Sitting of 13 May 1991

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

    Landfill Gas
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of landfill gas schemes in operation or under construction; and what is his assessment of their potential impact on the reduction of the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): My Department is aware of 68 landfill gas schemes in operation, under construction or proposed. With all 68 schemes in operation, and if the gas were used to replace coal, the overall reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would be approximately 1 million tonnes per year.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Will he remind the nation that carbon dioxide is a killer of all life? Much as I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement, how much more can be done?
    Mr. Morgan: What about trees?
    Mr. Greenway: Trees, of course, absorb carbon dioxide. Would not more trees be a help?
    Mr. Moynihan: If I may, I shall address the important issue that my hon. Friend raised by referring to landfill gas schemes. There are many areas where we can carry out further research and development on environmental matters. Methane is the main component of landfill gas and is 27 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It is therefore important to use the combustion of methane to recover energy. That is beneficial. It removes the methane and disposes of fossil fuels. That is an important environmental step forward and I take on board my hon. Friend's point about other aspects of environmental concern.
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives the Government are undertaking to promote the development of landfill gas technology.
    Mr. Moynihan: My Department has a substantial programme of research and development assistance and technology transfer to promote the use of methane from landfill sites which has led to the continuing commercial exploitation of the technology.
    Mr. Lord: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, because what we do with our waste is now of enormous importance and we are looking towards the day when much more of what we discard can be recycled. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, in the meantime, all landfill sites that are to be constructed will be absolutely safe and that there will be no seepage or other emissions from those sites? Will he do that to assure my constituents that they will be absolutely safe? Will he also do all that he can to make maximum use of products like gas from such sites which will prove to be an invaluable contribution to the recycling process?
    Mr. Moynihan: Safety is paramount when considering applications for the development of landfill gas sites. Eleven schemes are under construction and 25 are proposed. I assure my hon. Friend that the safety of those schemes is paramount and that many criteria must be satisfied before permission is given.

    Alternative Energy
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of departmental expenditure on the promotion of alternative energy sources.
    Mr. Moynihan: The expenditure for 1990–91 in support of my Department's substantial research, development and demonstration programme into renewable energy sources was over £20 million.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Minister agree that that is an abysmally small amount, given the need to find environmentally clean and safe alternative energy sources? That figure compares most unfavourably with the £40 million or so that the Government spent on advertising the privatisation of electricity—an ideological sop as far as the Government are concerned. The only things that are green about the Government's environmental policy are the mould and moss growing on the good intentions and lack of policy.
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman should know that no Government have done more than this Government to develop sources of renewable energy. We are committed to doing yet more and to working towards 1,000 MW of electricity generation capacity from renewable sources by the year 2000. Over £180 million has already been invested in research, development and demonstration.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fuel cell is an almost pollution-free source of alternative energy? What is his Department doing to encourage the development of fuel cells? Will he acknowledge that today, the first day of platinum week in London, his Department should promote fuel cells more?
    Mr. Moynihan: I assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of money is being spent by the Government, and rightly so, on fuel cell development at Brogborough. I recommended that my hon. Friend sees that project. I know that he is already well aware of it. It is an important two-phase project carried out under the non-fossil fuel obligation and will be the largest landfill gas electricity project in the United Kingdom, generating 9 MW. The fuel cell development and research associated with landfill gas are a key part of our work.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that the efforts of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay to develop alternative energy sources are seriously hampered by the Government's discrimination against Scotland with regard to the non-fossil fuel obligation? Will the hon. Gentleman not treat Scotland in a manner which makes the development of wind, wave and other forms of renewable energy more difficult than in England?
    Mr. Moynihan: The Scottish, English and Welsh electricity systems are largely separate and the Government are considering how Scottish generators might contribute to the expansion of generation from renewables in Scotland.
    Sir Antony Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that my grandfather built the last working windmill in this
    4
    country? Would my hon. Friend like to say a word or two about the potential for wind, which is perhaps not an inappropriate matter for us to discuss in the House?
    Mr. Moynihan: Wind energy should concern the House. There is much research and development into the development of wind energy, not least at the wind farm in Wales. It is regrettable that many projects for the wind generation of electricity that come before planning committees often face hostile opposition from the very environmental groups who argue for wind generation around the country. I hope that those environmental groups will take note of the important renewable sources of energy in the United Kingdom, to which wind energy can contribute, and not oppose many planning applications on grounds of aesthetic concern. Indeed, even noise has been an issue that has been put to us in opposition to wind projects.
    Mr. Dobson: Must not the Minister agree that the privatisation of electricity is setting back the development of renewable energy because the newly privatised companies are not willing to give long-term contracts? Everything shows that long-term contracts or long-term guarantees for the sale of electricity are necessary if renewable sources such as barrages, windmills or wave power are to be developed on any reasonable scale.
    Mr. Moynihan: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. The assumption that contract length has been a constraint on generators seeking to contract within the non-fossil fuel obligation is untrue, because they need the flexibility to offer bankable contracts to sponsors of projects with long pay-back periods. That is why the first tranche of the NFFO was very successful. It is now clear that applications under the second tranche, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will be considerable.

    Nuclear Energy
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his current review of the future of the nuclear industry.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): The Government will carry out a full-scale review of the prospects for nuclear power in 1994, taking account of all relevant factors.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. friend agree that the policy of the Opposition parties—of phasing out nuclear civil energy—would be completely disastrous in terms of meeting our international obligations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases? Does he accept that, in that context, his answer today is disappointing? We run the risk of losing expertise in the nuclear industry if we do not consider and decide how to go forward with the industry before 1994.
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I am not sure about the second part. My discussions with people in the nuclear industry suggest to me that they are confident that they will be able to demonstrate that nuclear power is safe and economical. I believe that to be the best safeguard for the long-term future of nuclear power in Britain.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State revert to a previous incarnation and rebuke one of his colleagues as strictly as he did when he was the Government Chief Whip? That colleague should be the Prime Minister who on Thursday used the term nuclear "dumping" in column 823 of Hansard. Does not the Prime Minister know that there is no such thing as nuclear dumping? There is careful storage in controlled, safe conditions. The Prime Minister should not have used that word.
    Mr. Wakeham: Whatever success I had as Chief Whip in a previous incarnation was as much to do with my relationship with the Prime Minister as with anything else. Therefore, I do not believe that it is my business to comment on something that was said in Parliament last week, when I was in America. I agree with the hon. Gentleman this far—the disposal of the waste from the nuclear industry is an important part of the process of the nuclear industry and, of course, it must be safe and secure. That is a fundamental consideration.

    Lofts (Insulation)
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the number of homes with accessible lofts whose lofts had been insulated (a) in 1978 and (b) in 1990.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): In 1978 some 8·7 million homes with accessible lofts had loft insulation. By 1989 the number of homes with loft insulation had risen to 15·3 million. Figures for 1990 are not yet available.
    Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that excellent reply. Are low-income families eligible for financial assistance in these matters? If so, how much money will be made available to them this year?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In most cases, investment in energy efficiency equipment or insulation justifies itself financially, but assistance is required for low-income households. I am pleased to say that the home energy efficiency scheme, which was launched in January to give grants to precisely those households, will have a budget of £26 million in the current year.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's own figures—before they became so embarrassing that the Government stopped publishing them—showed that if the Tory Government had maintained home insulation at the level that they inherited from the previous Labour Government, 5·5 million more homes would now be properly insulated?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. When the Labour party left office, only about 60 per cent. of homes had loft insulation. The figure now is 90 per cent. That shows that Conservative Government is good for energy efficiency.

    North Sea
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of capital investment in the North sea in 1989 and 1990; and what level he expects it will be in the current year.
    Mr. Wakeham: Capital investment in the North sea increased by 30 per cent. from £2·7 billion in 1989 to £3·5 billion in 1990. I expect that rapid growth to continue in 1991.
    Dr. Twinn: Given that encouraging answer and the investment announced last week in the Alba field and the Everest Lomond field, does my right hon. Friend agree that production from the North sea continues to provide good news for Scotland and for England, continues to confound the pessimists who talk down the North sea and brings good news for gas and oil consumers in Britain?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Last Tuesday I was able to announce the approval of two major new schemes. The Chevron-operated Alba field and the Amoco-operated Everest/Lomond CATS—central area transmission system—project involve investment of £2·4 billion. In total, 11 development projects have been approved so far this year. The total value of new orders placed for goods and services for the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1990 rose to a massive £6·2 billion. That is an increase of over 60 per cent. compared with the previous year.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although those figures are most welcome, there is now a grave danger that there will be a concentration of gas power stations on Teesside and, consequently, of power lines that flow from them, and that it is necessary for the Government to have a strategy, so that power stations are located throughout the country and not concentrated in one area and pylons do not all emanate from Teesside? Although the gas fields are near the north-east coast, it is time that we recognised that other parts of the country use electricity and should take their fair share of the environmental problems.
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I understand his constituency concern, but he would not expect me to comment in detail on those matters because he knows that they are, or will be, subject to planning applications before approval and that all considerations will be properly taken into account when they are received.

    Offshore Platforms
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the number of new projects being started in United Kingdom yards for the construction of offshore platforms.
    Mr. Moynihan: At the present time United Kingdom construction yards have orders valued at £1·6 billion arising from 18 field development projects.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm not only that last year's figure of £6·2 billion for goods and services from North sea oil is a record but that no less than £4·8 billion of that sum was provided by British manufacturing and other British companies? Does he agree that that is a tribute to the vitality of the North sea oil industry and to the efficiency and competitiveness of British industry?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I simply add that that £6·2 billion represented an increase of more than 50 per cent. on the 1989 figure.
    Dr. Godman: May I remind the Minister that the Scott Lithgow offshore fabrication yard, which is located in my constituency, is one of the finest of its sort in Scotland? Why are the Minister, his officials and the officials at the offshore supplies office so massively indifferent to the needs of that yard and the labour force in the locality, where the unemployment rate is about 13·5 per cent? Why are the Minister and his officials refusing to assist Scott Lithgow to acquire orders from the North sea oil and gas industries?
    Mr. Moynihan: I refute and reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations. The parent company, Trafalgar House, is considering subcontracting work to the yard. I know that Scott Lithgow is actively seeking work. In doing so, it recognises that it is not just a matter of matching orders with yards; it is up to fabricators to decide which orders to bid for and then to be competitive. I am fully aware of the position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and of the management's determination to seek orders and match them to its capability at the yard.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Do not the figures given in answer to this question and the previous one dispel the doom and gloom that was spread some time ago about our running out of oil and gas in the North sea?
    Mr. Moynihan: They do. Even better news comes from considering the beginning of the cycle. Last year we had another record for exploration and appraisal wells with 224 sites, beating the previous high of 190 in 1984. The prospects for the North sea are good. We can expect future work for United Kingdom fabricators and suppliers and substantial further production of oil and gas well into the next century.

    British Coal
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future ownership of the industry.
    Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Knox: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal to discuss this matter, will he ensure that the views of the miners and others employed by British Coal are considered? Does he agree that privatisation of British Coal will be successful only if it enjoys the support of the employees?
    Mr. Wakeham: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely important that British Coal employees have an opportunity to participate in the privatisation and that they work to make it a success. I know that the chairman of British Coal would want the same.
    Mr. Redmond: The House will be aware of a recent drugs find in Colombian coal imports. When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Coal, will he discuss possible ways to stop that transpiring and ensure that the industry's morale is sky high and that there is sufficient coal from British mines to meet our energy needs?
    Mr. Wakeham: Colombian coal imports and their prices are matters for the European Commission rather than for me. I certainly want British Coal to be able to compete for as many orders as it can get. It will do that if
    8
    it can deliver the coal at competitive prices and in a proper manner, and if its productivity continues to improve, as it has in previous years.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Coal's success will depend not on who owns it but on its efficiency and productivity? For example, the two Nottinghamshire collieries that have led the production league for the past six months are at Welbeck, on an advancing face with 72 tonnes per man shift, and Thoresby, on a retreating face with 157 tonnes per man shift.
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. Following my visits to the coal industry, I have been impressed by the spirit, enthusiasm and skill of those in the industry. The coal industry is making good progress with productivity, which is up by over 90 per cent. from pre-strike levels. However, further productivity gains are essential. The industry has the technology, investment and the skills to achieve those.
    Mr. Morgan: I compliment the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on his moderate question, which was quite unlike the views expressed by Mr. Evans, the Conservative candidate for Monmouth, on any topic mentioned. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that any proposals that he has to privatise the coal industry are not based on the principles that were used to privatise the electricity industry? There were price rises to consumers in south Wales, including Monmouth, of 50 per cent. above inflation and enormous pay rises for the directors of South Wales Electricity of up to 45 per cent., whereas directors of businesses in south Wales, according to a survey in this morning's Western Mail, received pay rises of only 2 or 3 per cent., or even pay cuts. The directors of South Wales Electricity are receiving pay rises of £20,000 to £30,000.
    Mr. Wakeham: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not discuss such matters with the chairman of British Coal when I next meet him. If I did so, I should be able to point out that any electricity price rises incurred since the Conservative party has been in office are nothing compared to the 2 per cent. rise every six weeks when the Labour party was in office.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Rost: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his assessment of the contribution combined heat and power plant could make to reducing the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions by the end of the decade.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My Department's most recent estimates indicate that combined heat and power could in time lead to reductions of as much as 5 to 10 per cent. of United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions. The degree to which this will be realised by the year 2000 will depend on the future development of the United Kingdom power market.
    Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that combined heat and power can make a bigger contribution to reducing global greenhouse gases at a lower cost than any other solution? Is he aware that the Government memoranda to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

    9
    Change estimated that the potential in the United Kingdom was not 4,000 MW but 30,000 MW? Will he now take measures—they are still required—to remove some of the obstacles holding back industrial combined heat and power, particularly the example that I sent to him from Air Products?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I am happy to acknowledge that combined heat and power technology is good for the environment as well as being highly energy efficient. My hon. Friend referred to impediments, but I remind him that the restructuring and privatisation of the electricity supply industry have opened up the market to competitive, alternative, independent suppliers. Indeed, many suppliers of combined heat technology have risen to the challenge.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister accept that the freeing of the power market means as much as what the Tories stated in 1983 in debates on the Energy Act? It means as much as what was said throughout the debates in the House on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The Government still do not recognise the fact that the energy from combined heat and power technology is not competitive with ordinary generated electricity. It is energy used for the benefit of the environment and consumers. When will the Government take the action that the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) mentioned and stop the restrictions still in force against the development of combined heat and power?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Any regulatory or administrative restrictions that still exist will be dealt with by my Department and the Office of Electricity Regulation, but the main impediment to the spread of CHP technology in the past has been the state-owned, monolithic structure of the industry, which we have dismantled. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be known as environmentally aware, he should change his attitude towards what we have done in the electricity supply industry in the past three years.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how he proposes to assist renewable energy projects to fulfil the non-fossil fuel obligation.
    Mr. Moynihan: My right hon. Friend proposes to assist renewable projects by requiring the regional electricity companies to contract for renewable generating capacity under a series of additional tranches of the non-fossil fuel obligation.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful remarks. Is he aware that the public at large, and young people in particular, have accepted and support the clean, renewable energies of wind, wave and tide? Will Her Majesty's Government consider how they can encourage the use of those resources, which are popular, cheap and infinitely renewable, by the grace of the good Lord?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The most important way in which we can help this year is to make a second order under the non-fossil fuel obligation for renewables, which we shall do. We shall take note of my hon. Friend's important point that we should support not just one or two potential renewable sources, but a whole series, and that we should identify separate tranches of the NFFO.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will be aware of the widespread support, as the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) said for increasing the proportion of our energy that is produced from renewable sources. However, one inhibition has been the apparent conflict between, for example, a barrage and the conservation interests of wildlife in an estuary, whether it is the Severn or the Usk, Felixstowe on the east coast or the Lyme. Will officials at the Department of Energy put their heads together with officials at the Department of the Environment to try to provide, as a matter of policy, a proper way of evaluating environmental and energy benefits and disbenefits so that we find the best sites for wind, tidal and other alternative sources, rather than having a battle each time a site is chosen? We should have a strategy, not an ad hoc approach.
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify a problem that we faced and, I believe, resolved. That problem highlights the additional need for planning policy guidance to be given by the Government to local authorities so that we avoid the sort of diversity described by the hon. Gentleman. Work is under way on a planning policy guidance note, which will be isssued shortly and will go a long way towards resolving the problem described by the hon. Gentleman.

    British Coal
    Mrs. Heal: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future coal supplies to power stations in the midlands region.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the industry.
    Mrs. Heal: Does the Minister agree that the short-sighted policy of the rundown of coal production in the west midlands region has gone so far that it even endangers the future of the power stations in that district? What guarantees will he give that no power stations in the west midlands will be closed, other than Meaford and Ham Hall, whose closure has already been announced?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As the hon. Lady knows, three-year transitional contracts give security of volume and price so that the coal industry can adjust to the new market in energy. The future size of the industry depends on the future size of the market, so it is up to British Coal and all who work in it to create a reputation as a secure and economic supplier of indigenous energy to the electricity supply market. Substantial progress has been made since 1985.
    Mr. Dickens: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal to discuss coal supplies to midlands power stations, will he impress on him that as long as miners' jobs and pension funds are secure, it matters not whether coal mines are in state ownership or private ownership? There is no doubt that what the coal mining industry needs for survival is capital input. If businesses—whether Shell or the power companies—put money into the mining industry it will fight off competition from abroad. Does my hon. Friend agree?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. Coal produced by good British pits can compete with coal imported from anywhere. My hon. Friend makes a good point—that the challenges facing the coal industry will be the same, whether it is in public or private ownership.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister accept that productivity in the midlands, west and east has increased at a remarkable rate over the past few years? Following the question of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), may I put it to the Minister that when the future shape of the industry is being decided it would not be a bad idea if, following discussions with British Coal, the Secretary of State for Energy were to organise a ballot of the workers in the industry so that he might have their view on privatisation before the general election? There would probably be a very clear result against privatisation.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I happily acknowledge that the industry has greatly improved its productivity in recent years, albeit from a very low base. Only high productivity can bring security to the industry in the long term. As regards the holding of a ballot, I need say only that we shall be having a general election and that that will show whether people think that the future of the coal industry should be put into private hands.

    Nuclear Electric
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total electricity output of Nuclear Electric in the year ending 31 March 1991.
    Mr. Wakeham: Last year Nuclear Electric plc produced just under 45 terawatt hours. This was a record level of nuclear electricity production in England and Wales. It was also more than 7 per cent. above Nuclear Electric's production target for the year.
    Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. Friend for the most encouraging figures that he has just given. Does he agree that it would be beneficial to have a source of energy other than fossil fuels? If we took into account the cost of the effects of sulphur, nitrogen and CO2, emissions—leaving aside the cost of slag heaps—the real cost of electricity generated by fossil fuels would be seen to make nuclear generation a very cheap option.
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question. In 1994 there will be a full-scale review, which will take account of all the relevant factors. The relative environmental costs of fossil fuels is one factor that we shall want to take into account.

    Mains Electricity Supply
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on what assistance is available to connect people to the mains electricity supply in remote rural areas.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Under the Electricity Act 1989, all new consumers were given the right to connection on reasonable terms. The Director General of Electricity Supply is empowered to adjudicate in cases of dispute.
    Mr. Amos: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. He will be aware that recently the Rural
    12
    Development Commission undertook an inquiry into the matter. May I suggest that he meets the chairman of the commission to discuss ways in which the Government might help it to connect the premises of my constituents in rural areas, or at least to give them some assistance? The advertised costs are quite prohibitive.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. My right hon. Friend has been in correspondence with the Rural Development Commission and has pointed out that the position of such customers has been substantially improved. Previously, they had a right to a supply only if they lived within 50 yd of a distribution main; now, the regional electricity companies are obliged to offer reasonable terms for such a supply and the director general can determine what is reasonable in those circumstances.

    Electricity Tariffs
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss the pricing formula for electricity tariffs.
    Mr. Wakeham: Monitoring and enforcement of the price controls in the public electricity licences issued to the regional electricity companies are matters for the Director General of Electricity Supply.
    Mr. Cohen: Has not the Government's blunder in their inflation calculations last year meant much higher electricity prices than are justified by the rate of inflation this year? Does the Minister agree that the Government have the power, but the people get the bills?
    Mr. Wakeham: There is a degree of illogic about the hon. Gentleman's question. He was arguing for higher increases last year as well. That is what would have happened: the total increase would have been more. It is, of course, right that last year inflation to October was forecast at 6 per cent. Unfortunately, it was higher than that and the price increases recently announced take account of that increase in the rate of inflation.

    North Sea
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of capital investment in the North sea.
    Mr. Moynihan: As my right hon. Friend noted in response to a similar question earlier, capital investment in the North sea increased by 30 per cent. from £2·7 billion in 1989 to £3·5 billion in 1990. We expect that rapid growth to continue in 1991.
    Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a Shell fellow-elect of the Industry and Parliament Trust, I have been able to see at first hand some of the substantial investment currently going into the North sea? It is good news for the United Kingdom economy. Will my hon. Friend ensure that Treasury Ministers, in so far as he has any influence over them, continue to produce a tax regime favourable for marginal investment in the North sea?
    Mr. Moynihan: As my hon. Friend knows full well, the Treasury has for many years recognised that a stable fiscal framework is essential for operators and investors taking

    13
    long-term financial decisions in the North sea—a point of which I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury are only too well aware in the context of future decisions.

  THE ARTS

    London Arts
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy towards the arts in the London area; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): The overall aim of our policy for London, as elsewhere, is to continue to develop a climate in which the arts can flourish. To that end, London will have a new regional arts board from 1 October 1991. Good progress has been made with the appointment of Mr. Clive Priestley as chair, 10 of the 14 other board members and a chief executive, Mr. Tim Mason.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome the appointment of Mr. Priestley. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that London is the cultural centre of the world in every aspect of the arts? Will he therefore resist the pressure that has come from the House in recent years to divert money from London to the regions? It is right to build up money for the regions—but not at the expense of London.
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. I regard London as the cultural centre of the world and will do all in my powers to ensure that it remains so. However, it is only right that the regions should have a fair crack of the whip, too. It is true that in recent years more money, on a percentage basis, has gone from the Arts Council to the regions than to London, but I stress that there is no crisis in central Government funding of the arts through the Arts Council. If there is a problem it is down to the London boroughs—individually or through the London boroughs grants scheme—some of which are, alas, withdrawing funding from the arts.
    Mr. Fisher: I join the Minister in welcoming Mr. Priestley's appointment, but he faces a difficult task.
    The Minister, in his complacency, does not seem to understand the urgency or the scale of the crisis facing London's arts, from which £800,000 has been withdrawn under the London boroughs grants scheme budget. Probably more than £3 million in cuts has been forced on local authorities by the Government's poll tax; and the Government's funding, through the Arts Council, of Greater London Arts is well below the rate of inflation. All that will hit arts bodies in London and it is all a direct result of Government policies.
    Does not the Minister see what is going on? Is not he aware of it? Why has he said not a single word while the crisis has been developing over the past few weeks? What will he do about the problem now?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman should not quote from a script passed into his hand by some stagehand whom he has just met. The fact is that I have instructed the Arts Council, through Greater London Arts, to make available short-term funding for those of its clients who may be suffering because of a lack of decisions under the London boroughs grants scheme. The problem lies not in the fact that there is no money in the system. Quite the opposite: there is money in the system, but unfortunately
    14
    some boroughs have decided that funding the arts is a luxury. The shadow Minister should be using his persuasive powers to persuade the London boroughs to continue to fund the arts through the money that they will have under the LBGS.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he will next make an official visit to the Teesside region to discuss funding of the arts.
    Mr. Renton: I am due to visit Tyneside in July for the Museums Association annual conference. I hope that my next visit to the Northern region after that will be to Teesside.
    Mr. Holt: Although my right hon. Friend believes that London is the cultural centre of the world, he should learn that Tyneside and Teesside are 50 miles apart and are nothing to do with each other. On Teesside we have a world cultural event every two years—the Cleveland international eisteddfod—which receives little financial backing from the Government. It would perhaps be enhanced if a Minister were to attend. If I told my right hon. Friend that it was to take place in two or three weeks' time, he might say that I was not giving him sufficient notice. However, it will not take place for 18 months, so I hope that I shall not be accused of that and that he will not say that he cannot make commitments 18 months ahead. It is time that the Government showed their commitment to the Teesside region by attending the international eisteddfod, which has a worldwide reputation.
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his lesson in geography. I was aware that Tyneside is different from Teesside, but I thought that I should point out my general commitment to the north-east. He is being somewhat unfair about the Billingham international folklore festival. In recent years it has won six business sponsorship incentive scheme awards, all of which are matched pound for pound by the Department through the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. He should give credit to my Department for that. I hope to accept his invitation and to be with him at the Billingham festival at some stage in the future.

    Art Restoration (Middle East)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many experts have been given grants for art restoration in the war zones of the middle east.
    Mr. Renton: The Office of Arts and Libraries has received no requests for such grants and none has therefore been made.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the policy towards any requests for help that might come from Kuwait? Should not those who, rightly or wrongly, willed the war, which resulted in the destruction of the shrines at Kerbala and Najaf, at least respond favourably if the Shia community ask for help? Can we be prepared for that?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced enough Member to know that there is little point in asking wholly hypothetical questions. As I said, I have received no such requests for help in restoring, for example, any religious or cultural items that might have been taken from

    15
    the museums. If we were to receive such a request, I am sure that the conservation departments of our leading museums would do their best to help. They might make a charge, but that would not be unreasonable. However, they have received no such request, nor do we have any specific information about damage to artistic or cultural objects.

    London Arts
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will bring forward a plan to remove the arts in London from funding by the London boroughs grants scheme.
    Mr. Renton: The problems surrounding the settlement of the LBGS budget this year have demonstrated that the joint local authority arrangements for funding arts organisations in London are not working effectively.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has included those arrangements in the review of the structure of local government. I am discussing with him possible alternative future arrangements to ensure a stable environment for the funding of the capital's arts organisations.
    Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today Tom Stoppard, Tom Conti and others launched a campaign to save the King's Head theatre, which is one of the best in the capital and in the country, from the disastrous cut in grant by the London boroughs grants scheme? Is not it a fact that that scheme not only knows precious little about the arts, but puts them in the bottom category of its priorities? Is not it time that London's arts were rescued from its clutches?
    Mr. Renton: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the difficulty is not that there is no money in the system—there is, from the Arts Council through Greater London Arts and also from the LBGS which, I understand, intends to devote approximately £3 million of its budget, or about 11 per cent., to arts organisations. The problem is——
    Mr. Fisher: The Minister is ill-informed.
    Mr. Renton: The shadow Minister for the Arts says that I am ill-informed, but he has not read his script. He has been too busy reading The Stage and I advise him against that in future. The money is there, in the system. The difficulty is that the LBGS took so long to reach decisions. That is why I had to ask the Arts Council to give interim, temporary help to its clients who were in difficulties.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister must be aware that there is a real crisis of funding in the London arts—in large measure due to the overall financial squeeze that has been placed both by the Government and by the Tory boroughs on the London boroughs grants committee on the funding of voluntary bodies and arts organisations in the capital. It is seriously affecting two theatres in my constituency—the Almeida and the King's Head. Is it not time that the Minister stopped wringing his hands and pretending that he was not responsible for any of that and instead devoted some Government money to supporting the arts in London?
    Mr. Renton: I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that because I know of his great interest in the subject. However, he is being less than just. Greater London Arts is giving an award this year to the Almeida theatre of
    16
    £238,000. That is Government-provided money. Like the hon. Gentleman, I should be sorry if the Almeida, which is one of the most important new writing theatres in the country, went under. It is his council, Islington, and the London boroughs grants scheme which are keeping back £56,000, a mere one fifth of the Arts Council money. The hon. Gentleman should bring his influence to bear on Islington to see that the Almeida does not get into difficulties. Islington is not a Tory borough; I do not think that the Tories are yet in control of Islington.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Private Sector Recruitment
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what percentage of chief executives and senior managers in executive agencies have been recruited from the private sector; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): One objective in appointing chief executives is to get the right person for each job. Open competition is now the presumption. Fourteen of the 50 chief executives appointed so far have come from outside the civil service.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Knowing, as we Conservatives do, that bringing in the private sector or subcontracting agencies to chief executives refreshes parts that socialist policies cannot reach, will my right hon. Friend think about applying those policies to the Passport Office which, at this time of year, is always under great pressure, which causes a great deal of dissatisfaction to people? I am sure that the Passport Office could be far better run if either the chief executive did it or the private sector were brought in to do it.
    Mr. Renton: It is likely that, when the present chief executive retires, the next chief executive of the Passport Office will be appointed by open competition, so the best choice will be arrived at from applicants within and outwith the civil service. I spent three happy summers at the Home Office, where I was responsible for the Passport Office, and I should be one of the first to agree with my hon. Friend that some of the best and most efficient private sector methods could be applied to passport offices.

    Morale
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the civil service unions to discuss morale within the service.
    Mr. Renton: I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a variety of issues.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Minister next meets representatives from the civil service trade unions, will he tell them whether it is true that the Prime Minister's new policy unit, headed by Ms. Sarah Hogg, is drawing up a secret agenda for selling off large parts of the civil service? Is that the case? What is to be sold off? Will the Minister be sold off as well?
    Mr. Renton: If there were a secret agenda, I would not know the answer to the question, would I? The hon.

    17
    Gentleman is trying to make castles out of shadows and nightmares. It is perfectly right that the policy unit at No. 10 should look at the further applications of the "next steps" agency process. I was pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor, spoke favourably about the "next steps" process during his speech last week.
    We have never said that "next steps", turning a large part of the civil service into agencies, is necessarily the end of the road. It is right that some parts of the civil service should be considered for contractorisation and that other parts should be considered as candidates for privatisation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would support that thesis in the interests of better service for the customer and of a better career structure in the civil service.
    Dr. Marek: If there is no secret agenda to privatise large parts of the civil service, should the Government win the next election, why is the Minister planning the abolition of the central rules for staff appraisal and reporting? If he is doing that, can he assure the House that any changes to staff appraisal will be introduced only after meaningful consultation with the trade unions representing civil servants?
    Mr. Renton: I have no doubt that there will be close consultation with civil service unions on the subject. If we move to greater flexibility in pay determination within the "next steps" agencies—we want to do that, as has been said many times in discussions about the "next steps" process—it is only right that staff appraisal should also be delegated to a greater extent to the chief executives of the agencies. That will mean that the agencies will not follow a wholly uniform pattern at every stage.

    Civil Service College
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what courses on the machinery of government are run by the Civil Service college.
    Mr. Renton: The college runs over 40 courses a year on machinery of government issues. They benefit greatly from the contribution of Members of the House—including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for which I am most grateful.
    Mr. Banks: It is my pleasure.
    Will copies of Sir Bernard Ingham's new book "Kill The Messenger" be made available at the Civil Service college as a teaching aid for civil servants, to show them how to stitch up elected Ministers at the request of the Prime Minister? Perhaps the Minister will tell us that the best thing to do is to cut through it all and appoint card-carrying members of the Conservative party to the chief posts in the civil service?
    Mr. Renton: That latter remark was wholly unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. As he has spent time—for which I thanked him—lecturing at the Civil Service college on the value of Question Time, I hoped that he would make better use of his opportunity today. It will not be necessary for us to make available at the Civil Service college copies of Sir Bernard Ingham's memoirs; my impression from reading yesterday's Sunday Times is that it will be freely available on the bookstalls.

    Women Returners
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements are being made in the civil service to encourage women with children to return to work in Government Departments.
    Mr. Renton: Government Departments and agencies have adopted a range of measures designed to enable those women who so choose to return to work in the civil service. They include flexible working arrangements, career breaks and child care provision.
    Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, of the items that he listed, the one that needs the greatest encouragement is the adoption of flexible working patterns? That will permit a number of women with children and other family responsibilities to take up a career while abiding by those responsibilities.
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. When I was responsible for various departments connected to the Home Office, I was aware that recruitment for the department in Croydon was aided by the introduction of flexible working patterns. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the proportion of women now working part time is 13·7 per cent., as opposed to just under 5 per cent. seven years ago. He is right to emphasise the importance of these matters.
    Mr. Madden: Will not many women be discouraged from joining the civil service when they consider the unhappy treatment of Colette Bowe in the Westland affair? If the book will not be supplied to the Civil Service college, will the Minister ensure that a video of Sir Bernard Ingham's television interview last night is shown? It was most disturbing to see senior civil servants violently contradicting each other on the Westland affair. One senior civil servant even contradicted a senior Cabinet Minister. Will the Minister institute an inquiry into the Westland affair? It is time that we knew who was telling the truth and who was lying.
    Mr. Renton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is no; I have no intention of instituting an inquiry. As for the first part, I think that he would be the first to complain if we distributed free copies of Sir Bernard Ingham's book, or free copies of the video, to members of the civil service.

    European Fast Stream
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made with the European fast stream initiative to encourage civil servants to work in the European Community.
    Mr. Renton: The European fast stream has attracted more than 4,000 applications this year. We have already allocated more than half the 30 places available.
    Mr. Knapman: How long will it be before these fast streamers are working in Brussels? Will they ensure that Britain's interests are even better represented in the European Commission?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that five European fast-streamers are already in post, that the first European fast-streamer was a woman and that 20

    19
    places are currently on offer. I intend to ensure that the under-representation of the British in European Community institutions is adjusted in our favour.
    Dr. Godman: Will the Minister outline the criteria by which his civil servants are chosen to work in Brussels? For example, are they assessed on their views about the United Kingdom's role in the European Community?
    Mr. Renton: I shall gladly send the hon. Gentleman some of the documents that are issued to those who apply for such jobs. Those people undergo a thorough and detailed examination. He will be interested to know that on our new joint drive with the Commission, there were more than 12,0000 requests for application forms from graduates from all backgrounds in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman would like to receive more details about the examination I shall see that he gets them.

    "Next Steps" Agencies
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps are taken to give executive agencies set up under the "next steps" initiative freedom in the management of the delivery of services to the public and their customers.
    Mr. Renton: A fundamental objective of "next steps" is to improve the quality of Government services provided to the public. Agencies are given the managerial freedoms that they need to achieve that.
    Mr. Dickens: Many people are concerned that the various Departments will not give enough freedom to the new agencies to manage their own affairs. Is the actual position different from what people think?
    Mr. Renton: That is a fair question. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there are already some good examples of greater freedoms in and better customer service by the existing agencies. He will also be pleased to know that in October we announced that we would ask the efficiency unit to undertake a study of the relationship between individual Departments and their agencies to make certain that we were moving towards giving sufficient freedom. I expect a report of that study to be published shortly.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts in Rear Seats by Adults) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft County Court Remedies Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Adjournment (Spring)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 23 May, do adjourn until Monday 3 June.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
3.33 pm
Mr. John Biffen: I hope that the House will be unashamed of the coming recess, and will not fall for any of the modish comments in some of our tabloid newspapers that the House is doing any less constructive work in the country than it does at Westminster.
As the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) will verify, I have used such opportunities before to raise the question of health services in the county of Shropshire. I did that in the context of the funding and impact of the district general hospital that has been constructed at Telford and its consequences for health care elsewhere in the county. I am returning to the subject because many cottage hospitals in Shropshire have lost their traditional role. That is true of the cottage hospitals in my constituency at Oswestry, Newport, Ellesmere and Market Drayton, and it applies more widely in other parts of the county.
The loss of a cottage hospital within the national health service structure in no sense inhibits local communities from wishing to see those premises being used for a caring role in connection with the work of the NHS and the Department of Social Security. Thus, throughout the county of Shropshire—obviously I speak specifically for my constituency—determined actions have been taken to provide the resources and dedication to enable the cottage hospitals to have a continuing and caring role.
The pattern will, of course, be different from what existed before the creation of the Telford district general hospital, but in some senses it increasingly reflects the consequences of the application of the Griffiths reforms in social services. The change has been a great challenge to the communities who have seen their hospitals alter their traditional roles. Those communities have sought to raise the necessary finances to give the hospitals a prolonged and vigorous life.
A constituent of mine, Mr. T. G. Whippey, of 33 Rowan road, Market Drayton, has circulated a letter to all hon. Members co-signed by Mr. K. Cooper from Newport and Mrs. J. Hodgson from Shifnal. Doubtless they will be interested in this debate.
Mr. Whippey was perhaps taking a line from my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who has said, "We want our money back." My right hon. Friend made that assertion in a totally different context relating to our relationship with the European Community. Mr. Whippey, however, feels that the loss of the cottage hospitals has created a challenge, whereby the resources that they represent should be returned to the communities to which they hitherto belonged.
That point was made in the letter circularised to hon. Members which states:
"Many localities, especially the rural and isolated, have a very real public transport problem in addition to the humanitarian, and, with the frail elderly in mind, expect to retain these units to continue as prior to 1946"
Mr. Whippey is referring to the inception of the NHS under the National Health Service Act 1946.
Obviously, I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to answer the specific point that I
22
shall raise in my short contribution, but I very much hope that he will forward it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. That will supplement the letter that I have already dispatched in that direction.
If one goes far wider than the county of Shropshire, there are many areas where hospital closure has inevitably become part of the recasting of the health service. Those affected want a clear statement on the ownership of those properties under the National Health Service Act 1946.
I suspect that, inevitably, that legislation gives a great deal of discretion as to how the resources realised from hospital closure will be used. In that case, I should like a statement of policy on guidance as to the use of those resources from the Department of Health, the district health authority and the area health authority.
The use of the resources realised by hospital closure runs at the very heart of the conduct of the health service and relates to wider considerations within the social services. It is happening within the context of change, where one is frequently seeking a partnership between the public and private sectors. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be seized of the point that, in the disposal of the assets of cottage hospitals, attention should be paid to enabling equitable help to be given to all the voluntary effort that takes place, to ensure that such hospitals remain in caring service, even if they are not within what was formerly the NHS structure.
It would be advantageous if the 1946 Act was interpreted so that the communities that have been stripped of their NHS hospitals can at least expect partnership finance when those hospitals begin a new and caring role. That is not a theoretical proposition; it is a matter of immediate reality in the county of Shropshire, where the changes subsequent to the establishment of the district general hospital in Telford means that a new role is now being sought—overwhelmingly by voluntary effort—for those buildings that performed the role of cottage hospitals.
I cannot believe that their emerging role, which is intended to be a bridge between social security and the national health service and a variety of other interests—and not least between public and private commitments—does not create the opportunity for guidance to be given to encourage the voluntary work now being undertaken in Shropshire. In that way, we should be able to ensure the maximum care and use of buildings that were once national health service cottage hospitals.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) for his brief speech. If others follow his admirable lead, all of them will be called.
3.39 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: There are some who think that this short debate ought to have been timed to take place after the Monmouth by-election on Thursday when, we are told by unidentified Whitehall sources as reported in sections of the press, the Prime Minister will finally decide whether to take the plunge and call a June election. Nevertheless, we are asked by the Leader of the House, who is presumably one of the Ministers said to be counselling against a June election, to assume that the period 23 May to 3 June will be one of

23
parliamentary recess and not of electioneering. If the right hon. Gentleman will confide his thoughts to us today, they should be a most interesting feature of the speech with which he concludes this debate.
There are some important issues that I want very briefly to raise and on which I seek an assurance from the Leader of the House that there will at least be ministerial statements before 23 May. The first is that of the very serious effect of value added tax on charities and, in particular, the cost to the Paterson Institute of Cancer Research in south Manchester.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the recent increase in VAT—which is in effect a poll tax surcharge—means that Britain's charities now have to pay an additional £33 million per annum. This brings their total irrecoverable VAT bill to nearly £250 million a year. Some charities are facing an irrecoverable VAT bill of over £1 million a year.
Most of that money will have been donated by caring individuals to help, not the Billy Bunters of the Treasury, but people who are much less fortunate than themselves. The Chancellor spoke in Monmouth last week about "the mugging of taxpayers." His policy on VAT can be described as the mugging of this country's good samaritans, and in no case is this more apposite than the milking by the Chancellor of funds donated to the Paterson Institute for Cancer Research.
The research done by the institute includes new drug development, the use of growth factors in cancer treatment, bone marrow transplantation, the development of a cancer vaccine and the study of heritability of cancer, as well as basic studies on cancer and its early diagnosis. Professor David Harnden, the distinguished director of this renowned and internationally respected institute, told me before the Budget that this research is funded largely by the Cancer Research Campaign. In order to ensure its continuance, it is now necessary to modernise the institute's building to meet the needs of modern technology and current legislation. This work can be carried out over a period of four years with minimal disruption to the institute's work. The estimated total cost in early March was £8·5 million, including some £1·2 million in VAT.
"The only sources of finance open to me,"
said Professor Harnden,
are charitable funds."
In a letter to the Chancellor on 4 March, Professor Harnden wrote:
"If you agree with me that the present law is unjust, will you introduce new legislation that will remove the liability for VAT from buildings which are built for a charitable purpose and funded with money which has been donated for that charitable purpose? This might just bring completion of my programme within the bounds of possibility."
Instead of removing the institute's liability to VAT for work which is of life-saving significance, the Chancellor in his Budget increased the burden from 15 to 17·5 per cent. The institute's bill from the Treasury now rises from £1·2 million to £1·4 million, and I am sure most hon. Members will regard that as totally unjust and disgraceful. I wrote to the Chancellor two months ago, in advance of his Budget, and still await a reply. From the Leader of the House, I now seek an assurance that there will at least be a statement from the Chancellor before the House goes into recess.
24
The second issue I wish to raise is that of the hundreds of redundancies among Dan-Air engineering staff at Manchester airport. They are a skilled work force of very high standing and, unless action is taken quickly to save jobs, they will soon be scattered.
As the Leader of the House must be aware, unemployment in Greater Manchester is already unacceptably high. The total is increasing and, in direct consequence of the Government's policies, it is set to go on increasing. There, more than anywhere else, we just cannot afford the further loss of skills that will result from the policy now being pursued by the Danish company that recently purchased the engineering side of Dan-Air for the purpose, it is argued, of asset stripping. Not only highly skilled engineers, of long experience, but many apprentices are affected by the new owner's decision to disband the present work force at Manchester airport.
At a recent meeting in the House, my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), together with my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and I, among others, met a large delegation of the people now facing redundancy. They believe that Ministers have a role to play in helping to save their jobs and representations have been made on their behalf to the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Trade and Industry. We have also had contact with the Danish ambassador and now wish the two Secretaries of State to meet a delegation of concerned right hon. and hon. Members to discuss this still further very serious body blow to skilled employment in Manchester.
The delegation from the work force was concerned that not only employment issues, but also legal questions arise from what has been done by the Danish purchaser from Dan-Air and would very much appreciate all the help and guidance that Ministers can offer. Hence my concern, as the Member most directly involved, since Manchester airport is in my constituency, to secure an urgent ministerial response for them either in the House or in a meeting between the two Secretaries of State and the right hon. and hon. Members who wish to see them. I know that the Leader of the House will want to reply to me about this as constructively as he can.
My third issue, which I shall also raise briefly, is the Government's failure to ratify the UN convention about the rights of the child. The Leader of the House will know that there is strong and increasing pressure for ratification in the interests of Britain's reputation in the world and of needful children, not least sick and disabled children, in the United Kingdom and its dependent territories.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have called for ratification without further delay. In doing so, they reflect opinion not only in this country, but among the peoples of Britain's dependencies for whose well-being this House and the Government have ultimate responsibility. If not a debate, there should at least be an early ministerial statement about the Government's intentions before the House goes into recess. That is surely a reasonable request.
The final issue that I want to raise is that of the Government's attitude to NHS patients who were infected with AIDS virus by contaminated blood transfusions, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has given informed

25
leadership over a long period. His concern, and that of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, is for the plight of road traffic victims and women who have been infected by blood transfusions during childbirth—among others—who now seek compensation for the grievous harm they suffered during NHS treatment.
Graham Ross, the solicitor who speaks for the lawyers of 14 afflicted patients in the north, has said:
"These are men, women and children who are dying because they were given infected blood. Time is not on their side."
About 170 transfusion patients are thought to be infected, and Graham Ross also says:
"The Government have compensated the haemophiliacs as an act of compassion. I cannot see why that well of compassion should suddenly run dry for transfusion patients whose tragedies are equally real."
His inability to see why patients who suffered the same injury cannot be compensated in the same way is shared not only on both sides of this House, but by people of all persuasions all over Britain. I most strongly urge the Leader of the House to promise a ministerial statement on this profoundly moving issue, about which there is now such mounting public concern, before the motion now before the House is approved.
At the same time, I hope that he will tell us the Government's response to the disclosure by The Sunday Times yesterday about patients, not least haemophiliacs, who have been infected with a new and potentially fatal virus, hepatitis C, by blood transfusions. The virus causes liver cancer and kills 700 people in Britain every year. One of those infected is my constituent Peter Mossman, who is a haemophiliac. He is justifiably angry now to have to bear this further burden and also about the Government's refusal to fund a new testing programme at a cost of £10 million. Again, it must surely be reasonable to request an update for the House on the Government's approach to this vitally important issue.
3.51 pm
Mr. William Powell: I thoroughly endorse the early sentences of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). Although certain elements of the media may imagine that, when the House is in recess, right hon. and hon. Members do nothing but go on holiday, nothing could be further from the truth. All hon. Members must strike a balance between our attendance in the House and our presence among our constituents. Our constituents expect us to be present in our constituencies, an not merely bob up and down on television screens for all to see. I, like the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members, will go through an intensive period of constituency engagements and activities. It is only right and proper that we should have recesses to give us a greater opportunity to do constituency work than is possible when our attendance in London is so demanding.
I very much appreciate the remarks of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about VAT and charities. All hon. Members are associated with certain charities. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks, although directed at specific charities, can be taken in the general context that any rise in VAT would affect charities. I point out to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that charities have undoubtedly been adversely affected by the rise in VAT. I hope that the
26
Government may yet find some solution to the awful fiscal burden that VAT places on them. I know that my right hon. Friend has sympathy with certain charities.
However, in the House I have often referred to village halls, and will continue to do so. The Finance Bill 1989—when my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was responsible for such matters—did a great deal to alleviate the burden of VAT on village halls. Village halls do much important voluntary work, not only in rural areas such as those which my right hon. Friend and I represent but in urban areas. In 1989, I was surprised and delighted to receive robust support from Opposition Members who represented entirely urban constituencies but who nevertheless had active village halls in their constituencies seeking to raise money for improvements.
As a Member of Parliament from the county of Norfolk, my right hon. Friend will be only too well aware of the enormous sums of money raised to keep historic churches in a proper and proud state of repair. The money has to be raised from somewhere, and VAT must be paid on it. That adds to the burden. I refer my right hon. Friend to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in the Budget debate. Many of his comments were controversial, but he said that the gap between zero and 17·5 per cent. was perhaps too wide. Sooner or later, the Government will have to come to terms with the fact that the gap between goods and services which are zero-rated and those subject to the single rate of 17·5 per cent. may impose too great a strain on the system. Those are arguments for another day.
As far as I am aware, the main matter about which I wish to speak has not been raised in the House on any occasion. It is exhibitions and exhibition sites in Britain. When we learned history at school, we all learned about the great medieval trade fairs. By and large, such fairs have died out in Britain, although, of course, the small street markets are derived from them. We also have the great national exhibition centres at Earls Court and Olympia in the capital city and the national exhibition centre in Birmingham. But when that provision is contrasted with that in almost all sizeable cities in the rest of continental Europe, one realises that this activity of commerce and trade is paid far too little attention in Britain.
Earls Court and Olympia are aging sites, which will undoubtedly require refurbishment, and that will probably be exceedingly expensive. But we have a few modest exhibition sites in Britain of the type taken for granted in towns and cities of 100,000 people or more in France, Germany and Italy. The trade fairs in those towns and cities attract international trade to the local area and promote the local products. They are almost continuously in session. There is a striking contrast between the number of trade fairs in the cities of Lombardy, Germany or southern France and that in Britain.
We all know about the Ideal Home exhibition, the boat show and the motor show, but there are many opportunities for much smaller trade fairs. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) talked about Manchester airport. The magnet which is most likely to attract trade fairs to Britain is active regional airports. They bring in trade and commerce. There is no doubt that close to airports there are possibilities—if only they can be opened up—to encourage

27
trade and commerce through constantly holding exhibitions one after another in the area. Clearly, Manchester is an ideal position in the north-west for holding fairs to encourage such commerce.
There is no doubt that the opening of the new terminal at Stansted opens up opportunities for the east end of London, Essex and East Anglia. It will bring international business, business men and customers into the area via the airport to attend exhibitions held in the area.
A new national exhibition site should be considered for the royal docks area of docklands and the east end of London. The infrastructure is currently being put in place in the area, where there is remarkably little other development. From Stansted airport, it takes little over 25 minutes on an excellent road system to reach the area. In order to have that sort of activity, it is necessary to have not merely transport infrastructure, but hotels, restaurants and all the other facilities which will make the place attractive to international commerce for its trade exhibitions. I stress that I am talking not about a one-off affair which takes place once a year or every other year, but about sites which can be in continuous use, as happens in continental Europe.
There is no reason why nearly every town and city of 100,000-plus people should not have an exhibition site, which can be used for regional, national and international promotions, surrounded by hotel developments and the rest which are needed to make it attractive. In my area, for example, there is no reason why Northampton, Peterborough and Cambridge should not have exhibition centres which can hold such functions. The truth is that they do not. Indeed, they come nowhere near doing so. Yet a city of about 120,000 people on the continent would take such a facility almost for granted.
Why is it that we do not have such facilities? First, for a long period we have allowed our old mediaeval trade fairs to be run down. That has not happened in continental Europe. Secondly, their development falls between the stools of Government, local government and the private sector, which means that they are never properly co-ordinated and allowed to develop. It would simply not be possible to establish any sort of exhibition centre without the closest possible co-operation between the public and private sectors, not merely over planning, but over the whole range of activities. Obviously, I must be careful' about how deeply I go into the role of central Government through the Department of the Environment, but clearly national policy should have a pump-priming role.
If we were to establish a national exhibition centre in docklands, which would essentially take over from Earl's Court and Olympia—two aging sites which are unsuitably situated in west London—and rival in terms of size and prestige similar centres in Frankfurt and elsewhere, it would cost at least £300 million. That is a sizeable sum, and it would be wrong to expect it to be raised in any way other than through a co-operative pump-priming venture, involving the public and private sectors and, possibly, the European Community. For a more modest exhibition centre in the towns of Northampton, Peterborough and Cambridge, which I have already mentioned—there are many other examples that one could identify, such as bigger cities, including Bristol, Southampton and Leeds, as
28
well as towns of 150,000 people—the investment would be more modest, but substantial sums would have to be raised.
Some in the private sector are capable of running exhibitions successfully and well, but the facilities simply do not exist in sufficient numbers or across a wide enough area. One of the best ways of promoting regional policy would be to enable such facilities to develop in areas which desperately need investment, especially investment in infrastructure such as I am talking about. That is so important.
There is only one other matter which I wish to mention this afternoon. We are in the early stages of having to develop a national and regional strategy for exhibitions, but it must be done. I am aware of that only because I was privileged enough to enjoy an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in the past year or two. For the first time, I had to think about such matters, and I found that there were big gaps.
Although all hon. Members have had a background in industry or professions such as teaching, we all have a narrow background—it could not be otherwise. I came to the House having spent 15 years at the criminal bar among crime and criminals. I always say that some of my best friends are bank robbers—[Interruption.] Even the careers of Opposition Members have a narrow base, but we must grow beyond those roots.
The Industry and Parliament Trust enables hon. Members who wish to enjoy its facilities, opportunities and privileges to learn in depth about matters that they have not previously considered. I am grateful for the opportunity that I had. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the recent remarks made by the right hon. and noble Lord Prior, chairman of the trust, about how industry must start to make facilities and arrangements available for those who work for it to spend at least some of their careers in public life. He also spoke of the need for adjustments in pension arrangements, and those important points deserve serious consideration.
Although it is right that we should adjourn, it is also right that we should not do so until we have had the opportunity to raise matters such as those mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister and Opposition Members. Once they have been aired in the House, I hope that we shall go off for our Whitsun recess and see our constituents with enthusiasm, and that we shall return renewed by our contact with the real world rather than merely with the gossip of the hothouse that is the Palace of Westminster.
4.7 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House will be aware that, on several successive Thursdays, Opposition Members have asked for debates on unemployment. He has continually refused, and I should like to raise the matter before we go into recess. We should have had a major debate on unemployment to enable my hon. Friends to discuss the problems in their areas. We must have one now because, if it is true that we shall have thirteen and a half weeks' recess in July, August, September and part of October, the opportunity for many of us to raise such issues will be reduced. I assume that the reports in the tabloid press are not true and that we shall have more opportunity to discuss the dole queues, not only in relation to the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon.

29
Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who is shedding tears at having lost one job but who is not on the dole, but in relation to those of our constituents who have lost their jobs.
One thing is certain—unemployment is now a major issue throughout the country. Although some people say that it is now hitting the south and some other regions, it is also hitting the north, Scotland, Wales and parts of the east midlands. In the old coalfield areas, pits and other parts of manufacturing industry are still being closed, despite increased productivity. Unemployment now stretches across the whole country and 69,000 people are unemployed in the south. The service industry has been hit and will continue to be hit until the election and beyond. In districts that we represent in the north and the midlands, many other workers are being thrown on the scrap heap.
Some people talk about unemployment as though the figure were down to 6, 7 or 8 per cent., but we all know that the average figure is about 12 per cent. or more because women who have been in work and have not registered for unemployment benefit should be added. In addition, some miners and others on special schemes are not included in the figure and many young people leave school and go straight on to the Government's slave labour schemes. In total, there are more than 3 million people unemployed at present.
On top of those problems, about three weeks ago I received a letter from constituents in little villages called Pilsley and Stonebroom, where two factories are to close some time in July, with the loss of 180 jobs. I am not talking about a pit or part of the steel or textile industries, which have been hammered in the east midlands and elsewhere throughout Britain—one of those factories is more than 100 years old. The factories have been taken over by a firm called Plaxton's, one of the big three coach manufacturing firms in Britain—the other two are Alexander and Volvo-Leyland.
Plaxton's has taken over the little firms that were manufacturing small buses, mainly for the home market, although they also exported. The Government introduced deregulation and privatised the buses. As a result, many firms are not buying buses and there are now 30-year-old buses trying to move round Britain's roads. Someone in the industry told me that the number plates of some of the buses in London are worth more than the buses. That shows the state of the economy.
Plaxton's took over Reeve Burgess in my constituency and, when the employees assembled in the factory hall the other Thursday, thinking that they were to be praised for massive productivity gains, the gaffer—Matthews of Plaxton's—came along and said, "I am not here to talk about productivity, but to say that the Government's policy of giving aid to buses means that buses are not being bought, so I have got to sack you all."
That was only half the story. The other half is that Plaxton's was also playing fast and loose with the workers at Pilsley and Stonebroom. The owner had another factory at Scarborough, which was not bringing in many orders for its 600 workers. Pilsley and Stonebroom factories were receiving a lot of orders, so the owner decided to "rationalise"—the clever word used nowadays. He thought that he would keep production going at Scarborough by sacrificing the two factories in Derbyshire, with the result that 180 workers will be added to the pile of human misery known as the Tory dole queue.
30
The Government should intervene in this case, which is nothing short of asset stripping. Why is it that the Government intervene in all sorts of matters when it suits them, but do not do so when 180 workers are to be thrown on the scrap heap, many of whom have worked at the two factories for 30, 40 and, in some cases, 50 years? The Minister has just received a request from the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) to intervene in trade fairs. Why do not the Government do anything about the factories? The Minister says that it is not Government business, but if the coalfield district in which the factories are situated had received the grants of other districts, there is just the possibility that those factories could have survived.
However, the Conservatives do not care about unemployment and never have cared. It is part of their incomes policy to have people queuing up for every job. I am told that, recently, a job vacancy occurred in Huntingdon, the Prime Minister's constituency. Somebody said, "There's a job!" It was a position as a caretaker and people were queuing up for it. That is what unemployment means even in a supposedly plush constituency.
The Government have allowed Rolls-Royce to sack several thousand workers. Their attitude is that they have the whip hand and will give contracts on the understanding that there will be no wage increases, despite inflation of 7, 8 or 9 per cent. Unemployment is a deliberate part of the Government's policy. It is intended to ensure that wage increases are minimised. Thus, 180 people in these two small factories have been thrown out of work, with no possibility of redress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has also been approached by these people, as some of them live in his constituency. He, too, received a petition that was presented to me. Signed by nearly everybody in the villages, it calls on the Government to twist the arm of this fellow, Matthews, the chairman of Plaxton's, in an effort to persuade him to get on with the job of saving the factories so that people will not be thrown out of work.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Plaxton's is a very profitable group. The international edition of the stock exchange year book gives details of its standing. The firm has even taken out a full-page advertisement in that prestigious journal with a view to encouraging people to invest in the area. That confirms what my hon. Friend said—that it is involved in asset-stripping.
Mr. Skinner: There is no doubt about that. Most of the employees have said that the order books were full. Indeed, they expected to be congratulated on having made such a great effort. On going along to the factory, however, they were told that they were about to be sacked, but that the Scarborough jobs would be saved. Those jobs may be safe for a while, but when orders for buses disappear, they, too, will go. Then perhaps Alexander's—one of the other bus manufacturing firms—will go, followed by Volvo-Leyland. It is all part of the Government's policy, but we hope that it will not last much longer. It will certainly cease when the Prime Minister calls a general election.
The Government should do something about such factory closures. What could they do? First, they could encourage firms to start to buy buses. Secondly, some of the buses that are already on the road should be inspected. Many of them are road-unworthy. [HON. MEMBERS:

31
"Unroadworthy."] Yes, unroadworthy. Where I come from, some people, if they got mixed up with a big word, used to say, "Chesterfield". There should be proper inspections to ensure that the buses on the streets of every town and city are fit for people to ride in.
It is time to reverse the grants policy so that factories in these areas, including some old coalfield areas, are enabled to carry on.
A short time ago, I called on the Leader of the House to tell the Department of Trade and Industry that, if it really means business, it should meet the workers of these two factories with a view to their setting up a co-operative. What would be wrong with that? The order books are full. If the workers want to set up a co-operative, why should not the Government help them? Why does not the DTI meet people from Reeve Burgess with a view to helping them to take over some of the units at Stonebroom or elsewhere in the constituency? Those people believe that they could do the job better than Plaxton's.
Unemployment is a big issue. Every Opposition Member knows of factory closures and redundancies that are occurring at present. This is not confined to the south. Yes, the south is being hit. The result of the latest by-election showed that thousands of people who thought that they would not be the victims of unemployment now realise what the Tory Government are up to.
We say that it is time the Government changed their policies or got out, so that someone can come to power who will save the jobs of the thousands who have been thrown on the scrap heap, or who may be thrown on it, and so that we can start rebuilding the manufacturing base of Britain once again with a Labour Government.
4.19 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I wish to raise three matters which I believe should be discussed before the House adjourns for the spring recess.
The first concerns my constituent Mr. Andrew Croall, who has been suspended from his position as deputy director of Nottinghamshire county social services department. Having held his position for some time, Mr. Croall was suspended following the programme "After Dark", which went out for three hours after midnight on 9 March. It is alleged that his suspension is not due only to that programme, but it certainly relates in part to it.
During the programme, my constituent made a number of comments rooted in his Christian belief, about abortion and child abuse. I do not agree with either of his comments, but I defend absolutely his right to hold and mention those views. His Christianity cannot be divorced from his professional life: nor should it be. There is widespread concern about the case not only in Nottinghamshire but nationally. It has been covered in a number of national newspapers. The first issue raised by the case is that of freedom of speech for my constituent. The second concerns whether there is a conflict between his beliefs as a Christian and his role as deputy director of social services. Doubtless both matters will be discussed by the county council in its internal inquiry, but I have three points to make about that.
First, the county council must complete its inquiry in the usual way. I accept, of course, that it is not for me as the local Member of Parliament to second-guess what will
32
happen in the inquiry, but the council must complete its inquiry and must be allowed to do so. Secondly, the inquiry must be completed as quickly as possible, not least because this is an extremely expensive post—deputy chief of the social services department. I am concerned that someone in such a senior position should be suspended on full pay while so many challenges and important tasks face him in his department.
Thirdly, because of the intense local interest in this matter and because of the broader issues that it raises, I make it clear that if, at the end of the inquiry, I do not feel that my constituent has received his rights, and if I believe that there has been a breach of natural justice, I shall seek to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Before the House adjourns, we should also discuss the Audit Commission, whose role I had the good fortune to discuss in an Adjournment debate last month. In that debate I mentioned a number of important areas into which its role could usefully be extended. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the possibility of a full day's debate on the Audit Commission.
The role of the commission and what it has been doing have never generated greater public interest than now. A tremendous amount of that interest stems from the work that the commission does. A recent article appeared in Readers Digest, so I have no doubt that millions of people with bad teeth will be much better informed now about the commission's role. The Audit Commission seeks to promote value for money and quality of service. It also promotes economy, efficiency and effectiveness, primarily in local government and, as from last year, in the National Health Service. But its role is not mainly that of a cost-cutter or cost-saver. It sometimes recommends far greater investment in the services that it examines. One need think only of the maintenance backlog in council housing and hospitals, dealt with by the commission, to remember its specific recommendation of greater investment.
A similar conclusion was drawn from the Audit Commission's work on the police fingerprinting service, so there is no suggestion that it is merely an aim of central Government to try to cut local government spending. The commission seeks to ensure that money is spent in the best interests of the people who are paying for it—local people who pay through local and central Government taxation.
Secondly, the Audit Commission is clearly independent. Eight studies have considered the effect of ministerial directives and guidance on local government. Such work is as painful for central Government as the work that is directed towards local government can be for those who run local services. Included in those eight studies were community care, capital control, homelessness and food safety legislation. The work carried out by the Audit Commission on those wide-ranging subjects is extremely important and needs wider understanding and coverage in the House for the benefit of the broad mass of the population and for the taxpayers who pay for the services that the Audit Commission examines.
"Quality exchange" has been developed by the Audit Commission to consider performance measuring. I hope that the Audit Commission will extend quality exchange and develop quality measures in the national health service as an extension of the role given to it last year in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. There needs to be greater emphasis on management

33
processes and on the need to adapt work to local circumstances. I am sure that the commission could do that.
Potential savings already identified by the commission are approximately £4·2 billion, but that is perhaps not the most important aspect. Much more important are the value improvements that it identifies and opportunities to save £1,300 million each year have already been identified. The measure of the success of that work is that approximately £662 million of the value improvements have been achieved based on the actions taken by local authorities and based on the local auditor's advice. That means that value-for-money work in local authorities has achieved savings of about 40 times the cost of the work undertaken by the commission. That is a good payback for the taxpayer and the charge payer on the work carried out by the commission.
Two significant independent academic studies of the work undertaken by the commission have been published. One was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust and was called "Inspecting the Inspectorates". The main conclusion of the report was that from all the case studies carried out by the trust, the Audit Commission emerged as the only one of the three inspectorates involved whose reports made an impact on the corporate decision-making process of local authorities. That is an extremely significant finding.
There are three points with which I shall end my consideration of the commission. There is a range of activities in which the expertise of the Audit Commission will be extremely helpful in achieving better value for money, such as the courts. There is plenty of evidence that the money spent on the courts is not best spent. There is an accounting black hole in the way in which we judge how money is spent on the courts which could be dealt with by the skills of the Audit Commission.
Secondly, opted-out schools may have valuable lessons to teach schools that have not yet decided to opt out. The commission's skills could also be valuably deployed in connection with housing associations. It is the Government's declared objective—which I strongly support—to increase the role of housing associations in the provision of public housing and to diminish the role of councils. It is important to involve the commission's skills in housing associations so that they may advertise widely the best practice within housing associations to other providers of public body housing while trying to eliminate some of the worst practices.
Another area is the Metropolitan police. The Audit Commission looks at all the other police forces in the country, but not at the Met. I am sure that I am not alone in the House in suspecting that the skills of the Audit Commission, which are deployed so successfully in the provincial police forces, could usefully be deployed in the Met, too. I am sure that no one believes that the Met is more efficient than the forces outside London. It would be valuable progress if the Audit Commission examined the Met as well.
Last weekend, the Prime Minister made an excellent speech in Perth in which he developed his theme for a citizens' charter empowering individuals to get the best out of public services. There is no doubt that the Audit Commission could be a most valuable executive arm for the individual citizen in seeking the best out of local services. The Audit Commission has the grasp, the understanding and the information locally, and its role in
34
developing the concept of the citizen's charter is extremely important. I very much hope that the Government will consider in an open way how the skills of the Audit Commission can be used in that respect.
I am deeply disappointed by the Labour party's plans to set up a quality commission which would emasculate the Audit Commission. Such a move would directly transfer power away from the consumer and the user of the services back to the providers. It would have a bad effect on the work of the Audit Commission and would mean that it could never again be as tough with those who do not provide good value for money as it has been. More importantly, the proposal shows that the Labour party has learnt nothing from the past 12 years or from the past eight years' work of the Audit Commission, which has done so much to promote value for money in local services. I very much hope that the Labour party will reconsider its stance on the future of the Audit Commission.
Dr. Norman A. Godman rose——
Mr. Mitchell: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Godman: No.
Mr. Mitchell: I thought that the hon. Gentleman sought to intervene.
Dr. Godman: No.
Mr. Mitchell: I now realise that it was his keenness to follow me.
I want to make a final point——
Mr. Andy Stewart: The final point?
Mr. Mitchell: I want to make the final point in this section of my speech about the £20 billion Arthur Daley promise made by the Leader of the Opposition last week. It must be a matter of intense irritation and annoyance to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, that whenever he has tried to get across the point that the Labour party will not allow resources to be put into public spending until the additional resources earned permit, the Leader of the Opposition immediately announces that he is pre-empting all the spending of any extra money available.
The truth is that, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke last week, he pre-empted all of any growth that might be achieved during the term of office of a next Labour Government over five years. That seems to be the economics of Arthur Daley. I thought that it was common practice among all parties that one should not promise to spend money until one has it, but that point does not appear to register with the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition also showed an unbalanced approach to public spending.
Mr. Skinner: The Tory Government are borrowing again.
Mr. Mitchell: Instead of deciding either to repay some of the borrowing, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), or that the tax take should be diminished for the least well-off, the Leader of the Opposition appears to have pre-empted all that and to

35
have said that the whole £20 billion, a figure no doubt plucked from the air, should be put into additional spending on services. I am amazed by that.
It appears that no lesson has been drawn from the fact that higher spending and higher taxation of the well-off diminish the income of the Exchequer. That is the lesson of the past five years and the lesson from the United States, yet the Labour party persists in believing against all the odds that additionally taxing and soaking the rich will lead to an increase in revenue for the Exchequer. Clearly, that is not true.
If one accepts that the Labour party has learnt some lessons from the early 1980s about the loony left and about the difficulties that it has presented in terms of elections, one is still left with the fact that Labour appears to have learnt little about taxation since the 1960s and the early 1970s.
In 1964, Harold Wilson, now Lord Wilson, said:
"Over the period of a Parliament I believe we can carry out our spending programme without any general increase in taxation".
What actually happened was that, between 1964 and 1970, the tax burden on the British people increased by £3,000 million—the equivalent of £3 10s a week for every family, worth £50 a week in current values.
In 1966, Lord Callaghan said:
"I do not foresee the need for severe increases in taxation".
What happened between 1974 and 1979? The basic rate of tax rose by 5p, from 30p to 35p. Personal allowances were cut in real terms, bringing 2·25 million more of the low paid into the tax net. The top rate of tax went up to 83 per cent. The effective top marginal rate of tax on unearned income rose to 98 per cent.
The Labour party is again mouthing the promises of the 1960s and 1970s, using similar wording. Such suggestions repeated in the early 1990s will not fool the British people. Indeed, I am amazed that the Labour party should even consider making the sort of promises that were outlined in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.
At the last general election, the Leader of the Opposition said that he would increase spending on the national health service by 3 per cent. above the rate of inflation. That was considered to be a remarkable statistic. Over the past four years, the Government have increased it by no less than 3·35 per cent. We have achieved far more than the Labour party promised at the last election.
I do not believe that the fraud that the Labour party is seeking to perpetrate on the British people will be successful. The public will not fall for it. I hope that, before the House adjourns, we shall find time for a full-scale debate on the Labour party's economic promises—especially those made by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech last week—so that the public will be more enlightened about their effects.
4.36 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I can inform the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) that, in my constituency in 1979, we had an unemployment rate of 3·7 per cent. among an electorate of 84,000. After 12 years of Tory government, with an electorate of 54,000 as a result of parliamentary boundary changes, we have an
36
unemployment rate of 9–7 per cent. I could go on at length about the facilities and amenities of which my constituents have been deprived over those 12 years.
We shall be adjourning for 10 days. An early-day motion, signed by 125 of my hon. Friends, asks the Leader of the House to make time available for us to discuss the financial and administrative decisions of the mid-Glamorgan training and enterprise councils. I have attended the House on numerous Thursday afternoons and have asked the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to make time available for that to be discussed. On each occasion, he has said that Parliament is too busy, that the Government's programme is too full for him to make time for debates on early-day motions.
Some people suggest that early-day motions are not worth the paper they are written on. There used to be an agreement that, if an early-day motion had more than 100 signatures, the matter could and should be considered. It would be a good idea if we shortened the spring Adjournment, or if, between now and 23 May, the Leader of the House found time for a debate on this issue. I do not believe that the Government should have time off for good behaviour or good attendance. They could not even field 100 Members to ensure that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—which they supported—was passed. The would not qualify for 10 days off for hard work. Only Opposition Members would qualify for that.
The only major legislation between now and when the Government are prepared to stick out their necks and call an election is the Finance Bill. Why can they not find time to debate some of the issues that I have raised? Opposition Members have raised other issues and will probably raise them again in the debate. I am sure that we would all like a full debate on some of the statements by Cabinet Ministers in Monmouth and elsewhere. For example, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) who is the chairman of the Tory party, claims, as did the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), that Mr. and Mrs. Britain and their two children are better fed and far better off than they were 12 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that taxes were down, that the national health service was vastly improved, that education was much better and that family incomes were up by a third.
I visited St. Paul's cathedral the other day and saw an inscription about its architect Christopher Wren which reads, "If you seek his memorial, look around you." That is good advice. We should look around us to see whether education and health provision are better, whether taxes are down and whether family incomes are up by a third.
In debates such as this, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) usually speaks about unemployment. Unemployment is escalating in Ogmore, as it is throughout the country, but we do not seem to have time to debate it. When the Secretary of State for Employment or the Secretary of State for Wales give the statistics about unemployment, how many of us recall visits by the unemployed to our surgeries and think about the desperate situation of people who become redundant? More often than not, both husband and wife become redundant. They have mortgages and hire purchase commitments which were taken on because of the Government's repeated belief that there is either no recession or that, if there is, it is bottoming out and that everything in the garden will look lovely. In Wales, unemployment has never looked lovely, and it has got appreciably worse in the last 12 years. The Government seem content to let it escalate further.

37
The week before last, Rolls-Royce announced that 5,000 people were to be laid off. It appears that there will soon be redundancies at the Ford engine works in Bridgend in my constituency. Last week in Ogmore, a major factory attached to the Crystal Tyler group announced more than 1,000 redundancies.
Our schools have crumbling walls and outside toilets and pupils are begging and borrowing books, or at least begging their parents to pay for them. Roofs leak and ceilings are falling down. School meals are deplorable compared to what they were 12 years ago, and teachers who have spent most of their lives in the profession are deciding to leave it. Some pupils are not being taught at all. What sort of future will there be for the nation if we allow that to continue?
At one time, homeless people were found only in London or in the major cities such as Manchester and Liverpool. Now they are to be found in places such as Bridgend. Some Tory Members smile at my mention of the homeless. They should join me at midnight for a visit to cardboard city under the bridge at Victoria. Such conditions are becoming commonplace throughout the country. Tory Members could ask the people in cardboard city whether they could get a mortgage or a loan to enable them to be housed.
Then we could look at roads and traffic jams and at the thousands of car owners who pay licences to have decent roads but are now travelling by rail and tube, not only from parts of Wales but from the east coast. We recently travelled by train to Eastbourne for a by-election and noted the danger, dirt and unreliability of the system.
Over the past few weeks, I have asked taxi drivers about the current state of business. They told me that there are no tourists in London even though it is the spring season. The major hotels are empty. American and other tourists are not coming, not only because of the cost of hotels but because of rubbish in the streets, parks and playing fields. Street lamps are rarely lit, police are not always available and crime is escalating. Such a city will not attract tourists from America or any other country.
Twelve years ago, the cost of water was included in the rates, and few people realised that they were paying for water or sewerage facilities. Now they understand the meaning of the privatisation of water, because most of them are struggling to pay rising bills. Private organisations and plcs have been established to provide gas and electricity, solely to ensure profit for Tory Members and their friends. We could also look at the profits made by those who invest in the City and at the lot of people who have been evicted from bed-and-breakfast hostels.
Look at the queues for national health service treatment. Perhaps some of us should feel the pain of those waiting for operations, sometimes for years. If one has the cash and can pay £7,500, one can save the life of one's child if it needs a heart operation, provided one goes to an opt-out hospital.
That is what has happened in the past 12 years. Conservative Members talk about what has happened in their constituencies, but they should visit some parts of Wales that have always suffered a depression since the 1920s and the days of the national strike.
I say to the House and the country that we cannot afford to allow the health service to collapse. It was created
38
to ensure that people received medical attention when they needed it. We did not agree to establish a medical service from which people would gain financially.
I am sure that the Government will call an election after Thursday, when I am confident that a Labour candidate will be elected at Monmouth. He will come to the House to prove to the Government that it is time for them to go. It is time for them to call an election, and I hope that it will be sooner rather than later, so that all the issues that I have raised can be put to the electorate.
At that election, 12 years of Tory misrule will be given the heave-ho by the electorate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) will be in No. 10 and we shall have a Labour Government who will share with and care for the community.
4.51 pm
Sir Robert McCrindle: I hope that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) will forgive me if I find it a little difficult to endorse his final remarks. However, I am sure that he will welcome the fact that I intend to follow him and his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) by referring to unemployment.
I hope that my tone will prove to be a little less hectoring than that of the hon. Member for Bolsover. The focus of my speech will be more specific than that of either Opposition Member, as I wish to discuss white collar unemployment. That phenomenon, if that is the correct word, has emerged during the current recession to a far greater extent than it did during the previous economic downturn of the 1980s.
I make no apology for raising this subject. My constituency is situated about 25 miles from the City of London and we have virtually no industry. However, the administrative and clerical headquarters of the Ford motor company is situated in my constituency. Unfortunately, it recently announced that many hundreds of jobs are likely to go in the next few years as a result of computerisation.
About 70 per cent. of my working constituents commute every morning to the City of London. They are predominantly employed in the service industries. In the I 980s the service sector over-expanded, but there can be no doubt that it is now facing an economic downturn.
The 1980s were characterised as the decade of the yuppie, excess and the unacceptable face of the City. However that may be, and apart from the opportunities that were available to the yuppies in the 1980s, hundreds of thousands of my constituents were then able to obtain employment in the City in a variety of menial jobs. Those opportunities have now been replaced by difficulties, especially for those leaving school, who look to the City of London, as my constituents have done for many years, for employment.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Presumably when his commuting constituents are made unemployed they register at the local unemployment offices. How great has been the increase in unemployment in his constituency? In my constituency, unemployment is now approaching 13 per cent., which is dismally high.
Sir Robert McCrindle: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not has high as that, not least because

39
one of the effects of the downturn in the City of London—largely brought about by increasing costs in the City—has been a certain decentralisation.
On a net basis, my young constituents are not presented with as many employment opportunities in the service industries as in the past, but some such opportunities are being recreated in my constituency. It is important to draw attention to the net effect of the economic downturn in the City, but I suspect that it is not as extreme as that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I suspect that most of that unemployment stems from industry rather than commerce.
About 40 per cent. of the current increase in unemployment has occurred in the service sector-dominated south-east. In 1990 about half of company liquidations also occurred in that region. It is important to stress, however, that many of those liquidations and a good deal of the unemployment stem from industry, including, for example, manufacturing and construction. However, whereas the number of service-sector company liquidations during the 1980s recession was small, the same cannot be said now.
The service sector has been hit harder than the manufacturing sector and hit twice. It has been hit by the general economic downturn, a fact which we must now concede, and by a deep structural downturn. As a result of the big bang on the stock exchange a few years ago, we are arguably a good deal more efficient, but it is easy to overlook the fact that machines have tended to replace people. I appreciate that that has been happening in industry and commerce for a long time, but the impact of the downturn in employment in the City has been considerable.
It is also important to take into account the emerging challenge from Europe. I suspect that most hon. Members welcome that challenge, but, whereas the City was once pre-eminent in banking, insurance and investment services, it is now facing great competition from the European centres of Paris, Milan and Frankfurt. The natural economic downturn resulting from the recession has combined with a structural downturn. It is difficult to know how to address that problem.
I believe that the overall demand for some services will decline in the next few years. There is no doubt that that decline has already occurred in house building. I accept that that, in itself, is not a service industry, but such construction is reflected in the demand for mortgages. Many of my constituents are employed in banks and building societies. We all hope that, as a result of the Government's present economic policies, the demand for housing will grow in the near future to relieve the problems now experienced.
There has also been a substantial downturn in recent months in the tourist industry. Once again, it is to be hoped that, as the standard of living of the British people returns and as the international recession begins to fade, people will again begin to enjoy tourism, with more of them coming from abroad to enjoy tourism in this country. There is one way in which the Government could be of considerable assistance to the service industries.
40
Recently they have advanced, through the Secretary of State for Employment, a relatively small sum of money to encourage the tourist industry.
I am most grateful for what they have done, but I believe that there should be a major marketing campaign to try to revive the tourist industry, which is so important to this country in terms of invisible exports and the balance of payments. I hope that a far more substantial sum of money will be made available, provided—this will, I think, be echoed by my right hon. Friend—that the tourist industries are prepared to match, I hope pound for pound, all the money that the Government make available.
Britain's recession and our entry into the exchange rate mechanism have led to a sustained period of high interest rates to control inflation. That must be right. I have no quarrel with the policy that the Government have followed. In turn, that has led to a prolonged squeeze on domestic demand and that, in turn, has affected a number of service industries. When the general standard of living is not rising, as it has throughout most of the period during which the Government have been in office, people tend to put off the purchase of insurance and other forms of investment. Once again, it is difficult to exaggerate the importance of the Government's succeeding in beating back inflation and restoring a rising standard of living—the single most important contribution that the Government can make to the restoration of the prosperity of the service industries.
The hon. Members for Bolsover and for Ogmore concentrated, understandably, on the manufacturing industries, but growth in the manufacturing industries will overtake that of the service industries towards the end of this year. Some people say that it will stay that way until at least the mid-1990s. That is welcome news for the manufacturing industries, but I have always felt that a balance between manufacturing industries and service industries is the way for a truly effective economy to proceed. Therefore, I hope that I may be permitted to say that it would be unfortunate if we did not manage to sustain the rate of growth that we achieved during the 1980s in the service industries.
I accept that, if service sector companies are to survive, they will have to adjust. The pattern of tourism is changing. The demands in terms of investment, banking, savings and insurance are changing. I do not wish to give the impression that there is a magical way in which the Government can assist, but my reason for raising this important subject is that it has been all too easy to overlook the fact that there is white collar unemployment in this country. That is because it is a relatively new phenomenon. It is very easy, therefore, for the Government's efforts to be directed towards improving the position of manufacturing industries and for them to overlook the fact that they also need to turn their attention to the service industries.
There is concern about takeovers and mergers. I concede straight away that some people in the City benefit greatly if they are employed by a European company that wishes to make a particular takeover, but there is considerable concern among others who are employed in companies that are likely to be the subject of takeovers. That trend is likely to increase rather than decrease in the services sector as we approach 1992. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be well advised, therefore, to look again at the policy on mergers, monopolies, takeover bids and the like.

41
I am not alone in believing that in present circumstances it seems to be extremely easy for a German, French or Italian company to make a successful takeover bid for a British company, whereas it remains extremely difficult for a British company to do the same in reverse. If that is even remotely so, we are a long way from the level playing field that I have always felt is the sine qua non of a successful 1992.
I have deliberately chosen to address the House on one subject that is of considerable concern to me and to the 70,000 people whom I represent. I note with approval the Government's current advertising campaign relating to unemployment. I have no quarrel with that campaign, but, try as I may, I can find little in their advertising approach that is of great interest to those of my constituents who, in the past, would have had no difficulty in finding clerical or administrative employment in the City of London.
The Government's advertising campaign seems to me to be focused substantially on unemployed people who are seeking employment in manufacturing industries. I do not wish to suggest that that should not be so, but it is symptomatic of the fact that, because we are unaccustomed to white collar unemployment, we tend to overlook the problem in the service industries.
I use this opportunity, therefore, to draw to the attention of the Treasury Bench the very real need to take account of the growing problems in the service industries. White collar unemployment, I repeat—I think for the third time—is a relatively new phenomenon in this country. It affects, in particular, my constituency and a good many other constituencies around London and large provincial cities.
There is not one simple policy change that would make the problem disappear, but I respectfully suggest to the House, and in particular to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that by recognising that the problem exists and taking account of it in the policies that we evolve, particularly the advertising campaigns that we are directing towards assisting the unemployed, we shall make the country, and my constituents in particular, feel that their needs, as unemployed people, are just as important as those of people who are seeking re-employment in the manufacturing industries.
5.7 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I wish to follow up one point to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) drew our attention—the huge increase in white collar unemployment. Before I do so, however, I should point out that, before the House goes into recess, there should be a ministerial statement on what was said by Mr. Bernard Ingham over the leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter. Some may say that that happened five years ago and that it is irrelevant and a matter of no great concern. I do not accept that; nor do my right hon. and hon. Friends. What happened was totally unjustified. The House will remember that the Attorney-General was absent and that the Solicitor-General was in charge. He wrote a confidential letter—certainly confidential, to say the least, within the machinery of Government. That letter was leaked to the Press Association. I cannot possibly accept, therefore, that it is of no consequence at all and can be dismissed.
Last night, Mr. Bernard Ingham denied that No. 10 was in any way involved. Responsibility was clearly laid on the
42
then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Mr. Ingham did not say so, but that was his clear implication—that the person who did the leaking was Sir Leon Brittan. If only to clear up the honour and integrity of Sir Leon Brittan, the Government have a responsibility to make a statement, and to do so before we go into recess. What came out last night was official confirmation—if one likes, for the first time—of the rather murky way in which so much was undertaken during those years when Bernard Ingham was the chief press officer at No. 10 Downing street.
Although the Leader of the House was not apparently a victim, it might be of interest to him to learn that Bernard Ingham confirmed the rubbishing of Ministers. One of the prominent casualties of that rubbishing was the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who initiated this debate. It could be said that another right hon. Gentleman who was rubbished and humiliated in a manner that no one in Government should find acceptable certainly had his revenge. He is not present in the Chamber now, but we know what happened as a result of his revenge.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did my hon. Friend notice that Bernard Ingham also said:
"I told Bowe that I had to keep the Prime Minister above that sort of thing"?
Does that not show that he was quite aware, as a senior civil servant, of crooked misbehaviour?
Mr. Winnick: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he would agree that any attempt to blame another civil servant—Colette Bowe—would be totally unacceptable. I hope that that is clearly understood.
I draw attention however to the continuing job losses in the west midlands. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar was right to refer to the increase in white collar unemployment. I have been involved for many years with a union that organises white collar employees. White collar unemployment is not necessarily a new phenomenon. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that the escalation in the number of white collar unemployed is new. White collar workers in the south-east used to think that they would have reasonable prospects of obtaining other jobs if they were made redundant, but that is no longer the case. Getting another job is now far from easy and no doubt the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar understands what has happened to so many of his constituents.
Between August and October last year, there were notified redundancies at 27 establishments in the west midlands. Between last November and April this year there were notified redundancies at 80 establishments. I have referred to "notified" redundancies, but the figure is likely to be higher. Between November and April, there were nearly 10,000 redundancies in the metropolitan part of the west midlands.
The number of redundancies is bad enough, but in many cases plants have been closed as well. I have a list of the redundancies that have occurred over the period to which I referred and that list includes the names of firms that have decided to close down. The majority of the job losses in the west midlands were in engineering and the causes in most cases were falling orders and a drop in demand. No one can claim that the latest recession has not bitten deeply in the west midlands.

43
What worries many of us who have the honour to represent west midlands constituencies is that we are approaching almost the sort of situation that existed 10 years ago. As the House is aware, there were large-scale redundancies and many factories were closed, never to re-open. Far too many people lost their jobs and were unable to find other jobs for a considerable period. The Government said at the time that those circumstances were necessary. They said that it was a one-off and that it had to happen to shake out manufacturing industry and over-manning.
The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) gave a much publicised interview last week in which she referred to the difficulties of adjusting to losing her job as Prime Minister. I can understand that an ex-Prime Minister might find it difficult to adjust, particularly given the circumstances in which the right hon. Lady—most likely to her surprise—found herself out of No. 10 Downing street. However, what about people who have been made redundant recently, or indeed those who were made redundant 10 years ago, who are left with no job at all? I in no way underestimate the difficulties of young people, but 40-year-olds and 50-year-olds who are made redundant may also be discriminated against because of their age and may never be able to work again. That is certainly tragic.
Mr. John McFall: Over the past few months, the Conservative party has painted itself as the caring party, and Conservatives have said that they are interested in elderly people and in the community. Given their track record and the way in which they treated their former heroine and dumped her so cynically, what credibility do they have when they say that they care?
Mr. Winnick: Perhaps I am being unfair to Conservative Members, but they seem first and foremost to care about themselves. Perhaps I am being unduly cynical, but Conservative Members will know whether I am right or wrong.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar may be aware that I tried to introduce a Bill that would have made unlawful advertisements for jobs in which there was a reference to age. However, the Government decided not to support it. The Government do not appear to be too concerned with the difficulties facing the people to whom the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar and I have referred, whether they be manual or non-manual employees. People who are made redundant and have tremendous difficulty finding other jobs live on a pittance and when they retire, their occupational pensions are reduced as a result of their redundancy. We should not underestimate that factor.
We need a strong manufacturing base now as much as we needed one in earlier years. Manufacturing investment has fallen below the level that existed when the Conservative Government took office in 1979. Investment overall—not just in manufacturing—is forecast to fall by 10 per cent. during this year. That is hardly good preparation for 1992 and the single market.
I know someone in the House—not a Member—with a rather clever contraption comprising a watch with a calculator attached to it. As I come from the west midlands, one would expect me to ask him whether it was
44
made in the United Kingdom. He said, "You must be joking." We have reached a sad state when so much new technology is manufactured abroad and imported into this country. Some no longer believe that we can produce such goods, but of course we can. We still have the talent. We were the first country to industrialise with all those skills in the west midlands. Unfortunately, so much has gone by the way and our forecast in 1979 that the Government were out to undermine manufacturing industry has unfortunately proved all too true.
The Government have failed manufacturing industry, and they have failed the west midlands. No doubt the Prime Minister will take into account the local election results and what happens in Monmouth later this week before he decides the date of the next general election. However, when it comes, it will be the duty and responsibility of Labour Members and candidates to explain to the country what has happened and describe the failure of British industry and manufacturing industry in the west midlands and throughout the country in the 12 years of this Tory Government.
5.18 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: I speak in this debate as a Scot by birth and upbringing and as a Welshman by political adoption. There are not nearly enough Celts on the Conservative Benches, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would agree—even if he cannot agree with anything else that I am about to say. Indeed, there are not many representatives of Scottish or Welsh constituencies on the Conservative Benches. They number a mere 16 out of a total parliamentary party of 369. Disraeli's oft-quoted remark comes to mind:
"The Tory Party, unless it be a national party, is nothing."
Although we obviously have the numerical authority to govern, it is increasingly questioned whether we have the moral authority to do so. That will cease to be questioned only when we have a much broader geographical spread on this side of the House and reasonable parliamentary representation in Scotland and Wales. Too often, the Conservative party in both countries is seen—justifiably seen—as no more than the branch of a predominantly English party without its own distinctive identity, even though, in Scotland, the Conservative party has its own separate organisation.
It has been my belief, and one that I have consistently held for over 20 years, that we as a party should pursue and implement a policy of parliamentary devolution. When I first contested a Scottish parliamentary constituency 17 years ago, that policy was supported by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Scotland and by his predecessor, although of course both have done a volte face since.
Whether they like it or not, devolution is now back on the political agenda. Indeed, the word is occasionally now uttered from the Treasury Bench, which, a few months ago under the previous Prime Minister, would have been a capital offence. Yes, devolution is back on the agenda, and it is back because the Government have put it there.
Even the most ardent devolutionists had to accept that, as long as we had so many tiers of local and national Government—town and community councils, district councils, county councils, the Westminster Parliament and the European Assembly—it was difficult to argue for yet

45
another tier. The local government review—the near-certainty of single-tier authorities within the foreseeable future—changes everything.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know from recent opinion polls in Scotland, the vast majority of Scottish people—83 per cent. in the most recent—want an Assembly or even more than an Assembly. I am sure that even he will agree that that is well without the margin of polling error. There is also a considerable majority for devolution in Wales. As a party we must respond to the aspirations and needs of the Scots and the Welsh. I am not alone in saying so. Mr. Michael Hirst, the former hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and president of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association, said last week:
"It is essential that we have the widest ranging debate possible on this issue."
Mr. John Mackay, the former hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, former Scottish Office Minister, former chief executive of the Conservative party organisation in Scotland and now ennobled in the recent list of working peers—all Conservative Members will welcome his return to Parliament—said:
"Public opinion in favour of devolution cannot be ignored. We cannot ignore the debate that is taking place in Scotland and we have got to take part in it."
Mr. Struan Stevenson, one of our liveliest parliamentary candidates north of the border and prospective candidate and next Member for Edinburgh, South—[Laughter.] Opposion Members may laugh, but they will be laughing on the other sides of their faces when they hear that result in the next election. What I am saying is borne out, as they know, by the local election results just a week ago. Mr. Stevenson said:
"We must admit that we have been wrong to shut our ears to the demands from Scotland for more self-government."
As Conservatives, we believe in one nation, in a united kingdom, but we must recognise that the major strength of the United Kingdom is the variety of the different parts that constitute it. Each must be allowed to make its own distinctive contribution that will strengthen, not weaken, the whole. That will strengthen, not weaken, the union. The identities of Scotland and Wales, as all hon. Members know—I am glad to see so many Scottish Members opposite listening closely to my remarks—are rooted in different cultures, geography and history, quite separate from those of England.
Scotland has its own judiciary and legal system, its own Church and educational system. Wales has its own language and highly distinctive culture. There is something inconsistent and illogical in the present British Government's concern about the possible loss of sovereignty, in European monetary and political union, while ignoring the demand for greater sovereignty from countries that actually constitute the United Kingdom.
The English may see Europe as a threat to their national sovereignty. The Scots and the Welsh see Europe as an opportunity to give new hope and fresh life to their own national identities, to bring about not a dilution, but a strengthening, of their sovereignty.
The extent of constitutional change already brought about by developments within the European Community is hardly appreciated in this House, let alone in the country. That process is bound to be accelerated by the treaties that will follow the two intergovernmental
46
conferences that are currently taking place. We in this House, in our parliamentary institutions and governmental system, must adapt to that.
There is nothing heretical or anti-Conservative about devolution. Historically, this party played a principal role in the establishment of the Scottish Office and in the creation of the post of Secretary of State for Scotland.
Decentralisation, diffusion and the dispersal of power and control are central to Tory philosophy. We have only to look at current policies to see that philosophy at work. In education, the local management of schools is devolving, from the local education authorities to the schools themselves, to the headmaster, to the teachers, to the governing bodies, the actual running and financial management of schools. In the health service, with self-governing hospitals, there is devolved, from health authorities to doctors and to nurses in the front line, the actual management and running of hospitals. If we can have devolution in education and in health, I do not see why we cannot have it also in government and in our parliamentary institutions.
If we also believe that education and health require such radical reform less than 50 years after the last major education reform, and less than 50 years after the NHS was set up, surely the institutions of government and of parliament itself might merit similar treatment. We have clung to the Victorian vision of the unitary state and its institutions, which are no longer capable of delivering efficient government or the effective scrutiny of Government. We cannot cling to institutions that have hardly changed since that time and leave them fossilised as they are. Our constitution surely should not be frozen in one moment of time but must be allowed to evolve. It is capable of improvement. We should look to the experience of many of our European allies and learn from their constitutions what might serve us well here.
Devolution would increase democratic control and the accountability of Ministers and civil servants. If we can agree on nothing else—I think we agree on quite a lot—Scottish Members on the Opposition side of the House will share the frustration we experience in Wales in monitoring and scrutinising not only legislation but also the decisions of Ministers. They have no Scottish Select Committee. We, fortunately, have a Welsh Select Committee, but even Select Committees and Grand Committees are not sufficient for the purpose of checking the Executive. We need far more time to debate Scottish and Welsh issues on the Floor of the House, but we never get it.
Westminster hardly faces a light load of work. Year in and year out, we are faced with heavy legislative programmes that are barely digestible and are spewed out at each Session's end, after insufficient debate and scrutiny. There is never sufficient time for the debate of European directives and issues on the Floor of the House. We are now dealing with the complex, highly technical legislation of the 1990s with a parliamentary machinery that has barely changed since the 1890s.
During this Parliament, the Government have made radical proposals for the reform of education, requiring much higher standards of teachers. We have made radical proposals for the reform of the health service, requiring greater efficiency and better value for money from doctors and nurses. We have carried through a major reform of the legal system to bring the legal profession up to date. As a Government, we are ready to tell everybody else how they can and should do their job better. Yet our system of

47
government, of parliamentary democracy, more inefficient, more ineffective and more desperately in need of reform than all those professions put together, remains untouched.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said last week that devolution would undermine the stability of the United Kingdom. It would not. What would undermine the stability of the United Kingdom is if we did not listen and respond to the legitimate desires and demands of the vast majority of the Scottish and Welsh people.
5.29 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: We are debating a motion that we should adjourn for a week for half-term. Some of us wish that we were adjourning for a general election, although that wish might not be universal. The reason why I wish that we were about to have a general election is that, in the past 11 years, we have never had a Government who had the majority support of the British people. Until we force a constitutional change, we shall not have a Government who have the majority support of the British people. As long as we continue to have minority Governments, we shall continue to have elected dictatorships who tyrannise the country and act against the popular view. I hope that, whenever it comes, the election will enable that change to take place and that the movement towards fair votes and electoral reform will at last force this place to be a democratic assembly.
In the meantime, there are certain matters of which it would be useful for the public to be aware before Parliament rises towards the end of next week. Some of the issues have been alluded to. They are the subjects of the most current topical debate. They are how well the economy is doing, what the Government are doing about the education service, what they are doing about the health service and the facts and figures about the economy, our education and our health. I shall comment on these matters at the local and the national levels.
I wish to start at the local level. The other day, I attended, in my capacity as president, the annual general meeting of the Southwark chamber of commerce. I have never before heard an outgoing chairman make such political comments—political with a small "p". In his address, he said:
"The way the government and the banks have handled things is like throwing a drowning man a lead lifebelt."
That was a man who had worked in a local firm for many years. It was an engineering firm which had been in Southwark for almost a century. His firm went into liquidation only a few weeks ago.
Fewer than five people at that meeting believed that the recession was bottoming out or that we were coming out of it. The rest of the Southwark business community represented at the chamber of commerce meeting believed the opposite. That is not surprising, because, although it is true that unemployment was falling until a year ago, since then lit has increased considerably in inner London. I listened to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) speaking on behalf of Essex commuter employees. Unemployment has increased by nearly 25 per cent. in the last year in constituencies such as mine. The position is no different in other inner-London and dockland constituencies either.
48
There is no doubt that the economy is not in good shape. Neither is there any doubt that at local level the education service is not in good shape. Many of our schools are in great need of capital spending for repairs. Many of our schools face great difficulty in recruiting, and even more difficulty in retaining, teachers. We still have no guarantee that the service can meet anything like the needs that exist. Swimming pools are being closed. Swimming lessons are being prevented. The youth service is being decimated. Youth club provision, which is part of the non-statutory education service, is being reduced wholesale in many parts of inner London. The budgets for our youth services have been reduced enormously.
Our state and county education systems, now administered in inner London by the borough councils, are in a desperate state. At the same time, favoured islands of opportunity receive huge sums of government money. In one corner of my constituency a city technology college receives about £10 million of government money. That is about 10 times the capital which all the other schools in the London borough of Southwark put together receive. That £10 million is for fewer than 1,000 pupils out of a total youth population in a borough of 225,000. That is a gross imbalance.
To cap it all, only two weeks ago, with timing that could only be described as inept, the Lewisham and Guy's hospital trust announced cuts. One of the ironies about the announcement made in the second part of April was that the Guy's and Lewisham Trust News was edited and produced by a company called Healthy Relations Ltd. If it is healthy relations or healthy public relations to announce in such an inept way cuts of £6·8 million and a further saving of £6 million and cause a political earthquake such as that which followed, "healthy relations" has a new meaning.
When the health authority handed over responsibility to the trust on 1 April, it did so without being certain that there would not be further cuts. I and other local Members of Parliament from both sides of the House met the health authority last Friday. It told us that it did not know that the budgetary cuts that had since been announced would be the total and final result. Furthermore, it had not subsequently met as a health authority to say that it was satisfied that it would be possible to provide the same level of health care as had been promised before the cuts.
Much of the local community, if not all of it, does not believe that it is possible to cut £6·8 million and take a further £6 million out of a budget of £128 million—that is 10 per cent.—with a potential loss of 600 jobs, to be announced later this month, without affecting the service. We believe it even less when, on asking how the authority will judge how effective the service is, we are told that it will be judged by the throughput of the patients. We all know that it is possible to kick patients out of beds sooner but that the patients do not necessarily have better care. That is against a background of bed cuts.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and I and others also attended another meeting at which it was confirmed to us that in the South-East Thames region the inner London health authorities have suddenly been told that the indices of deprivation by which we have traditionally had our funding adjusted to take account of the unarguable extra difficulties of inner urban areas have been removed and replaced by criteria that do not allow for any such compensation for the difficulties experienced in our part of the world.

49
I do not find it surprising that I have received only a holding answer to a parliamentary question that I asked on 2 May when I requested figures on the number of beds available to NHS and private patients in Guy's, King's College and St. Thomas's hospitals and in each of the three relevant health authorities. I asked for the number of beds to be listed for each financial year since 1979. I wonder whether the Government will ever find a time when they will find it possible to print the answer without being gravely embarrassed.
Mr. John Fraser: To be fair to the regional health authority, we were told that there was some good news. It was that, with mortality rates rising, we might receive more money.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. He and I remember that, on other occasions when we have raised anxieties about the Government's underfunding of the health service in inner London—it was not a single party issue—the most famous reply that we have been given is that we might have cause for complaint, but the chairman of the local authority was bullish about the prospects. Someone lying in a corridor for three days in King's College hospital might feel somewhat less bullish about the prospects of the health service being safe in the Government's hands.
To compound the announcement of cuts, we now know that a massive amount is being spent on new management jobs in the health service. The BMA News Review of March 1991—I had better be careful with the quotation and make sure that there is no uncertainty about the source—contained an article bearing the headline:
"£80 million management explosion"
It said:
"The amount the NHS spends on administrators' salaries seems likely to go up by at least £80 million this year as a direct result of the government's reforms … during the six months from May to October last year, health authorities advertised for almost 1,800 new staff to fill administrative posts."
That is only administrative posts. The article went on:
"This is almost six times the £14 million which the Government promised in December to cut juniors' hours and twice the £35 million which the Health Secretary put towards cutting waiting lists in January."
In South-East Thames region alone, 140 new administrative posts were advertised between May and October. Clearly, the economy, education and health are unsafe in the Government's hands.
At a national level, the current row about public spending commitments which features daily on our television and radio programmes, must leave the public bewildered. The Government are defending an education service, a public transport service and a health service which everyone, from professional to lay person, knows is underfunded. The Government expenditure programme in this year's Red Book makes it clear that although, suddenly, in the run-up to the general election, they are investing more money in the health service, in the years after 1991–92 the increase will drop substantially.
The Labour party, in the same breath as attacking the Government's record—I join it in that—rules out tax increases and makes spending commitments about which even it does not sound convinced. The Labour party says that it will spend extra money that will exist only if the Conservatives reduce taxation to 20p in the pound. We now also learn that that is less than the Government
50
themselves budget to spend. The Labour party says that it is worried that the Government will fund that extra spending from increased value added tax.
If Labour Members are so worried about that, why did they not vote with us against the last VAT increase? In reply to the Government, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) says that his party would not be willing to provide more funds for the health service unless there is economic growth. That will not reassure people in hospitals, such as Guy's and Lewisham or anywhere else.
Before the House rises next week, the public would benefit from knowing the policies of all three parties and how they propose to fund those policies. We say unequivocally that we need to spend more on public services and we are sufficiently realistic to say also that, if necessary, we shall raise taxation to pay for that. We are in no doubt about that. A penny on the pound would go to education. That will release extra resources for the health service. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Yes, an increase in taxation from 25p to 26p in the pound would provide extra money which would be devoted entirely to education and training. Therefore, it will not be necessary to redirect existing money to education because extra education spending would be funded from new income. [Interruption.] The Government have stated clearly that they will not ask people to pay more. Indeed, they still have a policy of reducing taxation to 20p in the pound.
It is clear that Tory Members are worried about that. I have been to Monmouth, as I know some Tory Members have, and certainly the electors there are worried about it. They are looking to the three parties for answers to the questions: are the parties willing to spend more and to ask people to pay more? If the public get that information from the three parties before we adjourn, the position will be clearer. Certainly, the public would be clear that only one party says that it will spend more and is willing to ask people to pay more as well.
5.43 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: During my speech, I shall make some comments which may seem unkind about the Labour party's taxation policy, but, having heard the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expound what may be called the Paul Daniels approach to taxation——
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Paul Daniels is much better.
Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend says that Paul Daniels is much better. All I ask is that anybody who considers the taxation policies of the different parties, particularly the electors in Monmouth, should study the hon. Gentleman's words. What a lot of nonsense and double accounting. His party must come up with something more substantial than that to convince anyone of its policies.
I have been impressed by hon. Members on both sides talking about their worthy projects for the recess, should we agree to this motion. They have told the House what they will do in their constituencies and what they will find out about. I intend to reintroduce myself to my daughters and to remind my family who I am.
Mr. Tony Banks: Why should they suffer?
Mr. Hughes: My daughters are young ladies of eminent good taste and seem to enjoy my company. They just cannot remember when they last had it.
The first of two matters which I wish to raise in this debate is serious and affects constituents of Members on both sides of the House. Racial attacks are not new. Part of the problem is that they do not affect many people, yet those who are affected are affected severely. The problem is brought to mind particularly because of reports of racial attacks in the Thamesmead area and the death of an Asian over the weekend.
I am talking not about the odd attack here and there, but about systematic attacks on Asian and coloured people by a small number of white people. The Asian community fear that, if they talk too much about the attacks, they will be thought to be whingeing and not wholly wedded to life in this country, and that that will somehow instigate further attacks. There is some justification for all those feelings, but there is no justification either for the way in which many people have ignored racial attacks or for believing that this is not a major problem for many Asian and black people.
Before the recess, we should debate an idea which was proposed some 11 or 12 years ago by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but which has never been adopted. It is simple, but it has merit. The suggestion is that a racial attacks squad should be set up in Scotland Yard. After all, we have a serious crimes squad, a serious fraud squad, a drugs squad, a pornography squad, a murder squad and doubtless several others. Why should we not also have a racial attacks squad?
We have those centres of expertise in Scotland Yard because a local police unit, comprising a chief superintendent running police officers, cannot be reasonably expected either properly to investigate repeated racial attacks or to deal with the problems of the families who are subject to such attacks, without recourse to a centralised unit which has knowledge of and can co-ordinate what has been happening, and the necessary expertise. The matter should come before the House because it is of enormous concern to many of my constituents and to many constituents of other hon. Members in their daily lives. We should be failing in our duty if we did not point out to the police and the Home Office that more can be done and that we expect more of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) said that the Labour party's economics were those of Arthur Daley, and that analogy stands up. However, it is well known in the Labour party but less well known in the Conservative party that they are not the economics of Arthur Daley but rather those of "Only Fools and Horses" —[Interruption.] Labour Members should be patient. They reveal that they know what I am going to say, and it is rather embarrassing for them. Members of the Labour party and the national executive committee have nicknamed the leader of the Labour party "Rodney" and the shadow Chancellor "Del Boy", because of the nickname that Del Boy has for Rodney, and that is how they are known in the House. Anyone who has ever watched the television programme will know that it is not a flattering nickname. The wry smiles on the faces of Opposition Members show that they, too, have heard that and are rather embarrassed.
We must examine not what the Labour party says but what it writes. It recently produced a document entitled
52
"Opportunity Britain", which the House should debate because it contains over 100 spending proposals. They are not all bad—many are desirable—but we do not know what they will cost. One has only to listen to Labour Members in the Chamber or speaking on amendments in Standing Committees, or to share a platform with a Labour Member, to see that every problem is met with a promise of new money. To an extent, everyone knows that the promise is unsustainable.
There has been much talk about unemployment, and the problem is taken seriously on both sides of the House. However, we did not hear much from the Labour party when unemployment fell for 40 consecutive months. The Labour party seemed to forget about it then; it seems to be a problem only when unemployment rises. The Opposition know that their proposal for a minimum wage would add dramatically to the unemployment level. They will set it at 50 per cent. of average male earnings, on a rising scale. Do they accept that that would add 750,000 to the number of unemployed, or do they have another figure? If so, where does it come from, and what is their estimate of the unemployment effects of their minimum wage proposals?
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) spoke about the privatisation of the water industry, but he forgot to remind the House that it has led to the biggest ever investment programme in the water industry. This year, private industry has invested £28 billion in the water industry. What scale of investment does the Labour party believe is necessary? Clearly, the hon. Member for Ogmore thinks that there has been too much investment, because he said that the bills were too high. If the investment is not paid for by consumers and the borrowings of private limited companies, where would the money come from? Where would the Labour party find the money to invest in the water industry?
What would be the standard rate of income tax under a Labour Government? The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) promises that 14 out of 15 basic rate taxpayers would not be worse off. How can the Labour party know that, when it has not announced its plans? If it has made plans, it should tell the House.
The Labour party does not understand that lower income tax stimulates economic growth. It is called supply side economics and it has worked here, in the United States and even in many European countries run by socialist Governments. The proof is contained in the figures for the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers, who now pay substantially larger proportions of tax than they did under the previous Labour Government.
When one considers the Labour party's spending and taxation proposals, it is not a question of reading their lips but of reading about the expensive promises contained in their policy documents.
5.55 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I shall not try to reply in detail to all the points raised—as usual, a wide range of subjects have been raised—but shall concentrate on one or two important issues that are currently the subject of debate outside the Chamber.
Several hon. Members, including a number of my hon. Friends, concentrated on the key issue of unemployment. The subject was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and

53
my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Interestingly, it was also raised by a couple of hon. Members of other parties. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) specified white collar unemployment, and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) stressed the dangers of unemployment in his constituency. It would be remiss of me not to associate only myself and the Labour party with the deep concern about unemployment in all sectors of the economy and in all parts of the country.
One of the consequences of high unemployment has emerged in today's reports of what is happening at Rolls-Royce. Over the weekend, 34,000 Rolls Royce employees were given notice and were guaranteed reinstatement only if they accepted substantially worse conditions of employment. That is a classic symptom of high unemployment. Employers have the whip hand and can impose conditions that would be unacceptable in normal circumstances. It is dreadful that such an employer-dominated diktat can be imposed and it is yet further evidence of the way in which normal traditions of collective bargaining and national and company agreements, which have served us well over the years, have been eroded by the Government's legislation and high unemployment policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North pointed out the irony that much of the problem arose under the leadership of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who seems incapable of coping herself with the consequences of unemployment. Her unemployment is pretty cushioned, as she still has a job that is deeply envied by many people—she is a Member of Parliament. However, she seems to be temperamentally incapable of accepting that she is on the scrap heap, having been personally responsible for putting so many of her fellow citizens on it. Nothing could better summarise the distorted values of the former Prime Minister than her unforgettable quote last week,
"Home is where you come to when you have nothing better to do."
That was said by the former leader of what press releases tell us is the party of the family. Nothing could demonstrate more unequivocally how totally out of touch this Administration have been during the past 12 years. For so much of that time, it was led by someone who places a value on the home that would be unrecognisable by the vast majority of my constituents and by people throughout the country. I do not wish to minimise the critical importance to people of work, not only for their standard of living but for their self-esteem and sense of worth. That importance has been dreadfully eroded by the Government, and it is essential that we have a debate on unemployment before the House rises.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Behind the scenes, the Government are dramatically cutting back expenditure on those with disabilities and special educational needs up and down the country, including my constituency. My local training and enterprise council is about to announce the almost complete withdrawal of access by the disabled to training programmes that help them to maintain employment and give them job opportunities. That information brings the Government into great disrepute.
54
They are not only attacking able-bodied people but are cynically withdrawing financial resources to maintain in employment those with serious disabilities.
Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point, and the issue of the general underfunding of TECs was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore. It is further evidence that the Government, whatever their rhetoric and press releases say, have a fundamental lack of concern for the issues of most importance to our constituents.
Another issue that was touched on during the debate and which is central to political debate outside the House, is the announcement of the date of the next general election. It is not that I do not like doing this job, but I fervently hope that this is the last time that I have to participate in a recess Adjournment debate. It is not that such debates are unattractive, but it is clear that this Parliament and Government have run out of steam and it is time that the matter was settled in a general election.
Several Conservative Members have made a number of assertions about what the country wants. There is only one way to settle that issue—in the form of a vote. Early-day motion 819, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) sums up the matter. It states:
"That this House expresses its concern at the terminal decline of the present Parliament, elected in 1987; and seeks to encourage the Prime Minister to take the necessary action to end the painful suffering of an administration, which has come to the end of its time".
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey thinks, as we do, that it is time for a general election. However, I cannot agree with him that the right way to settle the matter would be a system of voting that would ensure permanent control by minority parties in the centre. That does not strike me as a fair way of determining general elections.
Mr. Ray Powell: My hon. Friend is talking about the general election. It was predicted in the press that, if the Government lost the Monmouth by-election, we would have to wait through a hot, steamy summer, until October or November. The opinion poll just announced by HTV gives 41 per cent. to Labour, 33 per cent. to the Government and 21 per cent. to the Liberals. Does my hon. Friend think that, in the light of that, we shall have to have another such Adjournment debate before the summer recess?
Mr. Skinner: There is another poll relating to Monmouth, which asks how people would vote if it looked as though the Labour party was likely to win. The result of that poll is even better—51 per cent. voted for Labour, 35 per cent. for the Tories and 13 per cent. for the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friends are joyous bearers of good news. I have been unable to see the news bulletins tonight.
The downside is that we all know that the Prime Minister, in his agony of indecision, and having failed to get any clear message from the computers that he set to work on the local election results, is anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Monmouth by-election before he can make up his mind. I doubt whether he will be able to do so then.
The Leader of the House, and certainly the Government, owe it to us to make a decision. It is high

55
time that the indecision about the election date was sorted out. If the Prime Minister is not going to have an election in June, it is up to him to make it plain to the country that he will not have one until later in the year. There is a clear precedent for that. The last Prime Minister who became Prime Minister by accident, and to his and everyone else's surprise, was Sir Alec Douglas-Home. After playing around with the election date for a while, he had the sense to make it clear that he would not have an election until late in 1964. This Prime Minister should do the same. Whatever the Leader of the House feels about the election date, he must agree that constant uncertainty cannot possibly be to the benefit of the country.
Sir Robert McCrindle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grocott: No, I will not give way.
It is essential that, by this time next week, when the Prime Minister has been able to assess the result of the Monmouth by-election, he should at least announce whether there is to be a general election in June.
Sir Robert McCrindle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grocott: No: if I give way, it will eat into the time of the Leader of the House, for which he would not be grateful.
I have a fairly clear idea why the Prime Minister is not keen to call a general election quickly—he does not want to go down in history as the shortest-serving Prime Minister this century. A little bit of statistical analysis that I have been able to carry out as I while away the time shows that the shortest-serving Prime Minister this century was Bonar Law, who served for 209 days. The current Prime Minister has had 167 days and, according to my calculation, he will have to keep going until at least 25 June to avoid earning the title. If he wants to beat Sir Alec, he will have to keep going for a year, and he will just about beat Sir Anthony Eden if he goes on until February 1992.
Sooner or later, we shall all know what the Prime Minister has decided. It is crystal clear—[Interruption.] Conservative Members were angry when I started my speech, and, having heard the results of the opinion polls, they are even more wound up. I can understand that. The prospect of unemployment is deeply distressing for Conservative Members.
Another reason why we need absolute clarification on the election date—the Leader of the House is in a better position to acknowledge this than anyone else—is that the House is running out of things to do.
Mr. MacGregor: Rubbish.
Mr. Grocott: The Leader of the House says, "Rubbish," but on three occasions last week the House rose by 9 pm. I shall inform the House for the record, because it is worth checking the statistics, that the House has not risen before 9 pm twice in a week at any time in the past 13 years. Last week, it happened three times because the Government are running out of things to do——
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grocott: I shall not give way. Conservative Members are getting very excited. Like them, I wish that we could resolve this in a normal manner. I hope that they will impress upon the Prime Minister the absolute urgency of calling a general election, so that we do not have rows across the Chamber, but the voters can sort out the matter in the polling booths. Although Conservative Members do not like to hear it, it is extremely rare for the business of the House to fold up as early as it did three times last week.
I shall certainly give way if Conservative Members wish to challenge me on the following point. There are three crucial debates taking place in the House this week—I hope that hon. Members who have spoken in this debate will forgive me if I do not include this one. Those three crucial debates are, first, the one on the health service and opting-out hospitals tomorrow, which was called by the Opposition and is to be held in precious Opposition time. The second one is on famine in Africa and on the effects of famine and related matters in Bangladesh, as well as matters affecting the Kurds. That debate will be initiated by us and will take place in our precious parliamentary time.
The other crucial debate—it is indeed crucial; hon. Members get very excited and jump up and down when the subject is discussed—is on public expenditure. On Wednesday, we shall debate the Government's public expenditure plans. Opposition Members have requested this debate week after week after week, but the Leader of the House has repeatedly refused it. I know that the Government find this information uncomfortable. The Leader of the House has only to check Hansard to see repeated confirmation of what I am saying.
Sir Robert McCrindle rose——
Mr. Grocott: If the hon. Gentleman wants to comment on the specific points to which I have been referring, I shall gladly give way.
Sir Robert McCrindle: I am glad that I have finally managed to persuade the hon. Gentleman to give way.
In pinpointing the admittedly very important subjects that the House, on the Opposition's initiative, is to debate tomorrow, the hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked entirely an extremely important debate that is to take place on Thursday. On that day, we shall debate the question of planning—a matter of enormous importance to a great many of our fellow citizens. Perhaps the reason for the hon. Gentleman's lack of interest in that debate is that he will not be here on Thursday. Like many of his hon. Friends, he will be at the Monmouth by-election. The reason for the early rising of the House on three occasions last week was that there were no Members on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Grocott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to accompany me to any pub of his choosing in Britain. I will give him £1 every time planning is mentioned if he will give me £1 every time unemployment or the health service is mentioned as a key subject facing the nation.
The Leader of the House should be defending the interests of hon. Members. He should ensure that, before the House rises for the Whitsun recess, we are given an opportunity to debate the declining standards of ministerial accountability. That matter should concern the right hon. Gentleman. It certainly concerns my hon. Friends and myself that Ministers are not answering

57
questions properly. The Government's tactic has been to use agencies to move Ministers one step away from responsibility for the running of their Departments. That is a well-established practice. Why does a question to a Minister get a far less effective response than did the very same question two years ago?
Let me give a specific example involving a matter that is important to me and which I understood at one time was important to Conservative Members. I refer to the cost of running quangos. One of the Government's many broken promises is that it would reduce the running costs of these bodies. This is a specific and serious matter. Two years ago, I asked the Civil Service Minister to state the total cost of running quangos in each of the previous 10 years. I received a detailed answer, for which I was grateful.
Last month, I tabled a similar question, and, in reply, was told to look up the figures in the Library. If that is to be the Government's practice, we might as well simply have a ministerial stamp for every question. Any figure can be provided by the excellent research staff of the House of Commons Library. It is outrageous that the Government are ever more frequently using such a device as a means of avoiding answering specific questions. One might imagine that the Government could at least get their own act together.
Many Opposition Members, in their attempts to obtain information, have to put identical questions to all members of the Cabinet. Very recently, I tabled a very simple question to a number of Ministers. I asked each of them to list the Government appointments for which he or she—in the case of the present Cabinet, it is always he —would be responsible in the next 12 months and in the 12 months after that. Those appointments will, of course, become the responsibility of the incoming Labour Government. Whatever Conservative Members may think, that is a totally legitimate parliamentary question. It is entirely right that we should want to know about these appointments, about length of service and about the salaries. Repeatedly I received the standard reply:
"Information about the number and levels of remuneration of people appointed to public bodies by my Department is given in 'Public Bodies 1990', copies of which are available in the Library."
There were a couple of honourable exceptions. The Secretary of State for Education and Science gave a detailed and valid reply, and the Secretary of State for Defence at least provided page references to enable me to find the answers in various Government documents.
The response of the great majority of Ministers is another illustration of the way in which the Government treat hon. Members with contempt. It is high time the Leader of the House discharged his role and put these matters to rights. In fact, what we want is a rapid end to this tawdry Government. They have gone on for far too long. The endless election debate cannot be allowed to continue. Matters should be put to the people in a general election as soon as possible.
6.15 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I shall follow the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in one thing—and in one thing only, as I have rather less time than he occupied. I should like to answer all the questions that have been put to me, but, because of the shortage of time, I shall not be able to do so.
58
I shall begin by dealing with the matter which has been at the heart of much of this debate. It was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and, by implication, by every other Opposition Member. We have always known that the Labour party is weak on economic policy and on spending. In the general election in 1987 it proved just that, and was crucified as a result. Opposition Members are getting into the same shambles today. Indeed, on the question of spending and tax, they are getting more rattled, muddled and shrill.
Let me direct the attention of Opposition Members to two things that have happened today—on the "Today" programme this morning, and in this debate. On the "Today" programme, John Humphrys said to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith):
"Let's be clear that that is what your are saying: 'Twenty billion pounds on top of the £40 billion—that's the extra that we're spending in the coming three years."'
In fact, the figure is £38 billion, but John Humphrys rounded it up.
"Is that what it's about, John Smith?"
The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
"What Neil Kinnock did was to use as an example the fact that if you get 2·5 per cent., which is about the trend rate of growth of the British economy, that's what you get in extra public expenditure. That was a perfectly simple and perfectly clear example"—
[Interruption.] I am quoting exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and it is not at all surprising that Opposition Members do not like to be pressed on the point. It is crucial, and, if necessary, I shall devote my entire speech to it.
In reply to John Humphrys, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"We do not add that on top of all the public expenditure forward programmes that have already been announced. We do not accept that's a reasonable way of doing it because it's to add on top, and we never said that, and it's a total misinterpretation to do that."
I have never heard such a meaningless piece of a sentence. The reason for it is that, on this point, the Labour party is absolutely on a hook.
Mr. Ray Powell: What is the relevance of this?
Mr. MacGregor: I will come to its relevance in a moment.
The Labour party is on a hook. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant that £20 billion was not being added—if he accepted the figure of £38 billion as the increase in public expenditure, to which he would not add anything—what is all this about? It is that the Labour party will not spend anything more. That is the answer to practically every speech made in this debate.
If, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman did not mean that, and he really meant another £20 billion on top of the £38 billion already announced, that presupposes——
Mr. Grocott: No one believes this.
Mr. MacGregor: But it is crystal clear. If the hon. Gentleman does not think it a fair point, he knows nothing about economics, taxation or spending. If the money does not come from growth or from the £38 billion, where will it come from? It will come from extra taxation——
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Grocott rose——
Mr. MacGregor: I will finish my point first. The money will come from extra taxation, not from increased growth, because that is already provided for. Will the money come from more taxation? I give way to the hon. Member for The Wrekin, who can tell us the answer.
Mr. Grocott: We will not take any lectures on economic management from a Government who, in 12 years, have managed to achieve record interest rates, record mortgage rates, record balance of payments deficits, reduced industrial production and investment and a shambles of the economy. We will take lectures on many things, but not on economic management. This country has been run by Arthur Daley for the past 12 years.
Mr. MacGregor: The House will have noted that there was no answer to the question; the Labour party does not want to answer it, because it does not want even to hint that it will increase taxation. The Opposition want to imply that they will increase spending on all sorts of things and then try to get out of the difficulty by spurious reference to economic growth. The fact is that that is impossible in the next three years because the spending plans already provide for that growth. So the money must come from increased taxes. The electorate will take note of that. The Prime Minister was right to say in Perth the other day that Labour's plans would mean another 2p in the pound on income tax each year.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West pointed out, the Opposition are always asking for more spending across the board. Their Treasury spokesman has told us that there will be increased spending only on child benefit and pensions, but the rest of the Opposition call for increased spending all the time on whatever happens to interest them. They were at it again today. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) wanted more money for charities. The hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) wanted it for unemployment—as did the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)——
Mr. Alfred Morris: Answer my questions.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall come to them if I am allowed time.
The hon. Member for Ogmore wanted spending on training and enterprise councils, and the hon. Member for The Wrekin had his agenda. We have and constant calls for more public spending. That is at the heart of the argument, and I am right to concentrate on it, because it is what Opposition Members have spent all their time doing.
Opposition Members cannot add up the figures. The hon. Member for The Wrekin did not answer the point that I put to him. The Liberal Democrats are just as bad. I found what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said extraordinary. He may not have meant it, but he said that the Liberal Democrats would raise an extra £2 billion from another 1p on income tax. At least his party is fair in saying where the money will come from. But the hon. Gentleman said that the Liberal Democrats would spend it on education, which would enable them to spend less on the national health service. I do not understand that, given that the rest of his speech was about
60
spending more on the national health service. Perhaps he only meant spending more on Guy's hospital—it happens to be in his constituency—and letting the rest go.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I did not say that we would spend less on the national health service. I said that we would not have to raise the money that the health service needs from additional taxation, because that money would go to education. The health service would be funded by us to the tune of an extra 2 per cent. every year over a five-year Parliament.
Mr. MacGregor: Given that we have already agreed that there are already spending plans to use the economic growth, presumably the money will not come from that. So if the Liberal Democrats are going to spend more on the national health service, presumably they will have to raise income tax by more than 1p in the pound.
There is a more serious point for the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey talked of raising £2 billion from income tax to increase spending on education. His party voted against the proposal in the Budget to increase VAT from 15 to 17·5 per cent., thereby losing £3·9 billion in revenue. Those figures do not add up, either.
The clear message from this debate is that the Opposition want to spend more across the board. They have got themselves in a muddle on tax and spending plans and they cannot get out of it now.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) discussed whether we were rising for a week to go on holiday. I am sure that we are all going to do all sorts of other duties—but I shall leave that matter aside, in view of the time. He also mentioned the health service in Shropshire but did not ask me to answer his specific points, which I shall forward to the Secretary of State for Health; but he made a general point about the ownership of cottage hospitals. As he will know—I have to put this in a very condensed form—under the National Health Service Act 1977, health authorities can take into account resources that come from property and any money arising from its sale, which must be used within the national health service to provide better care for patients. My right hon. Friend will know that that is what we have done; the sale of assets can be and is directly devoted to the service and to patient care.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe raised a number of points, three of which I will pick up quickly. He mentioned VAT on charities. As he will know, the Government have done a great deal to increase the resources that go into charities, not only by more than doubling in real terms the grants to charities but by a wide variety of tax relief measures which encourage more voluntary giving to charities. I could go through the figures, but they are very large.
The value of all tax reliefs on charitable giving to charities is about £800 million a year. The hon. Gentleman's point about the health service—I am not talking here about the Paterson institute—was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury on 28 March:
"I have agreed that in the special case of the health programmes, the additional costs to health authorities should be added to existing provision as a claim against the reserve. This will also apply to comparable expenditure in Scotland and Wales. The increased provision will be granted to the

61
national health service in supplementary estimates for 1991–92, to be presented in due course later in the year."—[Official Report, 28 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 519.]
The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the rights of the child convention was signed by the United Kingdom on 19 April 1990, and it will be ratified as soon as possible. I am sorry that I do not have time to go into his point about AIDS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling discussed the case of a constituent. As he recognises, it is fundamentally a matter for the county council, but he raised several important points and it would be quite proper for him to consider raising the matter on the Adjournment if he were not satisfied in due course.
My hon. Friend also discussed the local government Audit Commission, of which I have always been a strong supporter. It is admirably led and it has produced a number of excellent reports which, if followed through, would achieve greater cost-effectiveness and efficiency and much better value for money. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment undertook in an Adjournment debate to consider a number of my hon. Friend's points, and that he is doing.
As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and bearing in mind my time at the Department of Education and Science and what the commission said then, I endorse what my hon. Friend the member for Gedling said about its importance, and I shall certainly bear in mind the possibility of a debate. As in so many other areas, the commission's activities show that the effectiveness of provision of services stems not just from the amount of money spent but from how it is spent. So I am happy to go along with what my hon. Friend said about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) raised a number of points about unemployment in the white collar industries. I noted that he said that he had no quarrel with the polices to get inflation down, and, as he will agree, they are crucial to long-term employment. He also mentioned tourism. I remind him that, in 1990–91, the Government are spending about £533 million on tourism.
I should very much like to debate Scottish devolution with my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan)——
Mr. Raffan: And a Welsh Assembly.
Mr. MacGregor: Indeed. I spent a great deal of time when in Perth last week discussing that, but time will prevent me from doing so today, because I want to finish on two important issues raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin.
First, the hon. Gentleman said that the House was running out of business. That is simply not true. About 25 Bills are still to be completed in the next few months—a big programme. The reason why the House rose early last week, which I am sure was welcomed by those hon. Members who complain that the House rises too late, was that there were no members of the Opposition to scrutinise the Finance Bill and other Bills. I gave the normal amount of time to discuss the Finance Bill, and usually the House takes it all.
We have had many debates on economic issues and on unemployment, and I welcome them. The Opposition outlined a policy of implementing a social charter and strengthening it immediately, of imposing a training levy of 0·5 per cent. and then, as I think they said, increasing it
62
pretty quickly, and of imposing a national minimum wage. I can think of no package of measures designed to lose more jobs than the combination of those three ideas.
We welcome the opportunity to continue to debate the alternative approaches to employment. I am happy to have that opportunity, and there will be many such occasions in the near future but, above all, the debate shows that the Labour party is the party of high spenders. It has proved that time and time again, but it does not want the electorate to know about tax concessions.
6.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As there are three minutes to go, may I ask the Leader of the House, first, what will he do about rate capping in Lothian? Secondly, what will he do about Heveningham hall, which is near his constituency? In the early 1970s, the Secretary of State for the Environment offered to buy it from the Government, but he was told by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that no Minister in his Government would buy a house like that. Since then, it has been shrouded in mystery.
May I ask a direct question: are Ministers sure that the Swiss bearer bond holders are not operating for the Government of Iraq and have never done so? Was the hall at any time the property of Saddam Hussein, because many people in Suffolk believe that it was? An inquiry should be set up under the likes of Lord Charteris, with whom I have been in contact to establish the clarity of the future of Heveningham hall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned Mr. Ingham. A statement should be made, because we should know what is the position of John Mark. By implication, his private secretary has been adversely affected in the press by Mr. Ingham's memoirs. What is the position of Colette Bowe and that of Leon Brittan——
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 23rd May, do adjourn until Monday 3rd June.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Only you can deal with this issue, perhaps through Mr. Speaker.
Today, I tabled a question to the Minister for the Arts, and it was referred to the Welsh Office. I have now received a reply from the Welsh Office to say that the Welsh Arts Council, which was the subject of the question, is not responsible for museums in Wales. My question was about the funding of museums:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, whether he has met the Chair of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss funding for museums in Wales."
The Ministry referred my question to the Welsh Office, and the Minister there in turn replied:
"The Welsh Arts Council has no responsibility for museums in Wales."
With your knowledge of the House, of Committees and of everything else, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you tell me where I should submit my question—to Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means or someone else?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I confess that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I can say only that I have no responsibility for determining who shall be responsible for answering specific questions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave it with us and that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, (Mr. Moynihan), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, has taken note and will get a response for the hon. Gentleman. I have no responsibility in such matters.
Mr. Powell: I am grateful for your reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I raised the issue because it is important for those of us on the Back Benches to receive answers to our questions. We do not want Ministers to transfer our questions hither and thither and then find that we do not receive a reply from any Department.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is fair to complain. What the hon. Gentleman says should be noted to ensure that he gets a fair response.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend refers to a point of order for Mr. Speaker or, indeed, for the Procedure Committee. It will be within your recollection that the late John Silkin, passionately against the advice of some of us, agreed to limit the summer and other recess Adjournment debates to three hours. This was sacred private Members' time, yet once more it was being eroded. This afternoon, we have seen the Front Bench—and I must say, that it was both Front Benches—use the occasion for the usual exchange of party politics. The summer Adjournment is an opportunity for Front-Bench Members to raise matters, however controversial.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Back-Bench Members.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised the specific issue of unemployment. This is the occasion to raise matters relating to our constituencies, not for the normal party yah-boo. We can raise not only matters relating to our constituencies but urgent matters such as that raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the Government's reaction—or otherwise—to the behaviour of Mr. Ingham. This is the only opportunity that we shall have to do so, and it is essential to establish what Mr. Ingham and Sir Leon Brittan are doing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is skilful, but I suspect that he is now trying to raise the issues that he might have raised had he had the opportunity to participate in the Adjournment debate. As to the content and way in which the debate is conducted, the yah-boo political arguments came from all sides of the House.
The extent to which the debate is in order is a matter for the judgment of the Chair. Although much caused me concern, nothing this afternoon caused me to rule a speaker out of order. The duration of the debate is more properly a matter for the Procedure Committee, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will want to make representations to that Committee. Now, perhaps we might move on.

Coal Industry (Restructuring)
6.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.
The order, which was laid before the House on 15 April, is the fifth annual order under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987. The House may recall that section 3 was amended last year by section 2 of the Coal Industry Act 1990 which extended by one year up to March 1993 the period over which the Government may pay restructuring grant and increased the total limit on grant from £750 million to £1,250 million. The ceiling is further increasable by order up to £1,500 million.
The order has three main purposes.
Mr. Andy Stewart: I am sorry to interrupt so early in the Minister's speech. I have a copy of the schedule; can the Minister explain why heads 3 and 4 have been left out?
Mr. Moynihan: I shall attempt to explain. Head 4 was excluded last year. The House may recall that the Coal Industry Act 1990 provided for the corporation's accumulated group deficit at the end of March 1990 to be covered by a deficiency grant, if my memory serves me correctly. That included an exceptional provision for about £1,500 million for concessionary fuel supplies. That deficiency grant provision extinguished the need for the Government to pay restructuring grant for concessionary fuel liabilities. My hon. Friend also raises the question of the social welfare activities heading in the schedule. British Coal has never claimed under that heading.
The order specifies the restructuring expenditure for which grant may be paid in respect of costs incurred in the present financial year 1991–92. After the explanation that I have just given about the types of expenditure set out in the schedule, I must point out that they are the same as those of last year.
The order establishes the proportion of this year's restructuring costs which will be met by grant. The corporation's financial results are sensitive to the rate of grant contribution towards restructuring costs. Although it remains our policy to transfer the costs of restructuring to the corporation at a rate that reflects its ability to bear them, the market conditions faced by British Coal continue to be difficult and to affect the rate at which the corporation can move towards full commercial viability.
I trust that hon. Members will agree that it is desirable for the corporation to be able to continue its policy of carrying out the necessary restructuring of the industry through a process of voluntary redundancy. That is possible only by offering generous redundancy terms. To safeguard the industry's longer-term financial prospects and not to jeopardise the financial position in the short term, we propose to continue the rate of restructuring grant of 90 per cent., which applied in 1990–91, for the current financial year.
The third main provision, which I touched on earlier, is that paragraph 6 seeks to increase the limit on the aggregate amount of grant that may be paid from £1,250 million to £1·5 billion, as empowered by the 1990 Act. The total restructuring grant payments made by the

65
Government between April 1987 and March 1991 have been £1,045 million. The Department's estimated provision for 1991–92 is £300 million. If the full provision is drawn down this year, the total payments will be over £1·3 billion and the ceiling needs to be raised to allow payments above £1,250 million to take place.
6.41 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I welcome the opportunity to raise a number of issues of great importance to the British coal industry and its communities. The Minister made claims about the difficult market that British Coal now faces. In our debate last July on the 1990 restructuring grants order, I expressed our concern at the lack of progress on the start of negotiations between the generators and British Coal on the post-1993 contract. I said that the negotiations were vital for planning the future of the coal and electricity industries, and for boosting the morale of everyone in the coal industry.
We are still waiting for progress to be made. In March this year, the new chairman of British Coal said:
"Everybody is aware that the power contracts—their length, tonnage and price involved—are the key to the future of British Coal. Indeed, they will determine whether there is to be a future for coalmining in Britain at all."
Once again this weekend, we have seen negotiation by press release. The Financial Times says that PowerGen will cut its order from British Coal by half to between 10 million tonnes and 15 million tonnes, and that National Power will follow suit.
Real negotiations, not informal talks or threatening rumbles through the media, must begin now. If they do not, we shall have not only a coal industry unprepared for the demands that it will face, but an electricity industry that will rush to fuel its power stations with no thought for the long-term needs of its customers or the nation. In such circumstances, the Government cannot continue to stand aside and allow the continued contraction of the industry, the loss of national resources and the effects of increasing coal imports on our balance of payments. The Government would be better off spending their time bringing about negotiations rather than holding competitions to appoint a financial adviser on the privatisation on the coal industry.
As in previous years, the order contains an element for expected redundancies in the industry this year. Over recent years, the industry has had to react to the shock waves of threatened and real pit closures and job losses. Every miner who picks up his newspapers to read headlines such as "British Coal strategy—a further 16,000 jobs at risk" must wonder how long his job will last. The industry has recently forecast that another 5,600 jobs will be lost in the coming year with the closure of another seven collieries.
Those are not ideal circumstances for urging British miners, as the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy did last week, to increase productivity, which he acknowledged to have increased already by more than 90 per cent. over the past six years. It is vital for miners and their families and for the country that a new era of stability should be heralded in the industry as soon as possible.
The order also makes provision for the money for British Coal Enterprise Ltd., for opportunities for retraining and resettlement and for attracting a diversity of
66
industries and employment chances. Those are of major importance to the coalfield areas. We have registered our concern——
Mr. Spencer Batiste: The hon. Gentleman referred to the work of British Coal Enterprise Ltd., in helping to retrain people and to mitigate the consequences of the closure of collieries. In the past, the Opposition have been less than complimentary about the work of British Coal Enterprise. Will the hon. Gentleman now take the opportunity to confirm his and his party's full support for its work?
Mr. Barron: If the hon. Gentleman will contain his excitement a little longer, he will find out what I have to say about British Coal Enterprise.
We have in these debates in the past registered our concern that the opportunities offered by BCE are inadequate to meet the needs of the areas in which it operates. The shortcomings of BCE's job and career change scheme, or JACCS, are of particular concern. The main shortcomings are that the training period that can be funded is often insufficient to enable people to get recognised industrial qualifications, that before training is made available they have to show that there is a job to go to at the end of the training period and that the time limit within which funding must be secured is only six months from the date of accepting redundancy. Anyone who has studied long-term unemployment in the coal mining industry before the scale of redundancies of the past five years will know why the JACCS scheme is not meeting the needs in mining areas.
Other problems are the slow and cumbersome process of determining applications, and the fact that anyone who takes short-term work soon after the closure of a colliery can easily find himself ineligible for assistance. The JACCS scheme is out of step with most other organisations in training and economic development which emphasise the enhancement of the individual's skills irrespective of the immediate availability of appropriate employment.
BCE's operations, despite the shortcomings, have been allocated approximately £5 million and British Coal itself another £1 million or so from the European Coal and Steel Community funding under RECHAR. All the evidence points to the funds being used to replace British Government funds instead of supplementing them.
About £3 million is earmarked for JACCS. To demonstrate additionality—a word that crops up regularly when discussing European Community money for mining areas—some or all of the training places funded, the length of training and the unit costs of training should be increased. BCE has yet to explain how it intends to use the new RECHAR money.
Nearly £1 million is allocated to BCE's job shops—the advice centres set up at pits that are closing to counsel redundant mineworkers about job vacancies in their area. Once again, BCE has not been able to show any increase in the scale of job shop services. Is this another case of non-additionality for the Government?
Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman referred to the RECHAR programme. He will be aware of my concern last year, when the map for it was being determined by Commissioner Bruce Millan of the European Community. Parts of my constituency that were facing pit closures were not included in the map. I understand that the Coalfield Communities Campaign and the Labour party have made

67
representations to Commissioner Millan. Will the hon. Gentleman support representations made by the Government to include my constituency in the RECHAR map?
Mr. Barron: I shall obviously do that. I shall deal with recent developments relating to the RECHAR programme and say what we expect of the Government. At this stage, I am more concerned about the money that comes through the RECHAR programme directly to the Department of Energy, and about what the Department does with it. Notwithstanding the money that I have just mentioned, nearly £1 million is allocated for subsidising BCE's operating losses.
The subsidy is to be calculated in proportion to the ratio of former mineworkers to all jobs in BCE-supported businesses and managed workshops. As BCE is supporting these jobs anyway, it is hard to see that the subsidy is anything other than a straight substitution of EC funds for United Kingdom Government funds.
British Coal is destined to receive some RECHAR funds, partly for its early retirement scheme for non-industrial employees and partly for its skill scope scheme, which gives employees an opportunity to take up specific training packages to enhance their skills. Unless British Coal can demonstrate that the £300,000 that it is to receive from RECHAR will represent additional training for its employees, we can only assume that it is another example of the substitution of the source of the funds.
Mr. Allen McKay: My latest information on RECHAR is that Commissioner Millan will not let the money come into this country unless the Government give assurances that it will be additional money and will not go into the Treasury by the back door.
Mr. Barron: That is right. Bruce Millan knows exactly what has been going on for a long time regarding European Commission grants for coal-mining areas. On this occasion, he will not let the Treasury get away with it. He has my full support on that, and the support of the Coalfield Communities Campaign and many local authorities.
We need to ensure that assistance is getting to the places where it is most needed, and questions need to be answered. The Government have totally mismanaged the RECHAR programme. First, they have refused to pass on in full the EC aid to coalfield local authorities in Britain—over £100 million. I agree with the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) that any areas in his constituency that are losing coal-mining jobs should be covered by the RECHAR programme. We should ensure that the Treasury does not hold that money once it has been allotted.
Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman's comment does not sit well with the comment that he made a few moments ago. He has said that he fully supports Commissioner Millan's decision to withhold money from the United Kingdom.
Mr. Barron: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to represent the mineworkers in his constituency—as does my friend Colin Burgon, whose name the hon. Gentleman has heard before—he should not be a stooge for the Treasury, which
68
has withheld £100 million from coal-mining areas. Labour Members will not do that, and the hon. Gentleman should think again.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) challenged my hon. Friend, who responded properly. My agent, Mr. Richard Russell, has been assisted by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. Some of us appreciate the work done on the ground, but do not necessarily relate that to the sort of people with whom the hon. Gentleman associates.
We responded to the hon. Gentleman's challenge; now would he care to respond to that offered by my hon. Friend? Will he join us, and make it clear to the Government that people in ex-coalmining areas bitterly resent attempts by the Treasury, and other Departments, to stop Brussels sending money to help us—or to allow any money sent to us to assist the Treasury to extricate itself from the mess that it has got into?
Mr. Barron: Yes, that is what we should ensure. The Treasury's intention to sink the money into its coffers has forced the European Community to withhold the cash, delaying or stifling completely the grants and cheap loans that would be of such benefit to mining areas.
It now appears that the money designated to help redundant mineworkers acquire new skills, and consequently new employment prospects, is not going to British Coal and British Coal Enterprise as additional funds, as was intended by the Commission, but is being substituted for British Government funding. Can the Minister demonstrate the additional character of the funding provided to British Coal and British Coal Enterprise Ltd. under the RECHAR programme? If not, only one conclusion can be drawn; not content with trying to get their hands on the money that should be going to coalfield local authorities, the Government are ripping off redundant mineworkers.
Mr. George J. Buckley: My hon. Friend makes a significant point about the Treasury creaming off money from the EC. I understand that, if a local authority receives this money, it will be taken into account when the Government decide whether the authority should be poll tax-capped. It is a double indemnity against the Government's putting money into mining communities.
Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Government do not change their attitude, the money will not come into the country to go into the Treasury's coffers. I support the Commission's stand on that. Conservative Members who say that they represent coal-mining areas should have the courage to tell Treasury Ministers that it is wrong to withhold help to coal-mining areas that have suffered job losses in the past five years under the Tory Government.
Mr. Andy Stewart: The Treasury and the Department of the Environment calculate the additionality money on the same basis as other European countries. The local authority grants have been top-sliced by an additionality of £46 million. A large slice of that will come to my constituency through my local authority, yet Opposition Members would deny my constituents some of that £46 million.
Mr. Barron: The only people who are denying the hon. Member's constituents such help are the Government he

69
supports. A few months ago, I went with representatives of my local authority to the Department of the Environment to discuss funding from the European Commission and additionality. The Minister said that he fully supported our view that money should not be withheld by central Government; that money should be provided in addition to the moneys paid from the Exchequer. The only people who will not change their minds are those at the nasty Treasury.
The hon. Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) may have to face the consequences of the Government's actions in the next few weeks or months. They now want to move the responsibility from the Treasury to Brussels.
Mr. Batiste rose——
Mr. Andy Stewart rose——
Mr. Barron: I shall not give way again.
The debate gives us an opportunity to refer to some crucial and important matters concerning the coal industry. Restructuring grants have been the order of the day since 1987—£1,500 million for restructuring the coal industry. Nothing has been said about the long-term consequences for the industry and the country.
During Question Time today, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked the Minister about a ballot within the industry on its future. The Minister said that we would have such a ballot shortly: the next general election. That may solve many of these problems. We cannot wait for that ballot to take place.
6.58 pm
Mr. Andy Stewart: The order shows yet again our Government's continuing support for the coal industry. Since 1975 almost £7 billion of new investment has been committed. The significance of that——
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

East Coast Main Line (Safety) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Standing Order No. 27(1)(a) in the Standing Orders dealing with private business lists the criteria for the depositing of maps and plans for works to be carried out under a private Bill. The Bill before us does not list any works to be carried out, but a series of works is implicit in it. Ten level crossings are all authorised by previous Acts, and Standing Order No. 27 requires plans to be submitted where works to be carried out have been so authorised.
The promoters' statement makes it clear that the board intends to carry out works. For a start, to close up a foot crossing requires some alteration to the authority given by previous Acts for public access. Even a fence or the securing of a gate constitutes a work. More than that, paragraph 5 of the promoters' statement makes it clear that the board is discussing or endeavouring to discuss with the highway authority for each crossing—and 10 are listed—the possibility of diversionary or alternative routes for the ways in question. That could mean the building of a bridge which would involve considerable works; some of them would be on land owned by the board.
It seems that the Bill does not conform with Standing Order No. 27, because, although the Bill does not specifically list the works, the fact that it lists crossings that are proposed to be stopped up implies the carrying out of works, and therefore some plans and maps should have been deposited. I am sorry to say that no such plans or maps have been deposited, because British Rail has chosen to take a narrow view of a diversion which implies the carrying out in some places of extensive works.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have instigated inquiries into the matter, and I am assured that the examiner of petitions has examined the Bill and reported that Standing Orders have been complied with.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will recall that, some time ago, a Bill that had gone through all its stages here went to the other place, where it was found to be defective and amended. The Clerks are excellent, but they are human and sometimes make errors of judgment, as they erred in a technical part of that Bill. Will you consider a short adjournment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to enable you and your officers to examine the matter in depth to make sure that no error of judgment has been made in the Private Bill Office?
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have told my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that the examiners looked at the point that he raised. Will you confirm that they did examine that point, rather than simply satisfying themselves that, in their view, the procedures were being carried out? My hon. Friend made an extremely valid point. Did the examiners determine whether plans and maps should have been submitted with the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have noticed that, during the points of order, I have been seeking advice. I should be unwise if I did not fully accept, and show full

71
confidence in those who have assured me, that there is nothing in the Bill that does not comply with the requirements of the Standing Orders.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am bothered by the fact that the short title of the Bill refers to the stopping up of certain level crossings on the east coast mainline railway and contains no general additional item about related matters or other purposes. Part II of the schedule refers to the stopping up of a level crossing
"whereby the same footpath is crossed by the Leamside Branch railway."
How can that be proper when the Bill's title refers specifically and exclusively to the east coast main line railway?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The technical point on which the hon. Gentleman seeks assistance is probably a matter for the debate. I assure him and the House that the examiners have been through the Bill and are satisfied that it complies with the requirements of Standing Orders.
7.6 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The tragic accidents in recent years at Clapham, Purley and Lockington have helped to heighten public interest in and the critical importance of rail safety. Our railways are extremely safe and have a good record. The challenge to British Rail and to other rail operators is to continue to build on that hitherto excellent safety record and to meet the new challenges presented by a 21st-century rail system. High-speed lines on which trains will travel at up to 125 mph with projected speeds of 140 mph are one such challenge.
British Rail is certainly not resting on its laurels, and positive action is being taken to promote safety. For example, new signalling systems and automatic train protection are two innovations being developed by British Rail in tandem with its new high-speed route proposals to help build a better, safer railway.
The tragic accident at Carr lane, Doncaster, which I do not think is in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in which a young woman and two children of four and seven were killed on a crossing which is also a footpath and a bridleway, revealed the need to examine the risks of open public access to high-speed lines. People may be surprised to learn, as I was, that there are well over 100 pedestrian level crossings on the east coast main line.
British Rail firmly believes that it must do everything feasible to improve safety for customers, staff and the public in general. Some people have said that because pedestrians do not endanger trains and their passengers, they should be allowed to take their own risks. The public also count. British Rail is concerned about the safety of people, particularly children, who may be on the line for one reason or another.
Mr. Cryer: When British Rail management were considering all the safety aspects was it moved to consider, for example, providing warning bells activated by an approaching train or warning lights at foot crossings? Or did the high-quality decision makers of British Rail come to the startling conclusion that the only way in which they
72
could tackle the right of people to gain access to the other side of the line—a right enshrined in the original legislation granting authorisation for the railways—was to stop up the whole thing?
Mr. Waller: I note the hon. Gentleman's important point about warning lights, but I hope that he will forgive me if I deal with it later.
Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman has referred to British Rail's passion for safety, and he said that it would bend over backwards to ensure that safety was paramount. That is not the picture of British Rail that I and many other people get. If it is so concerned about safety, why has it delayed dealing with the problem of carriage doors that open, causing people to fall out? That is one example of British Rail's lack of concern about the safety of passengers on its trains. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will slightly temper his comments about British Rail's concern for safety.
Mr. Waller: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have little patience, and rightly so, if I dealt with the issue of carriage doors now. This Bill has quite different objectives. I accept that that problem is important, but it is being dealt with elsewhere.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
Mr. Waller: I shall give way again, but I hope that hon. Members will accept that I must then get on with my speech.
Mr. Bennett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why high-speed trains have been running on the east coast line for the past 10 years. Until the accident on that line, British Rail had done nothing to make such crossings safer.
Mr. Waller: That is an inaccurate statement. I have visited a number of crossings during my work on the Bill, and I have seen some of the measures taken by British Rail. In the past, it has attempted to use existing legislation to achieve the objectives of the Bill, but without success. It is that failure which promoted the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman give me one example to illustrate his claim? I do not believe that there is a single bit of evidence to prove that British Rail has done anything in the past 10 years to close or divert any of the footpaths.
Mr. Waller: That is untrue.
Mr. Bennett: Give me one example.
Mr. Waller: British Rail has sought to use section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 to close or divert crossings, but it has been held——
Mr. Bennett: Where?
Mr. Waller: British Rail attempted to do so at a crossing in Hertfordshire, but it was held that, because section 119 did not cover safety specifically, British Rail was exceeding its powers by seeking to close or divert a crossing. The Ramblers Association has suggested that British Rail is going to unnecessary lengths by using the private Bill procedure to change the law when it could use the existing statute. That is untrue. If that were possible British Rail would have adopted that course. It has

73
attempted to use existing law, but, because the law does not require that safety factors should be taken into account, that attempt was unsuccessful.
The former chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, publicly claimed that "no accident is acceptable". British Rail's safety policy document also states that the board is aiming for a reduction in the number of accidents to zero. I am sure that we all applaud that objective. In that context, British Rail believes that many of the 146 crossings on the east coast main line are incompatible with train speeds of 125 mph or more.
For the purposes of the Bill, British Rail has sought to close 10 crossings only—those that are lightly used or offer the public using such crossings a poor sighting of oncoming trains. Those 10 crossings may represent a small proportion of the total, but their closure represents an important step in improving safety and has the major benefit of reducing the stress of drivers who travel the route each day.
Mr. Redmond: The Bill deals with 10 crossings, but there are many more than that on the line. If this compassionate British Rail is so concerned about safety, why have we not got a Bill that seeks to block up the lot of them? I do not believe that British Rail is being consistent. Why has it chosen to close 10 crossings? Why not more?
Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman's argument is a curious one. If the Bill had incorporated all the crossings on the line, he would probably complain that we were using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The board believes that the Bill is an important step towards achieving greater safety. British Rail has singled out those crossings for which the case for closure is strong, either because they are relatively infrequently used or because there are specific dangers—ones that I hope even the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) would recognise were he to travel in the cab of a class 91 locomotive.
When British Rail asked me to speak on its behalf when the Bill reached the House, I asked whether it would be possible for me to travel in the cab of a train on the east coast main line. I did so a few weeks ago. It was a revelation to me just how busy a driver is on such a train for the entire journey. I was also struck by the fact that, if a pedestrian was sighted on the side of the track, the train reached that pedestrian in no time at all. Drivers have extremely nerve-wracking moments every day because they are not absolutely certain of the intentions of pedestrians at the side of the track. It is important to note that ASLEF and the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union are sympathetic to the Bill's objectives.
It takes one and a quarter miles to stop a train when it is travelling at full speed. Bearing in mind the curves in the track as it approaches some crossings, a driver may have just a few hundred yards in which to stop before a person on the line is reached.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If this Bill is passed, will it be British Rail's intention to introduce a further Bill to work slowly through all the 146 crossings on the east coast main line? Does it intend stop with just 10?
Mr. Waller: It is fair to say that British Rail wants to see the House's response to this Bill. It believes that it is an important step to achieving greater safety. I have already said that it is British Rail's intention to eliminate
74
pedestrian level crossings on high-speed lines. That does not mean that all pedestrian crossings on British Rail's network should be eliminated. Trains travelling at 70 mph are common on other lines, and British Rail has no objection to the continuation of pedestrian crossings on such lines. We are talking about high-speed lines.
Whether further legislative measures have to be taken may depend on any changes that are made by Parliament to the private Bill procedure. However, an illustration of the responsible attitude adopted by British Rail is that it is not prepared to wait for such changes to take place at an unknown date in the future. It is anxious to get on with the job as soon as possible. That is why it is taking this step.
It has been suggested that British Rail is oblivious to the concerns of the users of pedestrian crossings. The reality, I suggest, is far from that. British Rail is currently working with the highways authorities responsible for the 10 locations, where they are willing to co-operate, to try to find suitable diversions for users, where there is evidence of use. Some of these crossings appear to be little used. Indeed, one or two of them appear not to be used at all. It is regrettable that some people object to closure on principle without taking into account the fact that some of these crossings are generally not used at all.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Waller: I shall give way in a moment.
British Rail is confident that in nine out of 10 cases there is a reasonable alternative. I shall give way once more to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure, however, that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have the opportunity to make his own speech. I hope that he will restrain himself now, because, with the leave of the House, I hope to be able to respond to some of the points that are raised in the debate.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman could have answered the points that we put to him, he might have curtailed the debate. If he can establish that people do not use these paths, there are perfectly good procedures under the Highways Act. There is no problem about closing paths if they are not used. It puzzles me, therefore, that British Rail should use this massive parliamentary procedure when it is unnecessary if no one is using the paths. Can the hon. Gentleman therefore tell us which paths are not being used and why British Rail did not ask for their closure on that basis?
Mr. Waller: Under the Highways Act, it is normally a requirement that the highways authority should make the application for closure. Although British Rail has endeavoured to persuade some authorities to move in the direction of either closure or diversion, the difficulties implicit in the relevant sections of the Act have discouraged those authorities from taking such steps. Where there have been any objections, the authorities have generally said that they do not see it as their responsibility to act—that, essentially, the responsibility lies with British Rail. I believe that, in concert with the changes that are to be made to the private Bill procedure, the Highways Act will be altered both to allow British Rail to make applications and to allow safety factors to be taken into account. At present, I am afraid that that is not permitted.
As for the 10 crossings, I have not the slightest doubt that, if the Bill goes into Committee, each of them will be

75
dealt with in the minutest detail and that the petitioners against the Bill will produce witnesses to speak about their personal knowledge of usage and of the need for each crossing. I suggest, therefore, that this is not the time to go into detail about the crossings. That can be much better dealt with in Committee.
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the number of times that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has given way. However, hon. Members who are here for the debate have a right to be given the details of the Bill. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say that some Committee elsewhere will go into the Bill in depth and minute detail. Is it not right and proper for the hon. Gentleman to give way if hon. Members wish to raise points now in order to seek clarification of the Bill? Is not that the sensible way forward? I ask for your guidance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware of the convention regarding interventions during speeches: it is entirely a matter for the hon. Member who has the Floor. In any case, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has not yet completed his speech. He still has things to say to us. He has already offered to seek the permission of the House to reply to the debate, if that becomes necessary. I understand that both the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are waiting for an opportunity to contribute to the debate. On that basis, perhaps we ought to get on.
Mr. Cryer: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been to the Private Bill Office, as you know, to look for a further deposit of information by British Rail. Can you confirm that the only information British Rail has provided is through the promoters—in the seventh paragraph of a piece of photocopied paper running to about 150 words? So far as I know, no other printed information has been provided by British Rail. I shall be grateful if you will confirm that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Over a long period I have learnt that my advisers are very reliable and very competent in their professional duties. I have told the House twice already, and I say it for the third time, that I was assured by them that the Bill satisfies all our Standing Order requirements.
Mr. Waller: If the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) chooses to deal with one or more of the individual crossings in depth, that is his right. I shall seek, so far as I am able, to allay his concern. However, I say again that I think that the private Bill procedure provides an opportunity in Committee for these matters to be dealt with in a great deal more detail than can be done on the Floor of the House. If hon. Members are concerned about particular crossings—I recognise that, with some justification, they may have such concerns—I hope that their view would be that the Bill should be allowed a Second Reading so that it exists in principle. If, however, they wish to argue that some of those crossings should be removed from the Bill, in due course the House may decide to move in that direction.
Concern has been expressed tonight that the use of parliamentary powers to close footpath crossings is in some way unusual and undemocratic. I readily accept that
76
the process that we are undertaking is not the ideal solution. The fact that the Government are seeking to amend the Highways Act's references to level crossings reflects that fact. However, hon. Members must take into account the fact that, under the Highways Act 1980, a level crossing may be closed by a local authority order where a more convenient route exists. Regrettably, many local authorities do not regard this as one of their priorities. I suppose that some hon. Members may say that they have many other priorities and limited resources to deal with those priorities. Therefore, closure on the grounds of safety is not provided for, whatever the Ramblers Association may think. Above all, it is for reasons of safety that British Rail is promoting the Bill. Safety appears in its short title. There is no reason to promote the Bill other than on the ground of safety.
I know that many hon. Members agree with the necessity to protect the public, but they would like to see other measures—whether they be footbridges, underpasses or warning lights at crossings—to allow the exact footpath route to be maintained. British Rail would always consider such innovations, where appropriate, but in almost every example in the Bill, the crossings have such a small amount of use that such a formidable investment—we are talking about £200,000 for a footbridge and double that for a subway—cannot be justified. It would be possible to purchase better safety improvements for that money than by providing bridges or subways that inevitably would be little used.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to warning lights. There are great difficulties with respect to such lights. It has been argued that there is a deterioration in safety if warning lights are used on pedestrian crossings. The time that different kinds of trains take to travel certain distances varies enormously. The five lines at the Carr lane crossing at Doncaster are used by trains which travel at very different speeds. Pedestrians may have seen goods trains passing regularly on the lines. Those pedestrians may not anticipate, when a light is flashing, that an express train travelling at 125 mph is on the line. Pedestrians have often tried to cross lines when lights have begun to flash. At the very least, it would be necessary to incorporate costly equipment that took into account the speed of the train when the lights started to flash. Even then, there would be difficulties and we could argue for some time whether we were building in greater or less safety.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Surely BR could use modern techniques to provide that information. As the hon. Gentleman referred to cost, will he give us some idea of the cost of installing flashing lights at the most used crossings listed in the Bill? I suspect that the cost would not be much greater than the cost of promoting this private Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the promotion of private Bills is very expensive.
Mr. Waller: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a reliable figure about the cost of lights. I can only say that I am sure that we are talking in terms of five figures for some of the most sophisticated lighting systems that he might like to see. The costs cannot be minimised. As I have already said, we could argue whether we would get value for money in terms of greater safety, and no doubt the Committee will address that subject. To some

77
extent, subjective judgments must prevail and perhaps other hon. Members may want to raise the issue later. I shall be happy to respond.
Where crossings are closed, BR is anxious to pay for necessary improvements to minimise the risk of trespass. There has been some concern about the fact that in one or two cases the stamps of footpaths may remain and people may be encouraged to trespass. British Rail is anxious to prevent that and to talk to local authorities about ways to avoid such occurrences. British Rail will also invest in signing and fencing where diversions have taken place and in some cases it will pay to improve adjacent level crossings.
In the great majority of cases, we are talking about diversions of a few hundred metres at most. In many cases, there are footpaths not far away which would enable the line to be crossed safely via a bridge or subway. With regard to Carr lane in Doncaster, British Rail is anxious to talk to the local authority about a diversion that would provide for an alternative recreational footpath which did not necessitate the crossing of the line. I am sorry to say that, as yet, I understand that Doncaster district council has not been willing to negotiate with BR about that.
Mr. Redmond: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Doncaster district council is a most reasonable authority and it will, of course, give due consideration to any proposals put forward by BR. However, it will not sell short the residents it represents. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong to say that Doncaster will not discuss meaningfully any solutions to the problem.
Mr. Waller: I will seek advice, but as I understand it Doncaster district council has not responded favourably to an invitation from BR to discuss an alternative recreational footpath that does not require a level crossing of the line.
Some people would like to picture the Bill as a struggle for and against the freedom of individuals to follow ancient rights of way. The Bill is not about that. I have often spoken in the House in favour of libertarian arguments and I made my maiden speech on such an issue. I am a strong supporter of the Ramblers Association and I enjoy recreational walking. Other things being equal, I would certainly resist the closure of a footpath for anything other than a very important safety reason.
British Rail is not trying to create a precedent; nor is it seeking carte blanche to close every crossing in the country. We are talking essentially about high-speed lines. British Rail is trying to take a meaningful step towards improving public safety on and around high speed rail lines and to prevent a repetition of the tragedy at Carr lane. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that the concerns that have reasonably been expressed can be examined in more detail in Committee.
7.35 pm
Mr. Martin Redmond: We should not give the Bill a Second Reading this evening. However, first of all, we should offer sympathy to the families of the young lady and the two children who were killed on the crossing at Can lane. No matter what we do, we cannot bring those people back to life. There are lessons to be learned from the tragedy, but regrettably BR always seeks to redress problems after the event and not before.
78
It is no secret that crossings throughout the country have been a source of embarrassment to British Rail for some years, but BR appears to have taken no action. The young lady and the two children who were killed on that crossing were your constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the crossing is in my constituency. The young lady and the two children were killed as they crossed the line to visit Potteric Carr, a well-known nature reserve which has been a source of enjoyment for many people in Doncaster and the surrounding area. That nature reserve is well managed, well used and much appreciated by the public. The crossing's closure will end a source of enjoyment for people who live on the east side of the crossing.
There is a large housing development on the east side of the railway, and there are obviously lots of children as well as adults on that new housing estate. It should therefore be appropriate for BR to ensure that the crossing is safe for the general public to use to cross from the east side of the line to the west side to enjoy Potteric Carr.
Having read British Rail's proposals, the House should consider fetching British Rail representatives—Bob Reid in particular—to the Bar of the House and finding them guilty of bringing the House into disrepute. According to documentation in support of the Bill, there does not appear to be a problem, because a number of authorities have expressed their willingness to adopt British Rail's proposals. British Rail has said that Doncaster is quite willing to discuss the matter and find a solution. If British Rail is not bloody-minded, discussions can take place and agreement can be reached.
Why is British Rail wasting the time of the House and wasting public money? After all, the public provide British Rail with the money to pay the promoters fat fees to pilot the Bill through the House. That is why British Rail should be charged with bringing the House into disrepute.
Mr. Cryer: In view of British Rail's new-found concern with safety after the Clapham junction accident, one wonders why it did not take into account the provision of bridges at level crossings, such as the one that provides access to Potteric Carr, when it sought investment for the electrification of the line. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) suggested, it is a bridleway and therefore exists for greater usage than a footpath, that should have been taken into account in estimating the cost of the construction of an appropriate bridge. British Rail surely must have known—it was not a secret—that, after electrification, trains would be travelling at 125 mph or faster.
Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. One can sum it up—British Rail does not give a damn about the general public's attitude. It is quite willing to forgo anything to save money.
Mr. Peter Snape: I should hate my hon. Friend to think that I shall stand here tonight as a defender of British Rail and all its works—I have fallen out with British Rail probably more than he has over the years. However, my hon. Friend will recollect that the investment case for the east coast main line electrification spent considerable time on Tory Ministers' desks. The case was gone through with the proverbial fine-toothed comb. My hon. Friend will know that, when it was approved, like other investment schemes it had to generate a 7 per cent. return—it is now 8 per cent.—on the money invested. Given the draconian rules that the Government themselves

79
have laid down, to add another £0·25 million to provide a bridleway over the five newly electrified tracks in my hon. Friend's constituency may have led to civil servants either delaying approval even longer or rejecting the scheme altogether.
Mr. Redmond: I am most grateful for that enlightenment. Regrettably, it does not change my attitude to British Rail. I accept that the Government have placed many restrictions on British Rail. However, if they were sufficient men, British Rail executives could have said to the Government, "We require X amount to cover not only the electrification but the additional safety measures." The Government continue to say that safety is paramount and that money is no object.
If the board members of British Rail had said, "We intend to resign to highlight the problem of safety and Government money," they might have received that extra money. I am certain that the Government would not have wanted to be exposed for their appalling track record in dishing out money and, in effect, saying, "Do as we say, not as we do." The Government appear not to react until there is a disaster and lives are lost. We then see crocodile tears and some poor track signalman being blamed for failing to carry out his job, when the equipment may leave a lot to be desired.
Mr. Cryer: I entirely agree with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the responsibility rests heavily on the Government's shoulders in controlling investment by British Rail so rigidly and tightly, to the detriment of the travelling public. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if an amount had been included for safety features, British Rail management would have had an important and bold advantage in propaganda terms if the Government had said, "That is a superfluous luxury; we are not prepared to invest in safety"? One of the difficulties is that BR top management always seems a little too supinely to accept the dictates of the Government.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes his point well. Regrettably, British Rail management will not stand up and be counted until an accident occurs. British Rail then blames all and sundry bar its own neglect. The Government would not be inclined to refuse to give British Rail money for safety improvements; they would not take that risk. British Rail is refusing to demand money to guarantee the safety not only of passengers and crews but of people who need to cross railways for a variety of reasons, as they have done over the centuries.
I entirely accept what was said about having more knowledge about British Rail and an understanding of finances. However, I am still entitled to my opinion that British Rail does not appear to seek to avoid accidents, because it will not demand money to guarantee safe public transport until after an accident such as the one at Carr. It has come up with a blanket proposal not to consider what the public require but deliberately to say, "We are not interested in a solution." If it was interested in a solution, it would allow ample time for discussions and would be prepared to ensure that money was spent to continue access to the other side of the railway. It appears that it is not interested in that, and I cannot understand why.
80
Everyone is aware of the environment and green issues. Surely children on the east side of the line can learn better to appreciate the environment if they go to a nature reserve such as Potteric Carr on the other side of the line. Children can develop an appreciation of nature and the wilderness, which will stay with them throughout their lives.
Mr. George J. Buckley: My hon. Friend made a point about the Government and British Rail seeking to rectify safety aspects after a tragedy. Peculiarly, in this case British Rail has taken a different tack. In respect of Clapham junction and King's Cross, the relevant Minister said, "We have a bottomless purse for safety." In this case, it is promoting a private Bill to minimise the cost of protecting the general public from high-speed trains.
Why, in this case, are British Rail and the Government not taking the line that there is no limitation on expenditure on safety? Why the change? I suggest that the change is that British Rail is not too worried about protecting the general public. It may rightly be more worried about protecting its passengers. Only when the Minister of State, Department of Transport goes to the scene of a disaster, with all the attendant publicity, are millions of pounds spent on rectifying what ought to have been right in the first place.
Mr. Redmond: I know that the Minister was listening intently to what my hon. Friend said. I feel sure that, when he tells us the Government's stance on the Bill, he will give in great detail the clarification that my hon. Friend wants. I have every confidence, in view of the Government's track record, that my hon. Friend will receive no clarification, but nevertheless it is better to ask.
British Rail appears to be seeking to mislead the House. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that he had had the opportunity to travel on one of the high-speed trains. He forgot to mention, or I did not hear, what section of the line he had travelled on. He may have travelled from Leeds to King's Cross to get the whole picture. All that he needs to do is to nod his head. Would he like to say——
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Get on with it.
Mr. Redmond: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way.
Mr. Bottomley: I was hoping to make a speech, but at this rate there may not be time.
Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being in the House, but I am seeking to make my objections, as I think that they ought to be made, although that may not please the hon. Gentleman. He should have persuaded his Government to cough up some money in the past. The hon. Gentleman is a previous Transport Minister. It is no wonder that he is feeling irritable about the criticism of Government spending.
Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman invited me to say what I wanted to say, which was that I hoped to make a speech. The only reason why I was muttering, perhaps more loudly that I should have been, was that the hon. Gentleman seemed to be inviting other hon. Members to intervene in his speech. Would it not be a good idea if he returned to his point, which may be a fair one, and then allowed others to speak?
Mr. Redmond: It pleases me no end that the hon. Gentleman is feeling irritable.
The hon. Member for Keighley said that he had had the opportunity to ride with the driver on a high-speed train. It could have been for a short or a long distance. The more experience one has as a passenger in the cab of a 125 train, the better one can judge. The hon. Gentleman said that he had driven once in the cab. Many drivers do the journey from Doncaster to King's Cross in one hour 40 minutes. There is every possibility that that time will be reduced to one hour 30 minutes. The trains will be travelling faster, so there is more need for safety.
I take second place to no one in the Chamber on safety. If anyone wants to check my track record, I sat on the Doncaster coal board area safety committee. When I was on the committee, the number of accidents declined year in and year out. I was proud of that track record. I am interested in safety, and I want safety for not only the cab drivers and passengers but the people who need to cross the lines. It appears that the penny-pinching attitude of British Rail will deprive many of your constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and certainly many of my constituents, of access to Potteric Carr.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the hon. Member for Keighley will seek leave to withdraw the Bill, to enable us to have fruitful discussions and arrive at a sensible solution. British Rail's proposals are not sensible.
Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question about the routes on which I travelled. I travelled from London to Doncaster and visited the site of the crossing at Cantley where the lady and two children were killed. There is no doubt that the drivers in the cab, who have great experience, would be pleased to see the measures in the Bill enacted.
As the hon. Gentleman asked me a question, perhaps I could put one to him. Is he aware of the short time that is available to a driver travelling at 125 mph before the train reaches the Carr lane crossing in his constituency? If he is not aware, perhaps I could enlighten him when I respond to the debate, if I am able to do so.
Mr. Redmond: I do not know the exact time, but we are talking about seconds, not minutes.
Mr. Waller: It is about six or seven seconds.
Mr. Redmond: I accept that the driver has little opportunity to brake in time to avoid anyone on the lines. It is for that reason that I would support any sensible measures that would bring about a safety improvement at that crossing.
Mr. Don Dixon: Does my hon. Friend accept that the essence of the Bill, according to the sponsor and to British Rail, is safety aspects of British Rail's operations on the east coast line? May I give my hon. Friend an example from my constituency? An accident took place some considerable time ago—by which I mean about 15 months ago. A young girl, one of my constituents, was killed on a level crossing on the Newcastle-Sunderland line at Newton Garths.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport and I contacted British Rail and the local authority. Everyone, including the residents who live adjacent to the crossing, wants the crossing to be closed. British Rail could close
82
that crossing without coming to the House with a private Bill. It could close it tomorrow if it wanted to do so. All that I am getting from British Rail is procrastination.
I want to avoid another accident at Newton Garths level crossing. Children cross the line to go from Biddick hall estate to Boldon comprehensive school. In the not-too-distant future, there could be another fatal accident. In the meantime, British Rail is doing nothing. It cannot be very worried about safety.
Mr. Redmond: Could my hon. Friend clarify which crossing in the Bill he is referring to?
Mr. Dixon: My point is that the Bill deals with 10 crossings on the high-speed line. British Rail is introducing a Bill under the private procedure to close 10 crossings. I am giving my hon. Friend an instance of where British Rail could close a crossing with the support of the residents and the local authority, without the need to introduce a private Bill. If it is worried about safety, British Rail could close the crossing tomorrow.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend has helped to clarify the point that I made earlier. British Rail is not consistent on safety aspects. It is an absolute scandal. The crossing to which my hon. Friend refers is still there, apparently in spite of everyone agreeing that it should be closed.
The hon. Member for Keighley said that British Rail already had sufficient power to close a crossing. Obviously, it means holding consultations and, again, British Rail appears not to be interested in discussing the best ways of finding a solution. Instead, it is using the draconian measure of this private Bill as a sledgehammer to ensure that it gets its way and to hell with anything else.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the crossing in his constituency which concerns him and which gives access to Potteric Carr, it is within the jurisdiction of British Rail to put a permanent speed limit on the section to reduce any possible hazard? It may add on an extra minute's journey time, but as most trains wait at stations because they move so briskly between stations, it would not increase the overall journey time. If there is anxiety, a permanent way speed restriction could operate. That would demonstrate British Rail's concern about safety and underpin this application to the House.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Last night, I got on a train at Doncaster which was stuck in the station for 15 minutes waiting to leave. Regrettably, it did not leave until it had stood for 16 minutes waiting for an Edinburgh train which for some reason had been delayed up north. If British Rail is so concerned about safety, to shut it down altogether is the ultimate safety measure, but that is not a practicable solution. The solution could be backed up by the expenditure of a little money.
While we are talking about safety and avoiding the cul-de-sacs that the letter from the promoters of the Bill mentions, it occurs to me that I do not know how we would stop kids crossing the line. As a little boy, I used to cross from our village to the other side of the line because there was more of an adventure playground on the other side. The same is probably true in this case. Most kids are averse to bath water, but they are certainly not averse to playing in water for recreational purposes. I can visualise a whole host of children trying to cross the line, certainly not accompanied by an adult because an adult would not

83
allow a trespass. Given our high-speed trains and the fact that they will get speedier in future, there is a great danger to children.
We spend millions of pounds promoting pelican crossings. Children are advised to go to a pelican crossing, press the button and wait for the lights to change before crossing the road. Ladies assist children to cross roads. From nursery school onwards, children are taught to go to the appropriate crossing point. If British Rail is seriously interested in safety, it would be beneficial to provide some sort of crossing, with the necessary lights and all the signal equipment alongside the line.
I certainly do not accept British Rail's figure of £25,000 for the installation of a lights warning system. I do not know what price British Rail puts on the life of a child or an adult, but human life is priceless. In future, there will certainly be accidents at this spot unless a sensible safety measure is taken.
It is in the hands of British Rail to ensure that there is a crossing that children can use safely. As I have said, when I was a youngster wanting to cross the line, although we knew that we were trespassing on British Rail land, first we made sure that the village constable was nowhere in sight and then that there were no trains on the line. In those days, the highest speed of steam engines was about 90 mph, so we had ample time to scamper across and get up to those things which lads get up to. That is bound to take place today.
I am asking British Rail to ensure that there is a suitable crossing for my constituents and, possibly, for those of the hon. Member for Keighley. He said that he had a loose association with the Ramblers Association. Obviously, many of his constituents also enjoy walks in the country and the environment of a nature reserve. It would be quite consistent for the two to marry, but they can do so only if costs are thrown out of the window. Obviously, £20,000 would provide an adequate crossing.
The alternatives that are cited include a conventional footpath costing £175,000, one suitable for cycles, prams and wheelchairs costing £220,000, or tunnels through an embankment from a main road costing £400,000. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain further how British Rail reaches those figures. Those high costs are certainly beyond me.
I know many lads who work at Rossington pit and a hell of a lot who used to do excellent tunnelling for British Coal. I feel sure that they could construct a tunnel for a damn sight less than the sum that British Rail is quoting, and do a damn good job. Of course, that would have one disadvantage for British Rail—it would maintain accessibility from one side of the line to the other. British Rail is willing to spend £2,500, or even £10,000, to block public access. The fact that British Rail will continue to push to get this Bill through the House, when it should be talking to the relevant local authorities about reaching agreement, leaves a little to be desired.
The hon. Member for Keighley said that agreement had been reached with some of the local authorities affected for access to be stopped or an alternative found. If such marvellous progress is being made, I cannot understand why British Rail is being so bloody-minded in seeking to deprive many of our constituents who live on the east side of the line from enjoying what is on the west side. I hope
84
that the hon. Member for Keighley will seek to provide a suitable alternative this evening. Although that presents problems, I hope that a solution will be found.
Several petitions have been presented against the Bill. I hope that British Rail will take cognisance of the authorities that have petitioned, even if they do so only to find a sensible solution and because they are interested in safety. British Rail appears to be considering only the cost involved and not the enjoyment that people could have from such crossings.
As several other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall give them the opportunity to do so. Suffice it to say that local authorities already have the power to stop the Bill going through unless British Rail shows that it is interested in seeking a solution to the problem. That does not appear to be the case, and I shall listen intently to the hon. Member for Keighley when he winds up the debate to see whether he answers some of my questions. British Rail can avoid the use of this valuable time in the House by seeking more sensible solutions from local authorities.
8.12 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you were not in the Chair you would be contributing to the debate and holding the attention of everyone here.
I wish to echo the comments of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) that when people die unnecessarily on the railways, the House should be concerned and the relevant Members should be present at debates such as this. The House understands why the hon. Member for Don Valley feels so strongly about safety and retaining access from one side of the railway line to the other.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)—[Interruption.]—who is trying to interrupt me, should allow me to respond to the point that he made in an intervention. He argued for stopping up footpaths on another line. It was a fair and valuable point to make on Second Reading, and I am sure that the promoters of the Bill will see what can be done to solve the problem in his constituency. An advantage of single-Member constituencies is that Members of Parliament are aware of every transport and housing problem in their constituencies. For example, I have been campaigning for many years for a replacement footbridge above the New Eltham line at Middle Park. Although I can take up the matter directly with British Rail, it is justified and in order to mention that within the context of the Bill, without going into detail.
The problem that the House is presenting to British Rail might be described as being presented with extravagant language. To argue that British Rail—its staff, its board and everyone who works in it—is not interested in safety is to contradict the facts. People are not perfect, and neither is British Rail, but it is worth noting that, if all the distance travelled on the roads was travelled on the railways, there would not be 5,500 killed but 150. The railway is much safer than aeroplanes, and aeroplanes are much safer than roads. If we paid as much attention to saving the lives of pedestrians away from the railway lines as we are rightly paying to protect the lives of those who wish to use the footpaths and bridleways across railway lines, we should have a potential 1,700 lives a year to save.

85
Naturally, British Rail and the Government must decide how much money to make available. British Rail must make safety decisions. Although its safety record has been improving in the past few years, there are many other ways in which it can spend money. When I was a junior Minister and in contact with British Rail, it was spending money on the problem of bridge bashing. An open report published on the problem considered the chances of a serious loss of life and injury if a bridge were carried away by a heavy goods vehicle. People sometimes drive loads that are too high, or tipper trucks with the forks up, under a low bridge, risking a train falling down on a road. Conversely, a vehicle could go through a guard rail and land on a railway line when an express train was passing.
British Rail must decide how to reduce risks and achieve the greatest benefit in terms of safety and improving the service. Indirectly, there are many lives to be saved if people switched from travelling by road to travelling by rail. The hon. Member for Don Valley referred to the time that it takes for British Rail to go from Doncaster to London and vice versa. He spoke of the possibility of saving an extra 10 minutes, which is one of the answers to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who suggested that trains should slow down to give them enough time to stop, where at present there is a six second interval between seeing and crossing level crossings. If British Rail were to slow down their trains at each of the 140 footpaths on the east coast main line, everybody would travel by car or even walk, which might be faster.
We must have not the best compromise but the quickest gain in safety. I hope that those who will take the opportunity to object to and speak on the Bill will not prevent it from receiving a Second Reading. If that happens, it will be difficult for those in British Rail who want urgently to reduce avoidable risks to say, "Let's go to Parliament as soon as possible to get all the improvements that we can, whether or not we face pressures to improve the safety of crossings of unused or unnecessary footpaths in Jarrow, Eltham or elsewhere".
They must take decisions and they have decided to come to the House for powers that, in the future, may be analagous to those of a highway authority, enabling BR to stop up footpaths or make diversions.
Mr. Redmond: No one is opposed to improving safety. Nor does anyone wish to restrict safety measures that will, in theory, save lives, pain and suffering. The Bill seeks to empower British Railways to stop up 10 level crossings and, given that there are many more on the east coast line, it will be better and quicker if British Rail met the local authorities concerned with an open mind on how to find a solution. That has not happened in any of the cases mentioned in the Bill.
Mr. Bottomley: I am not trying to take up all the measures mentioned in the Bill but to do what hon. Members should do—push for safety and improvement as soon as possible. It appears that British Rail could have included other lines and other footpaths in the Bill and there have been interventions to that effect. It also appears that, of the 10 put forward, nine are not controversial. Regarding the tenth, the promoters' statement says:
"The board are … endeavouring to discuss with the highway authority concerned"
and endeavouring to find a
"proposal to put to the highway authority".
86
It would be sad if it happened, but if the House did not give the Bill a Second Reading, we would not only lose the nine cases on which there appears to be agreement—or, at least, a willingness to let the Bill proceed to Committee—but we might find that the pressure normally pressing a Bill towards Committee was removed.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: We all agree that we should legislate to improve public safety, but there are other considerations contained in the Bill. One is the wholesale way in which British Rail wishes to deal with the problem that has up to now been dealt with piecemeal. Another consideration involves access to the countryside. The Bill creates huge no-go areas up and down the country and has the potential to apply them to other districts. That would deny access to the countryside to many people who currently enjoy it. There is a risk involved, but the measure should include British Rail improving the system with audible warnings of the approach of trains, even those travelling at 125 mph—that must be technically possible. We cannot legislate for 100 per cent. safety for the public, but must let them use their own judgment on the risk. Therefore, we should consider that objection to the Bill as well as the issue of public safety.
Mr. Bottomley: I think that my hon. Friend will enjoy his time in Committee. I think that he has just made a point that could well be made in Committee.
We could make the same argument about a footpath across an airport runway, where aeroplanes may be approaching at 125 mph on landing or take off. When put that way, the argument seems laughable. If we were talking about trains going at 55 mph or some comparable speed, where there has been no significant change over the years, either in the frequency of trains—which, on the east coast line, is limited—or in the increase of their speed—which has been pretty dramatic—and if there were no prospect of a further increase in speed, we could perhaps tell people to accept the risk that they had accepted in the past. However, when speed is increased, the risk and danger are increased. As we increase the number of trains using a line, we increase the danger. That was tragically shown even on lines that are not on the east coast main line, where there were deaths that could have been avoided.
I do not want to delay the House——
Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bottomley: No, I am sorry I shall not. I listened to the hon. Gentleman for 35 minutes and, if he will forgive me, I should like to wind up.
Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.
Mr. Bottomley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if I have misled the House, because I shall want to withdraw what I said.
Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman said that agreement had been reached on nine out of the 10 cases. According to the document, it appears that British Rail has reached some sort of agreement or found some solution. It states that there will be no objections to some of the footpaths across railway lines being closed. I gather that everyone present this evening is interested in safety, and if British Rail is interested in safety, it should realise that provisions already exist within local authorities. It would speed things

87
up if British Rail were to come to an agreement with the local authorities. We would not even have to wait for a Bill to go through the House. If British Rail is interested in safety, it should approach local authorities and use existing powers.
Mr. Bottomley: There is always a different way of doing things, and there is nearly always a Member of Parliament who will argue for a different way. We should be asking whether we can act today to let the Bill progress to Committee. I shall vote for that if it comes to it. I am not suggesting that there are not problems with any of the other cases, but the problem with the one to which the hon. Member for Don Valley referred is not as major as he makes out.
I was pleased that, during my time at the Department of Transport, capital investment in railways was increasing. We should be careful about dragging too many party political comparisons into the debate. I checked the figures for London Underground recently and discovered that, in the year following the Labour party's "Fares Fair" policy, capital investment fell when everyone thought that it should go up. I am pleased that investment in London Underground has doubled and doubled again since then.
Most of the public support for British Rail has been running at a higher level than that for the national roads programme. When people start considering whether cars should, by law, be allowed to travel faster than 70 mph, one of the reasonable arguments against a 90 mph speed limit is that roads are too crowded and the risk of more crashes would be too great. We should hold the speed limit for cars and allow faster and faster trains to be developed, so that the relative advantages of the railways become more obvious to more people. I hope that we shall not lift the 70 mph speed limit on roads and I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. We should look for higher standards of safety, not accept those that were acceptable in the past.
8.26 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I agree with the case against raising the 70 mph speed limit and the case for chanelling high-speed traffic and a great deal of freight by rail.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) I thought that the Bill should be called the "Wrong Side of the Tracks Bill"—closing off the delights of the east to those living on the west. His descriptions were so alluring that I thought that I should pay a rapid visit to his constituency. I have often admired Potteric Carr as the train goes through—not always at high speed because there are often delays there.
It was intriguing to discover how we have come to have a separate East Coast Main Line (Safety) Bill. The British Railways (No. 2) Bill already before the House contains similar measures in respect of two level crossings in Kent and Cumbria. There was an intriguing article in the most recent issue of Modern Railways on the review of current railway legislation. It stated that the British Railways board had sought powers in respect of the east coast main line by means of a separate Bill in the hope that the less emotive general powers Bill would not be delayed by petitions against this Bill.
88
We are spending an evening discussing a Bill that one hon. Member believes should be pressed ahead with separately because we have been shunted into a siding. The operation is being considered separately in the hope that it will not delay other British Railways legislation before the House. The article mentions that the Ramblers Association, the British Horse Society and the Open Spaces Society have lodged a joint petition opposing the principle of footpath closures by a private Bill. It referred to objections received from Durham and Nottingham county councils and Doncaster borough council.
We set the legislation in context when we reflect that its subject matter could have been dealt with by other legislation already before the House. Those of us who represent different parts of the east coast main line were surprised when the Bill appeared, in light of the spate of other British Railways Bills before the House.
The Bill specifically refers to a series of crossings on the east coast main line, one of which was the scene of a tragic, but rare, accident. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, the accident record of pedestrians involved with moving vehicles on the roads is infinitely worse than anything we can imagine on railways. That does not remove the case for trying to do something about circumstances such as those that led to the Potteric Carr tragedy, but there are many options to consider when dealing with the safety problems of pedestrian crossings on fast railway lines. Those options include footbridges, underpasses, warning lights, gates or barriers that are automatically controlled using the same principles applied to the modernisation of road level crossings up and down the line, where modern technology is used to ensure that a barrier falls and lights flash in ample time to deal with the rapid speed of trains.
All the arguments that we have heard about how little time the train crew has to see what is happening and how quickly the train will reach the crossing, apply equally to road crossings up and down the east coast main line that are currently being modernised.
Another option is to close the footpath where the crossing is not used. It is alleged that some footpaths fall within that category. However, that could be done under existing procedure.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If paths are not used, they cannot present a safety problem.
Mr. Beith: I suppose the safety problem is a theoretical one. People might look at a route on a map and decide to try to follow it, not realising the danger that they were putting themselves in. I accept that, if a footpath clearly were not used, that theoretical danger could be removed by following existing procedures.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: One of the problems about this closure is that one cannot erase the public right of way from all the ordnance survey maps that are likely to be in use for many years.
Mr. Beith: That is one of the problems about closing any footpath. I do not like to see footpaths closed, but I am at least prepared to consider a case. What I do not want is the development of a new practice whereby footpaths are closed by way of private Bills. Every so often, British Rail might come along and close several more footpaths outside the normal procedures available under the highways authority, which I should prefer to see

89
used. I hope that those procedures will continue to lead to very few closures. Indeed, it is the fact that they have led to very few closures that has brought British Rail before the House with this Bill.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that footpaths should not be stopped up and pedestrians made to go unnecessarily on long detours. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that footpaths across high-speed lines should be allowed to continue. The whole House should say very clearly that we must find ways of getting rid of these private paths across high-speed lines—in some cases by the construction of a bridge or tunnel, and in others by diversion. We must give strong support to British Rail—management, staff and unions—in the elimination of unnecessary risks as soon as that is reasonably practicable.
Mr. Beith: I have listed a series of options for dealing with this problem. Some involve separating pedestrians from high-speed trains by means of footbridges or underpasses, and some involve the same technology as has to be used to enable cars to pass over a line. We are not talking about a line that can be isolated from all crossing traffic. That is accepted. There are vehicle level crossings, which in most cases are used more frequently and pose a greater risk of accident. The technology has to be developed to make those crossings safe. That is what is being done up and down the east coast main line.
Mr. Snape rose——
Mr. Beith: I must give up the habit of allowing regular interventions, but I cannot deny the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) his opportunity.
Mr. Snape: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for my opportunity. He has—in typically artful and typically Liberal fashion, if I may say so—managed to sketch out all the options that are open to British Rail. With reference in particular to the controversial crossing about which we have heard so much tonight, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House which option he would plump for? Does he think that the bill—and, according to British Rail, a bridleway, rather than a footpath, would cost£250,000—could be met by British Rail under the existing investment rules?
Mr. Beith: I am not qualified to say which is the best option. That is very much a decision for the local people. It is particularly Liberal to say that local people should make the decision. Indeed, that is a very strong Liberal principle. It is obvious to all concerned that one of the things involved is access to a much-valued nature reserve, which has become increasingly popular and which, incidentally, was created by the structure of the railway system, which gave that piece of undisturbed land its special quality.
The notion that we should have a Bill before Parliament to deal with one crossing becomes even more absurd if, simply because British Rail has not so far managed to reach agreement with Doncaster borough council on the best option for this crossing, we must have not just a clause in another Bill but a clause in this Bill, so that the argument about Doncaster borough council will not delay the British Rail (No. 1) Bill. We seem to be entering an "Alice in Wonderland" world, where decisions are taken for the most extraordinary reasons.
90
But the Bill has other odd features, to which I referred earlier when the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair. At that point I asked him about the Leamside branch railway. All the crossings referred to in this Bill, except one, are on the east coast main line, as the title suggests. In one case there is a reference to a loop off that line. There is a footpath that crosses both the Leamside branch railway and the main line. I still do not understand how that can be within the ambit of the Bill. One of the most obvious things about the Leamside branch railway is that it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a high-speed line on which trains can travel at 125 or 140 mph. Most hon. Members who travel from and to the north-east know that. From time to time, we travel on the Leamside branch railway. But one travels on that railway only if a train has been diverted off the east coast main line because of breakdown or for purposes of signalling work. Indeed, we are experiencing a lot of that sort of thing now—especially signalling work.
On Saturday, I had a very pleasant tour round Eaglescliff for exactly that reason. In Northumberland, it is not possible to divert in that way once a train passes the Blyth and Tyne diversion, as there is only one main line. Signalling work there seems to be very protracted. Every time it is completed, someone comes along and takes away several miles of cable. This has become an extremely regular occurrence. It is time British Rail developed some new security procedures for its cabling. Certainly, a great deal of disruption is being caused on that line. So we have become used to travelling on lines like the Leamside. Invariably, a journey on that line drastically reduces the speed of the train and adds greatly to the time of the journey—pleasant though it is, now and then, to look at the less disturbed part of the Durham countryside.
However, it is pretty difficult to advance the same argument in respect of the crossing over that branch line as is advanced in respect of the east coast main line. That is quite apart from the procedural puzzle of the inclusion of this in a Bill that does not apply to any other line, and it is not possible to make it the subject of the same arguments.
At the heart of the objection to this Bill—most of us will have received correspondence from organisations representing ramblers and riders—is the feeling that this is only the beginning and that this legislation will lead to the closing up of crossings by other private legislation. It is felt that, if British Rail is allowed to do this once, it will want to do it again. It is felt that it will come before us with another Bill, or that it will want to have something included in a general Bill. Some would say that British Rail will try to get a more general power to treat crossings in this way, or that frequent Bills listing crossings for closure will come before us. That is why some of the objections to the Bill go far beyond the objections to some of these crossings and refer to lines travelling through entirely different areas. It is felt that this would be a dangerous and damaging precedent, as well as a procedure that would lead to the closure, without any redress, of some crossings that are currently in use.
British Rail is not always very conscious of or careful about footpaths. Before coming into the House for this debate, I was going through the day's correspondence. I read a whole series of reports from footpaths officers in my constituency. The southern end of a footpath about which I have had to complain on behalf of a constituent in the parish of Adderstone-with-Lucker has been obstructed by

91
British Rail. The footpaths officer has taken up the matter with the area engineer at York. The obstruction seems to have been caused not by the line but in the course of some other British Rail activity. It is a common feeling among ramblers and others who love to walk on our great network of footpaths that British Rail and all sorts of other organisations think last about footpaths. Footpaths are not high on its list of priorities.
We all know that the enforcement activities of local authorities in their attempts to keep footpaths open are stretched far beyond the limits. I discovered a difficulty in my constituency. The principal footpaths officer had been off for more than a year, and his one assistant was struggling to keep up with a deluge of complaints of this sort. Ramblers understandably feel that everybody is against them. They have to fight every inch of the way to keep footpaths open. Then they find that legislation going through Parliament bypasses all the normal procedures, closes a whole series of crossings, and opens up the possibility that the same technique will be used in the future.
It has been said several times in this debate that pedestrian crossings over high-speed lines should be eliminated. If that is the objective, the number of footpaths around the country likely to be closed is very large. The high-speed trunk lines that run through the country—the east coast main line, the west coast main line, the lines down to the west country and south Wales—intersect a great many footpaths. If this is to be the principle, our footpath network will be drastically carved up—hence the anxiety of many of those who have raised objections to the Bill.
I move on to another curious factor which I had not appreciated until some recent correspondence with British Rail. As the House will know, I have been involved in extensive arguments with British Rail about sleeper services to the north-east of England and the borders, in the course of which it emerged that British Rail has a new policy on the maintenance of the east coast main line. British Rail has, according to the chairman,
"taken delivery of new maintenance equipment and are now planning to carry out much of the work on weekday nights rather than disrupting journeys at weekends. Overnight closure of one route offers substantial benefits of lower staffing costs and more efficient management of engineering work."
He is referring to the east coast main line, which it appears will be closed down completely at night.
There are some mysteries about this. I do not understand how regular freight traffic will continue to operate or how the planned Edinburgh-Newcastle-Paris-Brussels sleeper will make its way to the channel tunnel overnight as intended. But the chairman of British Rail says that instead of closing the east coast main line for periods during the day at weekends—or rather of delaying trains on it—the line will be completely closed, allowing maintenance crews to take possession and get on with their work. If so, there will be times of daylight in the late summer nights and early mornings when the line is closed, and there will be no reason why people should not use the footpaths if warning lights and so on are provided.
During the early stages of the argument this idea of overnight closure was advanced and then dismissed, but it has clearly emerged again as a major factor in British
92
Rail's thinking about the future of the east coast main line, and in a debate such as this we should be told whether there will be periods during the 24 hours, when the line is not operating regularly or at intervals and is closed to all traffic, when it will be reasonably safe and when properly arranged pedestrian crossings could be used.
Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate many ramblers wandering across the line between midnight and 6 am, whether or not it is closed?
Mr. Beith: People cross the lines in the early morning when they want to look at, for instance, a nature reserve. The best time to do that is at 5 or 6 o'clock on a summer morning, when they can hear the dawn chorus and see the birds. Keen enthusiasts go to places such as Potteric Carr at that time of day.
There is another reason why such issues must be raised in the context of this Bill and it concerns the basis on which its promoters ask us to allow the Bill to proceed to Second Reading. The promoters in their statement mention the discussions that they have had with the highway authorities:
"The board are discussing or endeavouring to discuss with the highway authorities concerned with each crossing the possibility of diversionary or alternative routes for the ways in question … in all other cases"—
except the Potteric Carr case—
"possible diversionary or alternative routes have been devised and are being discussed with the highway authority."
On that basis, the board says that we should let the Bill go ahead—all these matters can be settled out of court, as it were.
I have some experience of trying to "settle out of court" with British Rail on the basis of understandings which should mean that we let the Bill proceed. When a previous British Rail Bill was under discussion at a similar stage, British Rail gave an undertaking that it would restore overnight services on the east coast line in 1991, if the results of a study that it was going to carry out were satisfactory. That undertaking has not been kept. British Rail is still refusing to restore sleeper services to the east coast main line, thus depriving Newcastle, Tyneside, Teesside and the borders of sleeper services or any overnight services to London.
British Rail has done this on the basis of information that has not changed anything to the advantage of its case in the meantime. But when the undertaking was given and reported to the House, Members thought it reasonable to allow the legislation then under discussion to proceed. British Rail is asking us to do the same tonight on the grounds that it is likely to be possible to arrive at alternative arrangements for many of these footpaths. Hon. Members are asked to take account of such arrangements and of the possibility that they will be fully honoured, and to allow the Bill to proceed.
My advice to Hon. Members is not to believe British Rail's assurances in circumstances such as these. My experience is that it does not keep them. It will give assurances designed to assist the Bill's passage, but it will ensure that they are not so precise as to be absolutely enforceable; and if it suits British Rail, it will seek a means of backing out of their implications later. If we allow the Bill to go ahead tonight, some of the agreements with local authorities may not work out or may break down, and the procedure under this Bill may be used to the full to close these footpaths.

93
Experience of the east coast main line sleeper services should teach Members—I include myself in this—to view British Rail's assurances with the greatest circumspection. If parliamentary procedures allow us to tie British Rail down more tightly, we should do that. If the procedures that British Rail seeks to put through Parliament reduce the rights of the public to get their point of view across and to object, we should be very suspicious of those procedures. If we allow the Bill through, a whole new way of closing footpaths will exist and the arrangements with other authorities may not work out. That is an insufficient basis on which to proceed.
8.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be helpful at this point if I give the House the Government's view on the Bill.
At present the promotion of a private Bill is the only means available to British Rail to secure the stopping up or diversion of rights of way across a railway on grounds of public safety. In view of British Rail's statutory duty to operate its railways safely, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decided, when asked for his consent to deposit the Bill, that it was reasonable for him to give it so that British Rail could have its proposals tested before Parliament. It must be right that there should be a method of considering whether it is in the public interest that footpaths should be stopped up.
The Government remain neutral on the merits or otherwise of the detailed proposals; that must be a matter for the Select Committee if the Bill is given a Second Reading. It will be for British Rail to demonstrate to Parliament that it has looked carefully at the amount of public use made of these level crossings, at the scope for establishing alternative routes across the railway, and at the possibility of using safety devices to keep the existing crossings open.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister does not want to mislead the House. The Ramblers Association states that British Rail applied for a closure in Taunton Deane on the grounds of safety—and got it under present legislation. How was it possible to obtain the closure of a footpath across a railway on the grounds of safety when the Minister has just said that that is impossible? I also wonder whether he can tell us the outcome of the railway inspectorate's inquiry into safety at level crossings, especially pedestrian crossings.
Mr. McLoughlin: I can say only that the information that I have just given is correct—this is currently the only way for British Rail to proceed. As for the inspectorate's reports, those documents are published when available and it is open to members of the Select Committee and to petitioners to make the relevant case.
Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister saying that the railway inspectorate is conducting an investigation into the safety of level crossings and that the document is in the course of preparation, but not yet available to hon. Members during consideration of the Bill?
Mr. McLoughlin: No, I was responding to a question asked by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr.
94
Bennett). If the inspectorate publishes a report it will be available in due course. That was what the hon. Gentleman asked.
Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that last summer the Secretary of State specifically asked for the railway inspectorate to consider safety on pedestrian crossings over railways and to prepare a report? Surely he can tell us how far that report has got.
Mr. McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the former Secretary of State, issued various instructions when an accident which was referred to earlier occurred. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any information about the progress of the report.
As I said, Parliament will need to be assured that the interests of users of footpaths have been adequately covered. I note that there are four petitions against the Bill. The petitioners will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence. The House will know— —
Mr. Redmond: Does the Minister agree that any safety improvements should be at British Rail's expense and should not be borne by the local authorities?
Mr. McLoughlin: I do not want to get into that issue now. Local authorities may want something and British Rail may want something else. Discussions may have to take place about costing and if the authorities want something to be provided, they might have to contribute. It is abundantly clear from the debate that the Government are continually pressured to increase investment in British Rail to make it a more attractive venture for the travelling public to use. That usually means increasing the speed of trains to get from A to B.
If we are persistently asked to slow down trains, one must question the supposition that such investment should be made. I remember the arguments about the electrification of the east coast line and the tremendous pressure for that to be done. In the end, the Government decided that it met the criteria and the investment was made. Now we are being told to slow down trains or not to take account of serious accidents that have happened. The accident that occurred in the constituency of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) was horrendous and affected all hon. Members who dealt with the incident and read the report on it. It was a tragedy.
The House will know that the Government have proposed that consideration of these matters should be taken out of Parliament, as the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure recommended. We hope to be in a position very shortly to announce our conclusions about that.
I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading so that it can proceed to Committee for detailed consideration.
8.54 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: Like many hon. Members, I was intrigued by the fact that the Bill which seeks authority to close 10 level crossings has not been incorporated in a general powers Bill, but has come

95
to the House in splendid isolation, if that is not too mixed a metaphor. The Minister referred to the accident at Carr lane crossing and we were all appalled by that accident and the tragic circumstances surrounding it. That accident perhaps provided a catalyst for British Rail to act to prevent similar tragedies.
As I said in an intervention, it is by no means unusual for me to stand here or on the Back Benches to criticise British Rail, and especially its management, who all too often appear unresponsive to pressure from passengers —or customers, as they are called these days—or from hon. Members. Having read the Bill, I appreciate the fears that have been expressed, especially on behalf of organisations such as the Ramblers Association, but I have some sympathy with British Rail in this case. In my experience as a former railway signalman, farm trucks, horses, pedestrians and high-speed trains do not make an especially safe mixture. The more non-rail users can be segregated from the railway, the better for safety purposes.
There is some concern about the nature of our proceedings in this place. On other occasions, I have referred to the unsatisfactory nature of the private Bill procedure, and I hope that the authorities in this place will find a better way to deal with such matters. I understand from British Rail that the unsatisfactory nature, in its view, of the Highways Act 1980 is the main reason we are discussing this measure tonight. BR tells me that the grounds for closure or diversion of footpaths are limited to disuse or the creation of an easier route, but do not include safety. BR states in a note that any changes in existing rights of way are actively contentious and that local authorities are "frequently unwilling" to undertake them.
I shall reply to some of the points raised tonight. BR believes that seeking an order by this route—the Highways Act 1980—can take up to 10 years, even if the highway authority does not drop the matter as soon as it attracts any opposition. Therefore, any alternatives to the admittedly unsatisfactory nature of our proceedings are, to say the least, time-consuming.
The crossings that BR proposes to close, provided that the House gives the Bill a Second Reading and that the Committee—which, from what I have heard tonight will be fairly protracted—agrees to the measure, are a mixture of crossings. BR says that eight out of the 10 have little or no use. It is said that there is some use of the crossing at North Mymms in Hertfordshire. The crossing at Cantley in Doncaster to the Potteric Carr nature reserve is, in British Rail parlance, marked as "used". Presumably it is, as a bridleway, the busiest crossing of the 10 crossings proposed for closure in the Bill.
Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because there is a facility on the other side of the track, kids will invariably want to cross the line? Short of putting up a 10-foot high wall along several miles of that section, there could be no guarantee that kids would not cross the line at that point—tragically, without adult supervision. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the railway inspectorate is in the process of preparing some guidelines on footpath and bridle-way crossings. Would not it be better to wait for that report so that we can cure not only the problem of the Potteric Carr crossing, but the problem of the other bridlepaths and footpaths throughout the country?
Mr. Snape: I do not know what will be in the report or whether it will be as detailed as my hon. Friend claims. It is pretty unlikely that the railway inspectorate or anyone else will propose the construction of a bridge or a tunnel under five railway tracks. If the railway inspectorate—or anyone else—looked at the crossing in my hon. Friend's constituency, it is unlikely—I put it no higher than that —that it would recommend the expenditure of anything from £250,000 to enable users of the bridleway to cross five tracks of main line.
I cannot, of course, prejudge the report. Until reminded of its preparation by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) a few moments ago, I was not going to make a point about it, because I had forgotten about it. I am sure that we are grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of it. Any such report is likely to recommend the segregation of walkers or horse-riders from the railway track, especially as railway speeds are increasing generally and as the speeds on these tracks will be as high or higher than the speeds on any other railway track in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said that it would be necessary to build a 10-foot fence to prevent children from crossing the line. Regrettably, if one put up a 50-foot high chain metal fence along the railway line, people would find a way in which to get over or under it. A considerable proportion of British Rail's expenditure is used in repairing fences alongside railway tracks. The fences are regularly broken down, usually by adults seeking a short cut, within days or weeks of their repair or installation. I have listened with interest to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, but I do not believe that his point about people finding ways across railway lines is very valid.
Despite—I am not talking about the crossings in the Bill—the apparent belief of the great British public that a fenced-off railway line merely presents a challenge in their quest to get from A to B in the shortest possible time, it is right that British Rail should do its best to ensure that safety remains paramount, especially in the light of the accident to which other hon. Members have referred.
It has been said that some agreement has been reached with the local authorities about nine of the 10 proposals, and that only one crossing, to which I have referred, is controversial. Agreement on it has not been reached, and British Rail told me as recently as last Friday that it has not been possible even to hold a meeting with the metropolitan borough of Doncaster. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley will use his undoubted influence with his local authority—I do not blame the authority, because I am only repeating what British Rail told me last Friday—to ensure that a meeting takes place sooner rather than later about the possible diversion of the footpath and about the closure of the crossing.
During my time as a British Rail employee, I met two or three operating staff members and two or three engine drivers—as they used to be called—who had been involved in fatal accidents, some at crossings such as this and some on lengths of plain track. For signalmen, platelayers and especially drivers, the horror of that moment never leaves them.
This tragedy involved one driver for whom the accident was even worse than it was for his colleague. It was the second such incident in which he had been involved, and he has been unable to resume his duties as a driver ever since. That pales into significance compared with the

97
tragedy experienced by the bereaved, but it shows the views of railwaymen and women who regularly face such problems. The sooner such pedestrian crossings are diverted and the sooner people, whether ramblers, bird watchers or courting couples—to whom the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) delicately referred; or perhaps he delicately chose not to refer to them—cease to cross the tracks in front of high-speed trains, the better.
I hope that my hon. Friend will use his best offices to bring about such a meeting.
Mr. Redmond: We cannot diminish the horror faced by the victims and their families, and by the drivers involved in fatalities on British Rail. I appreciate the drivers' views about being involved in such a horrible accident.
I was involved for many years in negotiations with management. One could always negotiate when there was a willingness for people to talk, but we used to hit a stumbling block when management sought to dictate the terms. They would ask us to agree to their proposals and sort out a solution afterwards. Experience has taught me to be a little concerned about "jam tomorrow". Had British Rail adopted a more reasonable approach, it might have received a suitable response from Doncaster council.
If British Rail is willing to find a solution, that will be in everyone's interest. Kids will cross that line even if the footpath is stopped. If we are concerned about safety, we should provide reasonable access across that line, either by a bridge or by a tunnel—which I do not think is practicable. When a new housing estate is built, many footpaths may be provided, but people will find the natural footpath—the shortest path from A to B. I shall check with the authority tomorrow, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the matter to my attention.
Mr. Snape: If a meeting takes place, proposals and alternatives can be explored. British Rail's representatives are not here officially, but they are present and will have heard that exchange. Perhaps they will react accordingly.
What about the alternatives, some of which were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South and for Don Valley? I am informed that every road crossing on the east coast main line is a proper barrier type crossing under the supervision of a signalman, not necessarily at the crossing but through closed-circuit television. I understand that there are 146 footpath crossings on the east coast main line, and the cost of providing such facilities at every one of them would be enormous.
Railway expenditure is scrutinised far more closely than expenditure on any other mode of transport, and the prospects are minimal of getting a system of automatic half-barriers covered by closed-circuit television past the eagle eyes of the civil servants at the Department of Transport.
My hon. Friend 'the Member for Bradford, South suggested a speed restriction. However, one of the attractions of a high-speed railway is, of course, its speed. Electrification not only saves energy but enables travelling times between our major cities to be decreased.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed suggested warning lights or an audible warning at crossings. At a speed of 125 mph and a future speed of 140 mph, it is difficult to see how warning lights without a physical barrier to prevent people crossing will be anything other than an additional hazard rather than an additional safety
98
precaution. The crossing at Carr lane has five railway tracks, and warning lights would be flashing almost all day —in deference to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I shall not say, all night.
Most people, including those who are up at 5 o'clock in the morning bird watching, and the others to whom I referred who have other things in mind at midnight or I am, normally demonstrate an aversion to waiting. If lights are flashing for a long time because of the approach of a number of trains, their message could be ignored. That has happened, often with fatal results.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed artfully raised the issue of the sleepers on the east coast main line, and mentioned British Rail's broken promises. I had expected the hon. Gentleman to raise those matters on earlier British Rail Bills. It was obvious that they might be raised by other hon. Members, and I decided to carry out some research. British Rail provided me with figures about sleeper usage north of Newcastle. I do not say that the figures are right because, as we know to our cost, British Rail's figures are not always 100 per cent. accurate. However, the figures show that the peak usage time for the sleeper train north of Newcastle is Thursday evening, when it is used by hon. Members. Apparently no one else uses them for much of the working week.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed may disagree with that, but I am only repeating the figures provided to me by BR. Although my admiration for the hon. Gentleman, if not his party, remains constant, I do not believe that the provision of a mobile mattress—much as he might need it—would pass the eagle eyes of those civil servants in the Department of Transport who are responsible for passing or rejecting, and always delaying, BR's investment proposals.
It looks as though BR is saying that the hon. Gentleman is on his own in the sleeper—at least no moral aspersions can be cast against the hon. Gentleman in such circumstances. I fear that his case is yet to be made, given BR's figures.
Mr. Beith: Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, including the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will not be very happy when they read what the hon. Gentleman has said. They have been active, along with many others, in campaigning for the restoration of sleeper services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not complaining about those hon. Members who use the train as opposed to those who claim their car allowance by driving an enormous distance home when there is a perfectly good train service available.
Most of the traffic on sleepers is towards London rather than away from it. A considerable amount of such traffic was generated from Newcastle as well as from the borders. If it is possible to run a sleeper service from Carlisle and Preston, it should be possible to do so from Tyneside.
Mr. Snape: To say that I have raised a hornet's nest is the wrong metaphor, given that there is only one hornet in it. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument and I hope that those responsible for providing the figures will reconsider the matter. They appear to believe that more people travel between Newcastle and London rather than from further north. I appreciate that BR does not even run a sleeper service to Newcastle, but its excuse is

99
that it has other services that run late at night and early in the morning, so the demand is catered for. However, I am not seeking to defend BR's spurious figures.
It is a brave Member who dares to argue with people in the Ramblers Association, which packs enormous power and influence. That association has criticised BR for its use of the parliamentary procedures to introduce its Bill—that is not an unreasonable criticism, given what we have heard. I hope that the Minister will study BR's reasons for that, and will tell the Committee whether they are valid. It has argued that the Bill is the only way in which to tackle safety matters, as the Highways Act 1980 precludes such discussion.
The 13th point in the Ramblers Association's brief to hon. Members suggests the depths of its cynicism:
"The crossings in the Bill have existed for over a century. If they are now dangerous it is because BR has made them so by increasing the speeds of trains for commercial gain."
Given the policies of the present Government, it is inevitable that commercial gain is considered whatever the supposed service. That argument is rather tendentious, given that most of us are in favour of getting from A to B as quickly as possible. It is unfair to criticise BR for that.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I suspect that that objection would come as a great surprise to most members of the Ramblers Association and to those who are on the side of the pedestrian and the rambler. Most of the pedestrians and ramblers I know want British Rail to carry more and more passengers to help to reduce the increasing number of cars on our roads.
Mr. Snape: I am sure that, as a rambler himself, the hon. Gentleman will seek to make that point to the Ramblers Association.
Point No. 14 does not have a great deal to say in favour of the Bill. The Ramblers Association refers to people being forced to walk or to ride a horse along the road, once the bridleway or pathway has been diverted. It says that, if there is no convenient grass verge, that is not most people's idea of improved safety. I venture to suggest that that is far safer, even though it may not be the most desirable or safe method, than cantering a horse across a railway line when trains are travelling between 100 and 140 mph.
Mr. Redmond rose——
Mr. Snape: I promised that I would give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Redmond: I think that I ought to clear up the earlier point about Doncaster borough council. Doncaster was first made aware of the proposed Bill on 6 November 1990, when British Rail submitted the Bill to Parliament. There had been no consultations or discussions between British Rail and Doncaster borough council. British Rail had never asked for discussions with the council. It seems to me, therefore, that British Rail was at fault. Doncaster is the relevant authority for the area. British Rail ought to have asked for discussions with the council so as to find a way round the possibility of similar accidents in the future. It ought to have held those discussions with the council in the summer. British Rail ought not to have waited until it was ready to deposit the Bill.
Mr. Snape: I am grateful for that clarification, but it does not alter the fact that the Bill is before us. I understand that the letter sent to Doncaster borough council was couched in exactly the same form as the letters sent to the other nine local authorities. I understand that some discussion has taken place. I understand also that there has been a measure of agreement. I keep using that caveat, because my information came from British Rail only last Friday. All of us have to seek information wherever we can obtain it. However, British Rail's point is that a letter identical to that sent to Doncaster borough council has not resulted in a meeting.
I repeat the plea that I made earlier—that bruised and ruffled feelings are one thing, but when the future safety of people using crossings is at stake, discussions ought to take place sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, I accept my hon. Friend's view that this is a well used crossing and a treasured local amenity. Unusual though the measure may be in being presented in this form, I believe that the Bill is worthy of support.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman gave me the opportunity to check that he quoted British Rail's figures correctly. I discovered that he did not. On southbound journeys by sleeper, the average for over a year amounted to 21 passengers from Tyneside and Teesside, 2·5 passengers from the borders, with the remaining berths generally being filled by passengers from Edinburgh.
Mr. Snape: That was another pretty artful intervention. I have no wish to drag out the debate. I notice that the northbound journeys were not quoted by the hon. Gentleman, perhaps—I put it no higher than this—for the reasons that I outlined. The hon. Gentleman may feel that I should not have outlined them, but it seemed to me to be too good a debating point to overlook.
We are not making debating points about the Bill. I repeat that the segregation of non-railway users from high-speed trains is a desirable objective. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to go forward. If there is a Division, I shall vote for the Bill.
9.23 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), because he is in extremely good form. I know that he has had a pretty heavy weekend, since his football team has managed to gain promotion from the fourth to the third division. There is a great deal of excitement in Stockport at the prospect. I was pleased to hear that he is in favour of increasing train speeds. He is one of the better-known supporters of Stockport County, and people are dredging up all sorts of stories in the town.
I am sure my hon. Friend will want to deny one that is circulating—that, when he was working a signal box in Cheadle Heath one Saturday afternoon he slipped all the signals to red and nipped into Stockport County ground to watch a match for some time, only to discover when shouting with great enthusiasm for his team that one of his supervisors was not far behind him in the crowd. My hon. Friend had to make a hasty return to his signal box. I do not know whether that story is true, but it is circulating at the moment in Stockport.
Mr. Snape: With regard to my hon. Friend's point about celebrations over the weekend, although I support

101
Stockport County and saw them gain promotion on Saturday, my constituency football team, West Bromwich Albion, was relegated from the second division to the third. As a result of that, any joy that I might have expressed publicly had to be muted.
The story that my hon. Friend recounted was broadly accurate. However, the signals were not turned to red, they were turned to green. I had switched the signal box out to go and watch the cup match.
Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing that up. I wonder who he will be supporting next season in the third division.
My name stands against a motion that the Bill should be read a Second time in six months' time. Hon. Members often regard such motions as ridiculous, but I believe that such a delay would be appropriate for this Bill. In that time, perhaps British Rail could repair some of the damage that it has done as a result of the way in which it has introduced the Bill and I would hope that it could begin useful negotiations with the local authorities, the Ramblers Association and others involved in the issue.
Instead of wasting the time of the House on Second Reading and then taking up the time in Committee of four hon. Members, who presumably will have to visit all the sites and consider the details, and then perhaps having to take up the time of the House with amendments, the matter should be resolved with common sense and without involving parliamentary procedures.
I argue that the Bill has little to do with safety. British Rail is simply trying to shift liability for accidents from its shoulders to other people's shoulders. That is clear from the way in which British Rail has treated the House with contempt. As I understand it, following the tragic accident at Doncaster, the Secretary of State for Transport sensibly recognised that there was a substantial problem with crossings on the east coast line and elsewhere where British Rail was trying to speed up trains. The Secretary of State asked the railway inspectorate to carry out an inquiry into the problem, take evidence and discover what could be done to resolve the issue.
Although there may not have been any accidents on the east coast line in the 10 years that British Rail has speeded up trains on that line, we are all aware that on other crossings, in particular on vehicle crossings, there have been accidents. We must recognise the terrible distress caused to people who have lost members of their family in those accidents and we must also recognise the horror experienced by the train drivers involved.
As trains move at such high speeds, it is no longer possible for a driver to see someone on a crossing and take any sensible action to stop the train hitting that individual. We must also recognise that in many places it is not safe for someone to look up the track to see whether a train is coming. It is no longer possible for crossings to be manned simply by people looking and seeing. It is, therefore, odd that British Rail and the railway inspectorate have had powers for the past 10 years to suggest that safety measures should be taken including the installation of warning lights and barriers, but no such measures have been adopted on the east coast mainline or elsewhere.
It is therefore odd that British Rail should suddenly decide to rush the Bill through the House and pre-empt the railway inspectorate inquiry in such a way as to put up the backs of local authorities. All local authorities along the line first heard about proposals to close the crossings when
102
the Bill was presented to Parliament, rather than hearing from British Rail that it had a problem and asking whether something could be done.
I am not surprised that Doncaster council has been reluctant to meet British Rail about the matter. The production of such a fait accompli with a parliamentary Bill is not the right way to start negotiations. I can understand why Doncaster and some other local authorities are upset. It is totally inappropriate for British Rail to act in that way. It should have started negotiations. Only when it could prove that negotiations had not produced the desired effect—that is, making it safer for people to cross from one side to the other, and safer for British Rail—should it have introduced the Bill.
Mr. Redmond: Having been on Doncaster council and knowing the rest of the councils, the officers who work for them and their caring attitude and concern about the tragedy that took place, I know that they are anxious to find a solution. The dictatorial attitude of British Rail in saying, "This or else," means that the council cannot win either way. The council is searching for a solution. My hon. Friend would agree that British Rail should adopt a more reasonable approach and have meaningful discussions with the council to find a solution. Kids will cross that land, and they will do so without the supervision of an adult.
My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. British Rail appears to want to shift responsibility to whoever is involved in an accident because they should not have been on that line. I agree that councils need to be consulted. Nobody wants a tragedy like that to happen again.
Mr. Bennett: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's intervention. We must look at history and remember that almost all railways were promoted through parliamentary Bills in which compromises were worked out between the requirements of people to get from one side of the railway to the other and the requirements of the railway to have a fairly safe passage. In most early railway Bills, Parliament insisted that a substantial number of underpasses for farm animals and pedestrians or footbridges and, in some cases, trackways for animals were built. It was only with some later parliamentary Bills that British Rail began to persuade Parliament that it was perfectly safe to put in level crossings, whether for pedestrians, animals or vehicles.
It is a little unfair for British Rail now to say that, because it wants to speed up trains—we all want trains to be speeded up—it should take away people's right to cross from one side to the other. Although in some instances not many people will be involved, the crossings will be important to them. They will have bought property and planned where to work on the basis of those crossings.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East says that there is controversy about only one of the 10 crossings. That is not the case. There is certainly controversy at Doncaster and there is also controversy about the crossing at North Mymms, which is on the way to London. About 20,000 booklets have been published showing that route. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) claimed that that had been subject to a closure order which had been denied. The truth is that it was subject to the closure order before the 1980 legislation, so it has not been subject to an order or an attempt to get an order over the past 10 years. The attempt to obtain a

103
diversion was turned down not on the basis that it was unreasonable to provide a diversion because of safety, but on the basis that the alternative route suggested was also unreasonable and that if British Rail had been able to make a reasonable proposal for the diversion at that point, the Secretary of State might have been minded to grant that application. It seems that there is slightly more controversy than the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Snape: I understand, again from British Rail, that at the crossing to which the hon. Gentleman referred, North Mymms, it is proposed to divert the footpath 295 yd to the north and thence via Skitmans bridge, which takes Bull lane under the railway and links up with the footpath network. I do not know whether that proposal meets with any greater favour than the one to which he referred. My information from British Rail is that the basis of the negotiations with the local authority is the proposal to move the footpath 300 yd. I know nothing about the area, but a diversion of less than 300 yd to avoid crossing the railway line altogether does not seem unreasonable.
Mr. Bennett: I do not intend to go into the details, but, if that was possible, why did not British Rail implement the proposal last summer? Why did it wait to promote a Bill which inevitably will take a long time? If it could find a solution through negotiations and allow local people the right to appear at an inquiry and put objections, surely that would be a better way to proceed than to ask Members of Parliament to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend admitted that he did not know the detailed local geography. I certainly do not. I doubt whether many other hon. Members know the exact details. Probably only the hon. Member for that constituency knows the detail. I have not seen any hon. Members jumping up to make a comment on it. Surely negotiation would be the way to proceed rather than to continue with the Bill, especially as it raises the fear among ramblers that, after 10 crossings being closed this Session, another 10 will be closed next Session and another 10 will be closed in the Session following that.
Mr. Chris Smith: While my hon. Friend is on this point, has he considered why these 10 specific crossings have been put before us in this Bill? We have little information about why these 10, of all the various crossings, have been selected by British Rail.
Mr. Bennett: I have not been able to find an exact reason. British Rail has not said that these are the most dangerous crossings. British Rail has not said that all the crossings are on curves. I have already suggested that, with the speed at which trains travel, even on a straight piece of track it is not realistic to rely on people looking down the track and anticipating how soon the train will arrive. We must consider the provision of some effective warning by lights or other means.
British Rail has adopted an inappropriate approach to implementing the measures in the Bill. The original railway promoters negotiated along the entire length of the track and said that they had to have a certain number of crossings. Perhaps where five crossings were proposed before the railway line was built, the promoters managed to persuade local people and Parliament that they could be
104
replaced by three. Such negotiations can take place and people can be persuaded. Everyone accepts that a walk across the railway track is not particularly safe and that it would be far better to put a tunnel underneath or a bridge over the top. But that is expensive, so instead of putting in one for one, British Rail proposes to put in one bridge or tunnel for two previous crossings.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that, when the orginal Acts went through Parliament, landowners often insisted that a bridge should be provided where lines crossed sections of land? By a quirk, in the 19th century the land was perhaps owned by several landowners and no bridge was provided but now people need to cross a railway from side A to side B. In those circumstances and to recognise the change in the pattern of people's behaviour, should not the Government ensure that British Rail has an adequate grant to provide facilities such as bridges to take into account factors that, if they had existed when the orginal legislation went through, would have been provided for by the orginial promoters?
Mr. Bennett: I accept that argument. In agreeing that it may not be possible to replace every crossing with a safer one, I firmly argue that someone must come up with money for safety. It is not appropriate for the money to come from British Rail's capital grant. That problem must be addressed, just as the rights of people to follow traditional routes must be addressed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) pointed out, if safe crossings are not provided, young children in particular will cross anywhere and in great danger. We must consider the problem, but the Bill is wholly inappropriate.
I was disappointed that the Minister did not tell us what happened to the inquiry or that the Government were investigating the whole question of crossings. Instead, he said that the Government were agnostic about the Bill. The problem will not go away. We need a solution that will be satisfactory to walkers and those who travel on trains.
Mr. Redmond: At Mexborough there was a crossing from one side of the station to the other. The old railway sleepers provided a crossing for prams and wheelchairs. Because of some improvements and the 125s from Manchester coming at a greater pace round a curve, British Rail tore up the track without consulting anybody. There is a footpath across the railway lines, but, regrettably, British Rail's solution for disabled people who must get to the other side of the station is for them to travel to Doncaster, change platforms, come back on the return train, and to hell with the inconvenience caused. That is British Rail's attitude.
When we asked British Rail to provide an alternative to the footbridge for mothers and disabled people, the answer was that, provided that South Yorkshire passenger transport authority coughed up the money, it would install an alternative. South Yorkshire PTA is strapped for cash. The local authority is strapped for cash. It is British Rail's property, but it is refusing to fund such a facility for disabled people. That is the attitude which prevails. British Rail does not care what happens, so long as it does not have the responsibility.
Mr. Bennett: I fully accept that.
Will the hon. Member for Keighley or, if he does not get a chance to reply because so many others want to speak,

105
British Rail state clearly whether this proposal to close 10 crossings is the thin end of the wedge and the intention is to introduce further Bills to close more, or whether 10 is the final number? Will it be explained why British Rail succeeded in closing a path at Taunton Deane on safety grounds, yet the Minister has claimed that it is not possible to use those procedures for the crossings in this legislation? Will the Minister explain why British Rail regularly manages to close footbridges temporarily, on safety grounds when they get into disrepair? As I understand it, British Rail has plenty of powers to deal with such issues, at least temporarily on safety grounds. Such issues must be put to local inquiries; that is a far better way to proceed.
We need a comprehensive approach to the problem. We should not approve the Bill. It would be a great breach of parliamentary procedure to give a Bill a Second Reading, which would inflict on other hon. Members the duty to scrutinise it in detail. British Rail could approach the problem perfectly satisfactorily under existing legislation, and I hope that the House will reject the Bill.
9.43 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I entirely share the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
When private Bills are introduced, we get a single sheet of paper with half a dozen paragraphs of information. I have complained before that that is a contempt of the House. Promoters may be used to doing the minimum amount of work for the maximum amount of money. For example, I understand from a reliable source that those promoters can charge local authorities—and, no doubt, British Rail—£500 an hour for a consultation. The House recently laid down a scale of charges for legislation that ran into several thousand pounds, so it is not cheap. One of the cheapest contributions to Parliament could be more information than we have been given in the seven paragraphs on one side of a single sheet of paper.
The House is also entitled to better information than we have received from the Minister. He was obviously not aware of an investigation by his Department into standards of care on level crossings. He should have come to the House prepared. Although the Department of Transport has an enormous number of civil servants—I realise that only a tiny proportion is devoted to the railways—none of them is in the Box today to provide the Minister with information. When we have asked him for information, he has simply discarded our wish in an act of callous contempt.
The Bill seeks to provide an outside body with additional powers and we are supposed to approve it without the requisite information. If we seek to obtain that information, we are told that it is not available. That is not good enough; nor is it good enough to say that a Select Committee will look into the matter, because we know how Select Committees work. They are lovely for the lawyers; they charge an astronomical sum, which causes Tory Members hardly to raise an eyebrow. In the same breath Tory Members speak about urging those who do useful jobs to curtail wage claims and about lawyers who charge hundreds of pounds a day. The lawyers speak slowly so that the days stretch out into long refreshers. No wonder they feel refreshed when they spend so many days going through the measures. I have never sat on a Committee considering a private Bill. That is not an
106
invitation to put me on one—I do not want to be on one, as my duties on other Select Committees take a great deal of time.
Because the Chamber is important—all 650 Members have access to it—information should be provided there and not hived off. It does not matter what the procedure is; we cannot take part in Select or Standing Committees to obtain information but should be informed here.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend said that we received one page of scant information on the Bill. That seems to be the trend. The Government give us little detail on which to base our judgment because too much knowledge could be dangerous. Regretfully, there appears to be a nasty practice of ensuring that Bills reach their Committee stage where the Government have the right to nominate a chairman. Committees can therefore he loaded by a Government who seek to push Bills through. My hon. Friend is correct about the lack of information, but will he comment on the way in which Chairmen are appointed to Committees?
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right and simply provides some details to endorse what I said.
The Chamber is the most important place in Parliament. We hoped that it would be invigorated with the advent of the television cameras and, by and large, it has been. But whether it is invigorated by good attendance on some occasions and sparse ones on others such as this, information should be available to Members.
Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with everything that he said about the inadequacy of the information that tends to come from the Government on such occasions.
Paragraph 4 of the seven short paragraphs that constitute the promoter's statement, which should contain the fundamental point behind why British Rail is introducing the Bill, states that it
"represents the first stage of a more comprehensive review of the position on high speed lines."
It says nothing about the nature of the review or of the parameters within which the review was conducted. It also says nothing about the safety considerations that formed part of the review. It simply tells us that a review has taken place. Surely it is ridiculous that we are asked to make decisions about a Bill based on a review about which we are told absolutely nothing.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. The statement could usefully and relevantly have said that the review was being conducted in conjunction with the railway inspectorate's examination into safety at level crossings.
Having got that point of information out of the way, I should say that, although I do not have a financial interest, in railway debates I always like to decare that I have five £10 shares in Keighley and Worth valley light railway, which has two level crossings. I have never received a dividend and I never expect to, but my contact gives me a background in the operation of railways, albeit ones on which the trains run more slowly than those under consideration tonight.
On the Worth valley railway, as on every other, safety is of the utmost priority. Those of us who are considering the Bill critically are not critical of safety: we are arguing that safety standards should be maintained at all times.

107
The limited and sparse information that we have includes a letter circulated by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), which states:
"There is a real need to minimise the risk of another tragic accident such as that which occurred at Carr Lane, Doncaster, last year, when a woman and two children were killed".
He is right, but one wonders why, almost 12 months after the accident occurred, British Rail has done nothing. If the matter is so pressing that it requires the resources of Parliament, why has not British Rail undertaken safety measures such as linking approaching trains with some sort of light or bell-warning device on that crossing? That is a legitimate question.
Mr. Waller: I do not know whether, like me, the hon. Gentleman has visited Carr lane crossing. If he has, he will have seen the safety measures that have been adopted, the signs that have been erected and the way in which the approach to the crossing has been altered to try to do the best for people crossing the line. I do not have time to go into detail, but there are great defects with lights, and it is possible that, if lights were installed as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we would kill more people than we save.
Mr. Cryer: I know that signs are displayed there. I followed the case carefully because it was such an horrific and tragic accident. I was thinking of something more positive, such as the operation of barriers or the construction of a bridge. It might be said that those are costly measures—the bridge might cost £250,000—
Mr. Waller: A lot more.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Keighley says, from a sedentary position, "A lot more." What is life about? If people want to go to an important nature reserve, why should not the Government invest that sort of money? The hon. Member for Keighley does not raise an eyebrow when the Secretary of State for Defence says that we are to spend £7,000 million on a European fighter aircraft or when we put Tornados, at £21 million apiece, out of use because there are too many of them. Why do we have two standards—one for defence expenditure and one for facilities that help and widen people's experience by allowing them to go to a nature reserve near an urban district? That will be made more difficult.
The cost would be £250,000—perhaps a bit more—but that would not apply to every crossing. This crossing has become the focus of attention because it was the site of a tragic accident. Let us find the money somewhere. If the Government want to do something, they find the money. It is important that we get these things in perspective. Why do the Government always act in such a penny-pinching way in respect of projects designed to broaden experience or to maintain and develop life?
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) knows, the civil service pours out money for bypass roads. I am thinking, for instance, of the provision that is made for the heavy vehicles that take traffic from the railways. There seems to be no limit to the amount of money that the Department of Transport is prepared to spend on such schemes. Of course, some of them are intended to increase safety, but others are for fairly lavish purposes that many of us question. The
108
number of civil servants devoted to railway matters is about 70, whereas the number devoted to roads is about 2,000.
In terms of annual Government expenditure, the amount involved here would be very tiny. The Government should look more closely at the circumstances. For one thing, such expenditure would help to create jobs. I realise that that would be a very unusual attitude for a Government who, over the past 10 or 11 years, have destroyed jobs. However, why should they not turn over a new leaf and decide to provide some jobs in the civil engineering industry, which is very much in the doldrums, and help people in Doncaster at the same time?
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Bill seeks to make access to Potteric Carr a damn sight more difficult and more dangerous. I question some of the figures given by those talking about the cost of a solution. No doubt any number of redundant miners would be quite willing to provide a solution costing a damn sight less than the amount that we have been given.
Mr. Cryer: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government cannot find £250,000 in this case, yet they were able to spend £6,000 million to attack the miners in 1984. That is why thousands of miners are redundant. The Government found £10,000 million to pay off the debts accumulated by the public utilities—the family silver—that were sold off. Consider also the amount that was spent on the employment of City gents in various merchant banks and financial advice institutions to promote privatisation. It is mind-boggling that the Government cannot find a few thousand quid to provide a bridge that would give ordinary working people the advantage of being able to cross a bridge to Potteric Carr nature reserve. It is absolutely outrageous.
Mr. Waller rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 38.

Division No. 141]

[9.58 pm

AYES

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Irvine, Michael

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Knapman, Roger

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Boswell, Tim

Knowles, Michael

Bowis, John

Latham, Michael

Bright, Graham

Lawrence, Ivan

Carrington, Matthew

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Chapman, Sydney

Maclean, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Conway, Derek

Mans, Keith

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Monro, Sir Hector

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Moss, Malcolm

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Emery, Sir Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Franks, Cecil

Oppenheim, Phillip

Freeman, Roger

Paice, James

Goodlad, Alastair

Porter, David (Waveney)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Redwood, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Ground, Patrick

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Harris, David

Snape, Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Steen, Anthony

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Stevens, Lewis

Hunter, Andrew

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

109

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Wolfson, Mark

Thurnham, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Trippier, David

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Widdecombe, Ann

Mr. Gary Waller and

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Mr. Peter Bottomley.

NOES

Alton, David

McCartney, Ian

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Beith, A. J.

McNamara, Kevin

Bermingham, Gerald

McWilliam, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Martlew, Eric

Buckley, George J.

Maxton, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Carr, Michael

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Pike, Peter L.

Cryer, Bob

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dixon, Don

Skinner, Dennis

Duffy, A. E. P.

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

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Spearing, Nigel

Foster, Derek

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Galloway, George

Wallace, James

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Wells, Bowen

Hardy, Peter

Wray, Jimmy

Haynes, Frank

Hood, Jimmy

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Martin Redmond and

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Upon the report of the Division, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed in Standing Order No. 36 ( Majority for closure or for proposal of Question).
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday.

Coal Industry (Restructuring)
Postponed proceedings resumed on the Question,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.
10.9 pm
Mr. Andy Stewart: The motion shows yet again the continuing support given to the coal industry by our Government. Since 1979, more than £7 billion of new investment has been committed. The significance of that was grasped by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and, by their example, productivity has increased by more than 100 per cent. Providing grant aid to British Coal of about £17 billion has enabled it to undertake major restructuring of the industry with remarkable success. There has not been a single compulsory redundancy. Men who wish to stay in the industry have always been offered alternative employment.
The size of the coal industry will be determined by the size of its market and not by Government decisions. However, the decision last year to write off British Coal's debts of £6 billion, which was equivalent to a reduction in the price of coal of £9 a tonne, has transformed its financial structure. With its new financial base, the industry has the technology, the investment and the skills to continue to improve its competitiveness and its profitability.
The coal industry is an extractive industry and collieries will naturally become exhausted. That accounts for 2 million tonnes of capacity every year. At the same time, British Coal will have to determine the overall production level to meet its customers' requirements. The order provides £300 million in respect of likely redundancies in 1991–92.
Has my hon. Friend the Minister considered the long-term consequences to the coal industry if the Labour party policy document "Opencast Coal Mining—Too High a Price?" were ever implemented? The money provided tonight would cover only a fraction of the compulsory job losses. The implication of Labour's vindictive policy, at the behest of the National Union of Mineworkers, would be catastrophic for the Nottinghamshire miners. Thousands of jobs would be lost.
Mr. Kevin Barron: How many jobs will be lost in opencast coal mining if the document is implemented?
Mr. Stewart: The document is there for everyone to read.
Mr. Barron: How many jobs?
Mr. Stewart: I did not hear the question.
Mr. Barron: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he could tell me how many jobs will be lost in opencast coal mining when the policy document is implemented.
Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear how many jobs will be lost in Nottinghamshire.
Mr. Barron: In opencast coal mining.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should listen, and he will then get the answer. Thousands of jobs would be lost. The reason is that 13 of the 16 Nottinghamshire collieries require low-chlorine coal from the opencast sites to sweeten their product, on a ratio of six tonnes deep-mined

111
to one tonne opencast, before it is accepted by the power generating companies. The loss of low chlorine coal by itself would be disastrous, but the loss of the £200 million annual profit from the British Coal opencast division, which is used to subsidise deep-mined coal, would increase prices by almost £5 a tonne, leaving British Coal with no market and no jobs for its miners.
The Labour party has dropped that bombshell at a time when Nottinghamshire miners are continually breaking production records. It shows the Labour party's lack of faith in and support for the coal industry, and it shows why Nottinghamshire miners abandoned socialism in 1985.
The generous restructuring grants and redundancy payments provided by the Government for the coal industry and miners wishing to leave it shows our continuing commitment. I support the order.
10.14 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for. Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) said. Almost in passing, he referred to the tremendous achievements of the mining industry; its increase in productivity in recent years has been unmatched in almost any other part of British industry and commerce. Despite that splendid achievement—which this country will appreciate more in a few years' time than it does now—morale has declined and the destruction of jobs has accelerated. The hon. Member who now represents Sherwood boasts about the Government's commitment to opencast mining when there has been an unparelleled reduction in the number of jobs in deep-mined coal. He should be ashamed of himself.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, for various reasons, his constituency may have returned him at the last general election, but his speech tonight expressing a commitment to opencast mining will not only damage the prospects of Conservative Members representing coal-mining areas in Nottinghamshire, but will have sweeping implications for Conservative votes in every coalfield in Britain.
Mr. Barron: Would my hon. Friend care to ask the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) why, before the publication of the Labour party's policy document on opencast coal, Blidworth mine in his constituency closed although it had millions of tonnes of coal? The hon. Gentleman never uttered a word in the House about that.
Mr. Hardy: I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but we are accustomed to hearing him speak frequently in mining debates. Some of us do not read our speeches, and it is possible that no one had given the hon. Gentleman a speech to inflict on us as he carefully read it. It is not my habit to read speeches in the House, and I do not need to read a speech on the mining industry. Over the past few years, we have lived with the destruction of our local economy.
The Minister has been to my constituency. I attended a church service yesterday. We received a banner, and saw an exhibition about a local colliery that has closed. If the Minister had been to a hillside a few years ago, he would have seen head stock after head stock. Not one of those
112
pits can be seen from that point now, because they are no longer there and the jobs that the men need do not exist either.
The hon. Gentleman said that there had been no redundancies and that jobs had been offered to miners who had been declared redundant when their pits closed. The hon. Gentleman should know that men who, over the years, have developed skills in electrical and mechanical engineering, safety and technology—he has been down a colliery, and should recognise what the work involves—were told that they would not be made compulsorily unemployed and would be given alternative jobs. They were also told that they could have no assurance that they would have the skilled jobs for which they had trained, and which they might have practised for many years. Many men skilled in the various trades that allow collieries to be maintained did not want to do unskilled work, but British Coal offered them no promise of opportunities for skilled work.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Stewart).
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) accused me—
Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman is intervening on my speech.
Mr. Stewart: Yes, but I wanted to make the point to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) so that the hon. Member for Rother Valley would get the message. The hon. Member for Rother Valley accuses me of not raising the subject of the closure of Blidworth colliery. That is completely untrue. I raised it in the House at the time; if he reads Hansard, he will see that.
Mr. Hardy: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us when and in what context he offered a protest. Some of us protest vigorously about colliery closures and although the hon. Gentleman attends debates on coal, he frequently does so in order to make minor party political points rather than joining in the debate with the passion that the argument should receive.
This is another distressing debate because it is about provision for the industry to contract, to provide compensatory arrangements for redundant miners. We have heard about British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and the arrangements for redundancies. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) reminded us, over the past few years the industry has demonstrated what can be achieved. However, world coal prices are dangerously low and do not permit investment to enable international production to be sustained. Because of that, we are likely to develop an utterly unwise dependence on imports.
The Minister may not be prepared to listen to the Opposition, but he must be prepared to listen to those of his political persuasion. The people of whom I speak are more likely to be of his political persuasion than ours. They are employed in British Coal and are eager to see it privatised, perhaps for personal profit. However, they recognise that the world coal trade is such that Britain should not allow itself to become completely dependent upon it. Contraction will continue because more collieries are to close in 1991, and that means that dependence on imported coal is bound to increase unless the Government urgently reconsider their policy.

113
The Government could argue that this measure and others that they have introduced over recent years show that they have taken a positive interest. However, in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and other areas, large sums have been invested in collieries which closed shortly afterwards. Vast reserves of coal have been locked away, perhaps for ever, and in many cases it has happened after substantial public investment. That is the approach of madness, and it is why some of us become rather concerned in coal debates.
We must plan with intelligence and recognise that in addition to provision for the closure of exhausted collieries, where redundancy may be unavoidable, we should ensure that Britain's coal capacity can be maintained to avoid reaching the position outlined today or yesterday by Mr. Edwards of British Coal which could result in a balance of payments deficit of more than £8,000 million. The Government have destroyed huge swathes of British industry. Our capacity to export manufactured goods is very much smaller than it should be, and it will be extremely difficult to make up the current balance of payments deficit. To add to that millions of pounds worth of imported coal is ridiculous.
I urge the Minister and his Treasury colleagues to pay more attention not only to a long-term economic appraisal of the international coal trade and Britain's position, but to the position that is likely to develop in the next three or four years and which may already have started to develop.
The Government frequently claim that they support and are interested in research on the clean combustion of coal. Ministers often go prancing round the country; they get up in the morning and are taken out of harm's way from the Department of Energy. One Minister recently visited Grimethorpe and expressed great interest in the work there. However, we may soon approach the point, if we have not already done so, where there is no need for resources for basic research, but a need for more resources for the development stage that should proceed.
The combined cycle technology could have enormous implications for the clean burning of coal and the long-term future of British industry. It would be useful if the Minister could assure the House and the coal industry that such research will be backed adequately and that there will be no stinting on resources. He should assure us that there will be no examples of hypocrisy when Ministers congratulate those involved in the research and then do not provide the funds that such development needs.
The Government are obviously obsessed with the right-wing dogma they serve. Although they may be eager to secure the privatisation of coal, they should not privatise it simply to allow a few profitable pits to create profit for a relatively small number of people. That would ensure that the pits that could not guarantee to provide a particularly odious level of profit would have no future.
The Government should be prepared to show some interest in and give some attention to the British mining engineering industry. If that industry takes advantage of the increasing opportunities that will be created as man scratches a little more deeply below the surface for the mineral resources that we need to develop, it will have an increasingly important international role. That industry's role will not be as important as it should be if the home base—the number of collieries in Britain—is diminished.
People in the mining industry the length and breadth of Britain now estimate that the number of collieries remaining by the end of the decade will be counted on the
114
fingers of two hands, if not one. That is a dangerous situation, not least for hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Sherwood.
I have one colliery left in my consituency; there were 12 when I entered the House. Jobs in the area have gone and the plight of the area has been created by the hasty greed of the present Administration. Enormous problems have been created, but the problems will get even greater in other areas if the Government do not act with more wisdom than they have shown so far.
It is all very well to seek approval for tonight's order, which is designed to assist the coal mining areas to weather the ravaging storms that have assailed them in recent years. Such orders, however, are not enough. If the Government rely on such orders and refrain from using a bit of vision and common sense they will attract even more unpopularity than they deserve to have given the comments of the hon. Member for Sherwood.
10.28 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I apologise for missing the two opening speeches of the debate, but as it is a Monday I did not get down from Scotland in time. I did not expect the debate to start quite so early and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a contribution now.
I want to know why we are increasing the funding to British Coal for restructuring, given the questions that must be posed relating to British Coal's record. What will it use the money for? I shall cite two specific examples to illustrate my point. I am concerned that, given additional funds, British Coal will use them to accelerate closures and to vandalise pits that, if not operated, could be maintained on a care and maintenance basis.
I am greatly puzzled about why coal is treated differently from other reserves such as oil and gas. The Minister is familiar with the oil and gas licensing system. He knows that the state owns oil and gas and licenses the oil companies to extract it. All our coal reserves, however, are owned by British Coal, which is not required to produce an annual report on possible or probable recoverable reserves, such as those in the Department of Energy's Brown Book on oil and gas reserves. Consequently, British Coal can happily and glibly abandon pits that contain substantial coal reserves, without any record having been made of what has been lost for exploitation in the immediate future or by future generations. Given that the abandonment of a pit is usually irreversible, that seems to me to be irresponsible. It is extraordinary that to date the Government have taken no steps to put that right.
During the last five or six years a substantial number of pits have been closed and abandoned. I have taken a particular interest in the matter since I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Coal Industry Act 1987. It was drawn to my attention that pits were being closed, even though alternative operators had applied to British Coal for licences to take over those pits. Their applications were refused outright. There was no discussion. British Coal was not interested. The Government were not prepared to intervene in the management of British Coal.
I refer specifically to Betteshanger pit in Kent, the first one drawn to my attention. A miners' consortium was put together and applied to British Coal for a licence to take

115
over the pit. British Coal turned down the application, vandalised the pit, removed the machinery and flooded it irretrievably. That pit was lost for ever.
At about the same time, British Coal mothballed the Monktonhall colliery in Midlothian. The Minister will no doubt know that that pit has substantial reserves of low sulphur coal—admittedly in a narrow seam. Nevertheless, it is a pit which British Coal says that it is willing at least to keep mothballed until it concludes its review next month. The miners' consortium there has had a little more time than the Kent consortium had; it had precisely six weeks from the moment that British Coal announced closure to the point at which it abandoned and flooded the pit. British Coal gave the Monktonhall miners three years' notice. The consortium that has been formed has therefore used that time to promote its case energetically and with a great deal of enterprise.
The consortium has tried to identify how much support there is within the local community for reopening the pit. There are many skilled miners in the area who were made redundant as a result of the closure. Many of those miners —I have met a number of them—are working on buses or as security guards, and so on. They are anxious, interestingly enough, to get back to their pit. They believe that they can make it pay. Regrettably, however, every attempt to have their case supported at political level has been frustrated. The charge falls mostly on the Government. Their attitude has been, "The licensing of coal mines is entirely a matter for British Coal. We are not prepared to intervene in the management of British Coal."
If we had a written constitution or proper accountability, no Government would be allowed to get away with that statement. They are the custodians of our coal reserves. They should be accountable to this House. However, the Government refuse categorically to be accountable to the House. The consortium told me that it made numerous requests for meetings with Ministers or civil servants, that it has had replies from 18 different civil servants in the Department of Energy, but that on no occasion has any official or Minister been prepared to meet it, under any circumstances. Members of the consortium held a press conference in the House last week which was attended by five hon. Members. It was apparent that their frustration was reaching its limit. They were extremely angry about the way they were being treated.
Conservative Members should be aware that that consortium comprises skilled miners who have said that they are willing to acquire shares in a company owned by the consortium to take over the running of their old pit. They are willing to put up £2,000 each of share capital and they have been offered finance by private institutions. They are not looking for one ha'penny of public money or public funds to take over the pit. They simply want the right to secure the licence and operate the pit and so demonstrate whether they can succeed where British Coal has failed.
Some people have been sceptical, but, as the consortium has pointed out, there has been no constructive response to the proposals. The consortium has simply been greeted by a blank wall. That is a disgrace.
It is important that we hear the Minister's response to my points. However, there is also considerable frustration and disappointment in the community about the treatment
116
that the consortium has received from the local Labour party. The Labour party has not been supportive, because it insists that, if the pit is to reopen, it should be reopened by British Coal. That is a betrayal of the interests of working people in the area who are prepared to put money where their mouth is and who have skill and commitment, but who have received no support from the Labour party.
The community concerned has no quarrel with the National Union of Mineworkers. The workers have all said that they are willing to be NUM members and that would substantially increase NUM membership in Scotland which has been devastated. The Labour party and the NUM seem determined to ensure that British Coal continues to run the pit, in spite of its record of destroying pits and failing to make the pit in question profitable.
Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is making a point about people letting those workers down. The Scottish NUM is against the proposal and the hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party is against it as well. The hon. Member for Gordon was a member of the Standing Committee that examined last year's Coal Industry Bill which restricted the number of people who could work in a coal mine to 150 and there have been numerous parliamentary questions about that since. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any mine run by British Coal at the moment which has long wall faces underground at the depth of the face at Monktonhall that could sustain a work force of 150 at that face? If he cannot name such a pit, are not he and others misleading the miners because, under current legislation, they could not run that mine anyway, never mind all this waffle about investment?
Mr. Bruce: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) should meet the miners concerned and hear what they have to say. They are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. They believe that they can do it. They know the pit and all they want is for the Labour party not to oppose what they are trying to do or to frustrate them in their attempt to secure the licence for their own mine. They are not asking the Labour party to back them and they are not asking for public money. They simply want to know why they are being opposed and frustrated and why only a particular option is to be considered. Those miners have no confidence in British Coal ever making the pit a success if it reopens it—and that is doubtful.
A review is to take place in June, although British Coal has not said exactly when. The assurance I seek from the Minister is that if British Coal, in reviewing the pit by the end of June, has not made a clear statement that it intends to reopen the pit by an agreed and realistic date and begins to take back the miners involved in the consortium and others, the Government will intervene to allow alternative licences to be operated and will recognise the consortium's commitment and its right to have an opportunity to take over the licence. That is the minimum that it is entitled to expect from the House. The refusal to date even to offer members of the consortium a meeting is a disgrace. I assure both parties that there are people in the county of Midlothian who are extremely angry at the way they have been treated after more than two years of determined commitment.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley rightly referred to the Coal Industry Act 1990. He will remember that I tabled an amendment to the Bill, suggesting one of two options

117
—first, that the ownership of coal reserves should be transferred to the Department of Energy and that the Department should allocate licences, as with oil and gas; secondly, as a moderate fallback position, that when British Coal refuses to offer a licence there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Therefore, people could not be treated with the stonewall of silence and non co-operation. One would have thought that, of all people, Tories would like to encourage such enterprise from people in their own communities who know their own industry.
I have been so concerned with this matter that I have tried to explore what pressures might be brought to bear. I took up the matter initially with the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie, indicating that British Coal was abusing its monopoly position. Quite reasonably, he replied to me saying:
"I have to say that although I recognise your concern at the possibility of British Coal's deciding to close Monktonhall colliery without giving the others the opportunity to operate it, I am not able to intervene in that matter under the United Kingdom competition legislation. This is because the treaty of Paris gives the European Commission the exclusive jurisdiction to investigate the possibility of a producer of coal abusing its market power or behaving anti-competitively."
I have done what Sir Gordon Borrie suggested and I have passed the entire correspondence to Sir Leon Brittan, the Commissioner responsible for competition in the European Community, and suggested that he should investigate the matter. My suspicion is that the reason why the Government have not been prepared to intervene is that they have made it clear that they wish to privatise British Coal. As with other privatisations, they want to privatise a monopoly—a single entity—and the last thing they want to see is the emergence of a possibly successfully managed pit under different ownership that will in some way depress the flotation price of British Coal.
I challenge the Government to demonstrate whether they have any real commitment to enterprise when it is demonstrated in a local community, and allow them a chance—that is all they are asking—to prove themselves.
On many occasions during the coal strike Conservative Members asked, "Why don't you give the miners the chance to run their own pits?" Now that miners are asking for a chance, what do they get from the Government? They get complete and absolute silence and a refusal to address the issue. That suggests a double standard.
I have also contacted the Select Committee on Energy on this matter. I heard an indication of interest from the
118
Chairman of the Committee, who thinks that pits should be offered to miners. Other members of the Committee have also indicated that they will want to know from British Coal—indeed, the Committee has written to British Coal—the outcome of the review. I have no doubt that if the outcome of the review is that it intends to close the pit without offering any other operators the chance to take it over, the Committee will wish to investigate British Coal's motives.
I noticed the Minister exchanging sly glances with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). This is a very interesting test case. The hon. Member for Rother Valley is entitled to say that he does not believe that that consortium can operate profitably. I wholly accept that the hon. Member for Rother Valley has long experience of mining. I do not dispute that. However, counter to that is the fact that if a consortium of miners who have worked a pit, know a pit, have their own mining consultant, and financial backing which requires no investment of public money, wish to take over that pit which British Coal has not succeeded in mining profitably and apparently has no interest in continuing to operate, surely even the hon. Member for Rother Valley could conclude that they should be given a chance to prove whether they are right. It is only their money and their backers' money that has been put at risk.
Mr. Andy Stewart: When the Blidworth colliery in my constituency closed, we did exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Miners and another operator wished to reopen the mine and were refused by British Coal to operate under a scheme which would have been viable. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's expression of anger.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know that other hon. Members have been involved in similar schemes. We still have not had any satisfactory response from government sources. I repeat that the Government's performance has been disgraceful.
The chairman of the consortium, Jackie Aitchison, said to me, "If we had come to Government as Japanese offering the possibility of creating 500 jobs in a depressed part of Scotland and required no public investment, would we have been treated in this way for showing indigenous enterprise in our own community, or would we have been treated differently?" We know the answer; the Government's behaviour stinks.
10.45 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: I wish to make a speech in this debate and I have saved it until the end. The Government have a nerve to talk about restructuring the coal mining industry and providing money to do it after they have destroyed the industry. I went into the industry in 1944. We had an industry then, but we have a tiny industry now. This Government have destroyed it.
It is all right for the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) to try to protect his back by telling the House what he did about Blidworth. When we had the debates about pit closures, he went into the Aye Lobby for the closures. He did not tell the people at Blidworth about that. I will tell the hon. Gentleman something else. I spoke to the gentleman who chaired the public meetings supported by the Bishop of Southwell to stop the closure. What did Bernard Savage, the chairman of the group in the village of Blidworth, tell me? The hon. Member for Sherwood did not lift a finger to help stop the closure of the Blidworth pit. But that was only one pit closure.
Then the hon. Member for Sherwood tried to cover his back by making it look as though he was fighting for the industry. He shouted his mouth off to the Nottingham Evening Post about Labour Members not being in the Chamber to vote against the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. That was how he tried to cover his back.
Mr. Barron: Where were all that lot?
Mr. Haynes: Indeed, where were all that lot? I will tell the House where the Minister was. He was the Minister for Sport. What does he know about mining?
Mr. Barron: He went down a pit.
Mr. Haynes: When?
Mr. Barron: Once.
Mr. Haynes: When did he go down a pit? If we had a crack in the floor, he would fall into it and we would lose him. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister in a pit. All that he was bothered about was boxing, football, rugby, rowing. He got a Cambridge blue. [Interruption.] He should watch out from time to time for my left hook. What does the Minister really know?
Mr. Moynihan: It was at Oxford.
Mr. Haynes: It is no good the Minister talking to me from his seat. He should get up at the Dispatch Box. I will give way to him if he wants to have a go. We have already had a go today. I told him straightforwardly that I was going to belt him tonight. He does not know anything about the mining industry. They have put him up to handle this one tonight. We know what has happened in the industry and the way in which the Government have destroyed it, and how the hon. Member for Sherwood has helped them to destroy it. We fought against pit closures on the Opposition Benches along with the Liberals.
The Liberals were opposed to pit closures, I give them that. I remember the speeches that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made on behalf of the coal mining industry in the debates on the Coal Industry Bill. We did not always agree with what he said, but the principle that he supported was the interest of the mining industry. Yet Conservative Members were in favour of closure after closure.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell rose——
Mr. Stewart rose——
Mr. Haynes: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). He is only a young lad yet. He does not know a deal about mining either, but I shall be interested to know what the intervention is about.
Mr. Mitchell: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is most kind of him. May I take him back to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and ask him to explain something which has been bothering me——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): No, no, no. One industry at a time.
Mr. Haynes: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman down that path.
Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is scared.
Mr. Haynes: I am not scared. It is the hon. Gentleman who is scared. He has been scared by the recent district election results and he knows what will happen in Sherwood. We shall have a Labour Member elected there to represent the miners and he will sit on the Government side of the House after the general election, when the Prime Minister dares call it. We will have that ballot and there is no doubt that the miners in Sherwood will express their view of the hon. Gentleman and his representation of them. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has not fought for the miners—not like we have. We have fought from day one to save that industry, but the Government are talking about restructuring and finding the money.
Not long ago, the hon. Gentleman said that he supported opencast mining. He wants to have a word about it with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who is never here when we have a coal mining debate. Yet he fills the local papers with what he will do about the Government's policy on opencast mining.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that 50 per cent. of the opencast coal that we produce comes from my county? The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) is suggesting that, to save pits and miners' jobs in Nottingham, we must despoil the county of Northumberland. Is that how people should be treated?
Mr. Haynes: I am grateful for that comment but opencast mining will destroy part of my constituency and part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who usually sits here. I remember our debate on opencast mining on the Coal Industry Bill and how this Government agreed to its extension. It will destroy the beauty of the place and beautiful lovers' walks. All that, destroyed for the sake of opencast mining.
The hon. Member for Sherwood has a beautiful constituency. It is correctly named Sherwood. It is beautiful, but he is agreeing to its destruction. The miners back there will remember the comments that have been made here today. Make no mistake about it, we will continue to remind them of what he said about opencast mining.
RECHAR involves money from the European Economic Community to help communities in areas where these Tories have agreed to pit closures. Mr. Millan is right to stop that money. He is holding it back because the

121
Government are interfering. They want to spend the money on what they want. The important point is that EC Commissioner Millan says that that money should go to help communities cope with pit closures. This Government are on the fiddle again. They are always fiddling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and they are trying to fiddle this RECHAR money away from where it should go. That is why we are saying what we are today. Bruce Milian is right to hold it up while this lot is on the Treasury Bench. I hope that the young Minister will let the Treasury know in no uncertain terms what we feel about this. That money should not be touched. It should be allowed to go to the mining communities for the purpose it was meant for.
I shall finish on this point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I will go on a hit longer, then. Now hon. Gentleman have upset you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You do not want me to go on too long, but they have encouraged me to do so. Yet I will live up to the Chair. I always respect the Chair. It is not often that you have to call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not follow the road on which the hon. Member for Gedling tried to take me.
Conservative Members must realise—Labour Members realise it only too well—that when a pit is closed all the workers' facilities also disappear. They have been provided for the community and village after village in Nottinghamshire, especially in my constituency and in Derbyshire, has lost the welfare facilities that were provided for the community. Once the pits go, no contributions are made towards the welfare facilities.
In my constituency, the local football club, Sutton Town, which has been going since 1895, goes to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to play the team at the pit where he used to work.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in my constituency.
Mr. Haynes: It might be in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I do not blinkin' know. All I know is that the team of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley comes to my constituency to play my local team.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Haynes: You are out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You dragged me into this position. I did not intend to mention you. You should be independent and should not enter the argument. You brought yourself in and are now making me look a twerp.
Sutton Town football club, of which I happen to be the president, went to play the team at the welfare ground of the pit where my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley used to work. We drew 4–4. Because that pit is still working, the welfare facilities are maintained, but further down the road, where the pit has been closed, the welfare facilities have gone.
If the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), is listening, he will realise the great loss to those mining villages when their pits are closed. I know that he understands sport, because he was involved in it at university and, a few years after he entered Parliament, that lady at No. 10 appointed him as Minister for Sport. He and I are so interested in sport that, one night, we shaped up between the doors of the Chamber. He was about to throw a left hook when
122
Madam Deputy Speaker walked through the door and he did not know what to do with himself. Sport is destroyed when pits are closed.
I want the Government to refrain from what they are trying to prove tonight. I want a real restructuring and proper money invested. Let us save the remaining mining industry so that money is made available to do the job properly and those who have jobs do not have to be laid off, as they have been since 1979 when the Government came into office and created real problems in the mining communities.
If the Minister comes to my constituency he will see the problems that the Government have created there, and he will see them if he visits Sherwood. They are particularly noticeable at Blidworth, where work has been destroyed because the pit has gone. The hon. Member for Sherwood agreed with that happening and did nothing about it. His constituents will remember that when the Prime Minister calls an election and will do something about it. I want the Government to leave the money from RECHAR to help the mining communities, as it is meant to do.
10.57 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: With the leave of the House, I should like to take up the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) on RECHAR. I know that it is not entirely a Department of Energy responsibility, but will the Minister say exactly what will happen about redundancies?
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) must explain his attack on the Labour party. We have said nothing more than what the Flowers Commission said when it looked into coal and the environment and what many other organisations have been saying for many years. It said that opencast coal should be limited. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of it, he should be addressing the question not just to hon. Members who are present, but to his hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) and many more, including his hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Ashby) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and those in the north-west of the country, including his hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), and for Chorley (Mr. Dover), and the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, in whose area there are major plans.
The Coal Industry Act 1990, which the hon. Member for Sherwood supported last year, extends into the private sector the right for people to go out, look for and mine opencast coal. It will be a major problem in future years if it is not curbed. It is something about which the Government have done nothing.
I do not know where the hon. Member for Sherwood got his information, but I do not accept his argument about having to keep 15 pits open. Anybody who has studied the subject for many years will know that that is not so. That argument is used by the opencast mining executive of British Coal and people involved with private opencast coal mining, but that is an entirely different issue from whether deep-mine pits are being kept open.
I should like to place on record exactly what is happening at Monktonhall colliery. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned the Select Committee on Energy. When it sits to take evidence, any hon. Member can go and listen in the public gallery. I was there last

123
Wednesday, when the chairman of British Coal was giving evidence on the future of the coal industry and coal markets. He went into some detail about the position at Monktonhall as seen by British Coal.
The reason why the pit is in its present state is not that given by the hon. Member for Sherwood. Direct questions were asked about Monktonhall. Dr. Ken Moses, a senior member of the board who was present, told the Committee of the current state of Monktonhall. He said that the shafts had sunk and there were pit bottom roadways and nothing else. He said that it would take anything up to 2,000 yd of driveages to get a long wall face. The hon. Member of Gordon shakes his head, but I shall explain what is happening in Monktonhall and why organisations such as the Labour party and the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers are arguing that it should be opened by British Coal.
Some 1,000 to 2,000 yd of roadway must be sunk, which costs about £1,000 a metre. Capital investment must be obtained for face machinery that costs anything from £5 million to £7 million, depending on the type of equipment used. Dr. Moses estimated that opening and working one coal face at Monktonhall would cost about £10 million and £20 million—I wrote the figure down, although I do not have it with me.
I think that Monktonhall should be opened. The only reason why it has been mothballed is the state of the Scottish electricity industry and the stream of pressurised water reactors, which has created an over-production of electricity in Scotland. The electricity cannot be removed from the country, because the interconnectors are not strong enough to get it to England. Monktonhall is a national asset that we should hold on to. I wish that all the 500 miners could go back to Monktonhall next week, but to have to put in £2,000 each to open up the colliery is not right.
Another important factor, given that coal is to be produced there, is how it will be sold. Inevitably, it is likely to have to be sold through British Coal, which undertakes the major marketing for the private sector in this country. British Coal concludes the marketing agreements. It costs the private sector money for British Coal to sell the coal.
The best way of opening Monktonhall is through the public sector. I, like the hon. Member for Sherwood, would like to hear something from the Minister tonight to show that the Government are committed. If the colliery is not opened in that way, the project will fall flat, as have collieries in Kent and south Wales, where consortiums and international companies have taken them over. We have heard only hype and seen only failure. However, everyone should argue next month that British Coal should reopen Monktonhall. That is the way to secure its future.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I shall not pursue the argument at length, because the consortium will make its own case. It has established markets, and it believes that the operation can be successful. Whether it achieves success is a matter of opinion. However, if British Coal decides that it will not reopen at the end of June—that would be a sign that it sees no future for Monktonhall, as that decision would be based on a judgment that it could not get a return on its investment—would the hon. Gentleman support the consortium? Would he take the view that, in those
124
circumstances, the consortium should be given a chance on the basis that the alternative is complete closure and the abandonment of the pit?
Mr. Barron: In those circumstances, my answer would be yes. As I said earlier, however, under the law it is not possible to have more than 150 employees at any one time in this context. The hon. Gentleman should know that, because he was a member of the Committee that considered the relevant legislation last year. As I said, the public sector offers the only chance, perhaps, of keeping the mine open.
Mr. Allen McKay: Blidworth colliery made a clear profit of £2 million. The question that managers ask is where the £10 million came from for investment at the coal face.
Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend puts the issue in a nutshell.
As I said, British Coal gave evidence last week before the Select Committee on Energy. It said that the pit would be offered to a consortium, but within the terms of current marketing restraints. I do not hold out much hope, but I do not wish to be accused of pouring cold water on hopes for the future. I am in favour of keeping the mine open. That would be good for Scotland and good for the nation generally. There is the problem of overproduction of electricity in Scotland, but that will not be with us for ever. The solution of that problem may open the door for Scottish coal.
Mr. Jack Thompson: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) talked about thin seams. If he is right, it will be costly or uneconomic to install equipment to extract coal. Will my hon. Friend elaborate on that?
Mr. Barron: I am not sure about thickness, but the coal is mineable. I think that we should leave it at that. If the coal were not mineable, British Coal would not have spent about £500,000 a year to keep the pit ventilated and open after the work force left.
I hope that the Minister will respond to my call that coal-mining areas that are losing jobs should be offered help, including retraining. I hope that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. will support new jobs in coal-mining areas that are losing out.
11.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on his excellent contribution to the debate. He is the miners' friend. No hon. Member makes more representations to my Department or more assiduously lobbies my ministerial colleagues in the Department than my hon. Friend, the miners' friend. I congratulate him again on making a forceful and powerful contribution to our proceedings.
We have concentrated on the RECHAR debate this evening. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for explaining that responsibility for local government finance rests with the Department of the Environment and the Treasury. There have been recent discussions between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment and Commissioner Millan about the United Kingdom's policy on additionality. As Opposition Members said, the Commissioner pressed for fundamental changes in the way

125
that EC grants are treated and to the British public expenditure system. Ministers have agreed to consider the implications of what he has said.
Opposition Members have been critical of British Coal Enterprise and have questioned whether the finance made available to BCE from the Government and the RECHAR scheme is adequate.
First, it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) should criticise BCE. The management of BCE have achieved remarkable successes since the start-up in 1984—successes recognised by some Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for instance, recognised them in a sedentary intervention earlier. The management have assisted in the creation of about 70,000 job opportunities in mining areas. In the job and career change scheme, singled out for criticism by the hon. Member for Rother Valley, on average 85 per cent. of those seeking another job have found alternative employment. Under the soft loan scheme, BCE has approved more than 3,000 loans to new or expanding businesses, including about 40,000 new job opportunities. Under the managed workshop scheme, BCE is supporting about 90 workshop sites on which about 10,000 people are employed. They provide a sheltered environment in which young businesses can grow until they are ready to move into a normal market environment.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Rother Valley seems to be under the misapprehension that RECHAR finance is already available for BCE. The United Kingdom has applied, as he knows, for RECHAR funds in respect of BCE. Those funds should be received within the next year or so. They have not yet been received, however, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield for correcting his original remarks to the effect that they have already arrived.
Thirdly, the level of assistance to BCE, including a £60 million credit facility and annual restructuring grant assistance of about £5 million a year has been quite enough to fund all BCE management's proposals for job creation. The source of BCE funding—so far, it has been Government money—has not in any way limited BCE's activities. We shall welcome the RECHAR finance when it is received, but I make the important additional point that BCE is increasingly recycling repayments from successful business schemes backed over the past few years. In many ways, that is the true measure of its success.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley rightly mentioned expected redundancies. As the order, which allows the payment of restructuring grant for 1991–92, is linked to expected redundancies, it is only right in the current financial year that I should discuss the redundancies in a little more detail.
Hon. Members will know that it is for British Coal to decide what manpower it requires in the light of the tonnage that it can profitably produce and sell in competition with other fuels. The Government need, however, to make some estimate of the number of redundancies in the year in order to seek the necessary estimate provision for restructuring grant. This cannot be an exact science, given the uncertainties involved in the process of consultation and review with the unions and work force that British Coal goes through before any closure is finally confirmed.
This year, the total provision for restructuring grant, being sought is £300 million. That figure is estimated to be
126
sufficient to meet the costs of about 6,500 industrial redundancies, after allowing for grant expenditure in respect of some 2,000 workers who left towards the end of the last financial year but who did not attract restructuring grant payments until the current year. The Government will continue to meet the costs arising from past restructuring through other grants. In particular, weekly payments to beneficiaries under the redundant mineworkers payment scheme, which closed to new applicants in March 1987, are not affected by this order.
The order must been seen in the context of the continuing changes occurring in British Coal's commercial environment and of the Government's continuing support for the corporation's firm and businesslike response to those changes. Although British Coal's latest results are still being audited, the corporation expects to have made a modest bottom-line profit in the past financial year. The corporation also managed to live within the external financing limit of £905 million set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of last year, with an expected outturn of about £889 million, representing a saving of about £16 million.
The average colliery output per man shift was 4·7 tonnes overall, an increase of about 8·8 per cent. on 1989–90. I am sure that Opposition Members will join us in congratulating British coal's work force on their achievements and in expressing our hope of more to come.
The debate on Monktonhall has been interesting and important. The complexity of the issue was shown by the exchanges between Opposition Members whose knowledge of Monktonhall is far greater than mine. I understand that meetings are under way and I was surprised to hear what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said. I shall look further into the issue and shall consider what he said carefully. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for coal to respond. I give an undertaking to the House that that will be done, not least because the hon. Gentleman made some strongly worded and deeply felt comments about the lack of a response from the Department. I listened carefully to what he said and I am sure that others outside the House—especially British Coal—have also listened carefully or will read carefully what he said and that that will lead to action.
On one point, the hon. Gentleman drew my attention to my responsibilities in other sectors of energy, especially oil and gas. There is a clear statement of reserves in the report and accounts of the British Coal Corporation. In detail on page 8, under "Reserves"—I shall not quote it all—it says:
"The Corporation's estimate of coal in place in the United Kingdom (that is in seams over 60 cms thick and less than 1,200 metres deep, minus coal which has already been worked) is 190 billion tonnes."
It goes on to detail technically recoverable reserves. It is valuable, not least because it parallels much of the important information available in the Brown Book on the oil and gas sector.
I have not covered every point in detail. If there are any specific points that I have not covered, I shall study Hansard and take them up.
I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With permission, I will put together the next two motions on the Order Paper.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 16th April, be approved.
That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 16th April, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND)
That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 18th April, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith permission, I will put together the next two motions on the Order Paper.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

ESTATE AGENTS
That the Estate Agents (Undesirable Practices) (No. 2) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1032), dated 19th April 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.
That the Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No. 2) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1091), dated 29th April 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

VETERINARY SURGEONS
That the draft Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) (German Democratic Republic Qualifications) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Ordered,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4084/91 relating to action to protect the environment in the coastal areas and coastal waters of the Irish Sea, North Sea, Baltic Sea and North East Atlantic Ocean (NORSPA) and 4548/91 relating to establishment of a financial instrument for the environment; endorses the Government's intention to take an active part in the NORSPA scheme and promote United Kingdom interest in this area of environmental importance; and supports the Government's aim to ensure that any new Community financial instrument for the environment contains clear and specific objectives, and respects the principle of subsidiarity. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Resolved,
That

(1) this House do meet on Thursday 23rd May at half-past Nine o'clock;

(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanation to be made by Members; and

(3) at Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE
Resolved,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee shall, not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Matter of the proposal for a draft Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, put the Question, That the Committee has considered the said Matter.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Insurance Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
11.17 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I doubt that I shall compete with the drama and passion that we have witnessed during the past hour or so, but I nevertheless welcome the opportunity to introduce a short debate on the Financial Services Act 1986 and the insurance industry —subjects in which I have a strong constituency interest. Earlier today, I gave my hon. Friend the Minister a draft of what I proposed to say.
A primary purpose of the Financial Services Act is to give the public adequate protection when buying investment products and services. However, there is broad agreement that, as far as retail financial services are concerned, the Act is in some respects not working well. That has arisen partly because the practical effects of some of the regulations run counter to the original intentions, and partly because the market for financial services has evolved so quickly in recent years that some of the fundamental regulations require updating and amendment.
Consequently, the Securities and Investment Board plc is currently conducting a wide-ranging review and has recently received a consultative paper on the subject. I welcome the review and look forward to an amended regime which will, to quote Mr. David Walker, the chairman of the SIB, be "robust and enduring." The SIB regards the review as urgent, but because the issues are complex and require extensive consultation, speedy changes cannot be expected. There seems no question of a new regime being introduced this year. Although the SIB may disagree, past form gives no great confidence that changes will become effective much before 1993. Meanwhile, there is an important issue of consumer protection which requires immediate action. That is the issue to which I wish primarily to draw attention.
An important principle of the Financial Services Act 1986 is that every seller of retail financial services should be authorised and supervised directly by the SIB, or indirectly by recognised self-regulatory organisations or recognised professional bodies. That is intended to ensure that all selling practices conform to the principles of the Act and that the public should have a clear line of recourse in the event of a breach.
The self-regulatory organisations have their own rule books which must at least match up to SIB standards. One such organisation is the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, which has responsibility for independent financial advisers. Such advisers are agents for the customer and are required to fulfil quite stringent conditions to secure and maintain authorisation.
The second regulatory organisation is the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, which authorises the suppliers of financial services, such as the life assurance companies. It makes them responsible for the compliance of their tied intermediaries who may be employed salesmen of the supplying company, or an individual or firm that has contracted to sell its products. The tied intermediaries are agents of the supplier and not of the customer, and they are restricted to selling only the investment products issued by the supplier. Thus, the
130
structure is complete. The independent adviser is authorised and monitored directly by FIMBRA and the tied intermediary is policed by the supplying company, which is itself directly authorised and monitored by LAUTRO.
For the most part, the structure works well. However, one area in which major difficulties arise is that of the tied intermediary who is not an employee of the supplying company. Such an individual is formally known as an appointed representative and is bound to the supplier by an agency contract under section 44 of the Financial Services Act 1986.
Appointed representatives in practice come in two colours. Some are organised as a formal sales force, although they retain their self-employed status, but many others act as independent businesses, whether trading as a limited company, as a partnership or as a sole proprietor. They come in all shapes and sizes, from one-man operations to large financial institutions. The number of firms that act in that way has been growing substantially in the past year or two. Their principal operations need have little or no connection with financial services. Such firms may be an estate agency, a bank, a building society, a travel tour operator or even a football club.
With the best will in the world, it is not possible for the supplying company to exercise the same standard of supervision and direction with independent businesses as the standard that it can give its own employees. Experience has shown that adequate compliance with the regulations requires close and frequent examination both of the business practices and of the detailed sales documentation of the appointed representative. LAUTRO has had to crack the whip more than once in the hope of improving standards, but without evident success.
My many contacts in the industry who are close to the situation simply do not believe that the necessary standards will ever be achieved in practice through the current regime. It has been put to me that the appointed representative, being an independent business, tends to resent and resist the very close supervision of affairs which is required. However, sometimes being unable or unwilling to meet the stringent requirements imposed by the regulations on independent financial advisers, the appointed representative has settled reluctantly for a contractual tie to one supplier. It will often be financed through loans from the supplier for commission, yet to be earned or for what is often described as "business development". Firms will often look around for the supplier willing to give the best deal and some will think nothing of changing suppliers if they get a larger loan or better terms elsewhere.
The supplying company is sometimes reluctant to be too harsh in its supervision for fear of losing a valuable sales outlet, which will often owe it a substantial debt, which may prove hard to recover. There is a strong conflict of interest between its duty to supervise an appointed representative and its desire to retain a profitable business relationship with it.
Yet that, although important, is only part of the problem. The Financial Services Act regulates only the sales of what it defines as investment business. In this context, that would primarily be life insurance, pensions and unit trusts. The supplying company is required to monitor and take responsibility for only' those types of business. The appointed representative, however, may on his own account be offering financial services to his

131
customers that are not subject to the Act, such as mortgage broking, the taking of deposits or the holding of customers' money for purposes unrelated to the Act.
It is often too much to expect the general public to distinguish between financial transactions that are regulated under the Act and those that are not. Often, what to the customer is one transaction—for example, buying a house—will involve investment business covered by the Act, financial transactions not covered by it and, frequently, elements that are not financial at all. Customers are likely to suppose that they have protection under the Act for transactions when in fact no such protection exists. Moreover, they may well believe that the supplier to whom the appointed representative is contracted—perhaps a respectable and long-established life assurance company—will stand behind all the transactions. The supplier, however, has no such obligation in relation to any transaction not covered by the Act.
Supplying companies have often chosen to stand behind such transactions for the sake of their good names; but that is a shaky foundation on which to build consumer protection, and one quite inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, which were to buttress protection in financial matters with the force of law. It would, moreover, be wholly unreasonable to expect the life company to stand behind a transaction carried out by the appointed representative on behalf of another supplier, such as a building society, whose deposit-taking business was outside the scope of the Financial Services Act. Yet the customer is likely to think that the protection of the Act, and the obligations of the life company, will protect his interests against, say, the fraud or negligence of the appointed representative.
Having debated the matter extensively with members of the industry, and after long thought, I conclude that appointed representatives can be adequately supervised only by being directly authorised, and not by authorisation at second hand through the supplying company. Only thus is it possible to escape the conflict of interests that I have described, and to ensure the proper monitoring of the appointed representative's investment business. That authorisation could be given and supervised by one of the existing regulatory organisations.
Such authorisation would make it much easier to clarify for the customer which financial products came within the scope of the Act, and the opportunity could be taken to ensure the financial adequacy of the appointed representative at a level appropriate to his financial liabilities, together with the provision of suitable professional indemnity insurance. The buying public need the assurance that all intermediaries are adequately capitalised and responsible.
I do not propose any change for the employed member of a supplier's sales force. Because he is employed, the supplier can give its employee the close supervision that is required; can direct which classes of business that employee may undertake; and must, in any event—quite apart from the Financial Services Act—stand behind the employee's actions. Thus, the public are already protected, in the full spirit of the legislation.
I am aware that LAUTRO is advocating some proposals that are directly aimed at the problems of the
132
appointed representative. In themselves the new proposals are good, but they suffer from a fundamental flaw; they still depend on regulation by the supplying company, not on direct authorisation. Without direct authorisation, no additional proposals will be effective in practice. Can we afford to wait while LAUTRO's proposals are finalised, implemented and observed in action, when all experience tells us that they will be nothing more than a palliative? Is that a risk that we want the buying public to run for a day longer than necessary?
I do not expect all existing appointed representatives to welcome such proposals, particularly those who are experiencing an unfair advantage under the present regime. But those—I am glad to say that there are many—who are scrupulous in their professional conduct will welcome the clarification in status that only direct authorisation will give.
There will certainly be greater expense, much of which will fall on the shoulders of the appointed representatives. We should remind those who jib at this that they have chosen to operate as self-employed individuals or as independent firms rather than subject themselves to the direction of an employer. There are great advantages in acting as an independent contractor, but business independence has its price, and those who practise it should be willing to pay that price.
To return to the broad revisions currently being investigated by the Securities and Investments Board, I notice that a novel proposition is being informally canvassed. It concerns the possibility of an additional class of intermediary which would act as agent for a limited number of companies—that is to say, a class lying somewhere between an independent financial adviser and an appointed representative. Direct authorisation would certainly be necessary for such a hybrid intermediary if total confusion about who is answerable to whom is to be avoided. Consequently, the argument for the direct authorisation of appointed representatives is quite consistent with the steps that the SIB is exploring.
In summary, I suggest that the current method of controlling appointed representatives through the actions of their supplying company bring about a conflict of interest and in many instances cannot be practically carried out to the standards envisaged by the Financial Services Act. I have further argued that the public are frequently misled, perhaps quite innocently, into believing that they have the protection of the Act and the strength of the supplying company behind them when this will often not be the case. It is important to rectify that, and the direct authorisation of appointed representatives is a clear way forward.
11.30 pm
The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for raising on the Adjournment this most important issue, which is of great interest to the insurance industry.
Independent financial advisers, including those advising on life insurance and unit trusts, are authorised by the Securities and Investments Board or by one of the self-regulatory bodies or by a recognised professional body. My hon. Friend's worry relates to tied agents and appointed representatives regulated under section 44 of the Act. They are exempted from authorisation if they are

133
employed under a contract for services setting out the type of investment business and the clients the agent is allowed to approach. The insurance company has to accept in writing responsibility for the investment activities of his agent.
These requirements rest not just upon the rules of Lautro but also upon the provisions of the Financial Services Act approved by Parliament. Many companies using appointed representations ensure a good quality service to clients and customers. Like my hon. Friend, I am worried when things go wrong and consumers lose money. We all have an interest in seeking, where possible, to avoid such future problems. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, with the best will in the world, it will not be possible to stop all fraud.
However, we can and should make it as difficult as possible, and concentrate the right resources on its detection to act as a deterrent.
As my hon. Friend said, day-to-day regulation by the SIB and LAUTRO is being improved in several ways. The SIB's new core rules lay down the basic principles for controlling appointed representatives. LAUTRO is working on new rules which will require that a representative's work for the insurance company must be carried out separately from any other financial business that he has. This may require different premises and different stationery. The appointed representative must also make clear on his stationery the nature and scope of his authorisation. My hon. Friend fears that that of itself will not be sufficient. I will ensure that the content of the debate and the report of his excellent speech is passed to the SIB and the SROs when they consider these matters further.
134
An appointed representative or an independent financial adviser registered under the Financial Services Act may sometimes carry out unregulated business as well. Therefore, insisting on separate authorisation would not entirely prevent the problem. None the less, it should be looked at. The Securities and Investments Board is currently doing that, because it is investigating the whole question in its thorough review of retail regulation.
I understand my hon. Friend's wish for speed in these matters, but proper consultation should be undertaken, because it is most important to the industry and to customers that the SIB should get the answer right. The regulatory system must be cost-effective and should not place unduly onerous burdens on financial service providers. That would merely serve to limit choice by making some business more difficulty, and would also mean passing higher prices to consumers.
LAUTRO estimates that there are about 90,000 self-employed individuals and a further number of incorporated appointed representatives in the marketplace. If each one of them had to be separately authorised, the cost could become very large, and many thousands of individuals at present self-employed might decide to give up business altogether or to become employees. Such a development would be opposed by many interests—just as much as it is favoured by my hon. Friend and others.
I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's worries about the quality and style of regulation are passed on to the SIB and to LAUTRO. I shall ensure that they are taken into account in the wide-ranging review of regulation undertaken by those bodies.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Wheel-clamping
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to make it illegal to wheel-clamp orange badge holders on private car parks or other private land.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) on 25 April at column 524.

  Brighton Line
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is to attend the forthcoming British Rail celebrations of the 150th anniversary of the Brighton line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I hope to be present for the ceremony for the reintroduction of the Brighton Belle on 21 September.

  High-speed Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the scheme for the high-speed rail link submitted to him by British Rail and the alternative proposals.

  Mr. Freeman
  I expect British Rail's report on the route options to be published in due course when we have had time to consider it.

ENVIRONMENT

  Recycling
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Welsh local authorities and voluntary bodies are eligible to bid for money from the £40 million kitty established in his Department's recycling encouragement initiative.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. £40 million of supplementary credit approvals are being made available over three years for local authorities in England.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby, Barrow in Furness, Wandsworth, Westminster and Elmbridge particulars of the amount spent and income received per adult under each category in table 4 of "Local Government Financial Statistics No. 2 1990".

  Mr. Key
  I have today arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.
  2
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to abolish the £15 million budget exemption rule for the purposes of charge-capping designation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Ministers have indicated that this is an issue to be considered.

  Parrots
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many licences for the importation of (i) green-cheeked Amazon parrots and (ii) grey parrots were issued in each year since 1988;

  (2) what advice he has received from the United Kingdom Scientific Authority on the convention on international trade in endangered species concerning the importation of (i) green-cheeked Amazon parrots and (ii) grey parrots.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information requested is as follows:

  Licences issued

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Green cheeked Amazons (Amazona viridigenalis)

  3

  1

  —

  Grey Parrots (Psittacus erithacus)

  151

  148

  94

  All applications to import these species are referred to our scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, for advice on whether such imports would be harmful to efforts to conserve the species.

  Urban Development
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the land area of England is(a) now urbanised or built upon and (b) likely to be urbanised or built upon by the end of the century based on existing plans.

  Mr. Yeo
  Recently published research by my Department on rates of urbanisation in England 1981–2001 showed that in 1981, 10·2 per cent. of the land area of England was urbanised and forecast that by 2001 the extent of urbanisation would be 11 per cent., an increase of 7·9 per cent. over a 20-year period. This estimate was based on the likely land requirements to house the projected increase in households, rather than the proposals in structure plans.

  Cleaning Agents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a summary of the main findings of the departmental report on pollutants in cleaning agents.

  Mr. Baldry
  A summary of the main findings of the departmental report on pollutants in cleaning agents has been published along with the report. Copies have been placed in the Library and have been sent to interested parties.

  EC Structural Funds
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department is to propose any changes to the rules governing access by local authorities to the European regional development fund and other EC structural funds.

  Mr. Yeo
  Access by local authorities to the European structural funds, including the European regional development fund—ERDF—is governed by the relevant European Community regulations which establish operating procedures for the structural funds. In consultation with member states, the Commission will be reviewing the structural funds so that new regulations can be in place by the end of 1993. In the meantime, no change is envisaged to the current arrangements whereby local authorities apply for ERDF grants.

  Water Shortages
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of the shortage of water in the south-east of England in the planning department and inspectorate of his Department.

  Mr. Yeo
  Water shortage can be a material planning consideration to be taken into account by my right hon. Friend and his inspectors when taking planning decisions. When local planning authorities prepare their development plans, they commonly consult the National Rivers Authority about the water resource implications. Such plans may include policies that planning permission will normally only be granted for development when appropriate infrastructure, including the provision of water, is available.

  Water storage can be one of the technical matters to be considered when my right hon. Friend or his inspectors determine applications for orders or appeals under the Water Acts. In such cases, and particularly when surface supplies are in jeopardy, the stored quantity of water is considered against the demands upon it.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the role of the planning system in facilitating the provision of affordable housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  We are today publishing guidance in a circular, describing the role the planning system can play in securing the provision of affordable housing, and announcing more flexible arrangements to encourage shared ownership schemes in rural areas.

  The planning system must play an important role in securing adequate provision of affordable housing. Development plans should make realistic assessments of total housing requirements, including the provision needed for affordable housing. While not imposing fixed quotas, plan policies can reasonably encourage developers to incorporate affordable housing in larger developments. In rural areas, we have encouraged authorities to develop policies for the release of small, "off-plan" sites for affordable housing.

  In development control, conditions and agreements can be used to promote affordable housing schemes, where control is exercised in pursuance of a proper planning
  4
  objective, and is sound and enforceable. Such schemes may be promoted in partnership with private developers, but, generally, the most secure and effective way of securing the provision of affordable housing is by co-operation with a housing association or other body, such as a village trust, whose continuing interest in the property, through either renting or shared ownership, can provide a basis for control over subsequent changes of ownership or occupation.

  We have decided to make a change in the present arrangements for shared ownership. Until now, we have not allowed public subsidy to be invested in schemes unless the occupiers have a right to "staircase" to full owner-occupation if they wish, at a time of their choosing, without being forced to move.

  To encourage more schemes in the future, we have decided to amend our policy, and also allow public subsidy to be put into housing association and other private shared ownership schemes which contain a reasonable staircasing restriction in the special circumstances of a rural settlement. Details of those circumstances are set out in the circular published today.

  This is an important measure of flexibility which I know will be welcomed by many organisations who wish to see more done to bring home ownership within the reach of existing villagers. We have listened to their advice and we have acted. I now look to local authorities, to landowners and developers, and to housing associations to respond.

  Overseas Disasters
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange to repeal the legislation which prohibits local authorities from contributing directly to appeal funds to relieve overseas disasters.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: Local authorities have only the powers that have been given to them by, or under, an Act of Parliament. Parliament has never given to them a power to contribute directly to an appeal fund which is solely for the relief of disasters outside the United Kingdom. There is, therefore, no legislative prohibition to repeal.

  Monitoring Nitrogen and Sulphur Dioxide
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase the number of(a) nitrogen monitoring stations and (b) sulphur dioxide monitoring stations operating in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government are taking forward plans, announced in the environment White Paper, for a major expansion of the United Kingdom monitoring networks. Proposals for a new £3 million enhanced urban monitoring programme are currently out to tender. These proposals aim to increase the number of automatic sites measuring nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide from 15 at present to 27 over the next three years. The first phase of the programme will locate new sites in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, Newcastle and Birmingham and is expected to be complete early next year.

  Environment Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the second preparatory committee meeting of the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Trippier
  The second meeting of the preparatory committee for the United Nations conference on environment and development—UNCED—took place in Geneva from 18 March to 5 April 1991. The preparatory committee examined a series of reports on environment and development topics and instructed the conference secretariat to prepare further reports, focusing on potential areas for action by Governments and international organisations, in time for the third meeting of the preparatory committee in Geneva from 12 August to 4 September 1991.

  The preparatory committee made progress in a number of areas, including agreement on the participation of non-governmental organisations in the preparatory meetings and on the examination of options for a global consensus on forests by the committee at its third meeting. This decision could lead to a statement of guiding principles on the management of the world's forests for endorsement by world leaders at UNCED. Working group III of the preparatory committee was established and began its examination of legal, institutional and related matters. The preparatory committee had an initial discussion of the secretary-general's proposals for a programme of work for the international community in the period following the 1992 United Nations conference.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance has been made available to non-governmental organisations to participate in the preparatory meetings for the 1992 United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is providing financial assistance for the programme of non-governmental preparations for UNCED which is being organised by the International Institute for Environment and Development on behalf of the United Kingdom committee for the United Nations Environment Programme—UNEP-UK. The United Kingdom delegation to the first two meetings of the preparatory committee for UNCED included a non-governmental adviser from UNEP-UK.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received on the effects of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl upon soil bacteria(a) in the immediate exclusion zone around Chernobyl and (b) elsewhere; and whether his Department has made any scientific study of the effects of radioactive materials on soil bacteria.

  Mr. Trippier
  A study of the interactions between soil components and radionuclides forms part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food research programme. My Department has not commissioned any research of this nature.

  Heather Moorland
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the proportion of heather moorland which has been lost in the last 30 years.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department's estimate of heather cover in England and Wales indicates that between 1947 and 1980 heather cover decreased by 20 per cent. We shall have information on losses over the past decade when the results of the "Countryside Survey 1990" have been analysed.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had on the question of the immediate abolition of the 20 per cent. contribution rule under poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received a number of representations. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 8 May,Official Report, column 706.

  Land Decontamination
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to assess the cost of decontaminating land in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. It is not possible to make a realistic estimate of the costs nationwide. However, the Government have introduced legislation—section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—to require local authorities to set up registers of land that has been subject to contaminative use, and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that a consultation paper with our proposals for registers has just been published. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  When registers are established, we shall know for the first time how much land may be contaminated. Any assessment of the need for decontamination, the methods to be used and their cost would, however, have to be carried out individually for each site as the need arises. The Government are also carrying out research on these issues and we shall publish guidance on them when the results are to hand.

  Global Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will make available resources to enable non-governmental organisations to attend the next meeting of the negotiating forum on a global biodiversity convention planned for 24 June to 3 July in Madrid.

  Mr. Trippier
  The purpose of the Madrid meeting is for Governments to negotiate a framework convention on the conservation of biological diversity. The Department has made no financial provision to enable non-governmental organisations to attend as observers and no request for resources has been made. The Department has made arrangements for regular consultations on the progress and content of the negotiations with the most qualified individuals and organisations from the non-governmental community.

  Rhino Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to tighten international and national legislation relating to the trade in rhino products.

  Mr. Trippier
  All five species of rhinoceros are listed on appendix I of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES. This means that almost all trade in rhino products is prohibited already under legislation implementing CITES—EC regulation 3626/82 in the European Community.

  Elephants, South Africa
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to oppose any moves by the South African authorities to transfer their elephant population to appendix II of CITES; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The final decision on the application from South Africa for the downlisting of its elephant population will be a matter for the conference of the parties to CITES. We should need to establish in consultation with our EC partners a common Community position. I can confirm that the United Kingdom would not support any proposals to permit trade to recommence unless we were fully satisfied that the conditions for a resumption of trade, drawn up at the seventh CITES conference, had been met.

  Live Animals (Transport)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of transit-shed operators at Heathrow airport which operate road vehicles which conform with International Air Transport Association regulations regarding the movement of live animals and birds.

  Mr. Trippier
  The IATA live animals regulations do not cover ground transport. It is the responsibility of the shipper to ensure that live animals are packed in accordance with the regulations, and the responsibility of the carrier to ensure that live animal shipments are properly handled and loaded.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on which airlines landed consignments of live birds into the United Kingdom in 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for Great Grimsby the number of householders qualifying for (i) rate relief, (ii) housing benefit, (iii) the average amount per head in each case and (iv) his forecast under the council tax.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest information is as follows:

  (i) 11,822 as at February 1990.

  (ii) 8,000 as at February 1991.

  It is not possible to provide figures showing the average amounts payable in these cases or to provide forecasts for the council tax.

  Exotic Animals
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what records his Department keeps of(a) the importers and (b) the retailers dealing in exotic animals as domestic pets.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: My Department maintains a record of all applications to import species controlled under the provisions of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and EC regulation 3626/82, which implements the convention on international trade in endangered species—CITES—in the European Community. We do not, however, maintain a register of retailers as such.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many flying foxes, of what species, have been imported into the United Kingdom in the past five years; and whether he will list the most regular exporting countries.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: Since 1 January 1986, a total of 160 specimens of the Indian flying fox—Pteropus giganteus—have been imported, from Indonesia. Licences have also been issued for the import of 44 specimens of the Rodriguez flying fox—Pteropus rodricensis—from Mauritius and 20 specimens of the Malayan flying fox—Pteropus vampyrus—from Thailand.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hospices (Direct Mailing)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed EC restrictions on direct mailing and his assessment of its effect on hospices with charity status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Proposed requirements in the draft EC data protection directive for consent by data subjects seem likely seriously to inhibit targeted direct mailing by various organisations, including those with charitable status. The Government are taking up this point in the negotiations in Brussels.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Metropolitan police are taking to improve safety in domestic violence units and in the handling of cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the commissioner that, in the light of the tragic incident which recently occurred in the domestic violence unit at Stoke Newington police station, he has appointed a senior officer to consider the implications for practice within the Metropolitan police.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 298, if he will state the reasons why Lewes prison was put on maximum security alert on (a) 22 November 1990 and (b) 2 to 6 December 1990; and what were the results obtained.
  9
  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 22 November 1990, a full alert was called at Lewes prison in response to information about a planned mass escape involving a firearm. Nothing was found during searches.

  Following the discovery of a replica firearm on 2 December, a further full alert was initiated from 2 to 6 December 1990. In the course of extensive searches of all parts of the prison, a number of rounds of blank ammunition were found.

  Prisons
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places, not including accommodation temporarily taken out of use for refurbishment, are currently provided in prisons; and what is the total prison population at the latest convenient date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 9 May the total certified normal accommodation of prison service establishments was 44,336 places. This figure excluded places taken out of use for major refurbishment, but included places taken temporarily out of use for repairs or minor refurbishment—for example, for the installation of integral sanitation systems. On the same day, the prison population, including prisoners held in police cells, was 45,262.

  Breath-Testing Devices
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue a direction under section 9 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to the Independent Television Commission on the advertising of breath-testing devices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The advertising of breath-testing devices is prohibited under the ITC's code of advertising standards and practice. The ITC has not proposed any change and we have no plans to issue a direction.

  Drug Abuse
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his response to the report by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs entitled "Problem Drugs Use: A Review of Training".

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government welcome this report and are grateful to the advisory council for the time it has devoted to this important subject. I have today written to the chairman, Professor Grahame-Smith, to convey the Government's response to the council's recommendations. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will encourage the Civil Service college to attract private sector students and strengthen links between Government and industry.

  Mr. Renton
  Yes. I have set the college a strategic target to increase the number of private sector students by nearly 300 per cent. between now and 1995.

  "Next Steps" Initiative
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to improve and extend the training available to civil servants to enable them to take advantage of the "next steps" initiative.

  Mr. Renton
  In line with the principles of "next steps", it is for Departments and agencies, in the light of their business objectives, to ensure that their staff are properly trained and developed for the job. My own Department supports them in this, particularly through the Civil Service college.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans to encourage contracting out as part of the "next steps" programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Agencies are intended to deliver better quality public services within available resources. One important way of doing this, in accordance with Government policy, is by testing wherever possible the costs of having work done by the private sector compared with in-house costs, and selecting the option which gives best value for money. As with the question of privatisation, the scope for contracting out the whole of the activity is addressed before each agency is set up and will be kept under review subsequently.

THE ARTS

  Libraries
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has to safeguard the level and quality of book stocks in libraries in the West Midlands region.

  Mr. Renton
  The day-to-day running of public libraries including the provision of book stocks is a matter for local library authorities in the light of local needs and priorities.

  I investigate any complaints which I receive about the levels of services provided.

  Turner Paintings (Government Offices)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many Turner paintings are currently hanging in Government offices.

  Mr. Renton
  There are currently four paintings by Joseph Mallord William Turner (1775–1851) hanging in Government offices. They are:

  A Quiet Ruin

  Italian Landscape with Tower

  Waves Breaking against the Wind

  Sunset

  These four paintings are on temporary loan from the Tate gallery, London, to the Prime Minister's office, 10 Downing street, 1991. The loan was negotiated in 1989.

  Black Arts Organisations
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many black arts organisations based in London he has visited since his appointment.

  Mr. Renton
  I have visited two black arts organisations based in London since my appointment, the Black Theatre Co-operative in March and the Temba theatre company in April.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received a copy of the interim report produced by the university of Warwick on the workloads of secondary school teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is grateful to the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association for sending him a copy of this interim report. He has made it clear that he holds the commitment and professionalism of teachers in high regard and he has already taken steps to minimise the burdens which the implementation of our education reforms has placed upon them. This includes stemming the flow of paperwork to schools.

  Citizenship Studies
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in the study of citizenship in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Curriculum Council issued advice to schools, "Curriculum Guidance 8: Education for Citizenship", last November. The document offers guidance to schools on planning and implementing a programme of education for citizenship and illustrates how the topic can be integrated with other elements of the curriculum. It is for individual schools, in the light of this guidance, to determine their own approaches to the teaching of citizenship.

  Halifax Schools
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the capital allocation for buildings for North Halifax high and Crossley Heath schools, Halifax.

  Mr. Eggar
  Both these schools will receive grant calculated for capital expenditure by reference to the number of pupils on roll. For 1991–92 the allocation for North Halifax high school is £25,100 and for Crossley Heath school is £25,300. Both schools have also bid for support for specified capital projects. Those bids are being considered.

  Grove Road Schools, Tring
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will indicate the budget which would be available to the governors of Grove Road junior and infants schools, Tring, for the current year on the basis the schools were a joint and grant-maintained school.

  Mr. Eggar
  Hertfordshire local education authority's financial delegation scheme allocates £212,916 and £161,095 respectively to Grove Road junior and infants schools. Should these schools achieve grant-maintained status they would receive those amounts plus an additional 16 per cent. to help meet costs previously borne by the LEA and a further sum reflecting LEA subsidies for school meals. They would also be eligible for other grants available to grant-maintained schools.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the figures of public funding for research and development by higher education establishments in the United Kingdom in the years from 1979–80 to 1989–90.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The estimated public funding for scientific research and development in the universities through the University Grants Committee and the Universities Funding Council is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1979–80

  359

  1980–81

  441

  1981–82

  484

  1982–83

  535

  1983–84

  551

  1984–85

  564

  1985–86

  609

  1986–87

  655

  1987–88

  695

  1988–89

  725

  1989–90

  785

  Comparable figures are not available for other higher education institutions.

  Doctors (Pay Parity)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what steps he is taking to ensure continuing parity of pay between clinical academic staff and national health service doctors;

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has available sufficient funds to continue parity of pay between clinical academic staff and national health service doctors.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, as the representatives of university employers, to settle the pay levels of clinical and other academic staff within the aggregate resources available. The Government remain committed to the principle that universities will not be given less favourable treatment than the hospital and community health service in any decisions to provide additional funds to meet extra costs arising from the annual recommendations of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body on NHS doctors' pay.

  Stratford Grant-Maintained School
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers are currently employed at Stratford grant-maintained school; and what is the proportion of teachers to pupils.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for the governing body of the school. The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the level of annual maintenance grant for Stratford grant-maintained school for 1991–92; and what will be the cost per pupil at(a) Stratford grant-maintained school, (b) on average for national allocations to grant-maintained schools and (c) on average at non grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  The level of annual maintenance grant for Stratford grant-maintained school for 1991–92 has not
  13
  been finalised. The proposed figure, issued to the school and to Newham local education authority for comment, is £1,551,435.

  The 1991–92 data on average allocations to grant-maintained schools, and collated data on non grant-maintained schools taken from local education authorities' published local management of schools budget statements, are not yet available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of pupils at Stratford grant-maintained school now; and what was the figure before grant-maintained status was achieved.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that as of 10 May 1991 the school had 289 pupils on roll. It achieved grant-maintained status when it was incorporated as grant maintained on 1 April 1991. The last annual pupil number count carried out at the school while it was in local education authority control was for January 1991. The LEA reported that the school at that time had 393 pupils on roll.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and. Science what information he has on the projected roll and spread of A-level courses in the sixth form at Stratford grant-maintained school for the next academic year.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for the governing body of the school. The information is not held centrally.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Speed
  'To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the schools which have applied to his Department to transfer to grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Eggar
  I will list the schools under three categories: (i) those whose applications for GM status we have approved; (ii) those whose applications for GM status we have rejected; (iii) those that have published proposals on which decisions are pending.

  (i)

  Adams' Grammar School, Newport

  Audenshaw High School, Thameside

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School.Rossendale

  Bankfield High School, Widnes

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School, Kings Heath

  Beaconsfield High School

  Beechen Cliff School, Bath

  Bingley Grammar School

  Bishopshalt School, Hillingdon

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  Bridgewater Hall School, Milton Keynes

  Brindley Hall School, Milton Keynes

  Bullers Wood School for Girls, Chislehurst

  Burgate School, Fordingbridge

  Caistor School

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School, Kensington

  Carre's Grammar School, Sleaford

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School, Mirfield

  Chalvedon School, Basildon

  Claremont High School, Kenton

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  Colyton Grammar School, Colyford

  Crossley Heath School, Halifax

  Ecclesbourne School, Duffield

  Francis Bacon School, St. Albans

  Great Barr School

  Guildford County School

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  Hardley Secondary School, Fawley

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  14

  Hendon School

  King Edward VI Grammar School, Louth

  Kingsley Park Middle School, Northampton

  Kingswood School, Corby

  Kirkbie Kendal School, Kendal

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  London Nautical School, Blackfriars

  London Oratory School, Hammersmith

  Long Field High School, Melton Mowbray

  Marling School, Stroud

  Moseley Park School, Wolverhampton

  Netherthorpe School, Stavely

  Newbold Grange High School, Rugby

  Nonsuch High School for Girls, Cheam

  North Halifax High School, Illingworth

  Oldfield School, Bath

  Old Swinford Hospital, Stourbridge

  Pate's Grammar School, Cheltenham

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School, Alford

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys, Barnet

  Queensbury School, Dunstable

  Reading School

  Ribston Hall High School, Gloucester

  Rickmansworth School

  Sexey's School, Bruton

  Skegness Grammar School

  Small Heath School

  Southfield School for Girls, Kettering

  Southlands School, Reading

  St. Augustine RC School, Trowbridge

  St. Bartholomew's School, Newbury

  St. Francis Xavier's College, Woolton

  St. George's School, Sleaford

  St. James' CE School, Farnworth

  Stratford School, Forest Gate

  Stroud High School

  The Cornwallis School, Linton

  The Grammar School for Girls, Wilmington, near Dartford

  The Kings School Grantham

  The Maplesden Noakes School, Maidstone

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  Westcliff High School for Boys, Essex1

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys, Dartford

  Wilsons School, Wallington

  Wolverhampton High School for Girls

  Woodroffe School, Lyme Regis

  Wymondham College, Morley

  1 minded for approval.

  (ii)

  Blessed Hugh More RC Secondary School, Grantham

  Castlemount School, Dover

  Southpark High School, Lincolnshire

  Ramsden School for Girls, Orpington

  Sir James Altham School, Watford

  Foster's Grammar School for Boys, Sherborne

  Lord Digby's Grammar School for Girls, Sherborne

  Hindley Park High School, Wigan

  Kettering Boy's School

  The Longlands School, Stourbridge

  Simon Digby Comprehensive School, Chelmsly Wood

  Highwood School, Nailsworth

  Walsingham School

  (iii)

  Appledore C.E. Primary School, Ashford

  Arley Primary School, Northwhich

  Arnewood School, New Milton

  Bourne Primary School

  Cliffe Woods Middle School, Rochester

  Collingwood School, Camberley

  Coopers School, Chislehurst

  Copland Community School, Wembley

  Dartford Grammar School, West Hill

  Drayton Manor High School, Hanwell

  Ellerdine Primary School, Shropshire

  Foster's Boys Grammar School, Yeovil1

  Graveney School, Wandsworth

  Greenway Comprehensive School, Uxbridge

  15

  Harwood School, Fulham

  Haydon School, Pinner

  Highams Park School, Waltham Forest

  Homewood School, Tenterden

  Kettleshulme Church of England Primary School, Cheshire

  Langley Park Boys School, Bromley

  Lord Digby's Girls Grammar School, Sherborne1

  Manor High School, Wednesbury

  Moulton Primary School, Northamptonshire

  Newton Church of England School, Lancashire

  Northolt High School, Ealing

  Parmiters School, Watford

  Queen Elizabeth School, Penrith

  Queensmead School, South Ruislip

  Raines Foundation School, Tower Hamlets

  Ravens Wood School, Bromley

  Southlands Comprehensive School, New Romney

  St. Aidan's School, Carlisle

  St. George's Church of England School, Gravesend

  St. Helen's Primary School, Bluntisham

  St. John the Baptist School, Woking

  St. Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School, Royston

  Swanscombe High School, Kent

  Thamesview School, Gravesend

  The Down Primary School, Bridgnorth

  Townmead School, West Drayton

  Turnham Junior School, Lewisham

  Vyners School, Ickenham

  Watford Girls' Grammar School

  William Gladstone School, Parkside

  Wold Newton Primary School

  1 Second application.

WALES

  National Museum of Wales
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on attendance figures at the National Museum of Wales for the last financial year.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on attendance figures at the National Museum of Wales for the last financial year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A total of 704,035 people visited the National Museum of Wales during the financial year 1990–91 compared with 469,521 during the previous financial year. This represents an increase of almost 50 per cent.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the level and quality of book stocks in public libraries in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Both the level and quality of book stocks in public libraries in Wales are matters for local library authorities. Information on the level of book stocks is prepared and published annually by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in its volumes on public library statistics.

  Museums (Funding)
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has met the chair of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss funding for museums in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Arts Council has no responsibility for museums in Wales.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish a programme of evaluation of the numbers of houses in Wales that have drinking water containing lead levels above those permitted by EC standards.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Water companies in Wales are presently carrying out a survey of water supply zones where lead levels exceed, or are at risk of exceeding, the standard of 50 microgrammes per litre set in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, a standard which is tighter than the EC limit. The survey should be completed by June and the companies will then determine what, if any, remedial measures are required.

  Hospital Travel Cost Scheme
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who is responsible for deciding the criteria and the level of annual funding for the hospital travel cost scheme, following designation of its administration as an agency responsibility.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The hospital travel costs scheme is operated throughout the United Kingdom in accordance with the criteria which were established centrally by all three health departments. Annual funding for its operation in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Office.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy towards the establishment of NHS trusts in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The development of a contractual framework for the delivery of quality driven patient care will see NHS trusts increasingly evolving as the natural organisational model for hospitals and other units in Wales. However, it will be important that the initiative for deciding whether to seek self-governing status is determined locally taking account of individual circumstances and commitment. This view has been made clear to district health authority chairmen, senior DHA management and to existing units in Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  Labour Party Programme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether any civil servants will be involved in carrying out the costing of Labour's programme to which he referred in his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 624.

  The Prime Minister
  Guidance on the involvement of civil servants in costing policies of Opposition parties is set out in the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, Session 1989–90, HC 260.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Prime Minister whether any Government Minister or official plans to meet General Pinochet on his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  17
  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Aid Budget
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now set a timetable for the United Kingdom to meet the United Nations aid target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 30 April at column 163.

  Red Cross Appeal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister who approved the Government's £10 million contribution to the Red Cross appeal for the Kurds; when such approval was given; from which departmental budget the donation came; what proportion of the Government's donation will be allocated to relieve hardship of Kurds and Shias in Iraq and Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I announced the Government's decision to contribute £10 million to the "Simple Truth" refugee appeal in my reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 29 April at column 31. This addition to the overseas aid programme will provide relief to all Iraqi refugees, not just Kurds.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Staff Passes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the purpose of the question in the House of Commons pass renewal form which requires applicants to give details concerning their parents.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I will write to the hon. and learned Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq (Nuclear Material)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources will be made available by Her Majesty's Government to the International Atomic Energy Agency in respect of enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolution 687; what resources have been committed by the United Kingdom to the special committee of the United Nations in support of that resolution; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any reliable evidence available as to the whereabouts of militarily usable nuclear material in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The method of financing the additional work which the IAEA will undertake as a result of United Nations Security Council resolution 687 has yet to be established by the United Nations secretariat. The United Kingdom has an exemplary record in paying its assessed contributions to the United Nations and the IAEA regular budgets and is ready to pay its appropriate share of the costs of this additional work. Iraq has made two declarations to the IAEA on the location of its nuclear 18
  weapons usable material. The declarations are deficient in a number of respects, and do not meet the requirements of UNSCR 687. The location of the material is a matter for verification by the IAEA with the assistance and co-operation of the special commission.

  Syria
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the level of human rights violations in Syria; how many political prisoners are currently estimated to be held by the Assad regime; of those, how many are alleged to have been tortured; what is the Government's current policy regarding the sales of arms or high technology to Syria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are well aware of the public concern about human rights in Syria and allegations of torture. The resumption of relations enables us to raise these matters with the Syrians. We will play our part in underlining international concern. EC measures continue to apply to the sale of weapons and related items to Syria.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, on his recent visit, he raised with the Government of Kuwait the Amnesty International report on the torture of Palestinians; what was the response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 8 May. The Kuwaiti authorities have made it clear that all residents will be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law.

  Rhino Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Governments of China, South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan about their continuing to allow the trade in rhino horn.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We fully support efforts to stop the trade in rhino horn. We shall therefore raise this issue when appropriate in our contacts with the authorities in the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand. We have no governmental dealings with the authorities in Taiwan.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish tables, otherwise identical to table 2.5 of Cm. 1520, showing separately (i) the central Government component of general government expenditure by function, (ii) the local authority component of general government expenditure by function and (iii) the public corporation component of general government expenditure by function.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am arranging for analyses of the central Government and local authority contributions to the data
  19
  on general government expenditure by function presented in table 2.5 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm. 1520—to be placed in the Library of the House. Public corporations' expenditure is not part of general government expenditure although grants, subsidies and net lending from central and local government to public corporations are included. These payments are included in the central Government and local authority analyses I have referred to.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, otherwise identical to table 2.6 of Cm. 1520, which shows separately the contributions of central Government, local authorities and public corporations.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am arranging for analyses of the central Government and local authority contributions to the data on general government expenditure by economic category presented in table 2.6 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm. 1520—to be placed in the Library of the House. Public corporations' expenditure is not included in general government expenditure although grants, subsidies and net lending from central and local government to public corporations are included. These payments are included in the central Government and local authority analyses I have referred to above.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table covering the period 1963–64 to 1993–94, consistent with table 2.1 of Cm 1520, but expressed to the nearest £ million, showing separately for each of the general Government expenditure columns the respective contributions of (i) central Government, (ii) local authorities and (iii) public corporations.

  Mr. Mellor
  Data are not readily available in the form requested. I am arranging for tables giving the information requested for the central Government and local authorities components of general government expenditure for the years 1963–64 to 1989–90 consistent with the latest estimates of general government expenditure published in the April 1991 edition of "Financial Statistics" No. 348 to be placed in the Library of the House. Corresponding data for later years are not available.

  Public corporations' expenditure is not part of general government expenditure although grants, subsidies and net lending from central and local government to public corporations are included. These payments are included in the central Government and local authority analyses I have referred to.

  Economy (Data)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the methods of monitoring of the economy; how he proposes to ensure that such changes will reflect objective and reliable data; and how the retail prices index will reflect what ordinary people are paying for more expensive and less expensive goods and services.

  Mr. Maples
  A comprehensive statement on the current state of official economic statistics was submitted by the Central Statistical Office to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on Wednesday 24 October 1990—see HC 671, Session 1989–90.

  The memorandum gave details of an important package of measures to improve the reliability of economic
  20
  data which the Central Statistical Office is now implementing. This package was announced to the House by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17 May 1990, at column 172 . It is directed towards improving the quality of both the gross domestic product and the balance of payments estimates. In this context it has three major objectives.

  (i) Reducing revisions to early estimates of both gross domestic product and the overseas current account by extending the range of quarterly sources;

  (ii) Improving the accuracy and coherence of the measurement of gross domestic product through strengthening the weaker elements in the estimates;

  (iii) Improving the accuracy and coherence of the financial accounts including the overseas or balance of payments accounts.

  The range of quarterly information available is being extended in two ways to improve the reliability of the latest estimates. First, gaps in quarterly coverage are being filled by new statutory quarterly inquiries. Secondly, existing voluntary inquiries are being replaced by strengthened statutory inquiries, which have been found to be more effective in providing reliable estimates. Specific measures aimed at improving estimates of gross domestic product include:

  (i) New quarterly turnover inquiries for the service sector;

  (ii) Statutory inquires replacing voluntary inquiries into stocks and capital expenditure;

  (iii) The voluntary Inland Revenue inquiry into company profits being replaced by a statutory CSO inquiry;

  (iv) A new quarterly labour force survey together with other measures to improve employment statistics, and

  (v) Improvements to construction statistics.

  Other measures are aimed at improving balance of payments statistics and the financial accounts. These include:

  (i) New annual and quarterly inquiries into overseas trade in services;

  (ii) A survey to assess the reliability of overseas trade valuations;

  (iii) Voluntary quarterly inquiries into inward and outward direct investment being replaced by statutory inquiries;

  (iv) An annual share register survey;

  (v) A new annual inquiry into the financial assets and liabilities of large companies;

  (vi) A review of the sectoral analysis of banking flows;

  (vii) An investigation of the impact on the financial accounts of institutions in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, and

  (viii) A review of balance of payments statistics to be completed in July of this year.

  Some of these measures have already contributed to improvements in the quality of economic statistics and the others will contribute to further and sustained improvements over the next two years. The statistics have also benefited from implementation of the recommendations of the review of economic statistics completed in April 1989. In particular the introduction of the statutory monthly sales inquiries in 1989 has led to more reliable early estimates of manufacturing output. Also the 1989 annual share register survey has provided more accurate estimates of the holdings of shares by the overseas sector leading to a reduction of £13 billion in the cumulated balancing item for the overseas sector.

  The Government attach great importance to the need for reliable economic statistics and will consider further measures to maintain and improve the quality of economic data as the need arises.
  21
  The retail prices index measures the change from month to month in the prices of the full range of goods and services bought by the majority of consumers in the United Kingdom. It does so on the basis of well over 120,000 prices collected across the country each month and information on buying patterns from a large and continuous survey of family expenditure. A number of improvements have recently been made to the quantity and quality of price data collected.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of freehold properties transferred in(a) 1989 and (b) 1990 were worth (i) under £20,000 and (ii) over £100,000 (1) nationally and (2) by region;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for sales by individuals of single dwellings the number and average value of transactions nationally and regionally in 1989 and 1990 by range of consideration as set out in "Inland Revenue Statistics 1990";

  (3) if he will analyse the property transfers reported to the Inland Revenue in 1988, 1989 and 1990 so as to give for each year (a) the percentage of properties under £20,000 and their percentage share of the total value of properties, (b) the percentage share over £100,000 and their percentage share of values, (c) the median value and (d) the average values for all properties and for freehold properties.

  Mr. Maude
  The tables provide the information requested on property transfers. All estimates are derived from a sample of property transactions in England and Wales which are reported to the Inland Revenue and cover all transactions which are classified as residential. The estimates exclude transactions in non-residential properties, but include a number of low-value transactions which cannot be regarded as ordinary house sales at market value: examples are transactions at nominal value to a connected person, disposal of part share of a house as a result of a divorce or separation, transfer of a half share on marriage, purchases of council houses under the right-to-buy scheme, purchases of tenanted property,

  Table 2A

  Sales of residential1 properties by individuals

  Numbers: thousands

  Average values: £ thousands

  Range of price (lower limits)

  1989

  £0

  £10,000

  £20,000

  £30,000

  £50,000

  £100,000

  £250,000

  All prices

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  North

  5

  3

  11

  16

  18

  25

  21

  39

  12

  64

  1

  122

  2—

  395

  67

  35

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7

  3

  19

  16

  36

  26

  46

  39

  28

  66

  5

  138

  2—

  370

  142

  40

  East Midlands

  4

  3

  4

  15

  14

  26

  27

  40

  22

  66

  3

  146

  2—

  385

  75

  49

  East Anglia

  3

  3

  2

  15

  2

  24

  6

  41

  14

  68

  3

  143

  1

  370

  30

  65

  South East3

  10

  3

  6

  14

  6

  25

  17

  42

  113

  71

  39

  141

  5

  377

  198

  84

  Greater London

  10

  2

  3

  14

  4

  24

  5

  39

  72

  74

  29

  138

  5

  403

  127

  91

  South West

  6

  2

  3

  14

  4

  25

  15

  43

  46

  68

  14

  139

  2

  373

  91

  72

  West Midlands

  7

  3

  7

  15

  17

  26

  36

  41

  31

  68

  7

  143

  1

  350

  105

  51

  North West

  10

  4

  26

  16

  39

  26

  55

  40

  36

  65

  6

  138

  1

  346

  173

  41

  England

  61

  3

  81

  15

  139

  25

  229

  40

  376

  70

  108

  140

  14

  382

  1,008

  60

  Wales

  5

  3

  5

  15

  14

  26

  21

  40

  12

  66

  3

  135

  2—_

  363

  60

  44

  England and Wales

  65

  3

  86

  15

  154

  25

  250

  40

  388

  69

  111

  140

  15

  381

  1,069

  59

  1 Includes freehold and leasehold properties.

  2 Less than 500.

  3 Excludes London.

  22
  transactions involving an exchange of property and other miscellaneous transactions in property at residential addresses. Comparable figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are not available.

  Table 1: Freehold residential properties transferred in 1989 and 1990

  Percentage of transactions where price was

  under £20,000

  over £100,000

  1989

  North

  30

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28

  4

  East Midlands

  17

  6

  East Anglia

  12

  12

  South East (excluding London)

  7

  24

  Greater London

  7

  31

  South West

  11

  17

  West Midlands

  22

  7

  North West

  26

  5

  England

  17

  13

  Wales

  28

  5

  England and Wales

  18

  12

  1990

  North

  29

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  22

  5

  East Midlands

  14

  6

  East Anglia

  7

  11

  South East (excluding London)

  5

  21

  Greater London

  9

  28

  South West

  10

  13

  West Midlands

  20

  6

  North West

  27

  6

  England

  15

  13

  Wales

  34

  4

  England and Wales

  16

  12

  Source: Survey of Property Transactions 1989 and 1990.
  23

  Table 2B

  Sales of residential1 properties by individuals

  Numbers: thousands

  Average values: £ thousands

  Range of price (lower limits)

  1990

  £0

  £10,000

  £20,000

  £30,000

  £50,000

  £100,000

  £250,000

  All prices

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  Numbers

  Average

  North

  3

  3

  6

  15

  12

  26

  17

  39

  12

  64

  2

  126

  2—

  351

  53

  41

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6

  3

  5

  16

  15

  26

  41

  40

  23

  65

  4

  138

  2—_

  359

  94

  46

  East Midlands

  4

  4

  3

  14

  6

  26

  30

  40

  19

  65

  4

  142

  2—_

  399

  66

  50

  East Anglia

  2

  3

  1

  12

  2

  25

  13

  42

  15

  67

  3

  133

  2—_

  382

  37

  59

  South East3

  9

  2

  4

  14

  5

  24

  26

  42

  128

  69

  39

  142

  4

  372

  215

  80

  Greater London

  9

  2

  3

  14

  2

  25

  6

  41

  68

  73

  28

  143

  4

  414

  120

  90

  South West

  6

  2

  3

  14

  3

  25

  24

  43

  50

  68

  12

  137

  1

  390

  99

  66

  West Midlands

  8

  3

  3

  15

  7

  25

  35

  41

  33

  67

  5

  130

  1

  374

  92

  52

  North West

  8

  3

  11

  15

  18

  26

  52

  39

  33

  65

  6

  138

  2—_

  382

  130

  45

  England

  55

  3

  39

  15

  70

  25

  243

  41

  383

  68

  103

  140

  11

  389

  905

  63

  Wales

  5

  3

  3

  16

  7

  25

  16

  40

  10

  66

  2

  134

  2—_

  375

  43

  43

  England and Wales

  60

  3

  42

  15

  78

  25

  259

  40

  393

  68

  105

  140

  11

  388

  948

  62

  1 Includes freehold and leasehold properties.

  2 Less than 500.

  3 Excludes London.

  Source: Survey of Property Transaction 1989 and 1990.

  Table 3 Residential properties1 transferred in 1988, 1989 and 1990

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Freehold

  All residential

  Freehold

  All residential

  Freehold

  All residential

  (a) Percentage of properties under £20,000

  17

  19

  18

  20

  16

  17

  Percentage share of value

  3

  3

  3

  4

  2

  3

  (b) Percentage of properties over £100,000

  12

  10

  12

  11

  12

  11

  Percentage share of value

  33

  31

  37

  34

  34

  32

  (c) Median price

  £48,000

  £47,000

  £45,000

  £43,000

  £50,000

  £49,000

  (d) Average price

  £59,000

  £57,000

  £59,000

  £56,000

  £62,000

  £59,000

  Source: Survey of Property Transactions 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  1 Includes sales by individuals and other purchasers.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress of the Treasury working group on possible money laundering through casinos, bullion dealers, bureaux de change and through the legal and accountancy professions.

  Mr. Maples
  Priority is currently being given to measures to combat money laundering in the banking, insurance and financial services sectors. However, together with other interested Departments, we are examining the scope for tightening up procedures elsewhere. Consultations are proceeding with the law enforcement agencies on which other activities and professions are the most susceptible to being used for money laundering and we shall then begin discussions with the relevant representative bodies.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on section 39 reviews by the Bank of England on money laundering.

  Mr. Maples
  All institutions authorised under the Banking Act are expected to be able to demonstrate that they maintain adequate policies, records and systems to counter money laundering. The Bank of England notified these institutions in November 1989 that a review of 24
  control systems and accounting records in money laundering-related areas may form part of the report requested under section 39 of the Banking Act and a number of such reviews have been commissioned or have taken place.

  Earnings
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the (i) weekly and (ii) annual(a) gross income and (b) taxable income of (1) a single person on half average earnings, (2) a single person on two thirds average earnings, (3) a single person on average earnings, (4) a single person on double average earnings, (5) a couple with the male partner on average earnings and a non-working wife and (6) a couple each earning male and female average earnings respectively in Scotland in 1990–91 and estimates for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  Information for 1990–91 is given in the table. Taxpayers are assumed to have no reliefs or allowances, other than the appropriate personal allowances, and no unearned income. Information for 1991–92 is not yet available.
  25

  Weekly figures

  Annual figures

  Gross income1

  Taxable income2

  Gross income1

  Taxable income2

  (1) Single person3 on half-average earnings

  138·20

  80·41

  7,190

  4,180

  (ii) Single person3 on two-thirds average earnings

  184·30

  126·51

  9,580

  6,580

  (iii) Single person3 on average earnings

  276·40

  218·61

  14,370

  11,370

  (iv) Single person3 on twice average earnings

  552·80

  495·01

  28,750

  25,740

  (v) Married couple with husband on average earnings wife not working

  276·40

  185·53

  14,370

  9,650

  (vi) Married couple with both partners on their respective average earnings

  463·60

  314·95

  24,110

  16,380

  1 Average earnings figures have been taken from the April 1990 New Earnings Survey.

  2 Gross income less allowances.

  3 The figures relating to a single person have been calculated using the figure for male average earnings.

  Civil Service Pay
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further meetings he has had with representatives of the civil service trade unions regarding pay and conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Treasury Ministers meet representatives of the civil service trade unions front time to time. I last met representatives of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Services Association on 9 April to discuss the Government's offers for the pay of executive and office support staff, and clerical and secretarial staff.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the decisions taken on environmental policy at(a) the development committee of G7 Finance Ministers on 29–30 April and (b) the global environmental Facility meeting on 1–2 May.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The development committee of the World bank and IMF, which met on 30 April, welcomed the establishment of the joint World bank, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the United Nations Development Programme global environment facility—GEF. The committee underlined the role that this facility could play as the mechanism to provide additional assistance to developing countries in the framework of negotiations on the global environment.

  Responsibility for the United Kingdom's policy on the GEF lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. I understand that good progress was made at the GEF meeting on 1 and 2 May. Participants broadly endorsed a first tranche of 26 projects, with a total value of about $275 million, to be taken forward by the three implementing agencies.

  EC Structural Funds
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any proposals to change the financial rules under which local authorities have to operate when applying for European regional development funds.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the costs in 1991–92 and 1992–93 of raising the basic rate income tax limit to (i) £25,000, (ii) £27,500 and (iii) £30,000.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimated revenue costs, compared with the Budget proposals, are in the table, which assumes statutory indexation of allowances and threshold for 1992–93.

  Basic rate limit in 1991–92 (£)

  Effect on receipts in 1991–92

  £ million 1992–93

  25,000

  190

  320

  27,500

  490

  840

  30,000

  750

  1,270

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his written answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), 17 January,Official Report, columns 560–62, to include figures for 1991–92; if he will include any revisions to data for previous years; and whether it is yet possible to include data for the community charge.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 15 April 1991, at columns 13–20. It will not be possible to produce estimates of the community charge until data from the 1990 family expenditure survey are available.

  Credit Unions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many credit unions have been set up in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  The number of new credit unions registered over the period is as follows:

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  1986

  9

  4

  1987

  15

  1

  1988

  33

  11

  1989

  49

  8

  1990

  55

  17

  There are currently 235 credit unions registered in England and Wales and 61 in Scotland.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Somalia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to Somalia in the last three months.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Security conditions in Somalia continue to make the delivery of relief aid difficult. The main relief effort is at present being carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross. I have this week approved a further £1 million to the ICRC for its Somali operations. This brings the total of our emergency aid to Somalia in the last three months to £1·238 million. We have also contributed £1·2 million for Somalia refugees in Ethiopia and Kenya.

  Engagements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the answer by the Minister for Overseas Development to the hon.

  Column (a)1 Original planning Figure in Cash (£ million)

  Column (b)2 Revised Provision in Cash Terms (£ million)

  Column (a) In 1990–91 Prices (£ million)

  Column (b) In 1990–91 Prices (£ million)

  Column (a) Percentage Real Terms Change on 1990–91

  Column (b) Percentage Real Terms Change on 1990–91

  1990–91

  1,587

  1,619

  1,587

  1,619

  —

  —

  1991–92

  1,721

  1,751

  1,600

  1,636

  3·09

  1·05

  1992–93

  1,790

  1,790

  1,601

  1,601

  0·88

  -1·11

  1993–94

  1,860

  1,860

  1,603

  1,603

  1·01

  -0·99

  1 The figure for 1990–91 was the budget figure published in the 1990 Public Expenditure White Paper Cm. 1021 before the financial year began. The figures for later years are those agreed in the 1990 PES round and published in the FCO Departmental Report Cm. 1502.

  2 The figure for 1990–91 reflects additions to the aid budget for developing countries made during the year. The figure for 1991–92 includes the addition to the aid budget of £30 million for humanitarian assistance announced on 29 April.

  Rhino Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions are being made by Her Majesty's Government to schemes designed to protect the rhinoceros.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A list of the wildlife conservation activities in Africa in which we are involved is in the Library of the House.

  Bangladesh
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all contributions of emergency relief for Bangladesh made by other donors of which he is aware.

  Mrs. Chalker
  From reports provided by a number of sources including the United Nations Office of the Disaster Relief Co-ordinator—UNDRO—and the British high commission in Dhaka, we are aware of the following pledges made by other donors up to 13 May. These do not, in all cases, distinguish between contributions for immediate emergency relief and longer-term rehabilitation assistance. The figures are improving daily.

  Australia—US$2·216 million (£1·3 million)

  Belgium—BF25 million (£0·41 million)

  Bhutan—US$120,000 (£0·07 million)

  Burma—500 tonnes of rice

  Canada—Canadian $1·5 million (£0·77 million)

  China—US$2 million (£1·18 million)

  Denmark—DK250,000 (£0·023 million)

  European Community 10 million ECU (£6·97 million)

  28
  Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), Official Report, 26 April, columns 579–80, he will list the non-governmental organisations met on 15 April.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of: the British Red Cross, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, CARE Britain, Christian Aid, Concern, Oxfam, the Refugee Council of Great Britain and the Save the Children Fund.

  Aid Budget
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing the revised planning figures for the aid budget in 1990–91, and the planned figures for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 in current terms, and constant 1990–91 terms, showing any percentage real change.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information is as follows:

  France—US$2 million (£1·18 million) plus 20,000 tonnes of wheat, 2,000 tonnes of milk powder, a telecommunications repair team and the services of a dredger

  Germany—DM30 million (£10·14 million)

  Holland—Guilders 6 million (£1·78 million)

  India—Taka 200 million (£3·51 million) plus US$700,000 (£0·413 million) and 6 helicopters

  Indonesia—1 C130 aircraft

  Iran—Relief supplies

  Ireland—US$198,000 (£0·12m)

  Italy—US$8m (£4·72m) plus 40 tonnes of relief supplies

  Japan—US$21m (£12·39m)—comprising US$9·5m cash, US$11m food aid and US$0·5m emergency equipment

  Malaysia—US$370,000 (£0·22m)

  New Zealand—US$29,000 (£0·017m)

  Norway—US$0·34m (£0·2m)

  Pakistan—Relief supplies plus 2 helicopters

  Saudi Arabia—US$100m (£59m) for rehabilitation plus immediate relief supplies and 3 C130 aircraft

  Sri Lanka—Relief supplies

  Switzerland—US$0·14m (£0·08m) plus 36 tonnes of high protein food and logistical support staff

  Thailand—£470,000 plus 2 helicopters and 20,000 tonnes of rice

  Turkey—Relief supplies

  USA—US$6·9m (£4·07m) plus 5 helicopters

  UNDP—US$50,000 (£0·03m)

  UNICEF—US$1·02m (£0·6m)

  UNDRO—US$50,000 (£0·03m)

  WFP—7,000 tonnes of food

  WHO—4 emergency health kits

  We also await firm details of further logistical support being considered by the United States of America.

  ODA Expenditure
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will revise the planned expenditure estimates for the Overseas Development Administration for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 to achieve increases in real terms.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As the hon. Member is aware from the reply she received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29 April, at column 31, the aid programme for 1991–92 has recently been increased by £30 million. The planning figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 will be reviewed in the annual public expenditure survey round later this year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the number of persons on income support who have (i) poll tax arrears for which they are subject to a liability order, (ii) social fund loan repayments, (iii) gas and electricity arrears, (iv) rent arrears and (v) other debt.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At the end of February 1991 there were 36,448 income support claimants with deductions for arrears of community charge. At the end of March 1991, there was an estimated 424,000 income support claimants with deductions for recovery of social fund loans.

  Figures for the number of income support claimants with deductions for electricity, gas, rent arrears and other items are contained in table 10 of the "Department of Social Security Income Support Statistics Annual Statistical Enquiry, May 1989", a copy of which is in the Library. It is important to note that some of these deductions are for current charges only.

  State Benefits
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what state benefits are discounted when assessments are made of the income of applicants for discretionary rebate benefits such as poll tax and housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Housing benefit and community charge benefit are statutory benefits and people on income support have entitlement to maximum benefit in each case.

  Community charge benefit is disregarded when calculating entitlement to housing benefit and vice versa. Otherwise, social security benefits are taken into account, except for mobility allowance, constant attendance allowance, attendance allowance and any resettlement benefit or social fund payment.

  Mobility supplement and constant attendance allowance which is paid as part of a war disability pension. are also disregarded. There is a statutory £10 weekly disregard of a war widow's or war disablement pension, and local authorities have discretion of disregard in excess of this amount. Special payments to pre-1973 war widows are fully disregarded.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the yields from raising the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to (i) £23,700, (ii) £25,000, (iii) £27,500 and (iv) £30,000.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Additional contribution yield (£ millions)

  (1) UEL raised to

  (2) 1991–92

  (3) 1992–931

  £23,700

  250

  275

  £25,000

  325

  375

  £27,500

  425

  475

  £30,000

  500

  575

  1 Figures for 1992–93 assume that the present UEL and the figures in column 1 are increased in line with 1991 Budget assumptions for price inflation.

  Delayed Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps have been taken by his Department to inform hon. Members of the Department's compensation scheme for delayed payments;

  (2) what system exists for compensating those whose pension or benefit is paid more than a year late; and if he will publish the rules which govern such a system;

  (3) how many individuals received compensation payments for delayed payments for each of the years for which figures are available; and how many claims for such payments were unsuccessful.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 11 March, 1991, c. 416]: I regret that there was an error in the figure given for the number of payments in 1989–90. The correct information is in the table.

  Ex-gratia compensation may be paid when payment of benefit amounting to £50 or more has either been delayed for 12 months or longer, or interrupted for at least three months, because of clear and unambiguous official error. If claimants do not themselves raise the matter, the Department's local offices are required to identify cases eligible to be considered for such compensation. These arrangements are in accordance with the general principles concerning ex-gratia payments in "Government Accounting", the Treasury's guide to accounting and financial procedures in Government. Each case is decided within those general principles, taking into account its particular facts and circumstances, which vary widely from case to case. The annual reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have drawn attention to the availability of compensation.

  Payments have been made as follows:

  Year

  Number of individual payments

  1989–90

  402

  1988–89

  529

  1987–88

  911

  1986–87

  654

  1985–86

  540

  1984–85

  171

  Information on the number of unsuccessful cases is not available.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish tables, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for each of a single wage married couple(a) with two children aged four and six years and (b) with three children aged three, eight and 11 years earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110, (vii) £120, (viii) £130, (ix) £140, (x) £150, (xi) £160 and (xii) £170 under the benefit system as uprated in April 1991;

  (2) if he will publish figures, similar to those in his Department's tax/benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for a lone mother with two children aged four and six years under the benefit system as uprated in April 1991 and in each of the following circumstances (a) not working, after one year on benefits, (b) earning £20 a week from part-time working and (c) working full-time and earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £100, (vi) £110 and (vii) £120 per week.

  Married couple with 2 children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings (£s)

  60

  70

  80

  90

  100

  110

  120

  130

  140

  150

  160

  170

  Deductions from earnings

  Tax

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·28

  4·78

  7·28

  9·78

  12·28

  14·78

  17·28

  19·78

  National insurance

  2·18

  3·08

  3·98

  4·88

  5·78

  6·68

  7·58

  8·48

  9·38

  10·28

  11·18

  12·08

  Rent

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  Community charge

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  Net earnings

  22·60

  31·70

  40·80

  49·90

  56·72

  63·32

  69·92

  76·52

  83·12

  89·72

  96·32

  102·92

  Additional income from benefits

  Family credit

  57·70

  54·43

  48·06

  41·69

  36·92

  32·30

  27·68

  23·06

  18·44

  13·82

  9·20

  4·58

  Child benefit

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  15·50

  Housing benefit

  9·92

  6·13

  4·36

  2·58

  1·25

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Community charge benefit

  4·08

  3·20

  2·79

  2·38

  2·08

  1·78

  1·48

  1·19

  0·89

  0·59

  0·30

  0·00

  Disposable income

  109·80

  110·96

  111·51

  112·05

  112·47

  112·90

  114·58

  116·27

  117·95

  119·63

  121·32

  123·00

  Married couple with 3 children aged 3, 8 and 11

  Earnings (£s)

  60

  70

  80

  90

  100

  110

  120

  130

  140

  150

  160

  170

  Tax

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·28

  4·78

  7·28

  9·78

  12·28

  14·78

  17·28

  19·78

  NI

  2·18

  3·08

  3·98

  4·88

  5·78

  6·68

  7·58

  8·48

  9·38

  10·28

  11·18

  12·08

  Rent

  25·60

  25·60

  26·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  CC

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  9·62

  Net Earnings

  22·60

  31·70

  40·80

  49·90

  56·72

  63·32

  69·92

  76·52

  83·12

  89·72

  96·32

  102·92

  FC

  73·80

  70·53

  64·16

  57·79

  53·02

  48·40

  43·78

  39·16

  34·54

  29·92

  25·30

  20·68

  CHB

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  22·75

  HB

  7·58

  3·79

  2·02

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  CCB

  3·54

  2·66

  2·25

  1·84

  1·54

  1·24

  0·94

  0·65

  0·35

  0·05

  0·00

  0·00

  Disposable Income

  130·27

  131·43

  131·98

  132·28

  134·03

  135·71

  137·79

  139·08

  140·76

  142·44

  144·37

  146·35

  NI = National Insurance.

  CC = Community Charge.

  CCB = Community Charge Benefit.

  HB = Housing Benefit.

  FC = Family Credit.

  CHB = Child Benefit.

  Lone parent with two children aged 4 and 6

  Per cent.

  (a) not working, after one year on benefit

  Income Support

  57·65

  Child Benefit1

  21·10

  Rent Rebate

  25·60

  Community Charge Benefit

  3·85

  Total Net Income2

  113·15

  Net Income after Rent and Community Charge

  82·74

  32
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: Income-related benefits such as family credit and housing benefit provide valuable help for many working families and make it worth while taking up and retaining employment. The social security reforms, and subsequent changes in tax and national insurance have virtually eliminated the worst effects of the poverty trap, so that it is now virtually impossible for someone to be worse off as a result of an increase in gross pay.

  The information requested is set out in the tables. It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical rents so they do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay. A community charge level of £250 per person, per annum is assumed. All other assumptions are as in the published tax/benefit model tables.

  Per cent.

  (b) earning £20 per week from part-time earnings

  Income Support

  52·65

  Child Benefit1

  21·10

  Rent Rebate

  25·60

  Community Charge Benefit

  3·85

  Earnings

  20·00

  33

  Per cent.

  Total Net Income2

  128·15

  Net Income after Rent and Community Charge

  97·74

  (c) Lone parent with two children aged 4 and 6, working full time

  Earnings

  £60

  £70

  £80

  £90

  £100

  £110

  £120

  Tax

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  2·28

  4·78

  7·28

  National Insurance

  2·18

  3·08

  3·98

  4·88

  5·78

  6·68

  7·58

  Rent

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  25·60

  Community Charge

  4·81

  4·81

  4·81

  4·81

  4·81

  4·81

  4·81

  NET EARNINGS

  27·40

  36·51

  45·61

  54·71

  61·53

  68·13

  74·73

  Family Credit

  57·70

  54·43

  48·06

  41·69

  36·92

  32·30

  27·68

  Child Benefit and One Parent Benefit

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Housing Benefit

  7·87

  4·08

  2·31

  0·54

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Community Charge Benefit

  21·10

  21·10

  21·10

  21·10

  21·10

  21·10

  21·10

  DISPOSABLE INCOME

  114·08

  116·12

  117·08

  118·04

  119·55

  121·53

  123·51

HEALTH

  Handicapped and Mentally Ill People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the number of adults with(a) mental handicap, (b) mental illness and (c) physical handicap in any format in which this information is available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of people registered with local authorities in England under the provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948 as being physically disabled is published in "Registers of Physically Disabled Persons (General Classes) at 31 March 1990, England"—Ref. AF90/19—a copy of which is available in the Library. Estimates of the prevalence within Great Britain of a number of conditions giving rise to disability, including mental handicap, mental illnesses and various categories of physical disability, are given in the report published in September 1988 by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "The prevalence of disability among adults", a copy of which is also available in the Library.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what preparations have been made for the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are on target for implementation of the Act as a whole on 14 October. The commencement order has been made and was published on 9 April. Twenty volumes of draft regulations and guidance were issued for consultation last year; these form the basis of the first five volumes of the guidance and regulations which the Department is producing. Copies of volumes 1 on court orders, 2 on family support, day care and educational provision for young children, 3 on family placements and 5 on independent schools have been distributed widely. Volume 4 on residential care will be published this month. A total of 16,000 free copies have been sent to social services departments. We are also producing supporting material which will be issued in substantial quantities.
  34
  Notes:

  1 Child Benefit includes One Parent Benefit.

  2 Net Income after Rent and Community Charge includes the notional value of free school meals and welfare foods.

  Further volumes of draft regulations and guidance on the remaining areas of the Act will be issued shortly.

  A great deal of training material has been produced for use in the field. A total of £875,000 has been spent on centrally produced training materials. The training support programme for 1991–92 will be used to fund further centrally produced materials.

  The centrally commissioned training projects which have been launched so far include a pack produced by the Open university which provides a basic introduction to the Act, in particular to its overall philosophy and objectives. A separate pack with common material has been prepared for the magistracy.

  Leicester university has produced a guide for councillors on local authority support for children and families, outlining the powers and duties of local authorities contained in part III of the Act and addressing some key policy and resource issues. Leicester university has also produced a manual on part III for senior officers which will cover the new approach required by the Act, legal aspects, policy issues and suggested strategies for managing family support services.

  The Family Rights Group is preparing a training pack to provide social workers and their managers with a thorough understanding of the new approach to working with families and the inter-relationship of the law and practice in the context of partnership and family support. The material will be available in July.

  The National Children's Bureau has produced materials to help local authority social services staff carry out the responsibilities in relation to court orders which may be obtained for child protection. This was launched on 1 May.

  The National Children's Bureau is also producing a training pack concerned with day care and child minding services. It is targeted at officers with responsibility for registration and inspection and their line managers. This package will be available later this month.

  The National Children's Bureau has been running a series of seminars to increase awareness of the Act within the NHS. The material which we commissioned from the Open university is aimed at everyone who has responsibility for children and families and we hope that it will be widely used. The Association of Directors of Social

  35
  Services, the National Children's Home and the London Boroughs Training Commission have together run a series of Department of Health-funded training workshops aimed at and attended by people from a variety of disciplines.

  The Department of Health has provided £250,000 for the provision of training for staff working in the voluntary sector which the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations have agreed to administer.

  The Department is working on a programme to publicise the Act; this will involve material for the general public and for interested organisations such as citizens' advice bureaux, including a video; we are running a "clearing house" to enable information on developments and projects to be exchanged nationally, by means of a highly successful newsletter, "Implementation News".

  A great deal of activity is also taking place in local authorities, health authorities, voluntary organisations and colleges. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office have their own programmes. We are confident that by October 14 everyone will be ready for implementation.

  Wath Recycling
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of which of the poisonous chemicals held at the premises of Wath Recycling are considered to be potentially the most harmful to health.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that material for recycling delivered to the Wath site was found to be contaminated with pesticides. Responsibility for the control and safety of toxic waste is a matter for the South Yorkshire waste disposal authority, a statutory body set up by the local authorities in the area. They are advised by the Health and Safety Executive. The Department can advise local authorities or Government Departments on possible health effects of chemicals if asked to do so.

  Disability Information Project
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the national organisations which are taking part in the national disability information project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We expect that all national organisations with an interest in providing information to disabled people, their carers and service providers will wish to take some part in ensuring the success of this project. Applications for pilot projects involving federations of local information providers and invitations to tender for the role of project team to manage the overall project will he invited during the summer.

  The Department is also planning a conference in the autumn which all interested organisations will be eligible to attend. Delegates will then have an opportunity to discuss their involvement in the project with the project team and those local federations of information providers which will have been selected as pilot projects.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what computer and data collection resources have been offered to the Soviet authorities since May 1986 to assist 36
  the epidemiological and demographic health studies of people contaminated with fall-out from the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Dorrell
  United Kingdom scientists are participating in various international activities, under the auspices of bodies such as the World Health Organisation—WHO—the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the European Community, aimed at monitoring and mitigating the consequences of the Chernobyl accident. The United Kingdom is actively discussing with other WHO member states in Europe what further actions can be taken.

  Appendectomies
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the price of an appendectomy at each hospital in England; and at what 10 hospitals are these operations most frequently successful.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on pre-arranged contracts is not held centrally. Regional health authorities have been asked to publish tariff lists for extra-contractual referrals for all the provider units in their region, including national health service trusts, and these will be deposited in the Library when available. Information on outcomes of individual operations is not collected centrally.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by constituency, the number of electors registered to vote in the new electoral register.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A listing of the 1991 parliamentary electorates by constituency is available in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Brewing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Taunton of 24 April,Official Report, column 480, what is his estimate of the number of the 11,000 public houses required to be disposed of by major brewers which are likely to be purchased by the regional brewer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order requires national brewers to release from ties half the pubs they own in excess of 2,000 by November 1992. Selling pubs to regional brewers is only one way of complying with this requirement available to national brewers. The industry estimates that about 2,000 of the 11,000 pubs freed from ties may be sold to regional brewers. Precise figures will be available when the Director General of Fair Trading carries out his review of the measures introduced since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report in late 1993.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Taunton of 24 April,Official Report, column 480, what information he has on the number of existing public house licensees who may be assisted by banks or other financial institutions to purchase or lease pubs not

  37
  bought by regional brewers; what measures his Department is taking to facilitate such assistance; and If he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order requires brewers owning more than 2,000 pubs to release from ties half they own in excess of 2,000 by November 1992. Some 11,000 pubs are expected to be freed from ties as a result of this requirement. Pubs may be freed in a number of ways. It is not possible at this stage to estimate how many of these are likely to be purchased or leased free of ties by existing licensees. The price at which brewers sell pubs and the terms on which others are leased are matters for commercial negotiation. No special government assistance is envisaged.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will examine methods of amending the Companies Acts to require the inclusion of research and development expenditures by United Kingdom companies in their published accounts, with particular relevance to the revelation of competitive advantages or otherwise.

  Mr. Redwood
  Readers of accounts of public and large private companies already benefit from the disclosure of expenditure on research and development which is now required by "Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 13" as revised. This new requirement took effect only for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 1989, and I see no present need to provide for additional disclosure under the Companies Act.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give full details of the United Kingdom's participation in the EC European strategic programme for research and development in information technology—ESPRIT—and Rapid Action for Conductive Education —RACE—research programmes with particular relevance to the complementarity of official United Kingdom non-EC programmes in similar fields sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  United Kingdom organisations are participating in over 70 per cent. of projects under the ESPRIT II programme and in 83 per cent. of projects under the RACE programme. The United Kingdom leads in 21 per cent. of projects under ESPRIT II and in 26 per cent. of projects under RACE. United Kingdom organisations have succeeded in securing nearly 18 per cent. of the available funds under ESPRIT II and nearly 20 per cent. of the funds under RACE.

  The Government actively seek complementarity as far as possible between Community and national research programmes. National programmes help to strengthen the United Kingdom's technology base and hence encourage more effective United Kingdom participation in Community research and development programmes. European Community programmes are often particularly appropriate for funding research towards common standards, for example, open systems for information technology and communications.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the latest available figures for the amounts received by United Kingdom companies from EC collaborative research and development programmes and 38
  the amounts contributed by his Department to this same chapter of the Community general budget in the same period.

  Mr. Leigh
  United Kingdom organisations are very successful in bidding for Community research and development funding. They secure approximately 20 per cent. of the overall funds available under the Community's research and development framework programme. This is broadly comparable to the indicative United Kingdom contribution to the research and development chapter of the EC budget.

  The indicative United Kingdom contribution to the research and development chapter of the 1991 EC Budget is estimated to be some £195 million of which approximately 50 per cent.—some £98 million—relates to research and development for the industrial programmes.

  Metrication (Spirits)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list in the Official Report the number and sources of responses he has received to proposals for metricating the quantities in which whisky, gin, rum and vodka may be served for consumption on licensed premises; and if he will make a statement on proposals affecting other spirits and liqueurs and the timetable for any changes.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have received 39 replies to my Department's consultation paper from trade interests, consumer organisations, enforcement bodies and others. I am considering these replies and I shall be announcing my conclusions in due course.

  ECGD Insurance Services Group
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the reasons why no British firms have submitted bids for the Insurance Services Group division of ECGD.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it would not be appropriate to reveal information on discussions with United Kingdom firms.

  Environmental Management
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to meet British representatives of the International Chamber of Commerce, co-organisers of the Rotterdam environmental management conference, to discuss the utility and implementation in the United Kingdom of the world industry conference on environmental management recommendations.

  Mr. Leigh
  I welcome the outcome of WICEM II and the support given to the business charter for sustainable development which was launched at the conference. I anticipate an early meeting with representatives of the International Chamber of Commerce to discuss the United Kingdom business response.

  Investment Services and Capital Adequacy Directives
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in negotiations on the draft investment services and capital adequacy directives.
  39
  Mr. Redwood
  The draft investment services directive was discussed at ECOFIN on 8 April. The difficulties created by the proposal, originally put forward by France, that certain transactions should be confined to "regulated markets" have yet to be resolved. Member states' officials continue to seek the basis for a satisfactory solution and a further ECOFIN discussion is planned for 3 June. It looks increasingly difficult to complete negotiations on the directive during the Luxembourg presidency.

  In addition to the regulated markets issue, there are a number of other important issues still to be resolved. These include the question of whether natural persons, appointed representatives and members of the professions should be included in the scope of the directive. The Government are seeking to ensure that natural persons will be included but that there will be a satisfactory exclusion for members of the professions.

  On all these issues, the Government remain firmly committed to the principle that the investment services directive should be a genuinely liberalising measure which must not compromise the ability of investors anywhere in the European Community to choose how to invest their money.

  There has as yet been no ECOFIN discussion of the draft capital adequacy directive. Discussions between officials have made some progress towards agreement on the treatment of market risk, but the definition of capital and a number of other important technical issues have yet to be resolved. Negotiations are likely to continue into the Dutch presidency. The Government's objective remains a directive that imposes capital standards protecting investors without imposing an unnecessary burden on practitioners. Capital required should be related to risks run.

  On both directives the Government are continuing closely to consult interested parties in the United Kingdom to ensure that we can achieve the best possible outcome for United Kingdom investors and United Kingdom investment firms and financial markets, though since both directives are ultimately subject to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers the final outcome may not fully satisfy all our negotiating objectives.

  Exports (USSR)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to continue to provide Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for exports to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  ECGD cover for export credits for the Soviet Union is currently being reviewed.

  Exit Strategies
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will show in tabular form how much money has been allocated by his inner city unit for establishing exit strategies; and if he will break these totals down for each strategy between(a) feasibility/business plans, (b) revenue costs and (c) capital sums to establish projects.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 3 May 1991]: Each task force has a budget of about £1 million annually for the support of projects, but there is no specific allocation for exit strategies: consequently, the information is not available in the form requested.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the actual amount spent by the Health and Safety Executive in each year from 1985–86 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Forth
  The actual amounts spent by the Health and Safety Commission in each year from 1985–86 to 1989–90 were:

  Year

  Expenditure £000s

  1985–86

  97,694

  1986–87

  100,384

  1987–88

  101,388

  1988–89

  109,500

  1989–90

  119,607

  Expenditure figures for 1990–91 will be published in the Health and Safety Commission's annual report for 1990–91. The commission's expenditure is financed from grant in aid and from receipts, mainly from fees and charges.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money was provided as grant in aid to the Health and Safety Executive in the years 1985–86 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Forth
  Money provided as grant in aid to the Health and Safety Commission in each of the years 1985–86 to 1990–91 was:

  Year

  Grant in aid £000s

  1985–86

  93,283

  1986–87

  94,334

  1987–88

  94,235

  1988–89

  97,390

  1989–90

  102,974

  1990–91

  120,354

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff years of experience have been lost by the Health and Safety Executive over the past three years among professional/scientific staff researching and developing health-related topics.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 90 staff years of experience has been lost, about half of which was due to transfers to other Government laboratories, and about a quarter of which was due to resignations.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the level of funding proposed for the Health and Safety Executive, following the transfer of the offshore safety division, in 1991–92, and 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  Gross planned provision for the Health and Safety Commission as announced in February 1991 in the "Government's Expenditure Plans, 1991–92 to 1993–94: Department of Employment" was:

  Provision £ million

  1991–92

  184

  1992–93

  196

  1993–94

  213

  41
  These figures do not include provision for offshore safety work. A supplementary estimate will be presented seeking provision for 1991–92.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the staff numbers and real cost of the Health and Safety Executive in 1980 and 1990; and how many new responsibilities have been given to the Health and Safety Executive in that period.

  Mr. Forth
  On 1 April 1980 and 1 April 1990, totals of 4,218 and 3,698 staff respectively were in post in the Health and Safety Executive. At constant prices, gross provision for the Health and Safety Commission in 1980–81 was £144·1 million and in 1990–91, it was £171·5 million.

  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 laid upon the Health and Safety Commission and Executive responsibility for virtually all aspects of industrial health and safety, and most aspects of the protection of the public from work activity. Within this overall competence, the commission and executive have acquired the following new responsibilities since 1980:

  (i) carriage by road, classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances;

  (ii) notification of new substances before they are placed on the market and of existing substances;

  (iii) action under the European directive on the control of industrial major accident hazards, including new responsibility for protection of the environment from hazardous installations;

  (iv) mains gas safety;

  (v) asbestos licensing;

  (vi) the enforcement of part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act and its related Control of Pesticides Regulations;

  (vii) responsibility under the Control of Pesticides Regulations for the registration and assessment of non-agricultural pesticides;

  (viii) new and expanded nuclear safety work, including nuclear safety research;

  (ix) health and safety on railways.

  In addition, new or substantially expanded work has been acquired in connection with the control of dangerous substances in harbour areas, radiation and noise, and the health and safety implications of the development and use of new technology including programmable electronics and biotechnology. There has also been a significant growth of EC activity and directives in areas affecting safety and health, and a significant growth in public and international interest in relevant environmental and major hazards issues.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff years of experience have been lost by the Health and Safety Executive over the past three years among professional-scientific staff researching and developing safety-related topics.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 368 staff years of experience has been lost, the vast majority of which was due to retirement.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to establishing equal opportunities special needs units using the expertise of specialist staff such as psychologists, social workers, nurses and doctors already in the Department to assist industry with particular equal opportunity problems.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has many specialist staff who already help employers wanting advice or assistance 42
  in a number of areas which involve individuals with special needs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment recently announced that the Employment Service's specialist disability services would be integrated into a specialist advisory and assessment service. This will help give people with disabilities more equality of opportunity in the labour market.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future need for social workers, psychologists, physiotherapists and instructional officers within the Employment Service.

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

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what responses he has had from organisations representing people with disabilities to the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities".

  Mr. Jackson
  More than 400 responses have been received to the consultative document many of which are from organisations representing people with disabilities or their interests including committees for the employment of disabled people and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what input from organisations representing disabled people was considered in preparing the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities".

  Mr. Jackson
  In preparing the consultative document the Department took into account the views and information derived from a wide variety of contacts maintained between this Department and organisations with an interest in, or responsibility for, people with disabilities.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice was sought and from whom before the preparation of the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities".

  Mr. Jackson
  The consultative document was preceded by a review of this Department's employment and training services for people with disabilities. This included consideration of a report on developing employment provisions for disabled people—the Tomlinson principles —by the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People and the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee in its report on employment assistance to disabled adults. The views and information derived from contacts maintained between this Department and organisations with an interest in, or responsibility for, people with disabilities were also taken into account.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to make a statement following his consultation on the document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities".
  43
  Mr. Jackson
  As a result of consultations on the document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" my right hon. and learned Friend has already announced changes to the local and national committees that provide us with advice on the employment of people with disabilities and improvements to the specialist services to people with disabilities. We are currently considering the many responses we have received on other issues raised in the consultative document.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Health and Safety Executive requires in writing confirmation that sub-sea isolation valves are fitted to the main export lines where there is the likelihood of a large release of combustible material in the event of rupture.

  Mr. Forth
  No. Recommendation No. 44 of the Cullen report stated that there should be no immediate requirement for sub-sea isolation valves to be fitted on pipelines connected to installations. Instead, operators should demonstrate that adequate provision has been made against hazards from risers and pipelines, as part of the safety case which the report recommended should be required for each offshore installation.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Health and Safety Executive has now implemented the requirement that offshsore oil operators draw up harmonised permit to work systems

  Mr. Forth
  In recommendation 34 of the report of the public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster, Lord Cullen recognised that standardisation of the permit to work system throughout the industry was neither necessary nor practicable. Howevever, he recommended that the industry itself should seek to increase harmonisation, with particular reference to proposals for guidelines that had been made by a working group of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association—UKOOA—and which were outlined in the body of the report. I understand that UKOOA, together with representatives of other offshore organisations, has now produced draft guidance, which it aims to publish later this year following consultation within the industry.

  Teaching Unions
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the membership of each teaching trade union; and what information he has on how many members are trainee/student teachers and how many are retired members.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: The total membership of each teaching trade union known to the Employment Department is shown in the table. A breakdown of trainee/student teachers and retired members is not available.

  Union

  1 Membership

  Assistant Masters and Mistresses' Association

  135,930

  The Association of Agricultural Education Staffs

  1,418

  Association of Cambridge University Assistants

  1,082

  Association of Career Teachers

  491

  Association of Educational Psychologists

  1,615

  Association for College Management

  1,490

  44

  Union

  1 Membership

  Association of Principals of Colleges

  665

  Association of University Teachers

  31,807

  Association of Vice Principals of Colleges

  111

  British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education

  353

  The Educational Institute of Scotland

  45,571

  Scottish Further and Higher Education Association

  1,822

  The Headmasters' Conference

  355

  The National Association of Head Teachers

  35,238

  National Association of Inspectors and Educational Advisers

  2,048

  National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers

  163,646

  National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education

  81,407

  National Society for Education in Art and Design

  2,289

  National Union of Teachers

  213,482

  Professional Association of Nursery Nurses

  3,153

  Professional Association of Teachers

  42,793

  Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association

  7,278

  Secondary Heads' Association

  7,452

  Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru

  3,061

  1 The latest published figures relate to year ending 1989.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Grey Squirrels
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are taken by his Department to control the grey squirrel population.

  Mr. Maclean
  The responsibility for controlling grey squirrels lies with the owners or occupiers of land. A number of legal methods of control are available and our advisory service provides guidance on request.

  NGOs (Appointments)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the individual appointments excluding casual vacancies he is scheduled to make to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 indicating in each case the title of the post, the salary if any and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Curry
  The readily available information about the appointments for which this Department is responsible, a number of which will fall to be made in 1991 and 1992, is given in "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations" copies of which are in the Library.

  International Whaling Commission
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure continuance of the International Whaling Commission's indefinite moratorium on whaling by all signatory states.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have taken a strong stand, both as Minister of State and Minister, on the importance of conserving whale stocks and I have repeatedly stated my determination that no whale stock should again be over-exploited by man.

  We will not even contemplate the lifting of the moratorium on commercial whaling unless and until it is

  45
  clear that whale stocks are at healthy levels, a satisfactory and robust management procedure is in place and the methods used to take whales are humane. We shall continue to press our view strongly at the forthcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission. These conditions have clearly not been met.

  Fermor-Hesketh Estate (Poisoning)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 479, if he will place in the Library the report of the Ministry investigations officer into the poisoning incident in April 1990 on the Fermor-Hesketh estate.

  Mr. Maclean
  Reports by investigating officers are internal documents intended for use when considering legal proceedings. Moreover, since investigation officer reports include details of individuals who are not under investigation, and who have not been charged with any offence, it would be entirely inappropriate to release the reports.

  Irradiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to(a) license irradiation plants in the United Kingdom, (b) give approval to irradiation plants in non-EC countries and (c) give authorisation to irradiation plants in EC countries to import irradiated food into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Licensing Authority for England and Wales has received one application under the Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations 1990, for approval to irradiate various dried spices and condiments. We will announce our decision on this application when our full evaluation is completed. No applications have yet been received in respect of food irradiation plants abroad.

  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to publish the results of his tests on cattle for enzootic bovine leukosis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  A small pilot survey is currently taking place to gather information on the likely number of herds infected with EBL in Great Britain. Premises tested cannot be identified from the samples, but the findings of the survey will be made public when analysis of the results is completed.

  Farm Waste (Pollution)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish his next report on water pollution from farm waste in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have agreed with the National Rivers Authority that the 1990 farm waste statistics will be presented within a comprehensive report by the authority covering both agricultural and non-agricultural pollution. I understand that the authority hopes to publish this report shortly.

ENERGY

  Opencast Sites
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal regarding the development by private mining companies of opencast sites.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the increase in energy consumption in the United Kingdom in 1990.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Total final energy consumption in the United Kingdom in 1990 was 0·7 per cent. higher than in 1989.

  Wind and Tidal Power
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of Government spending on wind and tidal power in 1979; and what was the expenditure in real terms in 1990.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In the financial year 1979–80 my Department spent £0·6 million on wind energy research and £0·6 million on tidal power research. In 1990–91 the figures were £4·5 million for wind and £1·9 million for tidal.

  Licensing
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the 12th and frontier rounds of licensing.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I hope to be able to announce awards made under both these rounds later this month.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the Government's investment in the coal industry since 1979.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Since 1979 we have assisted British Coal in financing over £7 billion of new investment.

  Cornwall Geothermal Energy Project
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many representations he has received regarding the cut in funding for the Cornwall geothermal energy project.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since I announced details of the new £3·3 million programme of hot dry rock geothermal research on 1 February 1991, I have received written comments from five sources.

  British Coal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of Government investment and grant aid in British Coal between 1974 and 1979 and between 1979 and 1990; and if he will make a statement.
  47
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of Government investment and grant aid in British Coal between 1974 and 1979 and between 1979 and 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Between 1974 and 1979 the Government assisted British Coal in financing £1,475 million of new investment and provided £401 million in grant aid. Between 1979 and 1990 the figures were £7,212 million and £14,826 million respectively. At March 1990 prices this comprises an average level of investment and grant of £843 million and £231 million per year for the years 1974 to 1979 compared with £940 million and £1,630 million respectively for the years 1979 to 1990.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement as to the contribution of nuclear power to environmental protection.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The main contribution of nuclear power to environmental protection is its role in curbing acid rain and combating global warming. Nuclear power stations emit practically no sulphur dioxides or nitrous oxides, which are the principal constituents of acid rain, or carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas. If the electricity currently provided by nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom was generated by coal, our total carbon emissions would increase by 15 million tonnes per year, an increase of 10 per cent. over present levels.

  The 1994 review of nuclear power will include consideration of its environmental impact.

  Energy Efficiency Rating
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he is taking to achieve a uniform national energy efficiency rating for houses and other buildings.
  48
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department continues to encourage and support the National Energy Foundation and MVM Starpoint in their joint project to develop a means by which their two systems for energy efficiency labelling of houses can be compared.

  As regards the labelling of other buildings, the Energy Efficiency Office is in touch with developments at the Building Research Establishment and elsewhere and will keep these under review.

  Energy Efficiency and Renewables
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much Government spending on(a) energy efficiency and (b) renewable energy has increased in real terms since 1979–80.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department's expenditure in 1979–80 on energy efficiency and renewables was £2·4 million and £8·2 million respectively, in cash terms. Revalued to current—1991–92—terms, these sums would be £5·6 million for energy efficiency, compared with estimated expenditure for 1991–92 of £41·9 million, or 648 per cent., and £18·97 million for renewables, compared with estimated expenditure for 1991–92 of £24·5 million, or 29 per cent.

  Euratom
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what organisation applies safeguards to the Euratom research reactors and nuclear material used for experimentation by Euratom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  All nuclear material in use by Euratom is under safeguards, as provided for in Infcirc 193 —agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Euratom non-nuclear weapons states—and under the safeguards arrangements set out in chapter VII of the Euratom treaty 1957.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond),Official Report, 25 April, column 497, he will set out the form of assurances covering peaceful use commitment on plutonium that are acceptable to Her Majesty's Government; and if he will list the dates on which such assurances have been received from foreign Governments for plutonium exported to date.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  All exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology are made within the guidelines as set out in the statement by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Callaghan, on 31 March 1976 at columns 514–16. These include the requirement to seek an assurance that the export will not be used to manufacture nuclear explosives for any purpose.

  The dates on which these assurances have been received from overseas Governments for exports of plutonium could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West,Official Report, 25 April, column 500, he will indicate (a) when he expects the Energy Council to adopt the three proposed energy research programmes and (b) how the parts of the 1990–94 third framework programme on energy research and development have been funded to date.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A common position has been reached on the proposed non-nuclear energies programme of the third framework programme. Under the co-operation procedure the European Parliament will now consider the programme, which should finally be adopted by September.

  The programmes proposed for nuclear fission safety and for controlled nuclear fusion are both at early stages of discussion and are unlikely to be adopted before the autumn. These two programmes have come forward under the provisions of the Euratom treaty and therefore are not subject to the Community's co-operation procedure.

  The third framework programme was originally intended to be implemented in the years 1990–94, inclusive. To date, however, none of the individual programmes has been formally adopted, and no funds from the third framework programme have yet become available.

  Kuwait Oil Fires
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what help he has given to(a) Kuwaiti British Fire Group, (b) Wimpey, (c) Taylor Woodrow, and (d) Amec to tackle well fires in Kuwait.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to him and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 7 May 1991,Official Report, column 374. Commercial negotiations are continuing between the Kuwaiti British Fire Group, the joint venture between Amec, Taylor Woodrow and Wimpey, and the Kuwaiti authorities. I stand ready to give the group further assistance as necessary.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many uncapped oil well fires there are in proximity to Ahmadi.
  50
  Mr. Wakeham
  The only information available applies to the current position in Kuwait as a whole, which is that of the order of 500 uncapped wells remain, many of which are still on fire. Reports from Kuwait suggest that around 96 wells have been capped to date.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what well-kill teams are available to the Government of Kuwait.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I understand that there are four firefighting teams working in Kuwait on the well-kill programme for the Kuwait oil company. These teams are all from north America.

  The Kuwait authorities are having discussions with a number of other groups of companies which include some from the United Kingdom, offering their services for these operations. On my recent visit to Kuwait I was accompanied by a number of British company representatives among whom were members of the Kuwaiti British Fire Group.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what well records are available to the oil teams in relation to Kuwait.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Most well records were destroyed by the Iraqi forces during their occupation of Kuwait. I understand that those which remain intact have been made available to the fire-fighting teams.

  Offshore Fixed Capital
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the total value of fixed capital offshore in 1990.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Total capital investment in offshore oil and gas fields up to 1990 amounts to some £74 billion at today's prices.

SCOTLAND

  Dental Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been treated by Greater Glasgow health board's community dental service between 1 October 1990 and 31 March 1991; and of them how many are(a) pre-school children, (b) school children and (c) handicapped children.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not centrally available in the form requested. However, the number of courses of treatment to children by the Greater Glasgow health board community dental service between 1 October 1990 and 31 December 1990 is set out in the table.

  Category of Child

  Number of courses of treatment1 1 October 1990 to 31 December 1991

  All Children of which:

  5,667

  pre-school2

  1,071

  school2

  4,341

  handicapped3

  167

  1 A child may have more than one course of treatment in the same period.

  2 Excludes handicapped children.

  3 Handicapped (physical or mental) people aged under 16 years.

  Seed Potatoes
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to change the certification arrangements for Scottish seed potatoes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Seed Potatoes Regulations 1984, which govern the classification and marketing of seed potatoes in Great Britain, will shortly be amended to reflect EC requirements that all seed potatoes should be officially inspected prior to marketing. The seed potato classification scheme is kept under continuous review and changes to improve procedures are made as appropriate.

  European Funds
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing inward investment received by(a) Scottish Office departments, (b) regional councils and (c) district councils from the (i) European regional development fund and (ii) the European social fund in each year since 1984; what proportion of this finance was additional to planned public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to develop initiatives to reduce the levels of unemployment within Renfrew district.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Renfrewshire Enterprise Company, under contract to Scottish Enterprise, has a budget of £28·834 million including training allowances in 1991–92 to devote to economic development, training and environmental improvement in its area. Action to reduce levels of unemployment will also be taken by the Employment Service, alongside the local enterprise company.

  Disabled People (Training)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve vocational and non-vocational training for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Our policies for community care and for improving vocational education and training for employment are all designed to address the needs of people with disabilities. The arrangements for community care, which will come fully into effect in 1993, include the assessment of individual needs which includes the provision of education and training opportunities for disabled people. Local enterprise companies are responsible for meeting the Government guarantee that all young people aged 16 and 17 years, including those with disabilities, who are not in employment or full-time education should receive an offer of a place on youth training. They are also responsible for meeting the Government's guarantee of a place on employment training for people aged 18 to 24 years who have been unemployed for six to 12 months and the Government's aim to give places on employment training to disabled 52
  people as a priority. Furthermore, on 21 March 1991 my right hon. Friend announced the Government's intention to transfer the funding of further education colleges to central Government in 1993, the benefits of which we expect to be shared by people with disabilities.

  Strathclyde
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing all expenditure by the Scottish Office in each area of priority treatment in Strathclyde region for each year since 1984 in terms of(a) total investment and (b) expenditure on a per capita basis for each area of priority treatment.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Records showing the division of all Scottish Office expenditure between areas of priority treatment are not maintained. The information could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Infant Formulae
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been given to maternity units in Scotland regarding offers from manufacturers of free samples or supplies of milk powder or other infant formulæ.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Current guidance to health boards is that free samples or subsidised supplies of breastmilk substitutes should not be accepted from manufacturers for distribution to patients in maternity wards. Boards are also advised to avoid accepting anything of commercial value from manufacturers or distributors which may be seen as influencing their choice or use of infant formulae. These guidelines, implemented with the agreement of the manufacturers of baby milks, are part of the Government's response to the World Health Organisation's programme to promote and protect breastfeeding.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairmen of the local enterprise companies in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend meets local enterprise company chairmen from time to time, as do I and my colleagues. The fact that all local enterprise companies in Scotland are now operational is a considerable achievement, due in no small measure to the commitment of the chairmen and their fellow board members.

  Scottish Council for Spastics
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Council for Spastics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have not met representatives of the Scottish Council for Spastics. I did, however, visit Stanmore House school in September 1988 and opened a new unit for handicapped children at Westerlea school in June 1989. Both schools are run by the council. I maintain regular contact with the council through my Department's representatives on the council's professional advisory committee and fully recognise the valuable services which the council provides.

  Further Education
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had during the last six months on the provision of further education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend and I have met college principals, college council chairmen and the chairman of the Scottish Vocational Education Council over the last six months. We will shortly be publishing a White Paper setting out our policies on the future of further education colleges and comments will be invited.

  Rents-to-Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the counselling arrangements established for those tenants who have applied to join the Government's rents-to-mortgages scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Counselling on the Scottish Homes' pilot rent-to-mortgage scheme is available on request from Scottish Homes. Those who express an interest in purchasing their home through the rent-to-mortgage scheme are given full details of the financial implications and of alternative courses of action such as purchasing under the right-to-buy scheme. The precise arrangements are a matter for Scottish Homes.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the current total figures for 1991 are for(a) homeless persons on a regional basis, (b) the number of people on each housing waiting list, by district and (c) the number of district council/island authority houses left unlet for three months or more, in each authority area in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of applicants under the homeless persons legislation assessed by local authorities as homeless as recorded in the returns submitted to the Scottish Office in the year ended 31 March 1990 are set out in the table. Comparable figures for 1991 are not yet available. Reliable information on the number of people on housing waiting lists is not held centrally. Local authority returns on their vacant stock do not identify those unlet for three months or more. The available information, which relates to dwellings available for letting which had been vacant for four months or more at 31 March 1990, was published in table 15 of "Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin HSU No 17". Copies were sent to all Members representing Scottish constituencies and are available in the House Library.

  Applicant households under the homeless persons legislation assessed as homeless, by region, 1989–90

  Number

  Borders

  114

  Central1

  2,096

  Dumfries and Galloway

  465

  Fife

  2,017

  Grampian

  2,653

  Highland

  525

  Lothian

  4,367

  Strathclyde1

  14,310

  Tayside

  1,584

  Orkney Islands

  14

  Shetland Islands

  109

  54

  Number

  Western Isles

  58

  1 Some returns are known to be outstanding.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of people who are registered as disabled in Scotland, in the format most convenient to his Department;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the number of people who are registered as disabled in each local authority area in Scotland;

  (3) if he will publish a table showing the number of adults with (a) mental handicap, (b) mental illness and (c) physical handicap for each local authority area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of people in particular categories of disability is not collected centrally. Scottish local authorities are required to inform themselves of the numbers of chronically sick and disabled people within their areas but they are not required to keep registers of disabled people.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the funds awarded to local enterprise companies in Scotland has been specifically targeted to enhance the unit price of training for people with disabilities and learning difficulties; and if he will give an analysis of where any extra expenditure has been distributed by each LEC.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The funding of local enterprise companies for youth training is separate from the funding of adult training but beyond this there is no specific targeting of funds to particular groups within the main programmes. Decisions about unit prices paid to training providers are a matter for local enterprise companies.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount of land owned by the Forestry Commission on a county-by-county basis in(a) January 1981 and (b) January 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 March, at column 278.

  Legal Aid
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the net amount of legal aid paid in respect of divorce and related matters in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 May 1991]: The following figures are based on the costs of civil legal aid for divorce, separation, aliment and husband and wife miscellaneous, and of civil legal advice and assistance for family/matrimonial cases, all net of estimated income from contributions and expenses.

  Year

  £'000

  1981–82

  6,014

  1982–83

  7,485

  1983–84

  9,482

  55

  Year

  £'000

  1984–85

  7,627

  1985–86

  9,584

  1986–87

  10,894

  1987–88

  10,995

  1988–89

  10,807

  1989–90

  9,533

  1990–91

  10,732

  Youth Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table of Highlands and Islands Enterprise activitiy estimates for 1991–92 in comparison with HIDB/Training Agency activity estimates for 1990–91 in respect of youth training and adult training, in similar form to the figures published in table 3:7 of "Serving Scotland's Needs" for the Scottish Enterprise area.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 9 May 1991]: I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Hospital Security
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to investigate security arrangements at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: Security arrangements at the Royal Alexandra hospital are a matter for Argyll and Clyde health board who have been asked for a report on the situation.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines the Scottish Office has issued regarding security in hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: Security arrangements in hospitals are the responsibility of local managers. To assist them in the difficult task of providing proper security arrangements, the National Association of Health Authorities published a security manual in 1984. The manual includes practical guidance on the development of a security policy, appointment of security staff, the security of patients, staff and property, the prevention of trespass and intruder detection. It has been commended to health boards by my Department. It is being revised and copies will be re-issued later this year.

  Health boards were reminded in November 1990 of the need to keep their security arrangements under review and were encouraged to establish hospital watch schemes.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been(a) the establishment and (b) the actual strength of the Territorial Army in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Full details for years prior to 1982 are not recorded centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost. The relevant data for the years 1982 to 1990 are given in the table.
  56

  Strength

  Year

  Establishment

  Numbers

  Percentage of establishment

  1982

  75,000

  70,500

  94

  1983

  75,000

  70,300

  94

  1984

  75,100

  68,800

  92

  1985

  77,200

  70,500

  91

  1986

  80,200

  73,900

  92

  1987

  84,400

  74,600

  88

  1988

  85,300

  71,800

  84

  1989

  85,300

  71,300

  84

  1990

  85,600

  70,600

  82

  Note: Figures exclude the Home Service Force.

  The Gulf (Reserve Forces)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each of the armed forces, other than regulars, served in the Gulf campaign, distinguishing between the various categories of reserves in which they served; to what extent they were employed in medical units; and, for Army personnel, what were the corps or regiments in which they served.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures given in the following tables show reserve personnel called out for service with the armed forces during Operation Granby, including those who served in the Gulf area and in the United Kingdom and Germany.

  The Royal Navy called out a total of 414 personnel, no more than 399 of whom were embodied at any one time, as follows:

  Trade

  Royal Fleet Reserve

  Royal Naval Reserve

  Total at any one time

  Supply and secretariat

  34

  Nil

  34

  Cook

  4

  Nil

  4

  Radar

  70

  Nil

  70

  Diver

  8

  Nil

  8

  Communications

  81

  Nil

  81

  Electronic warfare

  32

  Nil

  32

  Medical

  11

  Nil

  11

  Weapons engineering

  48

  Nil

  48

  Mechanical engineering

  107

  Nil

  107

  Public affairs branch officers

  Nil

  119

  4

  395

  119

  399

  1 Of the 19 public affairs branch officers no more than four were embodied at any one time.

  The 11 RFR medical personnel were deployed to the Royal Naval Hospital at Haslar.

  The Army called out 1,075 reservists, as follows:

  Corps

  Members of Territorial Army

  Individual Reservists

  Total

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  529

  493

  1,022

  Royal Military Police

  39

  nil

  39

  Intelligence Corps

  4

  9

  13

  Royal Artillery

  nil

  1

  1

  Total

  572

  503

  1,705

  Reservists of the Royal Army Medical Corps were deployed to medical units. The majority, 977, were deployed to the Gulf, with the balance, 45, serving in Germany and the United Kingdom.
  57
  The Royal Air Force called out a total of 286 personnel although no more than 278 were serving at any one time. The breakdown is as follows:

  Squadron/Flight

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve

  Total at any one time

  No. 4626 Aeromedical Squadron

  125

  nil

  125

  No. 4624 Movements Squadron

  127

  nil

  127

  No. 7644 Flight, Public Relations Flight

  nil

  111

  13

  No. 7006 Flight, Intelligence Flight

  nil

  17

  17

  Mobile Meteorological Unit

  nil

  26

  6

  Total

  252

  34

  278

  1 Public Relations personnel were called out on a rotational basis. A maximum of 3 were embodied at any one time.

  2 Meteorological Officers held Civilian Component commissions in either the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve of Officers or the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve.

  No. 4626 Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron comprises doctors, nurses, medical assistants and support staff who were deployed to medical units in the Gulf and the United Kingdom.

  Hare Coursing
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many licences have been issued to allow hare coursing to take place on Ministry of Defence land.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 March 1991 at column 331.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are in the region of Ahmadi in Kuwait; from what regiments they are drawn; who is responsible for monitoring their health; what provisions have been made to limit their period of exposure to air pollution arising from oil fires; and when they are expected to return to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the British Army medical team working out of the Ahmadi hospital.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently some 30 medical personnel from the Royal Army Medical Corps and the RAF at Ahmadi hospital. There are also six patients from the battle group in the hospital. The medical personnel form the British medical support team, which provides surgical cover for the battle group. They are responsible for monitoring the health of the members of the battle group as well as their own. When the battle group withdraws, the medical team will remain in Kuwait to provide medical support to members of 21 Explosive Ordnance Disposal—EOD—Squadron. Face masks are available to these personnel and they are advised to avoid strenuous activity when in areas suffering heavy air pollution. The present members of the medical support team have only recently arrived in Kuwait; current plans envisage their withdrawal, with 21 EOD Squadron, within the next four months.
  58
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to inquire into the circumstances in which British soldiers in the Gulf were killed by fire from an allied aircraft; when he expects the inquiry to be concluded; and whether the conclusions will be published.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The British military investigation into the incident in which nine British soldiers were killed by fire from United States A10 aircraft on 26 February is being urgently pursued but has not yet been completed. Its findings will be discussed with the United States Administration to resolve any areas of uncertainty. The next of kin and Parliament will then be given as full an account of the outcome of the investigation as is possible.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long he expects that the British battle group will remain in Kuwait.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on 27 March at column 482.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to station United Kingdom forces in Dahuk.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Kurdish refugees have expressed concern at the security environment in Dahuk. The need for United Kingdom or other joint forces in Dahuk will be kept under review in the light of developments.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of military personnel for Royal Ordnance in Kuwait.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following the liberation of Kuwait, British forces in Kuwait provided emergency assistance to the Kuwaiti Government in clearing mines and other ordnance. In the longer term this work will be carried on and completed by civilian contractors, including Royal Ordnance plc. 21 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron, Royal Engineers will be deployed to Kuwait to provide specialist advice and assistance for a limited transitional period which will enable Royal Ordnance and the subcontractors to get established. Military personnel may carry out search, location, identification and recording/surveying of unexploded ordnance, booby traps and mines. They will not be employed directly on clearance of minefields nor on the disposal of other explosive devices. The unit will, at all times, remain under direct military control and the commanding officer will have the right to refuse tasks if, in his professional judgment, he believes they might involve risk greater than would be involved during normal peacetime work and training. Royal Ordnance will meet the full costs of the deployment.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of submarines in the Arabian Gulf during the conflict with Iraq.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Although it is not the normal practice of the Ministry of Defence to comment on the details of submarine operations, I can confirm that HMS Otus and HMS Opossum were deployed in support of Operation Granby.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the figures for defence research and development expenditures from public funds as a proportion of all such publicly funded outlays by central Government in each of the years 1963–64, 1969–70, 1973–74, 1978–79 and 1979–80.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Government-funded defence research and development expenditures as a percentage of all Government-funded research and development are as follows:

  Per cent.

  1969–70

  43

  1973–74

  42

  1978–79

  49

  1979–80

  50

  Data for 1963–64 are not available.

  Sirsensk Air Base
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action United Kingdom/United States forces are taking to extend the air base at Sirsensk.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  United Kingdom forces deployed in Turkey and northern Iraq are currently being supported by helicopters based in Turkey, principally at Silopi. The requirement for forward operating bases will be kept under review in the light of developments; Sirsensk is a possibility.

  Kuwait Oil Fires
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept of all personnel involved in countering Kuwait oil fires; and whether he will make it his policy that they will be made available to civil lawyers in any future cases relative to health and safety.
  60
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No military personnel are involved in countering Kuwait oil fires.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what logistical support he is giving to capping and extinguishing oil wells in Kuwait.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 30 April,Official Report, column 150.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Strangford Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils there are at each primary and secondary school in the constituency of Strangford in the present academic year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not yet available. However, I have arranged for it to be sent to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as it is available.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland will carry out an epidemiological survey into the incidence of myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans at present to carry out such a survey, but it should be added that myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME—is recognised by the Government and the health service as a debilitating and distressing condition but it is not yet a clearly defined disease.

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

Product Development Risks
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of any case in which use has been made of the defence of development risks provided for in Section (4) (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as far as I am aware, no cases involving a claim for damages under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 have yet come before the courts. Therefore the use of the development risk defence has not arisen.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for that reply. In the light of the information it contains, do the Government still take the view that this defence is absolutely crucial to the prosperity of British industry notwithstanding the fact that the German drugs industry, for example, seems to manage perfectly well without it? Have the Government yet resolved their differences with the European Commission about the way in which, contrary to the decision taken in your Lordships' House, the Act implemented the provision in the directive?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The Commission has expressed concern about the way in which the UK implemented the directive. We have responded in full to the Commission's reasoned opinion of October 1990. It is now for the Commission to decide whether or not it wishes to pursue the matter through the European Court. The directive came into effect only in March 1988 and applies to goods first supplied after that date. It is pet haps not surprising that no cases have yet reached the courts when one considers the period of time involved where a product has been put into circulation, has proved to be defective, has caused injury and the claimant has taken legal advice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that during the passage of the Consumer Protection Act through your Lordships' House an amendment was passed which reflected precisely the words of the directive? The amendment was reversed in another place after two minutes' debate. That happened, I believe, after the 1987 general election had been called. Will the Government now say whether they are in favour of the words of the directive as passed in your Lordships' House and of the amendment passed in your Lordships' House, or whether they still abide by their decision to reverse that amendment in another place?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are in favour of the words contained in the Consumer Protection Act as it was passed. The wording was chosen to reflect more closely the meaning of the directive when transposed into UK law. We believe it made the defence easier to understand for both the courts and businesses involved.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to return to the point. I must however ask the noble Viscount, with respect, whether he is not aware that that was not the argument the Government put forward at the time. There was no question of the amendment passed by this House being out of order in any sense or failing properly to translate into UK law the words of the directive. It was because the Government took a quite different view of the effect of what might be contained in the then Bill that they reversed the amendment. Will the Government now take a different view of the matter?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords. The Government take the same view they took previously. Section 1(1) of the Consumer Protection Act states that Part I of the Act is intended to implement the EC directive on product liability. Therefore, in any dispute over the wording, the UK courts would be bound to interpret the legislation in accordance with the meaning of the directive. Member states of the EC are, of course, free to adopt wording in national legislation that is different to the wording of a directive provided that the objective of the directive is achieved.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as this matter is almost certain to go to the Court of Justice would it not be better to wait until that court has dealt with the matter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. We await the reaction of the European Commission.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount can clarify something he said which is rather puzzling. Surely if a case comes before the courts in this country, the courts are obliged simply to interpret the Act that is on the statute book. Am I right in saying that the courts cannot say that the Act is meant to represent the directive and therefore they may consult the directive? I speak as a layman. However, am I not right in saying that a court in this country must simply interpret the Act that is before it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. No doubt he recalls Section 1(1) of the Consumer Protection Act which refers to the fact that Part I of the Act is intended to implement the directive.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many people take the view—I do not wish to pursue the matter in the light of what has just been said—that the Act does not implement the directive? Will the Government seriously consider taking an initiative and doing away with the defence altogether when the directive comes up for review in 1995?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have grasped the initiative in this country. I know of the noble Lord's great knowledge and expertise in the area. This country was the first to implement the directive before the required date. France, Belgium, Ireland and Spain have still not done so.

NHS: Number of Medically Qualified Staff
2.42 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reductions they expect in the numbers of medically qualified staff in National Health Service hospitals during the coming year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we do not expect reductions in the overall number of doctors in National Health Service hospitals. The Government are committed to a supply of doctors which is adequate to meet demand.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, the Question was not intended to relate to doctors alone, although strictly speaking, as the noble Baroness said, medical staff means doctors. However, doctors would not get very far without nurses, scientists and paramedics. Will there be no reduction in the numbers of people who assist doctors? Is she also aware that it is now 10 years since the Black Committee reported that poverty is the biggest enemy of good health in this country? Is she further aware that with unemployment, homelessness and lack of housing on the increase, poverty will increase and therefore ill health will increase? Will the question of dealing with poverty, which creates ill health, be taken into account in considering the future of the health service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the first place the Government are directing all their policies to ensuring that poverty does not increase. However, in saying that I recognise the need for co-ordination in government policy. I point to community care and the preventive health approach, both of which take account of the various factors involved, as the way forward. Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to say again for the record that we currently have more doctors than ever before and more nurses than ever before and that more patients are being treated than ever before.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, since we are talking numbers, can the noble Baroness say how many medically qualified staff we have now compared with 10 years ago?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if in speaking of medically qualified staff the noble Lord means doctors, which is the recognised interpretation of the phrase, in the United Kingdom the number of doctors working in the NHS has risen from 76,442 in 1979 to 89,475 in 1989, an increase of 17 per cent.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the National Health Service's record regarding staff increases over the past 10 years goes even further than she has just told us and we have had an additional 8,000 nurses, 15,000 dentists and 5,000 hospital doctors over the past 10 years? That is not a bad record.
Lord Ennals: My Lords—
Noble Lords: The answer!
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for providing additional figures. He said 8,000 nurses. The figure is more like 80,000 nurses.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am so sorry to have interrupted the noble Baroness. Is not the Question about the future? What is the Minister's view of the report of the Universities Funding Council of 8th May that the situation in the main teaching hospitals, particularly in London, is now:
"sufficiently serious as to raise doubts about their future ability to deliver a viable educational programme unless urgent corrective action is taken";
and that if the teaching hospitals fail to attract enough work not only will hundreds of jobs be in peril but the training of doctors will also be jeopardised? Does she consider that a party political statement, as the BMA's is alleged to be, or does she think that there is some truth in it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we obviously need the co-operation of the medical profession in all of this. As regards Achieving a Balance, that represents the agreed policy on manpower planning between the National Health Service, the joint consultants committee and the Government. So far as concerns medical school intake and teaching, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that a new committee will be set up to examine overall requirements for numbers of medical staff.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister say what the Government's reaction is to the report published last week?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to check with Guy's and Lewisham, where the hospital trust has recently announced a cut of 10 per cent. in all grades, despite other figures that we have been given? Will she also check with Charing Cross and Westminster hospitals, which have issued a statement that more than 435 jobs will be lost, including doctors, consultants, technicians, paramedics and scientists? That seems to conflict with what the Minister has said. Ought these matters not to be examined? Above all, should we not ensure that those powerful and well-equipped hospitals are easily accessible to those who for another term face the possibility of being poverty stricken?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all of the trusts which have announced any programme of reductions have made it clear that the reductions in staff will be made at all levels and wherever possible by natural wastage.

1353
So far as concerns the teaching hospitals, it must be the case that patients should not have to move to hospitals for the convenience of those who are learning to become doctors. It must be for the doctors to move where the patients are. If that means out of central London then that is what it means.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, this is a terribly important matter. The BMA complained about the fact that people are being sent to hospitals where there is nowhere to put them except in the corridors. They cannot even send them back home. It is a serious question for both the Government and the department. Can these matters at least be looked at?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reason for our comprehensive set of reforms, which has just been introduced, is to make the National Health Service more efficient.

CAP: Cost of East German Membership
2.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much they estimate the United Kingdom will pay towards the cost of absorbing East German agriculture into the common agricultural policy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Community budget for agricultural market support in 1991 was increased in December by?916 million in order to meet the costs of extending the common agricultural policy to East Germany. It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the additional costs involved for the United Kingdom, but in 1991 the United Kingdom is expected to contribute some 11.7 per cent. of the Community budget.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply and I welcome the dramatic changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe during the last two years. Recognising that this is a difficult subject, should not the German Government meet a large part of that bill because they promoted unification and have benefited politically from it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, from the date of unification the CAP applied in East Germany as in other parts of the Community. The costs of agricultural support are therefore met from the Community budget in the normal way. However, the costs of disposing of stocks accumulated under the previous regime—for example, the costs; of export refunds on exports of agricultural products under contracts agreed by the old GDR—are paid for by Germany.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that East Germany was able to come in through the back-door without any delay and without any veto by any other country? Is it not also a fact that the
1354
Community's agricultural budget is already overdrawn and that, because of the extra£900 million which the noble Baroness mentioned, the Community will run out of money earlier than it would otherwise do? Can we have the Government's assurance that they will not agree to a further increase in the Community's own resources through additional VAT contributions?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is no case for increasing the budget. The 1991 budget was increased to take account of the estimated costs resulting from German unification and that increase is within the guideline. Those estimated costs have not changed. It is other factors such as continuing over-production, falling consumption and weak world markets which are leading to budget problems. Those are precisely the types of over-expenditure that the budget discipline arrangements, including the guideline, were designed to curb.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, so long as the budget guideline on agricultural expenditure is respected, the overall amount paid by the United Kingdom cannot be affected although the division between East and West may be? Does she not therefore agree that it is vital that the budget guideline should be respected?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I entirely agree with both my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that under the present arrangements the common agricultural policy contributions are of such a nature that Germany and the United Kingdom are net contributors to the budget; that France, on the other hand, receives as much out of the CAP as it puts in; and that the remaining nine member states receive more out of the CAP than they put in? Despite the words used elsewhere in the Chamber this afternoon, is it not a fact that, if that balance is disturbed by reason of Germany taking out rather more than it currently puts in, whatever one says about the British contribution in percentage terms, in money terms it is likely to be a much larger sum?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have two answers. I do not know which to give the noble Lord, but I shall try the second one. It is not possible to give a figure for the UK share of the cost of the CAP. The UK contributes to the EC budget as a whole, not to parts of the budget. Moreover, the UK's contribution to the budget is reduced by the abatement—£2,367 million in 1991—paid by the 11 other member states to reduce our overall share. That cannot realistically be allocated to the different parts of the budget.
Noble Lords: Try the other answer!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in for a penny, in for a pound. The United Kingdom contributes to the cost of the CAP, which applies in East Germany now that it is part of the Community, but the same applies to other member states. Germany's contribution to the EC budget automatically increased when East Germany was absorbed into the Community.

1355
Germany remains the largest contributor to the total budget, paying about three times the UK's contribution. I hope that your Lordships are satisfied.

East Timor
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to promote the implementation of United Nations resolutions with respect to East Timor.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we support the efforts of the UN Secretary General to promote a dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia leading to a settlement which takes into account the interests of the East Timorese people.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but perhaps he will answer two further questions. First, given the fact that 100,000 people—a sixth of the population—have lost their lives since the illegal occupation of East Timor by the Indonesians in 1975 and given that British arms sales have contributed to sustaining the presence of Indonesia in East Timor, does not the Minister think that it is about time that we reviewed our arms sales policy towards the Indonesian armed services? Secondly, will the Minister say whether, in view of the Amnesty reports on human rights violations, he took up that matter on his recent visit to Djakarta?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the second question is yes. On the first question, the number of deaths is not known. The noble Baroness quoted a figure which has been mentioned before, but many of those deaths were in the earlier stages of the Indonesian enforcement of its rule in East Timor. More recently, there has been a great improvement. Even more recently, the ICRC has been allowed in and certain excesses by the army have been dealt with.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, on the question of arms sales to Indonesia, is it not a fact that, if she did not buy from this country, she would buy from someone else?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, all countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations Charter to secure the means of their own self-defence. Therefore, my noble friend is probably right.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will disregard the supplementary question asked by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and with which the House must disagree. However, does he agree that the Indonesian Government have waged a cruel war against the East Timorese against the resolutions of the United Nations? Does he agree that Her Majesty's Government have indicated on several occasions that they are in favour of self-determination for the East Timorese? In those circumstances, how can he
1356
possibly justify the sale of arms to Indonesia? Can he say whether, he raised that matter with the Indonesian Government when he was in Djakarta recently and can he say what their reaction was?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we ought to put the sales of arms in perspective. There has not been a great volume of sales of arms, but I reiterate that all countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations Charter to secure the means of their own self-defence. I therefore think that my noble friend is probably right: if a country wishes to buy equipment of one kind or another, it will shop around the world markets and so acquire it. I reiterate that I raised the matter in Djakarta. I spoke about it to the Foreign Minister, Mr. Alatas, and the other Ministers that I met. I also saw members of the ICRC with whom I discussed the situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, but what was their reaction to the noble Earl's representations to them? Is the noble Earl saying that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of the sale of arms to a country which is waging an unjust war against a small country of 600,000 people, against all the principles and decisions of the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my concern was very much with the human rights side of the matter. We hope that the UN Secretary General will be able to solve the matter bilaterally with Indonesia and Portugal. It was the disintegration of the Portuguese colonial empire that led to the present unhappy situation and the move by Indonesia. I must tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that we take great care in any arms sales not to sell arms that might be used against civilian populations.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Question illustrates, not for the first time, the danger of passing resolutions that cannot be implemented? Is it not for the United Nations to take the initiative regarding the implementation of its resolutions rather than for the United Kingdom on its own?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree. This is very much a situation in which the United Kingdom is concerned about human rights, as it is worldwide. However, the actual details must be resolved with the UN Secretary General and bilaterally between Indonesia and Portugal.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister said, does he agree that he is justifying the sale of arms by other countries to the IRA?
The Earl of Caithness: No, certainly not, my Lords.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be

1357
adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour. In that event, the Second Reading of the Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Bill will be taken in the break.

Deer Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments to this Bill have been set down and no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless therefore any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The scheduled offences]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("or Part III") and insert (", III or IV").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 26 and 27.
The Committee will be aware that the provisions conferring new powers to investigate terrorist finance which were added in the other place are now found in Clause 57 and Schedule 5 to the Bill. Clause 57 provides that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State may appoint a person other than a police officer to have certain powers of investigation. These powers are in the main set out in Schedule 5.
Experience in Northern Ireland and elsewhere has indicated that it will often be extremely difficult to obtain sufficient evidence against terrorist financiers for offences which specifically relate to their terrorist activities. But the experience is that such criminals and gangsters often fail to comply with their obligations under the general law of the land. The Committee may recall Mr. Capone was sentenced for tax evasion rather than the other violent crimes for which he was undoubtedly responsible. We believe that in the course of investigating terrorist finances authorised investigators are likely to uncover other crimes committed by the terrorists. Where there is sufficient evidence,
1358
prosecution ought to follow. But because of the nature of the defendant's activities, there would be a real risk of intimidation of jurors. That is why we propose that any offence arising out of the new powers of investigation should be a scheduled offence. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 4.
Whether an offence is or is not charged as a consequence of the use of the provisions in Clause 57 and Schedule 5 is a question of fact. Because the pre-trial procedures for scheduled and non-scheduled offences are different, it is necessary to have some mechanism for making clear at an early stage whether an offence involving finance is to be treated as a scheduled offence. That is why provision is made in Amendment No. 4 for an officer of the RUC not below the rank of superintendent to certify that as a matter of fact a particular offence is charged in consequence of a terrorist funds investigation.
While there is little doubt that by far the majority of offences arising out of the use of these new powers will be closely connected with the emergency, there is at least a theoretical possibility of an authorised investigator uncovering an offence which has nothing to do with the emergency. That is why the Attorney-General will be empowered to certify that an offence which has been uncovered in that way shall not be treated as a scheduled offence. His criteria for granting such a certificate will be the same as those which he applies when certifying-out those offences in Part I of Schedule 1 which are subject to note 1 in that part of the Bill.
We also propose—this is the effect of Amendments Nos. 26 and 27—that any such offence which has not been "certified out" should be a relevant offence for the purpose of the confiscation scheme in Part VII of the Bill.
These amendments will enable those involved in terrorist finance to be brought to justice without the risk of jury intimidation. The power to certify out is an important safeguard which will ensure that those whose offences are unconnected with the emergency will continue to be tried before a jury. I hope that the Committee will feel that that is practical and fair. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We very much welcome these four amendments and support them. The noble Lord spent some time explaining Amendment No. 4. In a sense that is a little unusual and perhaps the Minister could go further and explain precisely what will be the role of the police in determining whether or not an offence should be a scheduled offence.
As I understand it, the Government up to now have resisted giving the police a role in deciding whether an offence is to be a scheduled offence or not a scheduled offence. But as I read Amendment No. 4, the police will be given that role, subject to the Attorney-General certifying that the offence should not be treated as a scheduled offence. I listened carefully to the Minister and his words will have to be studied. But I wonder whether he can say any more which will throw light on the precise role of the police in determining whether or not an offence is to be treated as a scheduled offence.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord is absolutely right to ask the question. There has always been concern expressed whenever it has been suggested that the police might be involved in some way in the process of determining whether or not an offence should be scheduled. But we are dealing here with a matter of fact and not a matter of discretion. The effect of this part of the amendment is that where there is an offence which has become evident as a result of investigative powers under Clause 57 by the use of special investigators using powers which are given to them also in Schedule 5, we propose that any offence arising out of Clause 57 and Schedule 5 shall be a scheduled offence.
As I said, that is the effect of the Amendments Nos. 1 and 4. But the magistrates' court to which the case comes needs to know—from the point of view of considering bail, for instance—whether or not the offence is scheduled. If it is a scheduled offence the magistrates' court will not deal with a bail matter in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord knows. It is at that point that in this part of the Bill somebody is needed to certify whether the offence coming to the court is or is not a scheduled offence. At that point we have put in Amendment No. 4 which states that a senior RUC officer will certify—not as a matter of discretion but as a matter of fact—that the offence coming before the court arises because of an investigation under Clause 57 and Schedule 5. I hope that replies to the noble Lord's point.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps the Minister can go just a little further. Will there be an arrangement between the police and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland whereby the police will consult with the Attorney-General and take guidance or steering from him before they decide that this is to be certified in?
Lord Belstead: Once again the noble Lord has every right to probe. We are in Committee. Therefore at this point if there is any matter that I ought to add or change I shall either try to put it right later or write to the noble Lord. However, I am fairly sure that the answer to the noble Lord's point is no. The Attorney-General is in the important judicial position of being able to certify out an offence. That position has existed since scheduled offences began.
It is important that I repeat the point that I made in my opening remarks. In order to bend over backwards to ensure that there is a safeguard, if, despite the fact that a financial offence has arisen because of an investigation under Clause 57 and Schedule 5, the Attorney-General finds that the offence has nothing to do with the emergency, it will be open to the Attorney-General to certify the offence out.
However, I may need to write to the noble Lord on this point. I should have thought that it would not be appropriate for the Attorney-General and the Royal Ulster Constabulary to be in communication on the certifying point about which the noble Lord asks me.
Lord Prys-Davies: I hope that I have made the point clear. Our concern is this. It seems to me that for the first time in connection with scheduled offences,
1360
the police are given a semi-judicial role. We shall have to study carefully what the Minister said and decide whether or not we need further clarification.
Lord Belstead: At the risk of being tedious, I do not believe that the noble Lord's final intervention is right. The police are being used as a channel of communication to tell the court that the offence arises because of an investigation under Clause 57 and Schedule 5. A senior police officer will tell the court that as a matter of fact and not as a matter of discretion.
Lord Prys-Davies: I take it that he will be a channel of communication from the Attorney-General's department to the magistrates' court.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Scheduled Offences]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 51, leave out line 44 and insert:
("(e) paragraph 25B of Schedule 4 (contravention of restraint orders.").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 36 and 49. Amendments Nos. 36 and 49 have the effect of creating new offences of contravening a restraint order granted under Schedule 4 to the Bill or Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The amendments also provide that such offences shall be scheduled offences and relevant offences for the purposes of the confiscation provisions of the Bill. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
As the Committee will be aware, the purpose of restraint orders is simply to freeze assets so that those assets are available for forfeiture or confiscation in the event of a subsequent conviction. Such orders are normally granted by the High Court but because of the special difficulties that exist in Northern Ireland an amendment made in the other place provides that in certain closely defined circumstances the Secretary of State may grant such orders.
Breaches of a restraint order granted by a court would under the existing law be dealt with as contempt of court with the result that the maximum period of imprisonment is two years. As the Bill stands at present the same maximum penalty would be available for contravention of a Secretary of State restraint order.
I believe the Committee will fully understand that a maximum penalty of two years would not be adequate to deal with the deliberate flouting of such orders in cases involving terrorist finance. In other words, to be blunt, terrorists would move their money out before the money could be frozen. For that reason the maximum period of imprisonment for the new offences will be 14 years, as proposed in the amendment. That penalty is fully consistent with the no more serious offences which are set out in Clauses 53 and 54 of the Bill: that is, of assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related finance; or concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities.
However, it is right that only those who deliberately or recklessly flout such orders should be punished. The new offences accordingly include a defence that the person acted,
"with lawful authority or reasonable excuse".
Where that defence is relied on, it will be for the defendant to make it out only to the civil standard of proof en the balance of probabilities.
I contend that these amendments would both simplify and clarify the law, would rightly provide a statutory defence to protect the innocent, and would provide the courts with an adequate range of penalties with which to deal with persons convicted of the new offences relating to terrorist financing.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: Again we agree the amendment moved by the noble Lord and those amendments to which he spoke. However, I should like to have a further explanation of Amendment No. 36, which increases the penalty on indictment for contravention of a restraint order from a two year sentence to a 14 year sentence. I hope that the Minister will agree on consideration that we should have an explanation as to why 14 years was not considered necessary when the Bill was presented to Parliament last November. The Government were then content with a two year sentence.
I happily go along with a 14-year sentence. Indeed the last impression I wish to give is that we wish to go soft on such offenders. But we are entitled to an explanation as to why the Government did not consider such a penalty three months ago.
Lord Belstead: I do not know that I have a particularly good answer to that question because of the lengthy time that the Bill was in another place. However, in my opening remarks I stated that this maximum penalty of 14 years for such an offence would be on all fours with other offences in the Bill. I drew the attention of the Committee to Clauses 53 and 54 of the Bill. Clause 53 relates to assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities. Clause 54 relates to concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities. This amendment relates to flouting of restraint orders. I can think of nothing more to drive a coach and horses through the confiscation provisions than making it easy for a terrorist, who is liable to have Part VII of the Bill visited upon his head—in other words confiscation—to move the money away to another jurisdiction.
For flat reason we believe that the maximum penalty ought to be on all fours with, for instance, Clauses 53 and 54.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. It does not answer my curiosity as to why such provision was not considered three or four months ago.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 52, line 15, leave out ("8(4)") and insert ("8A").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
1362
Page 53, line 13, at end insert:

PART IV
OFFENCES CHARGED FOLLOWING TERRORIST FUNDS INVESTIGATIONS
Any offence, other than a summary offence, which an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of superintendent certifies is charged in consequence of a terrorist funds investigation, unless the Attorney General for Northern Ireland certifies that it is not to be treated as a scheduled offence; and in this Part of this Schedule—

(a) "summary offence" means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is punishable only on summary conviction; and

(b) "a terrorist funds investigation" means an investigation for the purposes of which a person has been authorised under section 57 of this Act to exercise the powers conferred by Schedule 5 to this Act.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Mode of trial on indictment of scheduled offences]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 18, at end insert:
("() For the purpose of this section, the court shall be comprised of two or more judges.").
The noble Lord said: The obvious objective of the amendment is to substitute a multi-judge court for the single judge who sits alone without a jury in the Diplock courts which are the courts which try terrorist or scheduled offences in Northern Ireland. I should make it clear that such trials constitute just under 30 per cent. and no more of all the indictable cases in Northern Ireland.
The amendment cannot claim the attributes of novelty. It has been the subject of argument ever since the Diplock courts were established. The fact that we are tabling the amendment is evidence that even after the passage of time the doubts have not been dispelled. The argument will not go away.
The amendment is fully supported by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland; that is the Government's own commission. It is supported by the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland. The view of the Government of the Republic of Ireland is that a multi-judge court would greatly strengthen confidence in the administration of justice among members of the nationalist community in the Province.
I readily accept that the issue is one of perception. I am the first to pay tribute to members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. Their quality and standards are of the highest order. Their commitment and courage are unquestioned. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. However, in a Diplock court the judge sits alone, without a jury. He must act as both judge and jury. He may hear evidence or submissions which at a later stage he must dismiss from his mind. There is no allegation or claim that the judges have failed to discharge that difficult task. Yet it is

1363
unacceptable that they should be put in that position. It is also unacceptable that the situation should lead to a lack of confidence in the administration of justice.
When a similar amendment was before another place the Solicitor-General acknowledged that a court system which lacked a jury trial for this kind of offence was only second best. The words "second best" were used by the Solicitor-General. We add that the system fails to command full confidence in some quarters of the Province because it is second best.
In theory the best solution to the problem would be a return to jury trial. However, on behalf of Members on these Benches I accept that it is too early to return to the jury system because of the risks of intimidation and perverse verdicts. Therefore, we believe that the only other solution is to introduce a multi-judge court. That solution has been widely canvassed since the establishment of the Diplock courts and it has been supported by many people in the Province.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell the Committee that the amendment may be good in theory but there will be several practical difficulties in its implementation. I accept that he has a point. The Province has a population of only 1.5 million and therefore it does not have the necessary number of judges to staff a multi judge court. Even if it were possible recruitment from the senior Bar would deplete its membership. I understand that to be the main argument against the amendment and I accept that it has force. There are other administrative arguments but it has been shown that they can be overcome.
I shall be interested to learn from the Minister how many cases are heard annually in the Diplock courts. How many of the defendants then proceed to appeal to the three-judge court of appeal? In Northern Ireland there is an automatic right of appeal on fact or on law from a Diplock court to a three-judge court of appeal. If there are difficulties in manning the multi-judge court with High Court or even county court judges, are there good reasons why a judge should not sit with lay assessors? What are the valid objections to that solution?
I should also be interested to know whether there are any valid objections to mainland judges serving in Northern Ireland. Is there any reason why they should not go to the Province on a tour of duty? The Minister may say that that would be exceptional. That is right but, after all, we are dealing with exceptional circumstances. We are talking about an emergency; that word is in the title of the Bill.
I have summarised the case. The arguments have been well canvassed on previous occasions. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I support the amendment. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It is difficult to make original comments about the subject because it has been well explored in this Chamber and in another place. The fact that the arguments against the Diplock courts are not original does not mean that they do not have considerable force. It is a clicheé that justice must not
1364
only be done but it must be seen to be done. While we have the single-judge courts there will exist an anxiety in the Republic of Ireland and in other countries about the quality of British justice in Northern Ireland.
We all agree that the two main problems with a Diplock court are, first, that it is a clear departure from the generally acceptable standards of justice. The right of trial by jury has long been held sacrosanct in common law. Secondly, there is a risk that judges will become case hardened and unable to approach the evidence in a fresh manner as is expected of a jury. I too pay tribute to our hard-pressed judges. No one could possibly doubt the integrity with which they conduct their difficult business. However, that does not mean that Parliament should not concern itself with the long-term issues as well as the immediate short-term issues.
I understand the problem of numbers. The Northern Irish judiciary is not large and demands for three or even two judges per case would create considerable logistical problems. If judges from England were introduced it could be argued that they would not have sufficient familiarity with the local scene. I suggest that there would be merit in considering the proposal mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies; that is, using local senior barristers and solicitors alongside judges at least in order to evaluate the evidence. A judge sitting with two other legal minds might provide protection against the dangers of one person alone making the decision. I commend to the Minister the suggestion that senior lawyers sitting solely as triers of the facts will be a useful half-way house between the present system and the eventual return to the normal jury trial. Simply standing pat on a system that is increasingly unacceptable to fair justice and to world opinion is not good enough.
Lord Fitt: In 1973 when the original Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill was going through its Committee stage in another place I moved an amendment to provide that there should be three judges, as was the case in the Republic of Ireland, or that there should be lay assessors. My proposal was to increase in the number of personnel in the courts. I tabled such an amendment because I was bitterly opposed to the IRA and all its machinations.
At that time in 1973 my home, my family and myself were under vicious attack by the IRA because I was regarded as not being a nationalist and as being too pro-British and so on. It is hardly likely that I would have moved an amendment to increase the number of judges if I had thought that that would in any way help the men of violence, help their cause or make it more difficult for the judiciary to deal with such cases.
I moved that amendment in 1973. All these years later, I still believe that if there were to be an increase in the number of judges it would intimidate those in Northern Ireland who constantly claim that British justice is not fair and is weighted against the nationalist or Catholic population.
On occasions, the Republic has been under attack but the system there has three judges. The argument was put forward here on Second Reading by my noble

1365
friend Lord Prys-Davies and in reply to a debate on internment the Minister called forth the experiences of the people in the Republic. He said that internment was still on the statute book in the Republic and could be reinstated at any time. He called forth that argument because of objections that were being made against any possible reintroduction of internment in Northern Ireland.
If the Minister called forth the experience of the Republic in that case, then he should accept the experience in this case. In the Republic, the system uses three judges. The reason for three is to make clear that on serious terrorist charges a defendant is given every protection which he merits under the law. I believe that if there were to be two judges or an increase in lay assessors and personnel, then the perception among the nationalist population in Northern Ireland would be that the Government were bending over backwards to ensure that justice was done in accordance with all the standards we have had for centuries in this country.
I do not wish to help, excuse or make matters easy for the terrorists. I do not criticise for the sake of criticising. I believe that if the amendment is carried it will help the whole administration of justice in Northern Ireland and do away with the many criticisms made by the nationalist population in Northern Ireland.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: I do not believe that the case for the amendment has been made out. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the argument seems to rest on the basis that to accept the amendment would strengthen confidence. He went on to speak about a matter of perception, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I do not believe that there is the lack of confidence which noble Lords speak about. When I was in Northern Ireland some years ago I heard many complaints about different matters but not about the Diplock courts. It was quite remarkable: I had expected that there would be such complaints. I found an acceptance that the Diplock courts as constituted—that is, with a single judge—worked. I am not talking only about the unionist population but about the whole population.
I believe—and perhaps my noble friend will confirm this when he replies to the debate—that what I say is borne out by events. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made reference to the number of appeals. I understand that there are fewer appeals from the Diplock courts than there are from courts with juries. As the noble Lord said, an appeal is automatic. One can appeal against verdict or sentence without seeking permission to do so, but people do not appeal. Why is that? It can only be because there is confidence that justice is being done.
If the amendment is adopted, there must be more judges. As already mentioned, that would be difficult. I do not believe that it would be an advantage. Presumably, the existing judges in Northern Ireland are the best available within the legal profession in the Province. If more were to be recruited, they would not be as good. Presumably, the best are there already.
1366
Since the operation of the law depends so much on the expertise and skill of the judges, we must do nothing to diminish that expertise, knowledge and excellence. I do not know what lay assessors are. If they are laymen, I cannot think that they will do much good as judges without any training. Therefore, unless I have misunderstood the term "lay assessor", which I probably have, I disregard that.
I do not believe that the case for making an alteration in the system which demonstrably works well has been made out. I shall oppose the amendment.
Lord Elton: I support my noble friend. The two noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment went out of their way to say that there is no discontent as regards the delivery of justice. They praised the system in the way that it works. Nevertheless, they argue that there is a perception that three judges may be fairer than two and that that would be seen to be the case both in the community and abroad.
The first comment which they made seems to show that there is no pragmatic need for the change. The second matter is answered by the fact that any defendant who feels that he has not received justice from one judge may appeal to three judges. A much more convincing argument is needed if we are to speak of a substantial change with substantial resource requirements or the introduction of new standards of justice such as would be associated either with lay assessors or, indeed, judges not familiar with the Northern Irish scene because they are drawn from British courts.
Lord Lyell: I should like to ask my noble friend for some information. I believe that he will have the figures available. I listened carefully to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Fitt and Lord Holme, and to my two noble friends. Of course, an accused found guilty by a Diplock court has an automatic right of appeal to a three-judge court of appeal as is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom. My recollection is that the number of appeals from Diplock courts which found in favour of an accused was within 1 per cent. either way of any case brought anywhere else in the United Kingdom under the normal jury trial system. Therefore, unless there has been a very dramatic change since I left the Province 18 months ago, it seems to me that everything said by my noble friends proves that the present system in Northern Ireland is working. It gives an accused person the same rights that would be enjoyed elsewhere in the United Kingdom under the present system of justice. Perhaps my noble friend is able to give me the figures.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to refer to one argument raised by a noble Lord opposite who seemed to suggest that the existing body of judges in Northern Ireland was the ultimate body. Unless I misunderstood him, he said that to make an increase would in some way diminish it or, make it less valid or good. That strikes me as an extraordinary argument. I believe that to be a strong argument for the amendment although I am sure that there are other

1367
arguments. If an existing judge retires, he is replaced, presumably from the existing reservoir of lawyers in Northern Ireland. That would not weaken the judiciary there. I am inclined to support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said when moving the amendment, it does not have the merit of novelty. Nonetheless, the noble Lord spoke persuasively and neither he nor the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench suggested that such courts, in helping to compensate for the absence of a jury, would improve the standard of justice.
Perhaps I may briefly address myself to that point before turning to the arguments put forward. Apart from the lack of any criticism by those who have reviewed the Diplock courts on behalf of the Government in recent years, there are powerful safeguards contained in the procedures. The safeguards are, first, the requirement upon the court to provide a written judgment stating the reasons for a conviction; secondly, my noble friend Lord Lyell was absolutely right in pointing out that there is an unfettered right of appeal to the three-judge Court of Appeal against sentence or conviction on any ground. Taken together, those safeguards ensure that the Court of Appeal can effectively scrutinise in detail and assess the reasons for a conviction.
In opening, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, very fairly paid tribute to the judiciary in Northern Ireland. However, he said that these courts were simply not right in principle and therefore change would improve confidence. I believe the noble Lord conceded that the necessity for Diplock courts rested to some extent on practicalities. Three of my noble friends on this side of the House who have served in Northern Ireland spoke on the amendment. They were my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, a former Secretary of State, and my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Lyell. All three said that they were suspicious of the amendment. The reason is that practicalities loom large in this matter. My noble friend Lord Colville, lists a number of objections to the change being sought which were made by the present Lord Chief Justice and other judges. Those objections have real force. There would need to be an enhanced panel of judges and it is by no means certain that sufficient suitable candidates would be available or indeed would allow their names to go forward.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that my noble friend Lord Colville, in his report, said that there is no greater ease in finding candidates for the Bench than six years ago, one of the most serious deterrents being the prospect of an armed guard for a judge and his family into the foreseeable future. There is therefore a very real Northern Ireland dimension in the matter. Given the number of cases heard before the Diplock courts, multi-judge courts would be likely to create major problems as regards allocation and listing of cases.
If the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will forgive me for saying so, comparing the three-judge courts in the Republic of Ireland with single judge courts in Northern Ireland is not comparing like with like. The weight of work on the Diplock courts in Northern
1368
Ireland must be infinitely greater than the weight of work on the three-judge courts in the Republic. I ask the Committee to look carefully at what a number of the distinguished reviewers of the emergency legislation said on the issue. Sir George Baker gave exhaustive consideration to the question in 1984 but came down against any change. My noble friend Lord Colville sets out some of the practical difficulties, as I said.
In paragraph 9.1 of his report, my noble friend makes clear that he has no criticism of the performance of the single judge, no jury, Diplock courts. The Government agree with my noble friend on that point. Nonetheless the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to the perceptions that there are of the standards of justice. He made the point that these courts would publicly persuade people of their high standards of justice if they were reformed in this way. There is no reason to doubt the standard of justice dispensed by judges sitting alone. There is no evidence to suggest that the present system has led to a lowering of standards. In addition, the rate of acquittals in Diplock courts for those contesting the charges laid against them is broadly similar to non-terrorist cases.
Perhaps I may answer one question raised by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. Of those who plead not guilty the acquittal rate is the same as in ordinary courts and successful appeals from the Diplock courts run at a similar rate, in proportionate terms, to the ordinary appeal courts.
I believe we can all agree on one point; that is, that the necessity for having special courts continues to exist. However, much as we regret that necessity I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment. I do so not wishing to appear complacent, not wishing to appear to be stubbornly saying that the Government will not look at any alternative, but believing that we are obtaining a high standard of justice from these courts and that it would be wrong not to recognise that.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I am grateful also to the Minister for his fair answer. His words will be studied with great care.
The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook—I respect his great experience in Northern Ireland—said that we had not made out a case for the amendment. I must answer that criticism. It would be wrong for me to bring a case before the Committee if there was no basis for it. In a sense it has been made out for me by the Solicitor General in another place, who said that the system is a second-best system. We assert that all the citizens of the United Kingdom are entitled to the best system of justice.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord leaves that point would not he accept that any system without a jury must be second best, but that it is necessary in these particular and tragic cases?
Lord Prys-Davies: We sought to suggest that there was a solution and the solution would be the

1369
multi-judge court; either a single judge sitting with assessors or judges from the mainland serving a tour of duty in the Province.
The second leg on which we rest our case is the perception that exists in certain parts of Northern Ireland—I do not say that it is true for every quarter—that the system does not command confidence. Reference was made to the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. The noble Viscount devoted a whole chapter of his report to the issue. He thought that it merited consideration and we find his conclusion in paragraph 9.7, which reads:
"I prefer to make no recommendation, since there are political aspects which are well outside my terms of reference".
He acknowledged that there was a problem but his terms of reference did not allow him to come down decisively on one side or the other.
As I said, we are grateful to the Minister for his very fair reply to the points raised. I can only take the amendment away, have a good think about it and decide whether or not to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power to search for munitions, radio transmitters and scanning receivers]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 25 and insert:
("(3) If it is necessary for the purpose of effectively carrying out a search—

(a) a member of Her Majesty's forces or constable exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1) above may be accompanied by other persons; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: Clause 19(3) of the Bill creates a new power to enable civilian specialists to accompany searches of premises, including dwelling houses, or other places for munitions or transmitters. The specialists may include forensic scientists, scenes of crime officers and police photographers. Several safeguards already exist in the application of the provision. Thus, anyone accompanying a search of a dwelling house must be individually authorised to do so. The search damage report form, a copy of which is handed to the householder on completion of the search, must contain information about those conducting the search, including their names and professional rank.
When this provision was considered in another place, concern was expressed that the provision was too widely drafted and could enable almost anyone to be authorised to accompany a search. The basic criticism was that, as drafted, the provision did not require an individual's presence to be both justifiable and/or necessary. The Government have reflected on the issue, and we have concluded that it would be right to provide on the face of the Bill that other persons may only accompany a search, or be authorised to accompany a house search, if it is necessary for the purpose of effectively carrying out the search. The amendment would, therefore, require a person's
1370
presence to be both justifiable and necessary. I hope that the Committee feels that this is a good safeguard to put into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We welcome the amendment. It reflects the concern previously expressed by the Opposition about the lack of definition in the original clause. However, the amendment makes it clear that civilian specialists are only to be present at searches if their presence
"is necessary for the purpose of effectively carrying out a search".
That is firmly and clearly stated. It is to be welcomed. I hope that the new provision will work well in practice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 14, line 22, at end insert:
("(7A) Where a member of Her Majesty's forces or a constable carries out a search under subsection (1) or (2) above he shall, unless it is not practicable to do so, make a written record of the search which shall specify—

(a) the address of the premises, or a description of the place, which is searched;

(b) the date and time of the search;

(c) any damage caused in the course of the search; and

(d) anything seized in the course of the search.

(7B) Such a record shall also include the name (if known) of any person appearing to the person making the record to be the occupier of the premises or other place searched; but—

(a) a person may not be detained to find out his name; and

(b) if the person making the record does not know the name of a person appearing to him to be the occupier of the premises or other place searched, he shall include in the record a note otherwise describing him.

(7C) Such a record shall identify the person by whom the search is 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.

(7D) Where a record of a search is made under this section a copy of the record shall be supplied to any person appearing to the person making the record to be the occupier of the premises or other place searched.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on the police and armed forces to make a written record, subject to practicability, when they carry out searches of premises, including dwelling houses, or other places under the powers in Clause 19. I hope that the Committee will feel that this is an important new safeguard. The record to be made is included in the amendment which is before the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We also welcome this amendment. I shall be grateful if the Minister can help us about two matters. First, why is there no reference to a time limit in subsection 7(D)? When will the record be made? How long will the occupier of the premises which have been searched have to wait before he receives a copy of the written record? I remind the Minister that where a similar record is made under Clause 26(6), it is a written record and it has to be made at once or as soon as practicable. We draw attention to the fact that there is no time limit in

1371
subsection 7(D) of the proposed amendment. Perhaps the Minister can explain why that is so. Has the matter just been overlooked?
The second issue that needs clarification is this: when this amendment is in place, together with Amendment No. 17 to which we shall come, records will have to be kept of premises searched, vehicles which have been removed to be searched, and of documents which have been searched. Why is the principle not also extended so that we have a record of individuals who have been searched? I mention that because repeated searching of the same individuals is a source of much controversy and grievance. That was recently the subject of comment by the Primate of All Ireland. I referred to that matter in my speech at Second Reading. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why the provision has not been extended to include individuals.
Lord Fitt: I strongly reinforce the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. The Minister may recall that in 1970 there was what became known as the Falls Road curfew. Shots were fired at the security forces at the end of June of that year. In consequence a whole district was cordoned off by the security forces and almost every house in the area was searched. Not only were the houses searched but they were wrecked. I remember the occasion very vividly. I was the Member of Parliament representing that area. The curfew lasted for four days before things returned to normal. I went to hundreds of little homes in the area and saw how badly they had been wrecked and vandalized.
One does not have to take my word for it because since then a number of reports and investigations have been carried out into what happened during those four days. That is why I said to the Minister at Second Reading that it is of the utmost importance that when searches have to be carried out they are done with a great deal of thought for the people who live in the houses. When the army first went into Northern Ireland the IRA did not have very much support in the nationalist areas. It was the practice of the IRA to ring the security forces and tell them in an anonymous phone call that it had seen arms being moved in and out of different houses.
I saw that taking place in the Kashmir Road in Belfast. I am quite certain that in that area, whatever support the IRA may have had at that time, it was minimal. It realised that it had minimum support in that area. The IRA telephoned the Springfield Road police station and the message was consequently relayed to the army. Information was given that arms were to be found in the Kashmir Road. I was there on the Wednesday afternoon when the army came in and cordoned off the road, dragged people about in a very nasty way, wrecked their furniture and their little homes. One has to understand people living in such circumstances. One has to understand the highly emotional atmosphere in which the searches were taking place. The little homes were being wrecked. In fact the IRA has composed songs about it. The incident has gone into Irish folklore. There is a version of an Irish song, which contains the line,
1372
"Cromwell's men are here again."
One can understand the political propaganda that can be made by the subversive forces in Northern Ireland if searches are not carried out in a proper way.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has asked what "practicable" means. Are we asking those who are carrying out the search to make the report immediately after or will it be made the next day or the day after that? How long will be the time lapse? The longer the time lapse between the search of a house and the issuing of the report into the circumstances of that search, the longer the emotional time. People's nerves are on edge. In that situation they are easy prey for the para-military organisations who will perhaps exaggerate out of all proportion the circumstances under which the search took place. I urge the Minister that when it is necessary to make a report about a search it should be made in the shortest possible time. Moreover, when the search is made, it should be carried out in a way that will not leave a question mark over the actions of the security forces.
4 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the proposal that searches should be well documented. That must be done so as to avoid the PR problems that occur when buildings are searched. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, how in practical terms he reckons he can bring in the provision for documentation as regards individuals who are searched. I should like to know the level of search he has in mind. For example, is he talking about a frisk and search that many of us get in Northern Ireland three or four times a day in the city centre, whenever we go into government buildings or into the airport? If he is talking about that level of search, immense practical problems would arise. In fact the task would be totally impossible.
The law-abiding people in Northern Ireland do not mind being searched. They are happy about the amount of searching which takes place because it provides them with security. If we adopt the suggestion, what would happen in the case of someone who happens to have five search documents on his person which he has received during the past week. He is then stopped by members of the security forces who express the desire to search him and he says, "Hey, hold on, boys. I have five of these already"? That is exactly the sort of situation for which the terrorists are waiting. What will that person be carrying on the fifth and sixth time he goes through the process? I cannot support the proposal.
Lord Renton: I do not know whether it is the Government's intention, but the clause does not appear to deal with the search of an individual. If one looks at the amendment, it refers to a search carried out,
"under subsection (1) or (2)".
Moreover, if one looks at subsection (1), it will be seen that it is a question of "the place" being searched. Therefore, although there are legal provisions which deal with the search of individuals, this particular clause does not seem to have that intention.

1373
As to the timing, if there is a genuine fear about that aspect, it is a matter which can easily be put right by analogy with the statements which have to be taken from people in custody. Such statements have to be taken at the time of the interview or as soon as practicable thereafter. I should have thought that a simple phrase such as the latter could be added to this subsection in order to allay those fears.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend is quite right; we are not talking about the searching of persons at present. However, there has been an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who raised the issue, and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. In fact, I do not believe that I can better what my noble friend said on that point.
So far as concerns a written record being made, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has every reason to ask when this would be handed over. The answer is as soon as possible. However, I should like to consider what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have said and perhaps write to both of them.
Finally, I must stress that I take seriously the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, based on his personal experience, about the damage which can be done to property and to relations in the course of a search. It is no answer for me to say that Clause 62 provides for compensation in such circumstances, although that is the case. I believe that we should acknowledge the fact that a balance must somehow be found, bearing in mind that people become more and more ingenious at finding places in houses where things can be stored.
Only this morning a former part-time RUC officer was murdered in Armagh City by a booby trap device under his car. As I listened to the exchange on this amendment it led me to think that, if we were talking about a house where such a murderous device was being constructed, we would believe that the security forces have the right, morally and legally, to try to find that dreadful thing. Yet we are, nevertheless, driven back to what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said. We must be careful. We must try to deal sensibly with both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. It is for that very reason that we have tabled amendments today to bring additional safeguards into the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: We deeply regret the fact that another police officer has been murdered today in the course of his duty. Of course, nothing we have said challenges the right to conduct a search. The amendment is concerned with a record of the search.
In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, to whom I always listen with great respect because he lives in the Province in the dangerous border counties, I accept that there would be difficulties in seeking to apply this clause to vehicles which are stopped at checkpoints. However, I am concerned about the individuals who are stopped and taken away to be searched. It seems to me that it would be possible to keep a record merely of the place where the search was undertaken, its date and time,
1374
the type of search and those involved in conducting it. I believe that those are the particulars which the noble Viscount was seeking to obtain from me.
As regards the Minister's reply, I very much welcome what he said. As I understand the position, he and his advisers will possibly look again at subsection (7)(b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Examination of documents]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 15, line 34, leave out from ("search") to the end of line 36 and insert ("which he reasonably suspects may contain any such information as is mentioned in section 31(1) (a) or (b) below so far as is reasonably required to ascertain whether it contains any such information.").
The noble Lord said: As it stands, Clause 22 gives the police and the security forces the power to examine any documents which are found in the course of a search of premises. They have the power to examine them in order to ascertain whether they contain any of the information referred to in Clause 31(1) (a) and (b). The power in that clause applies to,
"(a) a constable or member of Her Majesty's forces; (b) any person holding judicial office; (c) any officer of any court; (d) any person employed for the whole of his time in the prison service in Northern Ireland",
and any other person who might fall within any of those categories. We accept that there may be circumstances in which it is reasonable and necessary that the security forces should be able to examine such documents. However, what is worrying about the clause as it stands is that it contains no safeguard against abuse. The power of searching or examining a document can be exercised at random. That could be a breach of privacy. Moreover, if the power is exercised at random—speculatively, so to speak—it could damage the relationship between the security forces and those in the communities in which they operate. The object of the amendment is to seek to limit the exercise of that power so that it becomes exercisable only if and when the soldier or constable has grounds for suspecting that a document contains within it Clause 31 material.
I readily accept that the wording of the amendment may be imperfect. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to achieve the correct wording. However, the object is clear: we should introduce the test of a reasonable suspicion that a document contains Clause 31 information. We suggest that the key to the application of this power should be a reasonable basis of suspicion.
I should also like to take this opportunity to focus attention on subsection (3). This is in response to an effort made in another place to protect the privacy and confidentiality of documents which enjoy legal privilege. That is the significance of subsection (3). However, we note that that protection is not extended to the papers of a doctor, or of a priest in relation to a member of his congregation. There we have the relationship of trust. We have a relationship of trust between a client and a solicitor, between a doctor and his patient and between a priest and a member of his

1375
congregation. Neither are the papers of a journalist protected. I wonder whether the Minister can explain why the clause should not extend to those categories.
We have another worry about subsection (3). We fear that it will be very difficult to operate. The difficulty is that the nature of a document can only be established in the course of it being examined. How will a soldier, who is inevitably a layman in these matters, be able to judge whether a document attracts legal privilege? Will not this be entirely outside his experience? Is it realistic in the real world to believe that the soldier can draw a line between what is privileged and what is not privileged?
Perhaps I can put two specific questions to the Minister so that we can see how this subsection will operate. First, will a soldier be authorised to accept a statement or a claim by a barrister or a solicitor that the papers enjoy legal privilege? Does he accept that statement from the solicitor or the barrister? I assume of course that the soldier is satisfied that the person concerned is a barrister or a solicitor. Similarly, will the soldier, in the same kind of circumstances, accept the statement if it is made by the barrister's clerk or by the solicitor's clerk?
On 8th November, when the Bill was introduced, the Northern Ireland Office issued a press notice on government security policy. It claimed in paragraph (d) on page 3 of that notice that it would strike a balance between the needs of the security forces and the need to provide appropriate safeguards for the individual.
I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate to me where in the clause there is a safeguard for an innocent individual who protests that his papers ought not to be examined; who protests, for example, that his diary ought not to be examined. Is there a single safeguard in this clause which would protect the innocent individual? It must be our main function as an Opposition to ensure that, where new powers are given, there is at least an adequate safeguard for the innocent who may be caught up in the net of that power. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has spoken to a very important clause in the Bill. What the noble Lord has said has been serious and he has expressed his anxieties. One of the terrorist's most vital weapons is intelligence and the collection of information. Without such information terrorists very often could not target their attacks against particular individuals or places. At present the security forces are at a very extraordinary disadvantage. While it is an offence to possess information which is likely to be useful to terrorists—indeed, all of us in public life know what I mean when I say information of a targeting kind, such as people's addresses and car registration numbers—there is no related power to examine material found during the course of a search to ascertain whether it contains such information. Therefore, the purpose of the new power in Clause 22 is to enable the police and armed forces to examine documents found in the course of a search so far as is
1376
reasonably required for ascertaining whether those documents contain any information likely to be useful to terrorists.
The Committee will wish to be reminded that the police already have powers under the police and criminal evidence legislation to seize documents which they have reasonable grounds for believing are evidence of an offence. However, for reasons I have begun to explain, we believe that we should go slightly further in the emergency powers. The fact remains that, as the law currently stands, it works very much in the terrorist's favour. We think it would be wrong to pass over any reasonable means of enhancing the security forces' ability to obtain evidential material as well as to deter and disrupt terrorist operations.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that there were no safeguards in the clause. Clause 22 only allows documents to be examined so far as is reasonably required for ascertaining whether they contain information likely to be useful to terrorists. There can be no photocopying, and a complete record must be made of the examination and an identification of the person who has carried it out. In addition to that, documents with legal privilege are exempted. The noble Lord put a direct question to me. He asked whether a soldier will accept a statement from a lawyer that the document which he has found is a legal document. I can only answer that the clause quite clearly says that the security forces must have reasonable cause for believing it to be a legal document. There has to be a balance between trying to make sure and respecting legal privilege.
One thing I should like to say is that it is most certainly the intention of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland to issue detailed force instructions to the police and armed forces about the exercise of these powers. It is important that I say that this afternoon.
We are dealing with an important issue. I ask the Committee to imagine for a moment a situation where four men are stopped at a checkpoint in Northern Ireland. The police become suspicious but there are no grounds to detain the men. However, during the search some papers are discovered in the vehicle. Under this clause those papers can be examined so far as is reasonably required to see if they contain information which is mentioned in Clause 31; namely, targeting information about the police, soldiers, the judiciary or the prison service or for planning a terrorist attack of any kind. On this occasion it so happens that the papers which are found in the vehicle do contain just that kind of information. That is the way that lives are saved in a terrorist situation. However, with the very best of intentions the amendment which the noble Lord has put down could prevent that from happening. With the best of intentions the noble Lord asks why there are not wider exceptions in the clause. The answer is that if there were wider exceptions the clause would be unworkable. Provided that the clause is administered properly and sensitively—I have given an undertaking to the

1377
Committee, and the GOC and the Chief Constable will be giving advice to the men and women under their command—it could save lives in the future.
Lord Renton: If we were to examine the laws of any country, democracy or dictatorship, a well-developed country or a backward country, we should find that the police were given, by authority of Parliament, if there is one, power to do whatever is necessary to prevent or detect crime, especially terrorism. The fact that we go into this enormous amount of detail to ensure that not one police officer or soldier oversteps by half in inch what Parliament considers to be right shows what a wonderful democracy we are.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: The amendment relates to a document that is reasonably suspected of containing information. If I were a terrorist, I should put my information in a book that no one would reasonably suspect, and so all books would immediately become books one reasonably suspected. I feel that it is the amendment that is unworkable.
Viscount Brookeborough: The words with which I take issue are "reasonable suspicion". If there were reasonable suspicion—depending upon how reasonable it was—some people would not now be wandering the streets. The problem may arise when a soldier who stops someone and wishes to search for papers his to justify the fact that his suspicions were reasonable. I do not accept that those words should be used. Apart from anything else, terrorists are well known to use people who were previously above suspicion, or not known to the security forces, to carry messages, documents and information.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the greatest problem might arise in relation to soldiers. Policemen are aware of the law to a much greater extent. The abuse that might take place may be caused more often by the soldiers. When talking about abuse, it is important to note that I am sure that no British soldier goes out on the streets with the intent to abuse any Acts which may be in force. The abuse would be unintentional. But without a code of practice or some other supporting legislation, soldiers might far too easily unintentionally abuse the power merely because they were trying to do their job. The code of practice could be similar to the yellow card which exists in Northern Ireland. The yellow card is used by soldiers before opening fire. They have to say, "Halt or I fire".
If a soldier sees documents in a car perhaps he should have to say to the owner of the documents or the car driver, "Are there any documents in this pile which are of a legal nature?" Should the person say that there are no such documents, the soldier should be allowed to search them if he feels that he should. However should the person say that there are legal documents, the soldier could ask for them to be removed from the pile and search the remainder. If he wished to look at the documents to prove whether they were legal, he could call a policeman to do so. The benefit of such a procedure would be that it would put the onus on the driver to avoid the problem before it arises rather than to leave it to arise. The soldier would
1378
then have to go to court to justify what he had done. It would help put the matter right if such a code of practice were put forward.
Lord Havers: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke about priests and journalists. It must be made clear that neither of those two categories of people have privilege. It would be wrong to believe that any document made by a journalist or a priest was protected.
Lord Fitt: The clause extends what was said in earlier debates. It is an attempt to give innocent people the greatest protection while ensuring that we apprehend law breakers and terrorists. I have practical experience of such matters from the years I lived in Belfast.
Premises are also mentioned in the clause. When a house is searched in Belfast, or anywhere else in Northern Ireland for that matter, we understand that the search will be carried out by the army, with a member of the RUC present. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies rightly said that the young soldier who takes part in the search would have no idea of what was a privileged document or a terrorist document because he would not be trained in such aspects. A policeman may be different. He is from Northern Ireland and will be much more aware of what is happening in the community.
The young soldier may lift up a document and say, "I think that this is connected with the advance of terrorism". Will the RUC member be able to tell that young soldier—after all we are told that the army is in Northern Ireland in support of the police—"Look, I know that that document has nothing to do with terrorism and we are not taking the matter any further"? Such a situation is possible.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that soldiers can be biased. Belfast is not far removed in geography or history from Glasgow and Liverpool. I remember in the early 1970s when there was a Scottish regiment in the New Lodge Road area of Belfast. A riot took place in that area. It was well documented on television, and the pictures are still available. Some soldiers in that Scottish regiment dealt with the alleged rioters far more enthusiastically than was justified. Other members of the same regiment became involved with their colleagues in an attempt to prevent them from using excessive force on the young people involved in the riot. That example indicates in a practical way that all members of the British army, given their history, where they were born, and perhaps their religion, are not unbiased.
When a young soldier joins the British army he does not fill in a questionnaire which asks whether he is unbiased in respect of all Northern Ireland affairs. There are no criteria which would enable that young soldier to fill in such a questionnaire. The question arises as to who will take part in the search. Will it be two or three young private soldiers and a policeman, or two or three young private soldiers and a corporal or a lance corporal? From whom will the young private soldier take his orders in such circumstances? Does he take them from the corporal, the lance corporal or the RUC man? Even the corporal and the

1379
lance corporal may have no experience of the type of documents about which we are speaking. Will the RUC man involved in the search take the prime position in those circumstances?
Lord Belstead: Before the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, decides what he wishes to do with the amendment, perhaps I may thank my noble friend Lord Brookeborough for suggesting a code of practice. We envisage force instructions coming from the GOC in Northern Ireland and the RUC Chief Constable. That is probably the road down which we shall go. We shall do very much what my noble friend recommended—the men and women on the ground will have instructions as to how to put this difficult but potentially valuable clause into effect. I do not wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in the arguments that he expressed except to say that it is the Government's policy that the army should support the police whenever possible in Northern Ireland.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to those who have taken part in discussion of the amendment. I did not, of course, intend to suggest that subsection (3) should be extended ad infinitum. I had in mind the four categories which I named. However, I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, that in law the papers of a priest and of a journalist are not protected. I still say that the clause offers no protection against abuse. The Minister referred to subsection (5) which requires a soldier or a constable to make a written record of an examination and to hand it over to the person whose papers are being examined. However, that offers no protection against the power being abused. The notion that subsection (5), valuable though it is, protects privacy is simply not on.
I accept that the amendment may be difficult to operate. Indeed on Second Reading I ventured to suggest that the clause might not be amendable. I likened it to the poll tax; that is, to something that one cannot amend. There has been criticism of the wording of the amendment. We may well have to reconsider whether we can produce an improved version. The Minister said in his closing remarks that a soldier will also require guidance on how the clause will apply.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, made a helpful suggestion. He developed the point made by the Minister that the army and the RUC intend to issue guidance to soldiers and policemen respectively. However, the noble Viscount went further and suggested that a code of practice might be appropriate. I hope that the Minister and those who advise him can give that suggestion from their own Back-Benches further consideration. We would be pleased to support the recommendation because the clause is difficult. It is difficult too to design an amendment which is workable or which indicates the need for guidance. I believe that such a measure contained in a code of practice would very much
1380
enhance the guidance that the Minister has in mind. I do not propose to take the matter further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 15, line 40, at end insert:
("Provided that where any document is so removed the owner or person in control of it shall be given a written receipt for it.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the object of the amendment is clear. It seems to us that the record of examination provided for by subsection (5) of the clause does not cover the point that a receipt should be given at the time that documents are removed. Under the terms of subsection (5) the written record of an examination may be made at a later stage. However, subsection (5) is activated when papers are removed. We should have thought that members of the security forces should issue a receipt for the papers at that stage. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, I wish to say that in my view the careful and detailed consideration we are giving to it today is absolutely necessary. Such consideration is necessary not only for this Bill but for a good deal of the other legislation concerning Northern Ireland. We are grateful for this opportunity to give full consideration to the Bill and hope for similar opportunities on other matters in the future.
The Bill states that any document or record may be removed. That provision could cover the only copy of a thesis or the manuscript of a book. It could cover a person's love letters or a whole variety of commercial documents which may be the sole copies in existence and therefore unique. That is why I suggest strongly that it is important that a written receipt should be given at the time of removing the documents.
I appreciate that a person who is compiling information for the purposes of terrorism is quite likely to hide his lists in other documents so that a person searching for that information may have to spend some time sieving through documents to find it. I hope the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Blease: I hope the Minister will indicate whether it is present practice for a receipt to be given for any items or documents that are removed, even when a search is conducted in the street. Is it not a fact that information has been tabulated which makes it reasonably easy to ascertain dates and the types of documents and material that have been removed? I support the points that my noble friend has made. I believe that the code of practice that is being drawn up will require a more sophisticated receipt to be given.
Lord Elton: In anticipating that the answer to the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will be "yes", I merely wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to clear up one doubt I have. Amendment No. 9 states:
"Provided that where any document is so removed".
Should the amendment not state:
"Provided that when any document is so removed"?
I thought his argument concerned the latter provision.
Viscount Brookeborough: I feel that the amendment is unnecessary. I have spoken to several people in Northern Ireland including policemen and solicitors. They point out that anything that is taken from anyone in the street constitutes an "act of theft" unless a receipt is made out. Therefore, as far as I am aware, a receipt is made out for any item that is removed, whether it is a document or any other item.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have a slight difficulty with the amendment. Clearly the spirit of it is absolutely spot on. A receipt should be given where it is possible to serve one. However, as we discussed earlier, there are occasions when the armed forces or the police enter unoccupied buildings. How does one serve a receipt in those circumstances? Is it not asking for trouble to do so? Where the security forces enter an unoccupied building and serve a receipt, the first thing that will happen is that the counter terrorists among the terrorists—irrespective of whether they are republican or loyalist—will become involved. They will gain as much—I suggest, more—information from the receipt than from the building being searched. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord will reconsider the drafting of the amendment. Subject to anything my noble friend on the Front Bench may say, I have a feeling there is a germ of sense in all this.
Lord Belstead: I ask the Committee to consider carefully Clause 22(6) which sets out the details which the written record must contain in this case. Incidentally, the written record will constitute a detailed receipt where documents are removed and retained for examination. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights considered that to be an important point when it was raised in the period of consultation that took place after the Bill had commenced its passage in another place.
Perhaps I may continue with that point. As your Lordships will see from subsection (6), the written record must specify a description of the document or record. Therefore, as I read that, there must be a description of each document or record. In any case where a document is removed for examination the record must state the date and time when it was taken, and the inclusion of those details in the record is mandatory. As the clause also requires the police and armed forces to provide a copy of the record to any individual whose documents are examined or removed for examination, the record itself will constitute a very detailed receipt, as I said at the outset.
I do not want to be pigheaded about the matter and to disagree on something on which I believe we ought to find some accommodation. However, as there is a requirement to provide the record as soon as is practicable and to provide a copy to the owner I believe that we are talking about a situation in which there will be not only a receipt but a very detailed receipt.
So as to bring this exchange to an end I should like to consider what all of your Lordships have said on the amendment and see whether any rethink is necessary. I ask your Lordships at the same time to consider what I have said on behalf of the Government. Subsection (6) is important here. I think
1382
that it constitutes the receipt which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is after. On that basis, subject to anything that the noble Lord may wish to say, perhaps we may end this particular exchange.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, replies he may wish to have his attention invited to subsection (9) which states that the document or record may not be retained for more than 48 hours.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response to the amendment. As I see it, the process under Clause 22 will be a two-stage process: stage one, the documents are removed from the premises; stage two, the documents are examined. When one arrives at stage two the record will he prepared and it will be served under subsection (8). However, that leaves stage one untouched. In our view when the documents are removed there ought to be a receipt for the documents. It will not be as full as the record under subsection (5). There are two stages and as I read it the record deals only with the examination of the documents. Certainly at that stage the record is a very full document, but there should also be a receipt at stage one.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked upon whom one will serve the receipt. It will be served upon the same person as one would serve the written record in accordance with subsection (8).
I shall not detain the Committee any longer on this point. The Minister has said that he will consider what has been said. I hope that he will see his way to insert a receipt in this clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I have one point which I think should be raised in relation to subsection (4) of Clause 22. It reads:
"Where a document or record is examined under this section it shall not be photographed or copied".
It may well be that that very document discloses an offence which has already been committed. It surprises me that the police are not entitled, even using powers under this clause which deals with the examination of documents, to have the document copied if it may constitute an offence in itself or be very strong evidence of an offence. Perhaps my noble friend will consider that point.
Lord Belstead: I shall certainly consider what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. My noble friend is a distinguished lawyer and I am not a lawyer. It occurs to me that with the prohibition on photocopying in this particular clause, when the documents were returned they would be returned with interest. Presumably the police would accompany the documents and consult the malefactor. Perhaps I may look at what my noble friend has said.
On Question, Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Power to stop and question]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 17, line 5, leave out ("and question any person") and insert ("any person for so long as is necessary in order to question him").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended as a minor clarification of the existing powers to stop and question. In another place concern was expressed that in some instances that power was effectively used as a power to detain persons for longer than was necessary to question them about the matters in subsection (1). The amendment is designed to ensure that the clause is not regarded as a power to detain for longer than is necessary to establish those matters. It is intended as a modest safeguard and I hope that the Committee will feel that it is right to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We believe that this is a wise amendment and we hope that it will work well in practice.
Lord Blease: Perhaps I may briefly, without embellishment, draw attention to the fact that in relation to the previous clause the Minister laid great stress on the word "reasonable". The series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, with which we shall deal next, also deal with the question of reasonableness. Will the Minister kindly consider again the insertion of the word "reasonably" so that the amendment reads:
"any person for so long as is reasonably necessary in order to question him"?
I could cite numerous instances of people being detained for a street search for much longer than was necessary, although I was not present. I believe that the addition of the word "reasonably" here would add to the legislation.
Lord Belstead: I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Lord, who can forget more about Northern Ireland than I shall ever learn. However, it occurs to me that there are people who are stopped and questioned who are quite ready to make use of the legal system if they possibly can because they hold no particular friendship for the security forces. If we inserted the word "reasonably" it would be as long as a piece of string. It would give opportunities for such people to bring to the attention of the courts the question of whether stopping and questioning had been reasonable on a particular occasion.
In Amendment No. 10 we intend to bring forward what I hope is a safeguard. Of course I shall look again at what the noble Lord has said but on this occasion I shall not offer to write to the noble Lord. I hope that he will not think that I am discourteous in saying that. If the noble Lord wants to press the matter perhaps we can discuss it outside the Chamber. That is my reaction off the cuff to what the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Blease: I thank the Minister for that reply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [General powers of entry and interference with the rights of property and with highways]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 17, line 20, after ("he") insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11 perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. Once again the object of these four amendments is to ensure that the powers are always exercised subject to the criterion of reasonableness. I do not propose to detain the Committee long on these amendments, but I believe that it is particularly important that a test of reasonableness should apply to Clause 24(1), which goes to the heart of family life.
There can be no greater intervention by the state in the life of the family than to give a soldier or a constable the right to march into one's home. On the mainland we do well to remind ourselves that those powers are exercisable without a justice's warrant. In view of the emphasis to which I referred contained in the Northern Ireland Office press notice of 8th November on the need to provide appropriate safeguards for individuals and the emphasis contained in the Minister's speech on Second Reading, we believe that it is unsatisfactory that the powers in the clause are not specifically subject to the criterion of reasonableness. I do not think that I can add to what I have said. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: With respect to the noble Lord, I should not have thought that his amendment was necessary. My noble friend may disagree with me, but in the circumstances of the paramount need for the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order, if a constable decides that it is necessary to enter he will probably make a decision at once. He cannot scratch his head too much. I should have thought that to insert the word "reasonably" adds nothing to "necessary" and might impair the effectiveness of the clause.
Lord Hylton: I hesitate to clash swords with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but as I read the clause it would enable the security forces to take possession of a house and possibly to exclude the owner from it completely. It even goes on to say that he may cause any property to be destroyed or moved. There might be a case for improving the field of fire in a particular place, but it is pretty tough on the person whose property is destroyed or moved. There is a strong case for the amendment.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke as though these were new powers. I do not seek to justify them on this ground alone, but it is worth making the point that the powers have been on the statute book since 1978, when the Government of noble Lords opposite were in office, and have been carried over from years before then. I say that simply as a matter of fact. I also admit that it is clearly essential that proper thought should be given to the effects of police and army operations on local residents who fall within the scope of Clause 24.
However, there are two safeguards on the powers. First, compensation is payable under Clause 62 where private property is interfered with or real or personal property is taken, occupied, destroyed or damaged. Secondly, any order made by my right honourable

1385
friend the Secretary of State under Clause 24(2) conferring authority on the security forces to carry out certain specified acts is susceptible to judicial reviews. Therefore, if the authorisation which the Secretary of State gives is arbitrary or wholly unreasonable, there remains a means of redress for the ordinary citizen. I realise that that would be post hoc—but this brings me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton; namely, if you are a constable, can you agonise in your mind whether you should reasonably take a decision under Clause 24? With his great experience, my noble friend was quite right to say that it would be less than reasonable to insert that word when in some cases a split-second decision must be taken.
The Committee will forgive me if I add one other point. If we were to insert a criterion of reasonableness into the clause, there is a danger that a variety of civil cases might virtually be invited, challenging the reasonableness of actions in a whole variety of routine anti-terrorist operations. I am sorry, but it has to be said that it is a feature of the situation in Northern Ireland that those sympathetic to terrorist organisations seek to exploit the legal system to undermine the legitimate operations of the security forces. We must bear in mind that, by their nature, these are emergency powers which are frequently exercised in areas where there may be a significant degree of hostility to the security forces in carrying out their operations. That is a rather jarring note to introduce, but I feel that I must mention it because I know from the short time that I have worked in Northern Ireland what I have just said is true.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may add a postscript. Discussions in court on the word "reasonableness" are unending, and that is just what they would be in these circumstances.
Lord Prys-Davies: The insertion of the word "reasonably" into the clause would ensure that those who exorcise the powers might think twice. Instant decision s have left their scars on Northern Ireland and I should not have thought that that was an argument for resisting the amendment. I have approached the powers in Clause 24 from the standpoint of an innocent citizen who believes that the soldier or constable is acting unreasonably. If we failed to raise that issue in the Chamber, we should fail in our duty to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division, but we may consider whether we should return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Power of Secretary of State to direct the closure, etc. of roads]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 18, line 12, after ("may") insert ("if he considers it reasonably necessary for the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order").
The noble Lord said: We fully accept that there are circumstances in which it is right that some public roads have to be closed on security grounds and at short notice. The closure will block both access and
1386
escape routes for terrorist units. We also accept that the border is a dangerous land for the armed forces and the police. Some people say that there should be even more stringent measures to seal the border, but we must also bear in mind that a highway exists to serve a living community and will often have served a community for generations. Its closure may therefore cause severe disruption to people living and working in the vicinity. It may have severe social and economic consequences, so in deciding whether to close the border crossing one must weigh the social and economic considerations against the security considerations.
I should have thought that, when the security considerations are convincing, no reasonable person would object to the closure, but when they are not convincing or apparently not convincing the closure may be counter-productive. It would be counterproductive because it would involve in particular the risk of confrontation between local people and security forces and between farmers and soldiers and may lead to the construction of bypass works. Clause 25(2) makes it an offence to execute bypass works, but I doubt whether that solves the problem.
What is missing from the clause is a right to ask the court to review a road closure decision to ensure that the decision is reasonable in the circumstances. The amendment seeks to make the decision subject to judicial review. That power would go a long way to reduce tension and resentment at a road closure decision. If it is available to people who are affected by the decision, they will be able to do something about it. They will be able to apply for leave for judicial review. If people have no legal remedy available to them it is not entirely surprising that they should build bypass works. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I should like to reflect on the concerns of the noble Lord in moving Amendment No. 15. I understand what the noble Lord is driving at, though I must admit I am not a lawyer and he is. I want to try to meet the noble Lord. The only point in my mind at the moment is whether one can have a draft which talks about something being "reasonably necessary". For instance, it can be said that it is necessary for a bicycle to have two wheels but is it reasonably necessary? A person who has fallen off a bicycle may well say it is reasonably necessary—and a lot of other things besides—but in law is it possible to say something is reasonably necessary? I should like to think about that and take advice. Having had a think about it, it may be possible to have a word with the noble Lord, but at the moment I am not in a position to say I accept what the noble Lord is driving at, partly because I am worried about the drafting but also because I should like to consider it a little further, having just heard the noble Lord across the Dispatch Box. I give the commitment that I will come back and have a word with the noble Lord about the matter if that is what he wishes. If, on that basis, the noble Lord would like to leave it that would be my wish.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps the noble Lord would like to consider whether the word "reasonably" might come two words earlier in the amendment.
Lord Blease: I am sure that my noble friend will reply in the affirmative to what the noble Minister has said. I should like to add a few comments to what has been said. This is a highly politically-charged area. We are considering here a situation of no-go and border areas where over night people put up road blocks to protect themselves from those marauding around intent on evil. This matter is very complex in its application, highly political and may be hard to remedy. In my view, there needs to be some form of co-operation with the Republic in the administration of these border areas. Whether that is done by local government or central government in the Republic is another question.
However, I fully support my noble friend who has drawn attention to a particular problem in respect of roads.
Lord Fitt: I too believe the Minister has been very reasonable in his response. I certainly support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Blease. This issue is a highly political and emotional one. The closure of a border road evokes centuries of Irish history. The people living in that area believe that that road traverses the land of Ireland, and it will be in the interest of the IRA to say that a foreign power has closed that part of Ireland to the people who live there.
I have said in an earlier debate that sometimes house searches can be in the interests of terrorists because such searches will enlist support for them. The same thing can happen on a border road. The criterion for the closure of a border road is that either a shooting incident has taken place or bombs have been found adjacent to it. But it may be in the interests of the subversive organisation's propaganda to have that border road closed. It knows very well that farmers living on either side of the road in Northern Ireland and in the Republic regard it as essential to the everyday work taking place on their farms. I am sure that when the Minister looks again at the legalities of this matter he can take into consideration that it may be in the interests of terrorists to have a certain border road closed knowing very well that it is going to create a highly emotive issue. Every aspect of the closure of such roads should be taken into consideration when the Minister returns to reply.
Viscount Brookeborough: I endorse everything that has been said in relation to this amendment. I simply add that the sooner we get the border sorted out as far as regards its administration in a military, police and security sense, the better. At the moment it is perhaps the biggest PR problem we have, at least that is so near the border where I live. The answer lies not simply with the UK Government getting on with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and perhaps having border posts and joint operations; it also lies with the Government in getting down to studying the problem, sorting it out and—I am sorry to say—
1388
putting more money into improving border crossing points so the delays we have already heard about do not occur.
Lord Belstead: In order to ensure that I have not given the wrong impression in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I should make the point that, although I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said, there are circumstances when security considerations generally are so compelling that a road needs to be closed. Therefore, surely it is right in logic as well as in security terms to consider border closures. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I want to make sure that the wording on the face of the Bill is as fair as possible.
While on my feet, perhaps I may just recall a matter about which my noble friend Lord Brookeborough would be more eloquent than I. We are talking about people's lives. Following the attack on the Derryard vehicle check point, the terrorists left five or six soldiers dead. They went away across a border road which, only a few weeks ago, when the Derryard permanent vehicle check point was closed, was among those which were closed. On the other hand, as many Members who know Northern Ireland will remind me, Northern Ireland lives have been lost. People living near the border have been murdered and the murderers have used border crossing points in order to escape. This is a major headache not only to us but to the Government of the Republic. Therefore, I feel I must say that, in referring to these things, we are talking of people's lives, not just the hard word "security".
Lord Prys-Davies: I agree with the Minister that very often we are talking about people's lives. I referred to the fact that closure blocked access and escape routes for terrorist units. My noble friend Lord Fitt made the valuable point that many of the campaigns to reopen border roads were inspired by paramilitary organisations because they were presented with a grievance to exploit. If this amendment were carried it would not prevent the Secretary of State from immediately closing the highway if he was satisfied that it was necessary in the interests of security. But it would give people the satisfaction of knowing that the decision was subject to judicial review.
The Minister has treated the amendment with sympathy. I acknowledge that the wording may once again be imperfect. I am content to leave the matter with him in the hope that we can produce a satisfactory formula between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 18, line 35, leave out ("(the proof of which lies on him)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 25 creates five new offences in the context of road closures. Each offence is punishable by a fine or up to six months' imprisonment. The amendment draws attention to one of those offences—the last mentioned in the clause. It is referred to in subsection (3):

1389
"A person is guilty of an offence if within 200 yards of any road closure works …without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him) he has in his possession or under his control any materials or equipment suitable for executing bypass works".
The offence covers any material or equipment which is suitable for executing bypass works. It therefore covers almost every variety of farming machinery and equipment, ranging from a tractor to a spade, which is in a farmer's possession for entirely innocent reasons. Our difficulty is compounded by the fact that the clause places the duty on the person who is in possession of the article to prove lawful possession of it. The amendment ensures that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and not on the defence. I hope that this small but important amendment is acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I am afraid that on this occasion there is a gulf between the Government and the Opposition. It follows from what I sought to say to the Committee on the previous amendment. We are talking about issues of life and death. The purpose of the new offences provided by this clause is primarily deterrence. It is not our wish to see a large number of prosecutions arising from the new provisions, but it is our wish that those who make determined efforts, often using substantial resources and heavy equipment, to reopen legitimately closed crossings should cease their efforts. It is also right that where there are grounds to believe that a person may be seeking to attempt to interfere with a closure or create a bypass around it, that person should be obliged to explain his or her actions and account for any equipment or materials in his or her possession in the vicinity of the closure.
I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment. The onus is placed on the person charged with the offence s o as to ensure that he or she gives a proper explanation of why the equipment is possessed and the reason for its presence in the area at that particular time. I believe that that is the only reasonable way to have a prospect of prosecutions that have a chance of succeeding. Once people know that there is that prospect, they will not do such things. To go back to my earlier words, we shall find that there will not be a lot of prosecutions because the offences will have had a deterrent effect. I have to say that I believe that the deterrent effect would be removed were the amendment to be agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: Perhaps my noble friend can help me. I am not too familiar with the exact waterflow and drainage problems in Armagh. I believe that I shall be supported by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough when I say that, so far as concerns County Fermanagh and large parts of County Tyrone, along the border one would find very few farms indeed—probably they could be counted on the fingers of both hands—where there would not be farm machinery, diggers, drainers and machinery of the type described by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. That would be true of any farm in the area.
1390
Virtually every farmer and person has reasonable excuse to use such machines and carry out the operations set out in the clause. I do not see any problem in differentiating between legitimate use of such machinery and what I would call strange machinery which rings alarm bells in the mind of anybody familiar with that part of border, let alone the security forces. I do not see any major difficulty in the clause or its operation, particularly in that sector of the border, because the Committee will be aware that inhabitants of County Fermanagh are said to have webbed feet, although I deny it.
Lord Hylton: I put to the Government that subsection (3) of the clause would probably be satisfactory if it were to read something like:
"execute or permit the execution of works".
It is bypass works with which we are concerned rather than the possession of any materials or any equipment, which could include bricks, blocks, hardcore, ditch culverts and a wide variety of items which are normally found on farms.
Lord Elton: I should like to join discussion on what are bound to be mostly hypothetical questions by drawing the Committee's attention to the 200-yard radius to which this measure applies. It is clear that we are not talking about vast areas of the Province being sterilised. We are talking about a very short distance from a crossing point. Certainly many farmers have to hand dumpers, bulldozer blades and so on. They also have tipping trailers, full perhaps of hardcore or logs, which could be used very swiftly to create a temporary crossing point. It seems a not unreasonable request that where a part of their land lies within 200 yards of a crossing point, they should explain why it is necessary to have those materials and all that equipment so close to it. It is not unreasonable that they should know that that is required and that the proof should be upon them at the time of use. I understand that one is not supposed to go shooting game without a game licence. I do not think that one ought to go with this sort of equipment without that sort of proof.
Baroness Phillips: I put in a plea on the importance of who gets the blame. If we are not careful the terrorists will benefit. The point has been emphasised by many Members of the Committee. The situation may not be totally analogous but on Friday I was informed that one can no longer park a car at Paddington. The rather ominous phrase was "It will be clamped." If the car were to contain a bomb, the most stupid thing to do would be to clamp it. The bomb would be certain to go off where the car stood. The point is that the restriction causes a lot of inconvenience, especially for the disabled. British Rail does not make any concession, asserting, "That is the law and that is what we have to do".
I listened carefully to the appeals from noble Lords who know the areas well. My anger here is against British Rail and not the people who have made it necessary for the cars to be removed. That is the situation in this country. We have to be careful that the message is clear: when inconvenience is caused to people who have to go about their business or pleasure

1391
one must blame the right people. That consideration applies whether one talks about Northern Ireland or England and Wales. I have considered the position carefully. I know that I cannot blame British Rail. It may be rather stupid in the way in which it operates the restriction, but that is a different matter.
I can imagine a similar situation applying to roads. I am sure that the Government will request a good PR company to put the message over clearly when the legislation finally becomes law.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The Minister earlier welcomed an intervention which referred to the difficulty of using the term "reasonable" in courts. It was stated that it tended to produce lengthy debate. The amendment proposes to shift the burden of proof in a way that is not normally applicable in common law and in British courts, yet at the same time the accused person has to provide a reasonable excuse. Do not precisely the same objections apply to this provision as were welcomed by the Minister when they related to the other side of the argument?
Viscount Brookeborough: It is very reasonable for the person to have to prove why he has equipment so close to the Border. We refer to places where it is conceivable that the Border could be opened if certain equipment was used and filling was placed into ditches, rivers and so on.
I have experience of such a situation. It is not difficult to tell whether the farmer is draining his field or is about to open a border crossing. It is clear to any reasonable person. There is no problem. We are not talking about stopping every single farmer the moment he drives within 200 metres of every border and saying, "Hold on. What are you doing now? Are you about to cut your hay or are you cutting a path in order to get a terrorist or a car over that crossing?"
One is not only referring to opening such areas, but to places that have been closed and blocked with concrete. One is not talking of a man with a shovel pottering across his field to open a ditch that is blocked, but to fairly major works. We heard a moment ago about the crossing point nearest to Derryard. It was recently closed. A military patrol which was reasonably close to it was meant to watch the crossing point, not to react to anyone there, but to call in others. People appeared in order to reopen the crossing. The military patrol informed others of what was going on. Then, within 10 minutes, 10 tonnes of concrete were emptied from a large drum, and the crossing was reopened.
We are dealing with people's lives. We are considering soldiers killed at Derryard and mortar bombs brought into Newtown Butler. Terrorists come into Northern Ireland, and when someone is killed they can drive away across the Border. We know that the Republic of Ireland cannot provide the security that we are able to provide on our side. Where straight roads cross the Border they have been used not only for entry but, more importantly, for people to get away. Before the border checkpoints and border closures were brought in in 1980 in South-East
1392
Fermanagh we had one person killed every six weeks. By "we" I refer to Roman Catholic and Protestant soft targets.
As the Minister said earlier, we are talking of people's lives. It cannot be a problem for a farmer to justify whether he is draining his field, cutting his hay or cutting a hedge. Having lived close to the Border, I do not support the amendment under any circumstances.
Lord Belstead: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I am not sure at what point earlier today I made remarks about "reasonable" except in the context of "reasonably necessary". My noble friend Lord Elton put his finger on the point. It is a pretty closely targeted offence. It has to take place within 200 yards of a border crossing. All that is being asked is an explanation for the equipment.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough explained the equipment to which we refer. It is invariably heavy equipment in the possession of that person. Under those circumstances, it is sensible to place the onus on the people concerned to give the explanation. Nobody else can. Only they can explain why they have that form of heavy machinery, hardcore or some such item. It should not be difficult for someone who is wholly innocent quickly to explain to anyone who wishes to listen why he should not come within the ambit of that offence.
Lord Prys-Davies: My noble friend Lady Phillips asked an important question: has this offence the potential to cause resentment among people living or working within 200 yards of road closure works? That question has not been addressed. If there is resentment, then the paramilitaries are likely to exploit it. If that happens, we are entitled to ask: what has been achieved by this new offence?
I believe still that the onus of proof should not be on the defendant. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggested that perhaps we ought not to pursue this amendment but to bring forward a substitute for subsection (3) (a) (ii). That is a matter that I wish to consider. For that reason, I do not propose to ask the Committee for its opinion on this clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 19, line 22, after ("aircraft") insert ("—

(a) the reference in subsection (6) of that section to the address of the premises, or a description of the place, where the document or record was found shall be construed as a reference to the location of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft when it was found together (in the case of a vehicle) with its registration number; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor consequential amendment to the record-keeping requirement provided for in Clause 22 so as to apply record keeping to examinations of documents during the search of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are pleased to welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 19, line 48, at end insert:
(" (6A) The requirement to make a record of a search under subsection (1) or (2) of section 19 above shall apply in the case of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft (other than one which is habitually stationary) searched by virtue of this section only where t tie search takes place after the vehicle, vessel or aircraft is removed for the purpose of the search by virtue of subsection (5) above; and in the case of such a search—

(a) the reference in subsection (7A) of that section to the address of the premises, or a description of the place, which is searched shall be construed as a reference to the location where the vehicle, vessel or aircraft is searched together (in the case of a vehicle) with its registration number; and

(b) the references in that section to the occupier of the premises or place searched shall be construed as references to the person in charge of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment applies the same requirement to make a record during the search of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft as the requirement introduced for dwelling houses and premises under the government amendment to Clause 19. However, the requirement would apply only where a vehicle, vessel or aircraft was removed for the purposes of the search; for example, to a vehicle search centre.
The amendment provides that references in Clause 19 to the address and occupier of a premises shall be construed as references to the location where the vehicle. vessel or aircraft was searched and to the person in charge of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Directing terrorist organization]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 20, leave out ("at any level".).
The noble Lord said: Clause 27 relates to involvement in directing terrorist organisation. We on these Benches totally accept the desirability of a clause with the aim that it appears to have: to get at the "godfathers" who manipulate people, often young men, young zealots. They send them out to kill and to be killed, but such godfathers do not put themselves at risk. In a shadowy way they direct the activities of others. It is right that the Government should seek special powers to deal with such people.
I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together. They are designed to improve Clause 27 by making it more precise. I am anxious about the words:
"Any person who directs, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism".
My Amendment No. 19 proposes the deletion of the words "at any level". The words are vague and have the effect of diluting the meaning of the word "direct". "To direct" means being in charge and making the decisions that matter. In doing so one is shaping the course of events. However, the inclusion of the words "at any level" tends to make more vague a phrase that is intended to have a precise meaning.
When the amendment was debated in another place the Minister argued that the phrase "at any level"—be it at national, regional or local level—was meant to
1394
indicate the levels of organisational responsibility but was nevertheless giving direction. If that was the Government's intention it has not succeeded. The phrase "direct at any level" might, to take an extreme example, be applied to the activities of a cleaning lady who directs the washing up. In doing so she is directing at a level the activities of an organisation. I hope that in reply the Minister will not say that it is a matter of common sense. We are dealing with the law and with a precise targeting of action. I hope that he will be able to accept my argument.
The issue is even more serious because Clause 27 continues:
"the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism".
Amendment No. 20 seeks to deal with that provision because it increases the vagueness. Why should it not simply relate to a prescribed organisation? What is the new category of,
"an organisation …concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism"?
Perhaps the description contains a meaning that has eluded me and the Minister can enlighten the Committee.
As it stands the provision could apply to an animal rights organisation which deplorably decided to destroy cages of animals. That is an act of violence capable of being included in such terms. To torture my analogy, one could have a cleaning lady working for an animal rights organisation committed to destroying cages of animals. She would be a person directing at a level,
"the activities of an organisation…concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism".
I ask the Minister to look carefully at the wording of the clause. I hope that in doing so he will accept our wish to catch the planners and the directors who really do the harm. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. Clause 27 is important because it creates a new offence which can attract a sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is necessary, but it is important that the wording should be correct. If not, I fear that it will become a glorified source of litigation until its meaning is determined, probably by the judicial committee of this Chamber. I too had understood that the object of the clause was to target those involved in guiding the terrorist activities of a terrorist organisation. However, it appears to be targeted at every person who is directly or indirectly involved at any stage or at any level in the organisation. Is that its intention?
The clause is based on the verb "to direct". A director is a person who directs. In 1957 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave judgment in the case of Bolton Engineering v. T. J. Graham & Sons. He used the vivid metaphor of a director being the brains and nerve centre of the company as contrasted with its hands which hold the tools and act in accordance with directions from the centre. The clause appears to be extended to include the hands which hold the tools. It would include the smallest cog, which is not directing the activities of the organisation but merely acting in

1395
accordance with the directions. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, gave a couple of illustrations to which I could add. Every organisation has a clerk. Is he to be treated as directing for the purposes of this clause because, for example, he addresses or directs an envelope?
I had considered tabling an additional amendment to insert the word "senior" before the word "level" so that the clause would deal with directing at a senior level. Will the Minister comment upon such an amendment? I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
Lord Colnbrook: I am confused about the issue which appears to depend on the meaning of the word "direct". The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, quoted from a judgment which appeared to state that the director was the chap sitting at the top and that everyone else was not a director. By deleting the words "at any level" one is leaving out everyone except the boss. I suspect that in a terrorist organisation there are people at the centre planning all the activities. Certainly we wish to catch them.
However, the IRA, for instance, issues general directions to what it calls active service units, and other organisations have the same kind of bodies. Although there is someone in charge of that unit he may not press the trigger. He may be the man who says to his subordinates, "We have directions to cause trouble in Londonderry by shooting some policemen. You two are going to go and shoot that particular policeman". That man is a director but he has not pressed a trigger; he told someone else to do it. By deleting the words "at any level" one is running the risk of allowing such a man to say, "I was not directing; the director was my boss who lives in Dublin".
I am sure that that is not the intention of the amendment. I am as keen as other Members of the Committee to catch everyone directing an operation at any level, not only the man who pressed the trigger or put the bomb underneath the car. The issue depends on the interpretation of the word "direct". I am not a lawyer but I believe that the inclusion of the phrase "at any level" makes the provision more rather than less clear.
Lord Belstead: In moving the first of these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has made clear that he agrees with the principle and intent of a new offence of directing the activities of a terrorist organisation which is aimed at catching the godfathers of terrorism. However, the noble Lord is suspicious of the drafting.
The purpose of the noble Lord's amendment is to limit the extent of the new offence so that it applies only to those persons who direct the activities of terrorist organisations at the highest level. The basic criticism is that the inclusion of the phrase "at any level" makes the offence too wide, and therefore, too draconian in its effect.
Before turning to the specific amendment, I should like to remind the Committee precisely what this new provision is designed to achieve. It is not intended as a way of getting at people who can already be
1396
prosecuted in respect of their involvement in the commission of particular offences. It is, for example, already possible to charge with a conspiracy offence persons who have been engaged in the planning of an act of terrorism which they have played no part in carrying out. I emphasise that the new offence is aimed at those who it may not be possible to link evidentially with particular acts of terrorism, but against whom there is evidence that they are directing or controlling the terrorist organisations which claim responsibility for these acts. Such people are often referred to popularly as the godfathers of terrorism. They may not always get their own hands dirty, and, for that reason, they are at present difficult to make amenable before the law. The new clause is designed to make them open to prosecution.
In trying to do that the noble Lord has criticised as vague the phrase "at any level" and in speaking about Amendment No. 20 the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, criticised the use of the word "directing". The phrase "at any level" has been included deliberately in this provision so as to make it clear that anyone who directs the activities of one of these organisations, whether at headquarters, regional or local level, is equally open to prosecution for the offence. I emphasised the word "directs", because of its importance in this short clause. Whatever the level within the organisation of the person charged, the court will have to be satisfied that he has been involved in directing the activities of that organisation. The Government are satisfied that the courts will give that word its ordinary, common sense meaning, which embraces the notion of a controlling influence on the activities in question. Those activities, I remind the Committee, must be the activities of
"an organisation involved in acts of terrorism".
The noble Lord criticised that, but the phrase is important in this context. Directing, even at "any level", the activities of such an organisation involves, in common sense terms rather more than, as the noble Lord suggested, the cleaning lady who is invigilating the washing up or, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested, a clerk who is addressing an envelope.
But the expression "at any level" was also chosen for another importance reason: it gives specific recognition to the fact that some terrorist organisations have in place regional and other geographical structures. There are, of course, within those organisations, those who direct the terrorist campaign at the highest—the national—level. But below that, organisations may be sub-divided into regional or local commands. As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said, it would of course be ludicrous if a senior figure at local level in a terrorist organisation could evade prosecution simply because he could claim that there were others higher up in the overall chain of command. Indeed, it would remove much of the effect of the clause.
We then moved on to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, speaking to Amendment No. 20 which seeks to insert the word "terrorist" because in order for a person to fall foul of this offence he must be directing the terrorist activities of an organisation.

1397
Although originally I was interested to read this amendment, I was even more interested to read the briefing which shows that quite inadvertently the amendment could make the clause of almost no effect. As presently drafted the clause will apply to any person who directs at any level the activities of a terrorist organisation. However, Amendment No. 20 would apply the offence only to those involved in directing the terrorist activities of such organisations. To prove that the person is responsible for directing the acts of terrorist activities, it will be necessary to show a connection between the accused person and particular terrorist acts. If such a connection could be shown the individual concerned could be found guilty of an offence under the existing law.
As I have already explained, the new offence is not intended as a way of getting at people who can already be prosecuted for their role in connection with particular acts of terrorism. It is aimed instead at those backroom organisers who it may not be possible to link with the planning or organisation of specific terrorist acts (although they may have been so involved), but who it can be shown are the directors or leaders of terrorist organisations, responsible for formulating the overall strategy of these organisations or otherwise engaged in their organisation and management at national, local or regional level.
There is another possible effect which also troubles me. Terrorist organisations are 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 others in the organisation who direct other functions such as intelligence gathering, recruitment and quartermastering and so on. Arguably, the carrying out of such functions represents terrorist activity. But would that necessarily be regarded as the case if this amendment was passed? I hope so, but I would not be sure. The new clause, which would increase the possibility that such persons might in future be more open to prosecution, could be fatally wounded if both amendments are accepted.
I am sorry to sound so downright on this point but I believe that in different ways these two amendments will unintentionally degut the clause. For that reason, I ask the Committee not to agree to either of them.
Lord Hylton: I invite the Minister to tell us whether the imprisonment for life provided by this clause is a maximum or mandatory sentence for anybody, whoever is convicted under it. As has been made clear, we must understand that this is a new type of offence.
Is the Minister able to say something about the meaning of "concerned"? It may be that that word has a very wide meaning and could embrace organisations or groups other than the principal terrorist organisations. If that is the case, a life sentence may be too great It may be the sort of offence which would normally attract one or two years' imprisonment.
Lord Belstead: It is proposed to be a maximum sentence.
Lord Blease: I do not wish to add to the confusion but in Northern Ireland in colloquial terms "terrorist"
1398
refers to one side of the community and "paramilitary" refers to the other. I should like to be sure that "terrorist" means any organisation carrying out acts of evil against the community.
Lord Belstead: That is one reason that we used the expression with which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, takes issue. We have not used the word "terrorist" but we have talked about organisations concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the Minister for the terms in which he has replied. As regards Amendment No. 19 he has not moved in the direction in which I hoped he would. However, I shall accept that his intention is the same as ours.
However, I urge on him the point made implicitly by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that an offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment is, by definition, extremely serious. Therefore, both in terms of the deterrent value and the effect of putting away for a very long time the godfathers and in terms of our concern that the wrong people should not be caught by this provision—the little fry rather than the big fish—I hope that the Government will continue to look hard at the matter throughout the passage of the Bill. The words "at any level" have created confusion on this side of the Committee and, therefore, the Minister must acknowledge it possible that they may do so among a wider constituency. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Possession of items intended for terrorist purposes]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 22, line 12, after ("if") insert ("when not at his place of abode").
The noble Lord said: Clause 30 stems from the recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who I am pleased to see is in his place this afternoon. The noble Viscount was told by the RUC and the armed forces that new offences were required to assist them in their work. In his report he said that he was satisfied that it should be possible to create an offence which would be closely related to that of going equipped for theft. A person would therefore be guilty of an offence if he was caught on his way to commit an act of terrorism and had with him an article to be used in connection with such an act.
We fully support the creation of such an offence. We support also the draft wording of the offence which appears in Appendix 2 of the report. However, Clause 30 goes much wider than the draft wording. Having called the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in aid, I must acknowledge that he agreed in his report that the offence might be adapted to conditions and circumstances at the place of abode. As it stands the clause is a sweeping clause. It applies to any article present in a person's home and therefore it could cover a wide variety of everyday articles; for example, a

1399
clock, a torch or piping. The amendment states that the place of abode should be exempt from the operation of the clause.
We are concerned also about the burden of proof. Clause 30 must be read in conjunction with Clause 12. The virtue of Clause 12 is that, if any article and a person are both present in the premises or the premises are habitually used or occupied by that person, it will be for him to establish that he did not know of the presence of the article or that he had no control over it.
In our view Clause 30 is a complex clause. Our second amendment seeks to transfer the burden of proof only in those circumstances where the article had been adapted for use or was an article which could specifically be used for an act of terrorism. Only in those circumstances would the burden of proof be reversed. Therefore, if a detonator is found on premises or on a person, then the burden of establishing that it was held for innocent purposes or that it was not known that it was in the building would be on that person. If the article had been adapted for use in an act of terrorism—for example, if the person had an alarm clock and plugs had been soldered into it—it would be for him to establish that he had the clock for innocent purposes or that he did not know it was on the premises. In circumstances where the article had been made or adapted for use in connection with an act of terrorism, it is right that the duty should be on the individual to show that he was in innocent possession of that article.
We on this side have a fear, which emerged more than once in the course of the discussions this afternoon, that if the clause is not modified along the lines of the amendment it will leave wide open the opportunity for people to be harassed in relation to this specific offence. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I believe that my noble friend would be in some difficulty if he accepted the amendment. Let us envisage this situation. Supposing there is a man whom the police know is in possession of a hand grenade. He is walking along the street on his way home. If they catch up with him before he reaches his home then he has committed an offence; but, if the amendment is accepted, as soon as he enters his home or place of abode no offence of possessing the hand grenade will be committed.
A further point arises. What is his place of abode? For example, does it include his garage? He may have a Kalashnikov rifle in his car waiting to be used as soon as he drives his car out. Is that man to be exempt? Normally one's place of abode includes one's garden. A garden could be very large and the man could be sitting in his garden with an offensive weapon ready to be used perhaps against anyone who passes along the hedge at the end of the garden or in the road. I find that idea very difficult.
It may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the fears he expresses are to a considerable extent covered in subsection (2), which states,
1400
"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence the article in question was not in his possession for such a purpose as is mentioned in subsection (1)".
In those circumstances it would be better to leave the clause as it stands without incorporating the two amendments.
Lord Elton: I endorse everything that my noble friend says and believe that the difficulty is perhaps narrower than he thinks. I strongly suspect that the possession anywhere of a hand grenade or a Kalashnikov rifle is an offence carrying a considerable penalty.
Clause 30 is aimed at lengths of control cable which may be alleged to be for lighting purposes, or radio transmitters which may be said to be controlling model aeroplanes. A judgment must be made as to whether they are in fact for the purposes of lighting an outdoor festival or controlling a model aeroplane, or, by one means or another, causing an explosion and the loss of life. If the latter then there is a certain absurdity in the amendment.
The amendment suggests that if the wire is coiled round the person's body as he walks down the street he is committing an offence, but if it is disguised as a washing line but is intended to be used for exactly the same purpose, then he is not. That is beyond reason and I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
6 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I rise at this point to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I give advance notice also that I do not intend to press Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to speak to Clause 30 as a whole. For the reasons just given, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not strictly relevant. We are talking not about weapons but about everyday objects which may be found in the possession of anyone but which found in possession of the wrong person, with the wrong motives, lend themselves to reasonable suspicion that they are to be used for acts of terrorism.
Lord Elton: Or in combination with other objects.
Lord Renton: The clause is not confined to everyday objects. It refers to "any article" which may be used in the furtherance of aggressive purposes.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful for the instruction from noble Lords opposite.
Looked at as a whole the clause has three main problems. The first is that it can be used as regards a person's home. The Committee should start with the presumption that people's homes are their castles and there have to be very strong reasons for the arm of security to reach into people's homes. In that context I ask the Minister specifically why he did not take the advice of his noble friend Lord Colville, who has rightly been referred to often in respectful terms in the context of his report. This is an occasion when the Government have chosen to disregard not only the advice of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and other bodies concerned with these

1401
issues but specifically the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on the question of items within the home.
Secondly, the provision is imprecisely worded. Thirdly, there are very strong punishments. The three elements of reasonable suspicion are vague. The words "connected with" are coupled with the possession of "any article". We know that we are speaking about such things as clocks, maps, pliers, axes and other prosaic items which people will have. The combination of those items with the knowledge that they can be discovered in people's homes and the fact that "reasonable suspicion" is tenuously worded seems to make the provision very widely cast indeed. That gives rise to egitimate concern whether we are striking the correct balance between what we all want, which is the vigorous prosecution of those who threaten public safety, and the civil liberties which commend themselves to the community in Northern Ireland.
I support the amendment. The wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, of,
"when not at his place of abode",
is better than my words of "in a public place". I give advance notice of my intention to withdraw Amend ments Nos. 22 and 23.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may first refer to the reasonable suspicion that something in a house may be used for terrorist activity. The provision would not apply quite so much to the individual article. The reasonable suspicion would have already been justified in the application for the search to be made in the first place. We are not talking about any house being entered at any time, when bits and pieces are lifted and the occupier is asked "Are you using this for terrorism?" and so forth. There is a reasonable justification in the first place for searching the house.
When we speak about the kit in the house or what might be used for terrorism, there is a difficulty. Many things are done by the terrorists at home. Mention has already been made of the grenade or the gun which quite clearly contravenes the firearms legislation. When the terrorist constructs a radio-controlled bomb or one of the terrible under-car booby traps, a great deal of mechanism is involved such as mercury tilt switches and timers. Such devices have to be made up very carefully. They cannot be put together beneath a bush on a hillside. They take time to put together and all the pieces have to be available. However, the one item that does not have to be in the house is the explosive. The bomb can be made up without the explosive.
A search may take place because it has been justified by the correct application having been made and the correct procedures followed. One may find in the house the items to which I have just referred. A tupperware box with a powerful magnet attached, with all the bits and pieces to blow up a car, bar the explosive, leaves no doubt what the object is to be used for. There is no charge to cover that situation. If the security forces search a house and find such bits and pieces at present they can do nothing with them so they have. to leave the house. We say to them, "Find the terrorists, find those who are operating these devices". They do so, and then we say, "You cannot
1402
touch these items; but go back home and look under your car. The item could be under your car tomorrow morning".
This provision cannot be compared with the Theft Act 1968. That Act is concerned with screwdrivers and other items commonly used about the home. The people concerned are going equipped for theft but not to commit the horrendous murders that take place in Northern Ireland.
Lord Fitt: I rise because of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He questioned the words,
"when not at his place of abode".
The words are of tremendous importance in the Northern Ireland situation. The noble Lord questioned whether the garage is part of the home. For many people the garage is attached to the house or is an annex to it, but in Northern Ireland many people do not have a garage adjacent to their residence. On an estate with high-rise flats garages may be let out by the local authority. The terrorist may place the material in a garage and, if it is searched, the security forces may take it that the material is the responsibility of the garage occupier.
Throughout this debate it will be noted that I speak from experience. I have not gained my experience from a textbook. The incidents I relate took place during my political life in Belfast. In the early 1970s a friend of mine lived in a flat, with a garage for his van about 200 to 300 yards away. The security forces entered the garage and found bags of gelignite. They went to his home and arrested him. Fortunately, I was there and I was able to tell them that I knew him and in no way could he be involved in acts of terrorism.
That incident shows the validity of the words in the amendment. It should be a defence for those who own outlying stores or garages that they are not to be held responsible for material found in such circumstances.
Lord Hylton: Those of us who are associated with this amendment are not absolutely confident that the wording is right. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has suggested that it might be better to substitute words like "in a public place". I offer the suggestion "within his dwelling-house". These are fine points of detail but it is important that we get them right. The burden of the matter is that there are certain household goods normally found in people's houses such as sellotape, cooking gloves, fuse wire, switches, torches and scissors. We are trying to avoid innocent people being brought to court, harassed or unnecessarily interviewed simply for having such items in their homes. I am sure that is now clear to the Government.
Lord Skelmersdale: Does this not depend on where in the home the items are? We have had recent examples of hides being discovered in people's homes. If an industrial coffee grinder is found in a hide in a person's home, when tested forensically it will almost inevitably carry traces of fertiliser used for the preparation of explosives. For example, if I, with the full authorisation of my commanding officer, went into a house—whether it be in Londonderry, the Falls Road or wherever—and happened to look at a

1403
bookcase and take out the odd book but in doing so discover behind it a pair of washing-up gloves, a balaclava helmet and a screwdriver, I would say that those items were found in "suspicious circumstances". The idea that, in agreeing to this amendment, we should only condone the carrying of these items—that is, not the industrial coffee grinder—on the person, defies belief.
Lord Belstead: The purpose of these amendments is to limit the scope and indeed the penalty of the offence of possession of items intended for terrorist purposes. As all of us who have read the report of my noble friend Lord Colville will know, this is an extremely important clause which owes a great deal to my noble friend's fertile imagination and sense of inventiveness. That is truthfully the origin of the offence. At paragraph 2.7.3 of his report, my noble friend recorded the view that,
"There are now various articles which, though harmless in themselves, are so closely associated with terrorist activities that possession of them, in circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion of connection with terrorism, should be a new offence".
Although I admit at once that the offence in Clause 30 differs from that which my noble friend Lord Colville proposed in his draft clause, it does however give effect to precisely that recommendation.
First, perhaps I may say that the offence as drafted is not out of line with that proposed by my noble friend in relation to the threat to which he drew attention. However, if Amendment No. 21 were to be accepted—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that he would not be moving Amendment No. 22—the offence would no longer apply as regards possession of items in the home. I acknowledge the fact that my noble friend's draft offence excluded possession of items at home.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked why we did not accept my noble friend's advice. My noble friend Lord Colville acknowledged that the offence could be extended in the way in which we have extended it. I refer Members of the Committee to paragraph 2.9.7 of his report. On mature consideration, we decided that it was right that the provision should apply to possession of items in the home. The security forces have all too ample evidence of homes being used for making improvised weapons and explosive devices. It would be a serious limitation of the offence were it not to apply to items which were uncovered by the security forces during a legitimate search for munitions and explosives.
Members of the Committee, especially the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made it quite clear that the concern about confining the provision to the home is attached to a worry about the onus of proof. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the dangers of harassment, as he saw it, in having the onus of proof reversed. Amendment No. 24 seeks to limit the scope of the reverse onus of proof in subsection (4) by providing that the onus should only be reversed where an article is proved to have been,
"made or adapted for use in connection with acts of terrorism".
1404
I put it to the Committee that it is well established in British law that a reverse onus of proof is justifiable where the accused is in an especially good position to give evidence about a particular matter. Mercury tilt switches, overalls, rubber gloves, balaclavas and coffee grinders are all innocuous items in the right hands; but, in the wrong hands, they can have very sinister applications.
It was interesting to note that my noble friend Lord Renton counselled caution in the matter. In such circumstances—and I believe that this is what was in my noble friend's mind—it is not unreasonable to require the accused to give an explanation or to show lack of knowledge. Indeed, the accused has only to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. The prosecution would then have to discharge the overall burden of proof to the higher criminal standard; namely, beyond reasonable doubt. I put that to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
As my noble friend Lord Colville clearly indicated, in many cases the everyday items of which terrorists make use are not adapted in any way or in such fashion as to be clearly intended for terrorist purposes. Therefore, the provision in Clause 30 is not making an explicit distinction of that kind, although clearly where the prosecution could prove that items have been made or adapted specifically for a particular terrorist purpose the charge would be easier to prove.
The clause is terribly important in terms of running to earth munitions, weapons and ordinary things which can cost people their lives. The Government believe that a reverse onus is fully justified in this case.
Lord Prys-Davies: We have drawn attention to the two areas which appear to us to be a source of considerable concern in the Province. The matter has been fully discussed by Members of the Committee. I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division; neither do I propose to return to the matter at a later stage. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 33 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 34 [Detention orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Prys-Davies: We are much saddened by the fact that the Bill should re-enact the power to detain a citizen without charge or trial. That is a drastic departure from the rule of law. We have often heard it said in this Chamber that it is a fundamental principle of the system of justice in a civilised country that no citizen should be deprived of his liberty without charge and trial. If there is insufficient evidence to bring the citizen before the court on a charge which will deprive him of his liberty, he should not be put away by Executive action. We have also often heard in this place that that principle is not for compromise.

1405
On Second Reading, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether it would be possible for him to arrange to place in the Library a list of the countries which still retain that harsh power. I have not seen such a list, but I have been handed a letter from the Minister which informs me that it is not possible to prepare a comprehensive list. That may be so. However, I should very much appreciate it if a list of the countries known to have retained the power could be placed in the Library. We could then draw our own conclusions. Of course, it may not be easy to draw such conclusions. I say that because we are not necessarily comparing like with like. But it would be helpful if we had such information before us.
On Second Reading the Minister was anxious to tell the Chamber that the power had been retained by the Republic of Ireland. I replied that two wrongs do not make a right. It is certainly not a source of pride that our penal code in this respect is in harmony with countries such as Cuba, Ethiopia and Burma.
The power to detain without charge or trial was granted to Stormont by the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922; but the power has not been used since 1975. It was phased out between 1971 and 1975. It is now agreed by Ministers —Ministers in this Government—that reliance on this power in the early 1970s was a huge mistake in that it led to an immediate and prolonged increase in violence and created further tension and hostility. If one detains 300 persons suspected of involvement in a terrorist organisation, the odds are that one will also detain people who are not involved in a terrorist organisation. If 300 people are interned, they will be replaced by another 300 people. Notwithstanding the historical record and the acknowledgment by Ministers that it was a huge mistake to apply this power between 1971 and 1975, I understand that there are still people who believe that detention without trial is necessary in order to maintain law and order. It was said in another place during a discussion of this clause that it should have been applied quickly and selectively in 1985 after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I mention that as evidence that the Secretary of State of the day could well be provoked into applying internment in response to the pressure of events of the passing hour, or in response to public anger. In our view a Secretary of State should not be placed in that intolerable position. I know of no good reason why this power should be re-enacted. Perhaps we shall hear from the Minister the reasons why this power should be in the Bill. I know of no good reason. On the other hand, there are very good reasons for saying that Northern Ireland has been scarred by the use of the power in the past and that we should now say that we are finished with it in Northern Ireland. The removal of this power from the Bill would signal more than any other decision we take today that the Committee believes that Northern Ireland should and can now move towards normality. I therefore urge the Government, even at this stage, to accept the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that there should be no more detention. I oppose the Question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is fully entitled to ask the Committee to consider whether the power of detention without trial should be continued. I remind the Committee that the power was introduced under an Act of 1978 which had been proposed by the previous Labour Government. The Conservative Government have asked Parliament to keep those provisions going since then. Although the noble Lord is fully justified in asking us to consider this matter, I doubt whether it is sensible that we should have to consider the powers in the light of similar powers being used—and very rarely used—in other countries. Each country must decide for itself on a vital principle of this kind. We must decide this in the light of our own standards—high standards—and traditions of justice. It is contrary to natural justice that we should detain people without trial; but we found that it was necessary to do so in Northern Ireland because, alas, innocent people were losing their lives because of acts of terrorism. It was extremely difficult to find the evidence to convict the terrorists, although the actions of particular people were well known to the police.
In order that we may judge whether these powers should be retained, as the Government now propose, I am sure my noble friend Lord Belstead will give us so far as he is able an account of what has been happening. It would be interesting to know, for example, what proportion of the people who were at first detained without trial were eventually brought to trial. That is the most important factor of all. There is also the power to release people who have been detained. There had to be such a power, and rightly so. It would be interesting to know what proportion of the people eventually could be released without trial. It is on matters such as those, and on other matters about which my noble friend will no doubt let us know, that our judgment will have to be based.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, acknowledged that detention without trial is contrary to the principle of natural justice. It is also contrary to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which this country is a signatory. On these Benches we oppose the Question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill. We ask the Government to recognise that as long as in any part of the United Kingdom there is detention without trial—and may it be a very short time—we are flouting established principles of international law and the law of human rights. We are putting ourselves outside the European Convention and in the position of having to ask for derogation, which is unworthy of us. We oppose the Question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Elton: Detention without trial is contrary to natural justice—but so is terrorism. The Province of Northern Ireland has been subject to the most appalling scourge of injustice for far too long. It is always a retreat in the face of terrorism if, in response to a terrorist attack on fundamental freedoms, one uses as a defence the withdrawal of one of those freedoms. Therefore what the Bill asks for is a power not lightly to be granted. It is a serious matter. Like

1407
my noble friend Lord Renton, I shall listen with great care to what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say in support of the clause. In listening to him, I shall remember the injustice which is far greater, and under which far more people have been suffering for far longer, than the one which detention without trial can ever possibly deliver.
Lord Fitt: Since the creation of the Northern Ireland state, detention without trial (or internment as it was known) has been introduced on five different occasions under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland). On four of those occasions, the persons about to be detained or interned were arrested by the forces of the RUC, the security forces of Northern Ireland. Although this was highly unacceptable, it was understood. In 1971 the Northern Ireland Parliament again sought the permission of the British Government to introduce internment for the fifth time. That time it was not the RUC or members of the special constabulary who arrested those about to be interned; it was members of the British Army.
One has to understand Northern Ireland to know what memories that action evoked: British soldiers in the uniform of the British Army going into nationalist areas and breaking down doors at four o'clock in the morning! I lived on the Antrim Road. At the back of my home was Sheridan Street. I could hear doors being kicked down by soldiers of the British Army. They had sought permission from the British Government to re-introduce internment.
One can recall the tremendous convulsion which overtook the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. One would have to be Irish and a member of that community to understand what happened to it; 400 to 500 people were arrested. Within the following months another 200 to 300 were arrested. Then, in 1972, under the premiership of Mr. Heath, the British Government abolished Stormont. The first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, took over. Immediately he went there, one of the things that he did, as a Conservative—I might have expected this action from a Labour government, but this was a Conservative Secretary of State—was to look through the files of those who had been interned two to three months before and immediately release 300 to 400 of them. He was applying British standards as to who should be interned, if internment were accepted at all.
That fact gives an indication that men were arrested in the swoop of 9th August 1971 who should never have seen the inside of an internment camp. We are still living with the consequences of those acts of 1971. Anyone connected with Northern Ireland, especially the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will remember the song which has worked itself into the psyche of the Irish Catholic and nationalist population. It is known as "The Men behind the Wire". There is a verse in it which goes:
"Through the little streets of Belfast,
In the dark of early morn,
British soldiers came marauding,
Wrecking little homes with scorn".
1408
Another verse goes:
"Cromwell's men are here again".
The song evokes the memory of the 16th and 17th centuries in the minds of nationalists in Northern Ireland.
It is all right in these august surroundings to ask why we talk about the 16th and 17th centuries and Cromwell, because we have all forgotten about it. But the people living in certain parts of Northern Ireland have not forgotten. It is part of their folklore, their mythology, their reason for being. We all know what happened in 1972, the year immediately following internment: 473 people were killed in Northern Ireland, all occasioned by the tremendous upsurge of emotional Irish nationalism which took place. Subsequently, the Labour Government abolished internment, but the fear remains.
Before deciding to go into the Lobby to support my noble friend, I agonised over this matter. I do not speak about such issues lightly, from a political point of view, or with a view to the next election. We do not do that in this place. If I thought that the threat of internment would deter terrorists, I would vote with the Government tonight, because I see terrorism as my enemy. It always has been. If I thought that the retention in the legislation of the power of internment would prevent terrorism, I would have no hesitation in going into the Government Lobby this evening.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has said in the past that there may be reasons for having selective detention. That means that we know everyone whom we are going to intern. The late Lord Faulkner, a former Northern Ireland Prime Minister, thought in 1971 that he knew everyone whom he was going to intern. He believed that the RUC files contained proof that everyone who was about to be detained had terrorist connections. When the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, took over five months later, he found that the selection made in 1971 was not a selection at all; it had proved to be totally indiscriminate.
Again, that action involved the Irish Government. People in the Republic believed that internment was being used selectively against the Catholic nationalist population in Northern Ireland. No Protestants were arrested in the dawn swoop of 9th August 1971. It was clearly understood that internment was being used against the Catholic population. It led to massive demonstrations in the Republic, Northern Ireland and here in London. One does not have to have a long memory to recall the tremendous demonstration by those opposed to internment which took place in London.
Given those considerations, is it wise to retain on the statute book the power to order detention which would give rise to the same emotionalism that we had in 1971? My noble friend has said that two wrongs do not make a right, but it may be—I hope to God that it will not happen—that there is such an upsurge of terrorism in Northern Ireland, and so many people are killed in Northern Ireland, that the Government will have to react and introduce internment. I ask myself whether it would be justified in those circumstances. If it were justified, it would have to be introduced in the

1409
Republic of Ireland at the same time. We could not have detention introduced in Northern Ireland only, because people involved in the commission of terrorist acts would be able to escape over the border into the Republic. That happened in 1971, when many of the terrorists who would have been on everyone's selection list for detention escaped over the border into the Irish Republic.
Many aspects of the introduction of this power will have to be talked over with the people of the Irish Republic. They must recognise that a terrorist in Northern Ireland is a terrorist in the Republic and a terrorist all over the island of Ireland. If I believed that the retention of the clause would deter terrorists, I should be in the Lobby with the Government tonight, but I do not believe that that will be the effect of the clause.
Viscount Brookeborough: I do not like the principle of internment without trial, but nor do I like seeing so many people killed in Northern Ireland. I am sorry if I gave 1 he noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the impression that I knew of all the terrorists in Northern Ireland who should be interned. I do not, but the security forces know a great deal more than they did when internment was first introduced. I do not propose that internment should be reintroduced, but I sometimes wonder why internment remains on the statute book in the Republic of Ireland and in the Act here. Is it perhaps that the two governments have quietly agreed that one day they might both act, or, if they do not talk about it, do they one day hope that if it became necessary they would both be able to introduce it? I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said is correct. If we were to reintroduce internment in Northern Ireland, we would have to impose it in the South; and, what is more, we would need to have total co-operation between the security forces so that people—even if they were not resident in the North or the South—could be picked up on the other side of the Border.
I take the noble Lord's point that previously internment was thought to be used selectively against the Roman Catholic community. However, after the recent horrifying Protestant-instigated terrorist acts, especially in the area of Craigavon and Portadown, I would hope that Protestant so-called Loyalist terrorists would be interned if we reintroduced internment. I do not necessarily want to see internment reintroduced; but if it became necessary, and if it, could be shown that it removed the top tier of terrorists and provided a long enough pause in terrorist activity in Northern Ireland to show everyone there what it was like to live without terrorism and therefore to reject any resurgence of it, I would support selective internment in those circumstances. I support the clause.
Lord Monson: Further to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I wish to put the following proposition to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and those who support him on this matter. Although quite a considerable number of people have died as a result of terrorism in other democratic parts of Western Europe since World War II—for example, in Corsica,
1410
Spain, Italy and, to a lesser extent, West Germany—in no case has the number of deaths remotely approached the total in Northern Ireland, either absolutely or proportionately. That makes a difference to the situation. I suggest that if by any mischance proportionately as many people were killed in other countries of Europe as a result of increasing terrorism, those countries too might well consider the introduction of internment.
Lord Blease: The two lines of Clause 34 are the most controversial and the most difficult of this 79-page Bill. Sadly, dark days are still being experienced in the Province of Northern Ireland. Internment has had to be introduced in Northern Ireland on some five occasions. However, the occasion when it was introduced in 1971 stands out vividly in my mind. I agree with the principle that a person should not be imprisoned unless the due processes of the law have been followed.
I ask the Committee to turn to the four pages of Schedule 3. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 bears the heading "Interim custody orders". After the introduction of the legislation which introduced special powers, there was a period of detention before internment. It was during that period in 1971 that I pleaded for the detention period to be prolonged. I realised that would result in people being imprisoned for long periods without being charged.
I fear very much what may happen in the future. I realise that if an uprising occurs in either or both communities in Northern Ireland, the due processes of law cannot be administered in a normal manner by arresting and charging people. I feel that interim custody orders would be more acceptable than internment at the present time in Northern Ireland. It may be necessary to detain people under some form of custodial arrangement where the normal processes of law could not be followed in a manner that would conform to international agreements.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I spoke for quite long enough on this subject on Second Reading. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that I used on that occasion. One of the advantages of being a Member of this Chamber is that one can learn from the experiences of people who have been born and bred in different parts of the British Isles. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Blease, and to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough.
My experience of Northern Ireland is minuscule compared with that of those noble Lords. However, during my time in Northern Ireland the only time I heard executive detention being talked about was when I bullied people into responding to my questions on that subject. People had plenty of opportunities to mention that matter to me. I talked to many people all over Northern Ireland in hospitals, social security offices and on farms. They could have talked to me about any subject under the sun but they did not mention detention unless I asked them a specific question about it.

1411
As my noble friend Lord Elton has said, this is a swingeing and unusual power. My noble friend did not express it quite like that. However, terrorism is a swingeing and unusual subject that we have to deal with. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, left me with the impression that he has been asking himself the wrong question. Surely the question we should all be asking ourselves is what effect the removal of detention will have on terrorism and its hangers on in Northern Ireland. It is that matter that worries me.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill. I have added my name to the names of others who oppose that clause. I did so for four reasons. First, the presence of such a provision as this on the statute book is to my mind one of the biggest and perpetual indications of political failure in Northern Ireland. It is a sign of political abnormality and an admission that there is no end in sight to political violence in Northern Ireland.
Just outside Lampeter in West Wales someone had painted on a bridge the words, "Smash H Blocks: Britain's Belsen". I do not approve of graffiti; but that made me think. I tried to imagine what it would be like to have internment in Wales, even for people of whom I strongly disapprove. I simply cannot conceive of it there or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, it provides the paramilitaries with a useful diversion from their own misdeeds. It can surely be no accident that after every major paramilitary atrocity their representatives leap to the media and spread around the rumour that internment is about to be re-introduced. By pointing to the abandonment by government of the rule of law, they are able to make extremely useful propaganda and to divert attention from their crimes.
Thirdly, because of its discriminatory aspect, internment is perpetually politically divisive. Rather than provide a period of calm, it inflames community tensions and reminds people that the previous use of internment in 1971 is still popularly associated with forms of ill-treatment which led to a condemnation of Britain by the European Court of Human Rights.
Fourthly, internment breeds violence. On the previous occasion that internment was used, the level of violence increased dramatically. In 1971, 173 people were killed. In the first full year after the introduction of internment in August 1971, 474 people were killed. Internment is therefore closely associated with a tripling of the rate of killing. The major fall in violence took place in 1977 once internment had been removed and the emphasis placed on securing convictions in a court of law. Internment is counter-productive to peace.
Throughout the last terrible decades internment has often provided what successive generations of IRA members have called the university of the revolution. That is one university, and the only university, that I should be delighted to see closed down.
Lord Belstead: I must begin by paying tribute to the cogent arguments put forward by my noble friend
1412
Lord Colville in his report advocating removal from this legislation of the provisions relating to executive detention. Although the conclusion which the Government have reached is different from that of my noble friend, that should not be taken to imply that we do not recognise and accept the strength of feeling about the powers in relation to the events of the early 1970s in some parts of the community in Northern Ireland. Many factors have changed since then but the lessons of the past should remain powerful in our memory.
That said, I very much respected the points made so clearly and eloquently on this Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in his first intervention in a Northern Ireland debate. However, in relation to the four points which he made, I should mention that we are not talking about internment, which was last used, as the noble Lord said, in the early 1970s. As the Committee will know, that was replaced at the time of the beginning of direct rule by a system of detention with an appeal tribunal and a regular review procedure. Those procedures were in turn replaced in 1975 as a result of the report of Lord Gardiner. Lord Gardiner's recommendations were included in the 1978 Act by the Government of noble Lords opposite and are now, to the greatest extent, replicated by what is Schedule 3 to the Bill. So, as my noble friend Lord Renton rightly said, we are talking about whether, by agreeing to Clause 34 and not agreeing to the Motion before us, we leave on the statute book procedures which originated in the report of Lord Gardiner and which are now in Schedule 3.
At the time of the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked for a list of those countries which have powers similar to those in Clause 34 of the Bill. I must apologise that I was only very recently able to reply. I replied saying that practice and legal provision vary widely around the world, that no list that I could provide would be comprehensive and that I should not want unintentionally to mislead either the noble Lord or other noble Lords who see my letter, which has been deposited in the Library.
There are many countries which subject their citizens to administrative detention. However, in saying that, I must draw two important distinctions—first, between those countries which operate the power on a regular basis and those which preserve the power only for use in the gravest emergency; and, secondly, between the detention of those who seek to demonstrate political dissent from authoritarianism and the detention of individuals suspected of involvement or potential involvement in acts of murder and terrorism within a democratic society.
As my noble friend Lord Colville observed, it has been a matter for much rejoicing that countries which previously exercised powers of detention without trial against political dissidents have now abandoned those powers and resorted to the rule of law. Equally, it is important to observe that a number of democratic societies, faced with the threat of internal terrorism or similar threats to the integrity of society and human life, have powers similar to Clause 34 held in reserve.

1413
A very relevant example is the Republic of Ireland, which simply retains executive detention on its statute book.
Were we completely to remove the powers of detention from this legislation, we should effectively be forfeiting any possibility of using them, at any rate in a manner which might prove effective. Although, theoretically, new legislation could be introduced in an emergency, it could not possibly be introduced and debated without giving substantial forewarning to those who might otherwise risk being detained. Then, when looked for, the birds would have flown, and as my noble friend Lord Colville records in his report, extradition could not be used in a detention case to bring them back again.
We believe that, so long as we have to contemplate the outside possibility that the security situation in Northern Ireland might require that detention be used to prevent loss of life, it would be wrong and imprudent to sweep those powers from the statute book altogether. I remind the Committee that, in the event of the unthinkable and the power being used, the Government have to come to Parliament within 40 days for approval. That was a measure which was put on to the statute book when my noble friend Lord Colnbrook was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Therefore, for the reasons that I have given, I beg the Committee not to agree to the Motion. This is a Bill which, as I hope has become clear this afternoon, is full c f safeguards. However, it would not give the right signal to terrorists to sweep these particular powers away from the statute book for good and all at the present time.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should like to make it clear that we are not suggesting that we must decide this issue in the light of what is happening in other countries. I do not suggest that for one moment. However, we do suggest that it would be unwise to take the decision without being aware of what is happening in the civilised world and how other countries conduct their affairs when faced with internal threat to their existence. Indeed, it was the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who reminded us in his review that he had met difficulty in raising human rights issues in the United Nations because of provisions in British law such as internment.
I have listened with considerable sadness to the Minister's words. I am saddened that the Government have not been persuaded to accept the wise recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I asked the Minister to spell out to the Committee why the Government wanted this harsh power and under what circumstances the power would be activated. The Minister has not specified a single condition which must be satisfied before the power can be activated.
The Committee should not derogate to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the power to activate internment without at least spelling out on the face of the Bill the conditions which must be satisfied before that power can be exercised. There is not a single condition on the face of the Bill. It is to be a policy option, to be applied as a kind of reserve power.
1414
But Parliament does not legislate for policy options, its legislation is based on policies which have already been formulated.
In our view there is no way that this power can be modified. However, if it is the intention of the Government, as it is, that this power should be re-enacted then that must be with the consent of this Committee.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 38.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Ingrow, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Astor, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bethell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Mar, C.

Blyth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Monson, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Moran, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Palmer, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Coleraine, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stockton, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strange, B.

Elton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Flather, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hanson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Waddington, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Henley, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

White of Hull, L

Hood, V.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gregson, L.

Attlee, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birk, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hylton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Falkland, V.

Lockwood, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Longford, E.

Fitt, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Pitt of Hampstead. L.

1415

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Walston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 34 agreed to accordingly.
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at five past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Bill
7.7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am glad to have the role of introducing into your Lordships' House this Bill which has passed through all its stages in another place. It was a Private Member's Bill in the other place, supported in all parts of that House. The private Member concerned is the honourable gentleman Mr. Calum MacDonald, the Member for the Western Isles, and he has earned warm congratulations, with which I am sure we join, for piloting the Bill through. In the annual Ballot in another place, he featured in the list of the first 20, but not in the first six who are guaranteed adequate time for a Private Member's Bill. Nonetheless, he steered the Bill through, obtaining enough time for debate for those who wished to comment. He has taken great personal trouble over it and I think that he will be rewarded by success when, as I hope, it is enacted and enters into force. He has acknowledged receiving help supplied in drafting by the Scottish Office and I do so too. The Government support the purposes of the Bill.
To avoid confusion, I must make clear that it is the same Bill as that presented in the last Session of Parliament by my honourable friend Sir Hector Monro. He knew that there was no time then for the Bill to make progress in Parliament, but he performed a useful service by enabling it to be studied and discussed by those who would be most closely affected by its consequences. As a result, the Bill has the approval of the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Landowners' Confederation and the Crofters Commission. Work in preparing the Bill included consultations with local authorities and environmental organisations which, I understand, have given helpful, constructive advice.
Crofting tenure is the land system obtaining in the area known as the crofting counties. Nowadays, it is not easy to delineate that area. Local government reorganisation in 1975 removed the term "county" from Scotland. There have also been changes in local authority boundaries. The legislation governing crofting was considerably reformed by the 1976 Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act with the aim of meeting modern conditions. I was the Secretary of State for Scotland who introduced the Bill which led
1416
to that Act. Perhaps that is the reason why I have been asked to sponsor the Bill in this House. In 1974 my Bill had a Second Reading in the other place but could proceed no further and was lost because a general election was called. That Bill was reintroduced by the successor Labour Government, illustrating that on this subject there was in general a bipartisan view on the part of the main political parties.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the grazing committee of a crofting township to engage in forestry on common grazings land without that land having to be withdrawn from crofting tenure. For crofters and landowners it adds an option to what is now possible. They can still take the land out of crofting tenure if they wish to on planting trees. The purpose of the Bill is consistent with changes taking place elsewhere in Britain's countryside. Farmers are being encouraged to incorporate woodlands on their land in their husbandry. In recent years shelter belts have been encouraged as well as timber planted on livestock farms. This policy is highly relevant in present conditions of over-production of cereals and other farm commodities in Western Europe. The United Kingdom has to import about 90 per cent. of its timber requirements. Growing more at home cannot fail to be helpful even though to start with the quantities will certainly be small.
Clause 1 enables the grazings committee of a township to use any part of the common grazings for planting woodlands. I must explain to those not familiar with crofting legislation that the word "township" is a technical term. It means a group of crofters (perhaps only a dozen) working together. As for the buildings, there may be only half a dozen—nothing remotely resembling a town. The approval of the Crofters Commission and the consent of the landlord are required. As stated by the Minister when the Bill was being considered in the other place:
"The terms of any agreement on planting are a matter for settlement between the landlord and the crofters undertaking the planting".
Clause 2 makes changes in the existing legislation required as a consequence of the proposals in Clause 1. Clause 3 extends to crofting land grants now available for forestry and woodland elsewhere under forestry and agricultural legislation. Trees are a long-term business compared with agriculture. Several (sometimes many) years must pass before there is a return on investment. However, it has been estimated that over the full period of the forestry cycle the income from woodlands on crofting land is likely to be as good or better than that from staple crofting commodities such as sheep.
I should like to draw attention to a particular advantage to crofting land which the effects of the Bill should produce. The shelter which woodlands can provide will be beneficial to livestock. With careful planting the same quantity of livestock can be grazed efficiently even though the area for grazing has been reduced. Although much of the Highlands was covered with forest 300 years ago, a great deal was felled for use during the industrial revolution. Disinterest in replanting in those days and subsequent erosion have led to the present scarcity of trees in crofting areas. Some land will be unsuitable for

1417
forestry, but where trees are appropriately planted they can enhance the scenery and environment so improving amenity generally while becoming a welcome new crofting crop. The ability to plant and grow trees within crofting tenure will add a useful new activity for crofters in areas where more trees will improve the countryside, and home-grown timber is needed by the nation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his introduction of the Bill and the full account he gave of its purposes and the results of its becoming law. I am pleased that he paid tribute to my ionourablek friend in another place, Calum MacDonald, who, as he said, is from the crofting counties. It is rather nice to come to Westminster and get something through which directly and almost solely affects your own people. This Bill is particularly in tune with the times because, as we know, agriculture has been through a rather difficult period. Therefore, if crofting groups can agree and get the permission of the Forestry Commission and the landowner to use part of I he common land for forestry it will obviously be an immediate advantage to them because of the grants. In addition, as the noble Lord said, there will be an advantage ultimately because increased timber production in Scotland, however small it may be, will provide a welcome product. I very much welcome the Bill, as I hope the House will, and again thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the way he introduced it.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I should like to say how strongly I endorse the outline of the Bill given by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. It is heartening to find that there is at least one thing under discussion politically in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands, which reaches a conclusion to which we can all be party. I am delighted to hear Lord Carmichael say he gives his support and that of his party to the proposals outlined by my noble friend.
Anything which can encourage woodland in the Highlands must be good. So far as agriculture is concerned, shelter is of vital importance. Indeed, the regeneration of the habit of woodland growing—which I hope will include broadleaf—is something which w? must all applaud. My noble friend has done an excellent job of research in preparing his notes for tonight. I hope we shall give him every encouragement and that the Bill will have a quick passage.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should like to associate this Bench with what has been said. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the way in which he introduced the Bill and endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in supporting it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I am
1418
very glad to have the opportunity to welcome this Bill which was so ably presented by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. Quite rightly he referred to Mr. Calum MacDonald in another place and to my honourable friend Sir Hector Monro, both of whom played an important part in creating the consensus mentioned by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. It is very important that we should have that consensus. It is a delight to be able to speak in this House on a Bill that has aroused so much support from all the Benches in this Chamber.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned, the Government support the Bill. As has been explained, it enables grazings committees to plant trees on commons grazings. The Bill provides a crofter with an alternative use for crofting land subject to suitable safeguard and makes government assistance available through the relevant grant schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was quite right to mention the challenges that are facing agriculture, particularly in fragile rural areas where because of climatic problems it is increasingly difficult to make a return. This Bill offers people an alternative. It gives them an option which I am sure will help them in the future. I am confident that this House will support the Bill. I willingly give my support to it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I thank them for the welcome that they have given from all sides of the House to these proposals. We all agree that the honourable gentleman Mr. Calum MacDonald has done a great service by obtaining agreement on proposals which we believe will be good for Scotland. I hope that the Bill will have a happy and quick passage through its later stages.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.22 to 8.5 p.m.]

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
House again in Committee.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 44 agreed to.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Code of practice: video recording
—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a code of practice to provide for video recording of interviews of persons detained under this Act or under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
(2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 60 of this Act shall apply to a code under this section as they apply to a code under that section.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 25 proposes the addition to the Bill after Clause 44 of an entirely new clause. It proposes that the Secretary of State shall make a code of practice to provide for video recording of interviews of persons detained under this Bill or under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
In the course of debates in Committee today, we have discussed many important matters of principle. However, I venture to suggest that the issue of video taping suspects is particularly important. In a sense I believe that it is a test case of how sensitive the Government are not only to the rights of the accused but also to the protection of the criminal justice system—which is under close scrutiny after some of the recent deplorable miscarriages of justice of which we are all too well aware—and to the maintenance of faith in the police force.
Of the 319 complaints that were made in 1989 to the independent commissioner for police complaints in Northern Ireland most concerned interviews by the police. No less than 191 were complaints of assault; and 28 were complaints that the interviewee had been forced either to sit down or to stand up against his will. A video tape would have revealed the truth in each instance. Either way, I believe that the police and the justice system would have won. Either the complaints were baseless propaganda, in which case their emptiness would have been exposed; or they were genuine, in which case police bullying would have been exposed, bad apples weeded out, and confidence in the police restored.
As the Government well know, the judgment in Re Gillen in 1988, and the subsequent recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, both lead in the same direction. Perhaps I may quote the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. He stated:
"It is hard to see how it is possible any longer to resist a system of recording the closed circuit TV signal".
As the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which also supports video recording, indicated, methods are available which, first, would result in a full visual record of what happened and, secondly, would protect detainees from identification and from lip-reading.
It has been said, and understandably, that the introduction of video recording would place an extra workload on the police. No doubt the Minister will comment on that. I can see that there might be practical and financial difficulties. However, I agree with the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights that the need for adequate protection for suspects is a more important consideration. Given the number of complaints about which I have reminded the Committee, is it not possible that the net financial effect might be the same? Fewer complaints would be brought, both genuine and trivial, and therefore less work would be involved in following them through.
A further anxiety is that suspects who incriminate others might be endangering themselves if tape recordings are played in open court. A possible solution would be to hold the relevant part of the proceedings in camera. No doubt the Minister will
1420
comment on that too. The conclusion of the standing advisory commission was that the video recording of the police interrogation of terrorist suspects should be put into operation without delay. The commission and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, have put forward two weighty recommendations. It is the commission's role not to be an irritant to the Government but to deal with such issues in Northern Ireland.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said about video recording:
"I should not want noble Lords to think that I am simply putting that aside and saying that that has gone. It is a matter which I know noble Lords take seriously. I have listened carefully to what has been said and I should like to give further thought before we come to the next stage of the Bill".—[Official Report, 19/4/91; col. 1696.]
The Committee will be interested to hear the Minister's conclusions. It appears that there are clear recommendations and that the balance of advantage is clearly in favour of video recording. It is an idea whose time has come, and in that spirit I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, which I shall not repeat, I support the amendment. Confidence in the conduct of the police towards detainees in police stations would be enhanced immeasurably if the amendment were accepted.
I too wish to refer to paragraph 4.7.2 of the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. A significant element in the paragraph is that in 1989, 238 complaints were classified as "incapable of being completed". The worry is that during the course of a year there should be 238 complaints incapable of being completed. There is considerable public anxiety about a system which yields so many unresolved complaints. That is an issue which must be tackled and we believe that the way indicated in the amendment is the best way to do so.
That point was made during the course of a hearing in Belfast Crown Court on 24th October 1990. The judge made clear the fact that video recordings of interrogations would resolve disputes which came before him. The Minister and the Government must tackle the issue of unresolved complaints. In video recording they have at hand the answer to what happens in the interview room.
I have heard it said that one cannot record what happens as a suspect walks along the corridor. That may be so, but it is no argument for saying that interrogation in the interview room should not be recorded. The important place is the interview room. There is no problem with resources; the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was satisfied that the amendment could be implemented without great additional expense and without exposing the parties to unnecessary risk. I urge the Minister, whatever his brief, carefully to consider the amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I am not happy with the amendment. Members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who are involved in such matters have expressed good reasons for not wishing the amendment to be agreed to. They are not worried about the number of complaints or the complaints

1421
which they would like to clear up and which could be cleared up as a result of videoing proceedings in the interrogation cell. The types of complaint that are made would continue to be made at all stages after arrest. The terrorists and the groups that back them are happy to take up extra time in putting forward complaints to undermine the RUC in its endeavours.
There are two reasons why it is not a good proposal. First, events outside the interrogation room would become a matter for complaint. That has always been the case with terrorists. As soon as one complaint was solved by such a measure there would be another about what happened on the route to the interrogation cell. Complaint would then be made about events in the cell in which the suspect was held initially, and then in the vehicle that brought him there.
The most important reason for not supporting the amendment is that a special relationship is built up between the suspect and the interrogator. In a significant number of cases suspects have given their interrogators a great deal of information. They may have completely turned away from terrorism. However, there would be a problem if the interrogation were videoed. No matter what the suspect might be told about the security of the video, it would exist and be available to the right person who could manage to obtain it. Under those circumstances it is seriously thought that some suspects would not give the information that they might previously have given.
There is no way of proving that belief. However, one must accept that some of the successful security operations in Northern Ireland have not been as a result of luck or arisen out of the blue. They have occurred because people in the terrorist organisations are prepared to supply information under certain circumstances. Statistics relating to successful operations carried out by the security forces in Northern Ireland show that those which were the result of pure chance were very few as compared with those which were the result of sound information. By putting video recorders in interrogation cells we should place in jeopardy a major source of information.
There was such an incident a month ago in Downpatrick and another before Christmas. I do not suggest that they were as a result of information given in an interrogation cell. Nor do I make that suggestion about the incident at Loughgall in which 10 or a dozen policemen were killed. As it happened, in that incident the terrorists were killed, as was one innocent victim. If we agree to video recordings, we shall be denying security forces the possibility of changing the effect of their actions. I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: This is an important amendment and I regret that we are taking it relatively late in the evening when very few Members of the Committee are present.
Perhaps I may refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord 13rookeborough, said. Is he aware that interrogations regarding scheduled offences now take place i n only two locations, one of which is Castlereagh? I believe that is the principal location now used. I wonder whether he is also aware that all
1422
interviews taking place in those two centres are supposed to be monitored on closed-circuit television. Therefore, I cannot believe that the special relationship to which he referred, which may be important, will be hampered by making a permanent recording if it is not at present hampered by a recording which is visible outside the interview room.
Perhaps I may go back in time. There has been serious anxiety about the abuse of questioning, interviewing and the general extraction of information from suspects. That goes back at least as far as internment, which we debated earlier this evening. I believe that that formed some of the background of the report by Lord Gardiner. It was certainly one of the major problems examined by Judge Bennett who reported in 1977 or 1978. Following the acceptance of the Bennett Report by the government of the day, we all hoped that excess use of force, violence and questionable techniques had been stamped out. However, it appears that those practices have not entirely ceased.
The complaints now are that people under interrogation are made to stand for long periods; they are shouted at, often at extremely close quarters; and psychological persuasion is used—for example, threats to a suspect's relatives—accompanied by blows, sometimes to the head, the neck and the ears, all of which can be inflicted without causing permanent injury or injury which will show up on later examination. In my view proper exception is being taken to such actions.
Such practices could be brought under control if every major interview of terrorist suspects was permanently recorded on video. I have contacted at least one defence solicitor and one academic who between them have knowledge of a number of cases. The result of the kind of interviews which we are discussing is that confession evidence often has to be tested again in court in advance of the main hearing—a procedure which I understand is known as voire dire. On some occasions medical evidence will be adduced during that procedure. I believe that a great deal of that could be eliminated, as could the physical violence, by proper video recording of interviews.
Because I was anxious about those matters, in the spring of this year I wrote to a number of noble Lords in Northern Ireland and a number of Members of the other place who live in Northern Ireland asking them whether they would be good enough to visit the Castlereagh interrogation centre. In the event it was possible for only one Member of the House of Commons to ask to visit; namely, Mr. Cecil Walker, the honourable Member for Belfast, North. Perhaps I may observe that he has been a magistrate in Northern Ireland and I do not believe that anyone would describe him as being in any way an extremist.
He wrote to police headquarters asking to be allowed to visit Castlereagh. On behalf of the Chief Constable, a chief superintendent wrote him a letter which stated:
"It is not force policy to approve general visits to police offices (holding centres) as to do otherwise would most certainly generate further demand and ultimately interfere with their running".

1423
I question whether that is the right way in which an elected Member of another place should be treated. It seems to me to indicate an undesirable degree of police reticence. I hope that Members of this Chamber will not be refused visits in a similar manner.
I strongly support the amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Fitt: While giving this amendment my full and unqualified support, I believe it right to state that the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has afforded a great deal of knowledge about the affairs of Northern Ireland. It is rare in debates on Northern Ireland to have such a knowledgeable response from the Benches opposite.
The noble Viscount lives in Fermanagh and is in the heat of the situation. He obviously knows policemen. Unfortunately he has known many members of the RUC under the UDR who have been killed. I believe that he brings to this Chamber personal response and knowledge from his community. But the qualifying words are "from his community", although it is right that this Chamber should be aware of what his community thinks about the issues in the Bill.
The noble Viscount said that he knows RUC men and that they oppose the amendment. I know RUC men who would be absolutely in favour of it. The RUC is not a monolithic body. There are over 1,000 Catholics in the RUC. As I said recently, there are more Catholics in the RUC than there are active members of the IRA. I have spoken to those men.
I remember vividly that in 1979 in another place we debated the Bennett Report. At that time we had a Labour Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The debate took place in either January or February. I wish that I had the Bennett Report to hand so that I could quote from it. Although it said that there should be no condemnation of or reflection on the RUC, it went on to list, I believe, six recommendations. It recommended that suspects should not be beaten up and treated cruelly. That meant it was suspected that that had taken place. Without taking the matter further, it may be the Bennett Report in February 1979 and the atmosphere which then prevailed, which led—I put it no higher—to the defeat of the Labour Government in the following month.
It is a situation about which one is terribly perturbed. I would be the last to deny what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said in the Committee tonight. He said that if video cameras were installed it might be impossible to "turn" a terrorist—I believe that is the term used in Northern Ireland. Terrorists have been turned, as we saw in the recent conviction of Danny Morrison only last week, in which an alleged terrorist called Sandy Lynch was turned by the RUC and began to act as a double agent.
We must ask, though we shall never be told, where the turning took place. Did it take place in the interrogation centre of Castlereagh? Did it take place in a car or in a house? All we know—and I accept the evidence of the RUC—is that the turning of Sandy Lynch and the evidence given in court last week led to the saving of a number of lives in Northern Ireland.
1424
However, I do not think we can say that that justifies the practices that have taken place over a number of years in Castlereagh. The turning of that terrorist could have taken place anywhere, not necessarily in Castlereagh.
The acceptance of the amendment would be another weapon in the armoury of the Government against terrorism. I remember as a Member of Parliament the number of people who came to my home—particularly parents, because fathers and mothers see no wrong in what their sons have been doing. They would tell me time after time how their sons had been beaten up in Castlereagh RUC Station. I thought in some cases that it might be true but in the majority of cases I had serious doubts. If a video camera were to be installed and the activities of the police in the interrogation centres were videod, that would lead to the terrorists losing the support within the Catholic community which they now have.
As was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I am prepared to accept that there may be occasions when a terrorist has turned away from terrorism in the holding centre of Castlereagh, but that does not necessarily have to have taken place in the interviewing room where the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, suggests the camera should be placed. The wording and the placing of the amendment is designed to stop giving propaganda victories to the terrorists. I ask the Government to think seriously before rejecting it.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may respond for a moment as my name was mentioned by two noble Lords. First, in case the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave the impression that I live in a totally Protestant, totally Loyalist area, perhaps close to a police station, and that I speak only to those people, I should say that I live in a mixed area with a population of slightly over 50 per cent. Roman Catholics and mixed throughout.
Secondly, I feel that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is based on statistics, as invariably it must be. If there was nothing to worry about we should not be debating the subject. However, one accepts that there were 319 complaints and that some of them were unable to be followed up to the ultimate discovery of what had happened. Even accepting that some of them could be followed up, the number in which there was any complaint that was in any way justified was minuscule. I believe I am right in saying that one might have been made by somebody who managed to show a doctor that he had had his hair pulled. With all due respect, he might have pulled it himself or some other person might have done it. It could be something else, I am not too sure. To bring video closed-circuit recording in for those kind of statistics is not justified and I should not like to see it happen.
Lord Belstead: The purpose of the new clause is to require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make a code of practice requiring the video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. The noble Lord, Lord Holme intends that the video record

1425
should not be silent—as my noble friend, Lord Colville proposed—but that it should also include sound.
I gave the House an undertaking at Second Reading to give further thought to whether anything more could be done to enhance confidence in police procedures and to protect the rights of suspects in police custody. I shall say something a little later on that I hope will convince noble Lords that the Government take the issue seriously, and are determined that everything possible should be done to enhance confidence in police procedures.
Turning to the purpose of this amendment, which is to require the Secretary of State to introduce video recording, let me start by reiterating that the Government recognise the need for proper and effective safeguards in relation to the police interview process. But we are equally concerned that nothing should be done to jeopardise the effectiveness of the interview process, which remains vital to the police in their efforts to defeat terrorism.
I have to tell the Committee that it is the considered view of senior officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary with extensive experience in these matters, that knowledge that a permanent record—both visual and sound—was being made of his interview would in itself be sufficient to inhibit the responses of a member of a terrorist organisation. The police fear that the introduction of a visual recording alone would have that effect.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Would he confirm that the present standing instruction is that all interviews in the interrogation and holding centres shall be observed by a superior officer on closed circuit television? Is that correct?
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is absolutely right. However, there is a world of difference between it being known, as it is known, that that situation exists—in other words that there is a monitor being watched by a senior uniformed officer—and knowing that a record is being taken, both visual and in sound, of the interrogation which is taking place inside the room. In a moment I shall add to that.
The police fear that the introduction of video recordings would jeopardise the interview procedure. The fear is not new but was expressed in the findings of the Bennett Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, which came down against the introduction of video recordings. It is worth repeating the words of the Bennett Report:
"The argument that recording increases the inhibitions of the suspect is perhaps less forceful in relation to video recording than in relation to tape recording, but it does not disappear entirely…The evidence of our police witnesses, and our own impression, is that some suspects need to be allowed certain room for manoeuvre in what story they tell afterwards if they are to be frank with the police at the time when they are interviewed".
Noble Lords will know that the terrorist organisations have their own version of summary justice with which to deal afterwards with those whom they suspect of helping the police.
That is the nub of the problem. The Committee should be extremely wary of supporting any measure
1426
whose effect seems likely to be to increase the unwillingness of terrorist suspects to co-operate with their police interrogators. Whatever arrangements were to be introduced to facilitate the video recording of interviews, for the reason which I gave just now to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the Government believe that its introduction could seriously jeopardise the usefulness of the interview process. It would be known that a recording was being made, and anybody knowing that could well fear the day if the recording were to become known to people in their own organisation.
Following Second Reading and in preparation for this debate, I paid a visit to Castlereagh in Belfast to look at the procedures which currently apply to the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects. I was very impressed by what I saw. In the context of the list of complaints which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, read out, there is quite a formidable range of safeguards already in place. Those safeguards include the completion of a detailed custody record which must be opened as soon as practicable for each person who is brought to the holding centre. On arrival at the holding centre, arrangements are made for the suspect to be seen by a doctor. The arrangements include detailed provisions relating to interviews, and an accurate record must be kept of each interview. Written interview records must be timed and signed by the maker. In any period of 24 hours, a detained person must be allowed a continuous period of at least eight hours rest free from questioning, travel or any interruption.
In addition, a person's detention must be reviewed periodically by a review officer. I now refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. All interviews with terrorist suspects are monitored by uniformed officers through closed circuit television. That is the most fundamental safeguard against any physical abuse of the suspect during interview. If a complaint is made by or on behalf of a detained person about his treatment since arrest or if it comes to the notice of any officer that he may have been treated improperly, a report must be made as soon as practicable to an officer of the rank of inspector or above who is not connected with the investigation. If the matter concerns a possible assault or the possibility of the unnecessary or unreasonable use of force, then the medical officer must be called as soon as practicable.
Those are detailed and important safeguards which already exist. Nonetheless, at Second Reading I gave an undertaking to give further thought to whether anything more could be done to enhance confidence in police procedures. I have tabled Amendment No. 41 which we shall shortly come to. It requires the Secretary of State to make a statutory code of practice under the powers in Clause 60 of the Bill, dealing with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects. I have already listed a number of the matters that would be contained in such a code. I hope that the Committee will feel that the Government have thought seriously about the issues. We want to see in place effective safeguards for terrorist suspects.

1427
We believe that existing safeguards are extensive, valuable and capable of being made even more effective by being set out on the face of the Bill in what will be, if Amendment No. 41 is agreed to, a statutory code. Our commitment to make such a code is testimony to the seriousness with which we consider the issues. It is a matter which I have thought about and on which I have consulted. I have brought it forward this evening as Amendment No. 41.
However, there is one further matter I wish to allude to. We are talking about something very serious which worries people throughout the United Kingdom. There is one further development which the Government are considering. It relates to the possibility of the appointment of someone to monitor procedures at the holding centres. I stress that this is an idea at a very formative stage. It is possible to envisage a scheme which might have, let us say, a commissioner appointed with a remit to visit the holding centres with access to them at any time of his or her choosing. The primary task of the commissioner would be to ensure that the proper procedures relating to the treatment of terrorist suspects was being followed. Therefore, he would be concerned with such matters as the provisions of the code of practice which the Government are putting forward this evening. For example, there would be continuous supervision of the closed circuit television monitors and to generally ensure that the arrangements for the detention of suspects are satisfactory.
I emphasise that this is a scheme which we are contemplating. The reason we are doing so is because we take the point that there is considerable anxiety throughout the United Kingdom about these matters. Quite frankly, it is conceivable that thoughts along these lines might not only be of value in meeting the worries that have been expressed this evening, but they might be of value to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. So not only is justice done—as I am certain it is being done—but it is also seen to be done. As regards the Government, we need further time to decide whether a practical and workable scheme along these lines is possible. We have to have discussions, and we would wish to have them, with a number of organisations, including the police authority for Northern Ireland, as we seek to develop the idea.
I lay this matter before the Committee this evening as a possibility which I hope it will consider could be of value both in meeting concerns and for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have explained at great length the reasons why the Government are opposed to the introduction of video-recorded interviews of terrorist suspects. I hope the Committee will feel that the alternative way forward that I have mapped out may be another way.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am sure that the Committee will be most grateful to the Minister for the extremely positive way in which he has responded to the anxieties expressed at Second Reading and this evening. I hope that I heard him correctly; namely, that the contemplated code of practice that he is
1428
bringing forward as Amendment No. 41 will, without prior commitment, deal with all matters that might tend to create better practice in terms of the treatment and interviewing of suspects. The Minister was right to refer to monitoring. If a suspect is monitored and there is a written record of his interview, a great deal of the apprehensions expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and by the Minister, might be misplaced. I put it no higher than that.
If there is already a written interview and monitoring, as we know there is, then it is already not a hole-in-the-corner, one-to-one, secret dialogue in which secrets can be exchanged in a particularly confidential way. The procedure is already part of a formal process, as the treatment of suspects should be. We are simply trying to set the best rules that the procedures be carried out in a way which is defensible to the general public and fair to the suspect as well as allowing the police to do their job. If that is done, then I believe that we are getting somewhere. In that spirit, and in looking forward to what the Minister will say in addition when speaking to Amendment No. 41, I withdraw the amendment for the time being but without losing sight of it. I shall watch closely how the Government flesh out the proposal in Amendment No. 41 in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 45 to 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Relevant offences]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 34, line 17, leave out ("and").
Page 34, line 20, at end insert ("and
(c) an offence falling within Part IV of that Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 55 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Confiscation Orders: Supplementary Provisions]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 60, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 14.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 29 to 35 inclusive.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 35 make a small but important change to the provisions on restraint and charging orders found in Schedule 4. Their effect is to provide that applications for such orders made before a person has been convicted are to be made by an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of at least the rank of superintendent. Applications made after a person has been convicted are to be made by the prosecutor.
Restraint and charging orders are designed to ensure that assets may be frozen so that they are available to meet any confiscation order that may be made. To be effective they will normally have to be made at a very early stage—often before a person is charged by the police. In these circumstances, and having regard to the special circumstances which exist

1429
in Northern Ireland, we consider that it would be seen by some: as inappropriate to involve the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) in applications made before a person has been convicted. Involvement at that stage might be used by some to question his independence—none of us would want that result. Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 to 34 are consequential to that decision not to involve the DPP in pre-conviction applications.
It is important to note that these amendments in no way alter the vigorous standards which must be met before any such order is granted by the High Court or, exceptionally, by the Secretary of State. All they do is change the identity of the person applying for the orders, and that only where the application is made before conviction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 60, line 37, leave out ("only on an application by") and insert ("—

(i) where it is applied for before the defendant is convicted of the offence, only on the application of an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of superintendent; and

(ii) otherwise, only on the application of").

Lord Prys-Davies: We support this series of amendments. However, I wonder whether there might be a problem with Amendment No. 29. As I understand it, only the police can apply for a restraint order before conviction. But what is the earliest time when the police can apply for such an order? Further, can they apply for a restraint order before a charge has been preferred? Moreover, what evidence will the police have to give to the court that a charge is to be preferred?
I presume from what the Minister said that there will be no discussions between the police and the DPP. But, as I understand it, there could be a problem. It will be the DPP who decides whether a charge is to be preferred. However, what is the position where the police have asked for a restraint order but a charge is not preferred?
Lord Belstead: As I said when moving Amendment No. 28, in order to be effective the restraint and charging orders (which are designed to ensure that assets may be frozen so that they are available to meet any confiscation order that may be made) must be applied for—and, it is to be hoped, granted—at a very early stage. The noble Lord asked whether the application could be made before a person is charged. The answer is yes. Indeed, often before a person is charged by the police an application will be made, and in those circumstances, and having regard to the special circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland, we considered that it would be inappropriate for the DPP in Northern Ireland to be involved in applications before a person has been convicted, much less charged. Involvement at that stage might be used by some to question the DPP's independence.
As regards the question raised by the noble Lord of whether there would be discussions between the police and the DPP, the answer remains the same as that which I gave earlier this afternoon. In other words, there will not be discussions of that kind. The DPP
1430
does not decide whether the RUC shall charge a person. Restraint orders can be made before a charge is laid, but a person who is affected can apply for a variation.
I believe that that last point covers the final question raised by the noble Lord. He asked what would happen if an application is made, the person concerned discharged and the charge not proceeded with. As I understand it, such a person can apply for a variation of the restraint order. Under the circumstances put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I believe that that is exactly what the person concerned would do.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the Minister for the very full answers he has given to the questions I raised. However, we shall have to consider whether there are any hidden problems in this area. If that proves to be the case, we shall return to the matter at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 35:
Page 61, line 17, leave out ("prosecution") and insert ("person by whom an application for a restraint order is made").
Page 61, line 19, leave out ("a restraint order or an application for such") and insert ("the order or the application for").
Page 61, line 21, leave out ("prosecution") and insert ("person by whom an application for a restraint order is made").
Page 61, line 22, leave out ("a restraint order or an application for such") and insert ("the order or the application for").
Page 61, line 26, leave out ("the application of the prosecution") and insert ("an application").
Page 61, line 44, leave out ("only on an application by") and insert ("—

(i) where it is applied for before the defendant is convicted of the offence, only on the application of an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of superintendent; and

(ii) otherwise, only on the application of").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 63, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert:
("Contravention of restraint order
8A —(1) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him), contravenes a restraint order is guilty of an offence and 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.

(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall be taken to prejudice any power of the High Court to deal with the contravention of a restraint order as a contempt of court.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 2. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Additional investigation powers]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 41, line 17, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 26 and insert ("a person who has been authorised under

1431
subsection (1) above to exercise the powers there mentioned considers that any material may be relevant to the investigation in relation to which the authority was given, Schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (terrorist investigations) shall have effect in relation to the material as if—

(a) the references to a constable in paragraphs 2(1), 3(1) and (2) (b), 5(1) and (3), 6(1), 12(2) (b), 14(3) and 15(1);

(b) the first of the references to a constable in paragraph 3(6); and

(c) the references to a procurator fiscal in paragraphs 12(1) and (6), 13(2), 14(1) and 15(1),

included references to that person; and where (by virtue of this subsection) such a person has made an application for an order under paragraph 3 of that Schedule, the reference in paragraph 4(2) (b) to the constable on whose application the order was made or any constable serving in the same police station shall be construed as referring to that person.").
The noble Lord said: This small technical amendment is necessary to enhance the powers of authorised investigators appointed under Clause 57 of the Bill. Members of the Committee will be aware that these financial investigation provisions were added to the Bill in the other place, and I believe that it is fair to say they have received support both there and in this place.
What is now proposed is that where material has been made available to the police as a result of the various powers in Schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, an authorised investigator as well as a constable (or in Scotland a procurator fiscal) should be able to apply for any further order that may be required. Authorised investigators will only be appointed in cases which are of a complex nature. Such cases will often require detailed examination of financial records. It will be from such examinations that the need for orders under Schedule 7 to the Act will arise.
The powers under Schedule 7 are rightly exercised with great care both by the courts and by the Secretary of State. Detailed questions are often asked of the person making the application. It is, I think, clear that where the need for the warrant or order arises out of work carried out by an authorised investigator, he will be the person best able fully to answer such questions. It is right, therefore, that he should be the person to make the application. This proposal in no way alters the rightly strict conditions that must be fulfilled before any order may be granted under Schedule 7. They simply enable an authorised investigator to make application for such orders.
It is also proposed that an authorised investigator should be allowed access to any material which is the subject of an access order. Without it the authorised investigator would have to seek a production order for the material. Adopting that course of action would not only impede the investigation but would also be much more inconvenient to the person holding the material, who would have to hand it over rather than simply allow access to it.
The amendment is a sensible provision. In effect, it will mean that authorised investigators can make applications for such orders themselves rather than having to rely on others, probably unfamiliar with the investigation, to do so on their behalf. The strict
1432
safeguards in Schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are not altered. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
9 p.m.
Schedule 5 [Authorised Investigators]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 74, line 41, at end insert:
("Code of practice
7 —(1) The Secretary of State shall make a code of practice in connection with the exercise by authorised investigators of the powers conferred by this Schedule.
(2)When the Secretary of State proposes to issue the code of practice under this paragraph he shall prepare and publish a draft of the code, shall consider any representations made to him about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly.
(3)The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the code of practice prepared by him under this paragraph; and when he has laid the draft of the code before both Houses he may bring the code into operation by an order made by him.
(4)An order bringing the code of practice into operation may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the code.
(5)The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of the code of practice issued by him under this paragraph and issue the code as revised; and the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised code as they apply to the first issue of the code.
(6)A failure on the part of an authorised investigator to comply with any provision of a code of practice issued under this paragraph shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings.
(7)In all criminal and civil proceedings such a code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.
(8)In this paragraph "criminal proceedings" includes proceedings before a court-martial constituted under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or a disciplinary court constituted under section 50 of the said Act of 1957 and proceedings before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.
S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)
(9)Nothing in paragraph (8) of Article 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 or subsection (9) of section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall require authorised investigators to have regard in exercising the powers conferred by this Schedule to any provision of a code under that Order or that Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 46. These amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to make a code of practice in connection with the exercise by authorised investigators of the powers conferred by Schedule 5 to the Bill.
The powers conferred by Schedule 5 are far reaching and we consider it right that the way in which they are exercised should be regulated by a code. That will act as a safeguard both for those who are subject to the use of the powers and also to the authorised investigators who are to exercise the powers. The detailed provisions in the code are set out in Amendment No. 38 and follow closely the provisions

1433
of the code for police powers in Clause 60 of the Bill. It is provided, for example, that the code shall be published in draft, that the Secretary of State shall consider any representations he receives and that the code shall be laid in draft before both Houses before any order is made. The code will be admissible in evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings.
Amendment No. 46 provides that an order bringing such a code into operation shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope the Committee may feel that this is a significant safeguard. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend on this amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would agree that from the technical point of view it is a well-conceived form of code of practice that is to be introduced here. The original code of practice applicable to our law came in as long ago as 1930, when the Road Traffic Act of that year made it possible for there to be a Highway Code.Everyone understood that the Highway Code was guidance to motorists and that a breach of the Highway Code did not in itself constitute an offence. However, when an offence under the substantive law was committed it was permissible to refer to the Highway Code and a factor to be taken into account in considering liability was whether the Highway Code had been observed.
That excellent pattern has in fairly recent years sometimes been varied with somewhat uncertain legal effect. In this respect, if I may say so, my noble friend has got it right. He has followed the well-established formula. It is to be found in sub-paragraphs (6) and (7). I need not read them out; they are there for all to see. This is the best way to do it. I am very glad that the Government have not fallen into the trap of trying to make the code of practice an indirect form of secondary legislation. I support the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: From these Benches and for the reasons which have been canvassed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we are pleased to welcome the amendment. This is a considerable improvement and we welcome it.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my noble friend Lord Renton. The House has trained an eagle eye on codes of practice over the past year. I am glad that in this case the code passes muster so far as concerns my noble friend Lord Renton.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Supplementary regulations for preserving the peace, etc.]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 41 line 42, after ("Act") insert ("as may be necessary for the effective implementation of those provisions").
The noble Lord said: Clause 58(1) states that the Secretary of State may make additional regulations for promoting the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order. Our amendment would limit
1434
the scope of those regulations to such matters as may be necessary for the implementation of the provisions which are already contained in the Bill.
The regulation-making power contained in subsection (1) is extremely wide ranging. Subsection (2) does not add anything to our understanding of what the Secretary of State may do with this power. For the subsection to provide that the regulations may make orders for such purposes as may be specified in the regulations tells us nothing. Our concern about this clause is deepened when we read in subsection (3) that the regulations may create new criminal offences punishable by a fine or up to six months' imprisonment. The clause extends considerably the scope of the emergency Bill.
Our anxieties are further deepened when we read in Clause 66(4) that the regulations made under the clause will not be subject to parliamentary approval. As I understand it, we shall not even have the opportunity of hearing the Minister explaining the rules or have an opportunity to criticise them. They will not even be subject to the negative procedure. That is a complete derogation of power from Parliament to the Secretary of State. The least we can do is to seek to confine the scope of the regulations to such matters:
"as may be necessary for the effective implementation of"
the Bill's provisions. I concede that that may be an inadequate response. I hope that the Minister will have regard to our anxieties. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: Will the Minister tell us what is meant by the phrase:
"for promoting the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order"?
If Clause 34 had been deleted, would Clause 58 give the Secretary of State the power to make provisions and regulations concerning detention?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: We should be astounded at the moderation of the amendment because the clause, as it stands, gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque to introduce in the future whatever regulations and orders he decides without, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said any parliamentary point of reference. The provision was a constitutional monster when it was in the original 1978 Act, as I acknowledge it was, but it has been significantly worsened by the introduction of subsection (2) which appears to authorise the making of regulations for whatever purpose the Secretary of State decides to include in the regulation being made.
I urge the Minister to consider whether that ballooning power should be in some way tethered to the purposes of the Act.
Lord Belstead: Clause 58 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for promoting the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has asked me what that means. I shall try to return to that point. As my noble friend Lord Colville said, the regulation-making power allows the Secretary of State to respond rapidly to public order developments, and, as such, is an essential feature of the emergency provisions legislation. I must notch up that point first, because

1435
the Committee has made a certain amount of criticism. My noble friend was clear that the regulation-making powers are an essential feature of the emergency provisions legislation.
At present, the regulations made under the existing power, including those establishing vehicle control zones in Northern Ireland, have a security purpose that is well understood and is generally uncontroversial. My noble friend Lord Colville records in paragraph 16.3 of his report that he received no representations opposed to the view that the regulation-making power should remain in its general form. He comments on
"the utility of possessing a power which can be rapidly deployed in the public order sphere"
and goes on to say:
"Since any offence against the Regulations is only summary no great impact on liberties, which are reasonably exercised, is involved. I recommend the continuation of this arrangement."
Any regulations made under Clause 58 will continue to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, say that there was no affirmative or negative resolution power. In addition, any regulations made under this power are susceptible to judicial review. Those are important safeguards on the operation of the provision.
The amendment would limit the ability of the Secretary of State to respond rapidly to developments in the public order sphere. It would also, we believe, serve to create uncertainty about the precise scope of the power. Although I accept that the amendment is intended as a safeguard to prevent the misuse of the power, the Government believe that there are already sufficient safeguards against its misuse, and that view is endorsed by my noble friend Lord Colville.
I admit that I have not given a direct answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I do not intend to give him a direct answer this evening because it is for the Secretary of State of the day to decide what he would use the power for. I remind the Committee that the power is subject both to judicial review and also to affirmative resolution. I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I realise that I am not meant to participate in these matters but there is a point that my noble friend may like to consider before he sits down. The power we are discussing was originally mentioned in the 1978 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has reminded us. It appeared in an Act that was very much smaller than the measure we are discussing. It should perfectly properly appear in Part VIII as part of the miscellaneous provisions. Clause 58(1) refers to,
["the foregoing provisions of this Act".]
Originally it only referred to what is now contained in Parts I, II, III and IV. It did not apply to Part V because that was not included in the 1978 Act. It did not apply to Part VI because that came about in 1989 and it did not apply to Part VII because that was introduced on Report in another place. I wonder
1436
whether one of the solutions to this matter might be to confine the regulation making powers under Clause 58 to the parts of this Bill to which it originally applied.
Lord Hylton: I hope that I may probe a little further on this matter. Going back some months and years, changes were made to the right of suspects to remain silent. Changes were also made as regards access to the media by proscribed organisations and persons speaking on their behalf. Were those kind of changes made under the predecessor of this legislation? If not, under what measure were those changes introduced?
Lord Belstead: The regulations cannot go outside the scope of this Bill. The Long Title of the Bill makes it clear what matters are covered. I wish to consider what my noble friend Lord Colville has said. I am grateful to him for his one intervention of the evening.
Lord Prys-Davies: I heard the Minister say that the regulations made under Clause 58 will be subject to affirmative resolution. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the wording of Clause 66 which deals with orders and regulations. Clause 66 (1) provides that,
"any power to make orders or regulations … shall be exercisable by statutory instrument".
Clause 66 (4) states:
"Subsection (1) above does not apply to any order under section 25, Schedule 3 or paragraph 6(1) (d) of Schedule 5 or any order under regulations made by virtue of section 58".
Unless I am misreading that clause, it appears to me that an order made under Clause 58 will not be subject to affirmative resolution.
Lord Belstead: I am advised that Clause 66(2) provides the answer to the point which the noble Lord has raised. Clause 66(2) (a) states:
"a draft of the order or regulations has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for referring me to subsection (2) of Clause 66. I shall consider that subsection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person to be known as the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland (in this Act referred to as "the Independent Assessor").
(2)A person shall not be eligible for appointment as the Independent Assessor if he is, or at any time during the period of twenty years ending with the date of the appointment has been, a serving member of Her Majesty's forces.
(3)Schedule (Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Independent Assessor.
(4)The Independent Assessor—

(a) shall keep under review the procedures adopted by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland ("the GOC") for receiving, investigating and responding to relevant complaints;

(b) shall receive and investigate any representations concerning those procedures;

1437

(c) may investigate the operation of those procedures in relation to any particular complaint or group of complaints;

(d) may require the GOC to review any particular case or group of cases in which the Independent Assessor considers any of those procedures to have operated inadequately; and

(e) may make to the GOC recommendations concerning any inadequacies in those procedures, including inadequacies in the way in which they operate in rotation to any particular complaint, group of complaints or description of complaints.

(5) In this section "relevant complaint" means a complaint relating to the behaviour of any member of Her Majesty's forces under the command of the GOC, other than—

(a)any complaint which has been referred by the GOC to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and not remitted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the GOC to be & all with by him; and

(b)any complaint relating to a matter in respect of which a claim for compensation has been made under section 62 below or which is the subject of proceedings involving a claim for compensation which have been instituted in any court.

(6) The GOC shall—

(a)furnish such information;

(b)disclose such documents; and

(c)provide such assistance,

as the Independent Assessor may reasonably require for the purpose of the performance of his functions.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 40 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 48. During Second Reading on 19th April, I announced that the Government had decided to accept the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Colville that we should consider the appointment of some independent outside person to carry out on a continuing basis an audit of the way in which armed forces' complaints procedures are operating. The new clause and its associates schedule give effect to our decision.
The new clause would require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to appoint an independent assessor of military complaints procedures n Northern Ireland. It also outlines the independent assessor's functions in some detail. I shall not explain the details at this hour of the evening except to underline the fact that the assessor would be required to keep under review the procedures adopted by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland for receiving, investigating and responding to non-criminal complaints relating to the behaviour of members of the armed forces under his command. It is with procedures that the assessor's functions are concerned.
The independent assessor has not been given any role in relation to complaints of criminal misconduct by the armed forces. There is a good reason for that. Allegations of criminal misconduct by the armed forces are and will remain subject to independent investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The associated schedule deals with a number of "housekeeping" matters such as the independent assessor's tenure of office, his remuneration, staff and reports. The independent assessor will be required to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State—meaning the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State for Defence, "the Secretary of State" being a term of art—on the performance of the independent assessor's functions.
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the armed forces. As my noble friend Lord Colville reports, in 1989 the army received 282 formal non-criminal complaints; the figure for 1990 was 196. The procedures for handling those complaints constitute the area of activity of the proposed independent assessor. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was impressed by those complaints figures, especially when they are set against normal levels of armed forces' activity in the Province. For example, to quote again my noble friend Lord Colville, in 1989 1.2 million vehicles were stopped and checked by the armed forces at vehicle checkpoints in Northern Ireland. In August 1989 alone the West Belfast Battalion performed 2,444 patrols. I stress that those are normal levels of activity in a very difficult situation. Set against them the figures for complaints that I have given are very modest and bear testimony to the professionalism with which the armed forces go about their duties. I know that the Committee will join me in paying an unreserved tribute to the security forces in Northern Ireland, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the regular Army, and the Ulster Defence Regiment, for the difficult and dangerous work they do on behalf of the whole community.
Nevertheless, the Government are confident that this new measure to establish the office of independent assessor of armed forces complaints procedures, coming in addition to other improvements in complaints systems introduced in recent years, will be in the public interest. However, we believe that it will be valuable not only to the community but also to the armed forces themselves in helping to retain the confidence and support of all men and women of good will from both traditions in Northern Ireland. I trust that these two amendments will receive the support of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We on these Benches join the Minister in paying tribute to the armed forces in Northern Ireland. They discharge their duties often in difficult and dangerous conditions.
The amendment is a step forward and is to be welcomed. It is a great improvement on what we now have. However, we feel that the amendment does not go far enough.
The role of the independent assessor will be that of adviser to the GOC. His duties are confined to the five matters set out in subsection (4). He will keep the complaints procedure under review, investigate the operation of the procedure, receive and investigate representations relating to the procedure and make recommendations relating to the procedure to the GOC. However, the clause does not introduce an independent element into the consideration of a complaint. We have been pressing for that independent element to be involved in the consideration of the complaint. That is still missing.
There is another missing element. The assessor may make recommendations to the GOC but there is no specific duty on the GOC to pay due regard to his recommendations. No doubt the Minister will say that he will pay serious regard to the views of the assessor, but one would have thought that that duty should be on the face of the Bill. I also wonder whether there

1439
should be a reference in the clause to the need to give publicity to the procedures so that people will know what the complaints procedure is and how they can make a complaint.
In addition, perhaps I may ask whether the assessor's tenure should be longer than three years. Is three years not too short a period? Although we welcome the amendment so far as it goes, it should be strengthened. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he will not close his mind to the need to strengthen it, possibly along the lines that I have suggested.
Lord Hylton: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, both in his preliminary remarks and in what he said about this being a small step forward. I agree with him about the lack of an independent element in the consideration of a complaint.
Perhaps I may make three points about the manner in which the procedures should work. First, they should be as rapid as possible. That is important when one bears in mind the constant turnover of Army personnel and short-term and long-term battalions. It may be that, by the time the complaint comes to be considered, the soldier has already gone to Germany or somewhere on the other side of the world. Secondly, conciliation is bound to be important, whenever possible bringing together the complainant and the person responsible for answering the complaint. Thirdly, apologies, where the Army or the UDR know that they have slightly overstepped the mark, can probably do more than anything else to put the relationship right or at least to improve it.
Lord Belstead: Both the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hylton, made a common point when they expressed criticism of the fact that the independent assessor has no role in the investigation of non-criminal complaints. I was surprised to hear that criticism because the Government have done exactly as my noble friend Lord Colville recommended. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 5.25 of my noble friend's report, where he refers to the appointment of independent outside persons, under a variety of titles,
"who carry out an audit of the way in which complaints procedures are operating…Such persons do not perform a reappraisal of any individual complaint investigation on its merits, but undertake a survey of the effectiveness of the machinery. They have generous access to files, can accept complaints about the procedure from anyone aggrieved, exercise a general oversight and usually publish an annual report".
That is exactly what the Government have provided in the new clause to establish the office of Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Codes of practice: police powers]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 42, line 19, leave out from ("State") to ("the") in line 26 and insert ("shall make codes of practice in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and may make codes of practice in connection with—

(a) the exercise by police officers of any power conferred by Part II of this Act or by that Act; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: I explained the background to this amendment in some detail when we debated the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, to require the Secretary of State to make a code of practice to provide for video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. As I explained then, we are wholly committed to ensuring that the highest standards apply in the conduct of police interviews with terrorist suspects.
To that end I said that we had decided to make a code of practice under the powers in Clause 60, dealing with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects. That is the purpose of the amendment. It would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make such a code. The amendment would also leave intact the enabling power in relation to the other matters currently specified in Clause 61 as possibilities for codes of practice. I hope that the Committee will feel that a code of that kind will enhance confidence in police procedures and provide further protection for the rights of suspects in police custody. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will allow me to intervene for one moment. This is a new point and I do not believe that even the Addison Rules (or whatever it is that binds me) will prevent my making what I hope is a constructive suggestion upon which the noble Lord opposite may wish to comment. My point arises from what my noble friend said about the relevance of the code of practice to the Government's present view that they do not want recording of the video monitor signal in detention centres in Northern Ireland.
The trouble about complaints which do not get cleared up is that by the time they come to be investigated they are stale, and the last thing one is going to get at that stage is any medical evidence. If the code of practice that my noble friend is now suggesting goes into the question of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, he may wish to look at my last report on the operation of that legislation. I made a particular point of looking at the reviews of detention carried out by senior uniformed officers, which occur in Northern Ireland as they do everywhere else. In that report I gave the example of a review carried out by a police force in Great Britain, at the end of which I should have thought that it would have been quite impossible for the detainee to make a complaint that he had been beaten up or otherwise mishandled by the police in the course of his custody.
At the moment the problem is that the review machinery tends somewhat to limit the number of questions that the review officer asks of the detainee. It goes into the question of whether the latter should have access to the outside world and to a solicitor but does not ask specifically in terms whether he has any complaints to make since the previous review took place. A review occurs after the first nine hours and then at 12-hour intervals. If at that stage he has any complaint, it will be fresh and it will be possible to discover what interrogations, if any, have taken place

1441
and who has been involved in them. There will be an opportunity for the doctor to see him if he does make a complaint, and the whole thing can be dealt with immediately. Indeed, those watching the television monitors would be able to be asked whether they recalled anything at a time when events were fresh in their memories.
Therefore, it seems to me that my noble friend was quite right when he said there could be a substantial contribution to the resolution of this rather long-standing problem if the code of practice built upon the reviews already in place under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act by eliciting a little more information from the detainee about whether or not he has anything to complain about over the past 12-hour period. It would also cover anything that happened outside the interrogation room: for instance, in the corridors or in the cell.
Lord Belstead: I was somewhat at a loss because my noble friend appeared to be addressing the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, although I think that the points he raised were put to the Government. I can confirm that the proposed code of practice will deal with the detention and treatment of persons arrested and detained under Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. I can assure my noble friend that we will take on board the points made in his annual report on the operation of that Act. Those are matters ideally to be dealt with in the proposed code. The noble Lord having suddenly leapt into action behind me, perhaps he will forgive me if I say I do not think I can go any farther this evening.
Lord Prys-Davies: I listened with great interest to the Minister's response to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I very much hope that when we see the code of practice it will incorporate the valuable and constructive points made by the noble Viscount. We certainly support the amendment.
I want to ask the Minister one question. The duty under the amendment is mandatory. Why is the duty to make a code of practice under Clause 60(1) (a) (b) (c) discretionary? Is there an anomaly there?
Lord Belstead: We are here making it mandatory that there shall be a code of practice in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. But, as I sought to go out of my way to say, we are leaving intact the rest of the enabling powers in Clause 60 as possibilities for codes of practice.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wonder whether the Minister can explain why the codes of practice which may be made under paragraphs (a) (b) (c) are discretionary? Why should not that be mandatory as well?
Lord Belstead: The effect of the amendment that I have just moved is to do exactly what the noble Lord wishes to be done. We are substituting "shall" for "may". Taat means that the code of practice of which we are speaking will now be mandatory upon my right honourable friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Codes of practice: lethal force
—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a code of practice in connection with the use of lethal force by police officers and members of Her Majesty's forces in dealing with suspected terrorists.
(2)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 60 above shall apply to a code under this section as they apply to a code under that section.
(3)A failure on the part of a police officer or a member of Her Majesty's forces to comply with any provision of such a code shall constitute an offence punishable on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.").
The noble Lord said: It has long been clear that the use of lethal force by members of the security forces in dealing with a person suspected of involvement in terrorist activity is one of the most important and emotive aspects of the operation of the emergency powers in Northern Ireland. Yet at no time is it more important for the security forces to be seen to be accountable for their actions than when in situations which involve the use of lethal force.
The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights which is the Government's standing advisory commission in Northern Ireland has identified in particular two areas of difficulty. First, there is no specific statutory provision relating to the use of lethal force and the courts have repeatedly refused to give any general guidance as to the meaning of the requirement that the degree of force to be used to prevent a crime or effect an arrest must be reasonable in the circumstances. In Northern Ireland some more detailed guidance is given to soldiers and the police in the so-called yellow card which is issued to them. But the yellow card has no legal significance and in fact is treated as confidential.
The standing advisory commission has therefore recommended that there should be a statutory code of guidance setting out the circumstances in which the use of lethal force is justified. The commission is strengthened in that view by the terms of recent draft principles on the use of force by law enforcement officials, which has been considered by the eighth United Nations congress on the prevention of crime. Indeed, the Minister will know that the standing advisory commission itself produced a draft code.
The second difficulty is that there is no satisfactory way of dealing with cases in which the current rules, as understood through the yellow card, may have been broken. That leads to a great deal of dissatisfaction. It may well be that the general law needs to be reformed. That is referred to in Amendment No. 44.
However, the position could be improved if the Bill were to provide a more satisfactory way of dealing with cases in which the use of lethal force by the security forces in Northern Ireland has been controversial. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has even urged that the Bill should include provision for a statutory code of conduct, a breach of its terms being a specific offence punishable

1443
by a modest maximum term of imprisonment. I hope that I have said enough to explain this important amendment which stems from the standing advisory commission. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The law relating to the use of force is set out in Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967. It states that:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large".
That is the law both in Northern Ireland and England and Wales; it applies equally to those charged with upholding the law and ordinary members of the public.
The first effect of a statutory code of practice on the use of lethal force in dealing with suspected terrorists would be to undermine that position of parity. It would place policemen and soldiers in a different legal position when confronted by a suspected terrorist and when confronted by an armed bank robber. An obvious question which arises is the effect of such a code where a policeman or soldier mistakenly believes that he is dealing with a suspected terrorist but in fact is dealing with a bank robber, or vice versa.
Similarly, one must have concerns about the more general effects of such a code. The new clause proposes, as with the recommendation of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, that breach of any provision of such a code should constitute a criminal offence, punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment. One must question whether it would be right so to legislate for situations in which, by their very nature, lives may be at stake. One must also question whether the effect of such a code would in fact inhibit the use of firearms in circumstances where it would be legitimate and necessary to use firearms for self-protection or the protection of others.
I recognise the strength of feeling on this general issue. The Government also understand the reasons why SACHR recommended that such a code should be introduced in terms of community confidence. However, for the reasons that I have given, we believe that it is a matter which has implications for the general criminal law as a whole and should not therefore be considered simply in the context of emergency legislation.
In a paper sent to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights it said that this may be a subject,
"best dealt with in a separate statute of more general application".
I assure the Committee that we shall continue to consider the concept of a code of practice alongside the other propositions that have been made relating to the general issue of the use of force. However, I ask the Committee not to accept the new clause within the context of this Bill.
Lord Hylton: The Minister knows that I have been concerned about these matters for a good many years.
1444
I have discussed them with him personally. I am sorry to say that I do not believe that we made tremendous headway on that occasion.
I believe that we all accept that we wish to see the minimum necessary force used by the security services. That, alas, has not always been possible in the past. I have with me a list of 49 deaths between 1982 and April 1990 in which it is clear, I am afraid, that excessive force was used on a number of occasions.
The Minister has rightly pointed out that there is an interaction between terrorist crimes and ordinary crimes sometimes involving the use of replica weapons. Although the Minister did not mention vehicles, we understand that they are involved in joy-riding offences in which a number of young people have been shot and killed in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the assurance that the matter will be looked at in the context of the entire legislation. I hope that the Minister considers that the code of practice already drafted and submitted by the standing advisory commission has been a helpful step, and that it will be a catalyst to action.
I agree with the Minister's comments about the maximum term of imprisonment provided in subsection (3) of the amendment. That may be insufficient in certain circumstances. I wish to underline the fact that since at least 1982 there has been no judicial inquiry into a disputed killing which would have had the power to subpoena witnesses and to investigate the matter thoroughly. That is a further reinforcement of the need to take action.
Amendment No. 44 provides a defence in particular for a member of the security services who is charged with killing or using excessive force. I have raised the issues previously in this Chamber, as has the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, a former Northern Ireland Minister. There is Australian experience of legislation involving charges less than murder where a person has been killed, usually by a policeman or by military personnel. Professor Tom Hadden of Queen's University has carried out a great deal of work on the subject. I hope that Amendment No. 44 will find more favour with the Government than the amendment which we are now considering.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I am not convinced that a code of practice would prevent people in such circumstances being killed. One or two incidents have occurred totally by mistake; for instance, that at Aughnacloy in which someone in a sangar loosed off some rounds and shot a man. However, the predominant number of such cases have been investigated. A charge of murder would have been brought had it been thought that the soldier or the policeman acted in a way in which he should not have acted in any circumstances.
The problem is that when people have been shot in such circumstances the policeman or the soldier had justifiable reason for believing at the time that his life or the lives of other people were at risk. The terms of a code of practice must state, "Should you believe that your life, or someone else's life is at risk, you may open fire". However, where a joy-rider, for instance, is

1445
careering down a street in the presence of soldiers or policemen it is difficult to see what else those officers can do. Most certainly they cannot read a code of practice asking whether that looks like a joy-rider.
The charge of murder exists at present, and it has been used. There has been a certain amount of disquiet because people have not been convicted because it was thought that at the time the man had been justified in opening fire even if it was discovered subsequently that he had wrongly assessed or misunderstood something happening near him which turned out to be comparatively harmless.
Perhaps I may give an example. A car draws into a road check point and as it is leaving it backfires. A soldier nearby may believe that he has been shot and may stagger backwards. Another man may see that, believe that the passenger in the car has opened fire and shoot him. In those circumstances I do not believe that a code of practice would make any difference. It is inconceivable that it would prevent the man from being killed.
We seem to be trying—and this is rather borne out by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as regard the charge of manslaughter in Australia—to find a law by which we can convict the very people whom we have put in place to stop terrorism in Northern Ireland. We are trying to treat them under a different law. Terrorists will not be charged with manslaughter but with murder. Some of our soldiers—many from England—and policemen have been charged with murder. That has caused them considerable stress and strain and has had a severe effect on their families. I do not believe that the right way forward is by use of a code of practice which will tie them to a far greater extent than they are already.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his support on this amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for indicating that the Government are at least interested in a code of practice on the use of legal force. The Minister makes the point that if there is to be a development along those lines, it must be part of the general development or reform of the law. I accept that. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments to Coroners Rules
The Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1963 as amended by the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) (Amendment) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1980 are amended as follows—

(a) In Rule 9 for subsection (2) there is substituted— "Where a person is suspected of causing the death, or has been charged or is likely to be charged with an offence relating to the death, he shall be compelled to give evidence at the inquest if the coroner directs that such evidence should be given."

(b) In Rule 9, subsection (3) is omitted.

(c) In Rule 12, the words "or for such longer period as he may think fit" in subsection (1) is omitted.

(d) In Rule 12, subsection (2) is omitted.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to coroners courts. So that there is no misunderstanding
1446
about its intention, perhaps I may say immediately that paragraphs (a) and (b) have crept into the amendment by mistake. They should not be there. Therefore, I speak only to paragraphs (c) and (d).
The law on inquests is complex and has been the subject of at least two official inquiries in Britain over the past 50 years. Perhaps it is not surprising that an error crept into my amendment. The effect of subsections (c) and (d) would be to require an inquest into a disputed killing by the armed forces or the police to be opened as soon as practical after the death, with the exception of a single 28-day delay which would be permissible on the application of the police on the ground that someone was likely to be charged. If someone was to be charged, Rule 13 of the coroners' rules would come into operation and the opening of the inquest would be delayed until criminal proceedings were complete.
This is clearly a probing amendment on the general issue of long delays in holding inquests into the circumstances of killings in disputed circumstances in Northern Ireland. All too often it is the case in Northern Ireland that several years elapse before an inquest is held into the killing of a terrorist suspect. That long delay fuels the suspicion that the inquest is not being held because the authorities want to keep the lid on the truth.
It will be recalled that the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 prohibited the holding of inquests in specific classes of case. That was the position between 1922 and 1973. In 1988 Amnesty International published statistics about the delay in holding inquests in Northern Ireland between 1982 and 1988. During that period, according to Amnesty International, there were 49 killings by the security forces. By 1988 inquests had only been held into 24 of the deaths, and criminal proceedings taken in respect of five. That left 20 of the killings untouched by an inquiry. I have been unable to trace statistics for the period since 1988. But I have no reason to believe that the figures for the period 1982 to 1988 were exceptional and that I am in any way misleading the Committee.
There is little doubt that long delays are the order of the day in holding inquests into disputed killings. If and when the inquests are held after several years of delay, immense difficulties arise, sometimes in tracing witnesses or tracing documentary testimony. People cannot recall in detail what they saw and heard. There is therefore a risk that the long delay compromises the standards of justice. The issue broadens out to become one of confidence in the administration of justice. Where that happens, that goes to the heart of the problem.
The law on inquests is complex. It is difficult without expert knowledge—which we do not possess—to suggest an amendment that would cure the problems. We believe that it is the right time to get the right answers. I received a helpful letter from Professor Tom Hadden, who is a professor of law at Queen's University Belfast. He suggests that the subject needs to be carefully studied in order to achieve three results. First, inquests into all fatal shootings by members of the security forces should be

1447
speeded up so that rumours about the essential facts will be replaced by the best available evidence. Secondly, adequate powers and procedures should be available to the coroner's court in Northern Ireland to ensure that the best available evidence is presented to and tested at the inquest. Thirdly, the rules of procedure and practice should be brought into line with those in Britain.
I summarised the letter sent to me by Professor Hadden. I shall be grateful if the Minister will indicate that he is in general sympathy with the aims that the professor believes to be desirable. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, whether I heard him correctly, that anything to do with compellability of witnesses should have been omitted from the face of the Marshalled List.
Lord Prys-Davies: Yes.
Lord Belstead: The new clause seeks only to amend the current rules to the effect that where criminal charges may be brought against the person who caused the death of the deceased, an inquest can only be adjourned for a maximum of 28 days. As the noble Lord knows better than I, it is a general principle both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland that any inquest must be delayed until after the conclusion of any criminal proceedings brought in connection with the death. The amendment would not be consistent with that practice. It seeks to remove the coroner's discretion to adjourn for longer than 28 days. I should have thought it better for an inquest not to begin until police investigations have been carried out rather than have to adjourn the inquest once charges have been brought or, worse still, have a further inquest.
We are opposed to the amendment because it violates the principle that an inquest should not proceed until the question of criminal proceedings has been determined. There is a very good reason for that principle. Proceedings at a coroner's inquest would be likely to prejudice any subsequent criminal proceedings. The amendment also ignores Rule 11 which provides a general discretion for coroners in Northern Ireland to adjourn inquests. The proposed amendment to Rule 12 would not fetter that general discretion to adjourn in Rule 11. However, there is a more fundamental problem with the amendment. It appears to be based on the misconception that when inquests in Northern Ireland are delayed for considerable periods, they have been adjourned under Rule 12. That is not the case. In Northern Ireland the practice has developed of not commencing an inquest at all in circumstances where the coroner knows that a criminal investigation is proceeding. That practice is different from that in England and Wales where the coroner must start and then adjourn.
While I appreciate that the reason for the noble Lord's amendment is to reduce the delays in holding some inquests—he delivered himself of some trenchant remarks in that respect—we should not
1448
forget that unfortunately the unprecedented volume of violent crime in Northern Ireland and the resulting demands on the resources of the RUC and the DPP, inevitably lead to some delay. Nevertheless every effort is made to ensure that inquests are held as quickly as practicable. I shall look with care at what the noble Lord said about the views of Professor Hadden. Although this debate has been interesting it falls a little outside the scope of the Bill. We have dealt with more general legal matters and not so much with the emergency provisions. Nonetheless, I am glad that the noble Lord moved the amendment. Although the noble Lord may considerably disagree with what I have said in reply, I hope that it will have been as useful to him as indeed his speech was to me.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the noble Lord for his response. I readily accept that the amendment may be defective. I am sorry if I left the impression that I was not speaking in moderate terms about the amendment. It should not be overlooked that this is an area of extreme sensitivity in Northern Ireland. I did not expect the Government to accept the amendment. A great deal of homework has to be done. I will be encouraged if in due course the Government will give further consideration to this issue which I have sought, possibly inadequately, to identify. I shall not take the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Defence against murder
—(1) It shall be a defence for any person charged with murder that he killed in a situation in which it was reasonable for some force to be used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime but that he used excessive force, if at the time of the act he reasonably believed that the force he used was reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) If such a defence is accepted by the court, the defendant may be found guilty of manslaughter".).
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment but not with a great deal of optimism. Nevertheless, the matter has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It is generally true to say that the law in respect of the use of reasonable force is regarded as unsatisfactory in many quarters. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is quite right in saying that in Northern Ireland the law is to be found in Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. That provision merely states that the force applied to prevent a crime or to effect an arrest must be reasonable in the circumstances. That is the phrase which causes the difficulty.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has drawn attention to the difficulty in a memorandum to the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Murder and Life Imprisonment. He argued cogently in that memorandum that legislation was needed to develop the law in this area of great difficulty. I wish to read a few sentences from the memorandum. It appears at page 542 of Volume 2 of the report. The noble Viscount said:
"Put very shortly (probably too shortly) the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is this: if, for example, a soldier shoots and kills someone in circumstances where he

1449
says that he thought the other person was about to pull a gun on him but he was mistaken, he can only be convicted of murder (with a mandatory life sentence)"—
subject of course as to how the Government will respond to the amendment should it be carried—
"if his defence is not believed (which many think too harsh) or completely acquitted on the grounds of self-defence (which the victim's family and community tend to think outrageous). There has not developed in this jurisdiction, although it has in others such as Australia, a half-way position whereby an alternative verdict of manslaughter can be reached".
He added in the following paragraph:
"I have to say that reform along the Australian lines has the potential for broader discussion of this area of criminal law. If it led to the adoption of a lawful verdict between the extremes, the change would go some way to satisfying the community after such an incident, and would also be just to member; of the security forces".
I should point out that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights fully endorses the general approach adopted by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Indeed, it has pressed for the law to be reformed along the lines of this amendment. It would allow the alternative verdict of manslaughter to be brought in where the authorities had brought a charge of murder in a case where some force was justified and had led to a killing.
I suspect that the Minister will say again that this is a matter which concerns the law in general and not something which should be dealt with or incorporated in this 13ill. Nevertheless, I should be most interested to hear his comments. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I should like to add to the enthusiasm expressed, which appeared to be not as noticeable as usual, when the amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I was a member of the Select Committee about which he spoke. Members of that committee were not unanimous on everything, but we were unanimous on this: that there should be a new defence to murder, one which would not provide a complete defence but would reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter if the defence was made out.
Not only does the noble Lord have the backing of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment; he also has the backing of the Lord Chief Justice. I shall quote from paragraph 88 of the Select Committee's report:
"If murder is to be reserved for those homicides which are most deserving of stigma, this does not seem to be one of them. The Lord Chief Justice told the Committee that he had always thought it wrong that a person who goes too far in self-defence should be convicted of murder and that, if any difficulties of definition could be overcome, the law should be changed".
I rise not only to express my support for a fellow member of the Select Committee but also partially to give vent to the frustration which I have only recently experienced in finding that, when I considered making an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill currently before this Chamber, the Long Title was not long enough to accommodate what I had in mind. However, if it had been I should have tabled such an amendment. Moreover, I should have done so with the authority of the Lord Chief Justice, to whom I spoke anticipating no such difficulty. I discovered the difficulty when I came to check up on the matter.
I do not see why there is a problem. We have the defence of provocation which reduces murder to
1450
manslaughter; but in provocation the defendant has lost his self-control, which is not a very good beginning to any defence in respect of a crime, and he has ex hypothesi acted in a manner which a reasonable person, subject to that provocation, would not follow.
Here, in the instant suggestion, the accused has, bona fide, acted in self-defence. He was defending himself in a situation which justified defending himself. He honestly believed that he was entitled to do what he did. But—and this is the only but—he went beyond the degree of self-defence that he was entitled in the circumstances to use. It is a classic example of mitigating the offence of murder down to manslaughter instead of leaving a person in that situation so much worse off than the man who can establish the defence of provocation and thus land him with the stigma of murder and, subject to the amendment recently passed in this Chamber, hitherto the automatic life sentence.
I would support this amendment, I hope with a little more enthusiasm than perhaps it has been thought fit to do so today.
Viscount Brookeborough: I hesitate to rise in the face of such knowledgeable opinions as we have just heard. However, as I see it—and perhaps I am wrong—what we are saying is that, if a person on security duty in Northern Ireland had at the time what we have all been told and what has been agreed was a justifiable reason for protecting himself and in a split second decided to open fire, a court will find him guilty of something regardless. I find it horrifying and amazing to think that we are contemplating saying to 18 or 19 year-olds in Northern Ireland, "You will do your duty. We know that on certain occasions—and we have trained you for it—you will come across situations where you will have a split second to decide whether your friend was shot or whether it was something backfiring. If it was a shot and he is dead and you do not fire, the terrorist may get away. But if you open fire, we don't find a weapon and he was not shot, even though we believe you did it for the right reasons, you will go down for manslaughter". I find that totally horrifying. I fully accept that where somebody is—
Lord Ackner: What I understood we were seeking to do is to prevent, in the situation which the noble Viscount has described, the unfortunate soldier going down for murder, which is what would happen to him now. The amendment is designed to reduce that charge from murder to manslaughter. No one is suggesting that he should end up with no penalty; but with manslaughter there is a determinate sentence—a period of time which the court thinks is appropriate. The amendment does not, as I understand it, seek to make matters worse; on the contrary, it seeks to make them considerably better.
Viscount Brookeborough: It is my understanding that when a soldier in Northern Ireland has been brought up on such a charge, it has been found that at the time he acted as he justifiably saw fit and that is understood by others, he has been charged with murder and found not guilty. I believe that that charge

1451
of murder and the finding of not guilty is much more preferable for somebody whom we put in that situation than to find him guilty then of manslaughter.
Lord Belstead: I recognise that the proposition to which the new clause seeks to give effect is one which has been dealt with twice by my noble friend Lord Colville in his annual reports. It has also been considered by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the law relating to life imprisonment and has been advocated by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland.
I acknowledge that the primary motivation for a change to the law of this kind relates to the concerns about policemen and soldiers who are involved in shooting incidents where death occurs. But clearly such a change should be to the general criminal law rather than the emergency legislation, since the application of a provision of this kind would not be confined to terrorist situations. Equally, it might be preferable, although not, I accept, essential, that a change of this kind to such a fundamental area of the law should be effected on a UK-wide basis rather than solely within Northern Ireland. It could be regarded as invidious if we appeared to single out for special legislative treatment soldiers and RUC officers, in their anti-terrorist roles.
There are also practical issues to consider. Would we, in introducing a new provision of this kind, be placing the security forces in a serious dilemma when confronted by a situation which demanded a split-second decision? The amendment uses the word "reasonable" in no fewer than three separate places. It may be possible, although it will never be easy, for a court to judge what is reasonable and what is excessive in certain circumstances, and whether, in retrospect and with a full opportunity to consider all the issues, a person's belief was a reasonable belief.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough put his finger on an important point when he asked how a soldier or policeman, confronted by a situation where urgent action is needed, is to make such a fine judgment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, replied quickly to that question and said that the objective of all this is to help the soldier in a situation which could lead to a charge of murder. But is there not a danger that that uncertainty on which my noble friend Lord Brookeborough put his finger might inhibit the use of force where such force was in fact necessary and possibly appropriate to save life or prevent crime?
I should be foolish if I did not recognise that a powerful case has been made out, supported by the noble and learned Lord; but it is a case which it is not appropriate to be dealt with in the emergency provisions legislation, even though the noble and learned Lord might wish to find a home for it having been unable to find one in the Criminal Justice Bill. On that ground alone, I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment. I do so with the assurance that the Government will continue to consider the issues and whether a change to the general law along the lines proposed is desirable.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: In view of the Minister's response to at least two earlier amendments, I was not optimistic that the Government would respond favourably to this amendment. My pessimism was well-founded. I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who was a member of the select committee, for his powerful support. The advice he has tendered to the Committee should carry considerable weight with the Government.
I am encouraged to believe that we should do some further work in connection with the amendment and return to it at a later stage, when I hope that I shall be able to fight for it with far more vigour than I did this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Orders and Regulations]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 46, line 13, leave out from ("below") to ("and") in line 14.
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47. The amendments are of a technical nature. They relate to the procedure to be applied to any Order in Council made under the power conferred by paragraph 18(1) (a) of Schedule 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 46, line 35, after ("4") insert ("or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5").
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): Amendment No. 47 has been spoken to. However, before I call it I remind the Committee that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List. In line 1 of the amendment the words "or 18A" should be left out. I now call Amendment No. 47.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 46, line 37, at end insert:
("(5A) No Order shall be made under paragraph 18(1) (a) or 18A of Schedule 4 to this Act unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 67, 68 and 69 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 48:
Before Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:

SCHEDULE
INDEPENDENT ASSESSOR OF MILITARY COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES IN NORTHERN IRELAND
Tenure of office
1.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Independent Assessor shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2) The Independent Assessor shall be appointed for a term not exceeding three years.
(3) The Independent Assessor may at any time resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State may remove the Independent Assessor from office—

(a) if he has without reasonable excuse failed to carry out his duties for a continuous period of six months or more;

(b) if he has been convicted of a criminal offence;

(c) if a bankruptcy order has been made against him, his estate has been sequestrated or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors; or

(d) if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he is otherwise unable or unfit to perform his functions.

(5) At the end of a term of appointment the Independent Assessor shall be eligible for re-appointment.
Remuneration etc.
2.—(l) There shall be paid to the Independent Assessor such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2)In the case of any such holder of the office of Independent Assessor as may be determined by the Secretary of State there shall be paid such pension, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of him, or such payments toward the provision of a pension to or in respect of him, as may be so determined.
(3)The approval of the Treasury shall be required for the making of a determination under this paragraph.
Staff
3.—(1) The Independent Assessor may appoint such number of employees as he may determine.
(2)The remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of persons employed by the Independent Assessor shall be such as he may determine.
(3)The approval of the Secretary of State, given with the consent of the Treasury, shall be required for the making of a determination under this paragraph.
Reports
4.—(l) The Independent Assessor shall prepare an annualreport on the performance of his functions which he shall submit to the Secretary of State who shall cause it to be published and lay copies of it before each House of Parliament.
(2) The Independent Assessor may make a report to the Secretary of State about any matter which comes to his attention in the course of the performance of his functions.
Disqualification
5. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (other disqualifying offices), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
"Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 40. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 76, leave out lines 27 to 33 and insert:
("25B.—(l) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him), contravenes a restraint order is guilty of an offence and 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.

(2) Nothing in subparagraph (1) above shall be taken to prejudice any power of the High Court to deal with the contravention of a restraint order as a contempt of court."")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Rosyth Naval Base
10.22 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their intentions for the future of the Rosyth naval base.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, even at this late hour I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the matter of the Rosyth naval base. Some 10 days ago I met a group of shop stewards from the Rosyth naval base who represent all the unions on the base. There are some 10 unions on the base and they call themselves the Rosyth Naval Base Forum. I was greatly concerned by the accounts they related to me although the matter had been reported in the Scottish newspapers for some time.
The shop stewards made it clear that normally they do not combine to the extent that they had on this occasion. However, they had taken such a step on this occasion as the present situation constitutes a serious threat to them. The shop stewards had spoken to Members of Parliament from all parties and to Members of both Houses of Parliament. They had spoken to Ministers whenever they had the opportunity to do so. After listening to those men I felt it was necessary to try to obtain an announcement from the Government on this matter and to give the Government an opportunity to scotch some of the depressing rumours that are current in Scotland.
Sadly, I am now less hopeful that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will be in a position to help. Last week the Secretary of State for Defence himself spoke at the Conservative Party Conference in Perth. He added nothing to the debate which in any way removed the very strong suspicion that decisions were about to be made which would be devastating for Fife and for the whole of East Central Scotland. That was reiterated by some of the speeches from the floor of the conference at Perth.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the affair is the way in which it has been handled. From all reports the Perth conference was far from pleased with the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence. It appeared that his speech had not initially been designed to dwell on the Rosyth issue but because of the succession of speakers from the floor urging in the strongest possible terms that the base should not be closed he had to say something about Rosyth. However, the rumours are strong, based on a leak to the media some weeks ago.
I find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of State for Defence, with whom I served on a number of long and arduous committees in another place—and one can get to know people reasonably well in another place—was personally involved in leaking the rumour to the media. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that there was a substantial leak. A great deal of damage has been done and the consequences for Scotland are difficult to exaggerate.
I am very well aware that there are a number of noble Lords who have put their names down to speak in this short debate who are far better equipped than I to deal with the strategic consequences of closing
1456
Rosyth. Therefore, I propose to confine myself mainly to the social problems that such a closure would bring about.
I take a little comfort from part of the Secretary of State's speech at Perth, as reported in the Glasgow Herald of 11th May. Mr. King is quoted as saying:
"There are strategic issues, there are human personal considerations, and there would certainly be the views of Ian Lang with the Scottish dimension as well".
Following that helpful statement one must ask at what point were the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Ian Lang MP, and the Scottish Office consulted. It seems to me that there should be active Scottish input into the deliberations from the very beginning of any review.
The Minister will be fully aware of what has become known as "the alternative Livesay plan to keep Rosyth open". The plan was apparently rejected by the Ministry of Defence without, so far as I know, any allowance for social or personal considerations such as those which Tom King spoke of at Perth. Surely an option such as that prepared by Vice-Admiral Livesay would have merited greater attention if the Scottish Office had been present to spell out the social consequences of closure.
My honourable friend the Member for Garscaddon in another place, who is Shadow Secretary of State, wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland at the end of February this year. He said:
"It is always more difficult to reverse a decision that has been taken. If the Scottish Office sits it out until approached it may well be too late to influence the course of events".
There has been a reply from Mr. Lang to that letter, but it is much the same as before. The Scottish Office is well aware of what is going on and was more than kept informed. I want the Scottish Office to be involved at the earliest stage when it is a matter concerning large numbers of people. There should be a social output from the beginning.
The House should know that the social and economic effects on Rosyth are horrendous. There could be a loss of 2,000 jobs if one includes both Rosyth and Pitreavie. The Scottish Office has estimated that a further 1,750 jobs could be lost as a result. About 3,000 uniformed personnel would leave the area. I hope that such job losses in an area where the unemployment rate is already well above the national average will be unthinkable. That is why there must be early and positive social input into the Admiralty spending review.
I have here a copy of a touching and forceful open letter sent to the Secretary of State for Defence by half a dozen naval wives in Rosyth. They are well aware that their husbands are not in a position to write, so they decided to write themselves. They have listed one or two points on which I hope that the Minister will be able to assist them.
The wives are concerned about the fact that they would have to vacate Rosyth involuntarily. They would be virtually forced out. Their employment would be disrupted, as would their children's education. The Minister must be well aware that a sudden move from the Scottish to the English education system, or vice versa, at a critical time can

1457
have a serious effect on children. There is great uncertainty among teenagers and those ready to leave school about what is likely to happen to them. I speak not only of the servicemen's children but of the childre 1 of other skilled people at the naval base.
The naval wives stressed another important point. Naval families who have served in the area previously and whose sons and daughters are stationed there frequently retire up there, so another difficulty would arise because the older people who had retired there to be with their children would again be separated from them.
Then there is the difficult question of housing. The price differential between Scotland and any other place to which the sailors or skilled people might be sent would be too much for most of them to bear. There are also problems with surplus married quarters accommodation. I understand that most of the accommodation falls under a five-year non-sale clause which would make it difficult to dispose of such property. Will families be able to remain in naval quarters if the base closes, although it would be a rather empty place?
The naval wives point out another sad fact. The wives of serving sailors would be separated from them if the husbands were moved to a post down south while the wives remained in Scotland. The wives point out rather poignantly that the divorce rate among the Royal Navy is higher than for any other of the services.
Local economic dependence on the naval base is tremendous. Without it, the whole area would be devastated.
I raise the issue tonight in an attempt to show that a proper defence review should examine all those social aspects which, sadly, most people in Scotland feel are too often ignored by Whitehall departments serving only their own special remit. I hope that tonight's debate will not only elicit expertise on purely defence matters and the strategic problems of the naval base, but will emphasise the dire social consequences of such a closure.
10.35 p m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for having raised this subject fairly early, given the rumours circulating in Scotland. It is common knowledge that the Government are considering reductions in defence in general. They have issued the consultation paper Options for Change. I am sure we all welcome the prospect of what is called the peace dividend. We can and should adapt to the end of the cold war, though we have to be ready for further changes in the Soviet Union, some of which may be unexpected and unpredictable. The Government may not have taken the relevant decisions concerning naval bases yet, and we may hear more about that this evening. I do not know. There are rumours that Rosyth may no longer be retained as a naval base. In undertaking their review I hope the Government will take into account the following points.
I suggest there are continuing requirements after the end of the Cold War which can best be met by a
1458
naval base at Rosyth. First, should the facilities be closed down there would no longer be a base for ships of the Royal Navy or NATO along the whole east coast of Britain. Second, Rosyth is a suitable centre for training in mines. There are sea areas nearby more suitable for practical work in that field than the crowded Channel, where the remaining naval bases would be. Third, Rosyth is most conveniently situated as a centre for vessels engaged in the protection of oil and gas installations and operations in the North Sea, especially in the northern area east of Shetland, where some of the most valuable and prolific oil fields are. Though production is gradually diminishing, it is likely to continue in parts of the North Sea for 30 or 40 years. Fourth, fishery protection services can best be controlled and serviced from the Firth of Forth. Much of their work is along the east coast and the waters to the north east.
There is a tradition of service in that part of Fife to the Royal Navy and the Rosyth base, in civilian employment as well as in uniform. As the noble Lord has said, in the event of closure unemployment in the area would increase sharply and inflict pain and uncertainty, unless a gradual run-down and coordinated introduction of appropriate viable alternative industry or services were arranged. The present workforce is familiar with the kind of work and commitments required. Earlier generations and other members of their families have been employed there. To lose all of that would be to jettison a valuable national asset.
I know that the trade unions concerned have been presenting a reasonable, restrained, but nonetheless cogent case for retaining a base at Rosyth, accepting that changes must be expected. I have not been lobbied by them or asked to see them, but I have read their written observations and respect the sensible case they have been making.
I am vice-president of the Parliamentary Maritime Group. I and my family are not a naval family but we are a military family—Army and RAF. I am keenly aware of the importance of the seas to Britain's national interests. Well chosen support for our naval strength is essential to protect us, to police the seas and to help our allies and the international community throughout the world.
10.40 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, if the debate goes on for a long time, I shall have to leave before it ends. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me. However, my last train is at 11.55 p.m., and it is about 50 miles for me to walk home. I do not intend to discuss the political question, trade unions, unemployment or the effect of closure on service personnel, their wives and children. I have been briefed. Despite that, I wish to speak only on the defence aspect of this matter.
I have said before in this House that I do not believe the beautiful idea that the Cold War is over. Khrushchev rose through the ranks and became the boss of the KGB. It is asking rather a lot to believe that now Russia is all sweetness and innocence and just wants peace with us. Since the end of the so-called Cold War, the Soviet Union has produced numbers of

1459
submarines. We no longer have the Iron Curtain as such and their army has been pushed back a long way; but we still have to face backfire bombers and submarines. That is an inescapable fact.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, if we do not have Rosyth, we have no bases down the whole of the eastern side of England and Scotland. There is no protection. We cannot send our vessels to protect the oil rigs or act as fishery protection and so on. What is more, should the Russians turn nasty, we will have no forces nearby to defend Norway and other places.
There need only be a minor change of government in the Soviet Union and suddenly the Cold War could be back with us with a vengeance. If we do not have Rosyth naval base, what are we to do? It is one thing to say, "Right, we shall reduce all these things because now we have peace". If highly skilled and trained personnel are scattered, how can they be brought back when they are needed? How long does it take to retrain people and reinstall facilities?
I have read that, as opposed to closure, there have been alternative plans made for Rosyth naval base which would in fact save£13 million. So there is a financial consideration. But I would suggest that what matters above all else is the defence of this country. Closing down Rosyth not only affects the defence of this country. It seems to me that we let down our NATO allies. What will they think? If the Government have not made up their mind, I ask them to think again not merely on the political issues but on the straightforward matter of defence.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his initiative in asking the Question. I also congratulate the trade unionists, about whom he spoke and who have spoken to me, on their splendid coverage in speaking to so many people in both Houses of Parliament.
As quickly as I can—hut it is an important subject—I must plead with the Minister to convey to his friends the importance of deterrence. Deterrence is not a phrase much used these days but it is vital. There is the need always to consider the importance of inadvertent signals which can so easily be misinterpreted by other countries, both friends and potential enemies. Friends in NATO could easily misinterpret this possible action. I shall say more with regard to potential enemies later. A good example was the Falklands and the proposed withdrawal of the "Endurance". We are told that the US ambassador's inadvertent signals to Saddam Hussein may well have caused the invasion of Kuwait.
There is need to remember always that we have no signs whatsoever yet of the Soviet Union reducing its naval new construction programme. There is recent evidence that the KGB is stronger than ever. Recent examples that I have seen of the active measures that the KGB used against Yeltsin make it remarkable that he was able to survive but frightening that these things could happen in a country which was supposed to be
1460
working towards democracy. The KGB is clearly operating in support of the very powerful military and the country is increasingly unstable.
It is crazy not to take these factors into account before one even starts to think about money. Thus, we must preserve the NATO deterrent and our part of it. My speech in the defence debate of 17th July last year at col. 837 is as relevant today, if not more so, than when it was made. I commend it to my noble friend when he has a chance to read it.
Rosyth, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, is the only naval base on the east coast of the UK. Travelling anti-clockwise, it is the only base between Portsmouth and the Clyde. It is also the only one from which sea defence of oil rigs can readily be mounted. It is proven as a base for minesweeping training and the fishery protection patrol. Creating a new base—which I believe has been suggested—will cost money over the next few years rather than saving money.
Rosyth is also the main surface ship Scottish home port for Scotsmen, who form a significant proportion of naval recruits and one which is higher in relation to the overall population of Scotland than is the case in the UK generally. Recruiting and retention could be seriously hurt by the naval base's removal. Surely, too, closure would be politically disastrous at this stage.
I make a serious point. If economies must be found, I suggest to my noble friend that he considers the grossly overstaffed Ministry of Defence. Some years ago a friend of mine who was a service chief of great distinction who was serving in the MoD replied, when asked by me about possible savings that were not being considered: "A massive reduction of assistant secretaries and their supporting pyramids would do no harm, much good, and save much money". I mean that very seriously.
Thus the Government must think again about Rosyth and delete it from their list of reductions. Strategy really must come before costing is finalised. The naval base personnel need to know that decision sooner rather than later. Morale has dropped steadily since 23rd December, when the possibility of closure was first mooted. And what a date to choose—just before Christmas and the new year. Of course the date was not chosen; it just happened when Parliament rose for the Christmas Recess. No thought was given to the misery that people might suffer from their uncertainty during the holiday period. I am reminded of the causes of the Invergordon mutiny in the 1930s.
I implore my noble friend to persuade his colleagues not only to make the decision on the issue for which all noble Lords who have spoken have called for but also to announce that decision soon in order that the uncertainty can be removed.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest. Of those speakers listed tonight I am the only one who lives in Fife. It also happens that the base bears the name of my distinguished ancestor. That is not an interest that weighs with me; it is merely an historical accident.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for raising the subject tonight. The issue is not one of

1461
employment but of national defence; it used to be called defence of the realm. There are reasons for seeking information now. It is interesting to note that Rosyth is now the most modern naval base of the traditional naval bases. It was authorised in 1906 because the considered opinion of the Cabinet was that the old three bases—that is Chatham, Portsmouth and Devonport—were becoming obsolete. The last two are still in use. It is useful to seek information because the dockyard part of the naval base represents the largest engineering employer in Scotland. It has been privatised and it is diversifying energetically. Nonetheless, if it is to survive in anything like its present form it needs a substantial amount of naval work. Its programme of work was seriously disrupted by the scrapping of a nuclear submarine which was due for a major refit.
I also wish to draw attention to the personnel problems that will be caused if the base is closed. It is traditional in the Navy that Rosyth postings are unpopular. If one wishes to be posted to a Rosyth ship one can go for as long as one likes and to as many as one likes in succession. If the base is closed there will be a great disturbance to the people who have been established there for many years doing their best for the Navy. That would be regrettable.
Furthermore, there is an operational problem. If Rosyth is closed the two remaining bases of any size, Portsmouth and Devonport, would not have the capacity to accommodate our present fleet, even if it were at its present active size of 35 frigates and major ships. It must be remembered that not so long ago we were assured of a policy of maintaining a fleet of about 50 frigates.
I return to what was said by my noble friend Lord Mottistone about the strategic implications. The issue is one of strategy. The Cold war has not ended. All that has happened is that the frontier of the Iron Curtain has been pushed back eastwards by revolutions in the client states. The threat to the northern maritime flank of NATO remains as it was; it is unchanged. The Russian empire is disintegrating. When an empire is falling to pieces there is always the danger that it will engage in a foreign adventure. History has taught us that lesson many times. Mention was made of the Falklands where President Galtieri decided that he had better take his chaps' minds of their miseries at home and earn a little popularity. We defeated him there in the main with naval power.
The northern flank is really the Denmark Strait, as it is sometimes called, where the "Bismarck" was sunk and where, alas, our own HMS "Hood" was also lost. It extends from Norway to Labrador, some 80 degrees of longitude. The old concept of Admiralty seems to have deserted our Government.
Perhaps I may mention an episode which I believe occurred in my lifetime, in the 1920s. The Admiralty Board heard the alarming news that the railway from Plymouth to Exeter was to be electrified. It immediately demanded from the Great Western Railway that it maintain 50 engines permanently in
1462
steam for the benefit of the Admiralty if such a daring innovation was to be contemplated. At least it did not demand sailing trains.
As my noble friend Lord Mottistone, said, the Russians still have a huge naval programme. In spite of their economic difficulties, there is no sign that it is to be reduced in any significant sense. We should not—and I repeat not—rely exclusively on the United States or on Trident. Things can go wrong if one relies upon one system.
From the points I have made, I consider that a northern base is a strategic necessity. It has been shown to be so in two wars and the threat still remains in the North. Your Lordships will recall the old nursery rhyme:
"For want of a nail, a shoe was lost".
It went from a shoe to a horse and from a horse to a war. If we drop our guard we may lose not only a war but a nation which has existed uninvaded for over a thousand years. I ask the Government to consider very carefully the strategic implications of what is proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said earlier that it was thought that perhaps£13 million would be saved. That is roughly one sixth of the price of a frigate and slightly more than the annual cost of a Bill which did not find favour with your Lordships recently. Therefore I suggest that this idea should be firmly squashed in the very near future.
10.58 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not putting down my name to speak. I had a commitment earlier today in Scotland and I was not sure whether I should arrive in the House in time.
My noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults and other noble Lords have pointed out the strategic importance of Rosyth from a geographical point of view and I shall not repeat what has been said. However, I should like to enlarge upon the point made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone; namely, that Rosyth is of considerable strategic importance as regards recruitment for attracting young Scots to join the Navy and, indeed, the Army and the RAF.
Rosyth is very much a part of Scottish life. I see that my noble friend Lord Reay, who is chief of the clan Mackay, is sitting beside the Minister and if the Minister is not aware of that, he will tell him about it. Rosyth is part of our national consciousness and pride. In the Scottish press we read constantly of the comings and goings of the naval ships. Open days are held for the public. Sailors from our own and other navies are a familiar sight about the streets of Edinburgh, Fife and the Lothians. We see the ships arriving and leaving as we cross the Forth road or rail bridge. Indeed, I was among the many people who watched two minesweepers as they left the Forth estuary for the Gulf not too long ago.
It is hard to know precisely how many young men and women join the armed forces because of Rosyth. As my noble friend said, Scotland produces more recruits per head of the population than other parts of

1463
Great Britain. It seems likely that Rosyth plays a considerable part in that. Were it to close, recruiting in Scotland would certainly suffer.
The most important question is whether we can afford not to keep the naval base at Rosyth. It can only be closed if the number of ships in our Navy is to be considerably reduced. As my noble friend Lord Cochrane said, there would not be enough room to accommodate the ships that already exist. Attractive though the prospect of the peace dividend is, are we really wise further to reduce our Navy?
It is not just a question of whether the Cold War is really over. In an article today in the Glasgow Herald there appeared a quotation from a recent speech by Ronald Lehman, director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. He said:
"it is indeed ironic—perhaps the central irony of our time—that just as the United States and the Soviet Union are moving seriously to reduce and control our weaponry, other nations, many found in regions of great tension, are moving in precisely the opposite direction".
The article points out, for example, that,
"Pakistan is now so close to joining the nuclear club that President Bush can no longer certify to Congress that Pakistan does not have the bomb".
Pakistan sees its weapon as a weapon capable of being used in the Moslem cause. North Korea signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985, but since then has refused to allow its weaponry to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Algeria is the only Arab country not to sign the new Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is thought that it could produce enough plutonium to build a bomb by 1998.
Those are only three examples of the instability that still exists in the world. Dare we reduce our Navy? If we do not reduce it we need Rosyth. Even if we do reduce it, for the many reasons enunciated by your Lordships, we still need Rosyth. I hope that the Government will give close attention to what is being said about the issue. I attended a fringe meeting during the Conservative conference at Perth last week. It was in a fairly big room which was packed; there was standing room only. There was very strong feeling about the issue and not just from the trade union side of the discussion. There was strong feeling about the meaning of Rosyth to Scotland and to people who were there. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the debate.
11.3 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too apologise to the House for keeping it late. I have been at a meeting in Paris. I intended to stay the night but when this valuable Question was tabled I did without my good dinner in order to be here.
One of the interesting points about the debate was the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. When I saw the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I said to myself, "Ah, he wants a base in the Isle of Wight". But instead he put with great force, great clarity and feeling the broad view which I am afraid it appears the Government have not taken.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I met the three gentlemen from the workforce in the base at
1464
Rosyth. I was delighted by the competence with which they had gone about their business—they were perhaps more competent than the Government. They had gone to the universities and asked people to lay down the social and economic arguments, and produced a first-class case. I trust the Minister will tell us that he has read and studied it with great care.
The issue boils down to a question of dispersal. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and others have made the point that we have North Sea oil and that our wealth is to be protected from Devonport. That appears to be a little illogical. The argument about the training ground for minesweeping is very strong.
The Government should consider the broader aspect, and of cutting out a whole naval base, concentrating naval strength and repairs in the south, is illogical. In the south there is a collection of skills and a core. It may be that that will be cut in a general cut-down, but even if that were so, one keeps the core. I hope that the Government have considered that point. I hope also that the Government have carried out proper studies concerning cuts in the south at Devonport, Chatham and elsewhere. I hope that we will not receive the unadorned answer that we have had until now, that no decision has been taken. That is a pretty poor answer.
The matter was sprung on the Scottish public by a leak which showed clearly that plans were being made. I ask the Government specifically whether plans have been made for a reduction in the facilities on the south coast and whether they have been studied with the same care. Can they say whether any decision has been taken in that regard? It is an extremely serious subject. My neighbour, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, put the matter in a nutshell when she said that the political case for the Government to look at the matter is extremely strong. I do not want to see the Conservatives do particularly well in Scotland, but from their own point of view of self-preservation they should look at the issue on social and economic grounds. As regards the defence point of view, as suggested by many people, the Government should think about the question very seriously and decide to keep the naval base.
11.7 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, my noble friend made a very pertinent point in asking how far the Government have examined the possibility of reducing base facilities in southern England. That must be part of the equation when they come to make their decision. The Government have heard a very powerful case tonight for retaining Rosyth naval base. We are discussing the naval base and not the dockyard. I shall be very surprised to hear that there are plans to abandon the dockyard, with its vital, huge and expensive facilities for refitting Tridents. We are talking about the base tonight.
I am not sure that I found the most cogent argument for keeping Rosyth the contention that we should maintain our strong Navy and not cut the number of frigates and submarines as suggested in Options for Change. I do not find that a powerful argument for Rosyth. Though modest, Options for

1465
Change was right. I am not aware that any political party opposes Options for Change. The case for reducing from 50 to 45 the numbers of frigates and destroyers can be made. The Government are proposing to cut the submarine fleet by 10. These decisions can be defended. Therefore I wonder whether it is wise to put forward the case for retaining Rosyth as part of the argument for not reducing our naval capability at all.
We have heard some very gloomy speeches tonight about the state of East-West relations. Despite the Gulf and the chaos inside the Soviet Union, or because of it, the Soviet threat to the United Kingdom is very much less than it has been in past years. The Government accept that fact; indeed, all parties have accepted it. Therefore, if we are proposing to reduce our naval capability we must not shirk from the logical consequence that there will be a smaller requirement for base facilities in this country.
However, what we can and do say to the Government is that the decisions must be taken in the proper manner. They must fully take into account the kind of social and economic factors mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. They must also take into account the strategic points made by my noble friend and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about the strategic positioning of Rosyth. All those factors must be taken into account, together with the possible options on the south coast.
I am also bound to say that I find it surprising that the Rosyth base is being discussed in this way. I visited it 25 years ago as Navy Minister. I have no reason to suppose that it is not as well run and as cost-effective today as it was then. I note that Options for Change—and this is a point which I believe no one has yet made—does not call for any reduction in the number of mine counter-measure vessels. That is indeed not the case. The number is 40 today and Options for Change says that it should be 40 tomorrow. Moreover, it said so before the advent of the Gulf war. If anything; proved the importance of these vessels, it was the part they played in the Armilla Patrol and in Operation Granby.
That is a vital point so far as concerns the Government. It is the specialty of the Rosyth naval base. There is also the question of fisheries protection which was mentioned by a previous speaker. That force is not big enough. I have said that I concede a reduction in the number of our frigates, destroyers and submarines; but I do not concede a reduction in the number of the fishery protection vessels. On the contrary, I believe that there is a very good case to be made for strengthening that protection. Bearing that in mind, it seems to me that Rosyth easily suggests itself for the purpose.
I am not trying to dodge the question. It is very important not to do so. But if we believe that a safe reduction is possible in our naval capacity, that implies a reduction in base facilities. We must insist that the Government make their choice properly and that they make their decisions in the right order, with the big questions coming first. For example, how big a Navy do we want? How much of it will be above and how much below the surface? Then one comes to
1466
consider base facilities. That is the order in which the decisions must be made. I have seen no great evidence to suggest that the Government are approaching the matter in that way. They may have made the right decision about the frigates and the destroyers, but they approached the issue not on grounds that were respectable from a defence point of view; they approached it on the grounds of Treasury pressure. There is no questioning that fact. Indeed, that is the conclusion which the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence came to and which it set out in its report.
As I said, we must insist that the Government answer the questions which have been put to them tonight as to why it should be Rosyth. Why not the South? Where can Rosyth's interests be matched with the interests of the country? Those are the questions we want answered. We want to be assured that the Government will take the decision they have to take in a proper and appropriate manner.
11.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, perhaps I may say, first, how pleased I am to be able to reply to this debate. It gives me the opportunity to focus upon Her Majesty's Naval Base at Rosyth, about which there has been much discussion and, indeed, speculation over recent months. I am certainly aware of the views that have been expressed by Members of Parliament and by the people who live near to or work at the naval base about the importance of Rosyth both in defence terms and to the local community. I shall examine those aspects later in my reply.
First, I should like to talk briefly about the beginnings of Rosyth and outline the contribution that it currently makes towards our defence effort. Rosyth, in common with the other naval bases in the United Kingdom, has a distnguished history in support of the Royal Navy. It came into existence at the beginning of this century owing to the rapid expansion of German naval strength and the need for a dockyard to repair what was then the newest and most powerful type of battleship, the Dreadnought. Land was first bought in 1903 and construction began in 1909. The first warships were docked there in 1916 and from 1917 the Grand Fleet was based there. In 1925 Rosyth went into a period of care and maintenance although it became operational again in 1938. In 1963 it was decided that Rosyth would be a refitting base for nuclear-powered submarines. This commitment has been maintained with the decision in 1984 that refitting facilities would be developed for Trident submarines.
Rosyth supports two main activities, the naval base and the royal dockyard. It also supports a number of lodger units such as an establishment of the Defence Research Agency, degaussing facilities, a chart maintenance depot and a marine services school and depot. The dockyard complex, which is commercially managed and is a separate entity albeit within the confines of the base, undertakes the refit, repair and maintenance of warships. The principal function

1467
under debate today is the operational support of ships. Rosyth is the base port for and provides operational support for four of our Type-42 air defence destroyers, HM Ships "York", "Edinburgh", Liverpool" and "Glasgow". It is also the base port for the majority of the Royal Navy's minor war vessels which carry out many tasks, although the two primary capabilities are mine counter-measures and fishery protection, a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
The naval base provides these ships with maintenance, technical and logistic support, together with specialist facilities and back-up support for personnel based there. Teams of personnel are also deployed from Rosyth to support the mine counter-measure vessels when they are operating away from the base, such as is being done in the Gulf, a point well drawn out by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Some 2,400 civilians are employed in and around the naval base. There are also some 4,300 uniformed personnel at Rosyth either in shore jobs or serving on board ships which are based at Rosyth.
Rosyth naval base has been called on to provide ships and personnel in support of many naval operations. Over the past 10 years this has included involvement in Operation Corporate, the Falklands Islands conflict, in 1982. Mine clearance in the Suez Canal was undertaken in 1984 during Operation Harling. Operation Cimnel in 1987 was the occasion of the first mine counter-measure deployment in the Gulf. More recently, there was Operation Granby.
I know that noble Lords are aware of the important contribution made by the mine counter-measure vessels which were deployed to the Gulf in September last year. Prior to hostilities they were employed in conducting route surveys to the main Gulf ports and checking that potential mine danger areas were clear. In mid-February they began mine clearance operations preparatory to a possible amphibious operation. Even though hostilities have ended, the MCMVs are carrying on with the important work of clearing designated minefields.
I know there have been concerns about the fact that some vessels which left from Rosyth at the beginning of the conflict have returned to a new base port at Portsmouth at the end of their deployment. This routine transfer has been planned for several years and was no surprise to the crews or their families. It has no bearing on the future of the naval base.
I said at the beginning of my reply that I wished to address the concerns expressed by many people, including noble Lords, about the way forward for Rosyth naval base. The United Kingdom, together with its major NATO allies, has been conducting a thorough review of the way in which our armed forces might be restructured for the mid-1990s in the light of changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The London NATO summit last July recognised that Europe had entered a new and more promising era, to which the alliance should and would adapt. While it would be premature to talk of an end to military risks in Europe, it is clear that any threat from the Soviet Union is much less immediate than it has been in the
1468
past, a point with which even the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would agree, despite what he has said. That has allowed us to plan for reductions in the resources that we devote to defence while planning the capacity for regeneration should the need occur.
We shall, however, be careful to maintain and, where necessary, enhance the quality of our defence provision. With fewer forces immediately available to meet unforeseen contingencies, it is all the more important that the forces we retain are properly manned, motivated, equipped and housed. The need to commit forces to the defence of Saudi Arabia and the eventual liberation of Kuwait did nothing to undermine the assumptions on which our plans for smaller forces were based. Indeed, it illustrated the effectiveness of flexible and mobile armed forces for which we are planning in the mid-1990s. It is too soon to draw firm conclusions from the Gulf conflict, but there are no indications that our approach to restructuring our forces will be undermined by the lessons of the war nor that we shall need to recast our broad plans.
The outline of the structure of British forces in the future was described last July by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. In announcing those proposals, he also made it clear that we would be looking for substantial savings in the support area. I confirm to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that that means from teeth to tail. If we are to achieve our aim of strong and reliable forces but at a lower level and at an affordable cost, we must carry our a rigorous and comprehensive review of all activities and resources in the support area to ensure that support is provided in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Through the means of a wide range of studies, we have been looking at all the establishments which form the fabric of support infrastructure. In the case of support to the Royal Navy, our early investigations indicated that we will have, by the mid-1990s, clear excess of capacity in the naval bases. Work on Rosyth naval base has formed part of that review and we have considered a variety of approaches, including full and partial closure. Full closure would entail the need to transfer ships currently based at Rosyth elsewhere; partial closure would involve the retention of some vessels at Rosyth and rationalisation of the support role and facilities of the naval base. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said during his speech to the Scottish Conservative Party conference last Friday, no decisions have yet been taken about the future of Rosyth. That, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is still the case today. In addition we have made the position on all the naval bases perfectly clear. We are reviewing the future of naval establishments in the light of the smaller Navy planned under Options for Change. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that all appropriate alternatives are being considered, and all relevant factors will be taken into account. No decisions have been taken and there are therefore no plans to close any particular base.
I want to take this opportunity to record my anxiety over media reports about the recent

1469
appointment of Vice-Admiral Hugo White as Flag Officer for Scotland and Northern Ireland. That was a routine career appointment which had been planned some months ago. Press speculation that Admiral White had been posted specifically to close Rosyth naval base was incorrect, and personal attacks on him were both unnecessary and unfair. Decisions on the future of naval establishments will be taken by Ministers. Admiral White will bring the same expertise and professionalism to his present job that he has shown in his previous appointments.
As I have already mentioned, we have made it clear that all relevant factors will be taken into account before a decision is taken on the future of Rosyth naval base. Those include the need to achieve the most cost-effective support for revised Navy force levels, strategic and operational factors and the implications for employment, the local economy and for civilian and naval personnel. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said last Friday that it is not simply a question of adding up the financial savings; other related issues will inform our thinking. Neither is there any question of singling out Rosyth or Scotland for unfair treatment. There has been substantial investment by the MoD at a number of locations in Scotland in recent years, and more than half of the current investment in construction projects for the Royal Navy is being spent in Scotland. We have been and remain in close touch with the Scottish Office, both at ministerial and official level and the views of the Scottish Office will form part of our deliberations. I emphasise that point to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. In addition, our NATO allies are well aware of the broad detail of our options work as outlined by the Secretary of State last year, and this has formed the basis of subsequent discussions with them. The provision of logistic support, however, is a national rather than an alliance responsibility.
1470
We have received representations from many people about the future of Rosyth, and assessments of the possible impact on the local economy and employment. We are aware of the fears that members of the workforce have about possible redundancy. We are also aware of the worry expressed by the wives of naval personnel based at Rosyth about the possibility that their husbands might have to move and their children's education might be disrupted. I wish to leave your Lordships in no doubt this evening that we take these matters seriously. We take all the matters raised by your Lordships seriously such as the matter of strategy mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cochrane, and morale and recruitment mentioned by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. We also take social and other concerns extremely seriously.
We recognise the general uncertainty that such a review creates. It has been suggested that we should publish all the options before any decisions are reached. We recognise the importance of consultation, particularly with trades unions. However, we cannot and will not shirk our responsibility for deciding what should be done. We are committed to full and open consultation once we have firm proposals to make, but we are not yet in that position.
There is no fixed timetable for completion of Options for Change work and Ministers will make announcements when it is appropriate to do so. Your Lordships may be disappointed that I cannot be more specific at this stage; but it is obviously important that we consider carefully all the alternatives before arriving at a view. I have taken careful note of the points raised in your Lordships' House on behalf of Rosyth naval base, its workforce and the local community. I assure your Lordships that we are alive to these anxieties and they will be given the due consideration they deserve as our work continues.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eleven o'clock.

  THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS, IRAQ AND THE KURDS
  THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS, IRAQ AND THE KURDS
  KUWAIT: OIL WELL FIRES
  KUWAIT: OIL WELL FIRES
  RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES: EXEMPTION FROM COMMUNITY CHARGE
  RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES: EXEMPTION FROM COMMUNITY CHARGE
  SIMPLIFIED PLANNING ZONES: RESULTS OF CONSULTATION EXERCISE
  SIMPLIFIED PLANNING ZONES: RESULTS OF CONSULTATION EXERCISE
  PLANNING APPEALS: TWIN-TRACKING
  PLANNING APPEALS: TWIN-TRACKING
  SALE OF CLOSED SCHOOLS: INFORMATION TO TRUSTEES
  SALE OF CLOSED SCHOOLS: INFORMATION TO TRUSTEES