there all night looking after the press. The front and rear bogies had sheared off a coach; the shaft was massive. The wheel had gone. But the coach was sitting there. I showed the journalists one end of the coach: one window only was broken. It was a modern coach of modern construction with crumple-free zones and so on. The next day the press used photographs and stated, "This stock is wonderful".
Finally, in comparing southern England with the Continent, one must remember that we have a short route with many stations, thousands of points and lines all over the place. In France or Germany one can travel in a straight line. Of course trains can reach speeds of 200 kilometres per hour. In England we cannot do so unless we build a straight track. If we did that British Rail trains would run just as fast as the French trains.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in answering a Question on Thursday of last week about damage to London Transport and London Underground in particular by the financial targets enforced on them by the present Government, the Minister said in effect that it was all a matter for London Underground management and hardly anything to do with the Government. But this

1409
Government took over control of London Transport by the London Regional Transport Act of 1984. The Government appoint the directors. They lay down limits for both capital and current expenditure and have power under the Act to give directions to the enterprise on all manner of subjects. So, whatever else may be the case, it is not for the Government to give orders to London Transport and then blame the resulting damage on the management which is merely trying to carry out the orders that it is given.
As a result of such interference by the Government with London Transport since 1984, it has, frankly, been reduced to a state of disruption and poor services such as has not existed in my memory at any time between 1920 and 1984. It did not exist even in the 1940–1944 Blitz years—and I speak as someone who has travelled on the system since 1917.
The financial cuts have led to acute undermanning and staff shortage throughout the enterprise. Staff shortage in turn has led to failures of maintenance, chronic delays, dangerous overcrowding and not merely risk of accidents but actual accidents on the Underground. Government funding for future capital investment has been increased. However, it is the cut in current expenditure and current grants which is damaging the services. As recently as 1987 the operating loss covered by grants to London Underground was £288 million a year. In 1989 it was announced that this was going to be turned into a profit by 1993–94. The management is now struggling by cutting staff to break even by the end of the present year.
Total LRT staff stood at 56,600 in 1984; and services, including maintenance, were reasonably adequate at that time. By December 1987, staff numbers had been cut to 42,800 and the troubles began A month ago London Underground announced another drop of 1,000 designed to meet present financial targets in spite of all the promises made after the King's Cross fire and the Fennell Report. At the end of the debate perhaps the Minister will say what are the latest staff figures as regards London Underground.
The results of that undermanning are failures of maintenance and signalling, cancellations, delays and incidents which we are all suffering and which are announced almost daily, although inaudibly, by the loudspeakers on the Underground. Driver-only buses and trains are contributing to the further lengthening of journey times.
For all those reasons, in my experience, journeys on the Underground which from 1920 to 1984 took 30 minutes now take 45 minutes. Journeys which used to take 45 minutes now take one hour or more. Of course for that service, we pay higher fares.
Because 2.5 million people use London Underground every day, that slowdown represents an enormous loss of working time to the public in the capital. Indeed, that loss illustrates what I find to be the rather glaring illumination of the double standards which this Government apply to private and public transport. When the department's economists are
1410
assessing whether or not to build a motorway, they work out the time spent by the expected travellers. The larger the income of those people, the greater is the argument for the motorway. However, when it comes to settling the right financial targets for London Underground, I strongly suspect that nobody takes into account the loss of time of 2.5 million people travelling on it every day. If I am wrong about that, I shall be glad to be told so by the Minister. However, that is how it appears to me.
The main economic case for a revenue subsidy to London Underground rests squarely on the fact that the existence of the Underground prevents congestion on the surface which would make roads absolutely impassable. In that way, the Underground gives a huge benefit to the road user for which those road users do not pay. That is a further sound economic argument for a long term grant.
Indeed, that is why the electric railways of Paris enjoy a revenue subsidy of £500 million per year. That covers 60 per cent. of the current costs of the undertaking, leaving only 40 per cent to he covered by receipts from fares. As a result, Paris has a system which is now far better than ours and is a considerable national asset and tourist attraction.
On top of all that, the cuts in London Regional Transport staff due to the Government's financial targets are beginning to pose a serious risk to safety on the Underground. I assure the Minister, having experienced it, that it is no fun waiting on a stationary overcrowded tube train in a tunnel with no idea how long one is going to be there or why one is there—and that is putting it mildly. In November 1987 the Fennell Report on the King's Cross fire found that the fire was due to lack of maintenance on the escalators. The report said:
"when the budget for escalator cleaning was reduced, the effects were not fully considered at the appropriate level".
The lift and escalator engineer said that he did not succeed in monitoring escalator cleaning standards to his satisfaction nor did he have enough staff to do so. That was in 1987. A fortnight ago a crowded Central Line train near Liverpool Street caught fire. It stopped in the tunnel with 500 people aboard for five hours before the passengers escaped. Some of them went to hospital. Of course, we do not yet know whether that fire was due to lack of maintenance on the train or the track or to something else. I imagine that before long we shall be told what was the cause.
In view of that, it is not very reassuring for the 2.5 million people who travel weekly or daily on the Underground to learn that, despite that further incident, the Underground management, in its efforts to save manpower and meet the Government's financial targets, has sent a circular to the staff saying that in future, when driver-only trains catch fire in tunnels, the rescue of passengers must be organised by the passengers themselves because savings are being made by doing away with guards. The Minister did not deny the existence of that circular when I asked him about it on Thursday of last week. Perhaps he can confirm the existence of that circular.

1411
According to the Financial Times of 27th February the circular states also that, in the case of fire or smoke in driver-only trains or in tunnels, drivers will be told to select a responsible passenger and leave the remaining passengers under his care. The responsible passenger will be told also "how and when to discharge tractive currents using the tunnel telephone lines". If that system is put into force, the Government will bear a very heavy responsibility if there are serious accidents in the future.
There is a growing anxiety on the Underground, among both passengers and staff, that the higher priority given to safety after the Fennell Report is now being relaxed in order to save money and staff. I should like to ask the Minister whether that is true. Also, is it true that another cut of 1,000 Underground staff is to be made in the present year? Is it true that orders for improved Central Line trains and the Jubilee Line extension have been postponed again for purely financial reasons? Until those questions are satisfactorily answered, more and more people will conclude that this Government are almost solely interested in saving money and that better service for the public comes practically nowhere in their priorities.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the problems of transport in London and the South East. It was a great pleasure to listen to him. When I first came to your Lordships' House I was told to put a smile in the voice. He did just that; there was a smile in the voice throughout his speech. Also, it was only at minute 15 that he casually mentioned buses. Perhaps the noble Lord looked at his list of speakers and decided that all aspects of transport would be catered for. I am sure that in his winding up, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will do just that.
Before I speak on the situation of buses, I wish to make a few remarks to put the matter in context. Recent disruptions to public transport in the South East caused by weather and terrorist activities have highlighted public and business reliance on transport. Of course, it is all too easy to highlight the problems and ignore some of the significant achievements.
Demand for transport in the South East is greater than elsewhere in the United Kingdom; for example, three quarters of the demand for United Kingdom international air travel originates in the South East. More people are moved in and out of London by train and road than in any other city in the country. The continued growth of the South East as a centre for business and leisure will place even greater demands on transport. In addition, the expected growth in car ownership—and the United Kingdom has a lower car ownership per head of population than many of our compatible neighbours in Europe—means that grave problems lie ahead. That is not very good news. More cars mean greater environmental pollution as a result of congestion.
1412
However, buses remain the only under-utilised form of public transport. Suburban trains and the Underground are suffering from gross overloading, which has been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Jay, and that is totally intolerable. But there is still space on buses.
I recall remarks made by the late Baroness Hornsby-Smith, who represented a constituency in North Kent for many years. Also, I am sad not to see the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on the Front Bench opposite, who I am sure would agree with me. North Kent probably suffers worse from crush loading.
Journeys are viable only if the buses can move so more space has to be given to them. Those special lanes must be cleared and rather nasty penalties should be imposed. One sympathises with the milk float and other essential delivery vans, but surely they can be scheduled not to operate in bus lanes at peak hours.
I should like to mention one or two platitudinous phrases, in almost staccato sentences as they stand by themselves. Bus routes are capable of rapid expansion for a nominal cost, and they are the only form of public passenger transport which has no control of its track. Nevertheless, buses pay their way, as was confirmed by the right honourable Nigel Lawson when Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Again, buses are kinder to the environment. I know it was said that trains are kind, too, but buses are kinder than cars. During 1989–90, which are the last figures available, 1.6 billion passengers travelled in London and the South East. That was an increase rather than a decrease over the rest of the country.
If we give buses greater priority, they must become more reliable; and reliability is the key factor in encouraging people to use public transport. The increased use of buses would enable operators to invest in more attractive and, to use a very modern term, user-friendly buses. Given the choice between a modern reliable and moving bus or the congestion and stress of a car in traffic, I am sure that many people would leave their cars at home. In turn, car driving could once again become a pleasurable activity. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lucas will agree with that. Many of your Lordships must travel here by train, and feel happier and more content than if you had been sitting in a traffic jam.
Clearly the demand for transport in the South East is growing. Therefore we need to ensure that all modes play a full part. It seems a pity to prevent one mode—the bus —from doing its job. Let us give priority to the important part of transport. Let us remember that buses still carry 80 per cent. of all passengers who use public transport. That 80 per cent. merits special consideration.

The Bus and Coach Council has produced an excellent document called Buses mean Business, which encourages local authorities to give greater priority to buses. This was firmly backed by the Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman, in another place as recently as 6th

1413
February. May London continue with this successful tendering process; it has brought competition and sharpened up its own operations.
Lastly on buses, I should like to state that in London it is sociable for citizens of all walks of life to use buses. You are not a non-U person if you do catch a bus, but out of London that is not so. So let us get over these hang-ups which appear in all walks of life. But that means that we have to get the timetables ready. Operators, local authorities and publishers must tell us when the buses run. With more people travelling on buses costs will come down.
At this point, I should quietly sit down, but I have been asked to mention another point to do with rail. East Sussex County Council is still rather concerned about the line from Hastings to Ashford and competition with the Channel Tunnel. I thought that the Channel Tunnel was not in the spirit of this debate, but other noble Lords have mentioned it. I have sent my noble friend a missive, which I am sure he does not have time to answer today. But perhaps he could write to me or I will ask a suitable Question for Written Answer about the upgrading and electrification of the Hastings to Ashford line, so that East Sussex can compete. Hastings is still a very poor relation and it, and other parts of East Sussex, have a very good point.
I welcome the speaker who will follow me, because one happy day last summer I was crossing the forecourt of Victoria station and was waved to by a lady in a very pretty frock. It made my day to see the Lord Lieutenant of Greater London sitting on a bus.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord ended his speech with a compliment because I cannot say nice things in return about his buses. Every time we debate this subject everybody grinds on about his own interest, so I shall come back to mine.
I wonder how your Lordships came to this House today. To judge by the knocking of the car, everybody came by bus or train, or some walked or cycled, and nobody seems to have driven here. Therefore I am rather mystified as to why the car park outside always seems to be full of cars. They must belong to the staff whom we pay so well.
We must realise that the car is with us and it gives pleasure. I happen to be of the generation who remembers when we did not have cars, when it took a day to go from where I live in Fulham to Orpington in order to visit an aunt in the country, as we called it. I am delighted that the car provides me with an opportunity to see my brother and my other relatives and friends easily because even now the railway, I am sorry to say, is not going to make the journey easy.
My noble friend on the Front Bench covered everything so marvellously, as did subsequent speakers, that I shall just give my opinion. Bus travel at the moment is hopeless. I am not quite sure why this is but I suspect that funds were not given to London Transport. A one-man system just does not work. It causes congestion. If there is danger—and I have
1414
neighbours who have been in dangerous situations on buses at night—the driver cannot leave the driving seat. Besides, look at the other danger in all this. If the driver has a heart attack, there is only him.
I am proud to be a Londoner and I still live in the borough I was born in. It is a jolly good borough. We do not have a good football team, but you cannot have everything. We have always used buses and the Underground. But half my neighbours now do not. Why? First, they find the bus dangerous to get in, the steps are extraordinarily high, and some of them are old and they cannot risk it. They are definitely frightened of the Underground—there is no question about that—because of the crime. It is not only the waiting in the tunnels. Again, where are the people to manage? We are always saving on people. When I used the Underground every day you had porters on the platform. Nowadays if something goes wrong there is nobody to go to. We have to put it in order if we want people to use it.
Then again let us look at the question of roads. It is not the car that causes congestion; it is the enormous lorries. No other capital city in the world allows great articulated lorries to go through the centre. I did my own bit of research coming to the House in a car—a hired car, which I have to pay for. I was sitting on the Embankment, and for every car there were three lorries.
Where were these lorries going? I had an example this morning outside my own house. There was an enormous articulated lorry. He was stuck. He could not move. He could not go forward because of roadworks in the road. First the Gas Board dig it up, and then the Electricity Board dig it up, then British Telecom dig it up. Now I believe it is the sewers' turn. So the road is filled up. The man cannot move one way and he cannot move the other way. But the point is that he was trying to get down to a building site on the river. He had come all the way from Sweden. From Sweden! We have a Dutch company building Hammersmith Broadway, and now they have to bring the articles to be used from Sweden. You see, my Lords, if you did not already know, I am no European. We create a lot of this traffic on the roads because we do not utilise our own industries in the way they should be utilised.
The freight must be on the rail. There is no question about that. I helped to produce one of the original Labour Party plans. It is always useful to look back to see how far we have progressed. Well, we have not had a government to progress with since this one. Each plan dealing with transport always stated that it must be an alliance of road and rail. There is no other way to work. The heavy freight must go on the rail.
Now let us look at the stations we have in London. I would advise your Lordships to avoid Liverpool Street. If you actually have to go there, it is exactly like crossing a building site. It is slightly worse than parts of London docklands, and that is saying something. As I want the Olympics here in the year 2000 I hope they are going to sort it out.

1415
What do you want a station for? A station has a simple function. You go there as a passenger, you want a train to get on, you may want a few seats for waiting and you do not want to wait too long. But now, because they want to make money, they are creating shops. When you enter Euston you have to walk about a quarter of a mile to get to a train. There are no porters to help you with your luggage. You cannot get the trolleys up and down the stairs. I do not know what brainwave they had there. Now at Liverpool Street I have been taken across on a trolley because there is no other way to get across. Again we are going to have shops at Waterloo. I speak with some feeling about Charing Cross. I had a small office behind Charing Cross. Charing Cross was practically closed while the building group, Greycoat, actually rebuilt Charing Cross and put in shops. That is not what railway stations are for.
There are two sorts of people that I have got it in for. First, there are the people who carry the heavy freight, the articulated lorries, and, by golly, the property developers. Why complain if a lot of people have to come into London when the only thing that has been built in the city for years now has been offices? Offices, offices, and more offices. They evidently get so much money out of them that they can let them stand empty. Therefore, we have to look at several other aspects when we look at congestion.
I wonder why British Rail had to have those expensive advertisements on television. It is marvellous to spend millions on telling us how lovely it is, but we do not have any option if we want to go anywhere. Why bother to advertise a monopoly? I have never understood that. In the old days too the people at the top came from the bottom, and they understood things. They were not accountants, business managers or PR men. They were people actually who understood transport. That is what we have to get back to; a pride in our transport.
At the moment it is not much good telling us not to use the car because people will use a car as they cannot spend the time, or do not want to run the risk of the danger, or they do not want the discomfort of travelling on public transport. I would make developers pay a much larger contribution for everything they run for their transport costs. I would tax all heavy vehicles very heavily.
I quote now from a 1974 booklet of the Labour Party:
"The energy crisis has underlined our objective to move as much traffic as possible from road to rail and to water".
We still are not using the Thames enough. There are ways of curing the situation, but the transport system and the roads must be funded properly and for the right reasons, not merely to make shareholders richer.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, as a commuter of some 60 years, mainly on routes through the South East of London, I feel it is rather necessary that I should speak in the debate. The last time I took part in a similar debate was on 2nd May 1947, nearly 44
1416
years ago. It took place in this Chamber, then temporarily another place. The debate was led by Ashley Bramall, then MP for Bexley, and the subject was gross overcrowding on trains and delays.
I have a press cutting here from the Daily Mirror. The headline reads
"MP says packed trains twisted his figure, made him [stand] like the stork".
I am afraid that I made that remark.
Here we are today, all over again, debating the same issue. Travelling conditions are not much changed. One big change, however, is the cost. Forty-four years ago the cheap day fare was is 2½d; now it is £2.40. The trains then consisted of single compartments. Now we have larger compartments. But still overcrowding exists. Although attacks, mainly on women, have highlighted the danger of single compartments, many trains still have them. On Monday I had to get in one simply to obtain a seat. It was the only seat available. When are these ancient coaches to be taken out of use? Far too many are in operation.
We are told that improvements are to be made to rolling stock. That appears to be in the distant future. There have been some improvements to stations. However, the staffing situation is worse. Many stations have few or no staff on duty after around 6.30 in the evening. That can be a serious matter.
Charing Cross station has been improved. There are seats on platforms. But there is no seating on the concourse. And it is on the concourse that one must wait when there are delays for one never knows from which platform the train will depart. I used to sit on rubbish bins. They were quite comfortable, having soft rubber on top. Unfortunately, they were recently removed in light of the IRA chaos.
For older people it is no joke standing in a large crowd. The situation is worse when a train arrives. A mass of people try to alight and a larger mass try to get into the train. Overcrowding has become a way of life for the majority of London workers. With extensive office building taking place, including building over many London stations such as Charing Cross, the situation is likely to become worse.
The effect of strain on individual health can be great. It impairs working efficiency and may cause problems at home. Only this week a certain lady I know said that her husband had come home and complained bitterly that he could not stand it any more and intended to pack it in. She reminded him, somewhat forcefully, that he was not the only one involved; most people who have to travel to work experience the same problem.
The effects on health and efficiency at work should be considered. One stands in a crowded train for at least half an hour, races to one's office and attempts to work, and when night comes one returns home in worse conditions than when one set out that morning. It is a matter which needs serious consideration.
Longer trains and platforms are promised. The question is: when? In passing I note that according to the Guardian on Monday, a possible item for the Tory election manifesto is a scheme whereby vouchers will be given for delays on trains or industrial action on

1417
railways. That is no answer to the problem. It is absolute nonsense. In regard to the Dartford area I suggest that a tube extension to Lewisham or possibly Hither Green would make an enormous difference to the overcrowding, in trains and at stations. Another solution is to speed up platform extensions and to allow longer trains, together with the provision of modern rolling stock.
All that will involve considerable financial expenditure. That has already been mentioned, and we must face up to it. Shall we stand still and do nothing? The answer will not be found in privatisation. Railways are a national asset and must remain so. Let us face the facts. We have spent, quite rightly, millions of pounds to fight another war. No questions are asked about that. Why cannot we, the people, put our resources towards funding the necessary works to make our transport facilities adequate for our needs and deal with the matter with the same single-minded approach we gave to the war? There is no other way of dealing with the problem. We must spend the money; we must improve our travel services.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I begin this afternoon by declaring an interest in that I am a member of the board of British Rail (Southern). It is an unusual system of boards within British Rail. It is purely an advisory body acting as a link between the operating executive on the one hand and the local authorities and—dare I say it?—the paying public on the other. Therefore I shall confine my remarks to railway matters, and more specifically to Network SouthEast.
Over the past few weeks British Rail has taken a great deal of criticism and some of it—it has to be said —was justified. I should like first to deal with the problems that ensued from the terrorist bombs and hoaxes. The size of the mainline stations and the extent of passageways, subways and offices, means that searches take something over an hour to complete, and resources do not allow all 14 termini to be searched simultaneously. As noble Lords will be aware, a number of security measures have been taken including the removal of litter bins, the sealing of post-boxes and the closure of left luggage lockers and offices. Following reopening of stations, service disruption is extensive and inevitable. However, if passenger safety is to continue to be given priority, little can be done to prevent that.
Regarding the vexed question of the weather, contrary to popular public opinion—and, I have to admit, the experience of some noble Lords—the whole British Rail network did not collapse between 7th and 10th February. A limited, albeit sometimes severely limited, service operated on most routes. The real villain of the piece is the system of electrification—known as third-rail electrification—and the method of air-cooling. There are three main reasons why the majority of continental systems operate so much better than we do in adverse weather.
First, such conditions are for them much more the norm and for us the exception. Secondly, they use overhead electrification. The third rail system was
1418
introduced in the South-East in 1915 and is a historical millstone. By definition having the source of power at ground level must make it more susceptible to adverse weather. However the cost of converting the Southern Region alone to overhead electrification would be around £1.25 million per route mile. That is estimated to be in the region of £1.75 billion overall. A figure of such magnitude to convert the entire system within the network cannot seriously be considered.
Thirdly, design problems exist which result in snow damaging traction motors and sliding-door mechanisms. Solutions have been found. British Rail is in the process of undertaking a review of those aspects, including the cost of the necessary modifications. Although I do not suppose it provides much comfort to noble Lords, Parisians suffered the same breakdown of services during the recent bad weather when powdery snow entering the electronic control gear of suburban trains caused severe damage and disruption.
I should like to draw attention to the more general issues concerning British Rail in the South East. The demands for its services are greater than ever. In excess of 2 million journeys are undertaken each week. Slightly under half a million commuters travel to central London each day by British Rail. That is the highest number ever recorded. Each and every passenger has a right to expect his or her train to be reliable, punctual, clean and to have the necessary capacity.
I shall deal with each of those four points in turn. As regards reliability, British Rail's target is for 99 per cent. of train services to be run. In 1989–90, the last year for which statistics are available, only 96 per cent. ran. That is clearly not good enough and British Rail accepts that. On the question of punctuality, British Rail aims to ensure that 90 per cent. of its trains arrive within five minutes of the scheduled time. My own view is that that 90 per cent. is itself too low. Be that as it may, the 1989–90 statistics show that that 90 per cent. was achieved.
As regards cleaning, all trains should be washed outside daily. In 1989–90, only 70 per cent. of that target was achieved. But that was mainly due to water shortage. At the request of the Kent and Sussex water authorities, British Rail reduced washing to an absolute minimum. Indeed washing equipment was not used for over one year. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said earlier in the debate that not all the arrows can be pointed in British Rail's direction. There are many mitigating circumstances.
Concerning capacity, the situation is less satisfactory. In 1989–90, capacity targets were exceeded by 3.5 per cent. which means that far too many people did not get seats on their journeys. However, British Rail has constructive proposals for dealing with this problem with the introduction of its new networker service. This train in theory, and it should do so in practice, offers a 10 per cent. increase in capacity while using 25 per cent. less energy and costing 15 per cent. less to maintain. By 1996 it is planned that 1,794 networker coaches should be in operation; in other

1419
words, 25 per cent. of the total fleet. In addition British Rail is planning to complete the CrossRail and Thameslink Metro by 1998. As your Lordships may know, CrossRail will be a tunnel under central London between Paddington and Liverpool Street, linking services from Aylesbury, Reading and Heathrow in the West, to Southend in the East.
That will result in major time-saving benefits to passengers and also relieve congestion on the Underground and roads such as the Cromwell Road. The Thameslink Metro is based on the completion of the King's Cross development and increased capacity at London Bridge. It would allow a significant increase in trains running via Thameslink; namely, through King's Cross, Farringdon, St. Paul's and London Bridge, besides the introduction of through services from Cambridge, Peterborough and Bedford on the one hand, to points south of the River such as Gatwick Airport and Ashford International on the other.
Sir Bob Reid, the present and newly-appointed chairman of British Rail, has said that he regards the improvement of communication to be an absolute priority, not only when services are disrupted but especially at those times. From a personal viewpoint, that point is continually and emphatically raised at every British Rail (Southern) Board meeting that I have attended. We regard as appalling the way in which British Rail customers are not kept informed. It is equally remarkable just how much Joe Public will tolerate if he is kept informed. It is such a basic point. We are hammering it as hard as we can; we hope we are winning.
More generally, over the six months of my association with British Rail (Southern), I have been heartened not only by the proposed improvements of which I was unaware until I did join the board, but also of the very high calibre and attitude of the senior staff. I admit that neither I nor others of my colleagues have been quite so impressed by the attitude of the less senior staff. There British Rail has a major problem on its hands. The Government's approach to British Rail's very real attempts to rise to the challenge are welcome but only as far as they go. I listened with the greatest of interest last Monday to the debate in this House on the EC Report on Community Railways.
My noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said in that debate—I am deliberately extracting points to make my point—
"we see no case for putting public money into rail investment where no clear external benefits can be demonstrated … the Government do not support increased Community funding of rail infrastructure investment".—[Official Report, 4/3/91; cols. 1243 and 1244.]
I am still left with the question: why, or indeed why not?
Therefore the first problem that British Rail has to face must amount to this: what is the Government's policy on rail transport? To what extent are the Government prepared to encourage rail travel to relieve road congestion and its attendant environmental problems? My noble friend also said last Monday
1420
that the Government's financial programmes work on a three-year basis. I understand that, but I also criticise it. He went on to say that,
"does not prevent British Rail from planning further ahead itself".—[col. 1246.]
I hope that I have already demonstrated the extent to which British Rail needs to plan ahead. Some of the projects which it has on its shopping list are for 15 to 17 years ahead. I am not saying today that there is nothing wrong with British Rail or that substantial improvements are not necessary. That would be manifestly untrue. However, British Rail is making a very genuine attempt to improve. With Sir Bob Reid in the chair, we can expect strong leadership from him and therefore the essential change in attitude in British Rail staff to one of pride in their job and of service to the customer. However, how can British Rail plan properly when investment levels more than three years ahead can be based only on educated guesswork? In effect, the Government are asking British Rail to run a marathon but will not tell it the route to take or even provide the proper running shoes.
4.57 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany, my qualifications for speaking in this debate are that, although I have not been driving in this area for quite as long as he has, I have been driving mostly in and out of London since 1953, especially in the past 25 to 30 years. In that time I have noted the difference in the traffic. It is interesting to note that as soon as a dual carriageway is constructed which takes traffic out into the country, the traffic increases. That has happened on the A.10 which is the road that I use to come into London. Enormous differences have taken place.
When I was in the other place I always used my car to drive in. That was a distance of 22 miles and I managed to do that in under an hour. I still drive in. My noble friend Lady Phillips is not here so I do not need to apologise to her for using my car, though I am now driven. The journey now takes anything up to an hour and-a-half. If one travels in the rush hour the journey can take nearly two hours. Since I came to this House in 1981 I have used public transport a great deal.
There are two problems. The first is the long-term problem which we have been discussing. I hope that the enthusiasm shown by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, will bear some fruit because British Rail has an awful lot to do. How does one get the tens of thousands of people who travel to work daily by motor car to transfer to public transport and in some comfort? After all, in spite of traffic jams, at least one is comfortable in a motor car. Is there a case for helicopter transport? After all, there is not a great deal of congestion in the air 500 feet above London and one can land a helicopter on a tennis court. I have had one land on my tennis court. I agree it would be expensive but a good many people could afford it. It might well take off the road a few Rolls-Royces, which take up a good deal of room. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can give that suggestion some thought if he is looking for something to do in the future.

1421
There is the immediate problem of the present chaos on our roads, not only in London but on the roads around London and the South East in general. Need I mention the M.25? The two problems interlock, but let us look first at the long term problem. To relieve the congestion on the roads how can we persuade these tens of thousands of motorists to use public transport? At present public transport is appalling, and I use the word with some feeling. My experience in travelling from Broxbourne—it is not a long journey and I travel home again often in the rush hour—is that the journey can be appalling. If I travel at any time near the rush hour—from 4 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.—I have to stand in the tube from Westminster to Liverpool Street. Then I have to barge through the crowds. People who are going to Bishop's Stortford in order to go to Stansted find that undertaking the journey with their luggage is very difficult indeed. Having to change at Liverpool Street is a bit of a burden as well. On many occasions I have had to stand in a first-class carriage choked full with second-class passengers. Such conditions will not attract motorists off the road at the present moment.
I have spoken about this matter to a railway official whom I know very well. I suggested that we should have bigger trains and more of them. He pointed out to me that this would create more congestion than there is at the moment because the lines are simply not capable of carrying more and bigger trains. He was quite emphatic that extra lines are required. He also pointed out that it would be better if some of the suburban lines—in particular the Cambridge line and the Hertford line into Liverpool Street—could be directed into Charing Cross and so give commuters a seat all the way without their having to make this dreadful change at Liverpool Street.
In addition, there are no elevators at Westminster Station, at Liverpool Street Station or at my local station at Broxbourne. We all have to climb stairs. Some of the flights of stairs are very bad indeed and I have fall en down twice in the past year.
An expansion of the Central Line might be a tremendous help. The line goes right to Ongar through Epping. If that line could be doubled up it would give many people comfort all the way through to the centre of London. Trying to get people to use the trains under the present packed conditions will not work at all. I am sure that the situation I describe is similar to that described by my noble friend Lord Wallace on his line. I am sure that it is the same all around London.
To carry out the suggestions which have been made in this debate would cost an enormous amount of money and, quite frankly, would never be undertaken privately. If public money is not found, we shall never get this enormous number of car drivers off the road. I do not travel a great deal by bus, but I must admit I rather enjoy a ride on a bus. But due to traffic jams they are often late and are not very much better than the railways from that point of view.
There have been suggestions about charging cars to come into London. I wonder where one would start? Would one be charged when one crossed the M.25 or would one need to come to the North and South Circular Roads before one needed permission to come
1422
into the centre of London? How much would the charge be? Would it be enough to force people onto the railways? I should like to hear some ideas about that. I am told that between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of cars coming into London are company cars. Their drivers are sometimes not too concerned about expense and might be perfectly willing to pay a large charge. It would be interesting to see how that would work. I saw an advertisement about the setting up of a small company to organise car sharing. I have never seen anything more about that and I wonder whether the idea has got off the ground. I do not think it has, but there is no doubt that car sharing could help.
In the present situation I do not think that charging will do the trick. That leaves us with a ban on cars unless one can prove the absolute necessity of coming into London by car. Again, there are huge problems. Would this work and who would decide the necessity? This point has been put forward and I think it is worth looking at.
Some of the points made during the debate should be insisted upon. There should be no parking within 25 yards of traffic lights. I come down to Smithfield. Two main roads cross there—Clerkenwell Road and Charterhouse Street. There is a tremendous amount of traffic turning right to go down to Smithfield. There are cars parked on the left and there you are stuck. Right-turning cars have to wait for traffic lights and one is left stranded. It is quite frustrating and there seems to be no effort to stop this. I am sure there are many places with similar problems. Some of the biggest sinners are property developers. For nearly a fortnight a full skip sat within 20 yards of the lights. I do not know who was supposed to shift it.
Co-operation between road menders and traffic departments is pretty poor. I travelled out of London through Camden Town the other day. Halfway along College Street there was a huge traffic jam caused by roadworks on the left hand side and parked cars on the right, making it one way at about 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. I do not understand why that is allowed.
I should just like to quote my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman who was chairman of the committee which looked at the transfer of Spitalfields Market to Hackney Marshes. I do not have time to quote him in full but his words appear at col. 1564 of the Official Report of 27th July 1989. He said how important it was that this change should be attendant on the spur of the A.11 passing Leytonstone and Leyton, in order to prevent traffic using narrow one-way streets. What stage has that development reached? My noble and learned friend and I would be very interested in the Minister's reply since we both mentioned the point during the debate in July 1989.
My final point concerns slow vehicles on country roads. My industry is the biggest sinner, with tractors moving at 15 or 16 mph being followed by six or seven cars. Many years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was answering for the Government on traffic matters, I tried to make the point that in California it is mandatory for a slow vehicle to move over to the side of the road to allow other vehicles to pass. The noble Lord said that that would not be possible in this

1423
country. I think that it would be. The one problem is that there are far too many people in the South East of England.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, having declared my interest I should like to declare also my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving us the opportunity yet again to discuss the problems of congestion in London and the South East. Before I embark on my own speech perhaps I may say that, if one remark sticks in my mind, it is the one made by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth—that time is not on our side.
Whether we accept the CBI figure of £10 billion as being the cost per annum of this congestion—that figure is by now nearly two years old and so I wonder whether it should not be scaled up a little—or whether we accept the passenger figures that are given in the Central London Rail Study, one has to be aware that congestion is becoming a problem. The Central London Rail Study contained the hard fact that peak hour arrivals at the worst time—that is the morning peak, because the afternoon peak is more spread—had risen by some 23 per cent. between 1988 and 1990 and projected a further increase of 13 per cent. by the end of this decade. One cannot dismiss the magnitude of the problem when one looks at those figures. But nor can we dismiss what has been done about it by the Government, by British Rail and by LUL.
Since I first took part in the one of these debates we have had developments in the pipeline such as the Heathrow Express. We have the Stansted Link. We are promised the east-west crossrail. We are getting the Jubilee Line extension. The Docklands Light Railway is being extended at both ends and its stations are being extended so that capacity may increase. On the question of stations, the reconstruction of Liverpool Street mainline is nearing completion. We have King's Cross International in the pipeline. Both have the particular advantage that they make available longer platforms for suburban trains and thus give a capacity increase on the routes out of King's Cross and Liverpool Street.
There are also huge and costly reconstructions taking place on the London Underground; at the Angel, Mansion House, Victoria, London Bridge, Tottenham Court Road, Holborn Kingsway; and Chancery Lane is in the pipeline. There is a good deal of refurbishment of many BR and LUL stations. Similarly there is a refurbishment of many of the trains. We have new fleets coming on stream for British Rail. Central Line modernisation is going on which I understand will give a 16 per cent. increase in capacity. In the pipeline we have the Northern Line resignalling and modernisation. More remotely, we have Chelsea-Hackney. Closer to hand there is the Thameslink expansion and of course in the not too distant future there is the high speed link through Kent.
I would not dream of saying that all this activity will solve all the problems. The Central London Rail
1424
Study reminds us that there will still be mainline problems between Waterloo and Surbiton and between Liverpool Street and Shenfield. There will also be problems on a number of Underground sections. But I feel that my list—and I have excluded many other matters—meets fairly four square any allegations of government, British Rail and London Underground Limited inertia.
What can we do further to improve the position? We need to look at new means of finance for our public transport infrastructure investment. Additional to the fare box and the property gains which the Government hope to see but will find very difficult in many instances, one has straight grant. That is an important matter. We must continue to have grant for the foreseeable future. My noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned the electrification of the Ashford to Hastings line. I wonder whether it is right that a project such as this, which is not perhaps of national importance but is important to the people in the area, should have been delayed by three years. It is not a costly project—it will cost around £25 million—but it has been delayed for three years due to the vagaries of the economic cycle and also the irregularities of the property business. Similar circumstances are delaying the Reading-Redhill electrification to a point where it is now out of sight, whatever that might mean.
Should we not be looking for more BAA/BR type deals such as the one that is financing the Heathrow Express? Should we be looking at the American system of tax exempt bonds which was used to finance Dallas Fort Worth Airport and the Bay Area metro system? Should we be looking at the system used in France—a selective employment tax charged on Parisian employers to fund developments on the metro and suburban railways? Should we be looking at out and out privatisation, underpinned by subsidy for socially necessary services? Should we be looking at road pricing—that is a bullet, as several noble Lords have said, which we shall have to bite—with the revenue hypothecated to transport infrastructure investment? Should we follow the example of Bergen, and now Oslo, where in effect walls have been put round the cities? Every motorist driving in between, say, 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday has to pay a toll and that funding is ploughed back into transport infrastructure investment. Should we follow the Californian example and seek to penalise the car with but a single occupant? If one thinks of it in a different way that single occupant represents a load factor of 25 per cent., assuming the car is a four-seater.
That leads me to the excellent point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that one of the problems we face is that we all want to get to our offices at the same time. We contribute to congestion and we demand —perhaps require—investment. But that investment is only necessary in perhaps 20 hours of the 168 there are in each week. At other times it is lying spare.
Perhaps I may refer to the load factors on British Rail. On InterCity, across the board it is 33 per cent. If we have peak hour overloading it must mean that outside the peaks it is well below that figure. The trouble with an unused seat, be it on a bus or a tube

1425
train, is that it is immediately perishable. One cannot store it anywhere. If it goes empty it is gone for good. Network SouthEast's load factor is also 33 per cent. across the board. There is plenty of spare capacity there but alas not at the times that we all demand to have it. The peak load factor on London Transport buses is said to be 60 per cent. and off peak it is as low as 14 per cent. Again there is plenty of capacity there if only we can get the buses running reliably and smoothly. Whichever way one looks at the load factors there is plenty of capacity if only we would change our travel habits.
We should ask the operators to re-examine whether pricing has a role to play in dealing with peak hour congestion. I recall that in the 1980s the Monopolies and Mergers Commission prevailed upon British Rail to bring back the early morning so-called "workman's return' which was a heavily discounted ticket either in the form of a day ticket or a season ticket. The experiment was conducted in the Medway towns. It did not do much to solve the problem. However, if one considers the traffic growth figures since the early 1980s, one wonders whether it would not be worth looking at that idea again. Similarly, one wonders whether it might not be worth looking at even bigger discounts to encourage totally off-peak travel. I appreciate that my friends in British Rail might well say that British Rail will lose revenue.
But there seems to me to be a pay-off in that if you can save investment you still have something of a balance: all right, you lose the revenue on one side but, on the other side, you save investment.
There is one final matter I should like to mention which causes me concern. It is an aspect which we must all bear in mind whenever we seek to support any infrastructure development. I refer to the fact that, although infrastructure development is designed to alleviate congestion in the long term, it produces its own short-term congestion.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. We know that London Underground is seeking powers to reconstruct its station at London Bridge. We also know that British Rail will be applying to Parliament next year in order to seek powers to reconstruct the Borough Market junctions adjacent to its London Bridge station as part of the Thameslink enhancement. Further, we know that the Jubilee Line extension is due to take place and it is possible that we shall have the high-speed link and its routing towards King's Cross. If those extensions overlap too much it will cause chaos. Unfortunately, as we need them quickly, it would seem that they will overlap. As my noble friend Lord Lucas said, time is not on our side.
I believe that we must recognise the fact, without being panglossian, that Her Majesty's Government, British Rail and London Transport are doing a great deal to tackle the congestion problem. One can only hope that means will be found to enable more to be done in this connection.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for giving us the opportunity to discuss the transport problems of London and the South East. I am sure
1426
that noble Lords will understand if I confine my remarks to London: it is the place that I know best. In speaking about London Transport I am speaking from personal experience.
London differs enormously from other areas in Britain in its demand for movement and for peak hour journeys by road and rail. It also differs because of the interaction of public and private transport, the multiplicity of destinations and networks, the concentration of employment in central London and the length of the journey to work. Those are factors which apply only to London and not to other British cities. The density of traffic in London is 10 times greater than the national average and off-peak traffic levels in central London are 50 times greater. Altogether, London has about 40 per cent. of the road mileage of Great Britain concentrated in 0.7 per cent. of the area and carrying about 10 per cent. of all traffic.
As everyone knows, the roads in London are terribly congested during peak hours. Congestion increases the costs of all public and private services which are dependent upon road usage. It also slows down construction and impedes maintenance both on roads and on buildings. Further, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, it has an increasing impact on the environment in terms of carbon dioxide emissions which affect global warming and atom-spheric pollution.
London is the capital and the cultural, administrative and financial heart of the nation. As a consequence, it maintains many special facilities and attracts a large number of tourists and visitors both from home and abroad. Indeed, more than 7 million people live in London. They all need to travel in connection with their work and also during their leisure time. In addition, more than ½ million people travel into the city every weekday to reach their place of work.
When people travel they want comfortable and efficient transport at a reasonable price, but unfortunately they do not get it. Perhaps I may give noble Lords an example. The buses run in convoys. Instead of a bus arriving every three or five minutes, passengers are often obliged to wait for 15 or 20 minutes, and sometimes even as long as half an hour, after which three or four buses arrive, as I said, in convoy. The first two will be overcrowded, the third will not be quite so full but the fourth bus will be half empty.
Journey times for buses also vary considerably. It can sometimes take half an hour to complete a particular journey on a bus route but the same journey may take as long as an hour and a half. It all depends on the time of day, the day of the week, the weather or indeed the season of the year.
While the Underground is better in terms of the time taken to complete the journey, travel is also made difficult because the trains run irregularly. The frequent announcements bother me. I do not know whether other people feel the same. They usually state that trains are not running on a particular line or that

1427
they are not stopping at a particular station. What is worse is that the announcements are usually either inaudible or very unclear. Moreover, the trains are dirty and the escalators and lifts unreliable and unsafe. I agree with my noble friend Lady Phillips that we need an increase in the number of staff on the Underground if we are to improve safety. Further, as we heard earlier, the fares are the highest in the world; indeed, they are twice the average of other European Community capital cities.
The Underground needs to be renovated and new lines must be built. Several speakers have already mentioned some of the new lines which it is anticipated will be built. Unfortunately, however, investments are being postponed or cancelled and tight financial targets are being imposed upon the network. It strikes me that, although they hold out the prospect of improvement through investment in the future, the Government appear to be happy to preside over declining services at present. I find the situation quite ridiculous. We need more investment in our public transport services, both as regards trains and buses, and we need better management of the fleet. Congestion should be tackled by using technology to speed up the buses. We must also impose some form of road pricing.
The Greater London Council carried out a study of the effect of supplementary licensing. Serious discussions took place during the time that I worked in County Hall about the possibility of introducing such a scheme. However, there are more sophisticated methods of road pricing. I believe that the Government should be giving serious consideration to the adoption and introduction of such a scheme at the earliest possible opportunity. For the past 30 years there has been the fear that London will grind to a halt. It is about time action was taken to remove that fear. Let us act now.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, unfortunately one of the best speakers today was left off the list! In an excellent speech, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis set the tone for the debate. Many noble Lords agreed with his criticisms. There is obviously general dissatisfaction with the state of transport in greater London and the South East as a whole. Many noble Lords have not merely made criticisms but have put forward some useful suggestions with which I hope the Minister might find it possible to deal.
My noble friend Lord Pitt said that ½ million people came into central London daily. Figures released only 48 hours ago by the Automobile Association put the number at 1.1 million coming in daily during peak hours. The department has said that 82 per cent. of commuters travelling into central London travel on British Rail and London Regional Transport services.
Reference has been made to the Channel Tunnel. All I shall say on that subject is that unless we proceed quickly with the construction of the high speed link and the development of the rail network we may add to congestion in the South East by attracting more
1428
industry to the region to the detriment of other parts of the country which are looking forward to that rail link.
My noble friend also talked about the rail subsidy. I ask once again: how do the Government justify their policy with regard to the PSO grant to Network SouthEast? It has been drastically reduced over the years. The Government have made it clear that their intention is to phase it out by 1992–93. In an Oral Answer in the other place on 15th February Mr. Roger Freeman, Minister for Public Transport, made it clear that the full operating cost of Network SouthEast should be met by the passengers. As other noble Lords have said, higher fares are not the way to attract people on to rail or any other public service from the roads. Mr. Freeman gave another Oral Answer on 11th February when he said:
"British Rail is suffering from a severe labour shortage and cannot recruit and retain drivers and guards".
No reason was given as to why that should be the position or what it is intended to do about it. Yet in another Answer on the same day in the same column the Minister said:
"There is no indication that the serious problems with Network SouthEast services have anything to do with revenue subsidy, investment or pay".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/91; col. 597.]
That contradicts what he said earlier. If that is the position—if investment, subsidy and pay have no effect—what caused the situation described by Mr. Freeman in his original Answer?
Reference has been made to the recent speech made by Sir Bob Reid, British Rail's new chairman. I shall emphasise what Sir Bob Reid asked for. He said on 27th February that BR's long-term investment must be increased by £2 billion to meet large-scale projects which include the Channel Tunnel high speed link; and that a further £300 million a year was needed for British Rail to run more efficiently. The Minister said in our debate on Monday:
"Government plans allow British Rail to invest up to £4 billion in the next three years".—[Official Report, 4/3/91; col. 1246.]
The important word there which I emphasise is "allow". The Government are not investing the money. They will allow British Rail to invest it out of its own funds. If British Rail does not have the revenue it cannot invest unless the Government intend to help out if British Rail does not have the necessary finance.
As many noble Lords have said, many people in London and the South East will continue to wish to use a car for some purposes. I wish to use my car for some purposes. Equally, we must consider how to reduce the use of the car, which causes congestion. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, in years to come the roads will be choked. I have reasons for using a car on some occasions to come to the House of Lords. I shall not go into my personal details, but there are two factors which cause me to use my car. The first is an inadequate bus service to my tube station; and, secondly, inadequate parking facilities near the tube station at the time when I want to travel. When I

1429
arrive the parking places are often full. If I do manage to arrive time, the parking slot is so far away that I find it almost impossible to walk to the station.
We must pay some attention to the roads. I am not ignoring the roads. We want adequate by-passes, roads to the ports and roads which are adequate for the movement of goods. While we wish to see more goods moved by rail, most of us recognise that a high concentration of goods will still be moved by road. The passage through Parliament of the New Roads and Street Works Bill will help greatly to reduce the congestion on many roads. We all supported that Bill. We had been awaiting the implementation of the Home Report for some five years. We shall discuss red routes when we deal with the Road Traffic Bill. However, we must bear in mind that those and other schemes for urban clearways for through traffic could lead to greater congestion because more people could be attracted to using the through roads into central London. When they reach central London where do they go? I live not far from the M.11. I understand the reason for the M.11 extension to Hackney; but when people reach Hackney where will they go? I have not heard that point mentioned by anyone.
The Government have fortunately conceded that the construction of more roads will not solve London's traffic problem. It is obvious from reading the road assessment reports that the answer is to pay greater attention to public transport. I make that statement and I hope that it will be accepted generally. I do not make it with a doctrinaire attitude but because the only way is to persuade people not to use their cars to come into central London.
Overcrowding has been mentioned. I was surprised —perhaps I should not have been—to read in the Guardian on 5th March a report about the Cannon Street accident inquiry. Mr. Richard Malins, the London regional planning manager for Network SouthEast, said that a recent survey had shown that 230 out of 856 trains running into London between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. had too many standing passengers. He said that, of the 279,000 passengers on those commuter trains, no fewer than 23,339 were standing when they should not have been.
My noble friend—I call him my noble friend because he is interested in the same subject as I am —Lord Teviot mentioned buses. There must be the maximum possible development of bus lanes. I echo what my noble friend Lady Phillips said: we must consider the abolition of one-person-operated buses in central London. If there is one single problem that causes congestion in central London it is the OPO buses. The problem is bad enough where I live, in a borough just over the border from Greater London. Because people park their cars near the bus stop the bus has to halt nearer the middle of the road. If it is a one-person-operated bus, immediately there is congestion with other vehicles trying to pass.
There must be stricter enforcement of parking restrictions. It is no good having a law unless it is enforced, and the laxity over parking restrictions in many areas is one cause of congestion not only in the central area but in other parts of the South East.
1430
The Government must seriously consider whether to proceed with their intention to deregulate buses in Greater London. I draw attention to problems in my area where practically all our services are contracted out. Some of the buses are in a poor state and when one breaks down the small company has no replacement. That means that my half-hourly service becomes an hourly service. That problem must also be considered.
If we wish to encourage people to use the buses, greater attention must be given to arranging more feeder bus routes and radial services. We must keep in mind that many people do not have the use of a car and in those circumstances buses for feeder and radial routes are the only way of moving around.
I wish to make two final points. Reference has been made to the problem, particularly in London, that we must integrate transport plans with land use planning and economic development. At the moment we do not do so. Transport is considered in complete and utter isolation. As one or two noble Lords have stressed, there is a need for an elected London-wide authority which will not only examine London's transport as a whole but ensure that the needs of transport will be considered with other aspects. We cannot deal with transport unless we consider economic development and many other environmental and social matters. As has been stressed, London is the only major city which has no central, strategic authority. I expect the Government to move fairly quickly on the matter.
I have been told that I must finish no later than 5.45 p.m. and I shall do so.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, 5.45 p.m. leaves the Minister one minute short of his 20 minutes.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it will take one minute off my time too. I asked the Clerk and was given the assurance as to when I must sit down and I shall faithfully adhere to it.
The Automobile Association reminded us of the vast number of bodies responsible for various aspects of traffic in London and the South East. I believe that we must take notice of it. The AA is concerned with cars and it states that public transport does not offer what is required in the way of routes and quality of service to satisfy the public demand. I believe that that is important. Those of us who wish to see public transport developed must ensure that it provides the frequency and adequacy of a decent service. That is the way to help solve London's congestion problems.
5.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on initiating what has turned out to be an extremely wide-ranging and informative debate.
In the short time available I shall set out briefly the Government's approach to transport in London and the South East. I shall also try to respond to points which noble Lords have raised and I apologise in advance if I do not manage to do justice to all the

1431
contributions. The debate has been wide-ranging and time is short. I shall certainly write to noble Lords whose points I do not manage to answer.
First, I turn to the Government's policy. Our aim is to ensure that the growing demands for the movement of goods and people are met by efficient and safe transport facilities which do not impose unacceptable environmental costs. That aim applies throughout the country. However, as the Motion recognises, meeting the objective in London and the South East represents a particular challenge. The South East is home to 17 million people and it is densely populated. At the heart of the region is London, with a population of 7 million. It is important to remember that London is not just a national capital; it is a world business and financial centre with arguably only two serious rivals —New York and Tokyo. Well over 1 million people commute to Central London each day, many of them from outside the Greater London area. There are over 2 million other journeys to work each day.
Given those figures, it is no surprise that the provision of transport in London and the South East is a massive task. We must also recognise that the standards at which we are aiming are becoming ever more demanding. People expect transport which is comfortable, clean, efficient and above all safe. People demand and expect to see improvements in their quality of life without sacrificing their prosperity. The Government attach great importance to meeting those demands.
Looking at the South East generally, a major priority is to expand and improve the road network. Though the railways carry a lot of freight and a great many London commuters, it is road transport which keeps most of the region's economy moving. That is a point which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth made. We must continue to improve the links between our towns and cities where increased economic growth has brought more traffic and problems of congestion. We must also provide bypasses which improve people's daily environment by removing through-traffic from their towns and villages.
Many of the problems we face are the problems of increasing prosperity. Motor traffic, for example, has increased by a factor of eight, since the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, started driving 40 years ago. He asked me particularly about the situation on the Hackney to the M.11 link road. Subject to satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures, the main works on the scheme are expected to start by the end of this year and to take up to four years to complete.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and other noble Lords pressed for more freight to be carried on rail. We give capital grants to increase the use of rail and water facilities for freight. We are reviewing the criteria which include environmental benefits. However, we must recognise that rail freight is not flexible enough to meet all our needs: for example, for retail deliveries in London.
The department's trunk road programme for London and the South East, including East Anglia, amounts to well over £6 billion over the next 10 years. My noble friend, Lord Lucas, referred to many of the
1432
schemes. There will be some entirely new motorway links: the M.40 which opened in January provides a second motorway route between London and Birmingham, relieving pressure on the M.1. A new route is planned to link Chelmsford to the M.25.
My honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport announced yesterday in another place that the Government intend to hold a private finance competition for this route once work on the public sector scheme has identified a preferred route. There are some gaps in the existing network which need to be filled, for example, on the Maidstone to Ashford section of the M.20.
However, much of the work that is being done on roads in the South East is in improving the network that exists: the M.23 and A.23 to Brighton or the A.27-A.259 coast road, for example, where a number of communities including Brighton will benefit from bypasses.
A large proportion of the investment in the roads in the South East is directed towards improving existing motorways, notably the M.25. Some of that road has already been widened; eventually the whole motorway will be improved to dual four-lane standard. The privately financed Dartford Bridge which will be opened later this year will remove one of the motorway's worst bottlenecks. The department recently published an action plan containing proposals for improving the safety and traffic flows on the M.25. Even without these improvements, the average speed on most sections of the M.25 is over 50 miles an hour. This is despite the fact that the M.25 accounts for only 6 per cent. of the country's motorway mileage, but carries 14 per cent. of all motorway traffic.
The M.25 has also played an important role in keeping unnecessary traffic out of London. Partly because of the motorway, the number of heavy goods vehicles entering London has dropped by a quarter since 1983 and the number entering central London has nearly halved. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will be pleased with those figures. She reminded us of the problems that heavy lorries can and do cause in London.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I accept those figures, but I do not believe them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, they are a fact, whether or not the noble Baroness believes them. I should not have given way as I have much ground to cover and a limited length of time in which to do it.
Local highway authorities also have major programmes of capital expenditure to improve their part of the road network. The Government help to pay for these, and last December we announced that the Transport Supplementary Grant, which is paid at a rate of 50 per cent. for local roads, was to rise by 17 per cent. This allows all existing commitments on major new schemes to be honoured, and 35 new schemes to be accepted. The South East and London did particularly well, receiving £132 million of grant out of a total of £283 million for major schemes in England.

1433
Road traffic within London itself is likely to go on growing, though more slowly than in the rest of the South East. The Department plans to spend some £1.9 billion on selective improvements to the trunk road system—the upgrading of the North Circular is an example—to remove the worst bottlenecks and accident blackspots. In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, I stress that these improvements are selective. It is not our policy to encourage car commuting into London but rather to provide for the journeys within London that are essential to allow our goods, businesses and services to be transported. My noble friend Lord Lucas asked about the study regarding improved orbital roads. In particular the study of the south-west quadrant in which local authorities have been involved is nearing completion.
We are also working hard to get more out of the existing road network by improving traffic management. I, too, would draw attention particularly to the Road Traffic Bill, which is now before your Lordships' House. The Bill will provide for a 300-mile network of priority routes in London to get traffic—particularly buses—moving more easily, reliably and safely. It will also provide for a better system of parking control throughout London. I should have thought the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would welcome that step. My noble friend Lord Teviot certainly did.
In mentioning buses, I should pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. London Transport has had considerable success in halting the long-term decline in bus usage. Patronage remains higher than 10 years ago. Bus reliability has generally improved. Currently over 97 per cent. of London Transport scheduled miles actually operated compared to 96 per cent. this time last year, despite busier roads.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested that we should think more about road pricing. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also mentioned that. They suggested that road pricing might be an answer to congestion in London. We do not rule that out as a long-term policy but we do not believe that at present the interests of London would best be served by forcing its residents and businesses off the road.
I turn now to carbon dioxide emissions. The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Pitt, and my noble friend Lord Teviot referred to that matter. Stop-start conditions in congested traffic increase carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore making traffic run more smoothly—our red route proposals will achieve this—will help. Individual motorists can do a great deal to help by choosing more fuel-efficient cars—models now on the market vary by up to 45 per cent. in fuel consumption—and by keeping their cars well maintained. Our proposal to introduce an emissions check into the MoT test will also help.
But perhaps our biggest priority for London is to improve rail services. London's long decline stopped in the early 1980s, confounding the forecasters who had expected the capital's population and employment to go on falling. Since then the number of central
1434
London commuters has increased by nearly 10 per cent. and there has been a big switch from road to rail. Between 1983 and 1989 the number of rail commuters to central London increased by 22 per cent., while the number of people commuting by road fell by 16 per cent. I hope noble Lords will find those figures encouraging.
The unhappy experiences of many London commuters in recent weeks has perhaps made us all —my noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned this—the more aware of just how much London depends on its rail and Underground services. As my noble friend Lord Geddes reminded us, those services do a remarkable job in getting people to and around London, but no one would deny that there is room for improvement.
Both British Rail and the Government regret the disruption that the severe weather caused recently to rail services. The snowfall exposed a number of deficiencies in British Rail's equipment and procedures. British Rail is reviewing its equipment and procedures, and it is also making comparisons with the way other European countries cope with such conditions. British Rail will consider particularly how best to bring up-to-date information to passengers. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to that.
Over the next three years London Transport plans to invest approaching £3 billion. That is 90 per cent. more in real terms than in the past three years. During this financial year alone British Rail's Network SouthEast is investing £350 million and has plans for substantial investment in the future.
The Government's commitment to increased investment is already bearing fruit. For example, Network SouthEast is receiving new coaches at the rate of eight per week, and this is set to continue. Lines which have benefited and are benefiting from investment include the Northampton Line which received new rolling stock during 1990 and the Chiltern Line which is in the process of being completely modernised. Marylebone Station has been totally refurbished, resignalling work is almost complete and BR has just taken delivery of the first of 89 new vehicles which should transform the Chiltern Line from one of the poorest performers on Network SouthEast to one of the best. Other projects well in hand include the networkers project for Kent Link routes. Some 400 vehicles are already on order and a £120 million fixed works programme implies the approval of a further 400 coaches in total. Delivery of the new trains is due to start this September.
A number of noble Lords referred to overcrowding. This major investment in new equipment and lines for Network SouthEast will help to tackle the overcrowding problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and others referred. Overcrowding is a problem but not on all routes. Even though the numbers commuting have increased by more than 12 per cent. over the past four years, average overcrowding has decreased slightly. That is mainly due to better organisation of services to meet demand.

1435
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the subsidy to British Rail. The Government have shown flexibility in their approach to the British Rail subsidy. We have increased the PSO grant by £100 million for 1990–91 and will reconsider the issue, as and when necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, said that driver-only operations lengthened journey times. The introduction of driver-only operations on trains may indeed lengthen journey times initially as drivers become used to the new system; but in the longer term journey times are not increased. Driver-only operation has dramatically improved reliability on lines where it has been introduced. For example, on the Northern Line where train cancellations due to staff shortages were prevalent, they have now almost been eliminated. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, referred to the important issue—
Lord Jay: My Lords, I hope the Minister will give way.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give way. I am almost out of time as it is and I have a lot of other points that I must attempt to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to the important issue of safety on trains and at stations. I refer here to the safety of people rather than of equipment. Network SouthEast is taking steps to improve security and safety standards at stations. Improved lighting at stations and car parks, closed circuit television where appropriate, better shelters and waiting rooms with better all-round visibility will, I hope, improve matters. On trains, all enclosed compartment carriages are being phased out.
The quality of service on trains is important. That is being addressed both by London Underground and by the Government who have set quality of service objectives for reliability, punctuality, peak capacity, availability of lifts and escalators, ticket purchasing facilities, crime levels and the cleaning of trains, buses and stations. Those targets are robust and they must be met by 31st March 1992.
On London Underground we are opening up Docklands and poorly served areas in south-east London with the Jubilee Line extension, costing over £1 billion. The extension of the Docklands Light Railway into the City will open next year. In little more than a year from now new trains will enter service on the Central Line. That is part of a £700 million modernisation of that line. A number of noble Lords referred to that question.
In the longer term we shall see a transformation of rail services in the South East. I should particularly mention, as have noble Lords, the east-west Crossrail which the Government approved last year and which should be completed by 1999. It will directly link British Rail suburban services into Liverpool Street with those into Paddington. The result will be that commuters from Reading, for example, will be able to travel on a new electrified line directly to the West End or the City. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, that the recommendations of the central London rail study, far from being forgotten, are now being implemented.
1436
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, talked about equality of treatment between road and rail appraisal. Road and rail schemes are appraised differently because rail passengers pay direct fares whereas road users pay indirectly through vehicle and fuel taxes. We are not biased towards one or the other. That is shown in this year's allocation of funds in which more is being spent on rail, at 55 per cent. for non-road expenditure as against 45 per cent.
I shall deal briefly with the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Teviot about the Channel tunnel link. We are fully aware of the enormous importance attached by local authorities in Kent to the provision of the passenger station at Ashford. Ministers received British Rail's investment submission on 28th January and we shall reach our decision as soon as possible.
To sum up in the brief time that I have left, securing continuous improvements to transport in London and the South East is enormously important both to businesses and individuals who live and work in the region and to the prosperity of the country as a whole. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate the importance which the Government attach to making the necessary improvements and to show that the resources are being made available.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like the Minister, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who participated in what can generally be regarded as a very interesting and successful debate. I hope that the Minister and his department will give full consideration to the speeches that were made during the course of the three hours. I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he responded to the debate even though he does not carry me with him in all that he said. However, as ever, he was extremely courteous. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Refugees
6.4 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos rose to call attention to the international problem of refugees; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I appreciate the opportunity to open this debate on the refugee problem, although I must explain that I do so because my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs is indisposed. My noble friend, who drafted the Motion, has for many years been deeply concerned about the difficulties facing refugees as they seek asylum in this country and elsewhere. We all regret that she is unable to make her speech here today. I am glad to say, however, that she hopes to be back in the House very soon.
We have all, in and outside Parliament, been preoccupied over the past few months with the conflict in the Gulf, but none of us would wish to overlook or neglect other matters of importance. My noble friend

1437
has chosen an opportune moment to raise the subject, for the following reasons. First, I understand that the number of asylum seekers has risen sharply in recent years. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm that when he speaks. Perhaps he will also give the House the latest figures—not only for this country but also for our partners in the European Community.
Secondly, last November the Government set up a committee to examine the position. That action was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who was then Home Secretary. I understand that the options to be discussed by the committee are the setting up of refugee camps in this country, extending requirements for visas, posting more immigration officers overseas, more deportations, tighter guidelines before someone is allowed exceptional leave to remain and other related measures.
Those are all matters of acute sensitivity, as we know from many of the cases brought to our notice. We shall study the details of the report with very great care when it appears. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will tell the House whether or not that report is to be made public so that it can be the subject of scrutiny and debate in due course.
We recognise that the problem of refugees generally raises complex and difficult issues. As I have said, the number of asylum seekers has increased substantially and is likely to rise even further. According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the refugees come mainly from countries in political turmoil such as Ethiopia, Ghana, Somalia, Uganda, Zaire, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Sri Lanka. Today there are about 16 million recognised refugees in the world.
The Government have argued that many of the new arrivals are not genuine refugees. They have sought to argue that they are economic migrants who come here looking for work but pretend to be refugees. Mr. Peter Lloyd, the Minister responsible for immigration, is on the record as saying:
"Only a small proportion of asylum applications are found to be fleeing from persecution".
That assertion needs to be examined very carefully. The point has been made that asylum seekers come in the main from areas troubled by war and civil unrest and not necessarily from the poorest countries.
We must not forget that Britain is one of 107 countries which have signed the United Nations Convention on Refugees and that under that agreement Britain is obliged to allow people with such a well-founded fear to live here.
It is, of course, necessary to distinguish between genuine refugees and others but we must not overlook the consequences of making a slapdash decision. The definition of refugees is set out plainly in the 1951 United Nations convention as people who have left their countries because they have:
"a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".
We are committed to observing and respecting that definition and we must take care not to avoid it by classifying genuine refugees as economic migrants.
1438
Officials must take the greatest care in their examination of the cases before them because a mistake could cost a life.
I am not happy about our current procedures, which need examination and overhaul. What, for example, happens to asylum seekers when they arrive in this country? First, they are examined by immigration officers. Some are held in custody, either in a detention centre or in prison. Others are allowed to enter the country while their application for refugee status is considered. I believe that that normally takes as long as 13 months. These unhappy people have to find somewhere to live and have to learn English. I understand that their plight is worsening from month to month because of the lack of funds. It is a sad state of affairs. I hope that the interdepartmental committee set up by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will look in detail into all aspects of this problem.
I am sure that the members of the committee and the noble Lord who is to reply will have read the report published by Amnesty International on 1st November last year. I was greatly impressed by that report and its thorough analysis of the problem as it exists in this country and the treatment of asylum seekers generally. Its conclusion is that this country's refugee determination process contains critical shortcomings—that is the word used by the report —which create a very real risk of individuals being expelled to countries where they may face imprisonment, torture or death.
The report alleges that in recent years, and especially in the last four years, the Government have increased the restrictive measures relating to their asylum policy and practice. These include restrictions on access to legal advice and representation, limitations on the rights of Members of Parliament to intervene in individual cases, arbitrary detention of many asylum seekers while their claim is being considered and several other illiberal measures.
Amnesty International further claim that those shortcomings in fact have led directly to individuals becoming victims of gross violations of human rights. There are many examples. One can be found at paragraph 3(2) (c) on page 15 of its report. It describes a case that many of us recall; that of a group of five asylum seekers who were expelled in February 1988 by the Home Office to Sri Lanka, where they were subjected to severe torture and ill treatment. The report reveals a gravely unsatisfactory state of affairs and both Houses of Parliament must take it very seriously, not least because the current procedures limit the ability of Members of Parliament to deal properly with the cases that are brought to their notice. Tampering with Members' rights is an infringement of our Constitution. If governments begin to limit their rights to pursue refugees' cases, they may end up some day by limiting their rights to investigate their constituents' problems. This is a development that we must watch very carefully indeed.
I am constrained by time from dealing with all the matters raised in the report, but I must refer to one or two of the most important points. For example, the

1439
charge is made that a major weakness of the process is that inadequate specialist training is given to officials involved in the examination and determination of claims for asylum and that that is contrary to international standards laid down in the UNHCR handbook, to which we as a country are committed. I hope that the interdepartmental committee set up by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will look very carefully at that allegation and at the arguments and cases cited in the report.
Finally, the report deals with implications of the harmonisation of asylum policy in the European Community. I must point out that it would be unfair to create the impression that this country is alone in its adoption of stricter measures. The truth is that several other governments have introduced similar measures in recent years. But the concern of Amnesty International is that, unless care is taken, the Single European Act could further restrict the position of asylum seekers and further dilute the legal obligation of Community countries to observe international standards. That may not happen but the fear is being expressed and we should take account of it. However, there is a greater expert than I on the Bench by my side who will wind up the debate and be able to deal with the Community aspect of the matter; namely, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
Amnesty International has now recommended a new code of practice which it presented to the Government over two years ago. I hope that the noble Lord can give us a reaction to these proposals or at least give us some assurance that they are being dealt with by the interdepartmental committee.
On this side of the House we are deeply concerned by the disquieting developments of the past few years. I should like to state the policies that a Labour Government would implement. First, we would repeal the illiberal carriers' liability Act and allow asylum applications to be made overseas. We would establish an independent tribunal to decide the merits of individual applications because we have concluded that leaving them to the discretion of the Home Secretary has not proved satisfactory. We shall certainly take steps to ensure that applications are dealt with more expeditiously. I believe that an average of three months would be reasonable and attainable. We would also give asylum seekers the right to appeal before deportation or removal from this country. We would seek to act in the spirit which has animated Britain's attitude to refugees for over two centuries. That is something of which we can all feel rightly proud.
We must of course work within the Community and the United Nations to ensure that international attitudes and standards are improved. The United Nations agency to which I referred (the UNHCR) has a huge task to perform. It does splendid work in all the circumstances. However, it has its own problems, especially the fact that its budget has not grown at the same rate as the increase in the number of refugees around the world. That means a cutback in the essential services which it exists to provide.
1440
International co-operation to tackle the refugee problem is essential. We appeal for strong and generous support from the Government for the United Nations agency.
Asylum seekers and victims of persecution arrive in this country traumatised and disoriented. Many of them are without money, certainly without possessions, family or friends. We must surely do our best for them. When we consider them, we cannot avoid thinking with shame and frustration of the great sin —the great evil—which seems to pervade the world and which has struck us so formidably in the Gulf crisis; namely, the money that is wasted on armaments of destruction when millions are dying from disease and starvation. Perhaps the Gulf conflict on the one hand and the plight of refugees on the other will inspire governments to get their priorities right. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.17 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. We are grateful to him for initiating this debate in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. We very much hope that she will shortly be able to return to her place. The noble Lord dealt largely with the position in this country. That is not a line which I want to pursue with your Lordships. I do, however, want to pick up on two of the elements which he quite rightly and so clearly put forward.
The refugee problem internationally is very varied. The noble Lord informed us that at the present time there were some 16 million refugees. One must remember that each one of those 16 million refugees is an individual person. We need to bear that in mind. The refugee problem varies from country to country. The refugees find themselves in varying circumstances. At present there are Somali refugees living in the Intercontinental Hotel in Nairobi. I believe that their circumstances must be rather more comfortable than those who are living under canvas in refugee camps, which is where most refugees are.
Most of the refugee problems in the world seem to us to be insoluble. Some have been in existence for decades and we are no nearer to solving them now than we were at their beginning. In particular I should like to bring before noble Lords—and I should like to ask the views of my noble friend the Minister—a problem which, albeit small, is now, I believe, capable of solution. I refer to the Ugandan refugees in Kenya. There are about 10,000 registered Ugandan refugees in Kenya, and perhaps another 6,000. If there are 16,000 (if I have my decimal point in the right place) that is 0.1 per cent. of the total problem —a very small percentage.
Now that Uganda is stable in almost all parts of the country, it is practicable for refugees from Uganda to return there. However, noble Lords will be surprised to hear that there are problems. First, it costs money to move the refugees from Nairobi back to Uganda. Secondly, there is the problem of fear. Among the refugees there are former soldiers. I am told—I am not 100 per cent. sure of this —that there has never been

1441
an amnesty for soldiers from Uganda who have deserted and fled the country. They are fearful of what will happen to them when they return.
A third problem is that of convenience. Many refugees now have children at school in Kenya. It would be disruptive for them to have to return. There is also the position of those widows who have a settled life in a refugee camp. It will be difficult for them to return to their family areas in Uganda. However, I believe that those are problems which should be, and are capable of being, tackled.
What is needed first is money. I estimate that about £100 per adult is required for a sequence of events. Transport is needed to the Ugandan border. Transport is also needed to a rehabilitation centre, to which I shall refer again in a moment. There are then the costs of clearance and of travel back to their home area. Obviously if that is nearer the border the cost is cheaper and if further away it is more expensive. I have been given an estimate of £100 to cover that cost. We are talking therefore of about £1 million, bearing in mind that with families it will involve less than £100 per head as the children will incur less cost. I believe that the Government or the ODA could contribute to that. If we had the momentum, money from the charities involved could contribute to this relatively small sum—even though we may consider that £1 million is a substantial sum.
I return to the subject of the rehabilitation centre. It will require work rather than simply money. I believe that it is possible to approach the Church of Uganda for the loan of some land on which a rehabilitation centre, a couple of tents and some equipment could be set up near Mabale. The centre could provide clearance and help for the adjustment needed for those returning to the home area. It could deal with the problem of fear and the emotion and trauma involved in returning home.
Another problem is the relationship between Kenya and Uganda. The Foreign Office could act as a broker. It could approach both governments because our relationships with each of them is good. I should like to see our Government acting as broker, working in conjunction with the charities and the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches of Uganda. They could do a great deal to assist rehabilitation.
Will the Minister be prepared to consider that prospect? If we can help to arrange for the return of all the Ugandan refugees in Kenya it will be a serious contribution to the resolution of the worldwide refugee problem. There are many larger problems. Noble Lords will speak of different problems about which they have knowledge. The refugee issue is not only a money problem; it is pre-eminently a people problem. I believe that government, charities and Churches in this country have a great role to play in easing the problem. I hope that as a result of our debate today progress can be made.
6.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I share with other noble Lords regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, was unable to introduce the debate. I am glad to hear that she will shortly be back
1442
in her place. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for introducing the debate in such a clear and masterly fashion.
I wish to echo the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that refugees are not problems; they are people. Our response to refugees has to be governed by that truth. For those of us who live in stable societies, whose lives have not been torn apart by loss of home, land, livelihood, wealth or family, it is difficult to know how it feels to suffer those scourges. These are people bound to us by common humanity. When I meet them I am often humbled by their resilience, their will to survive and their capacity to make a life out of very limited resources.
The greater number come from the developing world. Their plight is caused by war, famine, political disorder or political repression. It is a truism to say that the immense difficulties of those who are or will be refugees can be overcome only as settled, stable and developed societies are built in the place of those which are at present marked by strife, violence, underdevelopment and disorder.
In the meantime, ways have to be found of coping. It is clear that much of the coping is done by countries bordering the refugees' country of origin. We have just heard the examples from the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, of Uganda and Kenya. For instance, more than one-third of the world's refugees come from Afghanistan. I believe that there are over 5 million. Of those, Pakistan has taken nearly 3.5 million and Iran nearly 2.5 million. The figures are out of all proportion to the numbers which Europe has taken.
I give another example. Cambodian refugees now number about 300,000. They continue to increase by about 3,000 a month. They are housed in camps over the border in Thailand. I mention only two of many situations worldwide. Their greatest requirement is resources to enable them to survive and then to make again a reasonable, worthwhile and fulfilling life in their new country or country of origin. But resources are not being provided in sufficient quantities. The chief organ is the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. That high commission has been suffering severe constraints because of budgetary crises. The harsh effects of those constraints have left their greatest mark in Africa, where many refugees living in refugee camps suffer from malnutrition. The United Nations High Commission has found a growing unwillingness on the part of richer nations to meet the cost of assisting refugees. Britain is one of the largest donors. The Overseas Development Agency has also shown a commitment to providing help.
However, there is no room for complacency. Refugees in developing countries—because that is largely where most of them still are—need help and assistance if they are to stand a chance of ever rebuilding their lives. Britain, together with other industrialised and prosperous nations, surely has a duty to do as much as it can to ensure that 1991 is not marked by a failure to help that most vulnerable group.
It is becoming fashionable to distinguish between political and economic refugees—those, on the one hand, who flee a country because their racial, national,

1443
political, religious or social affiliations place them in jeopardy and those, on the other hand, who are driven by a desire to improve their economic situation. The immigration policies of the new Europe, as they seem to be emerging, look as though they are designed to keep at bay the economic migrant—hence the title "Fortress Europe"—and to allow entry into that "Fortress Europe" only to those who are fleeing because they have no protection in their own country.
I believe that there are questions which should be asked on this matter. How wide is the new Europe to be? Is it to include Eastern European countries such as Romania and parts of Russia and, if so, will there not inevitably be economic migration within that? For example, is there not already migration from Africa through Italy, France and Spain?
Even supposing a "Fortress Europe' policy were possible, is it defensible? I believe it to be defensible only if it is accompanied by strong efforts to promote development in and to share wealth with the poorer nations. The present international scene of wealth and poverty is not only immoral—and I believe that that must be stressed strongly —but it is also unstable and dangerous. It reminds me of cities such as Sao Paulo in Brazil or Seoul in Korea, where the wealthy live in fortress-like houses or apartment blocks watched over by security guards. That is a state which is happy neither for them nor for those whom they keep at bay. That is a state which is certainly both unstable and dangerous. As is often the case, morality and long-term self interest converge to point to a way forward where such divisions and imbalances in our world are overcome.
If the reply to that is, "Why should someone not enjoy the wealth which is the fruit of his labour regardless of others around him?" then the parable of Dives and Lazarus is a reminder of the words of Jesus in the New Testament that such enjoyment is short lived to be followed by an eternity reflecting on its folly.
However, that is a diversion from my main theme shared with other speakers; that is, that responsibility for refugees must be shared internationally. If part of that responsibility is discharged by the provision of resources for refugees who remain elsewhere in the world, another part of it lies in our attitude and response to those who seek asylum in our own country. Here, I echo much of what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has already said.
The responsibility to offer asylum to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is accepted by this nation and this Government. As has already been said, the number of those seeking asylum is rising sharply. My figures demonstrate that in 1988 it was about 5,000 and in 1990, last year, it had risen to 12,000. I share the disappointment already expressed at the Government's response to that rise. That response appears to be to make the claim that some of those are economic migrants who have no well-founded fear of persecution and that they should therefore be returned to their country of origin.
1444
Is that borne out by the facts? The vast majority of those seeking asylum come from countries already named—Sri Lanka, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Turkey and Iraq. Those countries are not particularly characterised by poverty but they are characterised, above all, by civil war or deep political turmoil and repression. Those seeking asylum come here from their countries in spite of the enormous difficulties facing them, not least difficulties raised by the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act. They come from countries where they belong. They need to be highly motivated to surmount the difficulties put in their path and they arrive in a different land.
Is it not a proper response to the facts to say that the cause of their coming is not increasing greed or that they suddenly want to share the good life which they believe that this country offers? Rather, it is an increasing need which has arisen because in the countries from which they come they are at risk. As we know all too well, the number of such countries is on the increase.
There are intimations that the Government intend to cut down the proportion of those who remain in this country, particularly under the category of those given exceptional leave to remain. Some 25 per cent. of asylum seekers are given refugee status and others are allowed to remain under the category of exceptional leave.
The claim is made that some of those given asylum under that category are economic migrants. However, that is rebutted by the British Refugee Council, whose experience is that many of them are genuine refugees. Is it not likely, as has already been said, that if that policy is followed, it will mean an increase in the number of those returned to their own countries to find that their fears of persecution are only too well grounded? I plead with the Government to be humane in their policy here. Refugees are people and not problems or statistics. They need a clear and humanitarian policy of asylum and a firm commitment to development aid in the developing world.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I start by saying how much I agree with the eloquent analysis of the refugee problem by the right reverend Prelate, couched as it was in both moral and practical economic terms. I hope that the Minister will reply to the points made.
When it was suggested that I might speak in this debate I felt that it was a subject for experts and that I had little to contribute. In fact, refugees have been very much part of my life. I have been a refugee. In June 1940 at the age of 12 my brother and I were shipped to the United States via Canada to avoid the Nazi invasion and occupation which many feared. Possibly my mother felt that I would be part of the liberating force of free Brits which would return at some time. My time in the USA, living comfortably in the midst of a friendly family, was very different from that of a Kurd arriving in Britain in 1990. I was able to use my refugee status to obtain free tickets to see the Boston Braves—my favourite baseball team.

1445
Before that, I had met German Jewish refugees who had been victims of Nazi persecution and Spanish republican refugees fleeing from Franco, as my mother was very much involved in the anti-Fascist movement of the 1930s. There is no doubt that this country and the USA, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn pointed out, have gained enormously in creative, intellectual and artistic talent as a result of their liberal policy towards refugees. Since the war, we have continued to be host to persecuted people from many nations.
During my work as a doctor and through personal friends I have met political refugees from many countries—Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, South Africa (both black and white), Burma, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, the USSR and quite a few from Czechoslovakia. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out, over the past 20 years our immigration policy has undoubtedly tightened up. That has been reflected in the great difficulties which seekers of asylum are now experiencing in being granted official refugee status.
The term "economic refugee", as two speakers have pointed out, has emerged as a category which disqualifies would-be immigrants from refugee status. Like those two speakers, I have never been happy with that term. It does not exist in official conventions or agreements which guide the work of official refugee organisations. I understand the concept but it may be difficult to predict whether those deemed economic rather than political refugees will not face harassment or worse on forcible repatriation.
If war, economic breakdown or famine have been sufficiently severe to drive people from their homes to risk an often hazardous journey to a strange land, should we ask them to return in any case? I should be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Reay, would tell us what instructions are given to immigration officials. My noble friend doubts whether they have had adequate training in interrogating applicants for asylum. How is a distinction made between economic and political refugees in borderline cases at the point of immigration?
Apart from meeting refugees in Europe, I have been privileged to visit Khao-i Dang and Site 8 camps on the Thai-Cambodian border on two separate occasions. These are run by UNHCR and UNBRO, the United Nations Border Relief Organisation. The first camp caters for so-called bona fide refugees, and there are 15,000 there, while the latter caters for displaced persons, of which there are 37,000 out of a total of 300,000 on that border.
Those visits have given me a flavour of the international dimensions of the problem, but those camps on that border are rather well run compared to some. I have not seen the prison-like conditions of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, nor the vast encampments of people in places like Malawi, where there are nearly 1 million Mozambiqueans, or in Pakistan where there are nearly 3½ million Afghans.
The British Refugee Council, from which many speakers will have heard, in its excellent brief on the
1446
worldwide refugee situation, estimates that there are now 16 million refugees, as my noble friend pointed out. The UNHCR receives a budget of 345 million dollars, which amounts to 21.50 dollars per head. I am aware that other international agencies, such as the World Food Programme, the EC and many others are involved, and that in some areas refugees are able to grow a little of their own food and have even developed some income generating activities, but these are exceptions.
Inevitably, despite international aid, a major part of the cost, at least initially, of sustaining a refugee population falls on the host country and in nearly all cases that country is poor itself; for example, Malawi and the Sudan. So that if international aid fails, widespread malnutrition and associated diseases, inevitably first affecting women and children, can and do occur. The high mortality of children in refugee camps is well documented by WHO reports and many papers in scientific and medical journals.
To take this problem further, a symposium is to be held in two weeks' time in Oxford, entitled "Responding to the Nutritional Crisis among Refugees—The need for new approaches". I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that the Overseas Development Administration and the Foreign Office will be sending observers at a high level to this seminar and that they will be reporting back to Ministers, because some extremely useful information will be given at that symposium. There are some extremely well versed and knowledgeable people who will speak there.
Also, I should like to ask the noble Lord how our contributions to UNHCR and other agencies who help refugees compare with those of other developed countries. I understand that the UNHCR budget had a shortfall of 51.2 million dollars last year. Is there no way of insisting that governments contribute their due amount through the United Nations? Does the World Bank play any part in topping-up the deficits of refugee agencies, which it could then collect from member governments at the next tranche of contributions from member states?
As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, most of the refugees in the third world are moving away from present civil wars or chaos resulting from past civil wars. As a particular example, in Cambodia, as he mentioned, the numbers have gone up a lot to 3,000 per month, which is more than 10 per cent. in the last year, as the guerrilla war in Cambodia expands. Non-governmental organisations working there fear that each of the resistance factions intends to move forcibly the people in camps under their control back into Cambodia to help them claim territory. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are aware of this danger and that they will use their position at the United Nations Security Council to prevent this forcible repatriation from taking place.
As an optimist, I hope that the end of the war in the Gulf, short, terrifying and costly though it was in human, environmental and financial terms, will be followed by a renewed burst of peacemaking efforts not only in the Middle East. This country has a major

1447
part to play in Cambodia facilitating the long awaited settlement, and surely the time has come to open up the gates for aid to Vietnam. They have been punished enough. Aid now will encourage the regime to moderate further.
I see that my time is beginning to come to an end, but I should like to suggest that, because we have played such a major part in the Gulf war, our standing with the United States may now be at a very high level and we might be in a position to urge them to join together with the Soviet Union in trying to end the continuing conflict in Afghanistan by ending the supply of arms to the warring factions from both sides.
The best long-term help for refugees is surely to end wars and forcible annexations of territory. But in the meantime we should contribute, and urge others to contribute, to programmes which uphold human dignity and life. It should be remembered that refugees are often the most enterprising members of communities. They are not prepared simply to sit and suffer in the grim circumstances of their own countries. They get on their bikes or, more appropriately perhaps, mules, camels and, most frequently of all, their feet, and their courage deserves to be recognised.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to join with those who have sent their good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I am sure that we all hope to see her back very soon.
My first two points concern domestic aspects of the wider question of refugees in the world. Following last year's invasion of Kuwait, a decision was taken in the Home Office not to renew the visas of any Iraqi nationals now in Britain. If that decision stands, several thousand people will have to leave this country. Their prospects of returning to Iraq in its present state of turmoil are not good. Many of these people are opponents of the Ba'ath regime. They include Kurds and members of the democratic opposition, who may have to seek asylum in third countries if they cannot remain in Britain.
I understand that the Home Secretary is taking new advice following the ceasefire in Kuwait and the release of most of the allied prisoners of war. I am therefore confidently expecting a substantial easement in the present situation and one hopes that that will happen rather soon. The visa holders include long-term residents, short-term visitors and students. Non-renewal will cause severe personal hardship and is a more severe measure than those taken by our allies who joined with us in enforcing the UN resolutions.
A return to normal consideration of visas will contribute to long-term goodwill between Britain and the Arab and Moslem world. I accept that problems may arise over some students who are no longer being paid for by the Iraqi Government. All I ask is that their cases should be considered individually, since
1448
there may be other sources of funding especially for those in their final year. I look forward therefore to an early and helpful Government response.
I turn now to asylum seekers; that is, people seeking full refugee status in the United Kingdom. These are people who have a well-grounded fear of persecution, whether for political, religious, racial or other reasons. Her Majesty's Government have already made access to the United Kingdom more difficult than it used to be. Passports and visas are required and airlines are heavily fined if they bring in undocumented passengers. Despite this, the numbers arriving in this country tend to rise year by year, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
I believe that this reflects the denial of human rights by violent and brutal governments, and the number of wars, especially civil wars, now raging throughout the world. I am glad that the Home Office does at least inform the Foreign Office of the countries of origin of the asylum seekers who reach our shores. Increased co-operation between government departments and with the United Nations and voluntary agencies would be most welcome.
I would like to put some questions to Her Majesty's Government. Will they guarantee that asylum seekers who have suffered torture will not be subjected to detention on arrival in Britain? Will they seek to improve the training of interviewers and interpreters who examine the applications of asylum seekers? Will they ensure that bona fide applicants are given refugee status and are not fobbed off with "exceptional leave to remain", a point very well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon? This lesser permission means that an applicant has no right to be reunited in this country with his next of kin. There is a subsidiary point which is the question of the full rate of social security for asylum seekers pending decision on whether or not, and how, they can stay in this country. It has been raised on several occasions in social security Bills, and I hope that the full force of the point is now beginning to get through to the Government.
My final point concerns the 20 million or so people threatened by famines in Africa. Famine has many causes; drought, climatic change, poverty, population pressure, etc. I wish to concentrate on the connection between wars, refugee movements, both internal and external, and food shortages, disease and death. For years now war has been endemic in the Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and the Ogaden, as well as in Mozambique and Angola. These are just the most obvious examples of places where there have been massive movements of population, usually triggered by fighting, and ending in disease and death. Poor societies struggling to survive have been crippled by forces outside their control.
The richer countries have much to answer for, because they have repeatedly encouraged war for strategic reasons and by supplying arms both to insurgents and to repressive regimes. Now that the cold war is officially over I trust that the situation can be improved. The United Nations and individual countries have responded magnificently to the seizure

1449
of Kuwait and the murderous assaults on the civilian populations of Israel and Saudi Arabia. International effort on a comparable scale is now needed to come to the rescue of the refugees and famine victims in Africa. This kind of action will, I think, help to reduce the flow of asylum seekers generally into Europe.
I am sure that Her Majesty's Government can and will give a lead to which others throughout the world will respond. In particular I ask that the surplus food stocks of Europe be used to maximum effect. This must not be to replace local agriculture but to avert famine from those who have no other resources. Transport may often be the key to effective help, and it needs planning now.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I sincerely hope that there will be a positive response to the many pleas that have been put forward here tonight and there might even be a change of emphasis and of direction in government policy in relation to the problem. I am not suggesting for a moment that it is an easy problem to solve. It is extremely difficult to operate the convention of 1951 and make distinctions between political and economic refugees.
I pay tribute to the work that has been done at the reception centres by some of the officials concerned in order to apply reasonably humanitarian policies within their remit. It is not easy. It has placed an immense burden on the local authorities, particularly in the poorer areas of London, which have to accept responsibility for administering some of the policies. They are funded by the Government, but nevertheless there ale immense pressures on them to operate a reasonable and humane policy with their limited resources.
I come to the problem of refugees with some experience in the field. At the end of the last war and during the war I was involved with the United Nations as an official in settling refugees and displaced persons. At that time it seemed an impossible task. We had something like 11 million people making their way from Eastern Europe into the new territories and redefined frontiers of Western Europe. There was a vast upset at that time. But we were able to deal with the problem. One of the reasons why we were able to do so reasonably was that there was a will at the end of that war to do something about resettling the displaced persons and refugees. People had become aware of the problems of the Jews who had to escape from Eastern Europe, and we worked together in the United Nations to achieve reasonable resettlement.
Resources have been mentioned. It was to the credit of this country at the end of the last war, bombed as we were and in many areas economically seriously affected, with our economy disturbed and distressed by the war, that in 1945 and 1946 this country gave 1 per cent. of its GNP for the restoration of the economies and to help people who were affected by the war. At the present time we are not giving 0.7 per cent., which is the United Nations' target, despite our relative affluence at this time.
1450
I am sure that we felt better for it. As a nation we had moral standing as a result of that kind of policy and that kind of gesture which enhanced our position in the world. Therefore, as has been already asked tonight, is this not the time, now that the Gulf war is behind us, to make a similar commitment, with a similar national will, to deal with the kind of problem that is being discussed here tonight?
I have been given by Amnesty International a list of the trouble spots, and many of them have been mentioned. It is a serious problem concerning something like 14 million to 16 million people, as has been pointed out. This is not a statistic. We are talking about people—about human beings with the same desires and aspirations as us who are the children of God. These people now require and are crying out for our help.
What can we do? It is extremely difficult, as I say, to make a distinction between the economic refugee and the political refugee because the rules were drawn up in 1951 when most of our experience was based on refugees arriving from Eastern Europe, like Jewish refugees, who had been the subject of persecution during the war. But it occurs to me that one or two things can be done. One is immediate and domestic, and that is that the resources available to the Home Office for dealing with this matter should be increased.
I spent an hour yesterday with Mr. Peter Lloyd, the Minister responsible for refugees. I was impressed by his sincerity and desire to do something about the problem. He said that it is a matter of resources. The department does not have sufficient people to process the applications. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, 14 months will elapse before a permanent or temporary entry can be cleared. That creates tremendous tension and problems not only for the individual but also for the people dealing with the matter during that period. We must expedite the process. It is a question of resources. In the name of humanity the Government must put sufficient resources at the disposal of the Home Office to process the applications.
What can be done on the international front? Many refugees are fleeing from civil war within their own countries. Now that the status of the United Nations has been enhanced by the Gulf war, there should be a greater intervention by the nations which subscribe to the United Nations to bring civil war to an end wherever it is possible to bring their influence to bear.
Further, positive steps must be taken—we recently discussed the situation in Sri Lanka—to influence the situation in those countries where serious violations of human rights occur. We can influence by aid and policies that affect the economy. That may be difficult. Often the people who suffer from restrictions are the poorest people. Nevertheless, pressure can be brought to bear in a number of ways to ensure a greater respect for human rights.
Our contribution to aid must be stepped up. It is foolish to spend so much time, effort and money attempting to stem the flow of refugees rather than looking at the source of the problem. Why are people

1451
leaving their countries? I must say that our record in regard to the contribution of aid is miserable and does not match the high moral stance our country once enjoyed in dealing with these matters.
Therefore I suggest, first, that domestically the Government place more resources at the disposal of the Home Office for the purpose of processing the applications for asylum. Secondly, along with others they should attempt to create a new climate of will to do something. Let us put the wars behind us and think positively of how we can bring some humanity into international affairs. That would be a great gesture to assist the United Nations and international organisations in dealing with the refugee problem.
7.4 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join other Peers in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, a speedy return to your Lordships' House. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for introducing this important and timely debate. I seek to speak on the plight of unaccompanied refugee children coming to this country and I shall confine myself to that topic.
On 29th January this year Miss Moser of the Refugee Council and chairman of the working group on unaccompanied refugee children spoke to a well attended meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Children. Mr. Taylor, the group director of the social services department for Hillingdon, submitted a helpful paper. He was competent to do so, in that Hillingdon includes London Airport in its area. As chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Children, I was asked to see the relevant Ministers concerning the present difficulties with regard to refugee children in this country. Instead of doing that I shall submit my questions to my noble friend the Minister.
There is much work to be done to improve the well-being of children in this country. That said, it must be faced that the condition of many children in other countries is deplorable. It is no wonder that such children seek asylum in our land. The numbers of refugee children coming to this country are growing and are likely to increase. In the last six months of 1990 six times as many children arrived in this country as had arrived during the preceding 10 years.
Unaccompanied refugee children fall into two categories. Under the quota system a number of children—many from Vietnam and Hong Kong—come to the United Kingdom with some degree of planning, prior knowledge and agreement and with the co-operation of voluntary organisations, in particular the Save the Children Fund. The situation is not entirely satisfactory. There are deficiencies in the planning and assessment of such children. Up to 2,000 children came to this country from Vietnam, often via Hong Kong. A small number of those children were unaccompanied. There should be better knowledge of the needs of individual children obtained, if possible, before they arrive in the United Kingdom, including a
1452
proper family history, information about friends, extended family and neighbours who are in this country.
The second group of children are those for whom no plans have been made. They come to the notice of the Refugee Council via the port of entry or refugee communities. They are aged up to 17 years and arrive due to serious conflicts in their own countries of origin, which include Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Angola, and Somalia. They have also included a number of Kurdish children.
Those children have usually experienced violence, hunger—indeed famine—and disruption of family life, often, though not always, through the death of a parent. Noble Lords may ask how they come to this country unaccompanied. It appears that their parents, relatives or friends find the money to buy a ticket. They obtain a ticket in the country of origin as a visitor. They arrive at the airport and ask a family to look after the child during the flight. When the child arrives at either London Airport or Gatwick the kind people who were looking after the child continue their journey and the child is left.
One small girl was left sitting in London Airport for two days. During that time all that she possessed was stolen. Another child was very kindly taken home by a woman. But she could not keep the child. It possessed a dirty scrap of paper on which was written, "Dollis Hill". The woman took the child to the police in Dollis Hill. They knew that in the area was a church hall where someone was looking after refugee children.
As may be imagined, those children need all the help that can be given. The difficulty is that most of the responsibility for looking after them falls on the directors of social services in Hillingdon, where London airport is based, and West Sussex, where Gatwick airport is based. Other local authorities offer help. Camden has opened a home for 20 children. These children need particular help. Very often they cannot speak English and they do not understand our way of life. They are disoriented and unhappy.
What should be done about them? The Refugee Council submitted to the Home Office and the Ministry of Health a paper entitled Better Child Care for Unaccompanied Refugee Children and Adolescents coming to the United Kingdom. First, I recommend that a conference should be held of the voluntary organisations in this country—of which we have many and they are splendid organisations—together with the statutory organisations and the Ministers concerned for the environment, the Home Office, and the health and immigration departments. A well-run conference would be of enormous value.
Secondly, we should set up a co-ordinating agency for refugee children to be funded by central government which will provide care for children and adolescents. That might be done by a voluntary organisation or a group of them. I am sure that the Save the Children Fund would wish to be involved. Such a co-ordinating agency should develop programmes and policies to meet the needs of refugee children.

1453
Thirdly, inevitably there is the question of resources. A child who is unaccompanied and homeless has a statutory right to be accepted into care. In any case, the West Sussex and Hillingdon local authorities would wish to accept such children into care because they would not wish them to stay in any part of London like an airport, or at a Home Office centre. It has to be faced that local authorities, if asked to take children into care (statutorily, they have to do it) are faced with the cost of £35,000 per child per year. That adds £5 to the community charge for each resident in the area where the children are taken into care.
Fourthly, there should be a survey and inspection of all the present projects where there are refugee children. Such children need particular care and attention, especially where their education and health are concerned.
Finally, I make two further points. There were great difficulties in this country when the Romanian children needed to be cared for. A number of people fetched them from Romania to this country. I pay tribute to Mr. Peter Thurnham of the other place and also to Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, who together managed to work in such a way that a structure has been set up to deal with children coming to this country. If such a good piece of work can be done in such a short time, I suggest that it can also be done for the unaccompanied refugee children. We shall be going into the EC very shortly. The European countries have made provision for the care and reception of unaccompanied refugee children. We shall not be in the vanguard, but I hope that we shall take our part in this work.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to begin to sum up this debate. Like everybody else, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, cannot be with us today. I certainly wish her well. Her presence is always welcome in your Lordships' Chamber.
Like others, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, on taking up this brief and for dealing with it extremely well. What he said about asylum seekers in this country needs to be underlined. It has been mentioned on many sides of the House. It is a pity that the noble. Lord the Lord Privy Seal is unable to be in his place today because some of the problems that we face come from legislation that he saw through onto the statute book when he was in another place. I believe that he has some minor technical problems in Ribble Valley which prevent him from being with us.
Like others, I was extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon for saying what I am sure is in all our hearts; namely, that these are people-problems and that there are deep moral problems that we should face. These are not technical matters but issues that go to the very heart of humanity. I also apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie who would have spoken in this debate. He left for Europe about an
1454
hour ago in order to attend the Council of Europe Migration and Refugee Committee where he will be doing very good work on the same subject.
It is very easy to be overwhelmed by the size of the problem that faces us. It seems intractable. As has been said already, we are talking about 16 million refugees in various parts of the world. Many noble Lords have mentioned definitions for refugees. I believe we are all agreed that we are talking about people who cannot rely on the protection of the state of which they are citizens. Therefore they have to be protected by the international community. Sadly, as has already been said, there are signs that the richer nations of the world are beginning to turn their backs on refugees and to find excuses for not allowing them to enter their countries. They are finding ways of defining refugees so that they are no longer acceptable to these countries. They are sent back to face heaven only knows what trials and tribulations.
We must be conscious of the fact that only a very small proportion of refugees come to the West and that the major burden of the refugee problem is borne by countries which are already poor. Most refugees remain in developing countries and usually close to their country of origin. It has already been mentioned that the UNHCR budget is being squeezed. That is deplorable. I shall come back to that subject later.
It must be said that this country has a good record in comparison with many others in relation to its support for the UNHCR. Within its limited resources the ODA has been doing an extremely good job. I wish to pay tribute to the right honourable Lynda Chalker for the work she has done in that post. Many of us in this House who speak on the subject of transport would have been delighted to see her in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Transport, although I know that her officials would much prefer that she stays where she is. I daresay that the refugees of the world would agree with them.
There is an enormous mountain to climb. We have heard some statistics and I shall produce a few more, bearing in mind that each single statistic is a person involving feelings, aspirations and fears. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has a particular interest in South-East Asia. I am sorry that he cannot be with us today. There are about 200,000 Indo-Chinese still awaiting durable solutions in UNHCR camps. In the past 15 years about 2 million people have sought asylum in neighbouring countries in that part of the world. A comprehensive plan of action was produced at the International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees held in 1989. The procedures for establishing who is and who is not to be described as a refugee are now in place in all first countries of asylum. The UNHCR is playing a useful monitoring role, but it has been unable to increase staff levels to the levels that it would wish in order to do the job as well as it would like. It is not able properly to monitor those who are returning voluntarily, or supposedly voluntarily. In Hong Kong, where we have a special responsibility, the fate of unaccompanied children is causing considerable concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has rightly pointed to the situation in this

1455
country. One can imagine the situation in somewhere like Hong Kong where these people are faced with problems of interpretation. Without legal support and without the support of an organisation like the British Refugee Council their fate could be even worse.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the British Refugee Council. As noble Lords will know, I am fortunate to be chairman of the Middle East Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis is now the chairman of the Refugee Council. It is doing a wonderful job in this country, not least in briefing noble Lords so well for this debate.
I return to what I was saying about Hong Kong and Vietnamese refugees. The Government have granted £1 million to NGOs in Haiphong and Quan Minh, but what is necessary is that the structural problems of poverty in Vietnam itself should be dealt with. This is where the political arguments come into play. We have sadly been unprepared to help Vietnam to restore itself to being a prosperous country. People have mentioned refugees in Thailand coming from Cambodia, but around 100,000 refugees in Thailand have come from Burma. In some ways the recipient countries cannot be blamed for the less than perfect human rights granted to these people. Indeed the position there is very insecure because the Thai Government have passed legislation fining those who help what they describe as illegal Burmese refugees. I have to say that those who are liable to fines include foreign NGO workers who are trying to help these refugees.
Afghanistan was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and Sri Lanka was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. In Sri Lanka there are around 1.1 million internally displaced people: 180,000 have fled to India and 120,000 have fled to Europe. Africa has been mentioned. In Liberia around 700,000 refugees have been created by the civil war. As one goes round the world one is driven to the conclusion that man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds.
As chairman of the Middle East Committee of the Refugee Council my particular interest is in that area. The results of the Gulf war are something that we should not forget. Around 200,000 foreign residents from Iraq and Kuwait have fled as a result of the war. There are very considerable problems in the occupied territories because of the loss of remittances from the Gulf. The continued closure of schools and universities in that unhappy area is certainly not helping to bring about peace in that troubled land.
In Turkey there is the major problem of Kurdish refugees. Around 25,000 remain in camps to which they fled following the chemical weapons bombing in 1988. As a result of the war the Turkish Government have imposed an emergency curfew. Can the Minister say whether that curfew has yet been removed? The Turkish Government have not accepted them as refugees so their status is very uncertain because they are being refused access by UNHCR. Access to these camps has also been denied to the ambassadors of the
1456
European Community countries and to representatives of industrialised countries. Can the Government give any reassurance that they are putting pressure on the Turkish Government to try to improve the lot of those unfortunate people?
Time is running out but I should like to say this. At the end of the day these problems will not be solved by palliatives. They will be solved, as someone has already said, by getting rid of civil war and the strife which causes the refugee problems. In the meantime it is our duty as human beings and members of the world community to do everything in our power to assist these people through the United Nations agencies and in other ways.
We shall get a great deal of money in the begging bowl which we and the Americans have taken round the world. Vast sums of money will come to us for all the good things we have done in winning this war, a war which I have certainly supported from beginning to end, a necessary evil if you like. A great deal of money will flow into our coffers. Could not a small amount of it be diverted to the United Nations relief organisations? Would that be too much to ask at this time?
7.25 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for having declared my interest in this debate for me. I am delighted that he should have paid tribute to the Refugee Council and I am delighted that he is a colleague of mine there.
This has been a remarkable debate. The whole House, as has been said on a number of occasions, is indebted to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition for having initiated it. For me it has been an extremely moving debate, marked by testimony given by people with considerable expertise and, above all, with deep interest in resolving the difficulties confronted all too often by refugees, by those who are seeking asylum.
In opening the debate my noble friend made a very eloquent, probing and important speech. He raised a number of questions. One of the most important goes to the very heart of the debate about refugees, whether it is in national or international terms. I refer to the need for getting rid of the secrecy which tends to shroud these matters and to which I shall return in a European dimension in a moment or two.
If I may say so, the Government would do well to ponder hard and long—but not too long—on the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. They were ideas that need to be acted on or at least clearly responded to. I welcome what she had to say. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was quite right, as were a number of other noble Lords, in seeking to put the situation in its true perspective. There are 16 million recognised refugees—there are many more than that really—in the world today. Most live in refugee camps in developing countries. Only a very small proportion come to the West—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made that point and an even tinier proportion come to this country. It is those very poor countries in the world which are

1457
usually adjoining a serious problem that gives rise to refugees which have to shoulder the main burdens. They find themselves in situations where it is extraordinarily difficult for them to do that.
The Government express great concern about the increase in the number of asylum seekers who will be coming to this country. Regrettably, perhaps predictably, they are proposing to be even more restrictive in their approach. I seriously regret that. On 7th February the Home Secretary told another place that the number of applications, which used to be about 4,000 a year, went up to an estimated 30,000 in 1990. He then went on to say that while we must obviously ensure that we provide a refuge for those who are fleeing from a well-founded fear of persecution, many of the people applying for political asylum are nothing more than economic migrants who prefer to live in Western Europe or our country rather than their own. He said that this was not what the refugee convention was intended to do. That introduced a pejorative and damaging note into the debate about refugees, and one is entitled to resent it.
For the most part there is nothing sinister about the motivations of those who come seeking political asylum. Of course there will be exceptions, but I suggest on the basis of the evidence that has been given to me by the Refugee Council that they are a small minority. People are escaping to Western Europe because of violations of human rights, because of warfare, because of civil wars, because they are fleeing from repression. It is sometimes very difficult to draw a line between somebody who is a genuine refugee and somebody who is a so-called economic refugee.
There are environmental refugees in the world today on a huge scale. They face conditions of soil erosion and deforestation and natural and technical disasters. Where are we to draw the line in the contemporary situation to take account of that too? They too are driven from their homelands. According to the United Nations environment programme there are around 500 million environmental refugees at the present time. What is required from the wealthier countries of the world—I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—is a much clearer, much more humanitarian and much more transparent policy of asylum for refugees. That goes hand in hand with more imaginative policies towards the developing world to deal with questions of debt, technology exchange and true partnership. We need to give much more help to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, a point made by my the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I need not elaborate on it, but I agree with everything he had to say.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon rightly said that refugees are not just statistics or problems, they are human beings. Often they are children alone in the world crying out for decent treatment and for help, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], rightly stated. Too often refugees, whether children or adults, are treated as pawns in the arena of world politics. We have to recognise that fact.
I come to the role of the European Community, albeit somewhat briefly. Will the Europe of 1992 be
1458
open for trade and closed to refugees—closed to compassionate ideas? The worrying signs and unhappy omens are there to be seen. Policies which affect refugees are dealt with in what is known as the Trevi Group and the ad hoc group on immigration. Encompassed in their deliberations are matters affecting illegal immigration, so often confused and wrongly confused with the issues of refugees, drugs and terrorists. That in itself encourages an unfortunate treatment of the refugee problem.
The problem is compounded, as has been rightly said, by the secrecy surrounding the activities of these groups. There is no consultation or openness. No one knows what goes on there. The Commission itself is relegated to being almost a bystander in these matters. We know that developing within what is known as the Dublin Convention is a one chance only rule for asylum seekers across the whole European Community. That is very dangerous indeed because we know that support will not be given by this Government—the junior Minister said this in a Written Answer of 21st February—to the setting up of a European appeal court to give a right of appeal against a refusal to grant asylum. That is deplorable.
In the few moments I have left I turn to the domestic scene. I shall add one or two observations to those that have already been made. Reference was made to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, an odious Act. It is odious because it takes no account of the obvious difficulties that confront people fleeing from persecution in obtaining documents which can be validated. Airline staff become immigration officers, untrained to boot. But now we hear that the Government are proposing to increase the fine from £1,000 to £2,000 per person and to extend the requirements for visas. Will the Minister say whether that is true?
The Government are also seeking to reduce the number of asylum seekers being given permission to remain. What they are going to do as far as we can see is to cut down the number of those who are given exceptional leave to remain. That represents a major risk. The Government assert that those in that classification have no claim under the Geneva Convention. Many of them are genuine refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution. They may be compelled to go back to the perils from which they have fled. We know that mistakes have been made —serious mistakes—regarding the Tamils and the Kurds. The courts have found against the Government—rather late in the day, because those people were wrongly forced to go back. I hope that the Minister will apologise for what occurred on those occasions.
There is also the question of the resettlement of refugees. The local authorities and voluntary agencies must be given more help, particularly those local authorities which assume willingly the responsibility for dealing with them, as against some local authorities which perhaps characteristically refuse to do so, notably Wandsworth and Westminster. We need a national response to the refugee issue. We need more help for the local authorities and the voluntary agencies, which are strapped for money. I hope that

1459
the report of the Cabinet sub-committee review, when it comes to be available, will be published—a request made by my noble friend earlier in the debate.
I should like to have said something about Hong Kong. I am deeply concerned about some of the things going on there. However, I do not have the time. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that, particularly towards children, a more compassionate attitude will be taken. Translation methods should be perfected regarding these people. We need to ensure that the indignity which is heaped on refugees there and in this country is eradicated from the political agenda.
I conclude on this note. There are so many refugee problems in the world about which one could have spoken. Some have been selected very movingly during the course of the debate. I hope and pray that the Government as a whole—Mrs. Chalker has been rightly picked out by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for commendation—will evince a much more understanding and realistic view on our own position in the world regarding refugees than has been the case in the past. It is an obligation that rests on the shoulders of the Government.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for stepping in at short notice to introduce the debate. I am sorry that it should have been necessary for him to do so and I sincerely hope that we shall see the noble Baroness back in her place in the very near future.
I thank noble Lords for their extremely well informed and wide-ranging contributions to this debate on the international problem of refugees. There is much more that can be said about refugees than we have time to cover today, and more about our policy towards refugees than I can attempt to say in the time I have available. But I should like to set out briefly the main lines of our policy.
The 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, and its 1967 protocol, provide the main international framework for the recognition and treatment of refugees. Indeed these instruments give the accepted definition of a refugee as a person outside his or her country of nationality who has a:
"well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
The United Kingdom has ratified both these international instruments. The 1951 United Nations convention and its 1967 protocol form the basis of the United Kingdom's policy on refugees. We uphold the rule of international law, both at home and abroad, as laid out in these instruments.
It might be useful to illustrate the international refugee problem by looking at applications for asylum in this country. In 1988 we received only about 5,000 asylum applications. The Home Office estimates that in 1990 the tally will reach about 30,000 when it is completed. Other Western countries report a similar picture. The surge cannot be attributed solely to the
1460
opening of borders, welcome as that is, in Central and Eastern Europe: the great majority of applicants in this country are from Africa and Asia. The refugee problem is global. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are perhaps 16 million refugees worldwide. That is a staggering figure by anyone's standards.
The definition of a refugee contained in the 1951 UN convention does not by any means cover all people who choose to leave their country. UNHCR estimates that there are also perhaps about 80 million migrants throughout the world, excluding refugees. They represent about 2 per cent. of the world's population. Their numbers are more likely to rise than to fall. It is important to consider the root causes of migration. There are many factors which can push a person towards leaving his country; for example, war, poverty, large-scale natural disasters, ecological degradation, population pressures and, not least, human rights violations. Only the last of these can give rise to refugees. Equally there are the so-called "pull-factors" which tempt a person to leave his own country, to seek a new life in another. It is not pejorative to say that; it is a fact. We are fortunate to live in a free and democratic country. We have the opportunity to gain an education and a career. In short, we have the opportunity to better ourselves.
The right reverend Prelate said that it was fashionable to distinguish between political refugees and economic migrants. That distinction lies at the heart of the UN convention. The definition contained in the 1951 convention does not cover people whose primary motivation for leaving their country is a search for a better economic life. One of the challenges the international community faces is to preserve the institution of political asylum in the interests of true refugees. It is important for that reason not to allow the misuse of the asylum process. However, at the same time, we must not lose sight of the problems faced by other migrants who may often be in need of our humanitarian concern.
A most notable example of this concern has been shown by the Hong Kong authorities who at great cost, and at a time of considerable uncertainty, have provided a safe haven for some 185,000 Vietnamese asylum seekers since 1975. The cornerstone of our policy is that genuine refugees should enjoy protection, but that migrants should return to their country of origin to migrate through legitimate channels if they wish. Screening was introduced in 1988 in collaboration with UNHCR to give effect to this policy. So far 34 per cent. of asylum seekers have been screened; of these only 20 per cent. have been determined to be refugees. Hong Kong has about 13,000 people who have been determined not to be refugees. The Hong Kong Government and the UNHCR will continue to work closely together to achieve the orderly return of those people as soon as possible. Only in this way can the rights of genuine refugees be protected.
The international refugee problem is, as I said, a global one. We should not be under any illusions. Our ability to influence events, even with greater efforts and the best international co-operation, is strictly

1461
limited. The main aim of our policy is to support, both politically and financially, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The High Commissioner has a mandate from the UN Secretary-General to protect and assist refugees and to search for durable solutions to refugee problems. For example, we are chairing a UNHCR working group in Geneva of interested countries looking at the long-term solution to refugee problems and the protection of refugees. We fully support that objective. We welcome the appointment of the new UN High Commissioner Mrs. Sadako Ogata who took up her appointment on 18th February. We are regularly one of UNHCR's highest donors. In 1990 we contributed about £19.3 million—about 29 per cent. of the contributions came from government sources —and the ICRC contributed some £5 million. We support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. In 1990 we contributed about £5.5 million. We also fully support the International Committee of the Red Cross which provides assistance to refugees, often in sensitive political areas where other relief agencies cannot work. We also contributed about £5 million to ICRC appeals.
Refugees and other displaced people often need urgent humanitarian assistance. We currently devote about £60 million to providing such assistance, most of which goes to refugees. A typical example of this need followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on 2nd August which displaced large numbers of foreign nationals who needed urgent assistance. We responded quickly providing some £11 million through the international relief organisations such as the International Red Cross and the International Organisition for Migration. Some of that money was channelled through the European Community. The international relief agencies provided emergency life sustaining assistance to the refugees trapped on Iraq's border with Jordan. But our contribution also went towards providing a long-term solution by assisting over 160,000 people to return to their own countries. Other resources were then mobilised, for example, from the World Bank, to help the refugees re-settle in their own countries.
Perhaps I may now turn to the domestic implications of large-scale applications for asylum. It is the arrival of asylum seekers and the determination of their claims for protection under the 1951 convention which makes refugee matters most obviously impinge on the domestic scene in this country. I referred earlier to the sharp rise in the number of asylum applications we have received in recent years in this country. That is part of a general upward trend in Western countries over the last decade. There were well over 400,000 applications in Europe last year. Each case is considered individually against the criteria of the convention. If an asylum seeker is found to have,
"a well-founded fear of persecution",
and there is no other country to which he should reasonably look for protection, he is granted asylum in the United Kingdom.
1462
Most asylum seekers in Europe are not refugees. A significant proportion are trying to use asylum channels to circumvent normal immigration controls. The motives of many more are mixed. The problem cannot, therefore, be addressed solely in a refugee context: it is intertwined with the broader migratory pressures in the world to which I have alluded. The Government have an obligation to maintain their policy of firm and fair control of immigration to this country. Their asylum policy and procedures must balance and reconcile those different obligations.
The rapid increase in the number of asylum seekers to the present unprecedented levels have placed our arrangements for the determination of their claims under considerable strain. It already takes about 14½ months to decide an asylum application, and the backlog of over 35,000 cases in the asylum division is growing.
The Government are conducting an urgent review of all their arrangements for asylum seekers. The staffing and structure of the asylum division are being addressed in that review, together with arrangements for receiving asylum seekers and for maintaining them while their cases are considered.
In the long term the solution to many refugee problems will only come with the realisation of what is the fundamental aim of British foreign policy: the creation of a stable and prosperous world order where nations can live in peace and security and where business and trade can create wealth and prosperity. We seek to avert conflict and to promote regional security. There is no better example of this than our contribution to the coalition effort to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. His invasion devastated Kuwait, created fear and misery for every Kuwaiti, and destroyed the livelihood of thousands of foreign nationals who were forced to flee the country leaving their jobs and possessions behind them.
Another major objective of our foreign policy is to encourage what can perhaps best be referred to as "good government". That means encouraging governments to make the best use of available resources for the long term good of their people. Good government calls for the remedies of law to be made available to the ordinary citizen; for an end to corruption and to the self-serving greed of elites; for an end to excessive military spending; and for the creation of a just and impartial electoral system. We can best achieve those aims by making progress in these areas a criterion for our aid.
I shall now try to deal with some of the points which were raised during the debate. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked what publication the review would receive. No decision has yet been taken on how to promulgate the results of the review. He said how unhappy he was with the procedures, and that they needed examination and overhaul. Those procedures are being reviewed at present, as are MPs' rights of representation. The aspects of policy, which he stated are Labour Party policy, also fall within the scope of the present review.

1463
My noble friend Lord Brentford asked about Ugandan refugees in Kenya. They well exemplify the complexity of the long-standing refugee problem. I cannot comment in detail. Our policy is to encourage voluntary repatriation, to use the ODA, if appropriate, and to enlist the help of voluntary agencies. Our approach is multilateral through, for example, UNHCR and in company with other donors. We do not see it as being a problem for us alone.
The right reverend Prelate drew attention to Afghan refugees. It is 11 years since Russia invaded Afghanistan and imposed a communist regime acceptable to the Soviet Union which led to one-third of the Afghan population leaving the country. There are still some 3.5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, mainly in camps near the border. Another 2 million are in Iran. The majority are unlikely to return until the fighting is over and security is improved.
We have given £70 million towards Afghan refugee relief and resettlement programmes since 1980, including over £17 million in the past two years. Most has been sent directly to the United Nations specialised agencies, the ICRC and British charities such as the Save the Children Fund and Afghan Aid. The right reverend Prelate made the point that the wealth gap is immoral and destablising. I agree. He said that we need to make greater efforts to overcome poverty. We have a large and well-targeted bilateral aid programme and make an equally substantial contribution to multilateral development agencies. All that helps to tackle fundamental problems which, I agree, generate refugees and economic migrants in the first place.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Hylton, asked about the training of immigration officials. My right honourable friend already pays close attention to that point. The UNHCR and outside academics are involved in training sessions and the further development of training is under active consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, talked about the shortfall in the UNHCR finances. In 1989, it faced a deficit of 38 million US dollars. However, sensible reforms in its administration were undertaken and through that and the generosity of other donor governments, that deficit was absorbed in 1990 and there is now no shortfall. He asked about an Oxford seminar. The ODA will attend. On forced repatriation to Cambodia, the United Nations plan for a Cambodia settlement takes full account of international obligations, including those under the 1951 convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about Iraqi visa holders. Any Iraqi national, like any other national, who claims to fear persecution if returned to his own country will have his case fully considered against the criteria of the 1951 convention. Deportations are a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who will no doubt want to take account of all recent developments before taking a final decision.
1464
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked for a guarantee that tortured asylum seekers will not be detained. It would be unrealistic to give such an unequivocal guarantee. It can take time to establish the facts and some applicants may falsely claim to have been tortured. However, I can give an assurance that the Home Office is fully aware of and sensitive to the needs of that group of people. He said we were fobbing off refugees with exceptional leave. The Government's policy is carefully and correctly to apply the criteria of the 1951 convention in every case. There is no question of denying refugee status to those entitled to it.
The noble Lord asked me about the rate of social security payments. Arrangements for maintaining asylum seekers while their cases are decided are included in the review.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for showing some understanding of the problem and of the difficulties of administering policy in this field. He pointed to what he claimed were insufficient resources for the determination system. With the massive increase in applications, it is clear that there is now a total mismatch between the case load and the resources currently available to process it. That is a key element in the current review.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned unaccompanied minors. That is a difficult area within the overall question of reception arrangements for asylum seekers, but it is also something that is being addressed in the current review. I can give my noble friend the assurance that I shall pass on her proposals to the Department of Health and the Home Office. I know that it is a matter that they are looking at closely.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked me about the Kurds in Turkey. We have made available £250,000 to help the Kurdish refugees in Turkey and to improve the situation in the camps. I regret the Turkish government's decision not to go ahead with the project.
We have persistently sought better treatment for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. We share the concern felt about the hardships they have undergone during the recent crisis and, with our European Community partners, have increased our aid to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked me about visas and carriers' liability. Those matters are also being considered in the present review. I cannot give an answer at this stage. Press reports are inevitably speculative.
The international problem of refugees is one which has risen high on the international agenda. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in international efforts to find solutions to the most difficult and intractable problems in which we encourage the whole international community to play its part. I can assure your Lordships that it is an area to which the Government will continue to devote the greatest attention.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we have had a valuable debate on a subject of highest importance. I am grateful to noble Lords, the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate for their contributions based on their experience and their deep feelings about the plight of millions of our fellow men and women and their children. I am grateful also to the Minister for his exposition of government policy. He gave us a great deal of valuable information which we shall study carefully, although I am bound to say, with great respect to him, that he has not completely allayed our apprehensions about the gravity of the matter.
We shall need to return to these problems again. We cannot allow them to remain on the shelf. It is essential that the report of the interdepartmental committee is published to enable us and the country generally to study the Government's policy and to enable the report to be the basis for a further debate in the House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Middle East Peace and Security
7.59 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the means by which they, and the other governments who have made use of the authority of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, intend to "restore international peace and security" in the Gulf area and in the Middle East in general.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I was a child my father often visited Baghdad. I did not like it because I thought it might be a place where they bagged dads. He was chairman of the Iraq Currency Board which reinvented the Iraqi dinar. Later he was chairman of the Kuwait Investment Board and of the British Bank of the Middle East. So my youth was full of Iraq, Kuwait and Iran, and I understand how closely involved in their fate this country has been. I put this Question down because I gathered from the Minutes of Proceedings that the House was not to be given the opportunity to discuss the peace after the war for five weeks. By that time, all the decisions would have been taken and we would only be able to discuss accomplished facts.
The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on going to Kuwait and Riyadh today. Facing him are some of the gravest decisions over which he will ever have to preside. With the cold war finished, it is now, this week, that we shall decide whether we should put our authority and experience, and to some extent that of the European Community too, behind the United Nations system and found a new order on that; or whether we should remain where we were under the previous Prime Minister, spear-carriers in ordinary to the United States.
Resolution 678 speaks of peace and security, and they depend on justice. This we have learnt in our own countries in Western Europe and we now hope in the whole of Europe. Peace and justice in the Middle East will be conditioned partly by the kind of war it has
1466
been and partly by the injustices which were there before the war. The war itself has been remarkable for its justification under Security Council resolutions. That will make a just peace easier. However, it has also been remarkable for the one-sidedness of its fatal casualties. Most estimates available to the press say that casualties on the Iraqi side were perhaps 100,000 military and another 100,000 civilians; on our side, about 140 military. That is a ratio of about 1,500 to one. To give one more figure, it is more than 1 per cent. of the population of Iraq. It is easy for any of us to scale that up for countries with larger populations.
It may well be that time will show that some military decisions on our side led to unnecessary slaughter, as well as on Saddam's side. Those we already know well. There were 110,573 bombing sorties flown. Were they all necessary? This balance of death will he remembered around the world and will affect relations among all states for a long time to come. The negotiations must be undertaken in full knowledge of this.
The worst prospect before us is that Iraq should become like the Lebanon with Shia cantons backed by Iran, Sunni cantons, Kurdish cantons and others, all at each other's throats. What can we non-Arab victors do to avoid this? We can only support the Arab victors in the best of what they can propose, working with what we hope will be a newly clubbable Iran and, as soon as possible, with reasonable Iraqis. For any of us to try to take control of the Middle East oil on which Western Europe and Japan depend would make it impossible to do this work.
Then there is Israel. The Arabs see a long lasting injustice: an alien Israel was forced on them. The Israelis see the opposite injustice: their neighbours refuse to acknowledge their internationally agreed right to exist. A settlement must be found because all UN resolutions have the same weight and UN members are obliged to enforce all of them equally. The resolutions about Iraq have been enforced with ferocious speed. The resolutions designed over the past quarter of a century to settle the Arab-Israeli dispute even-handedly are not enforced, and the injustice continues. Of course the existence of Israel must be accepted by her neighbours. The question is, what Israel? The nuclear power under US protection? Of course Israel must withdraw from her occupation of foreign territory and allow self determination to the Palestinians. Her willingness to do so would presumably be affected by conditions that could be attached to the enormous loan she now requests of the United States and by other subventions in the future.
Can there be a knight's move? Can the Arabs and the Israelis start to collaborate on some huge United Nations-sponsored, Gulf-financed international scheme for the economic benefit of all? Surely the Weizmann Institute has plans up its sleeve that could provide a start. Then what a glory Israel could become in the world, turning her immense resources of wisdom and skills to the good of the whole Middle East.
There is then another injustice which afflicts the Arab world—an economic one. It is that the revenues

1467
of the oil-rich, people-poor states are not used to develop the oil-poor, people-rich ones, but invested abroad to earn interest which shores up anachronistic monarchs, some of whom torture and mutilate women and criminals. Unless the brotherhood of the Arab nation stretches across all its lands, the present monarchies will simply go the way of Iraq and Libya before them.
We must also decide in the United Nations whether we want the world to continue treating its arms industries and arms trade simply as one remunerative branch of the various economies. This week, the US magazine Aviation Week already reports:
"Following their successful demonstration in the Gulf War, high technology weapons, especially precision-guided munitions, are expected on military shopping lists round the world".
The magazine goes on to advise investors how to find the firms most likely to profit from the new arms races. Is that what we want?
Arms exports are attractive because they enable us to produce arms for ourselves at a lower unit cost. But the arms race is largely what incapacitated the Soviet Union: so much wealth and skill going into unproductive activity. It is also what sent the United States into such colossal internal and external debt. The United States will never again be able to go round the world, mammoth begging bowl in hand. This time they have been promised 53 billion dollars; but they have of course received far less. On another occasion, those who are required to pay the piper are likely to be choosier about the tune. They are likely to feel that a more honourable channel for sharing the costs of UN actions is to be found through the UN itself.
The settlement, whatever it is, will have to be negotiated and defined in the UN, promulgated by the UN and, if necessary, enforced by the UN, using troops under UN command. The countries that must take part in these processes are first the Arab states. It is excellent news that Egypt and Syria have today set up a joint peacekeeping force, financed by the Gulf states and intended to be the nucleus of an Arab force. Apart from the Arabs, Israel must take part in the settlement procedure and Iran.
After that, the ability to help and the duty to try to help diminish as we get further away. Four of the big five are far removed from the Middle East, but the Soviet Union is not. It is fortunate that it now follows a scrupulously pacific and UN-orientated policy. The states which can usefully try to take the lead in the Security Council and the General Assembly will not be those which are strongly identified with one side or the other in the Arab Israeli wars, and not those which, like the United States, are in arrears with their United Nations dues, which reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and do not accept, for instance, the Geneva Convention on Indiscriminate Weapons. The new order in the Middle East has to be an Arab-Israeli-Iranian one embedded in the UN. The UN role must embody justice. It will be most effectively upheld by law abiding states.
As I have said before, the settlement must rest on arms control. In fairness, we should remember Iraq's proposals of 2nd May last year in the Preparatory Committee for the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference that the Middle East should become free of weapons of mass destruction. At that time I asked the Government their view of those proposals, but they replied in relation to some Egyptian proposals. Iraq had already become invisible to them. Israel is partly invisible to the Government even now. Ministers feign to know nothing of Israel's nuclear weapons programme, and thus to have no opinion on it. However, their knowledge and opinion of Pakistan's programme are expressed freely enough, and are sound.
Iraq's arms cannot be limited unless those of Iran and the nuclear state of Israel are also limited. We must remember the Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear installation in 1981. Israel's arms cannot be limited unless Syria's arms are limited, and so it goes on. The agenda is an agenda for the whole world. That being so, a sharp reduction is required in the general hypocrisy level of the arms exporting nations: principally the five permanent members of the Security Council, then Germany, Brazil and Argentina.
That is what I think. What does Her Majesty's Government think?
8.12 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I, and I am sure other noble Lords, will wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for enabling us to debate this subject this evening. It is a timely opportunity to consider the post-war situation. The noble Lord has eloquently posed some of the problems and mentioned important factors. I hope to add to the debate my thoughts on some other matters which arise. I particularly welcome this opportunity to debate this matter because it is four weeks since my Motion in your Lordships' House on collective security and how best to deter potential aggressors in future through Chapter VII of the Charter.
In the Gulf the United Nations has successfully put into effect Chapter VII, which authorises measures including armed force, to counter and reverse aggression. Since 2nd August the action prescribed in the Charter has been carried out on the lines contemplated by its authors. As in the case of Korea 40 years earlier, much depended on the immediate and massive response of the United States. I have observed with interest and supported what has been happening because I was in the United Kingdom mission in New York in the early days of the United Nations when we were examining and trying out for the first time the sections of the Charter. In that capacity I participated in the emergency meeting of the Security Council on the Sunday morning in June 1950 which was the day after North Korea attacked South Korea.
Our admiration and gratitude goes to the British forces in the Gulf and to our allies in the coalition for what they have achieved. We should especially congratulate the commanders in the field. Collective

1469
security has been upheld under Chapter VII. In the difficult task now before us—the noble Lord, Lord Kenner, described that task—Chapter VIII of the Charter is also applicable. Chapter VIII authorises regional arrangements and regional agencies to work with the Security Council when necessary. That may well be needed in restoring and maintaining peace and stability in the region. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Hurd, stated several weeks ago that he would be aiming for such regional arrangements after the Security Council resolutions had been complied with and Kuwait had been liberated. I hope to hear the Government's thinking on that matter this evening.
The countries of the Middle East must themselves take the main parts and accept responsibilities in reaching settlements. The United States and the United Kingdom with their allies may have to be initiators and catalysts. I hope that our forces can be withdrawn as soon as it is clear that the danger of further hostilities has passed. There may however have to be some form of United Nations peacekeeping force in some area or areas. That would preferably be composed of smaller members of the United Nations which had no direct interests in the region.
The overall authority of the United Nations should be maintained through the Security Council. The recent co-operation among the five permanent members is a welcome augury for the future and could be a helpful influence upon the Middle East countries. The United Nations is only as good as its members. Its success depends particularly on the efforts and cohesion of its leading members. It would be a mistake to think that the Secretary-General and his staff are more than the framework by which the world organisation enables its members to assemble, reach conclusions and take decisions. When decisions are taken by agreement within the Security Council, the United Nations can be a powerful force—this has just been demonstrated in the Gulf crisis—despite the belittling criticism that has come from some quarters in the past.
I hope that the Soviet Union will play a role in the Middle East in the work that lies ahead. It is certainly entitled to do so as a neighbour of the Gulf countries although it has preoccupations within its own borders. In the past we would have been worried that the Soviet Union might wish to make trouble in the Middle East, particularly for the Western countries. I believe that that risk is much less evident now. It would be wise to try to include the Soviet Union in the arrangements.
Much negotiation and work on regional arrangements in the Middle East is now before us. To deter aggression and keep the peace there and in the rest of the world, we must still depend upon Chapter VII. I urged that in the debate on 6th February. We should build on the success that has now been achieved. There are ways in which the readiness of the United Nations to act can be improved, for example financial and medical contributions, where appropriate, can be considered as contingency arrangements. We do not have to spend six or seven months in a crisis before bringing such arrangements forward.
1470
We must make the best use of the Charter as it stands rather than try to rewrite it, even though it is 46 years old. Such a step would reopen controversies which might take years to settle. Within its terms more contingency planning should be carried out in preparation for breaches of the peace. Improved readiness that was clearly visible would help to deter any country contemplating an act of aggression. I believe that if Saddam had known that the United Nations would react so efficiently and effectively, he would not have embarked on his unfortunate invasion of Kuwait. The deaths of his own citizens and the damage to their property and cities—the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to that—could have been avoided.

In the post-war situation the arrangements may be complicated by calls for war crimes trials. I should like in closing to say a word on that issue because I believe that some clarification is needed. War crimes can be divided into three categories. The first is responsibility for the original aggression. That usually applies to the leaders of the nation concerned. The Nuremberg tribunal was set up to deal with Hitler's gang and a few of the top people associated with it. It was a special tribunal. The International Court at the Hague does not deal with such issues. It has two main duties: to deal with disputes between nations and to give advisory opinions on international law.
The second category governs the rules of warfare for combatants. Those have been built up in the Hague and Geneva conventions. They deal with the treatment of prisoners and wounded and a whole range of matters relating to humanitarian issues. The conventions have proved to be worth while. In World War II, even in the greatest confusion, in the height of battle with high explosive and metal flying around, it was helpful to have a code which the combatants recognised. Wounded and prisoners on both sides benefited as a result. We do not yet know whether there have been breaches of those rules, but that does not appear to be one of the serious allegations arising from the Gulf war.
The third category is crimes against humanity, meaning civilians. That was a new category which was introduced at the end of World War II in order to deal with crimes committed at the concentration camps and with the elimination of huge numbers of civilians. That was not something which had been considered a war crime in 1939: it was something new and dreadful and was treated as a crime against humanity.
It appears likely that in the conflict which has just ended and during the past seven months atrocities have been committed in Kuwait in the form of killings and torturings. If such atrocities are confirmed there may be a case for trials in Kuwaiti courts. Presumably that is the jurisdiction in which such alleged criminals would be dealt with.
It is necessary to clarify the distinction between the three categories of war crime, and I hope that we shall not find the post-war arrangements that we are discussing this evening complicated by problems of that kind.

1471
It is a relief that Kuwait has been liberated and that Saddam's aggression has been reversed. I am sure that everyone in the country is relieved about that. However, there remains the task of building a lasting peace in the Middle East. That will not be easy and it deserves the concentrated attention and understanding of the rest of the world.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for raising this important issue at this very apposite time. It would be a dereliction of the duty of Parliament not to debate the affairs of the last few weeks for a period of five weeks.
Before considering how the United Nations can operate during the post-war period we need to consider what has happened since 15th January and to draw up a balance sheet of the gains and the losses. A major gain is the fact that the Iraqis have left Kuwait. Everybody who is concerned with international law has always put that as their first demand despite the fact that a good deal of Iraq, as we forecast, has been devastated in the process.
Secondly, the defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations has been met head on, as it should be once that international body has expressed itself so clearly on the subject of the aggression against Kuwait.
Thirdly, the United Nations itself as an organisation has been pitchforked into the forefront of international politics. I shall express some reservations about that later. It has become one of the major players in the international game and is bound to remain so. Fourthly, there has been at least a faint sign of some degree of co-operation among some Arab nations which holds out hopes of further co-operation in the area in the future which has been so lacking in the past.
Finally, I am certain that we are all thankful for the small number of allied casualties, although every single casualty represents a tragedy and we feel for the relatives of those who suffered in that way.
On the other side of the balance sheet, what are the losses? Following my noble friend Lord Kennet, I suggest that the first is the inhuman massacre of both Iraqis and Kuwaitis. The reduction of civilian life in Iraq to a point of savagery is bound to have a profound effect on the world community. It is tragic that in this war, as in the invasion of Panama, there has deliberately been not even an estimate of the casualties suffered on the other side. We still do not know how many civilians were killed in Panama. There has been a deliberate reluctance to use what the Americans call a body count of the casualties inflicted during this war.
A barbarous disregard of human life has been shown. I was in the United States for a considerable period during the Vietnam war. I remember very distinctly the effect on both the participants in the war and on the spectators. It was devastating and tragic. It continues. We have seen a coarsening of public
1472
consciousness and a dehumanising of public discussion, fuelled by nauseating headlines in the tabloid press. I shudder to think of the effect of those events on the children of today, not just in this country but all over the world.
One should remember that these actions have been carried out in the name of the United Nations under Resolution 678. I venture to suggest that the resolution was never intended to be used in that way. Indeed, one can argue that the carrying into effect of Resolution 678 was in itself illegal because the Chinese had abstained. According to Chapter 27, Clause 3, of the charter there has to be concurrence of all five permanent members of the Security Council. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, rightly spoke of the Geneva conventions. Surely the Geneva conventions do not allow the bombing of cities that took place during the past few weeks.
I repeat that that was carried out in the name of the United Nations. What is the effect on most of the world, and in particular on the third world? The effect has surely been to show the rest of the world that that is the method chosen by the powerful members of the United Nations when they identify an issue which they consider to be against their national interests.
To most of the world over the past few weeks it has seemed that the first world—the developed world—has been devastating a third world country, and that it has been selective action. There have been many similar aggressive acts on which the United Nations has not acted. That has not been because of the Cold War but because they have involved one of the permanent members of the Security Council. We have seen the imposition of United States policy with the use of the United Nations.
Thirdly, and in some ways in the long term most tragically, the peaceful means of resolving conflict through the United Nations, devised during the period in which economic sanctions were applied and backed up by military defence of Saudi Arabia, have been sabotaged. Never again, or at least for the foreseeable future, can one expect the United Nations to be able to say, "We have the peaceful means to solve an international conflict without military force".
What has been left from the devastation? It is hardly international peace and security. We are left with a jockeying for power in the Middle East between Iran—the Iranians were the enemies and after the deposition of the Shah became the enemies of the West and the excuse for arming Saddam Hussein—Turkey, Syria (have we forgotten Lockerbie and the detestation expressed toward the Syrians in this country and the West?) and Israel with, on the sidelines, the complicating factor of the Kurds and their desire for Kurdistan.
Meanwhile, the central issue in the Middle East remains—the issue of Palestine. Hopes of settlement in Palestine have been undermined as a result of the Gulf action. They have been undermined partly through the attitude of the PLO but also—this is where I fear for the future—because the Jewish lobby in the United States is so powerful throughout both

1473
Houses of Congress, as we all know. The subsidies that go into the elections within Congress are so dependent upon the Jewish lobby that it seems doubtful whether that lobby will ever allow an equitable settlement so far as concerns Israel and the Palestinians.
Finally, the consequence of the war has been a renewed and accelerated drive to a new arms race. As I pointed out, it was we who armed Saddam Hussein as a buffer against the Iranians. We in the West provided him with the weapons that were used against our forces. Now every country in the Middle East is sending IOUs to the United States, France, Britain and Germany for renewed provision of arms. The Syrians, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Iranians, the Turks, the Kuwaitis and the Israelis have all been promised extra subsidies to renew their military machines. What a terrifying prospect! Over the past few weeks we have seen what armaments do. We have seen that once they are destroyed the vultures gather in order to replace them. As a result of the way in which the coalition was put together the IOUs are now coming in, with a terrifying prospect for any future peace and any hope of a peaceful world in the Middle East.
I should like to make four short suggestions. I do not make any of them with great confidence. The United Nations has to play a part. I do not agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the secretariat of the United Nations. I believe that if there had been a Dag Hammarskjöld as Secretary-General over the past 12 months, the actions of the United Nations would have been vastly different. Dag Hammarskjöld would not have allowed himself to be used as Perez de Cuellar has been used in order to further United States policy. But however long it takes, the United Nations must play a crucial role in the search for peace.
As mentioned during the debate a month ago initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, we must resuscitate the Military Staff Committee. With the military representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council there is there the opportunity to use the United Nations as a military means of peace-keeping based upon the consensus of the Big Five. That is my first suggestion.
Secondly, we must upgrade the Sanctions Committee. That committee should now examine what happened during the period in which sanctions were imposed. What were the effects not just on the economy of Iraq but on the military machine of Iraq? How long would it have taken to undermine that military machine? That is a job for the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations and it has never been allowed to do it.
Thirdly, and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Kennet, not just armaments control but disarmament is essential if we are not to have a repeat of the war under which we have suffered during the past two or three weeks. That means control and control of the market forces which emanate from the armament producers, the armament builders, to sell and to persuade to buy. Those are the market forces and they
1474
must be controlled centrally by the United Nations but also in the case of each government. It is no good leaving it to voluntary control by the armament makers.
Finally, there has to be a peace conference. Again I feel little confidence that in the near future such a peace conference can remove the causes of war in the Middle East, still less bring peace. However, the United Nations was set up in order to remove the scourge of war. It has a responsibility and a duty immediately to find the means to hold some kind of peace conference at which people can talk to each other across national boundaries in the hope that some understanding can arise out of this tragedy and that people can learn that the only alternative to its repetition is to talk peace to each other.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for bringing this vitally important subject to our attention by initiating the debate today. I wish to follow the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. He spoke of our need to find ways and means of supporting the prime efforts of the United Nations to cut out wars. Noble Lords will forgive me for reminding them that I am a physician. When I was a professor I had the privilege of visiting medical schools. I visited them on occasions in Jerusalem and in various countries in the Gulf. I believe that if we had the right imaginative spirit from the Mediterranean to the Gulf it is not impossible that a new order could begin to emerge.
My reason for saying that arises from my visits to Oman where I had the great privilege of meeting His Majesty the Sultan on several occasions and of being a close confidant of his mother, the Queen Mother of Oman. She once made a remark to me which encourages me to believe that we may be able to encourage a spirit of collaboration and reconciliation. The prophet Job is buried not far from Salalah, which is the Queen Mother's tribal country. When she realised that the tomb was in serious disrepair, she arranged for it to be resuscitated. I went in one of the Omani motor cars—sadly it was a Mercedes—up the mountain to the tomb. I found two Omanis in prayer. I returned and said to Her Majesty, "It is of great encouragement to me, your Majesty, that you, a great Arab lady and great leader, have refurbished the tomb of an Israeli Jewish prophet". She is a very remarkable woman. Her reply through her first-class interpreter was memorable. She said, "We have to learn rapidly in this part of the world that we must always respect the efforts of good men".
I hope and pray that the emergence of such a spirit of reconciliation, and appreciation of good, in particular among the women in that part of the world, may be caught up in the peace conference that must come. The authority of women in that part of the world is rising. When I go to medical schools I am astonished at how many posts are being developed by women doctors.
I am sure that I reflect the views of many millions who have friends in both Israel and the Arab states

1475
when I say this. If there is anything that the Foreign Office would like any of us with intentions of helping reconciliation to do, do not hesitate to call on us. We should all be greatly honoured to help in any servile way in the most menial tasks in any important peace conference. It is an opportunity that I hope and pray the United Nations will seize, and show their real moral ethical authority to the world.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, whose eloquent plea for reconciliation I am sure struck a chord on all sides of the House. I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for a number of constructive suggestions about the future in the Middle East which I know will be warmly endorsed by my noble friends on these Benches.
The position now in the Middle East is so changeable and uncertain that it is dangerous to make predictions or to suggest or recommend lines of policy. What is the future in Iraq? Will Saddam Hussein stay? If so, he will certainly not have his old capacity for making aggression against his neighbours. But if he stays, it will be a terrible tragedy for the Iraqi people and perhaps most of all for the courageous Kurds and Shiah who are trying for a change of regime in Iraq.
On the other hand, he may be overturned. I imagine that that would be welcome to all in this Chamber. But it would be a bleak prospect for the unity of Iraq as a state and thus for stability in the Middle East. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to possible Iranian ambitions in southern Iraq, and Turkish ambitions in Northern Iraq. The situation could be chaos and anarchy.
A few years ago I stood in the centre of Baghdad and surveyed those monstrous architectural tributes to Saddam Hussein. I could not resist saying to my companion,
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
That was only a few years ago, and already the lone and level sands are stretching far away in Iraq. It is an extraordinary vindication of a great poem written about the Middle East.
While Iraq is in turmoil, it is very hard to sketch out with confidence a new security system for the Middle East. It is encouraging, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, that so quickly and with such decision eight Arab governments have come together at Damascus and formed a treaty. We have to ask, "How does Iran fit into that?" We also have to ask "How does the new Iraq fit into it?" Will all the emirates survive the shock of the Gulf war, and if not, will Saudi Arabia allow the emirates to succumb?
Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly a great achievement so quickly to have reached a promising beginning. The Middle East is so full of formidable problems, to which no solutions are clearly visible at this stage. However, I submit to the Minister that there are one or two certainties from the point of view of Western countries.
1476
First, their contribution to security in the Middle East cannot be made directly. They can be made only through the United Nations, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said, in support of Arab initiatives and with the co-operation or at least the acquiescence of the Soviet Union. That must be implanted as a basic principle of Middle East policy for the Western countries in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, suggested that perhaps the United Nations may produce its own military force under the military staffs committee. I remember that when the United Nations was formed—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I have this in common—we all thought that wars were going to be abolished by the Security Council, acting if necessary with armed force organised by the military staffs committee. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, still maintains some hopes in that direction; perhaps more than I do. I am torn as to whether that is the way forward for the Security Council or whether we should regard the Security Council as a legitimising organisation such as it was in fact in the Gulf war.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the noble Lord will remember, the Soviet Union decided that the military staffs committee should never get going even though it agreed to it in the charter. Therefore, that has been more or less a dead letter for the past 45 years. However, I do not believe that the agreements laid down in the charter are necessary. But as I said in my debate four weeks ago, I believe that provisional work could be done on contingency planning without necessarily doing everything which is in Chapter 7 of the charter.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it may well be as the noble Lord says. I confess that I am agnostic. However, as a legitimising organisation the Security Council has a major part to play in military sanctions against those who offend against United Nations resolutions. Certainly, as I say, the future for western governments must be action through the United Nations in support of Arab initiatives, with the co-operation or at least the acquiescence of the Soviet Union.
Next—and this was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch —there must be a concerted effort to cut off the supply of arms to the Middle East. I believe that it is almost too much to hope for a complete worldwide embargo, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned Argentina and Germany. However, we should bear in mind that virtually all the weapons in the Middle East today were supplied by one or other of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Therefore, at least those five countries could agree to cut off those supplies. If they fail to do so it would be an outrage. I am not quite as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I am inclined to believe that the large sums of money paid to countries which were harmed by the war or which helped in the war will not be used directly for the purchase of arms. Nevertheless, the problem is urgent and important. Responsibility lies firmly with the five permanent members of the Security Council.

1477
The third certainty for western powers is that there will be no peace in the Middle East unless and until justice is done for the Palestinians. Many people have said that for many years. I am on record as saying it as long ago as 1948. Since then there have been five wars directly or indirectly concerned with the Palestinian problem. I say again, as I said in 1948, that if that problem is not solved there will be other wars. That must be of the utmost importance.
At first sight a peaceful settlement is further away than ever. Arafat's close association with Saddam Hussein has been a deadly blow to the PLO and to the Palestinian cause. It has gratuitously alienated from the Palestinians many of its strongest former allies and supporters in the Arab world and outside it. Simultaneously, Israel is enjoying greater prestige and influence and the Shamir government, apparently with solid public support, are maintaining their adamant refusal to trade land for peace.
The Foreign Secretary analyses that problem extremely well and has done so on more than one occasion in the past few weeks. For example, last week he sail:
"A settlement will have to balance guarantees of Israel's right to exist within secure borders with a withdrawal from the occupied territories. But the Palestinians must be brought in from the cold and means devised for the exercise of the right to self-determination".
He declared that it was imperative to search hard for progress over an issue which has been allowed to fester for too long. He continued:
"Israel cannot in the long run rest her security on the occupation of Arab lands".
The Foreign Secretary has made a lot of true and important statements of that kind recently and is to be congratulated on that. He is to be congratulated also on foreseeing, if not encouraging but perhaps encouraging, the agreement at Damascus of the eight Arab governments. However, his statements are silent on the point which matters; namely, how much pressure the Americans are prepared to exert on Israel to trade land for peace and to withdraw from the occupied territories in exchange for security guarantees. That is the question which matters. We can all analyse the problem, but that is the question that needs to be answered.
Can President Bush somehow be encouraged to follow the example of President Eisenhower in 1956? He warned the Israelis that unless they withdrew from territory which they conquered at the time of Suez there would be a falling away of economic aid from the United States. That line was immediately successful. It is a question of whether President Bush can successfully withstand pressures from Washington which are stronger than ever and do something of the same kind in the interests of reaching a settlement.
Now, as then, there is no need to talk of sanctions against Israel. All that is required is a willingness to reduce the abnormally high level of United States aid to Israel. We must hope that the Security Council, under the lead of the United States, will now apply to the Israeli occupation something of the firmness of purpose which it applied with such success to the
1478
occupation of Kuwait. We must hope that the British Government, together with the European Community and acting as a member of it, will encourage the Security Council in those efforts. In spite of enormous uncertainties in the Middle East, I believe that those are lines of policy which Western governments can pursue with confidence, and I hope that this Government will do so.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Kennet for initiating the debate. I believe that it is worth while to look at the possibilities for a settlement in the Middle East in the immediate post-war period. If we had had to wait for five weeks, that may have been too long.
Secondly, I believe that we have had a useful debate. I have found some of the contributions to be quite noteworthy. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the workings of the UN and I shall return to that matter. I thought that the tour de raison of my noble friend Lord Kennet—if I do not mix my metaphors too much—was a very good preliminary canter round the course.
I agree with a great deal of the thrust of what my noble friend Lord Hatch said, although I did not find myself in such close agreement on some of the specifics. As regards the Chinese abstention, perhaps I may point out to him that the phrase "the concurrence of the five permanent members" has since 1946 been construed as the absence of a veto by any of the five permanent members. The argument that all five must vote in favour of a resolution to achieve that concurrence is no longer valid.
My noble friend mentioned the Chinese. When I was in New York they invented a fourth vote: one could vote in favour of a resolution, one could vote against it, one could abstain or one need not participate in a vote on a resolution, which is what they tended to do. As far as I know, it was never argued that non-participation was not concurrence in the passage of a resolution. Therefore, I fear that that point is bad.
I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend said about the possibility of arms coming back into the area. However, I should like to offer the House a reflection. If I were a Saudi Arabian and if Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq, I should wish to have the proper means for my own defence. The dilemma faced by countries is how one trades defence, which in this case means arms, for legitimate, rational and reasonable security. As yet the world has never resolved that dilemma. As regards the Middle East, it may well be that the only way to deal with the problem is by the somewhat crude and blunt instrument of saying that there must be a total embargo and nobody should sell arms to countries in the area. I shall return to that point later.
In considering the situation post-war in the Middle East, if I may offer the House one or two reflections before I get on to the specifics, the future well-being of the area in the end has to depend upon the people

1479
living in the area. It is a truism, but the funny thing about truisms is that they are very often true, and no external non-indigenous power will be able to safeguard peace and security in such an explosive part of the world.
The conclusion I draw is that I want British forces and all Western forces withdrawn from the Gulf as soon as is reasonably practicable. They went there to achieve a specific purpose; namely, the liberation of Kuwait. They have achieved it with brilliance and, that now having been achieved, their early departure is essential.
In particular we must avoid the temptation into which all governments, especially victorious governments, frequently fall of staying on too long because we believe that if we stay on a little longer the situation will get better. International experience seems to show that if you stay on the situation will probably get worse. The danger is that we then become the focus for the discontent which will assuredly arise.
One possible example is democratic rights in Kuwait itself. I suspect that the path to full democracy in the Gulf countries will be difficult and quite lengthy. If Western troops are still in position in Kuwait at a time when agitation for what we would consider normal democratic rights is taking place, and if those pressures are not met, we will get the blame and will be told that we are not using our power properly. We will be told that we are not doing enough; we will be told that we should be pressurising the existing government with greater vigour. So our purpose was a narrow one. Our purpose has been achieved and we should withdraw our soldiers from the Gulf as soon as we can.
Secondly, perhaps I may disabuse the House of what I detected in some speeches, that the United Nations can solve the problem. It cannot. The United Nations cannot actually solve anything. The United Nations can give countries and peoples of the area time within which they can solve it. One also has to say that, very frequently, time bought in an international crisis or a difficult situation is moving the problem in the direction of a solution. But all that the United Nations can do is to provide a framework within which rational and sensible discussions on both sides can take place and provide guidelines which will assist. But one cannot look to the Security Council for immediate solutions, particularly for long and deep-seated problems.
There is a tendency in international affairs for countries to try to solve a problem themselves; it then proves to be intractable, as it may well have proved to be over many years past; and when they have failed to solve it they throw it at the United Nations. Perhaps, understandably, the United Nations finds that considerable difficulties are attached to it and also fails to solve the problem, so the UN gets blamed for it. Therefore I ask your Lordships not to expect too much from that institution.
When considering what might be possible in the Gulf we have to recognise right at the outset the
1480
limited nature of what we can realistically expect to achieve, and we should not become too disappointed if it does not happen very quickly. I do not think we are on the verge of an era of peace, concord and tranquillity in the whole of the Middle East. I wish I could believe that, but past experience seems to lead us in the direction of believing that peace, concord and tranquillity in the whole of the Middle East will not come quickly or without great difficulty.
Thirdly, it is essential—and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said on this—to preserve the quite remarkable unanimity that has been achieved among the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council. If that were to break, the UN as an instrument of sensible progress would be shattered. But to preserve that unanimity requires effort and imagination. If we start playing power games again, trying to keep the Russians out because we think that it ought to be a Western preserve in the Middle East, or if the Russians attempted to preserve and re-arm Saddam Hussein, if we relapse into that sort of tit-for-tat game, the unanimity of the Permanent Members will go and we will find our task much more difficult.
Against that background, what can we do and what can we legitimately hope to achieve? There are some short and medium-term measures which are perhaps obvious and some longer-term ones which are more difficult. First, a peace-keeping force along the border between Iraq and Kuwait seems to be sensible and justified. Some countries, as we know, are already thinking in these terms but it will require a vote of the Security Council; it will require contingents from various countries and it will have to be under the control of the UN Secretariat.
Perhaps I may sound one word of warning. If there is to be a peace-keeping force along the border between Iraq and Kuwait, none of the Western belligerent countries can conceivably be a member of that force. It will have to be composed primarily of Arab countries, together with some third world countries, and if there are Western countries they will have to be neutrals.
Secondly, there is a need for a review of the 12 existing resolutions of the Security Council, particularly Resolution 661 on sanctions. In that context, the continuation of the arms embargo is sensible, at least as a short-term measure, and I do not see any reason at all why there should not be a convention, a declaration, an agreement or whatever diplomatic phraseology one likes to use, by which the Five Permanent Members themselves pledge collectively not to re-arm their old client countries in the Middle East. The queue of arms salesmen that now seems to be lining up in order to re-arm those countries that have so recently fought a war I find obscene.
Thirdly, the mess has to be cleared up, and again the United Nations and some of the agencies can play an important part in this. The use of the UN disaster relief organisation for immediate humanitarian assistance in the war areas is something which should not only be considered but should be actively promoted by the Government. In the longer term,

1481
there will be a major task of reconstruction. It may be that one can use agencies such as the UN development programme or other aid organisations for it. The only point I would make is that the Government should be generous when they consider what we can do in order to aid that task of reconstruction in the fighting areas. It is particularly important that we should be seen to be generous in the light of our frequent assurances throughout this conflict that we indeed have no quarrel with the people of Iraq itself, and that our quarrel has been primarily—indeed almost solely —with Saddam Hussein.
As a longer-term measure I suppose that the question of reparations will have to be considered. Prima facie it seems to me that this is a matter for direct negotiation between Iraq and Kuwait, but frozen Iraqi assets should perhaps remain frozen until at least some resolution of this issue has been achieved.
Those are all perhaps localised suggestions for the immediate problems of the Gulf area and the war area, but, if all we do is concentrate on that and ignore the other great issues of the region, then I fear that we shall not be dealing with the problem with the seriousness or comprehensiveness that it deserves.
I entirely agree with what has been said by noble Lords in this debate tonight that central to a settlement—if that is the right word—or a resolution, or even an amelioration of tension in the Middle East is some progress on the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Resolution 242 was passed in 1967. Resolution 338 was passed in 1973. Resolution 681 was passed as recently as 1990, and the statement by the president of the Security Council then concerning an international conference is an extraordinarily important statement.
Such a conference has to take place. The only possible forum within which this discussion can acceptably take place —acceptably to the Arab countries—will be one which is under the aegis of the United Nations. It is perfectly true that the Israelis will not like it. One can understand that. They will be put under intense pressure if they go to a peace conference. But whatever pressure they will be put under if they go to a peace conference, I would agree with my noble friend Lord Mayhew that pressure should be put on them now to get them to that peace conference where these issues can be seriously addressed.
It seems that Lebanon is firmly on the back burner. We should not ignore it. It is a problem of a small, rather attractive country before its present difficulties, which has been torn by religious and political divides inside and exacerbated by intervention from without. I hope that in looking at the Middle East as a whole we shall not forget the problem of the Lebanon, nor indeed that of the Kurds.
The international agenda is therefore full. I am quite convinced that in the present climate of international relations these matters have to be addressed in an international context. A reversion to bilateral efforts to settle them will, I think, be no more successful in the future than such efforts have proved in the past.
1482
There is, therefore, I believe a genuine and deep change taking place in the world in the way in which the United Nations is perceived and is now used. It would be foolhardy in the extreme not to continue along what has so far proved to be such a fruitful course. I see, if not resolution, at least improvement in some of the problems I have been talking about tonight, firmly set in the context of action by, and within, the United Nations.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have listened with interest to noble Lords' speeches this evening. Valuable points have been made and I will study Hansard carefully. There is of course no more important subject in the world today—today and tomorrow. Having won the war we must now seek to win the peace. The best memorial we can build to those who died tragically as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait is a just, lasting and secure peace in the region.
Before addressing the noble Lord's Question directly, I should like briefly to review the remarkable achievements of the last seven months. On 2nd August last year Iraq invaded its smaller and weaker neighbour. The invasion was in direct defiance of all Iraq's international obligations both as a member of the United Nations and of the Arab League. The response was unprecedented. The United Nations Security Council adopted no less than twelve resolutions, each passed either unanimously or by an overwhelming majority. Some 30 countries dispatched forces to the Gulf, first to defend the other Gulf states from further Iraqi aggression and then to enforce the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and bring an end to Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam Hussein refused to withdraw despite the peaceful pressures brought to bear on him by the whole international community. Finally, and reluctantly, the coalition against him was obliged to eject him by force, acting under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to the marvellous professionalism, courage and dedication of our armed forces. We can be justly proud of their remarkable performance in securing the defeat of a ruthless aggressor.
The aims of the coalition were laid down by the United Nations in successive resolutions: first, to secure Iraq's full and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait; secondly, to restore Kuwait's legitimate government; and thirdly, to restore international peace and security in the area. The first two of those objectives have been achieved. Some of the foundations have already been laid for the third objective. Iraq's offensive conventional capability has been largely destroyed. Her nuclear, biological, chemical and ballistic production capabilities have at least suffered very serious setbacks.
An enormous task lies ahead. There is a good basis on which to build—the steadfast unity of purpose shown by the international community over the past seven months. The first priority in building a fair and

1483
durable peace must be to ensure that Iraq complies with the requirements set out for a formal and permanent cease-fire. Then we must turn to devising a lasting peace.
It would be presumptuous to come before the House today with a blueprint for the region. It is not possible to define rigidly now the terms of a settlement. But what we can do is to establish the principles on which we would wish to build. Those principles should include, first, a recognition that we cannot impose structures or models from elsewhere on the region—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Our role will be rather to assist and reinforce the process that must be initiated by the regional states themselves. Their views must be paramount. Secondly, there must be acceptance that, to have the best chance of real progress, those issues need to be discussed widely. Many other countries will have a useful contribution to make in the search for peace. Thirdly, there must be a willingness to explore with an open mind all the possibilities. We should not approach the search for peace with preconceived notions as to the outcome. Fourthly, we need to promote practical co-operation not only within the region but also more widely by, for example, building upon the links which already exist between the European Community and the region.
We need also to be clear what we do not seek. We do not seek the dismemberment of Iraq. We do not seek a vendetta against the Iraqi people, with whom we had no quarrel. We sought to minimise civilian casualties and to avoid damage to sites of religious or cultural significance. We have made clear throughout that our argument is with Iraq's leadership. It is not for us to prescribe who should govern Iraq. But Iraq clearly needs a leadership which can be trusted to respect her commitments as a member of the United Nations and the Arab League.
We must seek wider agreement on the aims and objectives. And we must rapidly address a number of vital tasks. The first will be the reconstruction and security of Kuwait. The Kuwaiti people have suffered terribly under Iraq's brutal occupation and their country has been mercilessly looted. Their determination now to rebuild their country is clear. I believe that Britain will have a significant part to play in that reconstruction. The countries of the Gulf are already looking at what new structures will need to be put in place to enhance their security. We and their other friends stand ready, if asked, to do what we can to help. But any Western help must be a contribution to, rather than a cornerstone of, a coherent security structure.
A second task is to address wider Middle Eastern issues, and particularly the long-standing problem of the Palestinians. I should emphasise that progress on this is not a precondition for progress towards peace and security in the Gulf, any more than it was when Saddam Hussein tried to introduce misleading linkages.
The Gulf conflict has not made a settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute any easier. Israel was subject to disgraceful provocations by Iraq. Her citizens were
1484
killed and injured, but she reacted with commendable restraint. For its part, the PLO leadership has damaged its credibility by supporting Iraqi aggression and showing no concern for the self-determination of the Kuwaiti people. On the practical level, however, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have suffered from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by seeing their income and livelihood destroyed. We need to return to the Arab/Israel question with renewed urgency and vigour. It remains a chronic source of instability in the region. The basis for a settlement is set out in UN Resolutions 242 and 338. The principle is "land for peace". Israel's withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 should be balanced by a guarantee of Israel's right to exist.
We have long supported the Palestinians' right to self-determination. That right and Israel's right to secure borders must be respected in a comprehensive negotiated settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute. We seek to persuade Israel that security can be achieved only through peace with her Arab neighbours. That will not be possible without progress on the Palestinian problem.
We must seek to minimise the dangers posed by the stockpiling of arms in the region. Countries have a legitimate right to self-defence but it is important to exercise restraint in the supply of armaments. In particular we must prevent the sale of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons or of essential components. Restraints on Iraq's present and future capability are essential. But wider restraints will need to be considered. These restraints will have to be effectively and rigorously policed. However, the fundamental political reasons which lie behind the large-scale possession of armaments need to be resolved, as I have already outlined above, if we are to maximise the chances of real arms reductions.
Some have suggested that an international conference is necessary for the resolution of these various issues. We have long supported the idea of an international conference on the Arab/Israel problem, and that support continues. But we must not lose sight of the wood for the trees. We must not become obsessed with means and mechanics. There is no point, for example, in an all-embracing conference if the will to reach settlements is absent. Any such conference would need careful preparation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, talked about Western arms supplies to Iraq. Ninety per cent. of Iraq's arms were from Soviet sources. It is not we who armed Iraq as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said. It is a folk myth to suggest that. We are traditionally very careful about who we sell armaments to. We have not sold arms to Iraq for very many years. We have very strict controls. We stopped sales to Iraq because we did not think that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were suitable to receive arms exports. We shall certainly encourage other countries throughout the world to be more discriminating about those to whom they sell arms.
I entirely agree with the positive contribution from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy concerning the United Nations Charter. We must build on it as it is and not try to rewrite it. My noble friend raised the

1485
question of war crimes. We have made it clear that anyone who breaks the provisions of the Geneva Convention may be held liable, and that remains the case. That will not be a decision for the United Kingdom alone. Machinery already exists under the Geneva Convention 1967 for prosecuting grave breaches. The Kuwaiti Government intends to establish a commission to catalogue war crimes, which we welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to the batbarous disregard for civilian life in the conduct of the war. I do not think there has been any war this century in which there have been greater attempts to avoid civilian deaths. Allied aircraft returned with full bomb racks when the risk to civilians was unacceptable. Many identified military targets were not attacked at all because of the risk to civilians. The noble Lord asked if the bombing of civilians was not contrary to the Geneva Convention. The answer to that is no. We attacked targets accepted as legitimate in international law. Iraq's stationing of military targets in civilian areas was contrary to the rules of war.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? He will recall that not very long ago I asked him if it was Her Majesty's Government's policy that Iraqi forces that were withdrawing would not be attacked. I was assured that that was the policy of the Government and the allies. I was assured that there would be no attacks on Iraqi forces withdrawing from Kuwait or the scene of battle. In my speech I was making the point that I was concerned not just with civilians, but above all with the attacks being made on Iraqi forces withdrawing from Kuwait. That has been described in disgusting language in a prominent newspaper of this country as a "turkey shoot".
Lord Reay: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord in his speech to be making references to civilian casualties. That was the point I was trying to answer. He also referred to the use of Chapter VII, which he
1486
said had been selective. In our view it was not a selective use of it. The aggression was the first serious act of war that had occurred since the end of the cold war which permitted the United Nations to act as it should. It was the first attempt since 1945 to annexe a sovereign, independent state.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned the meeting of the Gulf Co-operation Council with Egypt and Syria in Damascus today. We welcome their evident determination to put new security structures in place. I look forward to studying in detail the text of today's declaration. The noble Lord also referred to the role of the Soviet Union. There is no intention of excluding from the region the Soviet Union by Western hegemony or, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, put it, by creating a Western preserve. That is why we seek an Arab solution.
I agree that restraint by the permanent five on the supply of arms must be pursued urgently but without prejudice to the country's legitimate rights of self defence. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, speaks with unrivalled authority in this House on the subject of the United Nations. I thought that his warning that we should not expect the United Nations to do everything was sound and sensible advice. We do not exclude an eventual decision by the Security Council to deploy United Nations observers or peace keeping forces to the region if this is what Kuwait and the other regional states wish. But it may conclude that some other format is more appropriate to its needs; for example, a force drawn from Arab members of the coalition.
Peace and security in the Middle East is of vital interest to us all. Now that the fighting is thankfully over we must use the peace well. Britain as a permanent member of the Security Council, as one of the Twelve, as a close ally of the United States, as a major contributor to the Gulf effort and as a traditional friend of many Arab states, will do all it can to make sense of that peace.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past nine o'clock.

  THE AUTHORISED CONVEYANCING PRACTITIONERS BOARD
  THE AUTHORISED CONVEYANCING PRACTITIONERS BOARD
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S ADVISORY COMMITIEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION AND CONDUCT
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S ADVISORY COMMITIEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION AND CONDUCT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING
  NORTHERN IRELAND: FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING
  IRAQI, ETC. DETAINEES
  IRAQI, ETC. DETAINEES
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM: ASSESSMENT OF SEVEN YEAR-OLDS
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM: ASSESSMENT OF SEVEN YEAR-OLDS
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM ASSESSMENTS: REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM ASSESSMENTS: REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS
  WASTE REGULATION AND WASTE DISPOSAL FUNCTIONS: SEPARATION
  WASTE REGULATION AND WASTE DISPOSAL FUNCTIONS: SEPARATION
  WRECKS: ABOLITION OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO RECEIVERS
  WRECKS: ABOLITION OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS TO RECEIVERS
  VETERINARY INVESTIGATION SERVICE: REVIEW
  VETERINARY INVESTIGATION SERVICE: REVIEW