Sitting of 13 February 1992

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read a Third time on Thursday 20 February.
ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL
(By Order)
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
EAST COAST MAIN LINE SAFETY BILL (By Order)
KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.)
(No. 2) BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL
(By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Child Care
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the subject of taxation of child care; and if he will make a statement.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): We have received a number of representations on that subject.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recall that we on these Benches have advocated provision for tax vouchers for child care in the past three Finance Bills? Does he recognise that provision is required for local authorities, voluntary groups and the private sector to provide places in creches and nursery schools? Will he take steps to ensure that that is possible following the Budget?
    Mr. Maude: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have promoted all sorts of proposals in recent years, and many of them have been contradictory. At this stage in the period preceding the Budget, he will not expect me or any of my right hon. Friends to say anything about specific tax matters.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that private nursery provision has increased by 50 per cent. in recent years and that efficient councils such as Wandsworth have been able to provide nursery education fully to all the children in their areas?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes an important point.

    Employment Prospects
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those measures which he has taken since November 1990 to improve employment prospects.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): Since November 1990. the Government have reduced interest rates by 3·per cent and price inflation has fallen by more than half. Underlying earnings growth has fallen to its lowest level for almost 25 years and economy-wide productivity has increased, helping push non-oil exports to record levels. The foundations have been laid for sustainable growth in both output and employment.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Minister any understanding of the individual human tragedy of unemployment? Is he aware that today's increase is the 22nd consecutive monthly increase in unemployment? Does he know that since the Chancellor and the Prime Minister came to office, some 30,000 jobs, on average, have been lost every working day? Is not the Government's complacency on the matter scandalous and disgraceful?
    Mr. Mellor: No, there is no complacency. Unemployment is a tragedy for the unemployed in Britain, just as it is for the greater number of unemployed in France and the United States. We have created a climate for recovery. The key question is not the one that the hon.

    1093
    Gentleman asked, but, rather, whose policies will be best able to put people back to work? The Labour party will have to deal with that issue.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that far more people are in employment today than in 1979? Does he also agree that a minimum wage and higher taxation would lead to even greater unemployment?
    Mr. Mellor: That is undoubtedly so. There are nearly 600,000 more jobs in the United Kingdom today than there were in 1979. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that between 1984 and 1990 the United Kingdom had by far the best job creation record of the larger European Community countries.
    Mr. Beith: Why does not the Chief Secretary recognise that a period of high unemployment and recession is the best time to spend additional resources on investment in the fabric of our schools, homes and transport? That would put people back to work and give long-term benefits to the economy.
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that in his autumn statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to announce a £1·4 billion boost to the railways and London Transport and an increase of more than 10 per cent. in real terms for capital works on schools. In addition, for good measure, a substantial increase in the Government's commitment to hospital building was announced. Therefore, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has as good a point as he thought.
    Sir Ian Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to provide improved employment prospects is to get inflation and interest rates down, as the Government have done so commendably in the past 18 months? The worst thing to do would be to impose swingeing increases in personal taxation of the sort advocated by the Labour party, because that would undermine the incentive and enterprise on which jobs depend.
    Mr. Mellor: My right hon. Friend is quite right. As the Bank of England's recent quarterly bulletin made clear, the right environment for recovery is one of stable prices. For the Labour party, inflation is the word that dare not speak its name.
    Mr. John Smith: Are not the truly appalling unemployment figures announced today—an increase of more than 53,000, taking the unemployment total to more than 2,600,000, even leaving out the thousands of job losses announced during the present month—ample proof that the Government's incompetent economic policies are certainly not working, but are causing severe hurt? Do the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary consider that the mounting job losses, with all the human tragedy that they bring, are a "price well worth paying"?
    Mr. Mellor: It is quite clear that we have a climate for recovery in this country, with falling unit labour costs, inflation below the European Community average and interest rates fully competitive with those of our competitors. Once we get beyond the cheap debating point, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought about what the minimum wage will do to unemployment?
    1094
    Does he appreciate the nonsense of the proposal to increase taxation at this time of economic difficulty? The key question is: what impact would Labour policies have on unemployment and the economic well-being of the country? That is the question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to address.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the rates of VAT since the beginning of 1979; and the dates of each change.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): Until 18 June 1979, 8 per cent. and 12½ per cent; from 18 June 1979 to 1 April 1991, 15 per cent; and since 1 April 1991, 17½ per cent.
    Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for his diligent research in producing those figures. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the constituent of mine who is over 21 and earns £50 for a 40-hour week why he has taken a greater percentage of the young man's earnings than he has from his right hon. and hon. Friends who go to the City and, for part-time work, earn hundreds of thousands of pounds? Is not it a fact that the Government are robbing the poor to pay the rich?
    Mr. Maples: The only way to reverse what the hon. Gentleman alleges would be to go back to the sort of tax rates that we had under the last Labour Government—83 and 98 per cent. I am sure that it will be interesting to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to know that Labour Members advocate such tax increases.
    What the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said is not true for the vast majority of the population. A married man on average earnings, with two children, has found that his tax burden from central Government has risen from 32·2 to 32·7 per cent. The great increase has come from domestic rates and the community charge, and we know who is responsible for that—high—spending Labour councils.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it was the last Labour Government who introduced a value added tax of 25 per cent. on certain luxury items?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend does well to remind the House of what happens under a Labour Government. They had a value added tax rate of 25 per cent. My hon. Friend may have noticed that the Opposition have been floating a similar idea among themselves and discussing again in an internal memorandum the possibility of a luxuries rate of VAT. We have no problem in this regard; we do not need to raise taxes—[HoN. MEMBERS: "You have."] We have set out our tax and spending plans for the next three years. The Labour party has set out only its spending plans, including plans to spend £35 billion. Apparently, it does not need to finance that from raising more tax.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Minister aware that he has just admitted that under this Government there has been a trade-off between income tax cuts and increases in VAT? If we take the Prime Minister's words at face value—that the Conserservative party will not raise the rate of VAT

    1095
    —does the hon. Gentleman recall an interview given recently by the Chief Secretary, when he was asked about extending coverage of VAT to transport fares? He said:
    "nobody knows what is waiting round the corner."
    The Chief Secretary then sought to imply that the Government might in some way be forced by the EC to extend the coverage of VAT.
    Is the Minister aware that last week in Brussels Madame Scrivener, the relevant Commissioner, assured me that there was no question of our being forced by the European Community to extend the coverage of VAT, and that we cannot be forced so to do? Does he think that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary was hinting that the Government might choose to extend VAT?
    Mr. Maples: This is quite extraordinary. No one could have fought harder than this Government to maintain the zero rates that we have. We have secured the right to do that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have no intention of raising the rate of VAT either before or after the election. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), we do not need to raise taxes; the Labour party does. How do the Opposition think they are going to finance £35 billion of extra spending without raising taxes on ordinary people? They cannot do it.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend reminds the House of the 25 per cent. rate under the last Labour Government and mentions that it was a tax on luxuries. Will he confirm that those luxuries included televisions; and does he agree that if there is not to be an income tax rate of 35p to support those massive spending plans, they can be supported only by a large increase in VAT?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. There has to be a substantial increase either in income tax or in VAT to pay for the Labour party's spending plans. My hon. Friend does well to remind us that when the Labour party was last in office its idea of luxuries included petrol as well as televisions and caravans.

    Environmental Policies
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in favour of taxation policies to benefit the environment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maude: We have received a number of representations on this subject also.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that investment in cavity wall insulation, in energy-efficient boilers and in heating controls has dropped by 50 per cent. since 1987, given that even double-glazing salesmen appear to have gone quiet in this recession and given that energy-efficiency investment not only helps the environment but protects the vulnerable and the old and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, will the Government consider extending the exemption from stamp duty for all energy-efficient homes beyond August and perhaps indefinitely?
    Mr. Maude: I shall certainly listen carefully to what is said on that matter and give it full consideration. The hon. Gentleman seems to leave out of account the fact that investment in energy efficiency is desirable for its own sake.
    1096
    Saving energy saves on cost, so there is already a built-in incentive for people to make prudent investments in energy-efficiency measures.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the representations that he must have received was that from the Liberal Democrats advocating their policy of imposing an extra 50p a gallon on petrol? Does my hon. Friend agree that those who live in rural areas ought to know that that is what the Liberal Democrats have in mind? Does he agree that that policy would have a devastating impact on people who live in the country areas of Teignbridge?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend does a sterling service in drawing attention to that Liberal Democrat policy. I wonder, with him, whether the Liberal Democrats will be quite as keen on promoting that policy in rural areas in the coming general election.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amounts of Exchequer revenue raised from value added tax in each of the years 1978–79, 1986–87 and 1990–91; and indicate what percentage of total Exchequer revenue raised in each of these years these figures constituted.
    Mr. Maples: In 1978–79, £5·2 billion and 9 per cent.; in 1986–87, £22·2 billion and 15·1 per cent.; and in 1990–91, £32·5 billion and 15·8 per cent.
    Mr. Wareing: I thank the Minister for that answer and the confirmation that during the Government's tenure the burden has been placed firmly on the shoulders of those who are least able to bear it. Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that if, unfortunately, the Conservatives are returned to power in a general election, value added tax will not be extended to any of the goods or services upon which it is not already levied? May I have a simple answer, yes or no, and no shenanigans?
    Mr. Maples: It simply is not true that the burden of taxation has been increased on the poorer members of society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] That was the subject of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Living standards at all income levels improved over that period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The hon. Gentleman asked about three questions and I shall choose which one to answer. I think that most people are interested in the fact that living standards under this Government have risen dramatically.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that we have no intention of increasing VAT. We have made our plans on spending and tax perfectly clear. We do not need to raise VAT and in the European Community we have fought harder than anyone could have done to maintain our zero rate. We do not need any clarification about that. We need clarification from the Opposition about what their tax burden will be.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Has my hon. Friend heard the call from the many people who run village halls about the burden that VAT imposes on their activities?
    Mr. Maples: I hear my hon. Friend's Budget representation and will take it into account.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: How can the Government give an assurance that there will be no change in VAT rates when, under the Single European Act, the Government have already committed themselves to a policy of convergence of VAT rates throughout the European Community?
    Mr. Maples: Any change in fiscal measures has to be agreed by unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that. according to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, VAT is progressive in its impact, given that the more people spend. the more tax they pay? May we therefore put the Government's tax policy into context: although we do not wish to raise VAT above its present level, what we have done reflects further taxation on those who can afford to spend more?
    Mr. Maples: Of course, my hon. Friend is quite right. The more one spends, the more one pays in VAT. It must amaze my hon. Friend, as it amazes me, that we have to explain that to the Opposition.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister agree that his initial answer, taken with the huge increases that his Administration have brought about in national insurance contributions, the poll tax and the burden of rates that business men and business women have to pay. makes it clear that his party is the tax, tax and tax again party? Will he confirm that the proportion of national income taken in tax rose from 34·75 per cent. in 1978–79 to 37 per cent. in 1991–92? Has the Minister any plans to lower the total burden of taxation on the people of this country, which reached its highest levels in the 1980s after the very much lower levels that we experienced under Labour in the 1970s?
    Mr. Maples: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss this part of his party's history. The tax burden under this Government rose during our first two and a hall years because we inherited at the top of the business cycle a borrowing requirement of 5·5 per cent. of gross domestic product. For every year since 1981, the tax burden has fallen. It will continue to fall this year and next year and I think that it is well known to everybody that this Government's policy is to lower taxes, in contrast with the plans of the hon. Gentleman's party. We know that it plans to spend £35 billion. We should like to know how Labour plans to raise that.
    Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer to the question on the extension of VAT, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on total tax revenues of the changes in the higher rate of income tax since 1979.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on total tax revenues of changes in the higher rate of income tax.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): The top 5 per cent. of taxpayers pay 32 per cent. of the total yield of income tax, compared with 24 per cent. in 1978–79.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures strikingly demonstrate that lower, rather than higher, tax rates are at once a fairer and more effective way to maximise revenue to sustain improvement in important public services?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We inherited a situation in which there were penal rates of taxation, which we reduced. The effect was to increase revenue. The Opposition seem anxious to repeat the mistakes that they made before. They want to increase tax rates again. The whole country would like to know at what level of income they intend to increase the higher rate of tax. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) says that it will be at £36,000, but the right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will not tell us and says that he does not think that it is necessary to say so.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any proposal to raise the higher rate of income tax, as advocated by the Opposition, would he damaging for morale and prosperity, because such a move would not only destroy the will to work but drive some of our best brains out of the country? We Conservatives do not want that. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall always be the party of lower taxes and the Opposition that of' higher taxes?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In addition to her arguments, I believe that the low rate of top rate tax is also an incentive to bring inward investment into the country. It is very much appreciated and gives us a competitive advantage.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that ability to pay must be the underlying and fundamental principle of any fair taxation policy?
    Mr. Lamont: I do indeed, and we have a progressive system. What the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand is that one can have a progressive system with two rates.
    Mr. Rooney: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise that 2.700,000 people out there would welcome the opportunity to pay any income tax?
    Mr. Lamont: What the hon. Gentleman does not answer is this question: by putting up—
    Mr. Rooney: Answer the question.
    Mr. Lamont: The point that the hon. Gentleman will not face up to is this—
    Mr. Rooney: Answer the question.
    Mr. Lamont: The point implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question is: what is the point of putting up the top rate of tax if one raises less revenue? What good does that do the poor of this country?
    Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax was paid by an average family with two children in 1979 and 1991, at constant prices.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Income tax has been reduced from 14·5 per cent. of such a family's gross income in 1978–79 to 13 per cent. in 1991–92.
    Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is no longer funny.
    Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reductions in personal taxation have played a major role in the revival of enterprise and the increase in risk taking, productivity and output that we have achieved in the past decade? Does he agree that reductions in personal taxation are a highly efficacious means of stimulating simultaneously the demand and the supply sides of the economy?
    Mr. Lamont: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The benefits of income tax cuts have been widely appreciated. The last thing that the country needs at this moment are the sort of enormous tax increases being advocated covertly by the Oppositionb—the tax increases implied by their sky-scraping public spending plans.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Has not national taxation increased with higher levels of VAT and the introduction of poll tax? Is not it disgraceful that the Government are destroying living standards, yet they claim to believe in human values? Is not it also true that the Prime Minister claimed that he was concerned about third-world debt? As this country is also a third-world country, suffering a Tory Government, what is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Lamont: I have long thought that the hon. Gentleman imagined that we were living in Ethiopia, having listened to some of his speeches about the economy. Equally fanciful is his assertion that we are destroying living standards. How he can use that phrase when living standards for a married man on average earnings with two children have risen by about 35 per cent. after increases in VAT and increases in the cost of living, I do not know. The answer lies in the real increase in take-home pay.

    Taxes (Abolition)
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxes have been abolished since 1979; and if he will list them.
    Mr. Mellor: We have abolished six taxes—investment income surcharge, national insurance surcharge, development land tax, the tax on lifetime gifts, capital duty and composite rate tax. We plan to abolish a seventh—stamp duty on shares.
    Mr. Cran: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend conclusively convinced the House that only a Conservative Government have the courage to reduce taxation on the one hand and to get rid of taxes on the other, in contradistinction to nearly all other Governments before them, and especially the one between 1974 and 1979 who
    1100
    found endless ways of leaching money out of other people's pockets? How many new taxes would the Opposition introduce if they were in government?
    Mr. Mellor: We know that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) proposes a number of additions to existing taxation and a number of new taxes, including the reappearance of investment income surcharge. I return to the question that we shall level continually at the Labour party: what is the basis for thinking that there is any answer to the country's problems through increasing the burden of taxation?
    Mr. Ashton: How many welfare benefits have been cut and how many freezes have been imposed to pay for taxation cuts?
    Mr. Mellor: On the contrary, the level of benefits paid has never been higher. It has risen sharply in real terms, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well.
    Mr. Allason: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the abolition of composite rate tax. Is he aware that the 0800 free number is of enormous benefit, especially to pensioners who have had tax deducted from their gross income from their investments in banks and building societies? Has he any plans to extend the free 0800 number to other taxes which could be reclaimed by pensioners and others?
    Mr. Mellor: I have no announcement to make on that matter at this stage, but I shall bear in mind the representation that my hon. Friend has made.
    Mr. Skinner: If all those taxes have been abolished since 1979, why is it that the average family, starting out in 1979 with a debt of 45 per cent. of income after tax and insurance, reached the end of 1991 with a debt of 102 per cent? The abolition of those taxes has not done the average family any good, has it, or those at Lloyd's?
    Mr. Mellor: During the lifetime of this Government the average family the hon. Gentleman talks about has had increases in disposable income of unprecedented levels, in excess of £50 per week, while the hon. Gentleman well knows that from 1974 to 1979 their standard of living bumped along without showing any significant increase.

    Family Income
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average family income in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991 in real terms.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The real net income of a married couple on average male earnings with two children has increased from £194 in 1978–79 to £262 in 1991–92—a rise of 35 per cent.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that huge increase in real income clearly demonstrates the overall success of Conservative policies and would not have come about without the tax cuts that all families have experienced? Would it not be a disaster if families in my constituency in Leicestershire and throughout the country faced the huge tax increases proposed by Labour and the Liberals?
    Mr. Lamont: It remains the situation that if we had not altered the income tax regime that we inherited when we

    1101
    came to office, and if we had merely indexed the rates and allowances, the average family would be paying £1,200 more in income tax. That is what it would be paying under the previous regime of the last Labour Government.
    Mr. John Smith: What about value added tax?
    Mr. Lamont: I may inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a single man on average earnings in 1978–79 was paying 42½ per cent. of his income away in income tax, national insurance contributions, and VAT. Today the proportion is 40½ per cent.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Chancellor comment on the recently published "Social Trends", which shows that the income of the richest one fifth increased by more than 50 per cent. as an overall proportion, whereas the bottom 60 per cent. saw their proportion of income fall relative to that top one fifth? As most average families are in the bottom 60 per cent., does not that show that the Government have given money to the rich at the expense of ordinary families?
    Mr. Lamont: A person on half average male earnings—a married man with two children—has seen his after-tax, post-inflation income rise some 28 per cent. That is the increase in real take-home pay for someone on half average earnings. The hon. Gentleman does a valuable service by reminding us that Labour is committed to a policy of heavy redistributive taxation.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend informed us that the previous tax rates would have cost each family an extra £1,200. Perhaps I may turn briefly to the higher rates, which may he in the minds of some, and ask whether it would be possible to picket Park lane, to ask those attending this evening's £500 per head dinner whether they are paying more tax this year at the lower rate, or whether they paid more tax in 1979 at Labour's higher rates?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is utterly baffling why Labour wants to pursue a policy that is likely to raise less revenue and do less good for everybody.

    North Sea Oil
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cumulative total of all taxes from North sea oil has been since 1979 in 1991–92 prices.
    Mr. Maples: Around £109 billion.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that the Government have just announced that they have achieved a financial bonanza that no previous Government in history have enjoyed? Bearing in mind the millions of pounds that the Government raised from privatisations—the selling of the family silver—and all the money that has been raked into the Treasury, should not the Economic Secretary stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise for the economic mess in which the Government have landed this country?
    Mr. Maples: The revenues from North sea oil and privatisations helped this Government to restore public finances to the kind of good shape that those of few other countries are in. Ours is one of the few countries in the European Community that would meet those aspects of the stage 3 European monetary union standards. Under the last Government, debt rose to unprecedented levels,
    1102
    which was essentially postponed taxation on future generations. We reduced those debt levels. They have gone in reducing overseas debt inherited from the—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where has the money gone?
    Mr. Maples: I am telling you—listen.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister ought to rephrase that remark.
    Mr. Maples: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am telling the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) where the money has gone. It has gone in repaying the overseas debt that we inherited from the last Labour Government. It has gone on reducing the fantastic levels of public sector borrowing requirement that were reached under the last Government. It has gone on reducing income tax from the levels of 83 and 98 per cent. that were reached under the last Government. We think that that was a good investment.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Welcome though North sea oil taxation revenues are, does my hon. Friend agree that they are not a large proportion of the taxes paid in the United Kingdom? Also, can he confirm that a separatist, socialist, nationalist Scotland could not expect to enjoy all those oil revenues?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is right about the revenues from North sea oil taxation. This financial year, they are expected to be just over £1 billion—about one half of 1 per cent. of total tax revenues.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent monthly figure for output in the manufacturing industry; and what is the comparable figure for the same month 18 years ago.
    Mr. Mellor: The idex of manufacturing output was 111.2 in November 1991, the same level as 18 years earlier.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that this situation represents satisfactory progress over the last 18 years?
    Mr. Mellor: The real test of what has happened has been the overall growth in gross domestic product, which has been very substantial. In so far as one concentrates on manufacturing output, the fall was in the earlier part of this period. Between the first half of 1974 and the first half of 1979, there was a fall in manufacturing output of 2½ per cent.; whereas from the end of the first half of 1979 to the third quarter of 1991, there has been an increase of nearly 6 per cent.
    Ms. Armstrong: The complacency that the Chief Secretary has just demonstrated is way beyond anything that my constituents will understand. They have seen manufacturing industry absolutely devastated during the period of this Government. What do the Government intend to do not just to offer help to individuals but to give areas such as mine the opportunity to be again a fully participating part of this nation?
    Mr. Mellor: With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, perhaps she should read the Confederation of British Industry's recent publication, "Modern Manufacturing Strength". It is a fair assumption that the CBI knows at

    1103
    least as much about manufacturing as the hon. Lady does, and she will see a commendation of the Government's policy in the 1980s and a firm recommendation that it should continue.
    Mr. Devlin: Is not the constituency of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) in the middle of the area of the United Kingdom which gets the largest level of outside investment into this country and, indeed, into the European Community? Is not that new manufacturing capacity brought here by the Government's successes in promoting Britain and the north of England as a location for manufacturing?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has made an invaluable point. The fact that this country has recently received 50 per cent. of total inward investment by the United States and Japan in the European Community has made possible a diversified economic base, particularly in manufacturing in the north. This has enabled the north to weather this recession far better than any previous recessions and in a way that bears the best comparison with the south.
    Mr. John Smith: As the Chief Secretary has no doubt noticed, the Government's figures today indicate yet a further fall in investment in the manufacturing sector. Given the horrendous job losses that have been announced this month in the manufacturing sector, are these signs of the success of the Government's economic policy?
    Mr. Mellor: What those figures certainly reveal is that the real gains in investment in British business since 1979 have been sustained, so that even at the depth of this present recession investment is 40 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979. That was the position last year and it is a sign of the real improvements in investment that have followed the policies of this Government.

    Charter Mark
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how the charter mark will operate.
    Mr. Maude: Charter marks will be awarded each year to those organisations that have delivered service to the public to the highest standard at present available. They must be able to show measurable improvements in the quality of their services over the past two years, and customer satisfaction, and they must have in hand or plan to introduce at least one innovative enhancement to their services which entails no additional cost to the taxpayer or consumer.
    Mr. Mitchell: Since the charter mark is designed to improve public services, does my hon. Friend agree that the attack launched today on the citizens charter by the National and Local Government Officers Association in a lavish newspaper advertising campaign is typical of that union's contempt for the consumer and lack of interest in improving public services?
    Mr. Maude: What is depressing about that campaign is its spineless acceptance that nothing can be done to improve public services without throwing huge amounts of money at them. It would be interesting to hear whether the Labour party agrees with the view of that huge public
    1104
    sector trade union. Or does it accept that the only way to make things better is to lavish ever-greater sums of public money on the public services?

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have available (a) information on the United Kingdom gross domestic product per head in 1991 and (b) comparable information for the other member states of the European Community.
    Mr. Maples: October, when 1991 population figures for the United Kingdom and other EC countries will be available.
    Mr. Morgan: May I draw the Economic Secretary's attention to a study that I have just received from the House of Commons Library's statistical section? According, to the author's best estimates, the average gross domestic product per head in this country in 1991 was five percentage points behind that of Italy. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that that means that the average family in this country would be approximately £2,000 better off if it lived in Italy? Is this yet another case of "Excuse the mess, we have got the Conservatives in"?
    Mr. Maples: I told the hon. Gentleman that I could not give him the information for which he asked until October, when the 1991 population figures would become available. I can tell him, however, that over the 1980s GDP per head in this country rose at an average rate of nearly 2½per cent. a year—faster than in Germany, France or Italy.
    In 1974. Germany's GDP per head was 15 per cent. ahead of that of the United Kingdom; by 1979, after five years of Labour government, in was 19 per cent. ahead. In 1990, after I 1 years of Conservative government, the gap had been closed to 16 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman examines measures of GDP per head and compares this country with France, Germany or Italy, he will find that the gap widened under the last Labour Government and has closed under the present Government.

    Savings
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement of his policy on the level of savings.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The Government aim to secure an appropriate climate in which people can plan sensibly for the future, making their own decisions about what to save and what to spend.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Would not a policy of clobbering savers with an investment surcharge reduce savings and so reduce the pool of available investment capital for manufacturing industry? Do not such policies illustrate the fact that no amount of tacky red plastic roses, sharp suits or slick public relations can disguise how little Labour has really changed?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members talk all the time about the need for investment. Investment is financed out of saving and the last way in which the level of savings can possibly be increased is by the imposition of extra taxes on it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Campbell: What advice has the Prime Minister for one of my constituents, Mrs. Logan, who lives in Camlinton new town and is in great pain with an arthritic hip? She has to climb the stairs with the aid of her husband and has to lie in bed in agony most nights. She has been told by the local hospital that she cannot have an appointment until June 1993. Is that the Prime Minister's way of keeping waiting lists low?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the particular case that he has mentioned, I will certainly have it examined. What he should acknowledge, however, is that spending is up by more than 50 per cent. in real terms, 25 per cent. more patients are treated, there are far more doctors and nurses, and they are far better paid, and treatments that were rare in 1979 are now commonplace. I wish that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would stop running down the improvements that have been made in the national health service.
    Mr. Aitken: On a constitutional point, does my right hon. Friend agree that if an assembly were set up in Scotland with responsibility for health, trade and industry, and taxation north of the border—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] In such circumstances, would not it be impossible thereafter for Members of Parliament with Scottish constituencies to sit in Departments as Ministers, administering those Departments—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Get it out, please.
    Mr. Aitken: I know that this is painful. Would not it be impossible for Ministers to be in charge of Government Departments administering those matters for England and Wales? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be right to set up a retraining scheme for soon-to-beredundant members of the shadow Cabinet?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that that is enough.
    The Prime Minister: I should be happy to add that training scheme to the many other excellent training schemes we have at present. The point that my hon. Friend has made was graphically illustrated by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is reported as having said that if Labour were to introduce its devolution plans he could not act as Secretary of State for Health for England and Wales. Presumably the same principle would apply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). I look forward to their confirming that. If the Labour party were then to show some affection for devolution in Wales, perhaps the same principle would apply to an even more eminent right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition must have a chance to answer.
    Mr. Kinnock: Not until we have a Question Time for the Leader of the Opposition, but within a couple of months I shall be answering from the Government side of the House.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that in the 15 months since he got his job 840,000 people have lost their jobs? In this 22nd consecutive month of rising unemployment does he still cling to the pretence that the recovery has already started?
    The Prime Minister: I accept that the unemployment figures this month are disappointing—no one can deny that—but what we are seeking to do is to put people back into permanent jobs, and not temporary jobs. That can be done only by putting in place the right conditions to create long-term, permanent jobs, long-term growth and secure jobs. That is why we have been working to reduce inflation—with success; to bring down interest rates—with success; and to cut direct tax rates—with success. Of those people who have lost their jobs, more than 250,000 are this year in well worth while and excellent training schemes. That is the right way to help people, it is the right way to achieve long-term prosperity for this country and it is the way in which we have been developing our policies.
    Mr. Kinnock: For 2½6 million of our fellow citizens the unemployment figures are not disappointing—they are absolutely devastating. Why does the Prime Minister ignore the evidence of employers, who tell us that unless policies change 50,000 more jobs will go from construction, 40,000 from motor vehicles and textiles, with a further 70,000 manufacturing jobs going? Why does the Prime Minister ignore all that evidence? Why does he just sit there and do absolutely nothing to combat the recession that his policies have caused? After 22 months, does he not yet understand that sitting there crossing his fingers and closing his eyes will not bring recovery?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks of ignoring evidence. There is evidence, too, which he is ignoring. He has not acknowledged that more people are now moving out of unemployment than a year ago. Every month 300,000 people are leaving unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman quotes job losses, but he fails to mention Tesco's plans for 5,000 new jobs over the next year, Safeway's plans for 2,000 jobs, Nissan's plans for 600 new jobs in the north-east, and the fact that Toyota is providing another 3,000 jobs in Derbyshire. He also chooses to ignore the fact that this country has a higher proportion of its population in work than any other Community country except Denmark.
    Mr. Kinnock: Under the Prime Minister's leadership, in the last 12 months alone more than 800,000 jobs have gone and during that period the number of people in employment in Britain has gone down by 800,000. The number of vacancies has fallen. Even the Chancellor confesses that the Government caused the recession. And they have continued it, and have let it get out of control. The Government are guilty on all counts.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said no such thing, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about taking action, perhaps he will consider the action that he proposes to take in his

    1107
    policies: a minimum wage that will cost jobs, a payroll tax that will cost jobs, and a strikers charter that will create jobs—not here but in France, in Germany, in Belgium, in Italy, in the United States and elsewhere. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the costs of extending national insurance or raising taxation will help employment? None of that will help employment. The right hon. Gentleman's plans would spell disaster for this economy, disaster for companies and permanent unemployment for millions of people.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Prime Minister accept that one of the great achievements of the Olympic movement is to bring nations together in sporting endeavour and excellence and that similarly, despite the forthcoming general election, all political parties are brought together to support this country's bid to host the Olympic games in the year 2000? Will my right hon. Friend agree to support fully the Manchester Olympic bid which will benefit not only the north-west of England, where most of the events will be staged, but our capital city and the rest of the countryi—n fact, the whole nation?
    The Prime Minister: I met the Manchester Olympic bid committee some weeks ago when we discussed the proposed bid that Manchester wishes to make. I asked on that occasion for considerably more information. That is being provided and I look forward to meeting the bid committee again towards the end of this month.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister is right—the Government are not wholly to blame for this recession, but they are chiefly to blame. Does he realise that what the country now needs from him is hope, but all that it gets is complacency; that what the country needs from him is leadership, but all that it gets from him is excuses; that what the country now needs is a Government who will act, but what it has is a Government paralysed by the election who dodge the issues, duck the realities and do nothing?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reprising his party political broadcast of last evening. It is a good sound bite, but it is not any better for hearing it the second time. What the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, if he cares about real prosperity for this country. is making sure that we get the economic basics of inflation and the exchange rate correct so that we can get sustainable investment for the long term, not the short-term gimmicks that the right hon. Gentleman embraces.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Delors that the proposed increase in the United Kingdom contribution to the European budget is wholly unacceptable? Will he also tell him that the first priority must be to reform the common agricultural policy, to remove the losses from fraud which occur within that policy and, especially, to bring about a successful conclusion to the GATT negotiations?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on each of the points that he makes. There is no justification whatever for an increase in the budget on anything like the scale that the Commissioner proposed. There is already scope for significantly increased expenditure within the existing own resources ceiling.
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martlew: The Prime Minister will be aware that there is great anger and despair in the country at the announcement today that unemployment has moved up again. That is reflected in my constituency, where there are an extra 400 people unemployed in the Carlisle area, bringing the total to a staggering 4,000 unemployed. Bearing that in mind, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity today to condemn one of his Ministers who said yesterday that people who were losing their jobs were being "liberated"? Will he dissociate himself from that comment and will he take action today to see that the hon. Gentleman concerned is "liberated" from his ministerial duties? In other words, will he sack him?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by nearly 20 per cent. since the last general election. My hon. Friend has made clear his regret at the job losses at British Aerospace. The hon. Gentleman simply trivialises the issue with his remarks.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that of the known policies of the Labour party—[Interrption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were a minimum wage and also higher taxation both on individuals and on companies, that would kill inward investment and cause even more unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about that. It is also the case that most independent commentators Goldman Sachs, Credit Lyonnais, BZW, Phillips and Drew, Nomura, the CBI—agree that Labour would cause a rise in inflation, with all the impact that that would have on living standards, jobs and future prosperity.
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: In a radio programme, the Prime Minister told Sue Lawley, in response to a question on housing, that repossessions had stopped before Christmas. Will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he accepts that, in addition to the massive number of homes repossessed last year, a further 80,000 families are to lose their homes in the current year?
    The Prime Minister: What I confirmed in answer to the question to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was that we had put in place measures to deal with the problems arising from repossession. Lenders have confirmed that they do not seek possession where the borrower has suffered a severe reduction in income support but is still making a regular and routine payment, nor will they repossess— which is the point that I was making—where income support is paid direct to them. I reiterate that point today.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dykes: Further to the European Community budget proposals, which were proposed unanimously by all the Commissioners, including the two British Commissioners, will my right hon. Friend also agree that extra resources long term will be needed for redundant farmers—[Interruption.]—in east European countries, and for the cohesion fund, that there is no need for us to have the United Kingdom budget contribution under-
    1110
    mined in any way by these proposals and that they are less in percentage terms annually than the last 10 years' increase in the EC budget?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend points to the fact that there is scope for significantly increased expenditure, perhaps for eastern Europe and the cohesion fund, as he says, but without the existing own resources ceiling, which is still underspent. There is at this stage no justification for the proposed increase suggested earlier this week.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: May we have the business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 17 FEBRUARYU—Until about seven o'clock, motion to take note of memorandum relating to the European Economic area agreement between the EC and the states of the European Free Trade Association. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Timetable motion on the Local Government Bill [Lords].
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to agreements between the European Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Debate on Industrial Relations on a Government motion.
Motion on the Additional Grant Report (England).
WEDNESDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). There will be a debate described as "The Government's Responsibility for the Recession and Unemployment" on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Transport and Works Bill and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
Proceedings on the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 19 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: European Standing Committee A will consider document No. 8918/91, relating to Community strategy to limit carbon dioxide emissions and to impose energy efficiency. European Standing Committee B will consider documents Nos. 10089/90 and 9490/91, relating to free movement of medicinal and products in the European Community.
[Relevant documents:
Monday 17 February
Floor of the House
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) Unnumbered

European Economic Area

(b) Unnumbered

Association Agreements with Central and Eastern European States

(c) 10561/91

Trade with Central and Eastern European States

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 24-vii (1991–92)

(b) HC 24-iv (1991–92)

(c) HC 24-v (1991–92)

Wednesday 19 February European Standing Community A
Relevant European Community Documents

8918/91

Carbon dioxide Emissions and Energy Efficiency

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 24-v (1991–92), TIC 24-ix (1991–92) and HC-xi (1991–92)
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 10089/90

Medicinal Products

(b) 9490/91

Medicinal Products

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-xxvi (1990–91)

(b) HC 24-vii (1991–92)]

Mr. Grocott: I cannot believe—I do not think that the House can either—that there will be yet another guillotine motion next week. That shows that the Government's business is in a complete shambles. We need to get the facts on the record, so will the Leader of the House confirm that this will be the Government's 36th guillotine motion? I shall repeat that: this will be the Government's 36th guillotine motion. That is more than twice as many as any previous Government have introduced, despite the Government's parliamentary majority of more than 100. We know that they cannot run the country, but one would have thought that they could run their own business.
It is time that the Leader of the House told us what the guillotine motions are all about. We all know that they are the Government's shambolic attempts to clear the decks for a general election on 9 April—provided that the Prime Minister does not lose his nerve, as he has done three times previously. We want an election on 9 April, and we should be happy to talk to the Leader of the House about facilitating business, which, of course, needs proper scrutiny. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not tell us what everyone knows—that there will be a quick-fix Budget on 10 March and a general election on 9 April?
It is high time that we had an explanation of another aspect of next week's business. In the light of today's appalling unemployment figures, to which the Prime Minister was quite incapable of giving a sensible response, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have not initiated a single debate on unemployment in their own time during this Parliament? I do not want to hear any nonsense about debates on the Budget and on the Queen's Speech. I am talking about a specific debate on the crisis that is causing anguish in millions of families. The Government do not think that crisis important enough to initiate their own debate on it—we are always the ones who have to do that. The Prime Minister cannot give an answer, but it is time that the Government did. They should give us a date for a debate on unemployment, and it should be next week.
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Government have had many debates on economic policy, which have much to do with unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the debate next Tuesday on industrial

1113
relations is a debate on unemployment, and on the huge improvements that there have been on the employment scene—the number of days lost is at a record low—he does not understand employment issues. That is why the Opposition have advanced policies which would undoubtedly greatly exacerbate unemployment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the timetable motion. There is now clear evidence of deliberate Opposition delays affecting the Local Government Bill. On Tuesday night, and overnight into Wednesday morning, there were considerable delays. More than 32 hours have been spent considering the Bill, many more hours will be spent on it.
The Bill is important. Many local authorities throughout the country are anxious for the Local Government Commission to be established so that it can get on with its job. When going round the country, I have had such requests from many areas. We are engaged on the sensible management of Government business, and we are ensuring that priority Bills have every opportunity to be passed in this Session.
I note that hon. Members on both sides of the House now call for timetables on all Government Bills—[Interruption.] Not everyone in the House agrees, but there has been a wide range of requests for such action. We must await the conclusion of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), but 1 hope that in future we shall be able to timetable more Bills from the outset so that we do not have long delays considering their early provisions while the later parts are not properly considered.
Mr. Speaker: May I make the plea that I made last week and, I think, even the week before? The object of business questions is to ask about business next week. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to confine their questions to that and not to make electioneering points. There will be other opportunities for that.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the front pages of this morning's Daily Express or this afternoon's Evening Standard? Will he confirm that there is nothing in next week's business which is of such importance that it will prevent a statement being made to the House, either by Ministers or by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, about the circumstances in which papers appear to have been stolen from the Department of Health and passed to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and about the hon. Gentleman's involvement in those matters?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot make an announcement now about statements next week. I agree that it is a serious matter and deserves a clear announcement, whether it is in this House or elsewhere, about the Opposition's position. There is widespread concern about leaked or purloined documents. I believe that the official authorities have now detected the source of one leak. I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has been publishing the documents, will now recognise that he is responsible for causing difficulties for the individual who has leaked them. It is the wrong thing to do and is wholly misleading about the position in the national health service. It is a cloak for the Opposition's complete absence of policy on the health service.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House accept that the Prime Minister's response and his response today will be cold comfort to unemployed people? Cannot unemployed people justifiably expect that next week, in view of the figures, the Government will give time for a debate on unemployment?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that there will be a debate on industrial relations, in which all employment matters can be raised. I reiterate that, of course, we regret the increase in unemployment and we very much regret the situation that people face as a result of unemployment. The hon. Gentleman knows, as so many industries tell us, that the problem is that there is worldwide recession and that the same trends can be seen in many other parts of the country. It is crucial that we continue to pursue policies to ensure, as will happen, that as the recession clears Britain has one of the most competitive economies to take advantage of that.
Mr. John Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the teachers' pay settlement that was announced this week has serious implications for local authority finance, both nationally and in Shropshire? Is there a possibility of the matter being debated under any of the items of business which he has announced for next week?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I am glad to confirm to my right hon. Friend that, as he knows, the Government are making available a further £60 million to deal with the review body's award. The matter will be debated on the motion entitled "Additional Grant Report (England)" next week. The additional grant is required entirely for that purpose.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on road safety, especially as it affects children, both as pedestrians and in cars? Three days ago, 10-year-old Yvette Barr was killed on one of the awful roads in my constituency that hack through so many of the great estates in our constituencies. Surely the House should consider how children can be kept safe. More and more children and young people are being maimed or killed because they sit in the centre of the rear of cars, which have dangerous lap seat belts instead of crossed three-point seat belts. Surely we should not have to wait for the EC to act or to initiate debate on the matter. The House should consider that danger without delay.
Mr. MacGregor: I very much regret the death of the constituent to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, as one regrets any such road accidents. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have pursued many road safety measures, including some in built-up areas such as the one that he described. We are constantly pursuing road safety education and other matters under the national curriculum and in other ways.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that central lap belts are an improvement on travelling unrestrained. A three-point belt provides better safety, but it is technically difficult to fit them to the centre rear seats of many cars.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the debate on the timetable motion for the Local Government Bill gives us plenty of time to debate why the motion has become necessary and,

1115
in particular, to examine the Hansard report of the Committee? The Committee has been treated to enormously long speeches, including one that lasted an hour and a quarter by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). The speeches were completely empty and showed that the Labour party has no strategy on local government other than wasting hon. Members' time and throwing buckets of money at its problems. Labour Members will not tell us where that money will come from. Their conduct is a disgrace and people should understand that.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that there will he plenty of opportunity in the timetable motion debate to raise those matters. It is becoming clear from the evidence that has been given to the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that restrictions on the length of speeches are necessary and that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked for them. They are necessary not just in the period in which we now have them. Many points may be made effectively in a short time. The timetabling of Bills has become necessary to avoid the situation to which my hon. Friend refers and to ensure more effective consideration of Bills.
It is notable that the Local Government Bill, which we shall debate on Monday, contains several measures relating to a citizens charter to improve local services and to ensure better value for money. That is one of the reasons why we are anxious to get the Bill on the statute book.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Hugh McCartney.
Mr. Ian McCartney rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman's father is better.
Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I, for the next 20 minutes or so, advise you exactly about what went on in the Committee? The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is telling porky-pies, as is his wont on such matters. There have been no delaying tactics from the Opposition. Since the Bill entered Committee, there has been only one full day of debate because the Government, on numerous occasions, have curtailed debate. On one occasion, they ended a whole session without debate so that the rate support grant settlement could be debated on the Floor of the House. The Government kept us up until 5 am the other morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I do not object to that because one of the problems is that the Committee should he able to respond to the Bill. The Government are trying to curtail debate on major issues affecting local government services. They are afraid of proper debate on and scrutiny of the Bill so that we can see what is happening to local services as a result of privatisation.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. The Bill aims to ensure the efficient delivery of local services—it is one of many measures for that purpose. I understand that many Committee members now feel that deliberate and co-ordinated attempts have been made to halt progress. Hon. Members' speeches have contained much repetition and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for lcoal government had to move the closure motion twice to ensure that proper consideration could he given to later clauses.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Leader of the House taken note of the remarks made in the House yesterday about the conduct of business relating to the European Community? He and others seem to be trying to keep those matters of great importance from being debated properly in this assembly. Will he assure us that he will give time shortly so that the House can—at the proper time and before decisions are made in Europe—express its mind about the disgraceful suggestion of Mr. Delors that this country will have to pay for other countries that are, in parts, even better off than us? Parts of the Republic of Ireland, in particular, are now demanding £6 million a day, while Northern Ireland has been rejected for cohesion fund payments.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that yesterday's vote was in accordance with all the normal procedures of the House; the matter had been debated the week before, which is the normal way to proceed. As the House approved the resolution the week before that, we took an automatic and normal vote on the issue yesterday. There is nothing strange about that.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the Government's position on the Delors programme clear, both inside and outside the House. There is no doubt about where the Government stand on that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I raise a matter of some urgency for next week's business. If the general election is called for 9 April, the last date when people can register on the electoral roll will be next Thursday. The new registers will become publicly available from next Sunday. Existing electoral registers show that 1· million people are missing from them in England, Scotland and Wales.
On Monday, will the Government publish the figures for the registers, constituency by constituency, so that we are aware of the current position? May we have a statement, or a debate in the House, on the issue, as we are approaching the election with crooked electoral registers?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that his remarks about crooked registers are completely untrue and unfair. He has raised the matter before and he knows that electoral registration has been declining since before the introduction of the community charge. There is no specific evidence to suggest that its introduction has had an adverse effect on registration. Indeed, the Government have gone to great lengths to make it clear that there is no connection between the two. Perhaps Labour Members who encouraged people not to pay the community charge led the public to think that there is a connection, but there is not.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: As the Prime Minister confirmed this week that about 180,000 teachers have learnt that they will earn more than £20,280 per annum, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reconsider next week's business to include a full-day debate on taxation so that Conservative Members can show their support for teachers being paid more, as the review body report, which was published this week, recommends? We would also be able to show that the Labour party's proposal would cut teachers' take-home pay by abolishing the upper limit on national insurance contributions.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I hope that it is not necessary to have a full-day debate to make that point time and time again. It is instructive and interesting to note that, even before the review body on teachers' pay made its recommendations and the Government accepted them, many teachers suffered considerable overall tax increases as a result of the Labour party's proposals for national insurance contributions. Those teachers are suffering even more now. It is significant that 180,000 teachers will come into that category, but I cannot promise a debate on taxation. My hon. Friend knows that there will be an opportunity for that before long.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When will we have a debate on Lloyd's? How much longer can we tolerate the scandals that emanate from Lloyd's month after month, with the result that we now know that some of its insiders have been lining their pockets to the tune of about £800,000? In that posh betting shop, some people are placing bets on less risky ventures, while giving the more excessive risks to those outside. If it were a working-class organisation, it would have secret ballots up to its earholes, but because it is an elitist organisation, close to the heart of the City and to the Tory party, it is allowed to regulate itself. It is high time that the Augean stables were cleaned out and the matter was dealt with properly by the law.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue of Lloyd's has been debated by the House in the not too distant past. It is a self-regulatory body under statute approved by the House. Any allegations of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has in mind—I have seen his early-day motion—are the responsibility of the Lloyd's authorities in the first instance. Any evidence of those allegations should be given to the Lloyd's authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs has spoken to the chairman of Lloyd's, who agrees that the regulator must move as firmly and as swiftly as possible.
Sir John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourhridge): Will my right hon. Friend make time next week for a most important debate on a most important subject which is hardly ever debated here—immigration—given the recently published fact that in 1990 more than 250,000 people entered this country for settlement, the highest number since 1964? If this goes on, England will no longer be England.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate next week, although I recognise that this is a most important issue, not least because immigration issues in relation to economic migrants have been recently discussed in the House in debates on the Asylum Bill. I am keen to get on with the business of the House to ensure that if anything comes back to the House on this Bill we can deal with it while the House is in session. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, by introducing that Bill, we are showing our concern about one particular aspect of immigration.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Before next week, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Employment and ask him to make a statement on what the Government are going to do about policies that have resulted in the 22nd successive monthly rise in unemployment? Will he also ask him to
1118
comment on the junior Minister who said that those being made redundant by British Aerospace were being liberated? Or, on reflection, is it all due to the fact that the Government have been conducting a national liberation campaign to make people unemployed, with all the misery that unemployment brings?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have already referred to the hon. Gentleman's point. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss employment and unemployment next week, and to discuss the policies that are most likely in the competitive world of the 1990s to ensure as many jobs as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed reports that Germany has 3 million unemployed people and that French unemployment is at record levels. I believe that the policies that we are pursuing will ensure that we are in a competitive state as the world recession clears.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Given the widespread interest in the demand by Mr. Delors for more spending in Europe, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate to give the Government an opportunity to point out that this is an inevitable consequence of the move towards a single currency, and that as long as weak economies deny themselves the right to vary their exchange rates they are bound to ask for compensation in increased payments from what they call a regional fund, a cohesion fund or a convergence fund? By any other name, there will still have to be a massive transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that there will undoubtedly he opportunities before too long to discuss matters such as the Delors budget and the cohesion fund, but I am afraid that they will not arise next week.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Energy on electricity prices? Is he aware that one of the largest companies in Bradford is warning that further redundancies will have to be made if it is forced to pay 30 per cent. more for its contract electricity? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State to intervene immediately to stop the privatised electricity industry imposing excessive and exorbitant electricity prices? Will he also arrange for the matter to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission so that this rip-off of manufacturing industry can be halted?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are already regulatory arrangements to deal with those issues and that, overall, there has been a reduction in real terms in electricity prices. He will also know that millions of consumers and small, medium-sized and other businesses have benefited greatly from that, and that there is some adjustment in the tariff structure for larger companies.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House explain, when he is so obviously unable to allow time for a debate on important and urgent European matters, why on earth we are to have a three-hour debate on Monday on the European economic area when the agreement has already been vetoed by the European Court?
Mr. MacGregor: Because on that issue I think that matters are moving on, and because I have been asked by the Scrutiny Committee and the House to have the debate on the Floor of the House rather than in the European Standing Committee.
Mr. David Trimble: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a written answer on Thursday by a Northern Ireland Office Minister? The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) asked about physiotherapy services and the Minister directed him to refer the question to the chairman of the health and social services board. That was an inadequate and inappropriate response because the board is not an independent body—it is not even a quango—but is entirely a creature of the Minister. For the Minister to refuse to answer that question is wholly inadequate. Would it be possible to arrange a debate on the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the question because I have not seen it. I shall certainly look at it. suspect—and I repeat that I have not seen the question and hope that I am right—that it may be as a result of the changes that we have been making to deal with written questions in relation to next steps agencies. If that is not so, I shall certainly have a look at the matter.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the European Parliament has decided to ban tobacco advertising? Is he aware that 3,000 people are employed in the tobacco industry in Nottinghamshire, and that firms trading at the margins, such as corner shops and publishers of respectable magazines, will be at great risk if the ban is put into effect? May we have a debate on the matter, and one that is somewhat more than a 90-minute debate in the middle of the night at the instigation of European countries, many of which receive taxpayers' money to promote their tobacco interests and ban the advertising of tobacco products in their own countries? Should not we attend to that issue?
Mr. MacGregor: As I think my hon. Friend knows, there has been a debate on this in European Standing Committee B. The Government remain to be convinced that a total ban on tobacco advertising is necessary for the operation of the internal market. That is one of the key issues for the draft European Community directive.
The Government's policy on tobacco advertising is clear. My hon. Friend drew attention to some of the implications of an advertising ban. I agree that the proposed action by the Community is totally illogical at a time when hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is used to subsidise the tobacco industry in other parts of the Community. When I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I fought against that.
Mr. James Lamond: What about the Leader of the House initiating a system of secondary statements, perhaps next week, so that hon. Members can recall Ministers to the Dispatch Box to correct statements that they made earlier, such as when the Prime Minister told us that he had solved the problem of the repossession of houses? A month later, we find that nothing has been done or achieved. Houses are still being repossessed, and the poor people of this country believe that they have been completely misled. Should not the Prime Minister return to the Dispatch Box and explain why it was necessary to mislead people in the first place?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said today that we took action before Christmas, which has been debated in the House. For the hon. Gentleman to say that nothing has been done is totally misleading. The other place is passing the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill, which has been considered in this place. We have passed stamp duty legislation. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong to say that nothing has been done. He must also know that two building societies— think that it may now be three—have announced specific plans. Before Christmas, they agreed on the arrangements and they have now worked them through and are implementing them. The hon. Gentleman will also know that a number of other building societies are already following the spirit of that agreement.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on local government in London? Is he aware that those councils with the worst record in rent arrears, those with the worst school results and those with the largest stock of unlet council houses are all Labour?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right, and that is a point that he could make on the Local Government Bill, because some of the clauses will empower the Audit Commission to make comparisons of performance and to ensure that the points that my hon. Friend makes are fully drawn to the attention of the local public.
Mr. Tony Banks: Would it not be a useful enhancement of the position of Back Benchers if an early-day motion that had attracted 175 Back-Bench signatures from both sides of the House became a subject for debate in Government time on the Floor of the House? May I draw attention to early-day motion 503 on the Japanese slaughter of minke whales, which, by coincidence, has attracted 175 signatures from both sides of the House?
That this House condemns the fact that Japanese whalers are slaughtering minke whales for spurious research purposes in the Antarctic Ocean; is outraged that Japan is still undermining the world-wide, indefinite ban on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission in 1986; is appalled that Japan has slaughtered nearly 7,000 whales and over 100,000 dolphins and porpoises during the ban despite the repeated criticisms and recommendations of the International Whaling Commission and the entreaties of the international community; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make the strongest possible protest to the Japanese Government demanding their full and immediate compliance with the indefinite commercial whaling moratorium; further demands an end to the slaughter of dolphins and porpoises in Japanese coastal waters and asks Her Majesty's Government to press for the permanent extension of the ban at this year's International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow.]
It is important that the House should have an opportunity to express its near-unanimous revulsion at the continuing slaughter of minke whales by the Japanese in the Antarctic and the slaughter of dolphins and porpoises. Prior to the International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow later this year, the House should have an opportunity to discuss that and next week would be a good time to start.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Japanese Government are well aware of the concerns of the British Government, the House and the British people about Japanese whale and dolphin hunting practices. Through the International Whaling Commission, we have consistently opposed unjustified whaling for scientific purposes, and we shall continue to do so. There is no doubt about the stand that the British Government have consistently taken. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been strong in his approach to the matter.
Early-day motions are a means to enable the House to express its view. I have certainly noticed the large number of signatures to that early-day motion. I hope that that in itself will have its effect. The hon. Gentleman is being a little ingenious to suggest that early-day motions which attract a large number of signatures should then take up Government time. I can see how that practice could quickly be abused.
Sir Anthony Grant: Would it be sensible to have a debate, if not next week certainly before this Parliament ends, on the civil service? In recent years, there have been an increasing number of cases of dishonesty, culminating in the current scandal at the Department of Health. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this goes beyond mere party politics? No matter which party is in power, the proper government of this country depends on Ministers being able to rely on the honesty of their officials.
Mr. MacGregor: And certainly, too, being able to rely on the knowledge that there will not be deliberate leaks and things of that sort, which I think that my hon. Friend has in mind. I believe that it is widely condemned that documents are leaked and that clear use is then made of them when at the same time there are complaints about leaks from other sources. I agree with my hon. Friend but, as far as I understand it, the appropriate action has been taken by the appropriate authorities in that case.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week to make a statement arising out of the information given by top doctors yesterday to the Select Committee on Health? They are being forced into the position—arising out of implementating Government policy on waiting lists—of having to carry out minor operations and delay major operations, which could end up costing lives. Surely all hon. Members in the House want the truth. We would like the Secretary of State for Health to come here and clear up this matter.
Mr. MacGregor: We have been having a great number of debates about the health service, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been making the position clear. As far as Select Committee reports are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the practice is for the Select Committee first to make its report, and the Government then make their response.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: In the light of the horrific level of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland, a bomb being placed in Whitehall this week and IRA demonstrations on the streets of London, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the business that he has announced for Monday 24 February will allow a
1122
wide-ranging debate on the prevention of terrorism? If that is not the position, will he provide sufficient time for such a debate to take place?
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the business for Monday will allow for such matters to be raised.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Bearing in mind the fact that it was this Government who specifically excluded Lloyd's from the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986, is not the Leader of the House duty bound to provide time for a debate on naked greed, dishonesty and fraud at Lloyd's, and how best to protect the names from the machinations of corrupt insiders?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear where the allegations should go in the first place. If there are allegations of criminal activity, those are matters for the police authorities and the Serious Fraud Office.
Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend look again at his response to the question about the Select Committee on Health, of which I am a member? Those who gave evidence were not certain of what they were saying about pressure on waiting lists. They said that they thought that there was pressure; they were not certain about it.
Mr. MacGregor: That shows the difficulties of responding to a demand for a statement on a matter that a Select Committee is considering thoroughly in the round, and why it is important to wait until the Select Committee reports.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Fortunately, the Select Committee will print its evidence. At that stage the House can make up its mind whether what the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) says is true.
The Government intend yet again to tax the sick by raising prescription charges from £3·40 to £3·75. Is it not time that we had a debate on how we exempt from charges those who are just above income support level and those on invalidity benefit, who have to pay out an enormous amount from small incomes for prescriptions that they need every week? The same applies to the chronically sick and the mentally ill, who often cannot afford prescription charges. Instead of taxing the sick, is it not time that we debated what is happening to those who we should be helping?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that many people—doctors and others—working within the health service believe that the reforms are already having a beneficial effect.
I am glad that the hon. Lady has talked about prescription charges. Her remarks enable me to say that only one in six prescription items now has a prescription charge attached to it, whereas in 1979 it was one in three.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that on Wednesday, at the end of the debate on the recession, the Government's majority will apply and that the decision will endorse the comments that he made in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I hope that he will check his response, because I am quite sure that it was not entirely accurate.

1123
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most important industries face crippling and insupportable increases in electricity prices, which have been imposed by people who have no interest in the national position, who have voted themselves obscenely large salary increases and who now threaten the very existence of industries which need to continue to export in the national interest? Can we not have a debate that is not disfigured by a Division, during which those who represent constituencies in which there are these important industries can reflect the urgent need to consider this issue, bearing in mind that these insupportable price increases are due to take effect on 1 April?
Mr. MacGregor: I repeat that, if we consider electricity prices overall, since privatisation there has been a reduction in real terms, from which many have benefited. There has been restructuring for some larger companies, and that is a matter for the regulatory authorities. The hon. Gentleman must find other ways of raising the matter than in a debate in Government time next week.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As rumour has it—presumably through the usual channels—that today's main business has deliberately been made bipartisan so that Labour Members can go to a £500-a-head dinner tonight, it would be extremely helpful for Conservative Members to learn from my right hon. Friend when another of these dinners is taking place so that we can make arrangements to be in our constituencies working hard.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I must in all fairness explain that today's Second Reading debate was not arranged for that reason. I think there is general agreement on the Bill—at least with the main Opposition party. Perhaps that is why few Labour Members will be present. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to make his point about the fund-raising activities to which he referred.
Mr. Keith Mans: During next week's debate on employment and industrial relations, could particular emphasis be placed on the nuclear industry, the 120,000 jobs in the north-west that depend on it, and the effect on those jobs of any policy to phase out nuclear power—such as that suggested by Labour?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The impact of Labour policies on employment in several other areas could also be highlighted.
Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Leader of the House acknowledge the concern expressed in 10 early-day motions on the Shops Act 1950, and the necessity to change that legislation? If that cannot be achieved in the short time left to the present Government, at least a start should be made. The Leader of the House will have such opportunity to help ensure that next Friday, when my Bill, which is second on the list, could be debated.
If the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to allow my Bill to go into Committee, a start could be made on changing a law that is the cause of much concern and distress. The present situation allows big business people to tear up contracts, compel workers to volunteer to work on Sunday on ordinary time, reduce double time and enhanced payments to staff employed for 20 years, and illegally open their shops. It is about time that the
1124
Government helped—if only by assisting a Back Bencher to promote a Bill that the Government should have introduced since 1986.
Mr. MacGregor: We have debated that issue many times previously, and I do not want to discuss it now—except to say that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that right hon. and hon. Members hold many different views on Sunday trading. A private Member's Bill is not a matter for me, and I could not influence its progress. Any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to object to the Bill, for whatever reason—if it has not been fully debated—can do so. It is not within my power to stop that.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: May we have an early debate on the employment of people in the House? The scandal of leaked documents in the health service has already been mentioned, but it seems that the person accused of that action was recommended for secondment to the Department of Health by a man named Mr. Gordon Best, who I understand is the political assistant to a member of Labour's Front Bench. That is a serious matter in relation to the use of stolen material in the House, so may we have an early debate on that important issue?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend may want to pursue that matter in other ways. I cannot give Government time to debating it next week.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the House have an early opportunity to debate the subject of motion No. 33 in the notices of motions in today's Order Paper? In a week in which we are again dealing with terrorism, I am convinced that the establishment of a Select Committee to scrutinise the affairs of the Northern Ireland Office and the activities of Government-appointed bodies in Northern Ireland would be an answer to terrorism, and would deal with the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) drew attention.
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that I have given a fair amount of time on the Floor of the House to Northern Ireland matters in recent weeks, and I continue to do so. The draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order will be before the House a week on Monday. We discussed before the suggestion for a Select Committee, and I explained why it would not be appropriate to act until there are further developments. There is the additional problem that only a few months remain of the life of this Parliament, and it is unlikely that we would be able to establish a Select Committee in that time.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Next Thursday we are to debate the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill. In the light of the shocking revelations that we have just heard about the research assistant to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the hon. Member for Livingston will be able to use the opportunity of the debate on that Bill to apologise to the House about the disgraceful situation whereby he has been receiving stolen papers? Is it not an absolute disgrace, and should not this matter be explained here in the House?
Mr. MacGregor: My own view is that the hon. Gentleman has been running all these documents because

1125
of the lack of credibility of the Opposition's health policy. We know very well that they would not spend any more money on the national health service. We know also—
Mr. Grocott: Let us check it with the voters.
Mr. MacGregor: No wonder the hon. Gentleman does not like this, because he is very embarrassed about it. We know very well that they would not spend any more money. We know that they have no proposals for proper reform of the health service. But, of course, it is a matter for the hon. Gentleman himself to decide what statements he wants to make.
Mr. Dave Nellist: It will not have gone unnoticed by the House or those outside it that the Leader of the House did not take the opportunity, when answering the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), to deny that the Government have plans to raise prescription charges to £3·75 an item within the next few days. Will he therefore arrange not just for a written answer, if that be the case, but for an oral statement to the House, because that is what Opposition Front-Bench Members normally would have demanded?
The Secretary of State for Health should not just give us platitudes about how many items are free from prescription. He should explain why already millions of people in the country should have to pay 1,700 per cent. more for prescription charges than they did in 1979. The Secretary of State ought to come to the Dispatch Box and announce the abolition of this disgraceful charge.
Mr. MacGregor: That is an extraordinary thing for the hon. Gentleman to say, because his party introduced the charges, the Opposition have not committed themselves to abolition of the charges, and in 1979 there were far more items subject to prescription charges than there are now. It is not a platitude to point out that only one in six prescription items is subject to a charge, because it is a very clear indication of what the Government have done to protect all those in various categories who do not have to pay prescription charges at all. It shows the caring approach that we have taken in that respect. The hon. Gentleman will find that the announcement about prescription charges is being made this afternoon exactly as it always has been, by way of a written answer. The position is perfectly clear and, in the normal way, the regulations will be laid shortly and are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there was grave disquiet on both sides of the House last week when the Government, late at night, in a debate lasting just an hour and a half, tried to slip past 450 million quid extra to the illegal budget of the European Community. That is not counting the additional money that was to go to the illegal budget under the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Will my right hon. Friend agree to an urgent debate next week, taking account of the outrageous demands of Jacques Delors recently published? Can we next week have a full debate on exactly how many countries in Europe are net contributors to the European budget and whether it is simply Britain and Germany that are net contributors, with all the others having their hands in our pockets?
Mr. MacGregor: I can tell my hon. Friend straight away that there are three net contributors; France should be added to the two that he has mentioned. I think that that is fairly well known. Last week, we followed the normal practice, on top of a lot of debates that we have had on European Community budgets. I recognise that this is a most important matter—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that very clear both this afternoon and in statements yesterday—but I think that it would be premature to debate the matter next week, not least because we have a lot of important business to do. There will be opportunities at the appropriate time, I have no doubt, to discuss these issues further.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Given that, in a few weeks' time, the right hon. and hon. Friends of the Leader of the House will be wall to wall in the north-west, and in the light of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) about a debate on the national economy, may I ask the Leader of the House to consider arranging an economic debate about the north-west in the next few weeks?
The Bolton-Bury travel-to-work area, of which my constituency is part, has lost nearly 1,400 jobs since Christmas. Bury has the highest number of mortgage repossessions, and the 10 local authorities of Greater Manchester have been treated very badly in the poll tax arrangements for this year—the standard spending assessments and so forth. I think that that would be a very good subject for a debate that could be held before those Conservative Members start getting in my way in the north-west during the general election campaign.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we look forward to debating the respective merits of the parties' policies as they affect the north-west whenever the time comes. When I have been in the north-west, as I have been a number of times recently, I have encountered considerable opposition to the Labour party's economic and tax and expenditure policies. We shall be checking that in due course.
Obviously, we shall be having debates on economic matters, but I cannot promise a debate on a specific region. The hon. Gentleman will have to find another way of securing a debate on the north-west.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 442, in my name?
[That this House recognises with sadness and anger that the latest transfers to flags of convenience by British shipowners, Andrew Weir and Blue Star, will take the number of United Kingdom-registered ships over 500 gross registered tons to under 300 for the first time since records were kept; regrets the loss of still more jobs for British officers and ratings; condemns the flagrant disregard for national interest inherent in the run-down of the Merchant Navy; recalls with respect the service given to this country, in times of peace and war, by a great industry which the Tories have now decided is dispensable; and looks forward to the election of a government which will act to defend and expand upon the pitifully small number of Red Ensigns which the Tory brand of patriotism has allowed to survive on the seaways of the world.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman also look at early-day motion 618? That motion is in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

1127
Both early-day motions draw attention to the fact that the United Kingdom-registered merchant fleet has now declined to fewer than 300 ships. Some of us find it very puzzling that a party that likes to cloak itself in the flag when that suits its purposes should display such consistent contempt for a flag that has served this country well—the red ensign.
Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the subject? Does he recognise that it is a disaster for a maritime, mercantile nation to be reduced to having a merchant fleet that contains virtually no oceangoing vessels, and is made up almost exclusively of coasters and ferries? Does he accept that one of the Government's prime legacies will be the virtual eradication of the British merchant navy?
Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the early-day motions. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in recent years the Government have introduced a range of measures, including some financial concessions, to address specific difficulties within the shipping industry. We certainly acknowledge the contribution by the British merchant fleet both to the economy and to our national defence. The Government are considering separately the special role that merchant shipping plays in defence.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have an early opportunity to debate the textile industry? As the Leader of the House knows, Bradford—like other cities—employs more than 12,000 people directly in the industry, which makes it a very important one. Nationally, more than 400,000 people are involved in clothing and textiles.
If a debate took place, we could make it clear that the textile industry must not be sacrificed on the altar of agriculture during the GATT talks, and that provision must be made to ensure that the industry is retained if the talks break down, as they are currently doing. We could also invoke a discussion about the outrageous and misplaced claims from the Common Market for an increased budget. If such a budget were granted—as the Prime Minister seemed to suggest this afternoon—it would mean money being siphoned off from the United Kingdom, and, potentially, a risk to United Kingdom textile industry jobs.
Mr. MacGregor: What my right hon. Friend was making clear was that there was already scope within the guidelines—the Community ceilings—for increased expenditure. He was addressing the point that the further increases proposed by Mr. Delors were unnecessary. Obviously, we shall debate that issue; I have made that clear several times this afternoon. As the Delors plan has only just been published, however, I am sure that we shall all want to study it further before debating it.
As for the textile industry, I very much hope—as l have often said, and I think every hon. Member feels the same—that we shall reach a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round talks on the GATT. It is vital that we do so. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that temporary arrangements have been made for the continuation of the multi-fibre arrangement in regard to textiles for the current year to cover the fact that agreement has not yet been reached.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dramatic increase in unemployment in Northern Ireland, which now stands at 105,000? Does he know that 14·5 per cent. of the work force are jobless, that almost one in five men are unemployed, and that more job losses in my constituency are to be announced soon? Will the debate that has been arranged for next Wednesday be sufficiently wide to take account of the impact of and the responsibility for the job losses and the lack of inward investment that terrorism causes for us all? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the fact that those twin problems—terrorism and unemployment—require that he put his own firm hands to them? Any efforts by the Prime Minister to resolve them will have our full support.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot say exactly what next week's motion will be; that is, of course, a matter for the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman has made a very fair point about the impact that terrorism has on inward investment. It is very noticeable indeed that, because of the very attractive economic conditions that we have created, Great Britain is a major Community beneficiary from inward investment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows of the very high proportion of Japanese investment and of the fact that Great Britain is regarded as the best Community area for German investment. There is clear evidence that this is so. Whether the hon. Gentleman's very fair point about terrorism can be made in next week's debate I do not know, but it probably can.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I, for the third time, ask for a debate on Volvo of Sweden's asset-stripping operations in the United Kingdom? Is not it rather odd that Volvo will not tell the people of Workington the full truth about why it is closing the bus plant in Workington? Yesterday, I was able to establish that Volvo has received from London Transport an order worth £5 million. It has not made a public statement about the receipt of that order, as it knows that such a statement would unsettle the people of Workington, who are faced with extensive redundancy as a result of the closure of Europe's most modern bus plant.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the particular issue relating to Volvo, as that is a matter for the company itself. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, I cannot find specific Government time for a debate on this issue. It is for him to use the normal means of raising the matter.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Leader of the House consider for next week a statement on the terrible accident at Monkwearmouth pit? Will he join me in congratulating the rescue services, the ambulance service, the hospitals and the doctors on the marvellous job they did?
Mr. MacGregor: I certainly express condolences to all those who have been affected, and I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. All that I have seen suggests that those services did an absolutely splendid job, as they always do in such situations. I am sure that the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ron Brown: As the Leader of the House knows, tax evasion is a growth industry for the rich in this country, and provides jobs for a whole host of

1129
accountants and lawyers, yet people who cannot pay the poll tax are repeatedly hounded in Scotland and gaoled in England and Wales. This is an absolute disgrace. Of course, the Government will maintain that people must pay their taxes. If that is the case, will the Government have a word with the monarch and the deadbeats of the royal family and ask them to pay their fair share?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows well that we do not refer in those terms to members of the royal family. I ask him to withdraw the word "deadbeats".
Mr. Brown: Hangers-on, the unemployed, unemployable people—
Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "deadbeats"?
Mr. Brown: Under protest, I withdraw "deadbeats". I would like to find an equivalent Scots word.
Mr. David Sumberg: May I support the plea by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) for a debate on industry in the north-west? Such a debate would give me an opportunity to point out that in the recent CBI survey business leaders and business managers in the north-west expressed confidence about the coming few months, and we would have a chance to prove the truth of the old adage that what Manchester thinks today the rest of the country thinks tomorrow.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out what business leaders have been saying, and I am sure that he will make the point admirably in the coming weeks and months.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my right hon. Friend urgently organise a debate next week on national health service trust hospitals? Would it be possible during that debate for all hon. Members to agree that the trusts have been extremely successful? Some members of the Labour party in my constituency are fearful for their jobs in these trust hospitals and know what a good job the trusts are doing—they want that fear removed in view of the remote possibility of us having a Labour Government.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is entirely right about national health service trust hospitals. The best way to remove that fear is to ensure that we do not have a Labour Government.

Amphibious Forces
4.35 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's future plans for amphibious forces.
The White Paper, "Britain's Defence for the 90s", set out the changes in the size and shape of our armed forces as a consequence of the radical change in the world situation. It recognised the increasing importance, with lower force levels, of greater flexibility and mobility. It made it clear that the Royal Marines will retain their role as the principal infantry element in the amphibious forces and that we would be addressing the need for new specialist shipping and equipment that they require for their tasks.
These have three principal elements. First, there are the landing ships logistic which, by beach landing forces, vehicles and stores, played a significant part in the conflicts in the South Atlantic and the Gulf. We shall maintain five of these vessels. The House will recall that one of them, Sir Galahad, is a new ship constructed following the tragic loss of its predecessor in the Falklands, and that another, Sir Tristram, has been substantially rebuilt. We now intend to process a fundamental overhaul and re-equipment of the remaining three which will enable us to operate them well into the next century.
The second category are the Royal Marines principal transport and landing ships, Fearless and Intrepid. I can now tell the House that we have awarded contracts for project definition for replacements for these ships. These contracts have gone to YARD—the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department—in Glasgow, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. in Barrow, and Dowty-Sema Limited in Esher. Two further study contracts are due to be placed shortly for critical aspects of their communications.
I turn now to the third element, the commando and helicopter-carrier ship. I can confirm that we are now proceeding to invite tenders for the design and build of a new helicopter carrier. This ship, which we have previously referred to as an aviation support ship, will be suitable for a variety of tasks in and out of area. Its primary role is to achieve the fastest delivery ashore of its entire embarked amphibious landing force.
These proposals in total amount to about £500 million and provide significant opportunities for our shipbuilding industry and the many other companies which contribute the equipments that will be incorporated in these ships.
My statement today forms part of our wider commitment to providing the Royal Navy with modern and capable equipment. The House will agree that this programme ensures that the Royal Navy in the 1990s and beyond will exemplify our intention to provide armed forces that are flexible, mobile and smaller but better equipped.
Mr. Roland Boyes: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into a matter which is not too important? The Annunciator has carried a message all day saying that the subject of the statement was helicopter carriers, but the statement dealt with amphibious forces. I

1131
make no criticism whatever of the Minister as I am sure that he was unaware of the difference—as I was—but I wonder if it could be looked into.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I may be able to help. I was originally told that the statement was about amphibious forces, but that it was then changed to helicopter carriers. I think that is the misunderstanding, but I am assured that it is the same statement.
Mr. Boyes: Nevertheless, it puts us at some disadvantage.
Will the Minister accept that I welcome today's statement, as will many shipyard workers? It represents a step forward in the planned procurement of new amphibious forces. Labour's view is that we should maintain an amphibious capacity, including Royal Marine commandos and their specialist equipment.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the concern of the Norwegian Government on this matter. Can he describe the changes made in his plans as a result of the changing nature of the threat?
Can the Minister confirm that invitations for tenders for a new aviation support ship were issued on 24 October 1988? On 1 May 1990 the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Defence that there were some difficulties which needed to be resolved in relation to the aviation support ship. Will the Minister tell the House what those difficulties were and how they have been resolved?
Will the Minister also confirm that the Ministry of Defence is planning for the tenders to be returned in the autumn of this year and that final orders will be placed in the autumn of next year?
We welcome the overhaul of the landing ships logistic. Can the Minister state when the overhaul programme will start? We also welcome the awarding of contracts for project definition replacements for Fearless and Intrepid. We note the previous commitment by the Minister on 15 October to award these contracts last November. Can he say when he will now place the order?
Will the Minister accept Labour's total commitment to an amphibious capability? I am sure that the whole House will agree that it is a vital requirement for the proper level of defence, both for this country and to make our proper contribution to the defence of NATO.
Mr. Clark: I certainly welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement and his reiteration of his party's commitment to this important element in our overall service capability. I would not wish to appear ungracious, but I am curious as to how these various commitments on the part of the Labour party, which accumulate every time we debate this subject, can be reconciled with the decision of his party conference and the wish of the majority of members of the Labour party to cut defence expenditure by 27 per cent. I do not think, however, that this will ever be put to the test, so we shall remain in ignorance on this curious mathematical anomaly.
As for the reorientation of the operational duties of the amphibious forces, it is true that the urgency of the north Norway flank has diminished, but the Royal Marines have already shown their immense flexibility in all sorts of roles out of area, such as aid to the civil power, assistance with hurricane damage in Pakistan, assistance with Operation Haven in Turkey, and so on.
1132
As to the order dates, I hope that we shall be in a position to order this in the autumn of next year, but that depends on a thorough scrutiny and evaluation of the tender process.
Mr. Michael Mates: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement which is an earnest of the statements that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been making for the past two years, that although our services are to become smaller they will be better equipped, and this will allow us to go forward over the next decade with superbly equipped troops, although fewer in number. Can my right hon. Friend say how many helicopters it is suggested should be on this ship, and whether it will be able to provide perhaps a company lift of marines, which would make realistic the getting ashore of a complete commando in a difficult scenario?
Will my right hon. Friend not be quite so shy about speculating as to how on earth the Labour party's welcome for a further £500 million expenditure sits with its determination to take £6 billion off? I know that it is an unlikely occurrence, but my right hon. Friend could put a little more thought into where the cuts would come—in other men, aeroplanes, tanks, or what?
Mr. Clark: I did not want to look a handsome gift horse in the mouth quite so flagrantly in my response to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), but I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said.
As to the helicopter strength on the carrier, we expect that it will initially be equipped with 12 Sea Kings which will be able to land the first wave simultaneously. That will be a great enhancement of our amphibious capability. As my hon. Friend knows, until this point we would have had to bring a CVS, a proper aircraft carrier, close in-shore, with all the attendant risks. This means that there will now be a dedicated ship to fulfil this function.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I join in the general welcome of the announcement of the helicopter carrier and the enhanced flexibility and mobility that it will bring? Can the Minister say a little more about when it is planned that the helicopter carrier will come into service? In relation to the helicopters to be carried, the Minister will be aware that the Ministry of Defence contracts bulletin of 8 January refers not only to Sea Kings but to the EH101 as an alternative. Can he give the House a little more information about that alternative and when the matter is likely to be resolved?
Mr. Clark: I hope very much that this ship will be operational in the second half of the decade. I would not wish to be more precise than that at the present time because there is a great deal of detailed work still to go into it. As to the transition from Sea King to EH101, that again depends on the development of the 101 aircraft because the anti-submarine 101 is our first priority and it is for that type that initial orders have been placed.
Dame Janet Fookes: As a vociferous critic of the delays in replacing our amphibious craft, may I now warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the news this afternoon, as it will indicate the very firm role that the Royal Marines will continue to play in our defences? May I also express the hope that this will

1133
be good news for Devonport dockyard which, in the fullness of time, will, I hope, be called upon to refit this craft?
Mr. Clark: I would not want to anticipate the refit programme for a vessel that has not yet been launched, but I echo everything that my hon. Friend has said about the Royal Marines. She and I share representation of the city where the Royal Marine Commando is based, and I feel sure that it will be widely welcomed there.
Mr. Ted Garrett: Will the Minister accept it from me that not everyone in the Labour party is opposed to spending important and valuable money on the defence of the nation? Some of us have been strongly consistent in this.
Will the Minister give some guidance to the House as to the thinking that brought this about? An exercise some years ago, when most of the territorial forces were moved from the United Kingdom to northern Germany, resulted in problems relating to moving men and equipment into the forward planning battle areas. The ships that had been hired were totally inadequate for the job. Has the lesson now been learnt that it is important to build these ships and also to have them manned by the Royal Navy so that we have the professionalism that is necessary should they ever be used?
Can the Minister give an assurance that Swan Hunter in Wallsend will be invited to tender—something that will be very welcome in the north-east—bearing in mind the valiant work that they did in rebuilding the Sir Tristram and the Sir Galahad?
Mr. Clark: Most certainly, I can confirm that Swan Hunter will be invited to tender, and I very much hope that they will do so.
I would like to say also how much I personally welcome what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said at the beginning of his remarks. I take his point about transport, but that is a different issue from the specialised kind of vessel that we are talking about today. I mentioned earlier that we will end up with five completely refurbished or new LSLs, and that is a completely adequate strength to give a lift for beach landing capability. For heavy transport of vehicles and men, it has been found more economic and practical to take ships up from trade. This is a specialised vessel dedicated to a beach landing or an air-delivered strike of infantry from helicopters.
Mr. Cecil Franks: Together with many other hon. Members, I warmly welcome what the Minister has said this afternoon—not least that Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. will be among those invited to tender for the aircraft support ship.
I wonder if I could possibly assist the Minister in response to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I noted that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) also welcomed the statement. I note that my right hon. Friend the Minister said that the overall cost will be £500 million. Conservative Members know, as do the general public, that the Government are committed to building the fourth Trident submarine. We know, too, that the Opposition are committed to cancelling it. The cost of the fourth Trident submarine will be £500 million. QED.
Mr. Speaker: That is a little wide of the statement.
Mr. Clark: The Opposition bring this kind of inquisition upon themselves. If we were to subtract every system, ship, store establishment and army system that they have already endorsed, and to which they have committed themselves, we find that, by implication, they are effectively scrapping everything else.
Mr. David Trimble: Presumably the replacements for Fearless and Intrepid will be ships of a similar capacity and type, and will serve with the aviation support vessel, making a total of three. Is it necessary to have all those? Surely the need could be met by one or two ships along the lines of the US Tarawa class.
With regard to the aviation support ship, the Minister will know that Harland and Wolff in Belfast recently successfully completed work on an aviation training ship. I hope that, consequently, Harland and Wolff will be among those invited to tender.
Mr. Clark: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but whether Harland and Wolff tender is a matter for the company. I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the ships are not needed. I certainly would not want to downgrade to the standards of the second-line ships in the United States navy. The ships' predecessors, Intrepid and Fearless, served successfully for a long time, and played a key part in the last major military operation that the United Kingdom fought on its own.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher): Does the Minister agree that the next generation of ships will very much depend on the high technology on board? I am grateful to him for announcing that a company in my constituency, Dowty-Sema Limited, is at the forefront in the project. Dowty-Sema is probably the world leader in project definition. Its role in replacing and increasing the technological competence of our ships, especially assault ships, is welcome in Esher, and I am sure that it will be good news for the Royal Navy.
Mr. Clark: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. When I consider the list of subcontractors available to supply and tender for systems in the project, I am impressed by the sheer richness and diversity that British manufacturing industry can still offer.
Mr. Neville Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this announcement is splendid news, both for the Royal Navy and for the country? Does it not prove that, unlike the Labour party, the Government are determined to maintain this country's defence capability in a world that continues to be uncertain and dangerous? The prospect of a £500 million order is most welcome in the shipyards of this country, especially Swan Hunter, with its splendid record of building carriers and amphibious ships. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great prospect of work for that yard?
Mr. Clark: As I said to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), I look forward to a Swan Hunter tender. I am grateful for what has been said. We made the commitments in the original "Options" statement, and, although we cannot do everything at once, things are maturing precisely as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House that they would.

1135
In round terms, the amphibious ships will be able to offer approximately 2,500 jobs each over three years, and I expect the helicopter carrier to offer approximately 1,500 jobs over the same period.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Like my hon. Friends, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I should be grateful to know, in due course, whether my right hon. Friend thinks that the number of jobs that he has suggested may be somewhat conservative. I am sure that the defence industry, and all the contractors, will warmly welcome the work available from the contracts, as do many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Clark: That is a fundamental point. The figures that I mentioned involve only the workload and the jobs expectancy in the yards. Of course, there will be an immense initial spin-off in jobs in all the subcontracts which will provide systems such as gearboxes, communications, navigation aids, cabling, auxiliary propulsion and so on, on their own premises. I should think that, at the most conservative estimate, one could double the original jobs total.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Your task, Mr. Speaker, is being made easier by the fact that only one Back-Bench Labour Member has sought to ask a question on this crucial subject.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement is good news for south Hampshire, for two reasons? First, local companies, including Vosper Thornycroft and GEC-Marconi, will be eligible to bid for part of the work. Secondly, the Government are keeping faith with the Royal Navy in providing it with the best equipment. That will ensure that, under the Conservative Government, the Royal Navy will continue to offer a first-class rewarding and stimulating career.
Mr. Clark: That is absolutely right. The Royal Navy will have much important work to do in the next 20 years, and I welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of our determination to provide it with the best equipment for that task.
Yes, it is a pity that Labour Members, whose constituencies will undoubtedly be affected by the good news, have not seen fit to come to the House and welcome it. I fear that that betrays an insidious failing of the Labour party—I except the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) from this—in that it has a particular distaste for good news of any kind.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the Ministry of Defence and certain senior naval officers are keen on collocation. Has he given any thought to Dorset's bid to have a helicopter carrier ship based at Portland, next to the Portland helicopter repair facilities? It would be close to Bovington, for training, and Holton Heath, where the amphibious forces are now based. It would also be close to the wonderful shipyards at Portland, which would do all the regular maintenance on the equipment—and Dowty-Sema and other defence equipment manufacturers are right alongside. Surely my right hon. Friend can tell the House now that Portland will be the home base for this wonderful helicopter support ship.
Mr. Clark: I am full of admiration for the way in which my hon. Friend gets his claims in so early, and extols the virtues of his constituency in all its many aspects. However, I think that the House will forgive me if I feel that it would be premature to specify where a ship that has not yet been built is to be based.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend and some of my other hon. Friends have been speculating about how a future Labour Government might find the money to pay for a £500 million project. May I ask my right hon. Friend to speculate on an even more remote possibility—the election of a Liberal Democrat Government? How would such a Government pay for the project, in view of the Liberal Democrats' commitment to reduce our defence expenditure by 50 per cent.?
Mr. Clark: That is true. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) did not digress on that subject. Using the rough rule-of-thumb calculation that I made earlier, when I subtracted the Labour party's total commitments to find out what was left, I should say that the Liberal Democrats have already overrun their overdraft ceiling.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware how welcome his statement will be in Scotland—first, because 45 Commando is based in Tayside and, secondly, because the Scottish shipbuilding industry has a major contribution to make.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that every vote cast for the socialist nationalists in Scotland will be a vote cast against the best interests of 45 Commando? No orders for ships would come to Scotland from the Ministry of Defence if the nationalists had their way.
Mr. Clark: I am afraid that that looks like the truth. In spite of the commitment made by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, I must in all candour tell him that if he ever had the chance, I do not think that he would be able to sustain it—the other members of his party would not allow him to do so. That fact is recognised by many people who work in the defence industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) should repeat in his constituency what he has just said.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express my satisfaction that in the statement my right hon. Friend has redeemed the Government's declaration of intent in their White Paper "Britain's Defence for the 90s" to provide forces that are more mobile, more flexible and better equipped, and thereby better equipped to meet all eventualities in a highly unpredictable world? Will the three landing ships logistics, that are to be refurbished be out to tender for all the yards, namely, the naval constructors as well as the naval dockyards? Does that accord with the Government's policy for refits of Her Majesty's ships generally?
Mr. Clark: I am very glad to have the opportunity to confirm that. Although it is still some distance away, I regard that phase as being especially important in providing the full capability, as we undertook to do and on which my hon. Friend has congratulated us.
Mr. Boyes: I am greatly surprised by the criticism of the Labour party we have heard this afternoon because the Government have left such a big gap in our amphibious

1137
forces for so long. I remind the Minister and the Secretary of State of what the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said on 31 March 1976. He told the House:
"it is impossible for an Opposition to draw up a detailed and fully-costed defence policy when in Opposition. Such a process can be carried out only after full consultation with the Services, with our Allies and with industry."—[Official Report, 31 March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 1353.]
We will do just that in the next few weeks when we form the new Government.
Mr. Clark: There is nothing personal in the criticisms that I addressed to the hon. Gentleman. Our criticism is based on two factors. First—this is not a slight matter—only one Member of Parliament from a constituency that will benefit from the announcement has bothered to turn up and welcome it—
Mr. Don Dixon: Two.
Mr. Clark: Two—I withdraw that comment. Not one, but two. Secondly, not one member of the shadow Cabinet has, to my knowledge, repudiated the repeated resolution and direction of the Labour party conference to cut defence spending by 27 per cent.

Amphibious Forces

  Department of Health (Leaks)
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. You will recall that in business questions last week, I asked the Leader of the House whether it was possible to have a debate on the number of leaks coming out of the Department of Health and going straight to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). You will be aware that a Mr. Pashley has been caught as the mole and that a Mr. Graham Best, who is an adviser to the hon. Member for Livingston, is clearly implicated with Mr. Pashley. Have you received a request from the hon. Member for Livingston, as the shadow health spokesman, to make a personal statement bearing in mind his at least indirect implication in the crime?
  Mr. Speaker: I heard that this matter was raised with the Leader of the House. I have received no such request from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund Act 1992

2. Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Act 1992

3. Severn Bridges Act 1992

2. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

5. Social Security Administration Act 1992

6. Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992

7. Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992

8. Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992

9. Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act 1992

10. British Railways Act 1992

BILL PRESENTED
  COLD WEATHER CREDITS
  Mr. John McFall, supported by Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. Nicol Stephen, Mr. William McKelvey, Ms. Alice Mahon, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. Malcolm Bruce and Mrs. Irene Adams, presented a Bill to provide for credits to be paid from the National Insurance Fund to low income households during winter months to compensate for additional fuel consumption as a result of climatic conditions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 February and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
Orders of the Day

  Army Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I invite the House to look at the Bill and to see that it concerns the Ulster Defence Regiment being brought more fully into the Army by being merged with the Royal Irish Rangers. This is a narrow debate which is not connected to general Army matters such as "Options for Change".
  5.4 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill concerns the future of a major element of the security forces in Northern Ireland. The House is all too well aware, especially perhaps from recent events, why we need to maintain and deploy forces on the present scale in that part of our country.
  Our forces are deployed there simply because we are totally and absolutely committed—I think that I speak for the whole House—to preserving the rule of law throughout the United Kingdom. There is no other reason. The rule of law in a democracy such as ours means that all citizens should be able to go about their lawful business peacefully and without fear of violence. It means that the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland about their future, democratically expressed, must prevail. No act of terrorist violence can be allowed to shake the commitment of Parliament to those principles. It is essential, therefore, that we continue to maintain and deploy sufficient forces to protect the vast majority of peaceful and law-abiding people in Northern Ireland against the continuing threat of terrorism, whether from republican or loyalist groups.
  The violence which the security forces seek to prevent cuts at the whole community of law-abiding citizens of both traditions in Northern Ireland. It may, as we have surely seen in recent weeks and all too often in recent years, leave another passer-by maimed, another wife widowed or another child orphaned. It may wreck another hotel, factory or shop, destroying jobs and discouraging the investment that is needed. All such violence leaves in its wake only tragedy and suffering. It will achieve nothing for any cause which the perpetrators may espouse.
  All the security forces in Northern Ireland have a vital role to play in countering terrorism. Acts of terrorist violence, whatever their alleged political motive, are crimes. They must be treated as such. It is for the police to take the lead in dealing with crime. Clearly, however, for all its dedication and skill, the Royal Ulster Constabulary needs major support from the armed forces in its efforts to ensure that the terrorists will not succeed. For over 20 years now successive British Governments have committed a major part of our armed forces to Northern Ireland to support the RUC. That support will of course continue for as long as it is needed.
  The role of the security forces is to prevent terrorist crimes from taking place, as far as possible, and when crimes have been committed, to seek out the perpetrators and deal with them in accordance with the law. That task makes heavy demands on all members of the security
  1140
  forces day in and day out. The highest standards of training and personal conduct are required—so, too, is courage in dealing with people who are ruthless. I pay tribute to the bravery which all members of the security forces so regularly display in Northern Ireland, often in ways that do not come to public notice at all.
  There are three main elements to the forces that support the RUC. There are six regular infantry battalions serving on long tours of 30 months, and four on short six-month tours. There are then the support and specialist units, including Royal Navy vessels and helicopter support from the Royal Air Force as well as from the Army. There are, of course, the 6,000 or so men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  The armed forces contribution amounts in total to about 17,000 service personnel actually deployed in Northern Ireland. The number of troops there is kept under constant review and we make adjustments to force levels as circumstances require. Since December 1990, we have deployed significant reinforcements on nine occasions, including the period running up to last Christmas, for example. Most recently, as the House will be aware, the second battalion of the Queen's Regiment has just been deployed to provide additional support to the existing forces.
  The Ulster Defence Regiment continues to be a vital element in the security arrangements which I have just been describing. The House will recall that we announced last summer, in the Command Paper "Britain's Army for the 90s", our intention to bring the UDR more fully into the Army by merging it with the Royal Irish Rangers.
  The Bill provides the necessary legal framework for that merger to take place. I should like to explain to the House something of our thinking about that merger. Several considerations led the Army to propose it, and the Government to endorse and support that proposal.
  The UDR is the main focus of our attention today, but let me say a word first about the other partner to the merger. The conclusion was reached in the Army's restructuring exercise that, in the best interests of the Army as a whole, the Royal Irish Rangers would give up one of their two battalions. I do not suppose that that conclusion was particularly welcome to them, any more than similar conclusions were welcome to other regiments.
  The considerations affecting the UDR were, of course, rather different. The international changes that have dictated reductions elsewhere in the Army do not apply to counter-terrorist efforts in Northern Ireland. So long as the terrorist threat persists at its present level, we shall continue to need the services of the men and women—more than 10 per cent. of the total—who currently serve in the UDR, both part-time and full-time.
  We expect to continue to need all those people to perform the varied tasks that they undertake at present: foot patrols, vehicle patrols, as well as some helicopter-borne operations; the operation of vehicle check points; searches; static guard duties; and quick reaction operations following terrorist attacks. The RUC and the rest of the Army could not sustain their current effort without the continuing involvement of the UDR in all those activities.
  UDR duties can often be routine and uneventful, but in many cases the UDR has saved lives by deterring or preventing terrorist attacks, finding and seizing terrorist weapons and arresting suspected terrorists.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Minister of State assure the House that in no sense is there a hidden agenda, particularly with regard to the future of the part-time element of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Will he also assure us that nothing will be done to reduce the strength or to limit the role of that part-time element?
  Mr. Hamilton: I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. There is no hidden agenda whatsoever for any of those moves. They are done for military reasons and to give us a more professional unit than we have had in the past. The number of UDR part-timers relative to the overall number in the UDR has been declining and it is likely that that decline will continue. It is not a sharp decline but the decline has been steady over the years. The ratio of permanent to part-time cadre will continue to change in favour of permanent cadre. We do not seek to get rid of UDR part-timers, as they are an important element of the security forces in Northern Ireland. They give us a reserve, because they can be called up for full-time activity, as happened following the recent terrorist outrages in central Belfast.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give a figure? He says that the number of part-timers is going down. To what degree is that happening? Does the right hon. Gentleman prophesy that their number will continue to decline? Does he agree with what his senior colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, said to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and me—that eventually there may be no part-time UDR?
  Mr. Hamilton: I acknowledge that there has been a decline in the number of part-timers in the UDR and we consider that the number will continue to decline. Nevertheless, if one extrapolates from the graph of the decline in the numbers of part-timers, one sees that it will take many years before we reach the point where there are no part-timers at all. We would be most concerned if we reached that point, because the part-time element of the UDR is an effective reserve that can be called up, as it was the other day, to provide a cushion and deal with surges in commitments.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister aware that when his comments are read back in Northern Ireland they will cause real concern? They could be interpreted as a sign that the part-time element is being phased out completely. It is clear that, under the Government's control, a steady reduction has taken place in the part-time element of the UDR and the Minister has told us that that will continue. There will be great concern that the Bill is, in effect, part of that sad and cruel betrayal of a regiment that has stood in the front line of the battle against terrorism.
  Mr. Hamilton: I hope that I can give every reassurance possible. I am simply saying that it would be unrealistic to say that the decline in the number of part-timers in the UDR would suddenly stop—I do not believe that it will. That slight but steady erosion will continue. We are committed to having a part-time UDR. We very much value it, and we have proved recently how extremely useful part-timers are in giving us a reserve capability when terrorist incidents such as those that we have seen recently occur. I sincerely hope that the part-time UDR will
  1142
  continue, but it is unrealistic to say that it will maintain its existing numbers, because there has been a decline in the past few years.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister, therefore, remove any possible suspicions that a plot is afoot by launching a campaign to encourage recruitment into the part-time element of the Ulster Defence Regiment?
  Mr. Hamilton: We constantly look for recruits for permanent and part-time cadres, and that will continue. I see no changes there. It would be unrealistic of me to pretend that we shall maintain the present number of part-timers, but we value them very much. They are an essential part of the UDR as it stands and the Bill caters for them.
  Rev. William McCrea: Perhaps the Minister will help the House by informing us exactly how much has been spent by the Ministry of Defence in advertising for part-time members of the UDR in the past two years.
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not have that figure at my fingertips, but I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman a response when, with the leave of the House, I wind up the debate later this evening.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Has an assessment been carried out to establish the reasons for the decline in the part-time element of the UDR?
  Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give an answer to that either, but I shall return to it in my winding-up speech, if that opportunity occurs.
  In carrying out those tasks, which are often dangerous, UDR soldiers use the same skills and equipment as the rest of the Army. It is common practice for units of the UDR and of other Army regiments to be deployed together on the same operations. The vast majority of UDR operations, as for the rest of the Army, are carried out to meet specific RUC requirements. All operations need RUC approval and Army patrols are accompanied by the RUC whenever possible.
  As we do not expect the nature of those military duties to change, it may well be asked, "Why change the UDR?" The regiment is, after all, well established now. It has served Northern Ireland for almost 22 years with distinction and courage. The bravery of the UDR has been second to none. We think of its casualties: 244 of its members or ex-members killed—"murdered" is the right word—many of them off-duty; and some hundreds seriously wounded. We think of the bravery and resilience of the families, and we think of the loyalty and affection that all officers, soldiers and their families feel for their regiment.
  With those thoughts in mind, it would be wrong to make changes to the UDR's structure unless we genuinely believe—as we do—that they are in the best interests of all the men and women who come forward to serve in the regiment, and in the best interests of Northern Ireland.
  The UDR has, of course, been changing and developing ever since its creation in 1970. As originally conceived, it was to have been an almost entirely part-time reserve, available for a limited range of emergency services. It is now much more professional and better trained than it was at the beginning.

  1143
  Furthermore, the UDR has now been on continuous active service for a longer period than any other Army unit since the Napoleonic era. Although the total numbers have varied, the permanent cadre of the UDR has continued to grow over the years. It is now slightly over 50 per cent. of the total strength. Many of the UDR's soldiers have served previously in the Regular Army.
  The UDR has, by virtue of its continuous deployment and the vital security role that it has played, certainly earned its place as an integral part of the British Army.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: The Minister has given a glowing testimony to the men and women who have served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for so many years in the most appalling circumstances. Therefore, does he not think that it is a betrayal of all their service and dedication to take their name away—a name which, he has said, occupies an honoured position in the annals of military history? Is he aware that, for years, the IRA and its sympathisers have been seeking the destruction and obliteration of the UDR?
  Mr. Hamilton: I have talked to a number of members of the UDR, both officers and those from other ranks, about the changes. I think that they welcome the opportunities that we are creating. I think that, unfortunately. UDR members have felt themselves to be the poor relations in the British Army in the past, but they now see themselves as being much more fully integrated into the Regular Army. That is a tribute to their professionalism and an acknowledgement of the fact that they are professional troops. I believe that they welcome the opportunity to serve in other areas—it is nice to have that opportunity. If someone originally joins the UDR on the basis that he was to live and serve in Northern Ireland, it is nice if he is then told that he can serve in a Regular Army unit and travel to places all over the world if he wants a break or a change in career. It is good that such opportunities, which were not previously open to members of the UDR, should be available now.
  Mr. Michael Mates: I hesitate to interrupt my right hon. Friend, as I know that he has much more to tell us. However, lest people listening to the debate should think that the five interventions that we have had are typical of what is felt on the issue, I should tell my right hon. Friend that not only has the colonel of the Royal Irish Rangers appeared before the Select Committee on Defence and warmly welcomed the changes, but so have—
  Rev. William McCrea: Listen to the Back-Bench brigadier!
  Mr. Mates: No, he is not a brigadier, he is a general—to give him his due, he is the assistant chief to the general staff and a very distinguished Northern Irish officer.
  Rev. William McCrea: It is you we are talking about.
  Mr. Mates: The part-time and full-time members of the UDR have welcomed the changes—
  Rev. William McCrea: Rubbish.
  Mr. Mates: Oh yes; they have done so, as they know that their career prospects will be increased, as do those in the Royal Irish Rangers in the Regular Army, who are looking forward to working with residents of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—that is the impression that I have received. Clearly, not 100 per cent. of the people want change, but the same is true of many different elements of the results of "Options for Change". We know that some people do not want to amalgamate with other units—that is true across the whole of the British Army—but a substantial number of UDR members, both officers and other ranks, welcome the change and realise that it is in the best interests of both the regiments involved and the British Army as a whole and can only enhance the professional way in which terrorism is tackled in Northern Ireland.
  However, the UDR is still to an extent separate, distinct and somewhat apart from the rest of the Army, which has often been to its disadvantage. Rightly or wrongly, some of its members have felt that they were perceived, and perhaps treated, as if they were in some sense "second class". Other developments have accentuated the UDR's difference with the rest of the Army. It has been labelled, to its great distress, as "sectarian"—despite the fact that its membership once included many Catholics, despite continuing efforts to recruit more Catholics and despite all the regiment's efforts to protect the entire community even-handedly.
  The overwhelming concern since 1970 has been to serve the community, the whole community, of both religious traditions.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the decline in the number of Roman Catholics in the UDR, from—I think—18 per cent. when the regiment was formed in 1969 to about 3 per cent. now, largely due to a campaign of murder, intimidation, pressure and harassment by the IRA and its sympathisers?
  Mr. Hamilton: It is—we can largely attribute the decline to that. The oppressive campaign has picked on the Catholics. The difficulty of so many Catholics in the UDR is that they live in Catholic communities, where they are much more vulnerable to other members who live in a community that might do more to protect them. That has made life difficult for them, and it is most regrettable that such a change has taken place. We shall continue to do everything that we can to reverse that trend and ensure that more members of the Catholic community join the UDR. I am not saying that that will be easy, but one of our aims should remain to recruit more Catholics into the UDR, and I hope that the proposed changes will help us to achieve that. I am not saying that, as a result of the proposed amalgamation, there will be a dramatic change in the percentage of Catholics—although there will be an increase in the regiment as a whole, as the Royal Irish Rangers now have a much higher percentage of Catholics in their ranks. However, not all of them come from Northern Ireland; a number of them are recruited on the mainland of Great Britain.
  The Ulster Defence Regiment members have no wish to be treated as some sort of political football. They want to get on with the job. They want to make the greatest possible contribution to the defeat of terrorism, whether from loyalist or republican groups. Against that background, we reached the conclusion that the UDR could only stand to benefit from closer integration with the Regular Army, by merging with the Royal Irish Rangers to form a new infantry regiment of the line.

  1145
  The Royal Irish Rangers are uniquely well placed to help to bring the UDR more fully into the Army. They have close links with Northern Ireland, and a recruiting base throughout the British isles. The merger will provide an opportunity to enhance still further the professionalism and effectiveness that the UDR has already achieved. There will be an opportunity for a mutual exchange of experience and personnel between the two elements of the new regiment. The integration of training, and a common regimental approach, will improve the career and promotion prospects of members of the present UDR.
  The proposal is to merge the two regiments on 1 July. The recommended name for the new regiment is the Royal Irish Regiment. That was the agreed recommendation of the two existing regiments. I know that some will regret the loss of the name "Ulster" from the title—the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) mentioned that—but the new regiment's title must reflect the composition, history and traditions of both partners to the merger.
  The new regiment will initially have two "general service" battalions, ex-Rangers, with a worldwide role. The reduction from two to one battalion will take place next year. There will initially be seven home service battalions, formed from the existing UDR. That is the current number of UDR battalions. It reflects the recent amalgamation of four smaller battalions to form two large ones—without, however, any reduction in the total strength. The new home service battalions will have the same internal security role within Northern Ireland as the UDR does at present.
  There will be a single regimental organisation and single headquarters. Training for the regiment as a whole will be centred on the new regiment's training depot. So far as possible, training for general service and home service soldiers will take place together. We have not yet made final decisions on the location of the headquarters or the training depot. Those important matters are being studied at the moment.
  We believe that the merger will have positive benefits for all the members of both regiments. The Royal Irish Rangers will bring to the new regiment the traditions of 300 years of distinguished service by famous Irish regiments, and close association with Northern Ireland. The Royal Irish Rangers have recently been a part of British Army of the Rhine, from which they have undertaken tours of duty in Northern Ireland. We would expect the new general service battalion similarly to serve in the Province from time to time in the future. For the Rangers, the merger will also mean that they retain their base in Northern Ireland, and new recruits will be able to undertake their initial training in the Province—which should be a popular move for many of them.
  The UDR will bring to the merged regiment the best features of its own unique tradition—the concept of military service to the local community. Part-time, voluntary service is a vital feature of the UDR which will be fully preserved in the new regiment. Closer association with the rest of the Army will mean in practice a cross-fertilisation between the general and home service elements of the Royal Irish Regiment. There will be opportunities for home service officers and soldiers to volunteer for general service training and tours of duty.
  1146
  Such opportunities will offer better prospects of career advancement and promotion for the former UDR officer and soldier.
  Although some members of the UDR and the Royal Irish Rangers might prefer not to have to change, some change is inevitable, and should be of benefit to both. Achieving the benefits is a worthwhile challenge to both regiments. The Royal Irish Regiment will be unique in its intermingling of general and home service elements. The challenge is to create, in the new home service battalions, an even more professional, effective and flexible security force, operating in support of the RUC, and accepted and respected by the whole community of Northern Ireland, while the general service element plays a successful wider role.
  It may be helpful to explain to the House why there is a need for a Bill at all. No legislation is required to achieve the other regimental mergers that are currently planned. Primary legislation is needed in this case because the UDR has a statutory basis, uniquely for a British Army regiment. Some right hon. and hon. Members will remember the passage through the House of the Bill that became the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 and brought the UDR into being on 1 April 1970. That Act was consolidated into the Reserve Forces Act 1980.
  In a nutshell, the Bill enables the UDR to be treated just like any other regiment and enables its members to become members of a regular regiment. They will no longer be members of a statute-based regiment. The Bill thus provides the framework for the merger to take place on 1 July.
  The Bill does not itself bring into being the new Royal Irish Regiment. The naming and formation of regiments of the Regular Army, and the transfer of commissioned officers from one regiment to another on amalgamation, are not matters regulated by statute. They make no appearance, therefore, in our Bill.
  Clause 1 provides that all members of the UDR will cease to be members of that regiment at the end of June. They will continue to be members of the armed forces and may be transferred to another corps or regiment. The effect of that provision is that commissioned officers could then be transferred to the Royal Irish Regiment by royal warrant, and soldiers could be transferred by administrative action.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend say a word about the Greenfinches and how they fit into this structure? They are unique. If they are to become members of the Royal Irish Regiment, that will be the first infantry regiment in our history to include women members—or have I misunderstood?
  Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. The Greenfinches would then have the same role as now. We do not have women in front-line infantry regiments in the Regular Army, apart from assistant adjutants and a few other jobs of that sort, so there may be problems if Greenfinches transfer to general service battalions of the new regiment, but I suspect that not many of them want to do that in any case. If they did want to transfer, they would have opportunities in other positions occupied by women in the Regular Army, although possibly not in the new Royal Irish Regiment.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I am sorry for intervening again, but, as the Minister rightly said, the Bill refers to the Reserve

  1147
  Forces Act 1980, section 139 of which governs membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment; it also confers on members of the UDR the right to resign at one month's notice. Will that continue? If no provision for it to be continued is made in Committee, can that be done in regulations?
  When the Defence Council proceeds to draw up the regulations, will it be possible for those of us with some little knowledge of these matters to assist in the process, bearing in mind that we advised the authorities last July that legislation would be required although they said that it was not? Will we be permitted to assist in drafting the regulations?
  Mr. Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind offer, which I shall put to my officials when the regulations are being drawn up. Members of the UDR transferring will take their present terms and conditions with them. They are all at some stage of a three-year term of employment, and however much of that term is still to be worked through, they will serve. They will be entitled during that period of three years' service to leave at one month's notice—that will continue after the merger. Subsequently, we will give them an extended period of service with the new regiment; they will come under the same terms of service as all other members of the Regular Army and they will have to give a year's notice to leave.
  Anxieties have been expressed to me to the effect that people who are, say, under threat of assassination might want to leave at much shorter notice than 12 months. That sort of case will be looked at sympathetically by the commanding officer. There would be no great change in such exceptional circumstances. Once members come under a 22-year engagement, however, they will be expected in the usual course of events to give a longer-period of notice than 30 days.
  Most of the rest of the Bill is concerned with the terms and conditions of service of existing members of the UDR and of future members of the home service battalions. These are important matters for the individuals concerned and for the future success of their regiment.
  Current members of the UDR may, as clause 1 provides, continue to serve in the new regiment on their existing terms and conditions until the expiry of their current terms of engagement. Their present terms of service are provided for in various sections of the Reserve Forces Act and in the UDR regulations made under that Act. These will continue to apply as necessary, with one exception relating to training obligations: we want to make training on the mainland possible—it is not possible now.
  Clause 2 enables us to draw up new Army terms of service tailored to the needs of the home service battalions. Most of the members of the UDR who will form those battalions, and future recruits to them, will only be required—I stress the word "required"—to serve within Northern Ireland.
  At present, section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966 does not give us the power to limit service geographically in that way. Clause 2(1) remedies that. It further enables us to limit the service that may be required to part-time service, on a call-out basis, as in the UDR at present. The regulations concerned would be laid before Parliament.
  I know that many right hon. and hon. Members and, indeed, members of the new regiment will be interested to know how their terms of service will be affected. UDR
  1148
  part-timers, like the permanent cadre, will be able to continue on their existing terms of service until the expiry of their current periods of enrolment. New terms of service, which the Bill enables us to draw up, have not yet been decided in detail. I can tell the House, however, that we do not envisage any significant changes so far as part-time service is concerned. That is to say that part-timers will continue to be subject to call-out, with a liability for full-time service when required, just as is the UDR at present. As an example of the current arrangements, we recently called upon several hundred part-timers to serve full-time in the Belfast area.
  We believe that the part-time element, like its full-time colleagues, will benefit from full integration with a regular regiment. Part-timers will continue to provide a valuable and cost-effective service, but with better access to training and professional skills.
  The details of the new terms of service for the full-time members of the home service battalions are still being worked out. I can tell the House in outline what we have in mind.
  The terms of service will be more closely aligned with those for the rest of the Regular Army. The norm for the Regular Army is a 22-year engagement. That offers the potential advantage to the individual of a more secure career than the present UDR system, under which soldiers enrol, and may then re-enrol, for a maximum period of three years at a time. Transfer to the Regular Army open engagement would not make it impossible for certain individuals to serve more than 22 years, including earlier service with the UDR, if that was in the Army's interest; nor need the introduction of new terms prevent individuals from serving, as they may in the UDR at present, to a greater age than is customary in the rest of the Army. Each case will, of course, be considered on its merits and in the light of Army needs at the time.
  We shall be considering very carefully the details of the new terms of service for the home service battalions, and how they will be introduced. Our principal concern must be the future effectiveness of the new regiment and its ability to do its job efficently. Any changes in terms of service that are needed for existing UDR personnel will be introduced sensitively and fairly and only if they are in the best interests of the new regiment. It is important to ensure for the part-timers, when they are called out, that the existing legal protections against the risk of loss of employment and certain other risks still apply. This is achieved by clauses 2(3) and 2(4) of the Bill. The remaining clauses of the Bill are largely consequential and need not detain the House today.
  The Bill's provisions do not affect the total Army manpower requirement in Northern Ireland. That requirement may continue to vary in the future. The UDR does, however, make a most cost-effective contribution to our security effort at present. The home service battalions will continue to do so in future. We do not, therefore, expect any significant change in total costs to arise as a result of the Bill's provisions. I believe that the Bill will be widely welcomed in all parts of the House.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister has not said anything about what will happen to the Ulster Defence Regiment benevolent fund. As I am sure he is aware, the people of Northern Ireland have given generously to that fund and

  1149
  I think that it stands at over £2 million. Those families who have lost UDR members in the battle are today asking what will happen to that fund.
  Mr. Hamilton: That is a good point. In order to be exact, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until my winding-up speech at the end of the debate. I suspect that the fund will be taken over and absorbed into the benevolent fund of the new regiment. That is what normally happens in amalgamations, and I should be surprised if anything different happened in this case. As I say, I shall give a more authoritative reply in my winding-up speech.
  The merger that will take place as a result of the Bill's enactment will benefit both regiments. The new Royal Irish Regiment will be able to preserve and enhance the best features of both the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment. It is important for the morale of both regiments that the planning date of 1 July for the merger should be achieved by enactment of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.42 pm
  Dr. John Reid: Tragically, it is fitting that we should discuss the Bill today, because our debate occurs at a time when security in Northern Ireland is especially prominent in the minds of all hon. Members. The carnage of the past few weeks, which has left 27 people dead, reminds us all of our responsibility for ensuring that every appropriate forum and every appropriate measure is taken to protect our society, and particularly the troubled Province of Northern Ireland, from terrorism.
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army, through their professionalism and dedication, continue to perform their duties with outstanding courage, but they cannot be expected to carry the burden alone. We as parliamentarians owe it to them and to all the citizens of Northern Ireland and Great Britain to provide the political leadership and the material resources that will allow terrorism to be defeated.
  In particular, we must continue to uphold the principle that terrorists, whether republican or so-called loyalist, shall never prevail. We must make it absolutely clear to the gunmen that their atrocities may earn them contempt, rejection and ultimately incarceration, but that they will never earn them a place at the negotiating table. I echo the Minister's words, that we believe in the democratic ideal and the rule of law. Because of that belief, we have but one choice and are without equivocation, ambiguity or division in our approach to terrorism.
  There can be no excuse or validity for terrorist action in a democracy. We in the Labour party and, I am sure, most hon. Members recognise that, although the defeat of terrorism is not a sufficient condition for a solution to the problems of the troubled Province of Northern Ireland, it is a necessary one.
  I am pleased to say that the Labour party unreservedly supports the measures proposed by the Minister. The proposed merger of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers is a bold and imaginative step which, if properly administered and carried through, will harness the unique qualities of both regiments and lead to the creation of an even more effective force. Because of what we are discussing, it is important and appropriate to reflect
  1150
  for a moment on the 22-year history of the Ulster Defence Regiment and to put on record our gratitude to the 48,000 men and women who have served in its ranks.
  Throughout the recent troubles, the UDR, of all the regiments in the British Army, has remained the most vulnerable to terrorist attacks. It has been under more pressure, a more direct level of threat, than any other regiment, consistently over the past 22 years. Tragically, since the formation of the UDR in 1970, many of its full-time and part-time members have been callously murdered by terrorists. I am sure that it is a matter of deep regret to all hon. Members that those murders are now numbered not in tens but in hundreds. Like all their colleagues, those soldiers joined up to protect their community in full knowledge of the extra dangers that they faced, precisely because they were residents of Northern Ireland. They deserve our deepest respect.
  The Bill gives the UDR the opportunity to carry those traditions of bravery and resoluteness into a new regiment and, through it, into the rest of the British Army. I have no doubt that it will do so with all the determination that we have come to expect from it. We should feel confident about the success of the merger because the other regiment, the Royal Irish Rangers, has an equally distinguished record of service in the British Army. That was mentioned by the Minister. It is the product of a merger in 1968 between the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Irish Fusiliers.
  The regiment's battle honours include Waterloo, the Somme and Normandy, to name only some, and they evoke many proud moments in the history of the British Army. Recently, the Royal Irish Rangers has seen service in Northern Ireland, and has also experienced the tragic loss of men.
  The merger of those two regiments and the creation of the Royal Irish Regiment should be welcomed for a number of reasons. Not only will it provide the authorities in Northern Ireland with a new regiment which combines the best qualities of its two predecessors, but it will help to give the public greater confidence in the security forces, a matter to which I shall return. The formation of the Royal Irish Regiment will provide a useful opportunity to address one of the many difficult problems faced by the UDR—the religious imbalance in recruitment about which the Minister spoke.
  When the UDR was established in 1970, approximately 18 per cent. of its recruits came from the Catholic community. In the 22 years since then, the IRA has made a particular point of waging a campaign of murder and intimidation against Catholics in the UDR, with the result that, today, Catholics make up only about 3 per cent. of the regiment's total strength. On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I was extremely impressed—in fact, I was staggered—by the extent of the trouble, care, caution and expense that is required to protect that 3 per cent. of the UDR. They work under considerable pressures, perhaps much greater even than the other 97 per cent. of the UDR.
  For whatever reason, the tragic fact is that only 3 per cent. of the UDR come from the Catholic community. We understand the reasons for that, and would not dream of making any cheap points about it. However, we would be naive to pretend that that fact has not increasingly been the cause of significant problems in the relationship between Catholics and the security forces. That is the

  1151
  reason for the IRA's intimidation in the first place. That is precisely why they wanted to reduce the number of Catholics inside the UDR.
  However, as the imbalance in UDR manpower became more pronounced, many Catholics—including law-abiding Catholics—have felt less able to join the regiment, and relations between the regiment and the Catholic community have tragically deteriorated. Those tensions have seriously impeded the process of law enforcement, and attention should be given to overcoming them.
  As about 30 per cent. of recruits to the Royal Irish Rangers are Catholic, we believe that the merger will create a regiment which will stand to benefit the security effort in Northern Ireland and also one which will more accurately reflect the religious composition of the community.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Reid: In a minute.
  I do not for a minute pretend that that solves the problem, because, in 1970, 18 per cent. of the UDR were Catholic. We may again be at the beginning of a cycle of intimidation by the IRA to reduce the balance of Catholics inside the new regiment and to create in turn the same form of alienation. That is why the problem will not go away, but at least this merger gives us another chance to deal with it.
  Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman rightly postponed my intervention, because he went on to answer most of my worries on the matter. We must be wary in our thinking on this issue. It would be quite mistaken to assume that the relatively high proportion of Catholic recruits in the Royal Irish Rangers will be perpetuated in the amalgamation. The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the problem, and I thank him for his comments. I do not wish to introduce any element of confrontation between us. We must tackle this problem seriously, and we should continue to worry about it.
  Dr. Reid: Absolutely: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Let us put on record the fact that intimidation does not happen by accident but is planned by terrorists to try to alienate further the security forces from the Catholic community. It will be a continuing problem: I accept that.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: However, it is worth making the point that there is a great difference between those serving in a general service battalion and those in a home service battalion. On the whole, soldiers who are recruited from Northern Ireland to many different regiments in the British Army have no great difficulty if they are careful about returning to Northern Ireland on leave. It is very different for members of the UDR who return home regularly every night—if they are not being kept out by the UDR. That is a much more difficult relationship, and they are in greater danger.
  Dr. Reid: I take the Minister's point. With all those caveats and difficulties—
  Mr. David Trimble rose—
  Mr. Peter Robinson: So that Roman Catholics who wish to join the local home-based section of the new regiment do not feel isolated because of the intimidation that they would undoubtedly face, does the hon.
  1152
  Gentleman think that it would be helpful if all leaders of constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and Church leaders there encouraged them to join the local security forces and let them know that they are behind them?
  Dr. Reid: Certainly that would be of assistance, but what would assist more than anything would be the creation of a political climate based on cohesion rather than division. That is a simple way to sum up several hundred years of problems—problems to which the House and many others applied their minds. Precisely for the reasons given by the Minister, it is difficult to maintain the present Catholic balance in the UDR. It may well be slightly easier to do so with a regiment which is more fully part of the general regimental system of the British Army, and which may assist elsewhere, not merely in the north of Ireland.
  I was impressed by the nature and scale of the problem of maintaining Catholics inside the UDR when I went to Northern Ireland. Without wishing to go into too fine detail, the lengths to which the armed forces hierarchy has to go to protect the 3 per cent. of Catholics—by stationing them away from home and so on—is of proportions which can hardly be imagined by many Members of the House.
  The amalgamation of the two regiments can only have a positive consequence by normalising the security situation. The more representative the security forces are in Northern Ireland, the greater will be their legitimacy. It will be easier for them to gain the trust and the co-operation of the public—encouraged, we hope, by democratic politicians of all persuasions and parties.
  The reasons for the merger have been stated as military rather than political. Even so, I hope that the Government are sufficiently aware of the political benefits that may be derived from the merger to act wisely in its implementation. From what the Minister told the House, I am assured of that in these initial stages. I urge the Government to consider what steps could be taken to ensure that recruitment into the Royal Irish Regiment remains balanced.
  The merger of the two regiments also offers us the prospect of an enhanced role for personnel serving in the UDR and the Royal Irish Rangers, which is a matter of some importance to their personal ambitions.
  Through the general service battalion, members of the new regiment will have a chance to take advantage of the full range of opportunities offered by the British Army, including service in NATO's rapid reaction corps. Alternatively, by choosing to serve in Northern Ireland, recruits will develop their potential through some of the most challenging and demanding duties performed by any army in the world, not merely by the British Army.
  The cross-fertilisation of different skills and experiences within the Royal Irish Regiment will improve its military effectiveness and allow it to make a unique and valued contribution to the British Army. Standards of professionalism should be considerably boosted by the merger, especially since clause 1 removes the current restrictions on training outside the Province of Northern Ireland.
  The greater integration within the British Army which will result from the merger will be of great benefit for the Army and for those who choose to enlist in the new regiment. The Opposition urge the Government to continue to take measures to strengthen the full-time element of the merged regiment, since it will allow greater

  1153
  flexibility and operational effectiveness. We also hope that the Royal Irish Regiment will be able to guarantee greater security in its future recruitment.
  Given the opportunities offered by the UDR, it was perhaps inevitable that terrorists would seek to infiltrate it to gain access to weapons and to training. Indeed, it is remarkable that such a relatively small number of gunmen have managed to evade the vetting procedures, with about 17 UDR members having been convicted of committing terrorist murders. That figure obviously worries all of us in the House, but, given the circumstances of Northern Ireland, it is perhaps surprising that it is so small. Appalling though that figure is—17 assassinations and murders—it has to be balanced against other figures. For example, the number of suicides among members of the UDR is several times that figure of 17, which gives some illustration of the pressures, strains and stresses under which those members of the UDR were working.
  Nevertheless, the merger of the UDR with the Royal Irish Rangers will once again allow recruiting to be more selective, and, hopefully, will increase public confidence in Northern Ireland.
  Sadly, the merger of the two regiments will lead to an estimated 750 redundancies—soldiers who have shown themselves willing to risk their lives for the public good. With unemployment in Northern Ireland standing at 14 per cent., even under the present system of assessing unemployment, it is five points higher than in the United Kingdom overall. Therefore, any redundancies in Northern Ireland are of considerable seriousness.
  The prospects of the estimated 750 are even bleaker than those of service men and women who are being made redundant in other parts of the British Army. In implementing the cuts, I urge the Government to take proper and sympathetic account of the debt we owe to those who have served in the regiments and to respond accordingly in the light of the extremely difficult economic and employment circumstances of Northern Ireland.
  I should like the Minister to outline the measures that will be taken to ensure that redundant personnel from either the Ulster Defence Regiment or the Royal Irish Rangers receive adequate help during the period of resettlement. As he did not do so in his opening speech, I hope that he will respond in his summation.
  The Opposition are in no doubt that the merger of the two regiments will be a success. The British Army has many fine and distinguished regiments within its ranks which have been forged from previous mergers, including the Royal Irish Rangers. Like those other regiments, the Royal Irish Regiment will, we believe, be more than the sum of its parts. It will make a qualitative improvement, from which we shall all stand to gain.
  The Bill should be greeted by all those who want peace and security in Northern Ireland. It will send yet another signal to the terrorist godfathers that we shall never be prepared to yield to force, that their efforts are futile. The Labour party will not be calling for a Division; and if a Division is called, we shall support the Government.
  We firmly believe that, in years to come, the House will be able to look back and reflect upon the outstanding role played by the Royal Irish Regiment in helping to defeat
  1154
  terrorism and to establish the necessary condition for a political solution and in arriving at a peaceful and, God help us, prosperous Northern Ireland.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I express my appreciation of the patience displayed by the Minister of State in giving way so frequently to those who wished to intervene and providing clarification and some reassurances—more of which will be forthcoming, I am sure, when he replies to the debate. I express appreciation also for the presence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We know of his interest in the Bill, and he is aware of our views and interest.
  Without wishing to embarrass the Opposition, let me say that I appreciate the balanced and fair-minded way in which their Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), set out their position. If we were not coming up to an election, I might be tempted to say that it was a refreshing change from some of the utterances that we have heard from time to time. I do not wish to create friction: I simply pay a genuine tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his deep understanding of the problems that confront the Ulster Defence Regiment and all of us who live in Northern Ireland.
  The House will delude itself if it fails to take account of the suspicion in Northern Ireland that attends every reconstruction of the security forces. In the 1970s, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was reformed. It was disarmed and demoralised following the Hunt report. The constabulary was to become a police service, running advice centres at which tea and biscuits would be freely dispensed. Its reception centres were to be open to all comers. The Hunt report—this appears in paragraph 17 of the 1969 White Paper, and is a reference to the RUC reserve—stated:
  "Members of the Reserve will not be called upon to give armed support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and they will therefore not be issued with firearms."
  That is an example of how far Governments can sometimes be removed from reality when dealing with crucial matters. Within a short time, the RUC reserve was armed to the teeth; it could not have survived otherwise.
  The Hunt report and a subsequent report recommended the disbandment of the Ulster Special Constabulary. Its crime was that it had a tendency to maintain stability, and by doing that it made life uncomfortable for law breakers, from whatever quarter they came.
  In a lighter vein, I well remember one example of the even-handedness of the Ulster Special Constabulary. It was provided when a curfew was broken by the master of my local Orange lodge, who became engrossed in a friendly discussion with his Roman Catholic neighbour. As a result, both men were arrested by the constabulary. They had to continue their conversation in the cells in Antrim police station.
  The disbandment of one force and the attempted emasculation of the other led to the state of lawlessness that has culminated in the savage butchery of recent weeks. The UDR was established by an Act of Parliament in 1969 and it was always clear to us, but apparently not to others, that its status could be altered only by an amending Act. There is a perception that the change in its status had its origins in the orchestrated campaign against the regiment. That campaign was a facsimile of earlier offensives against the Ulster Special Constabulary. The

  1155
  most vehement part of the campaign was that which followed the alleged leaking of photomontages of terrorist suspects. They were similar to the two that we see on the gate as we walk to the underground station on our way from the House.
  Those who initiated the campaign—unfortunately, they are not present today—brought about what was known as the Stevens inquiry. As a result, they are directly responsible for the horrific increase in terrorist murders in recent months. The reckless behaviour of Deputy Chief Constable Stevens put at risk the lives of numerous families of UDR men.
  Mr. Stevens chalked up yet another achievement. He swept into his net, intentionally or otherwise, the then leaders of the so-called loyalist paramilitary bodies, most of them for comparatively minor misdemeanours. I do not stand in their defence, but their places have been taken by younger, hardened and well-trained leaders, who are now building up striking forces, complete with hit men from abroad—outside the United Kingdom—with the object of matching the firepower of the Provisional IRA.
  That is the achievement of those who set out to smear the UDR. I give them a friendly word of advice—that they would be well advised to refrain from similar campaigns, which might have even more disastrous throwbacks.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that, because of certain caches of arms in the south of Ireland being transported across the border, the groups to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred have far more striking power now than ever before?
  Mr. Molyneaux: Yes, and that matter was raised on 12 December during Northern Ireland Questions, when the Secretary of State and I informed the House that we were aware of an accumulation of arms and munitions as far south as Limerick, for shipment to Belfast. Unfortunately, that occurred in the pre-Christmas period, with disastrous effects.
  I fervently hope that the merger for which the Bill provides is for sounder reasons than those given when news of it was first leaked—for those set out in a document that I understand has been circulated to right hon. and hon. Members on the Benches opposite. At the time of the original leak, the main selling point was that the merged regiment would be more acceptable across the community by reason of its religious composition.
  I am sure that my hon. Friends who sit on the Benches opposite agree that that is an entirely desirable objective. If it could be achieved, a balance would exist that roughly represented the religious composition of the Northern Ireland population. However, for reasons already touched upon, that is an unrealistic objective.
  In its first few years, the Ulster Defence Regiment had the greatest ever proportion of Roman Catholics in its ranks. They accounted for about 20 per cent. of its membership, compared with about 2 per cent. today. The regiment also included a large proportion—as much as 50 per cent. in some battalions—of the much-maligned B Specials, yet we are told that the association of the Ulster Defence Regiment with the Ulster Special Constabulary is "unacceptable" to many Catholics.
  Whatever other factors may have played a part in the rapid reduction in Catholic membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment and, sadly, in a virtual cessation of Catholic recruitment, it is undoubtedly the case that the
  1156
  fundamental cause of that change in the regiment's composition was that the IRA targeted Catholic members of the security forces even more viciously and relentlessly than it did Protestant members—and it still does.
  On a personal note, it was a distressing experience in recent months to receive at my advice centre—separately, over a period of months—three young Catholic former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment whom I commended, and for whom I had supplied references in securing their enlistment. They quickly worked their way up to become commissioned officers, but eventually came to tell me, with broken hearts, that they were compelled to move house, and in two cases to resign their commissions and to leave the regiment, because the IRA would not allow them to remain in it. That is unsurprising, given the great ease with which the terrorists murder those who live in the same communities as they do.
  At one time, two Catholic UDR men were being murdered for every Protestant member killed. The IRA realised, and still realises, that if the security forces in general and the localised Ulster Defence Regiment in particular could recruit successfully from the Catholic community, not only would its ability to operate be severely compromised, but its claim to represent the Catholic minority exposed as utterly fraudulent—which it is.
  It is all too easy for those in the security forces—whether in the UDR, RUC, or Regular Army—to forget that even in so-called hard areas many are cowed into submission, and even into supporting the IRA, which uses the same terrorism there that is inflicted on the rest of us. It is difficult to see how cosmetic changes such as those proposed in the Bill will make any difference to Catholic recruitment—particularly in the border counties and other terrorist-infected areas, where such recruitment is most needed. Were it possible to recruit freely in those areas, there would be no need. We would have destroyed the bases of terrorism, and the UDR itself would become redundant.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: From my limited, second-hand knowledge from a variety of sources—I am part-Irish, being a mixture of southern Irish Protestant, Northern Ireland Protestant, and English Catholic—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are entirely true. However, perhaps he ought not to reach such gloomy conclusions. A large number of Catholics currently serving in the Royal Irish Rangers were either recruited on the British mainland, where they were not subject to the same constraints, or from parts of southern Ireland, where the IRA does not have a presence comparable to that found in the tough Belfast housing estates and other areas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, where intimidation is rife.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I do not dispute that, but a distinction must be made in respect of the Catholics—all honour to them—from southern Ireland or this island, who do not live in the frontier zones, where they would be completely isolated, and where it would be impossible to protect them effectively.
  On another personal note, I remember having tea with the late Sir Norman Strong, whose son Jim served in the RUC Reserve. They were both murdered one evening, when their house went down around them. Jim entered the room and said, "Young John Smith has just joined the

  1157
  UDR part-time." Sir Norman replied, "My God, not another one." I said, "You misheard. He has joined the UDR—he has not been killed." Sir Norman told me, "It is all the same thing. He will be killed. I will show you where he lives." Sir Norman took me to the window and pointed to the home of that young recruit, which was 400 yards from the frontier. He said, "How can anyone, no matter how determined, protect him? He is as good as dead." That illustrates the extent of the danger that continues to exist not just in the frontier regions but in many other areas.
  I am being not pessimistic but realistic when I say that it would be absurd to suppose that the new Royal Irish Regiment will be able to transfer to all its battalions the ability of the Royal Irish Rangers to recruit Catholics from north and south of the border. One fears that the opposite will be true, and that the majority of the members of that new regiment, in its anti-terrorist role, and even of the general service or ex-Ranger battalion, will suffer a serious reduction in Catholic recruitment.
  That may be viewed as a pessimistic assessment, but I have taken the time of the House because I felt it necessary to explain that situation, so that, in time to come, the merged regiment will not be condemned for lacking sectarian or religious balance. I hope that others will express their views on that aspect, and that we can protect the new regiment well in advance, by being realistic and stating why it is not healthy—to put it mildly—for Roman Catholics to join it, particularly if, in a part-time capacity, they must live in dangerous or, as we call it, indian territory.
  So what benefits can we expect from the amalgamation? It would be very welcome for the new regiment to be more fully accepted as part of the Regular Army than the UDR has been, but, if the price to be paid for this is the abandonment of the UDR's original role and purpose, we have to ask whether that price is worth paying. The UDR was formed as a kind of militia to be used purely in the internal security role in the area in which it was recruited, with the obvious very great advantages of local knowledge and continuity of experience that result from this. Field-Marshal Templer, commander of the only successful counter-insurgency campaign in modern military history, said that it was possible to defeat insurgency only with the assistance of locally recruited forces.
  In spite of an unwelcome reduction in the part-time strength of the UDR over the years, and a welcome increase in full-time strength, efficiency and professionalism, the UDR has remained the same in essence until now, although the gradual decline in the number of part-timers has been a cause of concern.
  Another matter of concern is the way in which the part-time element of the UDR. already under pressure in many ways, may be phased out altogether. I accept entirely what the Minister of State has said, that that is not his intention at the moment. However, it may be phased out not as a matter of overt policy but by the insensitive and counter-productive way in which it may be treated after the amalgamation.
  Training requirements appear likely to be increased—that seems to be the intention—to a level which hardly any of the part-timers will be able to sustain, and this will leave them less and less time for operations. This in turn will
  1158
  eventually leave the Army able to claim that, although they are better trained, the part-timers are not cost-effective and should be done away with. Those of us who have served in the forces know how much rivalry there can be between the various arms of the services and even within the same service.
  That would be a great tragedy, not only because of the symbolic importance of the part-timers, but because of the lessening of the UDR's local links, which have been of tremendous operational value, although all too often not fully utilised, and the great intelligence-gathering potential, also not fully utilised.
  There would be the same sort of damage to both the morale and the operational effectiveness of the permanent Catholic element of the UDR if the officers and soldiers if the new regiment were increasingly posted further away from their home areas, as I understand is likely to be the case. I am talking about their being posted away from their own local battalion area to another area where they are complete strangers.
  The position and the role of the part-timers are of supreme importance and simply must be maintained. No unreasonably high levels of training or other commitments should be allowed to force their numbers down even further and make them ineffective.
  The full-time or permanent element of the UDR also must retain their localised recruiting and operational areas. Cross-posting between battalions should take place only when necessary, so as not to destroy the local knowledge value of the UDR. Similarly, officer and soldier training should remain tailored as far as possible to the internal security role. This should not mean, however, that former UDR personnel should continue to be treated as second-class soldiers or second-class citizens in terms of their careers within the regiment. They are internal security specialists and should be treated as such.
  Ulster Defence Regiment officers and warrant officers should be given a fair share of appointments in the new regiment, even if they are not paper-qualified, because that is often irrelevant, and should have opportunities in the same way as their Regular counterparts.
  The new regiment will mean that, gradually, all ex-UDR soldiers will be on Regular Army engagements and terms of service. It is absolutely vital that soldiers remain able to join their local battalions if they so wish and to remain with them, so far as manning requirements permit.
  I will summarise the position of my party to this merger in this fashion. In the long term, it must also be ensured that soldiers may continue to specify that they wish to serve only in the Northern Ireland-based battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, without unfair prejudice to their careers, for as long as the present situation—that is, the troubles—continues.
  It should also be noted that, at present, a UDR soldier can leave the regiment on 28 days' notice. The Minister of State has already conceded that, although this should not normally be encouraged, given the peculiar and difficult circumstances in which many UDR soldiers live, this option must remain open. I know that the Minister meant what he said, and I trust that ways and means will be found to give effect to this.
  Mr. William Ross: I rather thought, when the Minister was replying to that point, that he was talking only about the full-time members of the

  1159
  UDR being able to benefit from the 28-day get-out clause. I am wondering what the situation would be for the part-timers.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I thought that the Minister and I had it in common that we were talking mainly about the part-time element, because, as I understand it, we were talking about the reserve force and all that goes with it. The enlistment period for the full-timers would be broadly in line with that in the Regular Army. The Minister may like to come back to that point.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I think it best that I clarify this completely when I am winding up at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the Minister.
  In short, the amalgamation must not be allowed to reduce the undoubted worth of the existing Ulster Defence Regiment as a locally recruited force operating in what one might call its soldiers' home areas.
  I trust that all these points will be taken up and adopted when we come to drafting the regulations. I trust that the House will join me in expressing gratitude, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North and the Minister of State have already done, to past and present officers and men of the UDR and the Greenfinches, all of whom have served with great distinction the law-abiding people of our part of the United Kingdom.
  6.28 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a sad day for Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland are carrying a very heavy and tragic burden at the present time. I cannot think of a more insensitive Bill that could come before the House than the one now before us. I appreciate very deeply the realism that has been demonstrated both by the Minister of State and by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).
  I have sat in the House for 22 years. I have sat through debates in which the Ulster Special Constabulary has had its guts kicked on the Floor of the House and evil things have been said about it. There is not a right-thinking person who does not say that it is a pity that we did not keep the Ulster Special Constabulary; then we would not be in the mess that we are in today. I told the House that—and not with a few hon. Members present, as there are today. The House was crowded. Members were cheering, as if the House were doing a great thing. The House has not paid for that in the same measure as have the people I represent.
  I first came to the House because of the issue of the abandonment of the Ulster Special Constabulary. The Official Unionist Member had one of the largest majorities in the House—some 40,000—but I toppled him. That showed that local people knew exactly what was happening. We know today what is happening, and we know to our cost what is going to happen.
  This has been a planned effort on the part of those who want to destroy our Province, and to destroy its stability and the living conditions of its people. It flows directly from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I have all the evidence before me today. I have, for instance, a statement issued by the then Taoiseach, in which he said that the agreement—he was glad that it had been signed—would
  1160
  "put forward Irish views and proposals for the progressive establishment of a new security system which would obviate a need for the UDR to be involved in local security. This will be pursued sensitively, carefully and firmly."
  At every Irish conference meeting before the agreement took place, the now demised Foreign Minister made vicious, evil, unwarranted and lying attacks on the UDR. We have heard a eulogy of that regiment tonight, but we heard no such eulogy from the Foreign Minister. All that he did was kick the long-suffering people of Ulster in the teeth, including its widows and orphans.
  More than once, I have told the Secretary of State before conference meetings that such attacks on the UDR drive at the very heart of the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that at the meeting that I mentioned, Mr. Collins—who was to have brought up the issue and fought like a lion—never even mentioned the UDR. On television before the meeting, however, he expressed his anger, and his deep-seated hatred for the regiment.
  It is interesting to note that we are not talking across the divide tonight, because those who represent the other side are conspicuous by their absence. We are told that we should be speaking to the other side, and we have come to the debating Chamber as elected Members; our opponents, however, have not come to take part in the democratic process. Here we have what the Taoiseach wanted.
  Michael Noonan, the Irish Republic's Minister of Justice, commented on the Taoiseach's remarks. He said:
  "the first thing that they will do … is try to curb the paramilitary UDR."—[Official Report, 27 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 907.]
  That was Garret FitzGerald's Justice Minister, describing the UDR as a paramilitary regiment.
  In the House of Commons, I told the then Prime Minister—I wish that she were here tonight, because it was she who betrayed the people of Ulster—
  "It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Lady to hear that I shall not be commending this document of treachery and deceit to the House."
  I was, of course, referring to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  "As the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic arrived home from Hillsborough castle it was widely publicised on television, radio and in the press that he said:
  'In future, the Ulster Defence Regiment will operate differently from the way in which it has operated for the last 12 years. That means that from now on the present position under which the Ulster Defence Regiment can stop people on the road, search them and question them will no longer operate …The question of how security should be organised in Northern Ireland is one for the new intergovernmental conference."'
  I asked:
  "In view of the fact that the people who live on the border in Northern Ireland get no defence from anybody but the Ulster Defence Regiment, what will they do in these circumstances, and why should a Prime Minister of a foreign republic have a say in the government and direction of a British Army regiment?"—[Official Report, 18 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 22.]
  I received no answer.
  It seems very strange that a foreign country and foreign Ministers should be able to make it their aim to destroy a regiment of the British Army.
  Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend know what strength of protest was made by Her Majesty's Government in the House to the Government of the Irish Republic about those despicable remarks about the UDR?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Prime Minister said that the Taoiseach could interpret the agreement in whatever way he wished. He could put his own interpretation on it. But we know—and the Leader of the Official Unionists made it clear—that people who are not here today joined in the campaigns with gusto. Let me say, with fervour, "Yes, we honour our Protestant co-religionists who join the UDR, but we honour even more the Roman Catholics who joined."
  I know what I am talking about. A dastardly deed was done at a culvert in South Down. Four members of the UDR were killed and a Roman Catholic was among them. I visited the family home—I make no distinctions in my visits. The father of the household said to me, "Dr. Paisley, I take it hard, but I take it harder because of what happened 10 minutes ago." I asked, "What happened?" He said, "The undertaker called to tell me that he could not bury my son. He said that if a hearse was brought into the street, the IRA would deal with it." The family had to summon an undertaker from 25 miles away. The church authorities then said that they wanted to see no flag and none of the trappings of the UDR if the coffin was to be carried into the church. That man was a Roman Catholic, who had served in the British Army. His was an Army family, and he had wanted his sons to maintain its tradition.
  The same has happened over and over again. I salute the Roman Catholic members of the police, including those in my constituency, but they cannot go home. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North admitted that he was amazed at the extent of the activity that has to be undertaken to safeguard such people. We should consider the case of a young man who cannot visit his parents in North Antrim; they have to go to a safe place to visit him. Those young men have been targeted, and driven out. The IRA has decided to get them out. For what purpose? To turn the propaganda, and to say that this is a sectarian force. The merger that we are discussing bows to that pressure, whether we accept it or not.
  I shall encourage people to join the merged regiment. I do not want it, but I shall not stand against anyone who wants to join. Indeed, when men have approached me I have said, "Certainly you should join and do your bit" But I have never heard the hon. Members who are absent tonight or the Roman Catholic Church authorities tell people to join the security forces.
  Rev. William McCrea: It is very important that a certain matter be put on record. Does my hon. Friend agree not only that the IRA carried out attacks to drive Roman Catholic members out of the security forces, but that those Roman Catholic members have been isolated in their own community by their political representatives, who in this House are regarded as constitutional politicians, and by their Church leaders? On the one hand, they are driven out by the IRA, but equally they are isolated by people of whom this House speaks well.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No one knows more about this situation than does my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who lives with it every day.
  Until there is a clear statement from the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Northern Ireland and its political representatives in this House that people should join the security forces, there will be no change in recruitment.
  1162
  These people need to be backed up when they join the security forces. They need the strength of their community behind them. But that is not what they have been getting, and the House should take note of that.
  History is repeating itself. We remember the Hunt report. Lord Hunt decided that we in Northern Ireland were a crowd of bitter bigots and that there were no bigger bigots than the members of the police force. Hunt asked why a police barracks—police stations were called barracks in those days—should have iron doors. "Take them off", the police were told. I saw the iron doors coming off the police stations. "Why do they have iron shutters?" Hunt asked. "They are not necessary, take them off." The next question was: "Why do the police wear leather belts?" So the leather belts came off. During one debate in the old Stormont Parliament I said that the police might as well be given gutties lest they stand on somebody's toes. Then the point was made that the police should be dressed differently, so their uniform was got rid of, and officers were put into semi-green uniforms. The attitude was that everything would be better if everything were different. In a police station I said to an officer, "How do you hide yourself from attack?" He replied, "We don't hide ourselves—we are just to be slaughtered."
  Did the Roman Catholic population suddenly turn round and tell everybody to join the police? No—they said, "We need to get rid of the police." At that time the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said that what we needed was community police to which everyone could give allegiance. He said that it was necessary to press for a change in the identity of the RUC. We have been through all that and we have seen good men slaughtered, the best of men cut down. We attended their funerals, and we put our hands on the curly heads of little boys who would never see their fathers again. That went to the very depths of the people of Northern Ireland.
  We thought that this Parliament was learning—that after all these years it would know that this is not the way to proceed—but today we have the same thing. As has been said, it is almost a replay, but in the years between we have suffered a lot. In many cases an UDR soldier is not a target but a victim. If he were a target he could fight back. I salute the UDR man who used his weapon on the border the other day. He got his man. If he had not got his man, he himself would have been taken.
  Rev. William McCrea: Three of them ran.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, the other three ran, and were found hiding under a bush in the safe territory of the Republic, from which they will not be extradicted for trial. That soldier typifies the spirit of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North said, more than 200 have been killed. What is more, a person is not out of trouble even when he leaves the Ulster Defence Regiment, as is shown by the fact that 45 ex-members have been killed. The number of members who have been seriously wounded is 377—some of them on duty, some of them off duty. Those are the men and women whom the Government must not forget.
  No one can question the gallantry and loyalty of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Motherwell, North refer to the 17 men who had been convicted of murder, but we must remember also the number of members of other regiments serving in

  1163
  Northern Ireland who have killed, and the number who have been convicted. Let it not be said that all members of all other regiments were perfect people who never committed a crime. Some were tried for atrocious killings—killings that I would not want to describe. Let us be clear about that. The Ulster Defence Regiment cannot be condemned because of those killings, and the SDLP has no right to condemn it. The members concerned were brought to court and tried. At present four are awaiting a re-hearing following examination of the evidence by the Secretary of State. We do not know what the result will be.
  This condemnation of the UDR is disgraceful. It is a campaign of vilification and dishonesty against men who have given of their best. There is only one thing wrong with the Ulster Defence Regiment: it happens to be mainly Protestant. If it were a largely Roman Catholic regiment, we should not be discussing this Bill. We need to be clear about what the issues are.
  There is no greater hardship than that which has been experienced by these gallant members of Her Majesty's security forces. They risk all to defend all, and they have been sacrificed by an inept security policy. The Ulster Defence Regiment has borne its burden and its share of the heartache. A regiment now consisting of 6,000 full-time and part-time soldiers has seen more than 200 of its members slaughtered by the IRA. I have referred to the four soldiers who were killed by an IRA culvert bomb near Dunpatrick. In July four UDR soldiers died when an IRA land mine exploded near Ballygawley, and in May 1991 three were killed in a massive lorry bomb attack at the Glenanne UDR base in south Armagh.
  Before this House gives any credence to criticism of the regiment it ought to acknowledge the fact that in the last 21 years more than 40,000 civilians in Northern Ireland have passed through its ranks, and that in those 21 years only 17 members or ex-members have been convicted of murder or other terrorist-related offences in Northern Ireland. Of those 17, four are currently having their cases re-heard.
  I must express my criticism of the Stevens inquiry—one of the worst things ever to have happened in Northern Ireland. The Stevens inquiry was unfair to innocent men. Mr. Stevens came over at a meeting and boasted, "I'll get men into the dock." That was his attitude. One Sunday he got the chief constable to identify members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who, in their various streets of Belfast, were not known to be members. He did not take these men in for questioning when they were on the UDR base. He could have had police officers at the gate, and the men could have been questioned on the base. Instead, he sent Land-Rovers, armoured cars and machine guns—the whole panoply—at 6 o'clock in the morning for innocent men, the vast majority of whom were proved to be innocent. After that they had to leave their homes. They had to pull out their furniture and their wives and children. The children had to be taken from school. That was done in the name of Mr. Stevens.
  I am not an expert in spying, but if Mr. Nelson who is now in gaol was still doing his spy work, we would not have the groanings and crying over what happened in Ormeau road because, as his barrister said, he was a hero in saving people from being murdered. The House must recognise that. We can all be ethical at times and pass judgment but is the House helping us in the current situation to shoot people in the foot? That is what has happened and we must face the facts.
  1164
  I shall go back to Northern Ireland to fight an election. The Labour party will not be fighting me because, for some reason, it does not believe in fighting elections in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Are the Tories fighting you?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Tory candidate has taken sick and I do not know whether the Tories will find another one. I should welcome a Tory candidate—I would fight him on this issue alone. The resounding answer of the Protestants and Roman Catholics who vote for me will show what they think of this measure.
  I hope that the House will some day recognise the issues and that it will face them. Like my hon. Friends, I am worried about the present impasse. I can tell the Secretary of State that it is a different impasse. So-called Protestant loyalists are determined to answer killing with killing, outrage with outrage, and violence with violence. They will not spare man, woman or child. It is a terrible situation. I have seen principles sacrificed in the House because it is said that if we did this or that it would alienate the minority, but the House is alienating the majority and it should be aware of that.
  It is strange that every hon. Member who speaks in this debate will say the same thing that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and I have said. There is no disunity among us on that, except that I take a harder line. I shall divide the House, even if there are only two or three of us. Like the spokesman for the Labour party who said that he hoped that he could look back with pleasure, I hope that I shall be proved wrong and that 20 years on people will say, "You made a mistake." I hope and pray for that, but I know from the past record that a tragedy will arise from the merger.
  I am already worried about the response. The IRA has said, "It is only a change of name—it is still the old regiment." All the Opposition parties—including the SDLP—said that they would be prepared to give the measure a fair wind, but that was all. They then asked why we should have a militia at all. I have not heard the Cardinal saying, "Join this new regiment; after all, your co-religionists from Liverpool are in it and you should join because I understand that many of the 30 per cent. of Roman Catholics in it are from Liverpool, and some from the south of Ireland, too."
  Another outrageous aspect is the suggestion that it will be a good thing if Orange and Green are together in an Irish regiment on the streets of Belfast. I do not understand that—it would be dangerous for both groups. Any regiment built on that structure would be dangerous. It should not matter who was the officer or the regimental sergeant major—he would be a member of the Army and his religion should not be a factor. We are approaching a quota system such as that which already exists under fair employment legislation in the Province.
  Will the Minister tell us more about the review or the public relations exercise of which we were told today? A public relations body took a poll of the UDR. It is amazing that we did not hear of it, as I have a lot of contacts. An hon. Member said that a general told him what he thought, but a general visited me and told me the opposite: he hit me on the shoulder and said, "Big man, you are right in your opposition to this measure." Who was polled?

  1165
  We were told that the results of the poll showed that the Royal Irish Rangers were sort of neutral, but that the vast majority of officers and members of the UDR are all for the measure. I have not heard that, although I know that some officers do favour the measure. One reason is that they want to be integrated so that they can have a career in the Army, but that is not what men joined the UDR to do. They joined it to get out of the Army as quickly as possible, to end the troubles, to defeat terrorists and to return to civilian life. They did not join to have a career in the Army.
  Will the Minister tell us more about the poll because we are very interested? Which firm undertook the poll? How many men were questioned? What were their ranks? Apparently civilians were visited and they were also in favour. The most interesting fact to emerge today is that there was a poll. The fact that the poll took place proves that there was something wrong because if one knew that the Army favoured the merger, one would not carry out a public relations exercise with testings and soundings.
  We also need to know about the people who will lose their jobs. How many of the UDR bases will be closed?
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister if he can perhaps help to dispel the rumour—I hope that it is only a rumour—about the UDR base in Ladas drive in my constituency? Locally there is considerable fear that the Government intend to close it. It is an important part of the local structure and there would be great concern if it were to close. I have a unique relationship with my hon. Friend—he is my constituent and I am his—and as resident in that area he will have the same concerns.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend did not mention the fact that I am also his proposer at the election, and a voter as well.
  It would be far better for us to know the whole story now. How many bases will be closed? I would also like the Minister to tell us how many part timers there are and how the number compares with last year. Why is there a rundown in part-time recruitment? Is it not because current advertising is for full-time recruits? If one does not advertise for part-timers, one cannot expect them to offer themselves. One could destroy the part-time category of the force merely by not taking on anyone else or by not advertising.
  We should be given the bitter facts and we should face them. I do not want a constituent to say to me in a few months' time that I told him our base was going to stay open but that it was then closed. Let us hear how many bases will be closed. Let us hear the full sad story of how many jobs will be lost, how many bases will be closed and what the overall effect will be.
  I shall listen carefully to the Minister. I hope that he will take on board the points that we made at our meeting with him this morning. We wanted a guarantee that when the Bill has been passed it will not be an excuse for getting rid of people now in the regiment. They are entitled to be in the merged regiment and they need to have a guarantee of that. The Act says, "may" instead of "shall" in one place, but even if it is changed to "shall" it may not cover the point that I am trying to make. Every member of that regiment, so long as there is no disciplinary charge against
  1166
  him, who is entitled to remain in the current regiment should be guaranteed a place in the merged regiment. We need an absolute assurance on that.
  The point about resigning is very important in the circumstances of security. If a man is threatened, he may have to resign and clear his family out of the area. The 30 days should be kept.
  In many ways these proposals come at a very bad time for our Province. I thought that it was a very wise thing that, in the midst of a tit-for-tat uprising of violence in the Province, the Secretary of State called out the UDR, and they were very effective; we got over that particularly severe time of killings. I should have thought that the Government would concentrate on using the UDR more. We are told that it needs to be cost-effective, but it is the cheapest form of security, costing less in a year than the Royal Ulster Constabulary costs in a week. That is something that we need to face up to as well.
  In large measure, in certain areas where the UDR now operates people will feel defenceless. This sends the wrong message to the IRA—the wrong message at the wrong time. The UDR has come of age and has proved its effectiveness. It has seen 21 years of continual service and has earned royal honour. To merge it now will bring ignominy to its members and be an insult to Her Majesty who came over and praised the four battalions and gave them their colours.
  We have been told that the name of Ulster cannot be used to describe any British regiment in the future. The name of Ulster has a greater right to be part of the name of a British regiment today than ever before, because it is the only part of Ireland that is still in the United Kingdom. The name should remain in the regiments of our Army.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I desire to say only a few words on Second Reading because I have no substantial disagreement with what the Minister said in inviting the House to approve the Bill. In that respect, notwithstanding the passion and, I acknowledge, sincerity of the contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I regret that I cannot accept what I understand to be his central thesis—that some kind of conspiracy is afoot, the purpose of which is to do some damage to either the reputation or the effectiveness of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I do not believe that such a thesis is justified in the light of the circumstances outlined by the Minister. I should have preferred this matter not to be pushed to a Division, but if one is called my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the Government.
  The issue to which we should address our minds is perhaps not the tradition of either of the regiments about which we are concerned but the effectiveness of the security arrangements which we will be able to achieve in Northern Ireland if this amalgamation proceeds. It is that and that alone that should be the justification for our decision.
  I listened with some interest to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North when they said that the low percentage from the Roman Catholic community who serve in the Ulster Defence Regiment was, in essence, an aim and objective of the IRA. If it was such, it has been manifestly successful, but we must accept the reality that the consequence is that inevitably the Ulster Defence Regiment is more readily identified with one tradition in

  1167
  Northern Ireland than with the other. I do not doubt that the IRA, faced with an amalgamated regiment drawn from a much wider religious base, will endeavour to do the same again, but it will be the success and the strength of the amalgamated regiment that will be the best defence against that.
  If the amalgamated regiment comes into being, subject to some qualifications here or some reservations there, its ability to provide the means by which the potential campaign of the IRA is to be defeated will be substantially prejudiced. There may be difficulties in creating a regiment which, for the foreseeable future, will be able to demand the support and confidence of the whole community, but that does not mean to say that we should not face up to these difficulties and endeavour to defeat them.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North commented on the fact that there are certain parts of the political life and of the religious life of the Province which had not yet been heard to say that, if it is desired to create a regiment which commands the support of the whole community, members from all sections of the community should join. I believe that they are wrong not to do that, but I also believe that they may be encouraged to do so in the future if they are satisfied that the regiment which is the subject of the Bill is one which, at least in the first instance, reflects a much wider religious base than does the UDR.
  All those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned the bravery of those who serve in the Ulster Defence Regiment. A curious and dangerous feature of their service is that they are, uniquely, at risk all the time. They are at risk in their military role and they are equally at risk when they give up the military role and return to their communities. It might be said that in some respects they are more at risk in their own homes than when they are on patrol. That requires no ordinary soldiering but a very high level of individual responsibility and bravery.
  Just as it is my proposition that the relatively narrow religious base from which the UDR is drawn reflects the extent to which the regiment enjoys the confidence of the whole community, so I accept freely that the bravery of those from the Roman Catholic tradition who join the Ulster Defence Regiment must be regarded as of an extraordinary order. They and their families, in particular, have been the subject of deliberate targeting by the forces of terrorism. I believe that the merger will more easily help those individuals, and others in the amalgamated regiment, to fulfil that degree of enhanced responsibility that soldiering in Northern Ireland necessitates.
  In relation to the 17 people to whom reference has been made and to any others from British regiments who have been arrested or perhaps convicted of criminal acts in the course of their military service in Northern Ireland, I say: there is no place in the British Army for anyone whose standards and whose regard for the rule of law are other than the highest. Anyone, of whatever rank, who does not fulfil those responsibilities should be rooted out. I have no doubt that the Minister and I would be of one mind on that subject.
  There are sound military justifications for what the Bill seeks to achieve. I believe that people from the UDR will be more effective if they are brought more fully into the British Army, and that the high professional standards of the British Army that will be available in the amalgamated
  1168
  regiment more readily than they have been in the UDR in the past are bound to enhance the capability of the members who previously served in the UDR.
  With an amalgamated regiment, it must be right to provide a proper career structure for all who wish to take advantage of it. Surely it must be right, too, to provide a proper career structure and career opportunities for everyone in the new regiment who may have skills and ability that would entitle them to transfer to other Army units and detachments elsewhere in the United Kingdom forces.
  We should not forget that the purpose of the Bill is to assist in the fight against terrorism, whatever motive the terrorist may have. All military means should be available to defeat terrorism. The House is united on that matter. The political consequences of the amalgamation will serve only to enhance the effectiveness of the military means at the disposal of the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman has just told the House that he believes that the Bill is designed to defeat terrorism. Does he really think that if it were not for all the other changes being made in the armed forces the Bill would have been introduced anyway?
  Mr. Campbell: I cannot say. Amalgamations of mainland regiments have been controversial, too, but—with the exception of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland—I do not believe this amalgamation to be controversial at all. Even if the amalgamation had been suggested outwith the ambit of the "Options for Change", I should still have supported it because the central thrust on which it is based is valuable, and should be supported.
  The House listens to a catalogue of horror of events in Northern Ireland. For me, at least, the repetition of such events increases rather than diminishes their effect, and it also increases my frustration. If that is true for me, how much more true must it be for the Secretary of State, who has been in the Chamber for most of the debate, but who is not here at the moment?
  I imagine that that frustration is felt, too, by those who are democratically elected to represent Northern Ireland constituencies in the House. They live in the communities ravaged by the activities of terrorists. Their lives are subject to the inconvenience and the grief that terrorism brings.
  The Bill will not resolve the current problems in Northern Ireland. If any of us had a simple solution I fancy that we should have found it long ago. But, especially in the light of the speech by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I hope that the Bill will help to provide conditions in which the difficulties in Northern Ireland may more easily be tackled.
  7.13 pm
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall support the Bill, but more in the hope that it will achieve its objectives than with any conviction that that will be the case.
  I believe that I speak as the only Royal Irish Fusilier in the House of Commons. My regiment, with the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Innniskilling Fusiliers, now forms part of the Royal Irish Rangers—a regiment which came into existence in 1968, and is, of course, one half of the regimental collaboration outlined in the Bill.

  1169
  My regiment was the 87th/89th Regiment of Foot, raised in 1793. It had a proud and distinguished history. It captured the first Napoleonic eagle to be taken by a British regiment, at Barrossa, in the Peninsular war. It has had many battle honours, and its museum and regimental headquarters were at the old Gough barracks in Armagh.
  Like any other proud regiment, I do not think that it found its subsumation into the Royal Irish Rangers the easiest of the many problems that it has had to overcome in its 175 years of existence. However, that amalgamation went better than anybody had dared believe it would, even if it meant a new name for the regiment, new brothers in arms and a new depot. I hope that the same will be true of the amalgamation that we are debating. Perhaps the word "Rangers", with its echo of the Connaught Rangers, made the Irish Fusiliers feel a certain kinship with other distinguished Irish regiments which now exist only in pages of military history.
  So the Royal Irish Rangers became Northern Ireland's own regiment in 1968. But, as was the case when I was with the Fusiliers, it still drew a high percentage of its intake from south of the border. The Irish, whether they be Ulstermen or from south of the border, make good soldiers. They also make good field marshals. I have only to remind the House of Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, Lord Alexander, Lord Montgomery and Sir Gerald Templer, to underline that point.
  The Irish Fusiliers had both an Anglican and a Catholic padre because of the number of soldiers from both denominations serving in the regiment. If one wanted an example of the fact that both sides of the community can live and work together, there could be no better illustration. I cannot recall any incident involving sectarianism while I was serving with the regiment. Today, I understand that 30 per cent. of those serving in the Royal Irish Rangers are Catholics.
  What is more, after all the years in which Irish regiments were kept out of Northern Ireland because of concern that their presence might cause friction between the two communities, the Irish Rangers completed two successful tours of duty in the Province, in 1990 and 1991.
  I make those points to underline the fact that the three traditional Northern Ireland infantry regiments have already endured the tremendous upheaval of giving up their separate histories, identities, depots, and individual traditions to create the Royal Irish Rangers only 24 years ago. Having made that amalgamation work, they are now being asked not only to forgo one of their two regular battalions, but to accept the disappearance of the regiment into an entirely new unit, the Royal Irish Regiment, which its proposed make-up would seem to make unique in the Army.
  That will mean much more than a name change, a new cap badge and a new regimental depot at Ballykinler. Effectively, it will involve the creation of a different kind of regimental structure, even if there will be increased possibilities of promotion for its members.
  I recognise that some regiments which are disappearing altogether as a result of "Options for Change", and others which are undergoing huge changes, may consider that the Royal Irish Rangers are luckier than some; but I still
  1170
  believe that an amalgamation with the Ulster Defence Regiment is not the same as uniting two English line regiments into one.
  The Rangers and the UDR have a very different pedigree. I make that statement with the memory of a conversation that I had in Northern Ireland in 1970 with Brigadier Ormerod, one of the first senior commanders of the UDR—as it happens, he was a former Irish Fusilier. I realised with what high hopes he viewed the new regiment, with its avowed intention of becoming a non-sectarian internal security force within Northern Ireland, a bit like the B Specials, but drawing its support from both sides of the community. A non-sectarian home guard seemed to be the ideal answer to the terrorist, and initial recruitment to the UDR seemed to bear out that hope. At the end of our conversation, I remember Brigadier Ormerod saying to me: "Now it's up to you politicians to get the politics right"—as if, with the UDR, the politics of internal security had been resolved.
  In the early months of the UDR, it seemed as if the regiment would be able to recruit from both sides of the community, and at one time, as so many hon. Members have said, almost 20 per cent. of its members came from the Catholic section of the community. The regiment was not as large as it is today, so the figure of 20 per cent. can be misleading. In the past 20 years, that component has dwindled to the present figure of between 180 and 200 members from the minority community, in a regiment comprising 6,000 men. As everyone has said, they are very brave people, because they know with what studied ruthlessness the IRA has made off-duty Catholic members of the UDR its special target, both to intimidate those who might think of joining and to encourage the idea that the UDR is essentially a sectarian force.
  Sadly, a small number of the regiment have added weight to that charge; as has been said today, 17 have been convicted of murdering 15 Catholics, although serious doubt remains about the culpability of those called the "UDR Four". Other members have been convicted of lesser offences, so much closer screening of applicants has now become standard practice.
  As a result of the Bill, will those who join the Royal Irish Regiment have to go through the same screening process, or will it apply only to the home service battalions of that regiment? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister say something about that when he winds up? It would seem difficult to avoid that vetting procedure if we are not once again to find that charges are made against members of the force, yet I cannot see how, in an Army unit, it would be fair to have one rule for the home battalions and another for the regular one.
  The regiment has taken more than 220 fatal casualties, and about 450 members have been wounded. Its 6,500 men and women provide 11 million man hours of military service every year, and the regiment has provided an essential element in the security set-up in the Province. At no time has that brave regiment deserved the statement made about it in a BBC "Panorama' programme:
  "This regiment of Protestants is part of the problem it was intended to solve."
  Nor does the regiment deserve the equally dismissive remark by the previous Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Gerry Collins, who said on television:
  "The UDR has no role to play as presently constituted."
  Mr. Collins was speaking as a Minister of a country that was a joint signatory to the Anglo-Irish Agreement,

  1171
  which was designed to produce peace, stability and reconciliation, but which has yet to show that it can achieve even one of those objectives. I hope that the words of Mr. Collins have had no bearing on the changes that we are debating tonight. He spoke at a time when the Republic finds it difficult to mount a border police task force of more than 40 or 50 men. When one considers that it is a 300 mile-long border, that is wholly inadequate by anyone's standards. His words, like those of "Panorama", must have been sweet music to the IRA in its attempts to discredit the UDR. That brings me to my concern about the amalgamation.
  The security problem in Northern Ireland has gone on for 22 years. From time to time, things seem to go better and terrorist incidents fall off. We hear that troop numbers are to be reduced. In the House, we pass improved criminal legislation. Police forces are strengthened. Then there is another upsurge in violence, as is happening at present, more troops are sent out to the Province; and so it goes on, year in and year out, but the terrorism always goes on at some level.
  We now see the ugly development of tit-for-tat sectarian murders. I presume that those who carry them out belong to a generation different from those who were leading terrorism at the beginning of the troubles. Whatever the case, the sectarian killings mounted from the Protestant loyalist side of the community seem to carry an implication—a hint—that public confidence in the ability of the security forces working within the present constraints of the law to defeat terrorism is wearing thin.
  These people take matters into their own hands on the basis, "If you kill one of us, we will kill one of you"—a sectarian lynch law. Such a development carries with it many dangers, including a greater escalation of violence. If it is to be stopped, public confidence must be restored, and that must mean a reappraisal of the present security policy and of the role of each of the services involved in it.
  The UDR was raised and recruited to be an internal, non-sectarian security force. It began with a large part-time element, and even today that element is still more than 50 per cent. of the total strength. Now, instead of being an exceptional regiment for an exceptional task, the UDR will become part of a new northern Irish regiment—the Royal Irish Regiment—which itself will represent two traditions.
  One tradition is that of the Royal Irish Rangers, a Regular Army regiment derived from the three long-established infantry regiments to which I have referred, serving on all fours with other infantry units in the Army. It goes abroad as they do, which may be one of the reasons why some cross the border to join it. That regiment and its traditions are now to be linked with the internal security force—the UDR.
  The hope seems to be that the merger will give the new regiment the traditions of the Rangers and of the Northern Irish Brigade from which it sprang, and a new professionalism for its home service battalions because of its being part of a Regular Army formation. It is hoped that the Royal Irish Regiment will continue to be able to attract as high a percentage of recruits from the Catholic community as the Rangers did. All those objectives are admirable, and I hope that they will be achieved, but I wonder whether they are as easily attainable as the Minister would have us believe.
  I presume that some consideration was given to those objectives and to a similar regimental structure when the
  1172
  UDR was first considered in 1970. I presume that the difficulties of creating an homogenous but hybrid regiment were considered at that time to be too difficult to resolve, especially as the two tasks of the regiment as it is now to be constitued are almost mutually exclusive. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the regular battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment will also perform duties in Northern Ireland alongside the home service battalion or whether it will always be deployed outside the Province?
  How easy will it be to create a single regiment to which everyone will feel the same loyalty when it will comprise four different categories of soldiers? There will be regulars designated for service all over the world; regulars confined to Northern Ireland; part-timers to serve in the Province; and Territorials. Although I hope that the amalgamation will produce the effects desired by the military planners, I have considerable misgivings that the new regiment will inevitably be tainted by the political climate of Northern Ireland, with its sectarian intimidation, in a way which did not happen to the Royal Irish Rangers and thus kept it out of the present troubles. I also fear that that may make the task of the home service battalions of the new Royal Irish Regiment if anything more difficult to achieve than was the case with the UDR.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: It is entirely appropriate, when the UDR is being merged into a new regiment, that one should begin by paying tribute to the thousands of men who, over the past 20-odd years, have served the whole community excellently within that regiment. I shall not go into that tribute in great detail. Comments have been made by hon. Members of all parties and I know that the men will appreciate the sympathy and good will which have been expressed here this evening, and the recognition of the tremendous sacrifice that so many Ulster men have made in their service in that regiment.
  Reference has been made also to the small percentage of the minority community in Northern Ireland still serving within the UDR. Some 18 per cent. was achieved when the regiment was first formed, with an enrolment figure at that time of some 4,000, but as a result of intimidation by the IRA, that percentage has now dropped to 2 to 3 per cent., or between 150 and 200 men.
  I wish to say a special word about that small number of Roman Catholics from Northern Ireland who, despite all the pressures, continue to serve. Curiously, it is a smaller percentage than that within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, some 8 per cent. of which is Roman Catholic. As the RUC has a total strength of some 12,000 men, 8 per cent. means about 1,000 people. Therefore, some 1,200 Ulster Catholics actively serve in the security forces to defeat terrorism. That is many times more than the number of Roman Catholics in Ulster actively engaged in Republican terrorism, which is a sobering thought. There is no reason to doubt that the number of people actively involved in Republican terrorism at any one time is between 200 and 500, so they are outnumbered several times by the Ulster Catholics serving in the security forces.
  I mention that balance not simply to pay tribute to Ulster Catholics serving in the security forces but to draw attention to the skewed concern expressed by Roman Catholic community leaders and politicians, who are constantly concerned to ensure that the security measures taken, legislation passed and action undertaken by the

  1173
  Government should not bear too hard on the poor terrorists. They do not express the same concern about the larger number of their community and flock who are actively engaged in the fight against terrorism and who, in many cases, pay a very high price. That contrast says much about the attitudes, loyalties and sympathies of the people who express that inappropriate concern.
  A further question with which I should like the Minister to deal when he winds up the debate was sparked when I read the otherwise excellent brief prepared by the Library, which says:
  "The UDR does not patrol West Belfast Londonderry or the border area of South Armagh, nor does it engage in crowd or riot control."
  Will there be any limitation or prohibition on the service of the new regiment? Will it be limited to certain geographic areas and told not to enter other areas which we refer to as "bandit country", which are virtually under the control of terrorist organisations, thus leaving those areas under terrorist control? Will there be certain forms of service or activity in which that regiment cannot engage? Restrictions such as those mentioned in the brief are not realistic and I hope that the assimilation of the UDR into the rest of the Regular Army will be accompanied by assimilation of the service that they undertake and the areas in which they undertake it.
  As the Minister knows, my hon. Friends and I feel strongly, as does the wider community in Northern Ireland, about the name of the regiment. We bitterly regret the fact that the term "Ulster" will disappear and that the regiment will instead be called the Royal Irish Regiment. I appreciate that a certain cast of mind on this side of the Irish sea is unable to recognise the existence of Ulster and prefers simply to use the term "Irish" at every opportunity. It fails to recognise the culture and identity of those hon. Members who represent Ulster. The name may simply reflect that blindness to our identity and traditions, but it is particularly unfortunate because I understand that there used to be a Royal Irish Regiment that was recruited in the Dublin area. It was disbanded when the 26 counties seceded from the United Kingdom in 1922. To revive a title associated with Dublin and apply it to Ulster is particularly maladroit at present.
  The Minister said that the new title reflects composition—I presume that he meant the composition of the Royal Irish Rangers—and reference has been made by several speakers to the composition of the Royal Irish Rangers. I regret to say that those references were not particularly accurate. Again, I refer to the Library's brief:
  "In contrast to the UDR, the Royal Irish Rangers present a more equal reflection of the Northern Ireland population. Around 30 per cent. of the regiment is Catholic, with approximately 15 per cent. coming from the Irish Republic".
  That figure of 30 per cent. has been quoted by several hon. Members this evening, but I am sorry to say that it is not accurate. Way back in October, I tabled a question asking for a breakdown of the Royal Irish Rangers by nationality and religion. The holding answer appeared in Hansard. I then received a letter, which was a curious way to proceed. I am not sure why the letter could not have appeared as an answer in Hansard. It could then have been available to all hon. Members. Naturally, I circulated my letter to people who were interested.
  It may be appropriate if I now put that answer on record so that everyone will know the precise breakdown
  1174
  of the Royal Irish Rangers, as given to me in the letter from the Earl of Arran. The information shows the position as at mid-October last year. It says that, of the officers, 63 come from Great Britain and 32 per cent. are Roman Catholics; 49 come from Northern Ireland and 12 per cent. are Roman Catholics; 13 come from the Republic of Ireland and 77 per cent. are Roman Catholics. Of the other ranks, 382 come from Great Britain and 38 per cent. are Roman Catholics; 836 come from Northern Ireland and 11 per cent. are Roman Catholic; 70 come from the Irish Republic and 94 per cent. are Roman Catholic.
  I deduce from those figures that, in the regiment as a whole, 24 per cent. are Roman Catholics. Some people may say that the difference between 24 per cent. and 30 per cent. is not significant, so why quibble about it? But the number from the Republic of Ireland is not 15 per cent.; it is only 83 people, which is 5·9 per cent. There is quite a difference between 6 per cent. and 15 per cent.
  I mention those points because so many hon. Members said earlier in the debate that they hoped that the mix within the Rangers would carry over to the UDR, into the new regiment, and somehow affect that. But when we consider the breakdown of the existing Rangers, we can compare the small percentage of persons from the Republic of Ireland with the small percentage of Catholics from Ireland. The great bulk of Catholics from the Rangers are from England. Although they may be of Irish descent, it still makes a difference, which hon. Members will appreciate.
  Of the total number of people in the regiment, breaking them down by origin, 62·6 per cent. come from Ulster, 31·5 per cent. from Great Britain and 5·9 per cent. from the Republic of Ireland. The 1,400 men in the Rangers together with the 6,500 men presently in the UDR will form the total regiment. We are told that 750 of the 8,000 will drop out.
  It is obvious that the bulk of the men in the new regiment will he men who are at present in the Ulster Defence Regiment. That offers the prospect of the new regiment reflecting more accurately the character of the existing UDR rather than the Royal Irish Rangers. I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) who feared that the Rangers, of whom he is justly proud, would be somewhat swamped—that is my word, not his—in the new regiment.
  I underline my dislike of the title of the new regiment. To be told that the word "Irish" is used to reflect recruitment from the Republic of Ireland, when only about 5 per cent. of its smaller element will come from the Republic, is a vicious case of the tail wagging the dog. The title is not appropriate. As the Minister knows, we would have preferred the title of the new regiment to reflect its origins and its character, and be called the Royal Ulster Regiment, or something of that sort.
  The Minister said that senior officers in the Royal Irish Rangers welcome the merger. I am sure that they do, and I am not surprised about that. Under the "Options for Change" review, it was inevitable that, even if nothing else happened—given the reductions and mergers in other regiments—the Rangers would drop from two battalions to one. The Royal Irish Rangers would probably have lost the depot in Ballymena and have had to share another depot on the mainland with other regiments. The Rangers would have lost their character and identity as a result. No doubt, the officers in the Rangers who welcome the merger see it as a way of keeping some of the regiment's identity

  1175
  in Ulster and enabling them to command a much bigger organisation than would have otherwise been the case. However, I believe that, within the UDR, there is much unease. Some people are opposed to the merger and some have been persuaded that it is a good idea on the grounds of the wider opportunities and so on that the Minister and others described. However, the best way to describe the views of the majority of men is that of unease, compounded by suspicions arising out of past changes and mergers.
  We have been told that the merger is Army-driven, in the sense that the decision was largely influenced by the Army's views, but I do not think that the scheme can be divorced from the relentless political pressure that has come from the Republic of Ireland, from Irish nationalist politicians and from other community leaders in Northern Ireland who have attacked, particularly, the part-time element. That factor cannot be left out. In addition, the scheme cannot be divorced from the pressures generated by the "Options for Change" review. Those two factors point to a reduction in, if not a phasing out of, the part-time element. The Army is being reduced in size from about 50 battalions to 36 infantry battalions, leaving the Gurkhas out of the account. I am not sure why the Gurkhas are banned from coming to Northern Ireland—it is not because of our racism. They would be made welcome by my constituents. Unfortunately, the Army seems to regard it as impossible to deploy them, and that leaves 36 battalions.
  Hon. Members will know that, under present arrangements, up to 20 battalions may have to serve in Northern Ireland in one year. That figure is made up of the six battalions that are on a two-year stay, up to a dozen battalions on four-month tours and one or two spearhead battalions on tour. In an army of 36 battalions, that load cannot be sustained. The only solutions are to reduce drastically the total deployment in, and commitment to, Northern Ireland—which it may not be possible to do if current levels of terrorism increase—and drastically to reduce the number of units that are on short four-month tours or find another source of full-time men to replace the existing Regular battalions. It is from there that the Army-led pressure to reduce the part-time element will come.
  The figures for last July show 3,500 part-timers in the UDR, and that number may be reduced to 1,000 or 1,500. The Army has said that it has no intention of phasing out the part-time element completely, but enough statements have been made over the years to make it clear that there is a desire to see the part-time element diminish. If the figure goes down to 1,000 or 1,500, giving another 2,000 to 2,500 full-timers, that is equivalent to three full-time Regular battalions. That would reduce the need to rotate Regular battalions in Northern Ireland. That is the Army-led pressure to reduce the part-time element. There is always relentless political pressure from republican and nationalist sources, and it is particularly targeted on the part-timers. I believe that those two factors are influencing the Army's future.
  Another factor underlines why I believe that the way in which the Army is progressing is not desirable. As a result of "Options for Change", the infantry section of the Regular Army will be significantly reduced. I have been told that there will be about 10,000 compulsory
  1176
  redundancies. Another 30,000 infantrymen may have to leave the Army if they are not re-engaged at the end of their service.
  If up to 40,000 Regular soldiers had to leave their colours and there were opportunities within the full-time element of the new Northern Ireland-based full-time regiment, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a significant number of Regular soldiers who found themselves out of work or redundant would volunteer to join what would be the equivalent of a full-time UDR. There are already a significant number of Scotsmen and Englishmen serving in the UDR and, under the changes that I am envisaging, it is likely that that number will increase substantially.
  I suspect that that move would be welcomed in some Army circles. There is anxiety about the reliability of the native Ulster troops not behaving themselves and doing something which is best left to others' imagination. It may be felt that the unit will be more reliable if it contains a higher percentage of Englishmen and Scotsmen. But is that wise?
  The men who, on finding themselves no longer employed in the Regular Army, decide to come to serve in Northern Ireland in the equivalent of the UDR might not come out of the purest of motives. They may come because they have a score to settle. Reference has been made to the Stevens inquiry, which was sparked off by revelations about leakage of information from the security forces to loyalist terrorists which resulted in the targeting of republican terrorist suspects. One of the first such cases was that of Loughlin Maginn, a republican terrorist suspect who was murdered by loyalist terrorists. The information targeting Mr. Maginn was leaked from the UDR. Two UDR men, one of whom was an Englishman, were charged in connection with the offence.
  It is ironic that the Irish Republic, which concentrates its fire on UDR men, likening them to the equivalent of the hated B Specials, may be about to create a new scenario involving the sons of the black and tans. I wonder if that is wise—I am sure that it is not. I have no desire to see people from England and Scotland excluded from serving with new regiments—indeed, many of them are welcome—but the danger is that they may be coming with scores to settle.
  A rundown in the part-time element is in itself undesirable. Contrary to what some say, there is a need for a militia-type operation and organisation to deal with terrorism. A locally based security force with local knowledge is of great assistance. It would be undesirable to lose such local knowledge and the ability to share around local men. That is why I have grave reservations about the merger—it leads in the wrong direction.
  There is a clear need, too, for welfare support. The UDR is under unique pressures because its members—and the men of the new regiment—serving in Northern Ireland will always be under threat, on duty, off duty, when trying to relax and even for years after they have retired. Consequently, there is a significant need to provide them with good welfare support so that, in the terrible event of men being killed or injured, their families can he supported. I know that the UDR does a considerable amount of valuable work in trying to support the families and widows of men who have lost their lives in the emergency.
  I understand that the formal arrangements for welfare in the UDR go further than those made in the Regular

  1177
  Army. The families of soldiers who die in Northern Ireland and who served in the Regular Army find that they do not receive the same formal support from the Army. They may receive a certain amount of informal support from the regiment's trusts and benevolent associations. I hope that, with the UDR's greater assimilation into the Regular Army, its welfare arrangements will not be prejudiced.
  Sometimes there is a little friction between UDR men and Regular officers, particularly officers who come into the UDR and do not appreciate the need for welfare. But it is needed, not just because of the desirability of looking after widows and the children of the bereaved but because a locally recruited regiment serving in a locality should not be seen to be less than caring for the families of those who have made sacrifices. If it were seen as less than caring, that would strike a real blow at recruitment and morale. We need to sustain and improve those welfare facilities and I trust that they will not be prejudiced by the UDR's assimilation into the Army.
  Some hon. Members have already referred to the sad fact that, over the years, some members of the UDR have gone off the rails. We have been told the number of those who have been convicted of murder—unjustly, in a couple of cases—and of other offences. I do not want to suggest that the Army should be less than rigorous about checking whether men are improperly engaged in activities, detecting them and, if they are found to be involved in illegal activities, subjecting them to the full force of the law. I am, however, disturbed by a recent incident that took place in December not far from my constituency. Three members of the Cookstown company of the UDR were arrested and taken to Gough barracks, where they were interrogated under the prevention of terrorism legislation. They were suspected of involvement in the loyalist terrorist killings that have taken place in recent years in Mid-Ulster.
  What was disturbing about the incident was that the fact that these men were being questioned in connection with these crimes was immediately publicised. I do not know who leaked that to the press. It is conceivable that the leak did not come from the Army or from the Northern Ireland Office; but, as the information was leaked to the press not only in Northern Ireland but in London, that suggests that it might have come from the Northern Ireland Office. Leaking the fact that those men had been arrested and questioned in connection with those crimes was as good as fingering them. It would be easy enough for republican sympathisers to discover which men had been arrested. I know for a fact that one of the men who was arrested and subsequently released was, within a matter of days, the target of a terrorist murder attempt.
  There being no evidence against the men, they were released. They were entitled to the presumption of innocence, but they were immediately dismissed from the service. Only a few days after their release from Gough barracks, they were told that they had been dismissed and were given less than 24 hours to get their kit out. Thereafter they were for ever barred from entering the UDR base and prevented from joining the UDR ex-service men's association.
  If the security forces had reason to believe that men in the service were engaged in terrorist activities, it was quite right to take action against them. I cannot tell whether
  1178
  those men were as pure as the driven snow, but they were entitled to the presumption of innocence. Two factors in the case were distasteful. First, these men had served the community at risk to their own lives—whatever else they had done. For that reason alone they are entitled to a little more consideration than they were given. Secondly, what was the source of the suspicion? I asked the men what they had been questioned about while in custody, thinking that that might provide a clue as to the source of the information. Such information as emerged was exceedingly vague. The suspicion in my mind is that the real source was the east Tyrone brigade of the IRA: the IRA decided to manufacture some suspicions and to feed them, directly or indirectly, through political representatives to the security forces—and then to sit back and laugh while those forces took out three men from the local company.
  I should have mentioned earlier that the three men were a corporal, a sergeant and a colour sergeant. They were described to me by officers in the regiment as three of the best men in the company—the sort of men one would like at one's side when in a tight spot. I suspect that, having fed in the information, the IRA sat back laughing while the Army took out three of its best men, disposed of them and disrupted the morale of the unit.
  I hope that there was an extremely good reason for doing that. Neither the Minister nor I can judge at the moment. One of the differences between the Regular Army and the UDR—it is noticed and felt by the men—is that when a Regular soldier gets into trouble his comrades and the officers of his regiment rally round and try to help him. If a UDR man gets into trouble, he is thrown out, forgotten about and will not be helped, no matter what his circumstances are. That is a sad contrast and I hope that it will not persist in the new regiment. I hope that the same consideration that is given to Army men will be shown to men serving in the Royal Irish Regiment.
  Mr. William Ross: Would my hon. Friend, with his legal experience, care to take this matter a bit further? Supposing one of these people were murdered by the IRA, would his family be able to claim compensation or would they be barred from claiming it on the ground that the man had been suspected of terrorism?
  Mr. Trimble: That would depend on the position that the Northern Ireland Office took with regard to the application. What my hon. Friend suggests is theoretically possible, but then one must remember that the Northern Ireland Office is ready to pay compensation not just to persons suspected of terrorism but to persons guilty of terrorism.
  As can be seen from what I have said, we have considerable reservations about the merger. We will not divide the House on the issue, and if there is a Division we will vote neither for nor against the proposal so as to reflect our reservations and our desire that the proposal should succeed. We do not want to undermine the morale of a significant element of the security forces. The men feel uneasy and suspicious about the change, but I am sure that those same men will strive to make a good job of this, if they can. Her Majesty's soldiers have a distinguished record for rescuing the Army from bad plans and sometimes from poor generalship.
  8 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: I rise to speak feeling sad at heart because I represent many gallant members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who have lived through the most tragic years in the history of our Province. They have operated in dangerous circumstances and continue to do so, facing the enemy daily.
  The people of Northern Ireland owe the UDR a deep debt of gratitude. Its soldiers have acted with fortitude and courage and the regiment has earned its place alongside the greatest of British regiments. Its name is revered by every decent law-abiding citizen. Ulster applauds the gallantry, diligence and sacrifice of the UDR and gratefully acknowledges the contribution of all those men and women who have served or are serving in the regiment.
  Unlike his counterparts in other British Army regiments, the UDR soldier faces attack not only when he is on duty but when he is at home or, if he is a part-timer, at work, and even during hours of recreation. He faces attack even after his term of service with the regiment ends. He lives within reach of his enemy and is known by the enemy. For the remainder of his life or the duration of the conflict he will be a target. Given that sober reality, people should judge not the UDR but those who denigrate its service. I shall return to that issue.
  We must examine exactly why we have reached the present situation. I listened carefully to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in which he expressed in detail his worries and concerns. Having done that, how can he sit on the sidelines and not vote on this important issue? That is a disservice to the UDR and to the men and women who have served in it over the past 22 years. Every Ulster Member should register the strongest possible protest at the removal of a distinguished regiment which has served the British people of Northern Ireland with great courage and distinction.
  I trust that the House will wise up to what it is doing and will reject the proposal to remove the Ulster Defence Regiment from the streets of Northern Ireland. Other issues must he addressed. Hon. Members have paid glowing tributes to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I therefore cannot understand why we should rush to get rid of the regiment before the election. Why is there such undue haste to pass the legislation and ensure the removal of the UDR? Perhaps Her Majesty had an inkling of what the Government intended to do when she came to the Province and put her seal of approval on the UDR—firing a shot, as it were, across the Government's bows. Despite glowing tributes from Her Majesty and from hon. Members, however, we are saying goodbye to the UDR and saying that we do not want it.
  Those who do not vote against the Bill are accepting the end of the regiment. If hon. Members believe the glowing tributes to the value of the UDR and believe that the sacrifice that it has made and is making is worth while, they should not allow their names to be associated with the removal of the regiment. It is significant that on the day the Bill was introduced we gathered in the House to hear a statement about the worst monthly figures for many years for murder and other atrocities in the Province. We were told about the atrocities at Teebane and on the Ormeau road. Yet the Government thought that that was a due and proper time to signal to all and sundry that the Ulster Defence Regiment was to cease to exist. The Government will live to regret that signal because the vast majority of
  1180
  those who serve in the regiment think that, once again, it was a signal showing that terrorism and those who parade black propaganda against the security forces in Northern Ireland can succeed. Northern Ireland has been well served by the gallant members of the UDR, and they could give equally gallant service in the future.
  We are constantly told that the SDLP is the constitutional party of Northern Ireland. Its members are missing from the debate. They have no reason to come because their electorates are not bothered about the Bill. None of the people who vote for the SDLP or who choose to support it will be annoyed at the removal of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I suppose that SDLP Members are not here because they feel that others will do the dirty work for them and will put the knife in and betray. If the Bill passes into law it will be a gross betrayal of the UDR and those who serve in it. This is a sad day, because it marks the continuation of a policy of appeasement of the enemies of the United Kingdom. The Library reference sheet states:
  "The Army bill 1992 is in part a result of the reductions in the British Army undertaken under 'Options for Change'."
  On 23 July 1991, the Secretary of State for Defence announced changes to the British Army structure and a number of amalgamations of regiments. He said:
  "we are taking the opportunity to bring the Ulster Defence Regiment more fully into the Army by merging it with the Royal Irish Rangers. The new regiment will comprise one battalion for worldwide service and up to seven battalions for service in Northern Ireland only".—[Official Report, 23 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 1034.]
  In a moment I shall develop the first statement, which is to be found in the House of Commons Library sheet.
  The Army Bill 1992 is "in part" a result of the reduction in the British Army. What is the other ingredient? We find an answer in the reference sheet and in another statement issued by Government sources. In 1970, the Ulster Defence Regiment came into existence. Those who can recollect the situation at that time will remember the vilification of the Ulster Special Constabulary and its betrayal by the Government of the day.
  There are few hon. Members in the House who can understand the betrayal felt by the people of Northern Ireland when the Ulster Special Constabulary was removed from the streets of Northern Ireland. Until that time, the IRA was held at bay—it was defeated because of the excellent local intelligence and the mode of operations carried on by the local community special constabulary.
  As a result of the effectiveness of the USC in deterring IRA operations, nationalist republican politicians and leaders of the Roman Catholic Church agitated against the USC. The Government of the time decided to buy the suggested appeasement policy. That day marked a retrograde step for the safety of my constituents and of the people of Northern Ireland.
  We have paid. When I say "we", I mean that the people of Northern Ireland—British subjects in Ulster—have paid a tremendous price in their own blood for that folly, mistake and betrayal. Whether people like it or not, I must say that, had the Ulster Special Constabulary been on the roads now, we would not be standing here, 22 years on, with a worse catalogue of tragedy, murder and destruction than we had at the time.
  Consider what happened immediately afterwards. A signal was given then. The IRA accepted the signal that the Government were not willing to take it on and defeat it,

  1181
  but would give in to the suggested appeasement. The IRA accepted that signal and its campaign of terror went into top gear.
  If anyone needs to know what I am talking about, let him look at the statistics sheet that I have here. It is a graph which shows exactly what happened when the signal was given to the terrorists that the Government were not willing to take them on but bowed to pressure—the vilification and black propaganda used against the Ulster Special Constabulary. In this graph we notice that in 1970 there were 25 murders. Once the signal was given in 1971, there were 174 murders, and in 1972 there were 467 murders. Why? Because of the signal given by the useless Government of the time that they were not willing to take the terrorists on but that appeasement was the policy of the day.
  One will never appease terrorists. One has to defeat terrorism and one can only do so with the expertise of local people who know terrorists and who know their hide-outs.
  I have great respect for the young men in the other British regiments who come from across the water to Northern Ireland and I know many of them. When they come many of them do not know where they are. Two young men sadly experienced that on the Falls road. They did not know where they were and they went into a crowd of republican supporters. Tragically, they came to a sad and brutal end, as we all remember.
  Therefore, it is a serious matter to give a signal to terrorists. That signal was given more than 20 years ago and the Ulster Special Constabulary was removed.
  What happened as soon as the Ulster Defence Regiment was born? At the time we were told that the answer was a regiment which was more representative of the community. We were told that the Ulster Special Constabulary was the problem. Get rid of it and we would be well on the way to peace and everyone would accept the alternative. That was until the alternative came about.
  So the Ulster Special Constabulary was moved aside and the UDR came in. No sooner was it formed than the agitation recommenced—this time against the UDR. It was no surprise to those of us who knew that appeasement does not pay—but it was a surprise to some—that the agitation came from exactly the same group who had put out black propaganda against the USC. Capitulation and appeasement encouraged greater demands, and agitation for the removal of the UDR started.
  Just after that time, I remember driving down the road in my car, listening to an hon. Member of this House—who is missing tonight—on the radio. He had just campaigned for the removal of the USC, saying that it was the worst thing that had ever existed, that we needed a new regiment and that he promised to give it a fair wind. He has told the Minister and us the very same thing in the newspapers, although he is not telling us that today as he is not here. I heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) say that the UDR was even worse than the Ulster Special Constabulary. The Government accept that he is one of the "moderates" in a nationalist community. People who live in Ulster were not surprised by the agitation because they know that nationalists have never supported anything which supported Ulster within the United Kingdom.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) carried out a continual campaign of vilification of the Ulster Defence Regiment? So much so that no Unionist in the Assembly would sit when he was in the House because, after those attacks, so many men were murdered. A lot of UDR men were murdered at that time.
  Rev. William McCrea: I confirm to the House the truth of that statement. Often after the vilification of the UDR by the hon. Member for Newry and Amagh there was an IRA atrocity. The IRA jumped on the bandwagon of that vilification and used it as its excuse to murder Ulster Defence Regiment personnel. The only people who know exactly how hard the people of Ulster took that vilification and how angry they have been are people who have visited and talked to the families in their homes. That situation has carried on until tonight. There has been no let-up in the campaign against the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) who spoke a few moments ago from the Government Back Benches gave us a clear understanding of the vilification and how strong it was. The sad feature is that whenever right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies ask Ministers to condemn southern politicians for their meddling interference in the affairs of Northern Ireland, and especially those of the security forces, thus costing the lives of security force personnel, there is always a weak reply. It seems that no rebuke can clearly be given. I do not know what happens behind closed doors, but no encouragement is given to the community when foreign Ministers of a foreign country can vilify the forces of law and order of a part of the United Kingdom and United Kingdom Ministers cannot stand up for them, protest, and rebuke them to their face.
  The oxygen for terrorist attacks was once again pumped out in republican propaganda against a body of men and women whose chief crime was to desire the defence of their home and hearth.
  In a Library briefing—reference sheet 92/4, page 2, paragraph 4(a)—the UDR has been criticised by Catholics, it appears, for its alleged Protestant bias. These allegations have been supported by the Irish Government, who have called persistently for the UDR's disbandment. More than one third of the population of Northern Ireland is Catholic but Catholics represent only 3 per cent. of the UDR personnel. Surely that begs a question, and similarly it begs an answer. Were there no factors that gave rise to that representation? The answer is no; there are several relevant factors.
  The new regiment was opposed from the beginning by the Social Democratic and Labour party. There was no fair wind. The Ulster Special Constabulary was out and a new bandwagon was rolling against the UDR. The Roman Catholic community has an 18 per cent. representation in the regiment and we have been told this evening that instead of a 30 per cent. representation in the Royal Irish Rangers the real figure is 24 per cent. That is close to the 18 per cent. who originally joined the UDR. What happened to reduce 18 per cent. to 3 per cent.? Did those people just disappear? Did they retire? Did they become weary of having to put on a uniform and go out? The answer is no to all those questions.
  The truth is that members of the UDR who were Roman Catholics were harassed, harried, abused and

  1183
  ostracised. By whom? Let me answer the question. That was done by the constitutional nationists who sit in the House and by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, who never once to this very night have supported the UDR and who have never called upon the members of the community to face the terrorists.
  It is all very well to sit on the sidelines and criticise. It is lovely to be an armchair general sitting by the fire and having the privilege of criticising everything that is done by the security forces. That is very easy provided that that person does not ask any of his supporters to join the fight and face the terrorists. The members of the Roman Catholic community who joined the UDR—the 18 per cent. of its membership—found themselves ostracised at their place of worship, at their place of work, and within their families. This might be unpalatable to some people but it is the truth. Anyone who does not believe what I am saying should leave his ivory tower.
  The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) talked about the clerical gentlemen in the Province. They should leave their ivory towers and come and see what is actually happening. They should experience what others have gone through. There were Roman Catholic UDR men who could not return to their families. In some instances their families did not want them. That was because they happened to put on the UDR uniform.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talked about a young Roman Catholic member of the UDR whom he knew well. The undertaker would not bury him. It was necessary to bring in an undertaker from 25 miles away. That young man had committed one sin: he happened to wear the uniform of the UDR. He was murdered by the IRA and he could not be carried in peace to his grave. He was ostracised to the very place of his burial. That is what the 18 per cent. experienced. It is sad that there are some who are not here this evening to answer for their crimes.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that that has happened in police families as well. A sergeant in the town of Newry was murdered by the IRA. What happened? His grave was desecrated. It was opened to receive his body. He could not be buried by the local Roman Catholic Church. He had to be taken to Banbridge. He was a voter in my constituency and I was at the funeral. It took place not in Newry, where the man lived and had his family, but in Banbridge. As I have said, his grave was desecrated.
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. It must be realised that the majority of those in the Roman Catholic community who put on the uniform of the UDR, or that of the RUC, have to move from their place of residence. They are permitted to return only on certain occasions if their families are happy for them to come home. Only rarely are they allowed to return home to see their families, and only on particular occasions.
  The Roman Catholic members of the UDR were pilloried and ostracised by their politicians and their church officials. They discouraged them—and "discouraged" is the mildest word that I can use in the circumstances. The Dublin Government unrelentingly opposed the UDR and used every opportunity to accuse it of being a force of hate against the nationalist community. If they were really interested, some might ask whether the
  1184
  charge made by the Dublin Government and the nationalist representatives was justified. The answer lies in the real statistics.
  Since 1970—that is 22 years ago—17 members of the UDR have been convicted of murder. It is right to say that that is 17 too many. It must he remembered, however, that it is being questioned whether four of the 17 were wrongfully convicted and sentenced. So we are down to 13, but 13 out of how many? There must be a proper perspective. The answer is 13 out of the 48,000 men and women who have passed through the ranks of the UDR.
  There have been 13 bad apples. If a search was made of all the regiments of the British Army and of all ranks of the police forces throughout the United Kingdom, would there be a ratio equivalent to only 13:48,000? Did the 13 constitute a reason for a campaign of vilification? What did the hon. Member for Foyle say? In the midst of all this vilification and propaganda and Dublin saying that the UDR must be removed, the hon. Member for Foyle had to admit that only 0.28 per cent. of deaths in Northern Ireland troubles were attributable to the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is contrary to the black propaganda pumped out by some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who are against the UDR. He added:
  "Republican terrorists have killed 250 times as many, but successive Governments are still unfortunately playing around with that bunch of terrorist rats that are responsible for those killings in our Province."
  Given that a much higher percentage of deaths were attributed to the rest of the British Army and even to the RUC, why was there no agitation to disband those forces? It is because it would not get a hearing—it would not get a wind. But when black propaganda against the UDR is put out, many run to listen. Also in the official document to which I referred is the statement that "many hundreds" of UDR members have been convicted of lesser offences—but they include even car offences.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North reminded the House of the Stevens inquiry, and of how all the vans, armoured cars, and machine guns were rolled out to capture UDR men at 6 o'clock in the morning and to bring them in. He did not tell the House of the words of an assistant chief constable, who said that the crime of the few who were found guilty was one of which he, or any of his officers, could have been found guilty at any time during their years of active service in the RUC.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann spoke of an incident in my constituency where, in recent days, three members of the UDR were also treated in a despicable fashion. No charges were brought, but they were thrown out of the UDR and told that they would never again be allowed on a UDR base. Will the Minister explain how the arrest of those three men was reported by the media just a few moments after it occurred? No charges were made against those men, but they were dismissed, and they remain the subject of suspicion.
  I will tell the House of an incident involving an IRA man who was returning from the funeral of one of his IRA colleagues. When he was stopped at a checkpoint, he told the soldier on duty, "If you want to know who murdered the man whose funeral I attended today, here are the names." He took a book from the soldier's hand and wrote down the names of those who he said were guilty, and told the soldier to go and get them. We are now seeing IRA evidence behind the movements of certain members of the security forces.

  1185
  Let us remember the 200 UDR men and women murdered by IRA terrorists. I could show right hon. and hon. Members a photograph taken at a wedding showing the bride, groom, best man, and a bridesmaid. The only one left alive today is the bride. The best man was murdered, the bridesmaid was murdered, and so was the groom. Of that wedding party, only one person remains alive. That is the kind of sacrifice made by people on the border whom the House has decided must go. They were members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. They did not join to travel the world—if they had wanted that, they would have joined other regiments. They joined the UDR to defend their homes and their hearths.
  The Minister and others say that the change is being made to improve the regiment's career structure. I assure the Minister that the people in my constituency who joined the UDR did not do so for the sake of their careers, but to allow their kids to enjoy a career—to protect Ulster, and to bring it back to peace and stability so that their children would not have to grow up in the nightmare of terrorism that my kids have known.
  My eldest daughter is 18, and not one day of her life has gone by without her witnessing trouble, violence, or tragedy in our Province. UDR men and women put on a uniform, not to have a career themselves, but to ensure that their kids would have the possibility of a career in whatever sphere of life they saw as their vocation.
  Two hundred UDR men and women and 44 ex-UDR members have been murdered, and 377 seriously wounded, by IRA terrorists. In a recent attack in my constituency, the headmaster of a school in Castlederg who is a part-time UDR officer was driving to work in the early hours of the morning when he noticed a man walking a dog. It all looked simple. In the providence of God, he happened to look in his rear view mirror, and saw the man with the dog putting a walkie-talkie to his mouth—for he was the IRA scout man. The headmaster, realising that he would probably come under attack, took evasive action—and four gunmen immediately appeared to do him to death. Tonight he is in hospital but, thank God, he survived that murderous attempt.
  The UDR has demonstrated its unfailing commitment to the peace of Northern Ireland. Tonight, the sacrifice made by the men and women of the UDR is being thrown back in their faces. The courage of that body of Ulster men and women is beyond words of commendation; yet action is being taken to remove that gallant force, which is urgently needed at a time of one of the bloodiest onslaughts that our Province has ever faced. The decision to remove the UDR at this moment cannot be condemned strongly enough.
  The Bill heralds the end not of an era, but of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Conservative party research department refers to "The End of the UDR," saying:
  "The Bill winds up the UDR at the end of June 1992".
  I ask the Minister what happens if the Bill goes through. I trust that it is not a foregone conclusion, as it will not be if there are those who are willing to listen to the argument. But the Benches all around are empty. There is one hon. Member on the Benches of Her Majesty's Opposition for a Bill that could cost the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. That speaks volumes. When the vote comes—and it will come, the House will divide—hon. Members will come out of the woodwork. Why will they vote? Will they
  1186
  vote because they have listened to the arguments or because they believe? No. They will vote because they are told to vote to take out the Ulster Defence Regiment. Talk about voting fodder!
  Unfortunately, my constituents will pay the price. There is no doubt that very few of those who vote tonight will ever bother to meet a widow or to speak to a child who will suffer through their decision. It is just a routine, a very costly one.
  There is money in the coffers of the UDR that was raised by the people of Ulster for the Ulster defence benevolent fund. It was raised for the UDR because of the sacrifice its members made, and for the widows and children who are left. What happens to that money? Does the UDR get it, or does it go to the new regiment?
  We are told in the document that the merger has political advantage. That is the other part of it. It is political—it is a piece of political movement. It is a numbers game, so that the community can be told that it is a more representative regiment. Of course, it will be. There are two parts to the regiment: those who will be travelling the world and the others who will be staying. It will be most interesting to find out what percentage of those who join will be facing the terrorists in Northern Ireland and living in the community. This will be seen exactly. One can fool some of the people some of the time, but about the representatives who are facing the real brunt of this terrorism we shall not be fooled any of the time. Every action will be scrutinised.
  Unfortunately, tonight the decision will be taken and it will mean the demise of one of the most gallant regiments that has ever faced a foe—a regiment which, had it been given the tools and the support, could already have finished the job on behalf of all the services of the United Kingdom.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The need to have local people involved in local security forces in a terrorist situation is admitted by anyone who has ever taken the most casual glance at the terrorist organisations that have been faced not only by our own armed forces but by many others throughout the world. I believe that it would also be accepted that it is those local forces that do the most necessary work of building confidence in the communities in which they live and move, rather than the regular armed forces of either the state in question or an outside state coming in to help.
  The Minister today agreed with that. He said that the Army and the RUC could not do the job without the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton indicated assent.
  Mr. Ross: I am glad to see that he indicates assent to my words, because it means that he recognises with great clarity that the UDR is an absolutely vital component if the IRA is to be defeated and peace restored.
  It is because the Minister has given certain assurances about the new regiment that, while we are not overjoyed, to put it mildly, by the appearance of the Bill, we are unwilling to vote against it, for that would send a signal to many members of the UDR that would not be completely accurate. But we shall certainly be keeping a fairly close

  1187
  eye on the situation to see whether the assurances that have been given are fully honoured, not only in the immediate future, but in the long term.
  The question has always been what sort of a force is needed to defeat a terrorist organisation and how it should be structured, trained and used. What is the job to be done by the UDR in Northern Ireland?
  I am one of the few Members in this House who served in the Ulster Special Constabulary. I lived, and still live, in a nationalist area. Like the rest of that organisation, I was subject to a massive campaign of vilification, which had more to do with the vapours of Irish republicanism than with reality.
  Unfortunately, it was not only the House that believed those stories. There was a weakness in the Stormont Parliament at that time, which allowed that force to be disbanded. There are those who say to me now that we could never have stopped the IRA at its present level, but the reality is that it was not at its present level at that time. I believe that, if that force had been used fully and comprehensively, the IRA would never have become the force that it is today.
  I was proud to serve in that force. I recall very clearly even to this day the bitter resentment that I and many thousands of others who served felt—the resentment that I still feel and will carry to my grave. I will never forgive those who did that to the force of which I was a member. I am concerned this evening that there are those in the UDR who, if the assurances given are not honoured, will have the same feeling of bitterness against the Minister.
  The UDR was raised initially to be locally based. It was supposed to be able to attract a large number of Roman Catholics. I do not want to rehearse all that has been said in this debate, but I hope that hon. Members who take a real interest in the security position in Northern Ireland and want to refresh their memories will read Hansard slowly and carefully.
  We are told that, in the early days, the UDR was a representative force, but there are a great many Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland who are simply Republicans, and there is no way that any Republican could ever join a force which was designed to maintain the union. It was therefore representative of the Unionist population of Northern Ireland in the widest sense rather than of Protestants and Roman Catholics. That should be borne in mind.
  The force was immediately attacked by the enemies of the Union, and it has been attacked by them right up to the present day. The Stevens inquiry was another sign of weakness, and it was one of the most foolish episodes with which we have ever had to live. It is the Government's job to keep the activities of the armed forces of the Crown under control, but the Nelson case—that whole strange episode involving Army intelligence—has left more questions in its wake than have yet been answered.
  Anyone who thinks that, in a climate of terrorism, an agent can be put into any terrorist organisation and expected to have clean hands and live is a fool of the highest order. It simply cannot be done. I hope that, with the ending of that case, the intelligence network that is used against terrorists in Northern Ireland will be sorted out once and for all—that in future it will be controlled comprehensively and centrally, and properly run.
  In his opening speech, to which I listened very carefully, the Minister said that changes had taken place in the force since its formation. Those changes have, among other
  1188
  things, moved the force away from its former local character, which was one of the greatest strengths of the old B force. Slowly but surely, it was given more of a Regular Army structure. We had the part-timers; then we had the full-timers—the permanent cadre; now we have the nonsense about career prospects.
  As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) pointed out so clearly and forcefully, people do not join the UDR for a career; if they want a military career, they will go into the regular military forces. As soon as terrorism disappears, the UDR will shrink radically, and will probably disappear. The Minister knows that perfectly well. Most people who join the UDR join with the aim of defeating the terrorist organisation that is the source of the evil—the Provisional Irish Republican Army.
  I listened with astonishment when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House last Thursday that some 40 to 50 per cent. of those who are now being charged have no previous terrorist trace—in other words, that intelligence has not traced them in such a connection, and they have not been picked up before. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman as I do, I have no doubt that that is perfectly true, but it is still a very misleading statement to make in the House.
  The general public will have been given the impression that the intelligence organisations of the security forces know about only 40 to 50 per cent. of active IRA men. That is highly inaccurate. Most of those who are charged are very new members of the IRA; they have not been charged before, because they have only just come to the attention of the police, and, given the psychological pressures that can now be exerted in the course of cross-examination, greenhorns will break. When the police arrest a dedicated, experienced gunman, they keep him sitting there for seven days, and then he walks out of the door and waves goodbye—until he is next picked up. He does not break.
  The vast majority of those who are charged with and convicted of IRA and other terrorist activities are relative newcomers. The truth is that police intelligence in regard to the IRA is very good: the police have a very clear idea of the identity of most of the leading players.
  The proposed change in the UDR takes us further down the road to an apparently ideal situation in which we have—as the Minister told us—a more professional force. I shall return to that word "professional". In reality, however, the essential nature of the force will remain the same: it will be a locally recruited and locally used force.
  The change is portrayed as an attempt to introduce more Roman Catholics into the force. That is nonsense. If the Government are trying to confuse people by bandying statistics, they can forget it. People in Northern Ireland are not that stupid: the Unionist population are not that stupid, and I can tell the Minister that the republican element—including the IRA—are not either. They know perfectly well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) pointed out—they will read Hansard tomorrow, too—that 24 per cent. of the Regular Army who are members of the Royal Irish Rangers are Roman Catholics. When the merger takes place, that proportion will be a sight less.
  As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster pointed out, the proportion of Roman Catholics in the locally used and recruited force—those who will be active on the roads—will not rise very much, unless they are drafted in from the

  1189
  Regular Army; and the chances are that those who are now in the Regular Army did not join to spend their time on the roads of Northern Ireland. They joined to find a military career which would take them wherever the British Army went. Let us have a bit of honesty.
  Let the Government not forget that the IRA says that it wants the British and their supporters out of Ireland. That was made clear to me again very recently. The same applies to Sinn Fein and its fellow travellers. In fact, I believe that members of Sinn Fein have to be members of the IRA, because, as it is the IRA army command that runs the outfit, their orders will not be taken if they are not members. The supporters to whom I refer include those sitting on these Benches, and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. They include every Unionist who votes for the Union. The IRA is not interested in getting out British soldiers alone; it is interested in getting the British out, and the British are those who say that they are British—which means all of us.
  The Minister said today that he wanted the part-timers retained. He said that they were an important element. They are more than that: they are the essential link—the living, vital link—with the local community from which they come. They are perhaps the most essential element in the whole structure. Without them, there is no UDR—no locally recruited and locally used force; there is a Regular Army force which is used in the area of recruitment, and that is a different animal.
  There must be an easy way for UDR part-timers to join. There must be a relatively short-period of training, because they will lose their jobs if they stay away for too long. There must be no great change from the present conditions on which part-timers join, or they will not be there any more.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton indicated assent.
  Mr. Ross: The Minister indicates assent. I am glad, because that means that he understands what we have been trying to say this evening.
  These people should not be shifted from one end of the Province to the other; so far as is humanly possible, they should be used in their own immediate areas. That was the strength of the B force, and it is the real strength of the UDR part-timers—local men used among people they know.
  I do not want to see part-timers brought into the force and then used for guard duties only. Men will not join to do guard duty. This time I do not see from the Government Front Bench assent to what I am saying, but I hope that, before I finish, that assent will be forthcoming. Those men need to be out on the road, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give me a guarantee that the part-timers will be used in that way. It is out on the road that they are most useful. People who know that they would not be used in that way simply will not join.
  The Ulster Defence Regiment needs Northern Ireland officers—people born and brought up in Northern Ireland, people who know the local community, who know what has to be done, who know the sort of force they are dealing with. Any Regular Army officer who comes to the UDR must suffer a fair degree of cultural shock. UDR officers, as well as men on the ground, need training in anti-terrorist techniques. Combating terrorism is their
  1190
  main role in life. Such people do not expect ever to face a Russian armoured attack on the north German plain; they are expected to deal with a gunman with a hidden gun in a back street, or a man with a bomb lying behind a hedge. It is a different world and a different job. That is the kind of activity on which their training should have concentrated in the past. I hope it was, and I hope that it will be so concentrated in the future.
  We need a close interface with the RUC. The concept of the RUC as the leading body in the fight against the IRA must be tied very tightly into the whole anti-terrorist structure. The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), as always when we are dealing with Northern Ireland affairs, made an excellent speech. I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, and I am far more sorry that in a few weeks' time he will cease to be a Member. He has been a steadfast friend of Ulster, and, in respect of Northern Ireland matters, one of the few sane voices among Great Britain Members.
  In an excellent speech the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the unique position occupied by the Greenfinches in the UDR. The unique nature of the Greenfinches underlines the unique nature of the UDR. The regiment developed from highly suspicious beginnings. In my view, it was a sop to the Unionist community. It changed and developed to meet the developing situation, and the Greenfinches were part of the change and the development. The UDR exists only because, 22 or 23 years ago, the Government got the security needs of the security situation wrong. At that time, they did not give any weight to Unionist opinion. I hope that they will now start to give weight to that opinion.
  There is a very real and dangerous job to be done. The structure of the forces must be right, and I hope that the Government are getting it right. The training too must be right, as must the interface with the police. I said earlier that I had listened intently to the Minister when he talked about a more professional military body. It is all very well to talk about a more professional military body if one is facing an enemy in the Gulf, as happened last year, or dealing with a Russian armoured attack on the north German plain—which, thank God, it seems we shall never now have to do. But here we are dealing with a different situation, and the UDR must be more than a professional military body.
  It has to provide an interface with the people on the ground, with the terrorists and with the police. It has to act as a back-up for the police, and do all these other things. I have always thought that what we in Northern Ireland need is something more like a police force than an Army force locally recruited. However, the Government have chosen not to go down that road. For 20 years, they have gone down another road. If there is to be a change, I hope that it will take account of some of our criticisms.
  I believe that the IRA can be defeated, and the people in the UDR believe that the IRA can be defeated. But the Government have a part to play in the defeat. The views of my party and of the Democratic Unionist party have been put fairly forcefully to the Prime Minister and to Northern Ireland Ministers—not least during the past few weeks. I hope that what we are saying will be taken on board. If it is clearly recognised that the UDR is a unique force, and that the job that must be done by the locally recruited security forces in Northern Ireland is a unique

  1191
  and vital component in the whole anti-terrorist operation, perhaps wisdom will prevail and we shall see the force steadily improve in its capacity to deal with terrorism.
  I hope and pray that the Government have got it right. If not, the fair wind that everybody is trying to give the Government at present in respect of security will be to no avail, and we shall pay a very heavy price. It is always very difficult to reverse a mistake.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: Any Bill designed to create a Royal Irish Regiment out of the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment must start by paying a great compliment to those who have served in the two regiments. The sacrifice made by not only serving personnel but those who have retired from the regiments is very unusual. Such personnel find that their family, their social lives and everything they do in their business are affected by their membership of the regiment in which they have served. There is no doubt that those who have served have made a supreme commitment to the Union of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
  When we heard what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said about people who live on the border and the extent to which their lives were in jeopardy, we became aware of the sacrifices that they make, in that they are liable to be killed at any time and to have their families executed because of the way in which they have supported the Union.
  When considering the problems, we must be clear about the fact that the people of Northern Ireland are being intimidated into staying away from the border areas. As many hon. Members as possible should visit Northern Ireland and stay for at least a weekend to experience some of the problems. I do not think that hon. Members fully understand and appreciate the problems that their colleagues in Northern Ireland have to face when visiting the homes of their constituents to commiserate with parents for the sacrifices made by sons and daughters on behalf of the Union.
  The border areas come under much heavier pressure than any other area because terrorists seem determined to exclude any opposition in those areas so that they have free access back and forth across the border. If there is any limitation of that access, they feel threatened, as happened recently when a brave man was able, off duty, to use his weapon and to claim the life of one of the terrorists who was trying to take his life. Terrorists are trying completely to clear the area so that they have free access. When I was there, I had the unfortunate experience of visiting with a Northern Ireland colleague the family of someone who had been murdered the previous day. It is a very sobering experience to see what our colleagues with constituencies in Northern Ireland have to cope with.
  We should compliment our colleagues because they are also in considerable danger whenever they are in Northern Ireland. They have to undertake an enormous amount of security discipline. Their own families are very much at risk. Some of our colleagues have been killed by terrorists—that is a real threat—so their advice bureaux and all the other constituency work that they undertake in the Province have that additional dimension. We must, therefore, respect and have special regard for what they say.
  1192
  I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr.Ross). I have particular respect for him and for the knowledge that he acquired as a member of the Ulster special constabulary. Its members, with their very detailed knowledge of the ground that they covered and where the trouble points were likely to be, were able to keep a much closer eye on the people of the area than the security forces can do today. Even if members of the security forces are there for two years, they do not really get to know the people and the area in the same way as members of the special constabulary knew those with whom they went to school and grew up.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East was right when he went on to mention the need for anti-terrorist techniques and said that there is a special requirement for any force that operates in Northern Ireland. It is not the same technique that is required when one is preparing to defend the central plains of Europe. That does not mean to say that professional people are unable to acquire those skills, provided they have sufficient training to enable them to do so.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) thinks that the Bill is insensitive. I appreciate and understand his concern about the loss of the word "Ulster", but I point out to him that whenever one introduces a Bill of this sort it will be the wrong time and that whatever one tries to do there is bound to be some event in that period that makes it a bad time for such an announcement. We must grasp the nettle. If we believe that it is necessary to do something, the decision to do it must be taken.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) mentioned those who, having been made redundant, might be recruited from elsewhere in the British forces and he hoped that those who had old scores to settle would not take advantage of the opportunity to enter the Royal Irish Regiment. I think that his fears are unfounded, and I hope that a considerable number of people will be prepared to share some of their valuable experience by serving in this regiment.
  Effectiveness of security arrangements and the rule of law are essential ingredients in what we are trying to achieve in this area. They must be extremely high on our list of priorities.
  I welcome the Bill because I have found, from my experience as a member of the Select Committee on Defence and from meeting many members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, that members of the UDR are looking for a proper career structure. The Bill will give them that opportunity. It will give a variety of which they can take much greater advantage. When the Ulster Defence Regiment was first set up, it was believed that it would be on a part-time reserve basis; now, about 50 per cent. form part of a permanent cadre. So the situation has undoubtedly changed over the life of the regiment.
  The regiment has performed extraordinarily well. I am not one of those who criticise it because of the number of bad apples that it has had—bad apples can be found in any group of people. Fourteen, even out of so many, is an unfortunate figure, but one has to accept it. The rest of the people play a very valuable and important role.
  At the same time, we must acknowledge that there are other good reasons for changing the structure. The opportunity to introduce British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens for recruitment instead of just British citizens is important. As other hon. Members have

  1193
  said, we hope that that will provide an opportunity for greater Roman Catholic involvement. I know that fears have been expressed, and it has been said, that when the Ulster Defence Regiment was first set up, it had many more Roman Catholics, but some of those have now left. I hope that we can introduce a new impetus in that direction, although I realise that as the Irish Republic becomes more prosperous we may not find it quite so easy to obtain recruits from the south as we have done in the past. Undoubtedly, the European Community has a lot to do with that.
  We need to bring the personnel of the UDR into the structure of the rest of the Army. The correct and proper way to do that is through the creation of a new regiment—the Royal Irish Regiment. I strongly support the Bill.
  9.16 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: Yesterday I re-read the debates that we had in the House in 1969 on the establishment of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Committee stage of the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill was taken on the Floor of the House, and the Minister in charge was the present deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I was a spokesman for the Conservative Opposition.
  A hostile amendment to cut the proposed strength of the regiment from 6,000 to 4,000 was moved by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and 25 hon. Members supported it. The mover of the amendment became chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. Of the supporters of the amendment, one—the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—became leader of the Labour party; one—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—became leader of the Liberal party; and one—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—is now the principal official Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland.
  During that long debate, which ran from 7 pm until 9.30 the following morning, the Conservative party and, of course, the Ulster Unionists, invariably supported the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook against the criticisms of the present principal Labour spokesman on Northern Ireland.
  I recall that some Labour party rebels, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, argued that the new Ulster Defence Regiment was bound to become a replica of the B Specials. I then said:
  "It seems to me inconceivable that in the foreseeable future any Minister at the Department"—
  the Ministry of Defence—
  "will not want the regiment to reflect a proper balance of the communities in Northern Ireland…If it is 100 per cent. sectarian, it can only be because one section of the community chooses not to come forward."—[Official Report, 1 December 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1149.]
  As many hon. Members have reminded us, when the UDR was set up many Catholics came forward, and 18 per cent. of the regiment were Catholics. Their numbers soon dwindled for reasons forcefully pointed out to us by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). It is ironic that, in the debate on the setting up of the UDR, the attack on that regiment was led by the then hon. Member
  1194
  for Mid-Ulster, Bernadette Devlin. I hope that she will read the forceful words of the present hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.
  Catholic UDR members were attacked at home and Catholic recruitment could have been maintained only if the political leaders of the constitutional parties who drew their main strength from the Catholic community had issued an unequivocal call to young Catholic men and women to join the regiment. Sadly, that call never came.
  When the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, I once again hoped that part of the price paid would be an unequivocal call from the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and from other leaders of the Catholic community for young men and women from that community to join the UDR and the security forces. One might have hoped that the leaders of the SDLP would be here and might have given a word of encouragement even at this late hour for members of their community to join the new regiment. Sadly, that has not happened and I now wonder whether it can ever happen.
  We must all hope that the new regiment will play a leading role in protecting the whole population of Northern Ireland. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The whole question of intelligence and of intelligence gathering is more important than regimental organisation. The key to success now, as it has been, is not increased patrols on the streets of Belfast, although that may help to relieve the fears of the public. If we really want to stop the terrorists, it means more tapped telephones, more electronic surveillance—or bugging, to put it more bluntly—more interrogation of suspects, and more use of informers and double agents. The intelligence world is bound to be untidy, but the recent trial in Belfast suggests that, at the least, co-ordination could be improved.
  The disturbances and killings in recent weeks have underlined and strengthened the argument which some of us have put forward in recent months that "Options for Change" and the reduction of the strength of the infantry in the British Army has gone too far. I have consistently argued that the cuts in the infantry battalions are too deep and that the main threat that we face comes from the sort of low intensity operations in which we are embroiled on the streets of Belfast and in the villages of south Armagh.
  The Conservative party's defence policy is infinitely superior to that put forward by our principal opponents. The upsurge of sectarian murders and the calls for yet more soldiers to be sent to the Province illustrate the problem of overstretch that we have all been discussing. There is a real danger of battalions having to go to Northern Ireland ever more frequently. I hope, therefore, that after the general election a new team of Conservative defence Ministers will look again at that argument.
  I understand that in a few moments the House is to divide on the merger of the regiments, but I am sure that there is no division in the House on the debt that we owe to the men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the brave way in which they have served the whole community of Northern Ireland in the past 22 years since we set up that regiment.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I shall be interested to know which way the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) intends to vote. He went to

  1195
  great lengths to show how he has supported the Ulster Defence Regiment over the years and also went out of his way to liken his strength of feeling with that expressed by Democratic Unionist Members. I shall be interested to know whether he will follow their suit if a Division is called and vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  We intend to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said at the outset of the debate—to give the Government our full support on the Bill's Second Reading.
  I have heard bits of all the speeches. I have left the Chamber from time to time, but I shall not fall into the trap, as an hon. Friend did last week, of giving the reasons why I had to do so. Suffice it to say that I have the full flavour of the debate. I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised.
  First, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate with such clarity and for taking us through the Bill so closely. Although the Bill is not long, even the Ministry of Defence did not feel that a statutory basis was required to change the position of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Minister's speech shows how quickly he and his civil servants have learnt what all the clauses stand for and what the changes are likely to be.
  The Minister has our total support on two of the points that he made. He says that the Government are absolutely committed to upholding the rule of law and police primacy in Northern Ireland. Clearly, there is a bipartisan position on that commitment. Perhaps he could have a word with the hon. Member for Beckenham, as there appeared to be some disagreement on that point.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: My right hon. Friend explained the Bill, which I shall support, with great clarity and force.
  Mr. Marshall: I am pleased to hear that we agree on the word "clarity", if nothing else.
  If we felt that the proposed amalgamation would undermine the fight against terrorism in the Province, we would not support the Bill. It is because the Labour party feels that the proposed amalgamation will strengthen the security forces in assisting the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism that we shall vote for the Bill, if a Division takes place.
  In his initial remarks, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) seemed to be trying to cause dissension and perhaps jealousy among spokespersons of the official Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North on his balanced representation of the official Opposition views on the Bill. I believe that, when the official Opposition speak on affairs affecting the Province, we always present a balanced view. Can the right hon. Gentleman name occasions and give examples when any official Opposition spokesperson speaking on Northern Ireland affairs has ever expressed anything other than a balanced view? The right hon. Gentleman may sometimes have disagreed with our views, but that does not mean that they were not presented in a fair and balanced way.
  Mr. Molyneaux: It is true that from time to time the views of the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesmen on Northern Ireland matters do not find a ready response from the Ulster Unionist party or the Democratic
  1196
  Unionist party. I was paying compliments to those on the Opposition Front Bench, but I hope that my comments will not damage their electoral prospects.
  Mr. Marshall: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will not damage our prospects.
  On a more serious point, the right hon. Gentleman expressed some pessimism as to whether the enrolment of Catholics in the new regiment would be at the same level as it now is in the Royal Irish Rangers. Although I accept that there are grounds for his pessimism, I hope that we share the feeling that more Catholics would think it worth while serving in the new regiment if we could provide the protection required to increase their ratio. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's pessimism, I hope that that is something that we both wish to see, and I hope that it will happen.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley also said that he hoped that amalgamation would not be used to weaken the contribution of locally recruited soldiers. I certainly agree with him on that, and I hope that the Minister will assure us on that point.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the House will not be surprised to hear that, once again, I totally disagree with everything that he said. He appeared to be advancing the view that the Bill was part of some grand conspiracy to undermine the Ulster Defence Regiment and to destabilise the security position in Northern Ireland. I totally disagree, and I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members disagree too.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to leave the House with the idea that he had disagreed with my remarks about the gallantry of the Roman Catholic members of the UDR and the sorrow brought to the families to whom I referred.
  Mr. Marshall: I certainly do not disagree with those remarks. Later, if I have time, I shall add my praise and sorrow for those groups. But the hon. Gentleman's main political point was that the Bill is part of a grand conspiracy to undermine the UDR and further destabilise security in Northern Ireland. That is quite wrong, and the hon. Gentleman does a great disservice to everyone in Northern Ireland by continuing to advance that view.
  The amalgamation cannot be interpreted as a sign of weakness. It does not amaze me that the hon. Member for Antrim, North should seek to introduce the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the debate. This measure cannot be interpreted as arising from the influence of the Irish Government. The need for amalgamation and reorganisation stems from the requirement to review the overall defence needs of the United Kingdom and to examine security requirements in the Province and the role of the Royal Irish Regiment in them.
  I agreed with the opening remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who said that he and his party would judge the Bill by the effectiveness of security arrangements in the Province after amalgamation. I agree with that; I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party concluded that they would not support the Bill if they had any doubts about the effectiveness of those arrangements after amalgamation. We take the same line.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will be pleased to know that I agreed with at least two of his points. For perhaps the first time in the past 22 years, the

  1197
  point was made that more Ulster Catholics are involved in the fight against terrorism than are involved in terrorism. Without over-generalising, that at least shows that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the nationalist community who are just as determined as the majority community that terrorism is not the way to bring about political change.
  After amalgamation, if there are proposed changes in the operational role of battalions based only in Northern Ireland, will the Minister give us some idea of what such changes might involve by comparison with the UDR's role today?
  My old adversary, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), claimed that amalgamation is likely to besmirch the name of the UDR and in some way diminishes the valour of past and present members of it. I believe that I can carry the whole House with me by disagreeing with that. Members of all parties have paid tribute to the bravery and courage of the UDR, whose members will still have a leading part to play in the defence of the Province, in the fight against terrorism and as part of the new regiment.
  I take offence when words like appeasement and betrayal are bandied about so freely in this House by an hon. Member. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the legislation does not appease terrorists. It does not betray the people of the Province or hand them to terrorists. We support it because it shows the terrorists that when change to the security forces is required we are prepared to support it so that the fight against terrorism can be carried on far better than it has been in the past. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful about his use of words such as appeasement and betrayal.
  Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that many people who have served in the UDR believe that the Bill is a betrayal of all their sacrifices.
  Mr. Marshall: I am not at all surprised that some people feel like that. Perhaps it is because of their sense of identification with the Ulster Defence Regiment. Those feelings are misplaced and I cannot help feeling that they are engendered by some of the public remarks of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. [interruption.] We all wish to see a reduction in terrorist activity in the Province, and the majority of hon. Members agree that the Bill is a step forward in the fight against terrorists. Hopefully, it will lead to a reduction in terrorist activity.
  I repeat that we recognise the courage, dedication and sense of duty that have led to so many people in the Province joining the Ulster Defence Regiment and assisting the RUC and other elements of the British Army in the fight against terrorism. We pay tribute to their bravery, and honour the hundreds of people who have died and those who have been injured in the fight against terrorism.
  At a time of tremendous change in defence requirements, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the world, it is inevitable that the UDR cannot stand isolated and immune from change. That does not indicate any weakening of our resolve to combat terrorism. On the contrary, I hope, and I think it is a shared hope, that the successor regiment to the UDR and
  1198
  the Royal Irish Rangers will be in the forefront in assisting the RUC in the continuing fight against terrorism from whichever quarter it springs.
  The Bill is a step forward. We all recognise the difficulties that the UDR has faced in recruiting people from the minority community, and I do not wish to rehearse those arguments again. Whether one likes it or not, to some extent—I put it no higher than that—that has helped to alienate the UDR from the minority community. Our hope, which must be shared by all parties, is that the new regiment will be able to continue the tradition of the Royal Irish Rangers, which was able to recruit a much higher percentage of Catholics than the UDR. My view, and I think that of my party, is that if that were to happen the make-up of the new regiment would be more representative of the Province as a whole.
  As the Minister said, the amalgamation will produce a less isolated, better trained and more professional force. I was pleased to hear that the Government intend to proceed with their earlier suggestion that individual soldiers will be switched between the general battalions and the home-based battalions. I hope that many hundreds of members of the new regiment will take advantage of that, because it offers great experience and will increase their professional opportunities.
  The amalgamation must be genuine and not simply the absorption of one regiment by another. In forging a new identity it must absorb the best traditions of the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment. We believe that it will and we wish it well.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I must say that this has been a spirited debate and I much appreciate the support that we have had from both Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) mentioned 750 redundancies in the regiment. He was referring to the amalgamation of the two regular battalions of the Royal Irish Rangers. He deduced from that that there would be 750 redundancies. Natural wastage will take place to some degree, so we would not expect that number. I would not want anyone to get the impression that the reductions in numbers in the Regular Army will affect the UDR. We do not envisage the members of the home service battalions being affected by that measure.
  We are working on an enhanced resettlement package, which would read across to the Army and would be available to anyone who was made redundant. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to make an announcement about that in the not-too-distant future.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) told us about three of his constituents who were forced out of the UDR on the ground that they were Catholics and were coming under enormous pressure locally. He also went on to tell us about the great dangers for UDR recruits who live near the border with the Republic. I certainly accept that. I must admit that those who joined up showed enormous courage and it is a great tragedy that there is such a small percentage of Roman Catholics in the UDR. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the price of amalgamation was the abandonment of the UDR's role in Northern Ireland. I can say

  1199
  categorically that that is not the case. We are doing this because we value the role that the UDR plays in Northern Ireland and we want that role to continue.
  However, we must constantly remind ourselves that the basic reasons for what we are doing are military. We are saying that we want a more professional, better trained number of people in the home service battalions. Once we start to go down the road of saying that the main reason is to recruit more Catholics or to provide a sop to the Dublin Government, we are all over the place. The main reasons are military. We believe that as a result we shall have more professional soldiers, who will have greater opportunities. It is important to remember that that is the rationale of what we are trying to do. If we go down the road of being concerned about other issues, we shall be badly diverted from the main point.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was also worried that training would be increased to a level where part-timers would not be able to keep up. He had a reservation about that. Today the training of part-timers has to be dealt with with enormous sensitivity by commanding officers. We realise that some people are available and can take off blocks of days for training. Other part-timers in the UDR are not able to do so. It is not our intention to work some surreptitious scheme to get rid of part-timers. We very much value them. For those who can make the time available, there will be opportunities to train on the mainland. The general view is that the soldiers would enjoy the opportunity to go to the mainland—where they would have different training facilities—and that they will probably be safer while they are there than they would be in Northern Ireland. A soldier will also be able to choose to serve in Northern Ireland, without any prejudice to his career. I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley is also concerned about the period of notice. I understand his concern about the possibility of changes to notice arrangements which currently apply to members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Under current plans, which we shall need to reflect in the new regulations, there wild be no change in the ability of a part-timer to give a month's notice of termination of service. That is important. Conditions of service covering the notice that a part-timer gives will remain as they are now.
  As regards the permanent cadre, we have in mind that they should in future serve on engagements closer to those of the rest of the Army. That would involve a notice period of a year. As I said in my opening remarks, where there are special circumstances justifying a more rapid departure from the home service battalions, I would not expect there to be any problem in practice. These arrangements exist in the Regular Army and they will be used where necessary in the new regiment. If there are security reasons that mean that someone has to leave quickly, we shall be in a position to allow that to happen. In those circumstances, a commanding officer will not say, "No, we need a year's notice and you must stay in."
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was concerned also about advertising for recruits and whether advertising for recruits was continuing. I can give him undertakings. In the financial year 1990–91, £110,000 was allocated and spent on UDR recruitment. There was advertising in newspapers and magazines, and occasionally on television. Recruitment is aimed generally at bringing in both full-time and part-time members, but on
  1200
  occasions it is directed specifically at either category. In the financial year 1991–92, £110,000 has again been allocated. Additional funds may be available to launch the new regiment. It is not possible to separate expenditure between that directed towards the permanent cadre and that which is aimed at part-time recruitment. Basically, it is normally aimed at both.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about members of home service battlions being forced to serve away from local areas and made a valuable point on local knowledge and its importance in the fight against terrorism. We greatly value the contribution of part-timers and the local knowledge that they can offer. The terms of service of part-timers remain substantially as they are now. There are no plans to post part-timers away from local areas.
  The permanent cadre must be able to see a full and professional career for its members in service in the British Army. The military authorities will consider carefully the need for postings against the need to maintain local knowledge. There will be a balance to be struck. I do not expect any postings away from home battalions to be on a substantial scale, but they may take place occasionally if, for example, there is a need to make up for a recruiting shortfall in a particular area.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) told us a terrible story about an undertaker who would not bury a UDR Roman Catholic soldier who had been killed. He described the terrible feelings of the man's family and said that a hearse had to come from some 25 miles away. It was an awful story and indicative of the problems that so many brave young soldiers faced when they joined the UDR at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman asked for a guarantee that everyone who is in the UDR will be entitled to join the new regiment. I think that I can give him that. I think that I can say that anybody who is part of the UDR at the end of June will be offered a place in the new regiment. I believe that I have dealt with the opportunities to resign.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked about the closure of UDR bases. The bases and locations from which the security forces operate are, as the House knows, constantly reviewed. We are examining the locations from which the home service battalions will operate most effectively in future. Any changes will be designed to ensure the continuation of a strong security force presence throughout the Province. The bases are not free-standing locations but part of a central pattern of operating bases throughout the Province. We should not feel that the amalgamation will be a reason to start closing bases. As I have said, they are constantly under review. The hon. Gentleman will know that bases have been closed in the past and new ones opened.
  The hon. Members for Antrim, North, for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) wanted to know what would happen to the UDR benevolent fund when the amalgamation has taken place. The fund is a registered charity which provides valuable support in the form of loans, grants and other welfare support to current and former members of the UDR and their families. It depends on voluntary contributions. Full arrangements for its administration after the merger have not been decided. I can confirm, however, that there are no plans for it to be wound up. It will continue to be available to provide assistance to those whom it helps now.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Can the Minister confirm the suggestion in the Library briefing paper that the new headquarters will be in Ballykinler? Also—this may be dealt with in the regulations—is it the intention to harmonise the housing allowances for full time UDR members with those paid in the Regular Army?
  Mr. Hamilton: One of the problems that we have had throughout this debate is the briefing from the House of Commons Library. The Government are not responsible for that briefing, and it is made clear on the front of that document that it is independently produced. I do not think that all the information that it contains is quite accurate—including the percentage of Catholics in the Royal Irish Rangers. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking in respect of Ballykinler. Decisions are being made, but no conclusion has yet been reached.
  As to help with housing, I do not see a substantial difference from the situation that the UDR enjoys today. Most of its members are not in the same position as those of the Regular Army, who have married quarters, and so on. Fundamentally, we will see much the same terms and conditions of employment as exist today.
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke of the gradual decline in the number of part-timers serving in the UDR. In recent years, increasing operational demands have been placed on the regiment and, as a result, the original part-time force has been transformed into one that is half part-time and half full-time, permanent cadre soldiers.
  With the gradual increase in the permanent cadre, it appears that the community has increasingly seen the UDR's task as one for full-time, professional soldiers. Fewer part-time recruits have come forward, and there has been a gradual decrease in the strength of the UDR's part-time element. That has occurred through natural wastage over the years, and we expect that trend to continue. There is no policy to cut the number of part-time UDR soldiers.
  The UDR's part-time element continues to fulfil an extremely valuable role in supporting the RUC in the fight against terrorism. There are no plans to disband the part-time UDR or to change its role. As I mentioned earlier, we are very grateful for the surge capability that it offers, when it comes to calling up the UDR's part-time element in extreme terrorist situations.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be advertising in Northern Ireland to encourage people to come forward to serve in a part-time capacity?
  Mr. Hamilton: I thought that I had already dealt with that question. We have the same advertising budget as last year. It is aimed at recruiting permanent cadre and part-time UDR members, and will appear in newspapers and on television.
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North that people did not join the UDR to become Regular soldiers. When the regiment was formed, its members thought that they were joining a reserve. At the beginning, the percentages were 10 per cent. permanent cadre and 90 per cent. part-timers. The part-timers thought that they would be called up only in an emergency, when the situation got out of hand.
  As we know, the situation got out of hand the moment that they joined, and they have been called up ever since.
  1202
  Certainly, that is true of the permanent cadre. The regiment has changed as it has developed and has become more and more a professional body. The percentage of permanent cadre has risen, and as time has gone by, the attitude of UDR members has probably altered towards the whole business of being part of the British Army. For that reason, they will be extremely grateful for the opportunities to expand their careers in the British Army that the Bill will make available to them.
  On the question of general service battalions serving in Northern Ireland—my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) raised this point—the new regiment will have its regular service battalions, which will serve alongside the home service battalions. There is no reason why this should not go on as in the past.
  I very much commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that members of the Democratic Unionist party will find it possible to support it too.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:-
  The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 5.

  Division No. 81]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Amess, David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Amos, Alan

  Irvine, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Jack, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Janman, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bellotti, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lamond, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Lewis, Terry

  Brazier, Julian

  Lightbown, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lord, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  McCartney, Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Butterfill, John

  Maclean, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Mans, Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Chope, Christopher

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Cryer, Bob

  Miller, Sir Hal

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

  Mills, Iain

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Moate, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Dixon, Don

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Norris, Steve

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Page, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Paice, James

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Reid, Dr John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hardy, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Harris, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Speller, Tony

  1203

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Stevens, Lewis

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wells, Bowen

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thorne, Neil

  Wood, Timothy

  Trippier, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  NOES

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Kilfedder, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Rev. William McCrea and

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Mr. Peter Robinson.

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Army Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 17th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempt business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Question or Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the European Economic Area not later than three hours after their commencement; and that Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business—[Mr. Boswell.]

    EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
    Ordered,
    That the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 29th November and 10th December 1991, relating to Agreements between the Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th December 1991, relating to the establishment of a European Economic Area, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Boswell.]

  Dioxin (Bolsover)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I make no apology for returning to the issue of dioxin in the Bolsover area. What I am absolutely sure started off in the Minister's mind as being nothing more than a nine-day wonder has turned out to be an eight-month scandal.
  It all began on 26 June, when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a written answer to a question planted by a Tory—not even in a reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover—informed the House that two farms in the Bolsover area, near the Coalite plant, would have to stop selling milk. It was a devastating blow for the farmers, as can be imagined, and it was also a worry for the people in the Bolsover area. Because the milk could not be sold, it had to be destroyed. It was sent to an incinerator plant in the west midlands. The Minister did not even know whether that plant could burn the dioxin. As a result, the contaminated milk was spread round the west midlands, and finally it was sent up to Ellesmere Port for incineration.
  We immediately called for a public inquiry. I reckon that it is the kind of subject that warrants a public inquiry, but we did not even have a statement in this House. The only references to the matter are to be found in answers to questions that I and other hon. Members put to the Minister. When, in October, we heard that another farmer in the Bolsover area had been prevented from pursuing his livelihood we began to wonder whether the Minister cared at all. With the stopping of a third farmer's production, one would have expected the Government to hold an inquiry and pay compensation to the farmers concerned. They have had every opportunity. They have only to study what happens in Holland, where when such events occur the Government pay compensation and then sue the polluter. But all that the Government of this country can do is to keep saying that the polluter must pay. Just imagine three small farmers trying to take on a £40 million giant like Anglo United Coalite. These people have a problem, and they have had to turn to their Member of Parliament and to others to raise it for them.
  It is interesting that when the safety levels were measured two farms out of 27—a third was discovered later—would have failed the tests. I made some inquiries because I wondered what happened to the other 25 farms—did the dioxin test apply to them? I found out that only just before the tests were carried out the Government had changed the testing ratio by a factor of 10. The result of my inquiries was the discovery that if the old figures had been used to judge the safety level every farm in that area of north Derbyshire would have been deemed to be producing contaminated milk and putting it into the milk chain. That change of measurement has not been disputed as it appeared in New Scientist on 20 July.
  Not long afterwards, the National Rivers Authority got into action. As a result of my representations, it did some tests immediately above the effluent discharge of Bolsover Coalite and immediately below in the watercourse known as the river Doe Lea, a relatively small stream. The NRA had already established that the river Doe Lea was 1,000 times above the safety level. When measured, the level of

  1205
  dioxin sediment above the effluent discharge turned out to be very much higher below that point after the effluent had been pushed into the river.
  At that point we were beginning to establish that Coalite was a factor. Hitherto, Coalite had said, "If you mention our name outside, we will sue." About that time some of the workers at Coalite became worried about what might ensue, but they were not worried in the way that Coalite management expected. They turned up at meetings arranged by environmental groups because they and the trade union shop stewards knew that as they worked in the plant they had to be part of a programme to try to clean up the ghastly mess.
  Further calls were made for an inquiry—Derbyshire county council, Bolsover district council and the local parish council all joined in and said that there should be a public inquiry. Some of the local authorities took the time to examine everything through the environmental health committees to ensure that they were on safe ground. Not long after that, a report by the BBC said that a cluster of breast cancers which had been reported in that part of north Derbyshire was calculated to be 50 per cent. higher than the national average. Still the Government refused to act. There was still no statement.
  During this time the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he was not stuffing beefburgers down his kid's throat, went to see the farmers—
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I thought that he was a vegetarian.
  Mr. Skinner: No, he is the opposite. He went to see the farmers and gave them the impression that they were not to worry because it would all be over by Christmas: "We know that Skinner is asking for compensation but we shall provide you with a bit of money from the common agricultural fund or from the Ministry and we will pay you to do a bit of research." However, the farmers did not want that—they wanted to get back to their husbandry of cows and to producing milk.
  One might think that the farmers were taken in, but the truth is they were not. The matter was not sorted out by Christmas. By this time, the dioxin-contaminated milk had been around for six months. Every time we asked the Minister what was happening, he was very complacent and said that everything would be sorted out. It is still not sorted out. What the Minister thought was a minor blip on the horizon is still a massive scandal. One of my hon. Friends, who might catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, has also raised the problem of an area adjacent to the River Doe Lea, only a couple of miles away.
  About November or December time I had another letter. It came from a constituent who was not engaged in milk production but who owned a little field next to Coalite. He told me that he had sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture because he was worried about whether he should allow a lady to graze her horse in his field. He was thinking of using the field for cattle and sheep the following year and he wanted to know if it would be safe to do so. He told me that he kept writing to the Minister but that the Minister would not answer his letters.
  This was the 64-dollar question, because here we had the Government covering up a scandal. They had neither
  1206
  the guts nor the decency to tell my constituent what to do about grazing a horse. So I took the matter up with the Minister himself.
  Mr. Haynes: With this Minister?
  Mr. Skinner: No, I wrote to his gaffer, although no one thinks of Gummer as being a gaffer; they used to call him the wart on Thatcher's nose. Finally, the Minister had to respond because the question came from an hon. Member, and the answer was that he did not think that the horse should be grazed there any more.
  This was a qualitative change. First of all it was milk production. Then it was another farmer who was not engaged in milk production. Then it was another one with another field where the tests had not been done. But they were so scared that they had to tell him not to go ahead.
  Hon. Members can imagine that by that time everyone in Bolsover was beginning to call for an inquiry. We have a petition here with thousands of signatures. Everyone has signed it, including all the political parties. Even the Liberal party told me that I was doing a great job—I was almost on the horns of a dilemma. They all know that it is wrong. This is one of the most dangerous toxic substances in the world, and the Government will not face up to the consequences.
  The Bolsover district council has also written to the Minister, asking for a survey of atmospheric dioxins. It has received no answer.
  I wonder what has happened to the citizens charter. The people of Bolsover keep asking about that. They ask why it is that the Prime Minister rabbits on every single week, going on television outside 10 Downing street, telling the nation about the citizens charter and how people can complain to the Government and get their problems solved, and yet they have had this problem for eight months and nothing has been done. We have to judge people not by what they say but by what they do, and it appears that the Prime Minister and his gang do not care about the people of Bolsover.
  There is another problem that the Minister ought to turn his attention to—the history of the area. He ought to consider whether it is not just some airborne dioxins from a faulty incinerator which have been deposited. Could it be the fault of the 1968 fire, when 245T was produced and when the debris was flung hundreds of yards, that we now have dioxins embedded in those fields? Maybe when the two barrels of 245T went up in 1986 and the fire took place at Coalite, that too could have contributed to some static dioxins in the area, rather than just something happening because of a faulty incinerator.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: It needs investigating.
  Mr. Skinner: All these things need investigating, as my hon. Friend says.
  Then I had a letter from the new Bolsover primary school.
  Mr. William Ross rose—
  Mr. Skinner: I am sorry, but we have not got much time.
  The little kids asked me only this week to raise the matter with the Minister in order to get it resolved. Fortunately, an election is on the way. When it has taken place and we have a Labour Government, something will

  1207
  be done. The shadow spokesperson for agriculture made a statement when this whole saga began. He said that a Labour Government would set up a public inquiry. That is why, in a few months time, perhaps we shall have our public inquiry, and people will be able to express their views. Until then I ask the Minister why, even after eight months, he does not start a public inquiry.
  If dioxin in milk, and all the rest of it, had been found anywhere near the Houses of Parliament or Buckingham palace, or in some Tory marginal seat, there would have been a public inquiry. If that would be good enough for those people, it should be good enough for the people of Bolsover as well.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Pollution knows no boundaries. North-east Derbyshire, Chesterfield and Bolsover constituencies and districts are intimately interlinked. The river Doe Lea, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), runs into the river Rother, which was known as one of the most polluted rivers in the country. But clearly at the moment the river Doe Lea is the most polluted river in the country.
  There are many industrial plants along the river Rother, which add to pollution problems in the area and create difficulties for people living nearby. Plants such as Leigh Environmental, at Killamarsh—about which I once introduced an Adjournment debate—Staveley Chemicals—which is now known as Rhone Chemicals—and the Avenue coke works produce problems with airborne pollution and effluent. Forty million gallons of effluent a year are lost in deposits at Grassmoor lagoons, because the National Rivers Authority, rightly, will not let the effluent go straight into the river Rother without being treated—that would create extra problems. That causes difficulties for my constituents who live in the Grassmoor, Tupton, and Wingerworth areas.
  A problem common to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and myself is that when we pursue such matters we have to deal with a host of different authorities. There are the National Rivers Authority, different Government Departments—such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy—and a range of planning authorities at district and county level.
  Something must be done to draw the threads together and co-ordinate the investigations, such as the public inquiry that my hon. Friend suggested in the dioxin case, or an environmental audit, operating through the Department of the Environment, to draw together the problems caused by the Avenue coke works. If those things do not happen, we find great difficulty in tackling the problems on behalf of our constituents.
  The Avenue coke works produces smokeless fuel, which is environmentally desirable, so the process should continue. The jobs associated with it should also continue, but there is no reason why the health hazards and pollution should continue.
  It is possible to square that circle, if there is a proper investigation and the correct assistance is provided at Government level.
  10.27 pm
  The Paliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has laid a number of charges at the Government's door with which I will deal.
  Dioxins have long been the focus of considerable public interest. They are ubiquitous and long-lasting environmental contaminants. They are unwanted by-products of some chemical processes, produced in minute quantities by combustion processes such as waste incineration, coal burning and forest fires. As a result, they can be found in trace quantities in the environment in all the industrialised countries.
  Although such substances have throughout history been part of the environment, it is only in the last couple of years that the complex analytical techniques have been developed that have made it possible for us to measure down to the minuscule levels that enable us to set a figure on their level with any accuracy. I want to make it clear that we are talking, after all, of a few parts per thousand million million.
  I will deal in some detail with the one very localised problem that our thorough and extensive safety surveillance has revealed. Last summer, our monitoring work disclosed the presence of higher levels of dioxins than usual in milk from two farms near Bolsover. We had also monitored milk at retail level as it reached the public and were well aware that levels there were quite normal, presenting no health risk to consumers.
  The higher farm results, however, clearly necessitated action, and we immediately notified the milk marketing board, which found that the level of contamination in this milk was such that it did not meet its contract conditions. The board therefore took no further supplies from those farms, which were then unable to dispose of their milk for human consumption. There was therefore no possibility whatever of the contaminated milk getting into the public supply once the result of the monitoring was known.
  It was, of course, necessary to put in place secure arrangements for the safe disposal of the milk that could no longer be sold. The hon. Member for Bolsover inquired about those arrangements by letter last August, and he has already received an explanation, so on this occasion I will do no more than mention briefly the salient points. The temporary arrangement set up in the early days was to have the milk transported to a water authority sewage plant, where it was mixed with a considerable quantity of sewage to dilute the dioxin content to a negligible level. The resulting sludge was then incinerated. The temporary arrangement came to an end on 2 August and was replaced by disposal of the milk to an incinerator equipped to carry out destruction of the material without the need for dilution.
  The Department acted immediately to set up a further programme of testing both on the two farms and on a number of others in the locality where the levels were found, although not requiring action, to be higher than normal. The further testing programme brought to light a third farm in which the level of dioxins in milk necessitated further action. In this case, however, the farmer had not been selling milk for public consumption for some years. He was simply operating a suckler cow herd.
  It is important to understand the comprehensive action that the Department undertook as a result of the situation,

  1209
  which our food safety surveillance has now revealed. A very detailed research programme has been devised, which is now approaching its conclusion. All three farmers have agreed not to move animals off their farms while further testing is carried out. The programme has included the examination of dioxin concentrations in meat, covering animals of different age, sex and breed from a range of farms in the area as a whole and seeking to establish variations in dioxin concentration in edible tissues.
  In milk, the programme has studied how changes have occurred in the dioxin concentration in milk from animals fed dioxin-free feed. The study has examined also how the level varies with time. Further information has also been obtained to establish the seasonal variation in the concentration of dioxins in milk taking account, for example, of changes in farming practice and the type of feed available.
  Beyond those animal studies, dioxin concentrations in soil and herbage have been obtained from a range of different sites on the farms. All that work will help to enable detailed advice to be given on future farming and business operations, and the soil and herbage data in particular will allow valuable comparisons to be made with findings in other parts in the country.
  Mr. Skinner: The Minister seems to be clear about the prognosis. Why did the Ministry promise the farmers that the matter would be cleared up by Christmas? One of the farmers, Mr. Murphy, wrote to me on 4 February, and I have sent his letter to the Ministry. He said, "Mr. Skinner, they promised that the matter would be cleared up by Christmas. The Ministry then told us it would be January. The Ministry then told us it would be February. It has still not been completed." I have an answer from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On 11 February, he said that the Ministry is now not sure that it will even get the tests completed by mid-March, and that it might take longer than that. It is almost a year since the process began.
  Mr. Maclean: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will publish the full data, the full research and all the conclusions. We will publish the report as soon as we can but it is a technical and complex area. We are searching for parts per quadrillion—parts per thousand million million—and it is not easy to do that and get it right. We are also conscious of sensitivities. Farmers' futures are at stake, and they and their representatives will have to decide what action to take in the future. It behoves my Department to get this absolutely right and ensure that, when we publish the report, the figures are absolutely correct so that everyone can rely on them.
  The research programme has necessarily involved considerable disruption to the farmers concerned. Their normal farming activities have had to be dramatically changed, and considerable constraints have been necessary to their activities generally. In recognition of the considerable disturbance, inseparable from their co-operation in the research—co-operation that, I recognise, has been readily given—contracts have been drawn up with all of them under which payments have been made to them promptly and regularly for their part in the research work.
  1210
  The hon. Member for Bolsover has been somewhat unfair to my right hon. Friend the Minister because, throughout this whole unfortunate incident, my right hon. Friend and I have been acutely conscious of the position of the three farmers principally concerned. The disruption of their lives and the uncertainty that still hangs over the future of their farms results from factors entirely outside their control. As the hon. Member will be aware, my right hon. Friend visited the two farmers who were first involved as soon as possible after the news had been broken to him. He was able to hear from them direct about the extent of the problems facing them, explore matters fully with them, and form his own view as to what needed to be done.
  I have underlined the fact that we lost no time in setting up our comprehensive research programme, devoting considerable resources to analysing the dioxin problem on the farms and providing guidance and help on the problems that those families are facing during what is inevitably a period of great uncertainty.
  The programme is drawing to an end, and we hope that the detailed results will be available by mid-March. That will enable us to assess all aspects of the situation, so that full and detailed advice can be offered to the three families on their business and husbandry options for the future.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way, as this is an important matter for Bolsover and Derbyshire, and I should like to get my remarks on the record. I do not want to be accused of a cover-up.
  I well understand that the farmers, their advisers and their representatives are anxious to have all the information as quickly as possible. I give the hon. Member for Bolsover a categorical assurance that I share his concern. I am determined that there will be no avoidable delay in completing the work and presenting the results in full, but all of us—whether farmers desperate to know what the future holds, parliamentary representatives, like the hon. Gentleman, determined to ensure that the best interests of their constituents are served, or Ministers anxious to ensure that the fullest information is available to back the decisions that are taken—must remember that we are working at the very limits of the science.
  Our scientists are conducting highly complex tests, analysing for minute traces of substances that will be present only in a few parts per thousand million million. That work is complicated and necessarily extremely time-consuming. It cannot be simplified, we will not cut corners and we cannot accelerate.
  We shall complete the job, we shall do it properly, and we shall do it well. That is our firm undertaking. I reiterate and re-emphasise our unequivocal further undertaking that, as always, all the results of our programme will be published. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman has read the copy of the report "Dioxins in Food" which was sent to him by my Department, he will have seen the detailed tables of statistics relating to the range of foodstuffs that we have monitored over the years. I assure him that he and everyone else concerned will have the same opportunity to study the figures resulting from our detailed investigations in the Bolsover area.
  The hon. Gentleman has argued for a public inquiry. I have described the action taken in this case at some length to demonstrate that there really is no case for that. First,

  1211
  there is no evidence that there has ever been a risk to health from what has occurred here. The milk reaching consumers has been tested and tested and found to present no risk. The cows on the affected farms have since been dried off and no further milk is being produced for human consumption. The contaminated milk has been safely destroyed.
  Secondly, a comprehensive programme of further investigations has been undertaken on food products, on herbage and soil, and on emissions from the nearby chemical plant. Thirdly, categorical assurances have been given in the House several times—and I have repeated them tonight—that all the results of the testing programme will be published so that every scrap of relevant evidence will be available to be evaluated by all the parties to the affair to aid them in deciding on any future action that they may wish to contemplate.
  Despite the criticisms laid at our door by the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the record clearly shows that the rapid and wide-ranging action taken by the Government over the Bolsover incident will stand up to any scrutiny. It was the very quality of our food surveillance programme—the equal of any in the world—that brought the problem to light in the first place. It was the highly specialised
  1212
  expertise and the experience we have built up in this very complex area of analysis that has enabled us to assess the problem.
  Our action has immediately removed any possibility of public concern that might have existed—and we have devoted a very considerable effort to further research that will guide us forward in future. We are, moreover, giving all the support that we can to the farmers involved, both through the research contracts that we have agreed with them, and the guidance and help we have offered to them in their difficult circumstances.
  We shall be able to offer more precise and detailed guidance when the research programme is complete—and let me repeat that we are very close to being in that position now. We hope to publish the results by mid-March. We have made a very clear commitment to publish all the results of our work to reassure the public about the situation and to place the farmers concerned in the best position to decide on their future course of action.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Eurocontrol
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of Eurocontrol.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I believe that Eurocontrol has an increasingly important role as the key organisation in Europe for co-ordinating the planning of air traffic management and related research and development, and the collection of enroute air navigation charges. In particular, Eurocontrol will continue to be responsible for building and operating the central flow management unit; for the management of the European air traffic control harmonisation and integration programme, which is likely to be expanded shortly to include air traffic control systems at airports; and for the operation of the European co-ordination team to identify measures to improve air traffic control capacity in the short term.

  Eurocontrol will be opening negotiations on an agreement on strengthened co-operation with the EC Commission. It will also be considering whether its convention is appropriate to meet its future needs.

  Twelve states have signed the Eurocontrol convention to date, and 15 states are members of the Eurocontrol route charges system. A number of other states attend Eurocontrol meetings as observers. Transport Ministers of the European Civil Aviation Conference have encouraged those member states which have not yet applied for membership of Eurocontrol to do so at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to improve co-ordination and the work of Eurocontrol and the European Commission in respect of a pan-European air traffic control system, in order to avoid duplication.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As the result of a United Kingdom proposal at the meeting of the permanent commission of Eurocontrol on 3 December 1991, Eurocontrol, in co-operation with both the EC Commission and member states of the European Civil Aviation Conference, will formulate an outline plan for the future air traffic management system of its member states. This initiative provides a valuable opportunity to avoid duplication of work. During the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the EC the Government will encourage the Commission to support fully Eurocontrol's work on the future system by providing increased support for research and trials.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the European air traffic control harmonisation and inspection programme; and what is the financial contribution by member states.
  572
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Following a United Kingdom initiative, Transport Ministers of the member states of the European Civil Aviation Conference agreed in April 1990 a strategy under the title of the European air traffic control harmonisation and integration programme, and invited Eurocontrol to manage the programme. The first phase of this strategy, which has just been completed on time, consisted of a comprehensive assessment of the present arrangements for air traffic control in Europe. The second and third phases will comprise programme development and acquisition and implementation of new equipment. The final phase will consider the air traffic management system needed in the longer term.

  On 17 March my right hon. and learned Friend will be chairing a meeting in London of Transport Ministers of ECAC member states, to consider further measures to reduce flight delays and cope with growth in air traffic. We expect the meeting to reach agreement on a major extension of the current strategy for air traffic control.

  The programme's management costs are met by Eurocontrol, who estimate that these will be 5·8 million ecu per annum for 1992 onwards. Investment in the equipment necessary to implement the programme will be made by the participating ECAC member states.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work being done by the Atlas study group on air traffic control in Europe, and on the costs incurred and how they are funded.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Atlas study is being carried out for the EC Commission. Its objective is to define and provide specifications for the creation of a single unified air traffic management system for European airspace. I understand that the cost of the study, which will be fully met by the Commission, is likely to be some 7·5 million ecu.

  British Rail
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for transport if he will give a breakdown of British Rail's funding in 1990–91 and an estimate on the same basis for the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows.

  British Rail sources of funds

  £ million cash

  1990–91

  1991–921

  Requirements

  Investment

  850

  1,125

  Operating losses

  350

  575

  Interest

  50

  75

  Total

  1,250

  1,775

  Sources

  Borrowing

  375

  600

  PSO grants

  600

  900

  Level crossing grants

  25

  25

  PTE Grants

  100

  125

  Asset sales

  125

  75

  Working capital

  25

  50

  Total

  1,250

  1,775

  1 Estimate.

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to the nearest £25 million.

  573

  2. Operating losses exclude depreciation.

  3. The external finance limit comprises borrowing and grants (other than PTE grants).

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be consulting on proposals to revise the criteria for setting speed limits.

  Mr. Chope
  We have today begun consultation on proposals to make more flexible the criteria used for setting speed limits. The new criteria put greater weight on the local environment and should result in speed limits more closely reflecting local conditions. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in November 1988, the then Secretary of State took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The then Secretary of State's schedule does not indicate that he took part in any such activities.

ENVIRONMENT

  Tyre Recycling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the result of his monitoring of current initiatives to tackle the stockpiles of used tyres; whether he proposes to introduce tyre recycling targets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  A survey of licensed and unlicensed tyre dumps is now being conducted by a consultant on behalf of the Departments of the Environment and of Energy. It is hoped that results, which will be available later this year, will give a clearer indication of what action needs to be taken. No plans for tyre recycling targets exist at present but the United Kingdom is participating in a working group organised by the European Commission as a part of its priority waste stream exercise to examine the issue in a harmonised European manner.

  Housing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sources of referral to housing associations and the percentages that these nominations take up of housing associations stock for(a) the whole of England and Wales, (b) the north-east region and (c) Greater London.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest available information relates to housing association lettings made in the first nine months of 1991:

  Percentage of lettings

  England

  1North

  Greater London

  Source of referral

  Local authority nomination

  35

  30

  46

  Statutory agency

  2

  1

  1

  574

  England

  1North

  Greater London

  Voluntary agency

  3

  1

  9

  Direct application

  35

  50

  11

  Mobility scheme

  1

  2—

  2

  Within the housing association

  19

  15

  25

  Other housing association

  1

  2—

  2

  Other

  4

  3

  4

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  Notes:

  1 North: Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham, and Cleveland.

  2 Less than 0·5 per cent.

  Source: National Federation of Housing Associations.

  For information on the position in Wales I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  National Parks (Transport)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what appraisal he has made of transport needs to and within each of the national parks.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The appraisal of transport needs to and within the national parks falls to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and to the relevant local and highway authorities.

  Noise
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the number of complaints regarding excessive noise made to local authorities in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Institution of Environmental Health Officers monitors the number of noise complaints received under the statutory nuisance procedures and records the number of remedies informally achieved or prosecutions carried out. This information appears in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics"—No. 13 of 1990—a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The statistics do not define "excessive noise".

  Litter
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of the public have made and are making use of the anti-litter provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  The most recent information on intended or actual prosecutions was given in my answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on Friday 8 November 1991,Official Report, column 305. The Tidy Britain Group, which receives grant in aid from my Department, is undertaking further surveys of local authorities to monitor the implementation of part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We await the results of its latest survey.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the results of Aston business school's survey of parish councils.
  575
  Mr. Key
  We have today published Aston business school's report entitled "Parish and Town Councils in England: A Survey". Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A survey of the report has been sent to all the parish and town councils which took part in the research.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what stage of the planning process his Department is consulted over new bypasses.

  Mr. Yeo
  In the cases of trunk road bypasses, the Department of Transport would invariably consult my Department at the earliest stages of developing route proposals.

  Where the bypass is a proposal of the local highway authority, it should be subject to the statutory development plan procedures, and shown in the structure and local plan for the area. This is made clear in PPG 12, "Development Plans and Regional Guidance", published on 10 February 1992. My Department must be consulted at each stage in the process leading to the adoption of the plan. The Secretary of State intends to make a direction shortly, to ensure that he is notified of any local highway authority road scheme which has not been subject to local plan procedures, or is in conflict with the development plan.

  Bristol Development Corporation
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by date created, firm and number of jobs, the jobs established by the Bristol development corporation.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: This information is not available in the form requested. The corporation's estimate of total employment in the Bristol urban development area, based upon consultants' surveys, was 14,000 jobs in January 1989 and 18,000 jobs at March 1991.

  West Yorkshire Transport Museum
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he considered the application by the West Yorkshire transport museum for city grant; whether it has been approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: An application for city grant was received on 9 January and is currently under appraisal. A decision on the application will be made as soon as possible.

  Stretton Magna Park
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will declare the whole of Stretton Magna park in Leicestershire a conservation area to protect the local flora and fauna.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am advised by English Nature that this area does not meet the criteria necessary for it to be notified by it as a site of special scientific interest. I understand that the area contains a number of species that are protected in their own right under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Farmland Hedges
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to prevent the removal of hedges from farmland.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 2 December 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday 3 December 1991, Official Report, column 79.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in north Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1979 and May 1980.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The main expenditure of the Department in north Yorkshire is through the revenue support grant system. In 1991–92, the total external support for local councils in north Yorkshire is just over £260 million. In addition the Department has allocated over £12·6 million to local housing authorities in north Yorkshire to support capital programmes expected to total about £24 million this year. The Department also provided revenue support for housing, funding for an estate action scheme of £2·75 million and energy efficiency schemes. Substantial sums are also available from the Housing Corporation funded directly by the Department. Comparable figures for 1979 are not readily available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what data information systems the Lord Chancellor's Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently developing and installing a computerised case management system for Crown court offices. No direct links from this system to other systems are planned, but data on court appearances currently provided to the Home Office on paper will in future be produced on magnetic media.

  Other systems still in the planning stage are for a computerised database of statute law, and case management and accounting systems for the county courts, companies courts, and bankruptcy court.

  All computer systems within the Lord Chancellor's Department comply fully with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984, as will all future systems.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The legal secretariat to the Law Officers operates a file-tracking system, but does not
  577
  participate in external data information systems and has not been consulted with a view to such participation. There are no plans for any link with the police national computer or with any other computer system.

  The Treasury Solicitor's department operates personnel, case-tracking and billing systems and has use of the LEXIS external data information system. There are no plans to link any of these systems to the police national computer or any other computer system.

  The Crown prosecution services operates personnel, finance and a number of case-tracking systems. It has also agreed a new standard case-tracking system which is under development. The Crown prosecution service has subscribed to the LEXIS legal data base for a trial period. The criteria for inclusion in information systems are that the data should be necessary for operational, administrative or management purposes. The Crown prosecution service has no plans to link to the police national computer, but is discussing with other criminal justice agencies the possible automated exchange of the case data already passed in paper form for essential operational purposes.

  The Serious Fraud Office operates personnel, case-tracking and document-controlled systems. There are no plans to link the systems to the police national computer or to any other external computer system.

  The systems operated by each Department comply with the Data Protection Act 1984 and each Department is registered with the Data Protection Registrar.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give the figures for county court orders for mortgage repossessions for 1990 and 1991, including the percentage increase, according to(a) standard economic region and (b) county.

  The Attorney-General
  The figures for the number of repossessions are not collected. The only information available on mortgage possessions is the number of actions entered and orders made in each county court. The table gives the information for 1990 and 1991 for each county and standard economic region and shows the respective percentage increases. These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all of the orders made will have resulted in the execution of warrants of possession. At this stage the 1991 figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision in the future.

  County Court mortgage possession actions entered

  1990

  1991

  Percentage change

  Cleveland

  1,149

  1,578

  37·3

  Cumbria

  700

  965

  37·9

  Durham

  1,165

  1,661

  42·6

  Northumberland

  219

  413

  88·6

  Tyne and Wear

  1,710

  2,300

  34·5

  North

  4,943

  6,917

  39·9

  Humberside

  2,422

  3,006

  24·1

  North Yorkshire

  1,030

  1,430

  38·8

  South Yorkshire

  2,513

  3,375

  34·3

  West Yorkshire

  4,469

  6,335

  41·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10,434

  14,146

  35·6

  578

  1990

  1991

  Percentage change

  Derbyshire

  1,589

  2,276

  43·2

  Leicestershire

  2,098

  2,569

  22·4

  Lincolnshire

  1,466

  1,869

  27·5

  Northamptonshire

  2,603

  2,991

  14·9

  Nottinghamshire

  3,280

  3,763

  14·7

  East Midlands

  11,036

  13,468

  22·0

  Cambridgeshire

  2,443

  2,650

  8·5

  Norfolk

  1,631

  1,829

  12·1

  Suffolk

  1,484

  1,758

  18·5

  East Anglia

  5,558

  6,237

  12·2

  Bedfordshire

  2,089

  2,930

  40·3

  Berkshire

  3,284

  3,789

  15·4

  Buckinghamshire

  2,429

  3,002

  23·6

  Essex

  5,520

  6,401

  16·0

  Greater London

  29,291

  35,416

  20·9

  Hampshire

  5,026

  6,801

  35·3

  Hertfordshire

  2,304

  3,076

  33·5

  Isle of Wight

  319

  408

  27·9

  Kent

  6,273

  7,727

  23·2

  Oxfordshire

  1,154

  1,528

  32·4

  Surrey

  2,024

  2,673

  32·1

  Sussex

  5,251

  6,275

  19·5

  South East

  64,964

  80,026

  23·2

  Avon

  2,393

  3,459

  44·5

  Cornwall

  1,165

  1,749

  50·1

  Devon

  2,927

  4,061

  38·7

  Dorset

  2,248

  2,716

  20·8

  Gloucestershire

  1,050

  1,379

  31·3

  Somerset

  808

  1,199

  48·4

  Wiltshire

  1,618

  2,131

  31·7

  South West

  12,209

  16,694

  36·7

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  1,480

  2,152

  45·4

  Salop

  897

  1,309

  45·9

  Staffordshire

  2,505

  3,224

  28·7

  Warwickshire

  1,605

  1,809

  12·7

  West Midlands

  7,109

  9,199

  29·4

  West Midlands

  13,596

  17,693

  30·1

  Cheshire

  1,842

  2,696

  46·4

  Greater Manchester

  6,211

  9,444

  52·1

  Lancashire

  3,504

  4,841

  38·2

  Merseyside

  3,417

  4,403

  28·9

  North West

  14,974

  21,384

  42·8

  Clwyd

  689

  1,054

  53·0

  Dyfed

  706

  983

  39·2

  Gwent

  1,419

  1,686

  18·8

  Gwynedd

  720

  807

  12·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,820

  2,388

  31·2

  Powys

  91

  229

  151·6

  South Glamorgan

  1,198

  1,626

  35·7

  West Glamorgan

  993

  1,462

  47·2

  Wales

  7,636

  10,235

  34·0

  County court mortgage possession suspended orders

  1990

  1991

  Percentage change

  Cleveland

  414

  758

  83·1

  Cumbria

  359

  487

  35·7

  Durham

  430

  906

  110·7

  Northumberland

  66

  150

  127·3

  Tyne and Wear

  728

  1,067

  46·6

  579

  1990

  1991

  Percentage change

  North

  1,997

  3,368

  68·7

  Humberside

  605

  1,330

  119·8

  North Yorkshire

  287

  447

  55·7

  South Yorkshire

  840

  1,208

  43·8

  West Yorkshire

  1,270

  2,118

  66·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,002

  5,103

  70·0

  Derbyshire

  512

  883

  72·5

  Leicestershire

  917

  948

  3·4

  Lincolnshire

  532

  557

  4·7

  Northamptonshire

  802

  893

  11·3

  Nottinghamshire

  847

  1,199

  41·6

  East Midlands

  3,610

  4,480

  24·1

  Cambridgeshire

  558

  695

  24·6

  Norfolk

  441

  754

  71·0

  Suffolk

  421

  542

  28·7

  East Anglia

  1,420

  1,991

  40·2

  Bedfordshire

  720

  1,034

  43·6

  Berkshire

  793

  1,497

  88·8

  Buckinghamshire

  492

  1,425

  189·6

  Essex

  1,179

  1,989

  68·7

  Greater London

  12,076

  12,842

  6·3

  Hampshire

  2,291

  3,431

  49·8

  Hertfordshire

  711

  961

  35·2

  Isle of Wight

  156

  221

  41·7

  Kent

  2,027

  3,061

  51·0

  Oxfordshire

  436

  476

  9·2

  Surrey

  511

  1,083

  111·9

  Sussex

  1,796

  2,045

  13·9

  South East

  23,188

  30,065

  29·7

  Avon

  642

  1,292

  101·2

  Cornwall

  414

  814

  96·6

  Devon

  683

  1,270

  85·9

  Dorset

  605

  697

  15·2

  Gloucestershire

  378

  463

  22·5

  Somerset

  165

  395

  139·4

  Wiltshire

  519

  855

  64·7

  South West

  3,406

  5,786

  69·9

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  416

  615

  47·8

  Salop

  324

  622

  92·0

  Staffordshire

  725

  1,341

  85·0

  Warwickshire

  530

  826

  55·8

  West Midlands

  2,461

  3,071

  24·8

  West Midlands

  4,456

  6,475

  45·3

  Cheshire

  775

  1,073

  38·5

  Greater Manchester

  2,136

  3,590

  68·1

  Lancashire

  1,121

  1,735

  54·8

  Merseyside

  1,297

  1,714

  32·2

  North West

  5,329

  8,112

  52·2

  Clwyd

  221

  388

  75·6

  Dyfed

  270

  328

  21·5

  Gwent

  401

  533

  32·9

  Gwynedd

  338

  313

  -7·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  593

  779

  31·4

  Powys

  32

  65

  103·1

  South Glamorgan

  357

  577

  61·6

  West Glamorgan

  170

  474

  178·8

  Wales

  2,382

  3,457

  45·1

  580

  County Court mortgage possession orders made

  1990

  1991

  Percentage change

  Cleveland

  410

  589

  43·7

  Cumbria

  176

  258

  46·6

  Durham

  297

  598

  101·3

  Northumberland

  91

  111

  22·0

  Tyne and Wear

  575

  636

  10·6

  North

  1,549

  2,192

  41·5

  Humberside

  891

  1,400

  57·1

  North Yorkshire

  335

  558

  66·6

  South Yorkshire

  750

  1,220

  62·7

  West Yorkshire

  1,816

  2,563

  41·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,792

  5,741

  51·4

  Derbyshire

  645

  845

  31·0

  Leicestershire

  694

  984

  41·8

  Lincolnshire

  581

  797

  37·2

  Northamptonshire

  905

  1,233

  36·2

  Nottinghamshire

  1,003

  1,365

  36·1

  East Midlands

  3,828

  5,224

  36·5

  Cambridgeshire

  987

  1,273

  29·0

  Norfolk

  684

  921

  34·6

  Suffolk

  628

  866

  37·9

  East Anglia

  2,299

  3,060

  33·1

  Bedfordshire

  821

  1,163

  41·7

  Berkshire

  1,325

  1,401

  5·7

  Buckinghamshire

  1,225

  1,240

  1·2

  Essex

  2,289

  2,864

  25·1

  Greater London

  11,146

  14,312

  28·4

  Hampshire

  2,306

  2,697

  17·0

  Hertfordshire

  1,214

  1,359

  11·9

  Isle of Wight

  121

  220

  81·8

  Kent

  2,804

  3,171

  13·1

  Oxfordshire

  393

  756

  92·4

  Surrey

  782

  1,111

  42·1

  Sussex

  2,142

  2,579

  20·4

  South East

  26,568

  32,873

  23·7

  Avon

  839

  1,258

  49·9

  Cornwall

  442

  681

  54·1

  Devon

  1,341

  1,707

  27·3

  Dorset

  897

  1,055

  17·6

  Gloucestershire

  295

  423

  43·4

  Somerset

  250

  452

  80·8

  Wiltshire

  748

  892

  19·3

  South West

  4,812

  6,468

  34·4

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  566

  994

  75·6

  Salop

  295

  488

  65·4

  Staffordshire

  898

  1,364

  51·9

  Warwickshire

  661

  759

  14·8

  West Midlands

  2,162

  3,335

  54·3

  West Midlands

  4,582

  6,940

  51·5

  Cheshire

  497

  947

  90·5

  Greater Manchester

  2,005

  2,976

  48·4

  Lancashire

  1,168

  1,940

  66·1

  Merseyside

  1,038

  1,449

  39·6

  North West

  4,708

  7,312

  55·3

  Clwyd

  172

  365

  112·2

  Dyfed

  201

  502

  149·8

  Gwent

  521

  645

  23·8

  Gwynedd

  249

  311

  24·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  577

  846

  46·6

  581

  1990

  1991

  Percentage change

  Powys

  26

  76

  192·3

  South Glamorgan

  417

  681

  63·3

  West Glamorgan

  417

  532

  27·6

  Wales

  2,580

  3,958

  53·4

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will arrange for decisions by the Crown prosecution service as to whether or not criminal proceedings are to be brought to be communicated to any police officer under investigation as quickly as possible;

  (2) in how many cases the Crown prosecution service has received files for consideration in connection with the West Yorkshire police inquiry into the West Midlands serious crime squad;

  (3) when he expects the Crown prosecution service to have reached a decision in all cases submitted to it as a result of the West Yorkshire police inquiry into the West Midlands serious crime squad;

  (4) in how many cases the Crown prosecution service has decided whether criminal proceedings are to be brought against any police officer under investigation arising from the West Yorkshire police inquiry into the West Midlands crime squad.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when he received the West Yorkshire police report on the West Midlands serious crimes squad; and when he expects to reach a decision.

  The Attorney-General
  Between 16 March 1990 and 16 October 1991 the Crown prosecution service has received from the West Yorkshire metropolitan police a total of 73 files relating respectively to complaints about individual officers and investigations unto practices of the West Midlands serious crime squad. Consideration of these cases is well advanced, but a final decision will not be taken in any particular case until it has also been reviewed in the context of the cumulative evidence available from all the cases under consideration.

  It is not at present possible to say when final decisions will be taken, but this will be as soon as possible and it is hoped in the near future. In accordance with normal practice in this type of case, the decisions will be communicated to individual officers by a senior officer and not directly by the Crown prosecution service.

  Bailiffs
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General what action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take in relation to the lack of regulation over some private bailiffs who enforce judgments and orders by the seizure and sale of property.

  The Attorney-General
  The right of a creditor to seize and sell a debtor's property to enforce a judgment or order is an important remedy which requires a difficult balance to be struck between the interests of creditors and debtors. This is not easy to achieve, whether enforcement be by sheriffs, county court bailiffs, certificated bailiffs, or other private bailiffs. My noble and learned Friend is currently conducting a review of the organisation and management 582
  of these civil enforcement agents and he hopes to publish a consultation paper later this year. The terms of reference of the review are, to consider:

  (a) whether changes should be made to the organisation and management of agents involved in the civil enforcement process;

  (b) the part which the state should play in the organisation and management of enforcement agents;

  (c) the ways in which any changes to the organisation and management of enforcement agents could be achieved;

  (d) whether any changes to the law governing the work of enforcement agents are necessary or desirable.

  My noble and learned Friend envisages a three-month consultation period during which he hopes to obtain a wide spectrum of views. Any changes the Government decide to make as a result of the review are likely to involve legislation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15-year-old boys and girls in prison received a punishment for a disciplinary offence in 1990 and in 1991; and for what offences they were punished.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The age of prisoners punished for a disciplinary offence was not recorded centrally up to 1990. Such information will be available for 1991 but the data will not be complete until the second half of this year.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15-year-old prisoners have been held in police or court cells in 1991; and in which ones they have been held.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on the total number and location of 15-year-old prisoners held in police cells is not collected centrally. When a 15-year-old prisoner is received into police cells the police inform the local liaison governor and priority arrangements are set in hand for the prisoner to be transferred immediately to a prison service establishment.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons 15-year-old girls were held in 1990 and in 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  According to the records held centrally, 11 girls aged 15 were received into prison service establishments in England and Wales in 1990 and all were held only under sentence. They were initially received into Holloway prison, New Hall prison or young offender institution or Risley prison or remand centre. One girl was recorded as having been held subsequently in Askham Grange prison but information about all such transfers was not retained centrally. Data for 1991 are not yet complete.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15-year-old girls were received into prison in each year of the past decade; for what offences they were convicted, and how long were the prison sentences.
  583
  Mr. Rumbold
  The number of 15-year-old females received under sentence is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales"—table 3.10 of the volume for 1989, Cm. 1221—copies of which are in the Library.

  Females aged 15 received under sentence: by offence, 1981–1990

  Persons

  Offence

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Violence against the person

  6

  2

  11

  7

  8

  8

  9

  7

  3

  —

  Sexual offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Burglary

  4

  9

  10

  11

  7

  3

  5

  2

  —

  1

  Robbery

  2

  2

  2

  4

  4

  3

  2

  4

  3

  4

  Theft and handling

  6

  3

  4

  10

  7

  4

  4

  10

  4

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drugs offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  —

  —

  3

  4

  4

  —

  3

  3

  5

  2

  Not recorded

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  All Offences

  18

  16

  31

  37

  32

  18

  23

  26

  15

  11

  Females aged 15 received under sentence: by length of sentence, 1981–1990

  Persons

  Length of sentence

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Up to 3 months

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Over 3 months up to 6 months

  —

  —

  19

  35

  24

  15

  17

  19

  10

  5

  Over 6 months up to 12 months

  —

  —

  6

  2

  5

  1

  6

  4

  2

  3

  Over 12 months up to 3 years

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  1

  3

  1

  Over 3 years

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Borstal training

  17

  16

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All sentences

  18

  16

  31

  37

  32

  18

  23

  26

  15

  11

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners were held in police or court cells during 1991; where they were held; and for how long.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The average number of women prisoners held in police cells throughout 1991 was two. At various points during the year women prisoners were held in police cells by the Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside, Metropolitan, Staffordshire, Surry and West Midlands police forces. It is not possible from the information available to say how long individual prisoners were held.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is responsible for ensuring that the correct medication as prescribed by the doctor is given to a night prisoner held in a police cell.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Paragraph 9·5 of code of practice C issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that where a detained person is required to take or apply any medication in compliance with medical directions, the custody officer is responsible for its safekeeping and for ensuring that he is given the opportunity to take or apply it at the appropriate time.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of deaths of drivers and pedestrians caused by cars taken without the owner's consent in each year since 1980.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not available centrally.
  584
  The information requested for the years 1981–90 is given in the tables. Data for 1991 are not yet available.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to obtain the views of interested parties on the subject of a national lottery since 17 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are considering carefully how best to consult interested parties about the issues raised by a national lottery; an annoucement will be made as soon as possible.

  Refugees
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees were accepted from Yugoslavia in each of the years 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is given in the table. At end-January 1992, around 430 asylum applications by Yugoslav nationals, mainly made in the last three months of 1991, were still under consideration.

  Grants1 of asylum in the United Kingdom to Yugoslav nationals

  Grants of asylum

  1989

  —

  1990

  1

  2 31991

  1

  1Excluding dependants.

  2 Information for 1991 may understate because of delays in recording: information for October to December is not yet available.

  3 January to September.

  Heroin
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that prospective importers of heroin—diamorphine—keep standards of transport security and site security equal to those maintained by the current United Kingdom supplier.

  Mr. John Patten
  No decision has yet been taken to license the commercial importation of diamorphine. A precondition for the grant of any licence to deal in diamorphine is that the drugs inspectorate is satisfied on the arrangements proposed by the prospective licensee for transport and site security.

  Marriages of Convenience
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the last 10 years his Department has been notified by the registrar general that a proposed marriage is purely one of convenience.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statistics of such notifications are not maintained.

  Begging
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) prosecuted for begging, (b) convicted of begging, (c) prosecuted for sleeping rough and (d) convicted of sleeping rough in the Metropolitan police district in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1989 and 1990, which is provisional, is given in the table. 1991 data are not yet available.

  Number of persons prosecuted and convicted for offences of begging and sleeping out under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the metropolitan police district 1989 and 19901

  Begging

  Sleeping out

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Metropolitan police district

  1989

  1,251

  1,188

  12

  10

  11990

  1,445

  1,308

  12

  11

  City of London

  1989

  5

  5

  —

  —

  11990

  3

  3

  1

  1

  1Provisional.

  DNA Samples
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with chief constables the need for DNA samples to be taken from all those convicted of violent crimes; if he will maintain a national register of such DNA information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are practical, legal and ethical issues in the collection of samples for DNA profiling and in the development of a national DNA database. My right hon. Friend has asked the Royal Commission on criminal justice to consider this subject and we await its recommendations.

  Vagrancy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the number of people who are arrested is not collected centrally. The data given in the table relate to the number of persons prosecuted and convicted for offences under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in Wales from 1986 to 1990, information for which is provisional.

  Number of persons prosecuted and convicted of offences under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in Wales—1986 to 19901

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1986

  114

  82

  1987

  96

  72

  1988

  127

  88

  1989

  88

  65

  19901

  111

  77

  1 Provisional.

  Local Government, Hampshire
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give consideration to deferring his determination of the proposed new parliamentary constituencies for Hampshire until such time as the Local Government Commission has brought forward its recommendations for the future structure of local government in Hampshire.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. A general review of all parliamentary constituencies in England is currently being undertaken by the Boundary Commission, which is under a statutory duty to make a report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary within the time scale laid down in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. As part of that review process, the commission publishes provisional recommendations—in the case of parliamentary constituencies in Hampshire, these were published on 6 February—and then considers any resulting representations, together with the outcome of any local inquiry which it may hold, when making its final report. My right hon. Friend will consider that report when it is submitted.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in March 1990, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During my visit to Hong Kong I had a number of official engagements and meetings. I also had a private engagement with representatives from Conservatives Abroad.

  Hillsborough Family Support Group
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received the letter from the Hillsborough Family Support Group sent to him on 22 October 1991; and when he expects to reply.
  587
  Mr. John Patten
  The letter from the Hillsborough Family Support Group was received in my office on 23 October 1991. A reply has now been sent by my officials. I apologise to the group for the delay in replying.

  Credit Reference Agencies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent investigations he has undertaken into the current operation of credit reference agencies; and what information came out of those investigations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The operation of credit reference agencies is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading and the Data Protection Registrar. I understand that they keep this matter under review.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the operation of credit reference agencies; and what response he has made.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have received 15 written representations on the operation of credit reference agencies since the beginning of 1991. Enforcement of the law bearing on the operation of credit reference agencies is a matter for the Data Protection Registrar, the data protection tribunal and the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in north Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1979 and May 1980.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The readily available information is as follows. The Home Office pays specific grant on a proportion of the county council's expenditure on the police, magistrates courts and probation services and on civil defence. The proportion varies according to the service. My Department also pays grant under section 1I of the Local Government Act 1966 to enable the county council to employ additional staff to meet the special needs of local communities of Commonwealth origins. Information on the payment of these grants, and on Home Office expenditure on Her Majesty's prison service establishments in north Yorkshire, and on the emergency planning college at Easingwold, is as follows.

  Specific grant paid in respect of expenditure in financial year

  £000s

  1979–80

  1991–921

  Police2

  8,322

  28,869

  Magistrates courts3

  6

  2,478

  Probation3

  6

  2,185

  Civil Defence4

  6

  368

  Section 115

  0

  16

  1Estimated.

  2Rate of Grant: 50 per cent. in 1979–80, 51 per cent. in 1991–92

  3 Rate of Grant: 80 per cent.

  4 Rate of Grant: mainly 100 per cent.

  5Rate of Grant: 75 per cent.

  6 Not available.

  Net operating costs of the two prison service establishments in north Yorkshire in 1990–91: £6·169 million.
  588
  Estimated expenditure on emergency planning college in 1991–92: £2·758 million.

  Illegal Drugs (Import)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures he plans to introduce to combat the importation of illegal drugs into the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is the Department with the primary responsibility for combating the importation of illegal drugs into the United Kingdom. The Department is engaged in a number of initiatives both at home and on the international scene.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise chairs the mutual assistance group 1992 on customs co-operation within the European Community which is working towards greater co-operation and the strengthening of the external border of the Community. An important feature is the sharing of intelligence and arrangements are in hand to implement a computerised intelligence system—to be known as the customs information system—early in 1992. A new protocol to the Naples convention is also under discussion with the aim of improving co-operation between customs administrations in criminal matters covering such areas as cross border surveillance and controlled deliveries.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is also participating in plans for the new European drugs unit, which will help to co-ordinate the intelligence resources of law enforcement agencies across the European Community. The Department, with its wide experience in anti-smuggling work, will be fully represented in the new agency alongside the police.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, in conjunction with the Customs Co-operation Council, is taking a leading role in an international initiative to promote co-operation between customs authorities and international carriers. A major objective is to secure advance information about suspect persons or consignments, so as to enable customs to target its anti-drugs operations more effectively. Through the ratification of the 1988 Vienna convention on drugs, Customs and Excise is also engaged in developing international working arrangements under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 for the boarding of vessels in international waters and under the same legislation has also implemented, in July 1991, the arrangements for the seizure of cash suspected of being the proceeds from, or for use in, drug smuggling.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is also about to increase its capability in aerial surveillance and is co-operating in extended international surveillance exercises. It is extending its network of drugs liaison officers overseas and is actively pursuing its training programme for overseas customs and drugs law enforcement officials. The programme is targeted primarily at drug source and drug transit countries.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is also alive to the dangers of the illicit trade in the precursor chemicals used to manufacture drugs. The United Kingdom has been to the fore in encouraging the development of effective measures to counter this trade and we are currently working with our EC partners on a revised regulation to ensure consistent and effective action across the Community.
  589
  On the domestic front Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is extending its use of memoranda of understanding with trade organisations in order to improve the flow of drugs information and to assist organisations to develop security arrangements. The Department is also entering into a new training programme in 1992 to assist flexible anti-smuggling teams—FASTS—to make use of advance intelligence and advance targeting of drugs suspects. The implementation of the review of anti-smuggling controls continues with the setting up of FASTs and co-operation between regional collections and their opposites in Europe through joint memoranda is being developed. In addition, research and development for enhanced scientific and technical aids continues to take place. On 30 January 1992, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the allocation of assets seized from international drugs traffickers to anti-drugs work in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise received over £600,000, which will be used at operational level to assist in the fight against drug trafficking.

ENERGY

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in September 1988, the Minister of State took part in party-political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Sir. P. Morrison) met fellow Conservatives in the margins of official duties on his visit to Hong Kong in September 1988.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in June 1988, he took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Table 1: Coal imports by port of entry, 1979 to 1991 Value of imports

  £ million

  Port of entry

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Immingham

  3

  4

  0

  1

  0

  13

  32

  47

  22

  31

  47

  85

  112

  London (including Tilbury)

  16

  37

  15

  18

  34

  12

  72

  20

  22

  31

  34

  80

  101

  Port Talbot

  20

  20

  36

  49

  36

  91

  90

  63

  69

  65

  87

  112

  93

  Middlesbrough

  28

  36

  41

  29

  27

  63

  113

  103

  86

  79

  96

  104

  95

  Medway

  7

  24

  10

  11

  12

  6

  32

  29

  23

  24

  29

  41

  79

  Greenock

  0

  12

  19

  22

  36

  46

  85

  47

  41

  35

  38

  37

  39

  Liverpool

  12

  30

  16

  —

  1

  2

  17

  6

  6

  1

  13

  36

  35

  Belfast

  1

  3

  6

  7

  9

  32

  37

  13

  10

  12

  14

  21

  23

  Cardiff

  4

  12

  0

  —

  0

  0

  5

  11

  9

  13

  9

  17

  20

  Swansea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  4

  7

  6

  16

  Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  4

  14

  Trent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  34

  17

  15

  14

  12

  11

  Other ports

  46

  36

  16

  46

  60

  228

  195

  69

  63

  107

  78

  52

  66

  Total

  138

  215

  158

  182

  215

  493

  678

  443

  368

  418

  469

  605

  703

  Table 2: Coal imports by country of origin, 1979 to 1991 Value of imports

  £ million

  Country

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  U.S.A1

  35

  106

  72

  81

  48

  160

  166

  139

  105

  148

  183

  255

  290

  Australia1

  60

  77

  57

  45

  85

  84

  253

  149

  115

  106

  89

  152

  171

  Colombia1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  12

  21

  34

  44

  71

  South Africa

  1

  3

  4

  3

  3

  16

  39

  12

  7

  12

  14

  14

  26

  Canada

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  6

  19

  16

  12

  16

  26

  38

  26

  590
  Mr. Wakeham
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) did not take part in any political activities on his visit to Hong Kong in June 1988.

  Major Energy Users Council
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Major Energy Users Council relating to electricity prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the Major Energy Users Council—MEUC—on 12 February to discuss electricity prices for large consumers, and listened carefully and sympathetically to their concerns. My right hon. Friend asked the MEUC to provide detailed information about past and present electricity prices for MEUC members, on an individual site or company basis, as well as about other options to reduce energy costs which companies may have investigated, such as on-site generation or energy efficiency measures. It agreed to do so. Although my right hon. Friend and I fully appreciate the concerns of the MEUC about the levels of its electricity prices, it was made clear to it that the Government would not provide public subsidies. The Government remain fully confident that they have set in place adequate safeguards to protect the interests of all consumers in the electricity market.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give by year for each year from 1979 the value of coal imported(a) in cash and (b) in real terms into the United Kingdom showing in his answer (i) the port the coal was unloaded at and (ii) the country of origin of the coal.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 4 February 1992]: The figures for coal imports, including the costs of insurance and freight, are shown in the tables:
  591

  Country

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Poland

  19

  13

  5

  13

  20

  69

  76

  50

  41

  42

  38

  41

  26

  Soviet Union

  3

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  10

  6

  17

  26

  Germany2

  12

  6

  11

  29

  44

  90

  74

  44

  26

  18

  24

  24

  21

  China

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  2

  11

  16

  23

  3

  13

  Other countries1

  6

  6

  8

  10

  13

  65

  41

  26

  37

  28

  33

  16

  32

  Total

  138

  215

  158

  182

  215

  493

  678

  443

  368

  418

  470

  605

  703

  Table 3: Coal imports in real terms3 by port of entry, 1979 to 1991 Value of imports

  £ million (base year 1990)

  Port of entry

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Immingham

  7

  7

  0

  1

  1

  18

  42

  60

  27

  36

  50

  85

  105

  London (including Tilbury)

  34

  68

  24

  28

  49

  16

  95

  25

  27

  36

  37

  80

  94

  Port Talbot

  44

  37

  59

  75

  52

  127

  119

  80

  84

  74

  93

  112

  87

  Middlesbrough

  62

  65

  67

  44

  39

  87

  149

  132

  105

  90

  103

  104

  89

  Medway

  16

  44

  17

  17

  18

  8

  42

  37

  28

  28

  31

  41

  74

  Greenock

  0

  23

  32

  34

  52

  64

  111

  59

  50

  40

  40

  37

  37

  Liverpool

  26

  56

  26

  —

  2

  3

  22

  8

  7

  1

  14

  36

  32

  Belfast

  3

  5

  10

  11

  14

  45

  48

  17

  12

  13

  15

  21

  21

  Cardiff

  9

  23

  0

  —

  0

  0

  6

  14

  11

  15

  10

  17

  19

  Swansea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  5

  8

  6

  15

  Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  4

  13

  Trent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  43

  21

  17

  15

  12

  10

  Other ports

  101

  66

  26

  71

  87

  319

  258

  88

  76

  122

  83

  52

  62

  Total

  303

  395

  261

  280

  313

  688

  894

  564

  447

  476

  501

  605

  658

  Table 4: Coal imports in real terms3 by country of origin, 1979 to 1991 Value of imports

  £ million (base year 1990)

  Country

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  United States of America1

  78

  195

  120

  125

  69

  223

  219

  177

  128

  168

  195

  255

  271

  Australia1

  132

  141

  94

  69

  123

  118

  333

  190

  140

  121

  94

  152

  160

  Colombia1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  15

  24

  37

  44

  67

  South Africa

  3

  5

  6

  5

  5

  22

  52

  15

  8

  13

  15

  14

  25

  Canada

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  8

  25

  21

  14

  18

  27

  38

  24

  Poland

  43

  24

  9

  20

  29

  96

  101

  64

  50

  48

  41

  41

  24

  Soviet Union

  6

  4

  2

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  11

  7

  17

  24

  Germany2

  27

  11

  18

  44

  64

  125

  97

  57

  31

  20

  25

  24

  20

  China

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  3

  5

  3

  13

  19

  24

  3

  12

  Other countries1

  11

  11

  12

  15

  19

  90

  55

  33

  45

  32

  35

  16

  29

  Total

  303

  395

  261

  280

  313

  688

  894

  564

  447

  476

  501

  605

  658

  1 Some imports previously recorded by Customs and Excise as originating in the Netherlands have been re-allocated to the other countries indicated or, where revised country of origin data is not available, included in the residual entry, "Others". This re-allocation has been carried out for 1991 and estimates of such imports previously classified to the Netherlands have been included for 1990. Figures for earlier years have not been re-allocated to individual countries.

  2 Includes imports previously recorded separately for the German Democratic Republic.

  3 Real terms is defined as cash figures adjusted to 1990 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the Gross Domestic Product deflator. An estimated value for the Gross Domestic Product deflator has been used for 1991.

  Due to rounding the sum of the constituent items may not equal the totals.
  — = Less than £0·5 million.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when the shelving at the British Library development at St. Pancras will be in usable condition; and when he expects the official opening to take place.

  Mr. Renton
  Problems have been experienced with the mechanical movement and paint treatment of the basement bookshelving. A solution to the mechanical problem has been factory tested and the British Library is carrying out its own tests in the basements at St. Pancras. Tests on the paint, however, have shown there may be 592
  inadequate paint protection in places. A number of options are under discussion with the contractor concerned. Until the outcome of these discussions is known it is not possible to say when the library can start to move its collections into the new building. The bookshelves are a small, albeit important, part of the overall project. The rest of the project is essentially unaffected by the bookshelving and is still progressing within the cash budget set for it in 1988. An announcement about the official opening will be made as soon as uncertainties have been resolved.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether on his visit to Hong Kong in September 1990, the then Minister took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Renton
  The visit to Hong Kong in October 1990 of my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, involved official duties only.

  European Arts Festival
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what funding he proposes to make available for the European arts festival to mark the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community in the second half of 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We will be making £6 million available for the European arts festival over the two financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Parliamentary approval for this new service in the current financial year will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Office of Arts and Libraries vote—class XII, vote 2. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £100,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government's economic policy on child poverty.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the CPAG in June 1990.

  Denationalisation
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the increase in share ownership in Yorkshire as a result of denationalisation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The number of adults owning shares in the Yorkshire and Humberside region has increased by over 50 per cent. since 1987. The privatisations of nationalised industries have played a significant role in introducing the benefits of share ownership to an increasing proportion of the public.

  Growth Rates
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual growth rate between 1988 and 1992 in(a) Germany, (b) France, (c) Italy and (d) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maples
  On the basis of the figures in the December 1991 edition of the OECD's economic outlook for Germany, France and Italy and of the autumn statement for the United Kingdom:(a) 3·3 per cent.; (b) 2·5 per cent.; (c) 2 per cent; (d) 0·8 per cent.

  Planning Total
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the planning total in 1990–91 prices(a) in 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89; and what it is for the current year.

  Mr. Mellor
  The outturn for the planning total, in 1990–91 prices, was £176·6 billion and £168·2 billion in 1987–88 and 1988–89, respectively. Outturn in 1991–92 is forecast to be £191·6 billion, in 1990—91 prices.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of non-oil gross domestic product was represented by non-oil taxes and national insurance contributions in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Mellor
  35 and 37 per cent. respectively.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the purpose of the citizens charter and how it will affect the working of government.

  Mr. Maude
  The citizens charter is the most comprehensive programme ever for raising standards in the public sector. It will not affect Ministers' responsibilities for setting standards and allocating resources, but it will have a profound effect on the way Government services are delivered: increasing choice, quality, value and accountability to the customer. The charter mark scheme will recognise and reward those who achieve excellence in meeting the charter standard.

  The citizens charter will maintain pressure on organisations to improve quality of service; increase efficiency and offer greater value for money to the taxpayer. It will remain at the very heart of the Government's programme over the next 10 years.

  Investment
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of business investment manufacturing investment represented(a) in 1979 and (b) the third quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Maples
  Manufacturing investment at constant market prices represented 30 per cent. of total business investment in 1979 and 21 per cent. in the third quarter of 1991.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Mellor
  Only one recent representation about the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions has been received. The TUC wrote advocating the abolition of the upper earnings limit on employees contributions.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement for the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Mellor
  The 1991 autumn statement forecast a PSBR in 1991–92 of £10½ billion. The next forecast will be given in the Budget.

  Car Taxation
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the motor industry about the taxing of cars.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from a wide crosssection of the motor industry. Both I and my right hon. Friend have also met a number of delegations from the industry.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total tax take in the last year for which figures are available of special car tax and VAT levied on the sale of a new car.

  Mr. Maples
  In 1990–91 car tax raised £1·5 billion, and an estimated £2·7 billion was raised from VAT levied on new cars.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual increase in the real money supply(a) from 1970 to 1973, (b) from 1973 to 1979 and (c) since 1979.

  Mr. Maples
  The information is as follows:

  Money supply average annual increase in real terms1 Percentage growth

  M0

  M4

  1 January 1970 to 31 December 1973

  -0·l

  8·4

  1 January 1974 to 31 December 1979

  -2·7

  -2·6

  1 January 1980 to 31 December 1991

  -1·9

  7·0

  1 Based on the retail prices index as the deflator.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current amount of Britain's overseas investment; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago

  Mr. Maples
  The estimated level of overseas direct and portfolio investment by United Kingdom residents at the end of 1990 was £312 billion, compared with £52 billion at the end of 1980. Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  Privatisation
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table to show the publicly owned assets which are still to be privatised, the 596
  Government's estimated value of each of these assets and the total value and the liability of each such asset and how much public money would be required to write off such liabilities before sale to the private sector.

  Mr. Maude
  The major privatisation candidates are British Technology Group, Northern Ireland Electricity, British Coal and British Rail. The proceeds likely to be obtained depend on market conditions at the time of sale and decisions yet to be taken. The cost to the Exchequer of recapitalisation prior to sale for any privatisation candidate will depend on future decisions and will be announced in due course in the usual way.

  Engineering Products
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing for each year since 1970 the relative profitability of exports of engineering products on a similar basis to column 6 of the table F3 of the "Money Review of External Trade Statistics."

  Mr. Maples
  No. The measure of profitability to which the hon. Member refers requires compatible indices of export unit values and producers' output prices, which are available for manufacturing as a whole but not for its components.

  Ambassadorial Limousines
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will outline Treasury policy in connection with the remittance of moneys received on the sale by one of Her Majesty's embassies of an ambassadorial limousine;

  (2) if he will consider allowing Her Majesty's embassies to retain the proceeds of Rolls-Royce motor cars sold out of service in order to facilitate the purchase of a new one.

  Mr. Mellor
  Receipts from the sale of official vehicles are retained by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They are appropriated in aid of the vote—class II, vote 1.—along with other similar receipts. Any receipts above the level shown in the estimate have to be surrendered as Consolidated Fund extra receipts.

  EC Finance
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums were paid to the EC by each of the member states for each of the last six financial years; what is the projection for the current financial year; and what sums were received by each state from the EC for the same years.

  Mr. Maude
  Total contributions to the EC budget by each member state for the years 1986–1990, together with an estimate of contributions for 1991 and 1992 are in the table. Outturn information on member states' contributions in 1991 will be given in the 1991 Court of Auditors' report due for publication in December 1992.
  597

  mecu

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Belgium

  1,448

  1,703

  1,835

  1,806

  1,764

  2,207

  2,513

  Denmark

  791

  845

  956

  871

  775

  1,012

  1,153

  Germany

  8,730

  9,385

  11,535

  11,110

  10,358

  15,402

  17,580

  Greece

  632

  340

  430

  566

  564

  790

  878

  Spain

  2,321

  1,709

  3,119

  3,135

  3,671

  4,314

  5,381

  France

  6,885

  7,330

  9,096

  8,623

  8,090

  10,819

  11,903

  Ireland

  344

  338

  328

  371

  368

  494

  493

  Italy

  4,718

  5,192

  6,626

  6,406

  6,098

  8,431

  9,297

  Luxembourg

  66

  74

  82

  73

  74

  102

  116

  Netherlands

  2,232

  2,366

  2,796

  2,701

  2,615

  3,289

  3,619

  Portugal

  279

  342

  400

  458

  502

  717

  851

  United Kingdom

  4,825

  5,728

  5,324

  6,568

  6,534

  5,077

  7,658

  Source: 1986–1990; Court of Auditors Report, 1991; Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 3, 1992; Adopted Budget.

  Complete information on receipts by each member state from the EC budget is not available. However partial

  mecu

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Belgium

  1,164

  985

  838

  683

  990

  Denmark

  1,212

  1,144

  1,286

  1,045

  1,198

  Germany

  4,988

  4,542

  5,428

  4,580

  4,807

  Greece

  1,905

  1,877

  1,922

  2,597

  3,034

  Spain

  2,416

  1,985

  4,012

  4,951

  5,383

  France

  6,324

  6,744

  7,315

  5,676

  6,285

  Ireland

  1,574

  1,438

  1,488

  1,712

  2,261

  Italy

  4,523

  5,256

  5,551

  6,177

  5,681

  Luxembourg

  6

  12

  14

  8

  14

  Netherlands

  2,450

  2,890

  3,946

  3,830

  2,984

  Portugal

  498

  731

  915

  1,114

  1,103

  United Kingdom

  3,387

  3,122

  3,254

  3,214

  3,147

  Source: Court of Auditors' Report.

  Charities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual cost of exempting all registered charities from liability for value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about the amount of value added tax borne by charities is not collated centrally but it is estimated that charities pay between £180 million and £250 million in value added tax each year.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of(a) the additional revenue accruing in 1991–92 and in 1992–93 respectively, from the increase in value added tax to 17½ per cent. and (b) the total additional expenditure incurred in each year from the change in the rate of value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  (a) The increase in VAT from 15 to 17½ per cent. will produce an estimated additional £3,900 million in receipts in 1991–92 and £5,515 million in 1992–93.

  (b) The VAT rate was increased in the 1991 Budget as part of a switch from local to central Government taxation. The overall effect on purchasing power and consumer demand of this switch is broadly neutral so we do not expect the level of total expenditure to have changed significantly.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cash amount paid in value added tax by a family with two children on average earnings in 1979; and what is his latest estimate for the amount now.
  598
  information, published in the Court of Auditors' report, is given in the table for the years 1986 to 1990. Estimates for 1991 and 1992 are not available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A married couple with two children on average male earnings is estimated to have paid £6·55 a week in VAT in 1978–79 at 1991–92 prices. It is estimated that a similar family will pay £17·65 a week in 1991–92.

  CBI Manufacturing Council
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received any representations from the newly established manufacturing council of the CBI; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have not received any representations from the manufacturing council of the CBI.

  Inflation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average inflation rate (i) from 1974 to 1979 and (ii) since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  Between December 1973 and December 1979 the average annual rate of inflation, as measured by the retail prices index, was 16 per cent. per annum. This compares with 6·9 per cent. for the period December 1979 to December 1991.

  Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the output figures used in CSO press notice CSO(92)14 for November using current instead of 1985 weights.
  599
  Mr. Mellor
  Information, using weights later than 1985, is not available and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Trade Figures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the sets of trade figures for 1991 and for the latest quarter as a percentage of 1985, in the form used in CSO press notice CS0(92)15, using 1991 weighting.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. The press notice referred to by the hon. Member gives trade volume and unit value indices using 1985 weights and, following well-established procedures, will be rebased on 1990 in the course of 1993.

  Customs Office, Dartmouth
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the proposed closure of the customs office in Dartmouth, south Devon; and what steps are being taken in response to the increase in drug trafficking in the south-west.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The completion of the single market on 1 January 1993 will mean that fiscal and customs formalities at internal EC frontiers will be removed permitting the freest movement of legitimate traffic and passengers. However anti-smuggling checks will remain and these will be focused on major dangers to society such as drugs, instruments of terrorism and child pornography.

  The effects of the single market on staffing in the Customs and Excise department are particularly significant in ports and airports that deal predominantly with traffic arriving from other EC countries, which is the case in Dartmouth. Consequently the department has had to examine carefully both the numbers and location of staff in such areas.

  In determining future customs anti-smuggling resources, the aim has been to provide a service which is better equipped and targeted at areas of highest risk. A further consideration is the more flexible approach being adopted in the way the controls are organised; this moves away from the static controls previously used.

  This approach has been adopted nationally as a result of the review of anti-smuggling controls completed by the department in 1989. The changes in no way reduce the effectiveness of controls against drug trafficking. Customs is also taking steps to ensure provision of more timely and adequate intelligence.

  A flexible anti-smuggling team is based in Plymouth which covers the south Devon area and additionally it is proposed to retain a Customs presence at both Brixham and Salcombe.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in November 1990, the Economic Secretary took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Maples
  No.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue effect in(a) 1992–93 and (b) a full year if (i) all personal tax allowances except the single person's allowance, (ii) employee contributions to occupational pensions, (iii) contributions to personal pensions, (iv) reliefs other than those listed at (i) to (iii) above, (v) a combination of (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), (vi) a combination of (i), (ii) and (iii), (vii) a combination of (ii) and (iii), (viii) a combination of (ii), (iii) and (iv), (ix) a combination of (ii) and (iv) and (x) a combination of (iii) and (iv), were restricted to the basic rate, giving the numbers affected in each case, distinguishing between (1) basic rate taxpayers and (2) higher rate taxpayers and giving the number who are brought into higher rate tax in each case for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of the increase in liability to income tax in a full year at 1991–92 levels of income are given in the following table:

  Yield following restriction of specified allowances and reliefs to the basic rate

  £ million

  (i)

  All allowances except the personal allowance

  300

  (ii)

  Occupational pension contributions

  250

  (iii)

  Personal pension contributions

  150

  (iv)

  All reliefs other than pension contributions

  150

  (v)

  A combination of (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)

  900

  (vi)

  A combination of (i), (ii) and (iii)

  750

  (vii)

  A combination of (ii) and (iii)

  400

  (viii)

  A combination of (ii), (iii) and (iv)

  550

  (ix)

  A combination of (ii) and (iv)

  400

  (x)

  A combination of (iii) and (iv)

  300

  About 1·8 million taxpayers would be affected by the restriction of all allowances, except the personal allowance, and reliefs to the basic rate of whom 1·5 million are currently liable at the higher rate and 0·3 million at the basic rate.

  The estimates of revenue yield do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from such restrictions.

  I regret that it is not possible to provide estimates for 1992–93.

  EC Economic Convergence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to measure convergence between the economies of European Community member states.

  Mr. Maude
  The Maastricht treaty emphasises four criteria for assessing economic convergence. These criteria concern the levels of inflation and interest rates; membership of the narrow band of the ERM; and avoidance of excessive budget deficits.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outocme of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Maples
  The Economic and Finance Council of the European Community met in Brussels on 10 February. I represented the United Kingdom.
  601
  The Council discussed the Irish Government's programme for economic convergence, and welcomed their achievement to date in reducing inflation and putting their public finances on a sound basis. The Council encouraged Ireland to continue with its policies to reduce its very high level of unemployment through tax reform, improved flexibility, adaptation of industrial policy and wage moderation. The Irish commitment to reduce its public debt to 89 per cent. of GDP in 1993 was also noted as a sign of its Government's determination to continue budgetary consolidation. The Council invited the Commission and the monetary committee to monitor the implementation of the programme and to report back to the Council before the end of 1992.

  The Council also carried out its biannual examination of the Community's economic situation, noting the current low growth and high unemployment in the Community and focusing on the need for greater convergence especially in the areas of inflation, labour market flexibility and savings. The Council noted that structural rigidities, especially labour market inflexibility, were major obstacles to price stability, catching up and lower unemployment. It was also agreed that an adequate level of savings is required to maintain investment and economic growth, to support capital accumulation in poorer regions and to allow the Community to meet its external commitments. The Council invited the Commission, the committee of governors and the monetary and economic policy committees to examine these issues further in time for the next multilateral surveillance exercise.

  The annual economic report for 1991–92 was adopted without discussion.

  The Commission confirmed to the Council that the problems which had delayed the disbursement of a 500 mecu food credit for Russia appeared to have been solved. It was agreed that the first tranche of the separately agreed 1·25 becu loan should also be made available to those other states of the former Soviet Union who had signed a memorandum of understanding with official creditors about the debts of the former Soviet Union. It was also agreed that EC members would work to ensure that the states of the former Soviet Union can become members of the IMF as soon as possible.

  The Council accepted the presidency proposals to resolve the outstanding issues in respect of the adoption of the 1992 Community budget. A revision to the financial perspective was agreed which would meet the Council's particular concerns over research and make available up to 450 mecu for technical assistance to the former Soviet Union.

  Agreement was also reached on the outstanding detailed issues surrounding the draft directive on the arrangements for the holding, movement and control of goods subject to excise duty, which had been agreed in principle by the Council on 16 December. The directive can now be formally adopted at a future Council meeting without further discussion. The Council also emphasised the importance of adopting the directives on excise duty structures and rates which are currently under discussion and set targets for doing so at the end of April and the end of June respectively.

  The presidency outlined an ambitious programme for making progress in the single market and the Commission drew attention to the need to make progress in agreeing directives in the field of company taxation.

  Profit Margins
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the reduction in profit margins in manufacturing industry since the end of 1989 as a percentage of sales and the effect that that has had on(a) the rate of inflation, (b) the export price of manufactured goods and (c) the value and volume of imports and exports of manufactured goods.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 February 1992]: The rate of inflation, trade prices and trade volumes depend on a wide range of interrelated factors and it is not possible to isolate the effects of changes in profit margins.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect to date of membership of the exchange rate mechanism on the profitability of United Kingdom manufacturing industry; what is his forecast for 1992; and what effect membership has had and is expected to have on output and employment in manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 February 1992]: Profitability, output and employment depend on a range of factors. ERM membership has reinforced anti-inflationary policy and brought greater exchange rate stability, thereby enabling businesses across the United Kingdom to plan and invest with greater certainty. Since joining the ERM, we have been able to reduce interest rates on eight occasions by a total of 4½ percentage points.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Personal Information
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to allow a consumer to consent to, or be aware of, those uses and disclosures of personal information not obvious at the time the consumer provides the information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Existing legislation provides for individuals in certain circumstances to be aware that information which they disclose about themselves may be used for marketing and other purposes and give them the opportunity to object. I have no plans to introduce any further controls in this area.

  RECHAR Grants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications have been made for RECHAR grants in relation to Nottingham; what payments have been made; and when he expects the European Commission to make the outstanding payments.

  Mr. Leigh
  The United Kingdom made applications for 11 coalfield areas, including Nottingham, in July 1990. The European Commission has yet to approve them, and no RECHAR money has so far been released to the United Kingdom. We hope that the Commission will approve these applications very soon.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to allow local
  603
  authorities to negotiate and conclude agreements for RECHAR grants without any involvement of central Government; and what information he has on current practice in this regard in each of the other EC countries.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: No. I understand that such is not the practice in any member state.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in north Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1979 and May 1980.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The table lists grants offered to firms in north Yorkshire under the regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grants and the small firms merit award for research and technology schemes, together with the number of cases where terms of reference were agreed under the enterprise initiative subsidised consultancy scheme. Figures for regional development grant in 1979 are not available.

  June 1979 to May 1980 (£)

  January to December 1991 (£)

  Regional selective assistance1

  927,716

  4,920

  Regional enterprise grants2

  —

  41,375

  Small firms merit award for research and technology3

  —

  330,000

  Enterprise initiative consultancies4 (number)

  —

  107

  1Following the review of the AA map in November 1984 only Whitby remained eligible for regional aid in north Yorkshire.

  2 Scheme started April 1988.

  3 Scheme started June 1988.

  4 Scheme started January 1989.

HEALTH

  Drugs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ACE inhibitor drugs are licensed for use in the United Kingdom; what guidance has been issued to family health service authorities and general practitioners on the use of such drugs; and what was the expenditure per head in each NHS region on such drugs during the period April to October 1991 in the PACT data system.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  1. ACE inhibitor drugs licensed for use in the United Kingdom:

  Drug Name

  Capoten

  Capozide

  Innovace

  Staril

  Carace

  Coversyl

  Accupro

  Tritace

  Vascace

  Zestril

  2. Net ingredient cost (£) per head for ACE inhibitors April 1991 to September 1991 inclusive.
  604

  Regional Health Authority

  Net Ingredient Cost per head

  (£)

  Northern RHA

  0·82

  Yorkshire RHA

  0·85

  Trent RHA

  0·81

  East Anglia RHA

  0·73

  North West Thames RHA

  0·75

  North East Thames RHA

  0·78

  South East Thames RHA

  0·84

  South West Thames RHA

  0·85

  Wessex RHA

  1·03

  Oxford RHA

  0·83

  South Western RHA

  0·99

  West Midlands RHA

  0·85

  Mersey RHA

  1·00

  North Western RHA

  0·91

  England

  0·86

  Note: The expenditure data used are the net ingredient cost of ACE Inhibitors for the period April to September 1991 inclusive and have been obtained from the Prescription Pricing Authority. The data are actual and take account of all prescriptions dispensed including dispensing doctors. The population figures used are based on the OPCS estimate of resident population for mid-year 1990.

  3. Although no specific guidance has been issued to FHSAs and GPs on the use of ACE inhibitors, guidance is contained in the British National Formulary which is distributed by the Department, free of charge, to all prescribing doctors and in the data sheets supplied by the companies which market these drugs.

  Home Care Agencies
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to arrange for the registrations of all private and voluntary home care agencies; and how many representations he received advocating this move during 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 24 January at column 396. During 1991 representations were received from a small number of organisations.

  Respite Care (Children)
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Children Act 1989 to prohibit local authorities charging parents for the provision of respite care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The Children Act continues the longstanding provision for a contribution to the maintenance of a child looked after by the local authority. It makes no distinction between the provision of short term pre-planned placements—respite care—and longer-term provision of accommodation. Both fall within the range of services for which local authorities have discretion as to charging. In exercising that discretion, local authorities are required to have regard to the means of the child concerned, where the service is provided to a child aged 16 or over, or his parents, where the child is under sixteen. Local authorities cannot charge for services where the child—or his/her parents depending on the child's age—is on income support. Where there is disagreement as to what is a "reasonable" charge there are provisions within the Children Act enabling the matter to be referred to the courts for resolution.

  Leighton Hospital, Crewe and Mid-Cheshire Hospital Trust
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the changes in senior nursing staff which are taking place at Leighton hospital, Crewe;

  (2) what information he has received from the Mid-Cheshire hospital trust of the re-grading of senior nurses, the numbers involved and the specialties which will no longer have the same ratio of trained staff of G grade level and above available for patient care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Richard F. Lawrence, the chairman of the Mid-Cheshire hospital trust, for details.

  HIV
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that dental care is readily available to people who are HIV positive.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Dental care of HIV positive patients as with any other patient is provided by general dental practitioners. Any individual who has difficulty in obtaining dental treatment is advised to contact his family health services authority.

  GP Practices
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners practices there are in the Thurrock parliamentary constituency with(a) more than 9,000 patients, (b) between 7,000 and 9,000 patients, (c) between 5,000 and 7,000 patients, (d) between 3,000 and 5,000 patients, (e) between 1,000 and 3,000 patients and (f) fewer than 1,000 patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS prescription and other charges and the value of optical vouchers from 1st April 1992.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I shall shortly lay before the House regulations providing for increases in prescription charges in the National Health Service in England and Wales which will take effect on 1 April 1992. The prescription charges will increase by 35p from £3·40 to £3·75 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed. Spectacle vouchers—which are available to people on low incomes—go up by 9·5 per cent.

  Concurrently regulations are being laid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to increase the charges in Scotland by the same amount. Similar arrangements will apply in Northern Ireland.

  The new charge will continue to represent less than half the average total cost of a single prescription item to the NHS. The existing wide-ranging exemption arrangements will remain unchanged. Rates for prepayment certificates will rise in line with the increase in prescription charges. A prescription charge is now paid on about one item in six dispensed in the NHS. When the Government took office,
  606
  one item in three attracted a charge. In 1990–91. the drugs bill was nearly £2·1 billion. The increase will raise about £240 million for the NHS.

  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, fabric supports and wigs supplied through the hospital service will also be increased from 1 April 1992 by a similar percentage to the rise in the prescription charge.

  There is no change to the proportional charge—75 per cent.—for general dental services. However the maximum charge will be raised to £225 with effect from 1 April 1992.

  I am pleased to announce that as from 1 April 1992 the overall value of optical vouchers will increase by 9·5 per cent. I have also, in response to representations increased the number of voucher bands from six to eight so as to reflect more accurately the range of manufacturer's wholesale prices.

  The result of these changes will be that the majority of voucher holders will find themselves considerably better off. In particular, the value of voucher A, the commonest voucher, will increase by 20·3 per cent.; voucher B will increase by 20·1 per cent.; and users requiring complex single vision lenses will find the value of their voucher increased by 104·1 per cent.

  I am also pleased to announce that from 1 April 1992 charges made to patients for the use of oxygen concentrators in the home will be discontinued.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state for each district health authority, and the national total, the amount of money still remaining at January 1991 in budgets which have been set aside for extra-contractual referrals in 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 January 1992.]: Information about individual district health authorities reserves for extra-contractual referrals is not held centrally. Our most recent information based on the regional returns made in January 1992 shows that nationally around £53 million—26 per cent.—of the reserves set aside for extra-contractual referrals remains for the last quarter of the year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kurds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will take steps to instigate a debate in the United Nations on the massacre of Kurd civilians in 1988, with a view to establishing a United Nations investigation into allegations of genocide related specifically to those atrocities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraq's appalling human rights record is already under scrutiny at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. The United Nations has appointed a special rapporteur to report on human rights in Iraq. He has our full support. These latest reports simply underline Saddam Hussein's total disregard for international norms of behaviour.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Ministers of State took part in party political activities in addition to official
  607
  duties during each of their visits to Hong Kong in (a) February and June 1988, (b) January and September 1989 and (c) April, July and September 1990.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend Lord Glenarthur saw fellow Conservatives in June 1988 and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) in April and July 1990. My noble Friend the Minister of State also met them in September 1990.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, on each of his visits to Hong Kong in(a) May 1988, (b) July 1989 and (c) January 1990, he took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Hurd
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) saw fellow Conservatives briefly during his visit to Hong Kong in May 1988, but not in July 1989 and neither did I in January 1990.

  Mr. and Mrs. Orton Chirwa
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the conditions of the imprisonment of Mr. and Mrs. Orton Chirwa in Malawi; if he will make renewed efforts to seek their release; and whether he will set a date beyond which all aid to Malawi will be suspended, unless they are released.

  Mr. Chalker
  We have received reports that Mr. and Mrs. Chirwa's health has deteriorated because of the conditions under which they are held. We have therefore asked the Malawian Government for their release on humanitarian grounds. The Malawian Government have been informed that future aid levels will be influenced by their performance on human rights.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all outstanding cases against the United Kingdom at the European Commission on Human Rights which have been declared admissible by the Commission but have not yet been considered by or referred to either the court or the Committee of Ministers, giving their names, application numbers and their subject matter.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are nine cases outstanding against the United Kingdom at the European Commission on Human Rights which have been declared admissible by

  Date

  Rate of SSP

  Equivalent value at April 1991 Prices

  Gross average weekly earnings1

  Net weekly earnings

  Percentages

  Single

  Married

  B as percentage of D

  B as percentage of E

  B as percentage of F

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  I

  (£. p)

  (£. p)

  (£. p)

  (£. p)

  (£. p)

  6 April 1983

  40·25

  63·56

  164·70

  110·80

  116·60

  24·4

  36·3

  34·5

  33·75

  53·30

  164·70

  110·80

  116·60

  20·5

  30·5

  28·9

  27·20

  42·95

  164·70

  110·80

  116·60

  16·5

  24·5

  23·3

  6 April 1984

  42·25

  63·44

  178·80

  120·60

  127·30

  23·6

  35·0

  33·2

  35·45

  53·23

  178·80

  120·60

  127·30

  19·8

  29·4

  27·8

  28·55

  42·87

  178·80

  120·60

  127·30

  16·0

  23·7

  22·4

  6 April 1985

  44·35

  62·28

  192·40

  130·10

  137·30

  23·1

  34·1

  32·3

  37·20

  52·24

  192·40

  130·10

  137·30

  19·3

  28·6

  27·1

  608
  the Commission but have not yet been considered by or referred to either the European Court of Human Rights or the Committee of Ministers:

  Number, name and subject matter

  15767/89 Clarke—discretionary life sentence

  16632/90 Colman—doctors' advertising restrictions

  15058/89 Darnell—length of medical disciplinary proceedings

  14778/80 Higgins—provision of legal aid

  15861/89 M—provision of legal aid

  14310/88 Murray and others—entry and search of the family home

  13195/87 P and others—discretionary life sentences

  16212/90 R—provision of legal aid

  14830/89 Yousef—immigration

  Syria
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the release of Mu'taz Qutlabi, held in Fir Amnal-Dawa, Damascus, and of the imminent release of other political prisoners in Syria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no specific information on the individual mentioned. We are trying to obtain verification and further details of the recently reported release by the Syrian authorities of 2,864 political prisoners.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps will be taken to ensure that those who suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis will be entitled to invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Entitlement to invalidity benefit does not depend on the nature of a person's incapacity for work. People suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis may qualify if they satisfy the entitlement conditions. We have no plans to make special provision for people suffering from this particular condition.

  Sick Pay
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the different rates of statutory sick pay at current and at 1991 prices, and as percentages of gross average earnings and average earnings net of income tax and national insurance contribution, in each year since statutory sick pay replaced national insurance sickness benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.
  609

  Date

  Rate of SSP

  Equivalent value at April 1991 Prices

  Gross average weekly earnings1

  Net weekly earnings

  Percentages

  Single

  Married

  B as percentage of D

  B as percentage of E

  B as percentage of F

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  I

  (£. p)

  (£. p)

  (£. p)

  (£. p)

  (£. p)

  30·00

  42·13

  192·40

  130·10

  137·30

  15·6

  23·1

  21·8

  6 April 1986

  46·75

  63·71

  207·50

  141·70

  149·00

  22·5

  33·0

  31·4

  39·20

  53·42

  207·50

  141·70

  149·00

  18·9

  27·7

  26·3

  31·60

  43·06

  207·50

  141·70

  149·00

  15·2

  22·3

  21·2

  6 April 19872

  47·20

  61·71

  224·00

  155·90

  163·00

  21·1

  30·3

  29·0

  32·85

  42·95

  224·00

  155·90

  163·00

  14·7

  21·1

  20·2

  6 April 1988

  49·20

  61·90

  245·80

  174·80

  182·00

  20·0

  28·1

  27·0

  34·25

  43·09

  245·80

  174·80

  182·00

  13·9

  19·6

  18·8

  6 April 1989

  52·10

  60·67

  269·50

  191·30

  198·90

  19·3

  27·2

  26·2

  36·25

  42·21

  269·50

  191·30

  198·90

  13·5

  18·9

  18·2

  6 April 1990

  52·50

  55·86

  295·60

  212·80

  221·10

  17·8

  24·7

  23·7

  39·25

  41·76

  295·60

  212·80

  221·10

  13·3

  18·4

  17·8

  6 April 1991

  52·50

  52·50

  318·90

  230·00

  238·30

  16·5

  22·8

  22·0

  43·50

  43·50

  318·90

  230·00

  238·30

  13·6

  18·9

  18·3

  Notes:

  1 Earnings shown are the average for full-time adult male employees.

  2 Middle rate of SSP abolished from 6 April 1987.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to increase child benefit for all children to the level it would have been if it had been uprated in line with inflation since 1987.

  Mr. Scott
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear on a number of occasions, we are committed to increasing the current level of child benefit in line with inflation. Child benefit is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. From 1988 we have introduced extra help for families on income-related benefits which will amount to over £600 million in 1992–93. This, together with last year's increases in child benefit,

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Uprating date

  Rate of Child Benefit plus Child Dependency Increase

  Equivalent value of benefit at April 1991 prices

  Gross male weekly average earnings with amounts in column B as percentage

  Equivalent net week earnings with amounts in column B as percentage

  Single person

  Married couple

  £

  £

  £

  Per. cent

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  November 1979

  11·10

  24·52

  114·10

  9·7

  79·90

  13·9

  83·60

  13·3

  November 1980

  12·25

  23·47

  135·10

  9·1

  93·40

  13·1

  97·80

  12·5

  November 1981

  12·95

  22·16

  149·50

  8·7

  101·00

  12·8

  105·40

  12·3

  November 1982

  13·80

  22·22

  160·60

  8·6

  107·40

  12·8

  112·50

  12·3

  November 1983

  14·10

  21·65

  172·40

  8·2

  115·50

  12·2

  121·30

  11·6

  November 1984

  14·50

  21·22

  187·40

  7·7

  125·90

  11·5

  132·50

  10·9

  November 1985

  15·05

  20·88

  199·50

  7·5

  134·40

  11·2

  141·60

  10·6

  July 1986

  15·15

  20·68

  210·90

  7·2

  143·80

  10·5

  151·20

  10·0

  April 1987

  15·30

  20·00

  224·00

  6·8

  155·90

  9·8

  163·00

  9·4

  April 1988

  15·65

  19·69

  245·80

  6·4

  174·80

  9·0

  182·00

  8·6

  April 1989

  16·20

  18·86

  269·50

  6·0

  191·30

  8·5

  198·90

  8·1

  April 1990

  16·90

  17·98

  295·60

  5·7

  212·80

  7·9

  221·10

  7·6

  April 1991

  117·95

  17·95

  318·90

  5·6

  230·00

  7·8

  238·30

  7·5

  1 Where the new higher rate of Child Benefit for the eldest qualifying child applied, the Child Dependency Increase was adjusted so that the total level of support remained the same for all children.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Egypt
  Ms. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much all donors are contributing to the World bank and social fund to mitigate the social impact of economic reform in Egypt.
  610
  means that the current level of overall expenditure on families with children is now greater than it would have been if we had simply uprated child benefit each year after 1987 in line with inflation.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing child benefit plus the national insurance long-term addition for children of(a) widows and (b) invalidity pensioners, at current and at 1991 prices, and as percentages of gross average earnings and average earnings net of income tax and national insurance contributions, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The figures, which are the same for widows and invalidity pensioners, are in the table:

  Mrs. Chalker
  We understand that the following pledges have been made to the social fund project in the Arab Republic of Egypt, in addition to an International Development Association loan of SDR105 million—$140 million—approved in June 1991:

  Donors

  $ million

  European Community

  140

  USAID

  55

  Arab Fund

  50

  611

  Donors

  $ million

  Kuwait Fund

  50

  Aub Dhabi Fund

  50

  Switzerland

  30

  Germany

  30

  Denmark

  10

  Canada

  10

  France

  10

  Sweden

  10

  Netherlands

  6

  Austria

  5

  UNDP

  4

  Norway

  2

  Total (including IDA)

  602

  Tropics (Biodiversity)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each programme supported by the Overseas Development Administration for research and development of the biodiversity of the tropics since 1987, with the funds allocated to each in each year and the annual totals.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We funded 62 projects on biodiversity from central research and development funds in 1987–88, 58 projects in 1988–89 and 43 projects in 1989–90. I am placing in the Library a list of projects in each year, including the total cost of each project and the cost to ODA in each financial year. Information relating to 1990–91 will be contained in ODA's report on research and development for that year, which is in preparation. ODA is one of the largest contributors to the International Board for Plant Genetics Resources.

  Biodiversity Programmes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what priority the Minister of Overseas Development has given to the forestry discipline within the Overseas Development Administration's biodiversity programmes.

  Mr. Chalker
  We made it clear in the ODA's publication "Biological Diversity and Developing Countries: Issues and Options", June 1991, that tropical forests, which may contain over 90 per cent. of species, have a very high priority within our support to biodiversity programmes in developing countries.

  ODA Staff (Qualifications)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff of the Overseas Development Administration have qualifications in forestry.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Three advisers in the Overseas Development Administration's London headquarters and 17 staff at the ODA's agency, the natural resources institute, have qualifications in foresty. In addition, there are 15 similarly qualified people serving overseas on technical co-operation assignments.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in September 1988, the Minister for Overseas Development took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  Summit on the Advancement of Rural Women
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department will be sending a representative to the summit on the advancement of rural women to be held in Geneva later this month.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Representation will be provided by the United Kingdom mission to the United Nations in Geneva.

  Horn of Africa
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government's contribution will be to the SEPHA appeal for the Horn of Africa for the period February to July 1992.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have this week approved a British contribution of £23 million to the appeal. The contribution is made up as follows:

  £ million

  Food Aid

  (i) Ethiopia, including Eritrea 20,000 tonnes

  112

  (ii) Sudan 25,000 tonnes

  Non-food Aid

  (i) UNHCR activities in the Horn

  5

  (ii) British NGO humanitarian activities in the Horn

  6

  23

  1 Approximate.

  This pledge is additional to the £107 million, including 185,000 tonnes of food aid and our share of EC emergency aid, which we have committed for humanitarian relief in the Horn of Africa since the present crisis began in September 1990. The food aid total included £2·2 million for Somalia which I announced in January this year.

  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why it has been decided not to contribute funds to the special famine relief programme run by the International Fund for Agricultural Development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider his decision not to make available funds to assist the United Nations International Fund for Agricultural Development's special programme for Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 12 February.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Press Freedom
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on the freedom of the press; and what steps have been taken to implement his policy since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to safeguarding the freedom of the press. They consider this is best secured by responsible journalism and effective self-regulation. In pursuit of this policy the Government have supported the recommendations of the Calcutt committee for a non-statutory Press Complaints Commission. We are committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the new arrangements later this year.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Durham Education Authority
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil by Durham education authority in(a) current expenditure and (b) capital expenditure in 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Fallon
  Spending per pupil in nursery schools, primary schools and secondary schools in Durham is shown in the table. The table shows actual spending in 1979–80 and in 1989–90, the latest year for which the information is available, at both current and 1989–90 prices.

  Current prices

  1989–90 prices3

  Year

  Net institutional expenditure1 per pupil2

  Capital expenditure per pupil

  Net institutional expenditure1 per pupil2

  Capital expenditure per pupil

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  1979–80

  505

  30

  1,010

  60

  1989–90

  1,430

  55

  1,430

  55

  1 Net institutional expenditure covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, home to school transport. LEA central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure.

  2 The figures are derived from Durham Local Education Authority's returns of its spending to the Department of the Environment and of its pupil numbers to the Department of Education and Science.

  3 Figures for 1979–80 have been repriced to 1989–90 prices using the GDP (market prices) deflator index.

  Taxonomic Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's policy on the funding of taxonomic research in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department funds research through its grants from the science budget to the research 614
  councils and through the higher education funding councils which provide block grants to higher education institutions.

  In deciding the overall level of funding to be made avaialble, and the allocation of the science budget to individual research councils, the Government take account of advice from the funding councils and from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. It is then for individual research councils and higher education institutions to decide how to deploy the resources made available to them, including the level of funding for taxonomic research.

  Student Grants
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing mandatory grant levels for students pursuing first degree courses, at current and at constant 1991 prices in each year since 1979; and if he will also show net maximum parental contributions as percentages of average earnings in the same years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The table shows the value of the mandatory grant1, in cash terms and at 1991 prices, and the maximum assessed parental contribution as percentage of average earnings for 1979–80 to 1991–92. The contribution assessed for parents on average earnings in any year would be considerably less than the maximum contribution figure shown in the table. Further, the assessed contribution for any parent cannot exceed the maintenance grant to which the student is entitled.

  Stautory maximum contribution

  Academic year

  Grant in cash terms

  1991 value of grant

  In cash terms

  As per cent. of average earnings

  £

  £

  1979–80

  1,245

  2,832

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  1,430

  2,807

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  1,535

  2,705

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  1,595

  2,620

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  1,660

  2,593

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  1,775

  2,648

  n/a

  n/a

  1985–86

  1,830

  2,578

  4,000

  45

  1986–87

  1,901

  2,600

  4,300

  45

  1987–88

  1,972

  2,589

  4,600

  44

  1988–89

  2,050

  2,543

  4,900

  43

  1989–90

  2,155

  2,485

  5,300

  42

  1990–91

  2,265

  2,355

  5,800

  42

  1991–92

  2,265

  2,265

  5,800

  39

  n/a=Not applicable. Between 1979–80 and 1984–85 there was no statutory maximum parental contribution.

  Note:
  Rate applicable to students living away from the parental home and studying at an institution outside London. From 1990–91 student loans were available of up to £420 in 1990–91 and £580 in 1991–92 (at the outside London rate).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Circaprint NI Ltd.
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date Circaprint NI Ltd. went into receivership; which company was appointed as receivers; what action has been taken to date by the appointed receivers to enable redundant workers to receive moneys
  615
  to which they are entitled; and if he will seek to expedite settlement of outstanding claims lodged by former employees.

  Mr. Needham
  Joint administrative receivers were appointed to the parent company Circaprint Holdings Plc on 5 April 1991. No receiver was, however, appointed to Circaprint (NI) Ltd. and the Department of Economic Development has therefore undertaken, under article 47 of the Industrial Relations (NI) Order 1976, to discharge such of the functions of a receiver as are necessary to ensure that former employees of the Northern Ireland company receive payment of holiday pay, pay in lieu of notice and redundancy payments to which they are entitled.

  It is anticipated that qualifying claims will be paid not later than the end of February 1992.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total value of grants paid towards the cost of all plant and equipment including installation costs from start up until closure of Circaprint NI Ltd.

  Mr. Needham
  £949,721.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in December 1989, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Needham
  No.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish figures showing the total budget of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in Wales in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Curry
  The budgetary costs for the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, as currently constituted in Wales for the last three years and the current year to date are as follows:

  £000's

  1988–89

  15,950

  1989–90

  15,878

  1990–91

  15,780

  21991–92

  3,541

  1 Includes costs of Trawsgoed experimental husbandry farm transferred to the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research on 31 March 1991.

  2 To end December 1991.

  Prior to this separate delegated budgets for Wales are not identifiable, and figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are currently employed by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in Wales; and if he will publish the total numbers employed within each experimental husbandry farm.
  616
  Mr. Curry
  There are currently 177 permanent staff employed by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in Wales and 12 of these staff are employed at Pwllpeiran experimental husbandry farm.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that mink farms do not release mink into the wild.

  Mr. Maclean
  All mink farms are inspected annually by Ministry officials to ensure that they meet the security standards required by the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, as amended.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements his Department has made to consult interested parties before preparation of a draft EC directive on dietary supplements.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 6 February,Official Report, column 450.

  Pollution Control
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government intends to introduce to enable United Kingdom farmers to meet new pollution control requirements.

  Mr. Curry
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 21 January, a pilot study will be set up to see if farmers can reduce water pollution by preparing and implementing plans for the safe disposal of animal manure, slurry and other organic wastes. Later this year the Department will issue a code of good agricultural practice for the protection of air. These will supplement existing measures including 50 per cent. grant aid for waste storage facilities and free general advisory visits by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service on pollution avoidance.

  Tropical Forest Resource Group
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the work programme of the tropical forest resource group at the royal botanic gardens, Kew.

  Mr. Curry
  The tropical forest resource group, which was launched on 29 January 1992, is a consortium of 11 organisations including the royal botanic gardens at Kew. Its aim is to provide information and expertise to project and policy developers worldwide in the areas of forest management and conservation, agroforestry and related land use. Kew's role will be to provide support in its special fields of taxonomic research on plants and fungi, with additional capabilities in experimental research, seed storage and horticulture.

  Agricultural Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food to how many consultations from local planning authorities relating to individual planning
  617
  applications for non-agricultural development his Department responded in each six months since January 1988; if he will provide for each period the number of objections, conditional objections, appraisals, no objections and cases which were either withdrawn or in which

  1 January 1988 to 30 June 1988

  1 July 1988 to 31 December 1988

  1 January 1989 to 30 June 1989

  1 July 1989 to 31 December 1989

  1 January 1990 to 30 June 1990

  1 July 1990 to 31 December 1990

  Total number of consultations

  775

  715

  648

  648

  692

  747

  Objections

  17

  14

  19

  14

  16

  10

  Conditional response

  114

  96

  59

  53

  76

  77

  Appraisal

  344

  282

  305

  360

  401

  470

  No objection

  238

  215

  89

  80

  67

  44

  Withdrawn

  24

  12

  15

  13

  15

  19

  Wrong referral

  38

  96

  161

  128

  117

  127

  Hectares

  Grade 1

  172·9

  870·3

  802·4

  154·6

  252·4

  226·5

  Grade 2

  1,171·7

  1,183·0

  1,600·9

  1,729·0

  2,442·9

  2,739·6

  Grade 3a

  2,733·2

  2,911·2

  3,025·3

  2,715·9

  2,992·9

  2,395·9

  Grade 3b

  4,897·4

  4,666·3

  4,396·1

  2,632·7

  4,568·2

  4,337·8

  Grade 3 (no sub-division)

  1,509·5

  1,520·2

  1,757·3

  3,857·2

  5,623·9

  6,155·0

  Grade 4

  947·2

  859·9

  939·8

  1,042·0

  1,243·3

  2,108·7

  Grade 5

  190·1

  374·4

  143·5

  215·2

  427·3

  192·5

  Other land

  4,249·1

  3,671·9

  6,321·1

  5,218·8

  5,188·4

  8,506·9

  Note:
  "Conditional response" includes both conditional acceptances and objections.

  Revised guidelines and criteria introduced for grading the quality of agricultural land provided for two subgrades of grade 3 land: 3a and 3b. the latter being a combination of the previous 3b and 3c.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, colums 445-46, if he will list for each year since 1980 the number of applications which were rejected by his Ministry and were subsequently refused by the local authorities concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The records do not show this information.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount of agricultural land in England in each grade. including 3a and 3b, in(a) 1986 and (b)

  Mr. Gummer
  The published agricultural land classification maps and data are based on strategic planning work carried out in the 1960s and do not sub-divide grade 3 land. The original survey showed the proportion of land in each grade in England to be as follows:

  per cent.

  Grade 1

  3·3

  Grade 2

  16·7

  Grade 3

  54·0

  Grade 4

  15·7

  Grade 5

  10·3

  The agricultural land classification maps and data provide only a very general indication of the distribution of land quality. Resurveying at a larger scale is necessary to obtain a definitive grade for individual sites.
  618
  the referal was inappropriate; and how many hectares of each grade of agricultural land, including 3a, 3b and 3c, were involved in each period.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested for England and Wales is as follows:

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council on 10 to 11 February.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council together with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), Parliamentary Secretary in my Department, and my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Discussion concentrated on the Commission's proposals for CAP reform. The Portuguese presidency presented a new compromise paper which may have moved matters forward by a small amount, but major divergencies of view remain. I was one of several Ministers who said that they would not be able to come to final decisions until the outcome of the current GATT round were known. Otherwise I maintained the United Kingdom position on the lines I have explained to the House on several occasions. Discussion will resume at the next meeting of the Council starting on 2 March.

  The Commissioner said that he would bring forward a package of structural proposals, which were intended to help the Community's soft fruit industry. This follows the representations I have made about the difficulties caused for the United Kingdom industry by low-priced imports from eastern Europe.

  Bananas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consequences of the proposal in the draft general agreement on tariffs and trade text, that import controls on bananas should be converted into a tariff on African, Caribbean and Pacific banana producers.

  Mr. Gummer
  The draft general agreement on tariffs and trade text calls for all border measures other than
  619
  ordinary customs duties applying to agricultural products to be converted into tariff equivalents and for current access opportunities to be maintained on terms at least equivalent to those existing. The tariff equivalent would in principle be applied to all dollar banana imports above current access volumes. It is unclear whether the tariff equivalent would have to be paid on African, Caribbean and Pacific sendings above their current level; nevertheless, fruit up to that volume would continue to enter the Community duty free.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the amount in pounds sterling spent on the common agricultural policy in 1991; what are the current forecasts of expenditure for 1992, 1993 and 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The amount spent on the common agricultural policy in 1991 was £24,105 million1. The common agricultural policy budget for 1992 is £27,836 million1—which includes £697 million1 for the monetary reserve. It is not normal practice to forecast anticipated expenditure for subsequent years, which depend on decisions yet to be taken.

  1 Converted at £:1·435 ecu.

  Food Imports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amounts and types of fruit, vegetables and meat with country of origin for food imported into the United Kingdom in(a) 1990 and (b)

  Mr. Gummer
  Volumes and values of imports are published in the monthly CSO Business Monitor "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom"—MM20—which is available in the Library of the House. Table III of this monitor gives both monthly and year-to-date data at the five-digit SITC level, classified by main country of consignment, not necessarily the country of origin. Figures for the first 11 months of 1991 are available in the November 1991 edition; the December 1991 edition, which will contain provisional figures for 1991, will be available later this month. Final annual figures are published in Business Monitor MA20; the 1990 edition is available in the Library of the House and the 1991 edition will be available by the end of 1992. Country of origin figures are not published but are available from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, normally through its appointed marketing agents.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 24, on BSE deaths, if he will give a month by month breakdown of the figures given for the cattle dying at age two and three.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is as follows. The figures differ from those in the previous answer as further cases with a date of onset during 1991 have been confirmed.620

  Age at Onset

  Month of onset 1991

  2 to 3 years

  3 to 4 years

  January

  10

  205

  February

  6

  228

  March

  5

  315

  April

  6

  351

  May

  6

  344

  June

  4

  362

  July

  5

  394

  August

  3

  437

  September

  3

  247

  October

  0

  173

  November

  0

  87

  December

  0

  20

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest information as to the age at death of cattle diagnosed as suffering from BSE so far this year.

  Mr. Maclean
  Only five cases of cattle suffering from BSE have so far been confirmed in Great Britain which have a date of clinical onset in 1992. Their ages were one each at three, five and six years, and two at four years.

EMPLOYMENT

  Older Workers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce special measures to help unemployed older workers re-enter the work force.

  Mr. Jackson
  A wide range of unemployment and training measures is already available to help older unemployed people back to work. We are also keen that all employers should give proper recognition to the qualities that older workers possess. We are therefore, setting up an advisory group on older workers, as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend on Tuesday 11 February,Official Report, columns 809-21. The group will have an important role to play in the identification and dissemination of good practice in the employment of older workers.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps have been taken to formulate new legislation to prevent unfair dismissal for all on grounds of age, to provide job security for older workers and to prevent age discrimination in job advertisements and in recruitment, in-service training, promotion and education.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. We do not believe that legislation is the way to tackle these issues.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the number of health and safety inspectors employed, (b) the number of visits made, (c) the number of incidents investigated and (d) the number of prosecutions for health and safety offences, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The total number of inspectors in post in the Health and Safety Executive for each year since 1979 is as follows:
  621

  Year

  Total inspectors1

  1 April 1979

  1,426·5

  1 April 1980

  1,444·5

  1 April 1981

  1,404·0

  1 April 1982

  1,323·5

  1 April 1983

  1,276·5

  1 April 1984

  1,239·0

  1 April 1985

  1,266·0

  1 April 1986

  1,231·5

  1 April 1987

  21,204·5

  1 April 1988

  1,165·0

  1 April 1989

  1,182·5

  1 April 1990

  1,239·0

  1 April 1991

  31,342·0

  1 February 1992

  31,421·0

  1 Includes inspectors on non-inspection duties eg line management, contributing to policy or technical standards.

  2 Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate transferred to the Department of the Environment on 1 April 1987.

  3 Includes inspectors in Railway Inspectorate and Offshore Safety Division who transferred to HSE in December 1990 and April 1991 respectively.

  Information on the total numbers of visits made and incidents investigated since 1979 is either not available on a consistent basis or could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The available information on the number of visits made and incidents investigated by HSE inspectors since 1983–84 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of visits

  Number of incidents investigated1

  1983–84

  230,078

  710,153

  1984–85

  3209,058

  710,449

  1985–86

  4227,637

  77,061

  1986–87

  5241,436

  79,877

  1987–88

  231,436

  810,742

  1988–89

  229,429

  912,335

  1989–90

  234,389

  1011,556

  1990–91

  6229,079

  610,862

  Notes:

  1 Incidents investigated are included in the total number of visits.

  2 Data for HSE's Agricultural Inspectorate (AI) only.

  3 Data for HSE's Factory Inspectorate (FI) and AI only.

  4 Data for FI, AI, and HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and Inspectors in HSE's Technology Division.

  5Data for all Inspectorates, including HSE's Mines and

  Table A: Fatal and major injuries reported (a) to HSE's factory inspectorate, 1981 to 1990–91 (provisional) by HSE administrative area (b) Fatal injuries

  HSE administrative area

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  01 South West

  12

  21

  25

  21

  20

  20

  21

  6

  25

  18

  02 South

  13

  10

  20

  18

  12

  14

  24

  21

  26

  18

  03 South East

  24

  26

  27

  26

  27

  19

  39

  29

  28

  27

  04-06 Greater London

  44

  38

  46

  36

  56

  46

  60

  61

  47

  47

  07 East Anglia

  14

  17

  14

  20

  19

  16

  18

  19

  21

  10

  08 Northern Home Counties

  6

  14

  11

  21

  16

  15

  12

  10

  16

  6

  09 East Midlands

  13

  18

  14

  11

  14

  13

  14

  11

  13

  17

  10 West Midlands

  16

  17

  21

  14

  15

  9

  19

  18

  6

  11

  11 Wales

  25

  31

  22

  31

  21

  26

  34

  20

  28

  27

  12 Marches

  14

  13

  15

  15

  8

  9

  7

  19

  14

  15

  13 North Midlands

  17

  17

  19

  20

  19

  13

  13

  17

  24

  16

  14 South Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  19

  20

  16

  17

  18

  13

  19

  6113

  18

  15 West and North Yorkshire

  26

  24

  25

  28

  783

  24

  13

  27

  17

  21

  16 Greater Manchester

  15

  14

  18

  17

  20

  14

  13

  26

  24

  22

  17 Merseyside

  12

  13

  18

  22

  21

  12

  16

  10

  15

  11

  18 North West

  11

  18

  22

  27

  6

  12

  17

  13

  16

  15

  19 North East

  22

  24

  12

  20

  18

  19

  17

  14

  32

  11

  622
  Quarries Inspectorate (MQI).

  6 Excluding Railway Inspectorate.

  7 Accidents and incidents investigated by FI only.

  8 Accidents, incidents and dangerous occurrences investigated by FI and AI and cases of disease/ill health investigated by AI.

  9 Accidents, incidents and dangerous occurrences investigated by FI, AI, MI and QI; and cases of disease/ill health investigated by AI.

  10 Accidents, incidents and dangerous occurrences investigated by FI, AI, MI and QI.

  Information on the total number of prosecutions for health and safety offences since 1979 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The available data on the number of informations laid by HSC/E enforcing authorities (excluding local authorities) since 1979 is as follows:

  Date of hearing1

  Number of informations laid2

  19793

  2,427

  19803

  2,624

  19814

  1,892

  19824

  2,351

  1983

  2,238

  1984

  2,209

  1985

  2,321

  1986–87

  2,199

  1987–88

  2,337

  1988–89

  2,328

  1989–90

  2,653

  1990–915

  2,292

  1 From 1979 to 1985, based on calendar years. 1986–87 onwards, based on year commencing 1 April.

  2 Includes, for Scotland, charges preferred.

  3 Data for FI and AI only.

  4 Data for FI, AI, and MQI only.

  5 Provisional figure.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fatal and major injuries were reported to the factories inspectorate in each year since 1979 in each(a) region and (b) sector.

  Mr. Forth
  The available information is provided in the tables. Prior to 1981, the only analysis available is of fatal injuries to employees by industry sector.
  623

  HSE administrative area

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  20 Scotland East

  29

  27

  36

  27

  22

  23

  20

  32

  26

  25

  21 Scotland West

  36

  36

  19

  26

  22

  14

  20

  26

  19

  22

  Unclassified

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  362

  397

  404

  416

  7436

  336

  390

  408

  6510

  357

  Table A: Fatal and major injuries reported (a) to HSE's factory inspectorate, 1981 to 1990–91 (provisional) by HSE administrative area (b) (continued) 8Major injuries

  HSE administrative area

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  01 South West

  1,218

  1,411

  1,338

  1,383

  1,354

  1,757

  1,421

  1,329

  1,438

  1,328

  02 South

  482

  335

  803

  825

  980

  1,636

  1,724

  1,615

  1,805

  1,782

  03 South East

  825

  1,044

  1,137

  1,154

  1,189

  1,879

  1,834

  1,482

  1,500

  1,448

  04-06 Greater London

  992

  1,274

  1,428

  1,491

  1,448

  3,184

  2,728

  2,522

  2,128

  1,873

  07 East Anglia

  803

  959

  806

  385

  891

  1,772

  1,995

  1,880

  1,344

  982

  08 Northern Home Counties

  446

  411

  602

  668

  562

  778

  735

  939

  881

  729

  09 East Midlands

  403

  668

  722

  699

  703

  1,508

  1,215

  1,303

  1,339

  1,287

  10 West Midlands

  941

  925

  970

  1,017

  1,067

  1,703

  1,525

  1,619

  1,519

  1,482

  11 Wales

  788

  638

  669

  820

  936

  1,452

  1,393

  1,521

  1,413

  1,423

  12 Marches

  569

  484

  551

  707

  507

  1,236

  973

  936

  1,003

  1,035

  13 North Midlands

  723

  852

  834

  896

  917

  1,892

  1,835

  1,868

  1,955

  1,182

  14 South Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,014

  763

  881

  919

  808

  1,793

  1,509

  1,501

  62,142

  1,342

  15 West and North Yorkshire

  781

  767

  866

  960

  1,205

  1,422

  1,421

  1,401

  1,582

  1,584

  16 Greater Manchester

  909

  776

  907

  766

  860

  1,476

  1,312

  1,426

  1,373

  1,250

  17 Merseyside

  1,083

  893

  1,048

  1,202

  1,214

  1,969

  1,200

  1,196

  1,088

  1,082

  18 North West

  656

  824

  761

  882

  709

  1,236

  1,486

  1,436

  1,244

  1,076

  l9 North East

  1,062

  556

  548

  595

  656

  1,706

  1,664

  1,596

  1,443

  1,481

  20 Scotland East

  724

  647

  612

  755

  710

  1,603

  1,634

  1,606

  1,443

  1,352

  21 Scotland West

  661

  660

  539

  546

  515

  958

  946

  1,090

  1,010

  1,138

  Unclassified

  1

  58

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  15,081

  14,945

  16,022

  16,670

  17,231

  30,960

  28,550

  28,266

  627,650

  24,856

  Table B: Fatal and major injuries reported (a) to HSE's factory inspectorate, 1979 to 1990–91 (provisional) by industrial sector Fatal injuries

  Industry sector4

  51979

  51980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Energy and water supply industries

  12

  13

  12

  17

  13

  38

  26

  12

  14

  13

  14

  5

  Manufacturing industries

  149

  122

  116

  130

  126

  132

  109

  99

  86

  93

  113

  85

  Construction

  149

  165

  128

  131

  151

  124

  139

  138

  155

  150

  160

  125

  Service industries

  89

  87

  104

  119

  114

  122

  7162

  87

  135

  151

  6222

  142

  Unclassified

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  399

  387

  362

  397

  404

  416

  7436

  336

  390

  408

  6510

  357

  Table B: Fatal and major injuries reported (a) to HSE's factory inspectorate, 1979 to 1990 –91 (provisional) by industrial sector (continued) Major injuries8

  Industry sector4

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  3

  4

  3

  4

  2

  6

  11

  11

  11

  16

  Energy and water supply industries

  226

  229

  219

  242

  239

  587

  503

  443

  418

  435

  Manufacturing industries

  4,078

  4,066

  4,255

  4,686

  4,805

  7,230

  7,100

  7,244

  7,239

  6,677

  Construction

  1,763

  2,032

  2,298

  2,431

  2,430

  3,312

  3,455

  3,757

  4,195

  3,877

  Service industries

  8,912

  8,583

  9,224

  9,288

  9,755

  19,707

  17,253

  16,661

  615,623

  13,607

  Unclassified

  99

  31

  23

  19

  0

  118

  228

  150

  164

  244

  Total

  15,081

  14,945

  16,022

  16,670

  17,231

  30,960

  28,550

  28,266

  627,650

  24,856

  Footnotes to tables (A) and (B):

  1 Provisional.

  2 Injuries at work to employees and self-employed persons and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity reported under various pieces of legislation, but chiefly the 1961 Factories Act for the calendar years prior to 1981, under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrencies Regulations (NADOR) for the calendar years 1981 to 1985, and under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) for the subsequent financial years commencing 1 April 1986.

  3 The analysis is provided by Health and Safety Executive administrative area.

  4 Standard Industrial Classification 1980 divisions, aggregated to sector level.

  5 Fatal injuries to employees only.
  624 625
  6 Data include the 95 fatalities and 766 major injuries to members of the public arising from the Hillsborough Stadium disaster.

  7 Data include the 56 fatalities to members of the public in the Bradford City Football Club fire disaster.

  8 Introduced under NADOR on 1 January 1981. Definition extended under RIDDOR, 1 April 1986.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in September 1990, he took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has issued on action taken by training and enterprise councils, the Employment Service and others in response to job losses, with particular reference to the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has recently published an information pack entitled "Local Action for Employment—Tackling Job Losses", which contains information on the help available from training and enterprise councils—TECs—and the Employment Service—ES—when redundancies occur, and on the part local action groups can play in responding to job losses. The pack contains specific examples of best practice by TECs, the ES and local action groups in redundancy situations.

  The pack will be made available to companies incurring job losses and to other agencies and individuals interested in local action in response to job losses. The pack should be of assistance in helping respond to job losses on the Isle of Wight, as elsewhere. The pack may be of interest to hon. Members and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were covered by wages councils in the northern region in 1981 and 1991; how many were visited by wage council inspectors; how many were found to be paying below wage council rates; and how many were prosecuted.

  Mr. Forth
  The information for the northern region is as follows:

  Workplaces covered

  Workplaces visited

  Workplaces paying below rate

  Number of employers prosecuted

  1981

  21,848

  1,281

  1na

  1

  1990

  21,529

  1,547

  455

  2

  1991

  1na

  1na

  1na

  2

  1 Not available.

  The information for 1981 relates to the Wages Councils Act 1979and information for 1990 and 1991 to the Wages Act 1986. Figures are included for 1990 because the full information for 1991 is not yet available.

WALES

  Farm Investment
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of investment in plant and machinery on farms in Wales for the last year for which full figures are available; and what are the corresponding figures both at outturn and real prices for each since 1987.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Investment in plant and machinery on Welsh farms, in current terms and at constant 1985 prices, for 1991 and in each year since 1987 is shown in the table.

  Investment in Plant and Machinery

  Current terms

  Current 1985 prices

  £ Million

  £ Million

  1991

  21·0

  16·0

  1990

  23·0

  18·0

  1989

  26·0

  21·0

  1988

  27·0

  23·0

  1987

  26·0

  24·0

  Home Helps
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the population over the age of 75 years currently receive home help in each county in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The provision of home helps for households where at least one person is aged 75 or over and the rate per 100 households is given in the following table:

  Number1

  Rate per 100 household2

  Clwyd

  4,801

  25·2

  Dyfed

  3,297

  20·4

  Gwent

  7,227

  41·8

  Gwynedd

  2,934

  22·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  11,205

  57·7

  Powys

  918

  16·6

  South Glamorgan

  5,628

  35·5

  West Glamorgan

  4,853

  31·2

  Wales

  40,863

  33·6

  1 As at 31 March 1990.

  2 Number of households where the head of household is aged 75 or over as estimated by the Welsh Inter Censal Survey 1986.

  Day Care Places
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many day care places per 10,000 population under the age of five years are currently available in each county within Wales; and what the equivalent figures were for each from 1979 to date.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The numbers of full-time day care places provided in day nurseries and by childminders are given in the tables:
  627

  Day care places provided by local authorities and other registered premises/persons for children aged under five

  as at 31 March

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1979

  Number

  178

  —

  153

  —

  127

  10

  492

  40

  1,000

  Rate

  76·4

  —

  59·8

  —

  36·6

  16·1

  213·9

  18·3

  60·0

  1980

  Number

  178

  —

  154

  —

  127

  10

  447

  10

  926

  Rate

  77·1

  —

  59·2

  —

  36·0

  16·1

  191·8

  4·5

  55·2

  1981

  Number

  205

  —

  93

  40

  127

  10

  385

  44

  904

  Rate

  85·8

  —

  33·9

  30·5

  35·8

  15·4

  160·4

  19·6

  52·5

  1982

  Number

  221

  —

  116

  60

  127

  —

  366

  44

  934

  Rate

  90·6

  —

  42·6

  44·8

  35·8

  —

  148·8

  19·5

  53·8

  1983

  Number

  236

  —

  116

  60

  145

  —

  338

  130

  1,025

  Rate

  97·1

  —

  41·9

  43·5

  40·1

  —

  132·5

  56·8

  57·8

  1984

  Number

  253

  —

  116

  60

  260

  —

  397

  140

  1,226

  Rate

  102·4

  —

  41·9

  43·5

  71·6

  —

  152·1

  61·7

  68·9

  1985

  Number

  327

  —

  116

  66

  157

  —

  427

  150

  1,243

  Rate

  133·5

  —

  41·6

  47·5

  43·6

  —

  163·0

  66·4

  70·1

  1986

  Number

  332

  —

  116

  77

  136

  30

  466

  129

  1,286

  Rate

  135·5

  —

  40·7

  56·6

  37·5

  46·2

  175·8

  56·6

  71·9

  1987

  Number

  383

  —

  116

  89

  210

  50

  488

  135

  1,471

  Rate

  153·2

  —

  40·0

  64·0

  57·4

  75·8

  178·1

  59·0

  80·8

  1988

  Number

  425

  —

  131

  67

  184

  76

  538

  135

  1,556

  Rate

  165·4

  —

  44·3

  46·9

  49·9

  111·8

  190·1

  58·2

  83·7

  1989

  Number

  688

  56

  131

  189

  117

  81

  609

  305

  2,176

  Rate

  261·6

  25·9

  43·2

  128·6

  31·1

  115·7

  210·7

  130·9

  114·8

  1990

  Number

  911

  44

  374

  208

  228

  85

  766

  318

  2,934

  Rate

  345·1

  20·5

  122·6

  140·5

  60·5

  119·7

  263·2

  135·9

  153·9

  All rates refer to rate per 10,000 population under 5 years.

  Day care places provided by registered childminders for children aged under five

  as at 31 March

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Galmorgan

  Powis

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1979

  Number

  279

  142

  117

  218

  255

  45

  378

  58

  1,492

  Rate

  119·7

  77·2

  45·7

  160·3

  73·5

  72·6

  164·3

  26·6

  89·6

  1980

  Number

  402

  191

  151

  231

  289

  59

  499

  45

  1,867

  Rate

  174·0

  103·2

  58·1

  171·1

  81·9

  95·2

  214·2

  20·5

  111·2

  1981

  Number

  362

  219

  172

  149

  489

  50

  632

  110

  2,183

  Rate

  151·5

  112·3

  62·8

  113·7

  137·7

  76·9

  263·3

  49·1

  126·7

  1982

  Number

  271

  266

  232

  187

  587

  83

  695

  175

  2,496

  Rate

  111·1

  137·1

  85·3

  139·6

  165·4

  125·8

  282·5

  77·4

  143·7

  1983

  Number

  376

  232

  283

  185

  886

  95

  696

  196

  2,948

  Rate

  154·7

  114·3

  102·2

  134·1

  244·8

  146·2

  272·9

  85·6

  166·4

  1984

  Number

  634

  269

  357

  248

  1,667

  114

  869

  314

  4,472

  Rate

  256·7

  133·2

  128·9

  179·7

  459·2

  178·1

  333·0

  138·3

  251·4

  1985

  Number

  634

  287

  415

  307

  980

  135

  1,006

  436

  4,200

  Rate

  258·8

  144·9

  148·7

  220·9

  272·2

  214·3

  384·0

  192·9

  237·0

  1986

  Number

  894

  309

  468

  268

  1,157

  157

  1,013

  511

  4,777

  628 629

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powis

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  Rate

  364·9

  153·0

  164·2

  197·1

  318·7

  241·5

  382·3

  224·1

  267·0

  1987

  Number

  849

  344

  494

  330

  1,309

  193

  1,230

  553

  5,302

  Rate

  339·6

  167·0

  170·3

  237·4

  357·7

  292·4

  448·9

  241·5

  291·3

  1988

  Number

  1,002

  331

  572

  292

  1,272

  231

  1,636

  613

  5,949

  Rate

  389·9

  156·1

  193·2

  204·2

  344·7

  339·7

  578·1

  264·2

  319·8

  1989

  Number

  1,315

  595

  777

  450

  1,582

  293

  1,992

  748

  7,752

  Rate

  500·0

  275·5

  256·4

  306·1

  420·7

  418·6

  689·3

  321·0

  408·9

  1990

  Number

  1,318

  684

  931

  449

  2,101

  327

  2,361

  830

  9,001

  Rate

  499·2

  318·1

  305·2

  303·4

  557·3

  460·6

  811·3

  354·7

  472·2

  All rates refer to rate per 10,000 population under 5 years.

  Agricultural Holdings
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the change in the average size of agricultural holdings in Wales in each year from 1988 to 1991, inclusive.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The average area of main holdings in Wales for the years requested is as follows:

  Average area per holding (hectares)

  1988

  49·7

  1989

  49·0

  1990

  50·4

  1991

  50·2

  Immunologist (College of Medicine)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action his Department is now taking regarding the establishment of a consultant immunologist at the University of Wales college of medicine.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Department is seeking expert guidance on the possibility of establishing a post of consultant immunologist with appropriate staff at the University of Wales college of medicine.

  Elderly and Disabled People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of funding will be made available by his Department in 1992–93 in response to local authority bids in relation to Welsh Office circular 56/91 on central funding for elderly people and those with physical and/or sensory disabilities.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I will make an announcement soon.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, columns 573-74, how much money was withheld or recovered each year under the set-aside scheme in Wales since 1988: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:630

  Set-aside year

  Amount withheld (£)

  1988–89

  2,015·40

  1989–90

  2,015·40

  1990–91

  23,283·20

  Agricultural Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of agricultural land in Wales in each grade, including 3a and 3b, in(a) 1986 and (b)

  Mr. David Hunt
  The published agricultural land classification—ALC—maps and data are based on strategic planning work carried out in the 1960s and do not sub-divide grade 3 land. The original survey showed the proportion of land in each grade in Wales to be as follows:

  Per cent.

  Grade 1

  0·2

  Grade 2

  2·3

  Grade 3

  17·5

  Grade 4

  44·2

  Grade 5

  35·8

  The ALC maps and data provide only a very general indication of the distribution of land quality. Resurveying at a larger scale is necessary to obtain a definitive grade for individual sites.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the effect of the citizens charter on British Rail's operations in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I expect Wales to fully share the benefits, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, of British Rail's passengers charter which will be published shortly.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay an official visit to Shotton, Clwyd, using the rail service provided from Crewe.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend visited Shotton in November. There are no plans for any further visits at present.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he has had with local authorities and
  631
  British Rail to discuss the upgrading of the Crewe, Holyhead and Paddington, Swansea lines including electrification.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I have had several meetings with British Rail. My right hon. Friend last met Sir Bob Reid on 30 September. On 29 October my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport and I met senior British Rail executives and local authority representatives in Holyhead.

  A wide range of Welsh rail issues have been discussed including upgrading of lines and electrification.

  Roads
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of his plans to improve road communications between north and south Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government's policy is to continue to upgrade the A470 and A483 by means of selective improvements. Those in progress or planned on the north-south network are:

  A470

  1 Pentre Bach—Cefn Coed

  2 Crew Pitch

  3 Storey Arms Phase II

  4 Storey Arms Phase III

  5 Felinfach By Pass

  6 Builth Wells By Pass/Llanelwedd Junction (is also part A483)

  7 Smithfield Bends

  8 Diversion East of Llangurig—Wern Villa

  9 Carno Road Caersws

  10 Commins Coch By-Pass

  11 Improvements at Bwlch Oer Ddrws

  12 Maes yr Helmau—Cross Foxes Phase I & II

  13 Gelligemlyn—Llanelltyd Diversion Phase I & II

  14 Ty Nant—Maentwrog Road Railway Station

  15 Salem Place—Ty Mawr

  16 Lledr Valley Improvements

  17 Llanrwst By-Pass

  18 Penloyn—Tanlan

  19 Pentrefelin—Croesau

  20 Llanbrynmair

  21 Ffridd Fawr

  22 Pentre Mawr

  23 Tanyard Pitch

  24 Irfon Bridge Bends (S of Newbridge on Wye)

  25 Llandinam Village

  26 Clatter Village

  27 Caersws River Bridge

  A483 (North of Builth Wells)

  1 Brynsadwrn Bends and Bridge

  2 Maes yr Abad—Wern Bridge

  3 Welshpool Relief Road

  4 Croesfoel Roundabout—Grade Separation

  5 Newtown By Pass

  6 Pant—Llanymynach By Pass (Welsh Section)

  7 Side support, Llythddu

  8 Glascoed and Bends

  9 Howey Village By Pass

  Health Authorities (Deficits)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which health authorities in Wales have reported current and expected year-end deficits.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Discounting inter-year brokerage and planned movements in balances which can distort an authority's true financial position, only Mid Glamorgan HA has indicated that its overall expenditure in accruals terms, including that of its managed units in providing services for other authorities, will exceed its 632
  overall income in 1991–92. However, the scale of variance above planned expenditure is marginal, amounts to £0·5 million or 0·2 per cent. of its projected overall income. This will be covered either by a short-term cash loan from another authority or by a small movement in balances which I would expect to be rectified in 1992–93.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in September 1988, the Minister of State took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on cervical smear tests in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The all-Wales advisory group on cervical screening was established in March 1990 with the aim of formulating a unified policy for the cervical screening programme in Wales. The advisory group report was recently submitted to my right hon. Friend and will shortly be issued for consultation.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in Wales use the assisted places schools scheme giving(a) the numbers for each of the schools operating the scheme, (b) the amounts received by each of the schools and (c) estimating the numbers for the next school year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows.

  School

  Overall totals of APS pupils September 19911

  Payments to schools for fees remitted 1990–91

  £

  Christ College, Brecon

  76

  244,081

  Howell's School, Denbigh

  69

  231,442

  Howell's School, Llandaff

  159

  358,798

  Llandovery College

  48

  140,381

  Monmouth School

  147

  303,951

  Monmouth School for Girls

  73

  140,618

  Penrhos College

  50

  183,500

  Rydal School

  39

  153,508

  Total

  661

  1,756,279

  1 Form APO school returns to Department.

  Numbers of pupils in the assisted places scheme from September 1992 will depend on the number of new entrants and those who have left school in the previous year. However, we estimate that there will be some 685 APS pupils in the next academic year.

  Housing Association (Empty Properties)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Housing Association properties were empty on the last date for which figures are available; and for how long.
  633
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: Information collected by Housing for Wales shows that at 31 March 1991 the position was as follows:

  Vacant and available for letting

  Vacant and not available for letting le undergoing or awaiting works1

  Awaiting Sale

  Less than six months

  163

  197

  60

  Six months to one year

  14

  132

  8

  Over one year

  7

  247

  0

  Total vacant

  184

  576

  68

  1 Largely rundown properties purchased for renovation.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce his decision on local government reorganisation in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: At the appropriate time, following further consideration of the issues.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Costs Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he now expects to receive the Top Salaries Review Body report on the office costs allowance.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect to receive the report on the office costs allowance from the Top Salaries Review Body shortly.

DEFENCE

  HMS Bristol
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Bristol was paid off; and which ship will replace her as the Dartmouth training ship.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Bristol was paid off on 14 June 1991. Her replacement for the period 15 June 1991 to 14 December 1991 was HMS Fearless. Until initial sea training is introduced in the spring, sea-going training is being provided by HMS Ariadne, HMS Broadsword and HMS Brazen.

  Devon Training Squadron
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his future plans for the Dartmouth training squadron; how trainees will gain seagoing experience; and what effect these arrangements will have on the effectiveness of operational Royal Navy ships.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The sea going training provided in the Dartmouth training squadron will be replaced by initial sea training—IST—with effect from spring 1992. Young officers will undertake IST in type 22 batch I frigates which have been modified to provide the extra 634
  accommodation required. The operational effectiveness of the ships will be maintained in between officer training periods by their normal ships' companies.

  RNR Port Diving Branch
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to make the services of Royal Navy clearance divers available to assist civil authorities following the disbandment of the Royal Naval Reserve port diving branch.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Navy clearance diving teams can provide assistance to the civil authorities on a repayment basis when this can be done without detriment to their operational tasks. There are no plans to change this policy.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the requests for assistance made by civil authorities to the Royal Navy Reserve port diving branch in each of the last seven years; giving the occasions on which such services were rendered;

  (2) what payments have been received by his Department in each of the last seven years from civil authorities for services rendered by the Royal Naval Reserve port divers branch;

  (3) under what arrangements the services were rendered to civil authorities by Royal Naval Reserve port divers for (a) the search in the Thames following the sinking of the Marchioness, (b) the search of the berth of the Queen Elizabeth II in Southampton, (c) the survey of Her Majesty's customs vessel in Newcastle, (d) inspections following hurricane damage in Dover harbour and (e) the search of Glencorse reservoir in Midlothian to assist a police murder inquiry.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Suicides
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers who have served at Fallingbostel in the last three years have committed suicide during that time.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A driver in the Royal Corps of Transport committed suicide in Fallingbostel on 11 October 1991. Additionally, a private in 1 Cheshires stationed in Fallingbostel committed suicide on 10 January 1992 while on leave in the United Kingdom.

  Information is not held centrally to identify whether those soldiers who committed suicide in other places during the past three years may have been attached, or temporarily posted, to units in the Fallingbostel area.

  Fallingbostel
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers have gone absent-without-leave from Fallingbostel since January 1989; and how many of those have been granted a full discharge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Terrorists (Compensation)
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims have been made against the MOD in respect of fatalities and injuries which have occurred from activity by the security forces against terrorists in each of the last five years; and what sums have been paid in compensation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Claims data are not kept in the format requested. While a number of claims are received each year, the recorded data do not distinguish between terrorists and other parties.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence currently has no data information systems physically linked to any external systems. Discussions are now taking place between the Department's security branches and the national identification bureau to allow direct access to the police national computer, PNC. Such access would not permit the exchange of information or the interrogation of an individual's criminal record and would, as now with manual inquiries, be governed by the PNC procedures which comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Al-Yamamah Project
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish the size of receipts, and payments, and end-year balances, on the handling accounts operated by him as part of the Al-Yamamah I project;

  (2) if he will list the quantities and values of items acquired by the British Government under the buy-back provisions of the Al-Yamamah I project.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not the Government's practice to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence export sales.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the handling accounts of the Al-Yamamah I project are audited; and whether these accounts have been the subject of audit reports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  All accounts of the Ministry of Defence are subject to normal audit arrangements, the results of which are reported as appropriate.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department seeks the recoup of any handling charges on departmental costs from the handling accounts forming part of the Al-Yamamah I project.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received notification of United States intentions in respect of the future of RAF Greenham Common; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States Department of Defence announced on 30 January 1992 the decision to withdraw from RAF Greenham Common in autumn 1992, returning the station to full Ministry of Defence control. We are now considering options for the future use of the base, including scope for other defence uses. Our studies are at an early stage, however, and no decisions have yet been taken.

  NAAFI
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will underwrite the NAAFI to ensure that funds are available to meet staff redundancy payments and rehousing costs in case of any financial difficulties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The financial implications of the reductions in force strengths on NAAFI are currently being considered.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give NAAFI staff who lose their accommodation under the options for change process the same options on rehousing as those being offered to ex-service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. NAAFI staff are not Ministry of Defence employees and not subject to the practical constraints on entering the housing market that apply to service personnel.

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current approved staffing level for the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich; and how many posts remained unfilled in each main specialty at the most convenient recent date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The peacetime establishment of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, is 175 officers, 395 other ranks and 147 civilians. On 11 February 1992, 127 posts were unfilled in the following specialties:

  Posts

  Anaesthetics and Resuscitation

  2

  Ear, Nose and Throat (Otology)

  2

  General Medicine

  1

  General Surgery

  4

  Ophthalmology

  2

  Orthopaedics

  2

  Plastic Surgery (and Burns)

  2

  Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

  1

  Urology

  2

  Supporting Staff

  109

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the estimate operating costs of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, for the current financial year together with the actual costs for the preceding five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.
  637
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the latest available figures of bed occupancy at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich, for each of the main specialties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not kept of bed occupancy by specialty. The occupancy rate for 1990–91 for the hospital was 65·6 per cent., excluding bedded day patients.

  Armed Services (Medical Support)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the current review of medical support for the armed services to be completed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces expects to receive the conclusions and recommendations within the next few months.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, on their visits to Hong Kong in January and March 1988, the Ministers of State took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ministers at the Ministry of Defence meet fellow Conservatives from time to time in the margins of public duties both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  23 Base Workshop, Wetter
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of 23 base workshop, Wetter, Germany; and when it will he closed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A study into the Army's requirements for static workshops is now in progress. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Trident
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the fourth Trident submarine to(a) be ordered and (b) begin construction.

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Tariff rebate subsidy for P and O services to Orkney and Shetland

  3·5

  3·8

  4·2

  4·3

  5·0

  Tariff rebate subsidy to Coastal Shippers

  0·9

  1·0

  1·04

  1·0

  1·6

  Deficit subsidy for Caledonian MacBrayne

  7·4

  6·2

  5·3

  5·5

  5·5

  Capital grant for pier works undertaken by Caledonian MacBrayne

  0·4

  0·44

  0·71

  0·61

  0·17

  Capital grant for local authority piers and harbours

  1·84

  0·47

  1·05

  2·7

  2·32

  Capital grant for independent harbour trusts, piers and harbours

  0·012

  0·006

  —

  —

  0·043

  Capital grant to British Waterways Board:

  Bridge repairs to Strathclyde region

  0·08

  0·1

  0·1

  0·04

  0·04

  Cardiologists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of cardiologists per million population in Scotland at the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of whole-time equivalent consultant cardiologists per million population in Scotland was 3·7 as at 30 September 1991, the latest date
  638
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We plan to place the order following the completion of contract negotiations with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. Construction of the vessel under long-lead funding arrangements has already begun.

SCOTLAND

  Toll Bridges
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the figures for the(a) annual income and cost and (b) capital debt outstanding for toll bridges in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest published figures for toll bridges in Scotland are as follows:

  Erskine1 1989–90

  Forth 1990–91

  Tay 1990–91

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Annual income (tolls revenue)

  2·3

  7·2

  2·1

  Annual cost (operating expenses including non-recurring expenditure)

  0·9

  3·6

  22·7

  Other charges

  313·2

  1·1

  0·6

  Total expenditure

  14·1

  4·7

  3·3

  Outstanding deficiency

  95·5

  11·0

  6·9

  1 There is no real debt at Erskine Bridge. The bridge was built from the funds available for trunk road expenditure in Scotland. Expenditure was borne on what is now the Roads (Scotland) Vote. However, the accounts are compiled, under Treasury direction, in such a way as to show the deficiency which would exist if the bridge had been funded by borrowing.

  2 Includes £1·8 million extraordinary repairs financed from the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board's General Reserve Fund.

  3 Comprises amortisation, interest and notional sinking fund advances.

  Government Grants
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Government grants were awarded for(a) ferry services and (b) bridge projects in Scotland listed by region, for each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following grants and subsidies were awarded:

  for which information is available centrally. This data are provisional and do not include general physicians who have a special interest in cardiology.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Strathclyde as to what proportion of the clear-up rate for
  639
  crime in his area in 1990–91 is accounted for by voluntary admissions by convicted criminals; how many detectives are employed to obtain these admissions; and when the practice ceased.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Such practices are not part of the approach to detection employed by Scottish police forces. Strathclyde police have no record of any voluntary admissions obtained in this way.

  Region

  Serious irregularity

  Minor breach

  Payment withheld

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  in full

  in part

  Borders

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Grampian

  —

  16

  2

  14

  Highland

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  7

  —

  7

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  28

  2

  26

  This information is provisional, as a small number of claims are still outstanding.

  Health Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give each, for each health board in Scotland, the amounts paid in August 1991 by the prescription prescribing division to suppliers of colostomy and ileostomy appliances.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 February 1992]: It is not possible to separately identify colostomy and ileostomy prescriptions for August 1991 at the present time. Following are the amounts paid in August 1991 in respect of all prescriptions dispensed in August 1991 by appliance contractors. The information on appliance prescriptions dispensed by chemists is not readily available.

  Health Board

  Gross Value

  £

  Grampian

  2,400·37

  Greater Glasgow

  74,152·70

  Highland

  26,344·92

  Lothian

  70,354·45

  Tayside

  54,209·09

  Scotland

  227,461·53

  Forestry Commission Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the land owned by the Forestry Commission which is currently up for sale, giving the name, amount of land involved and the length of time it has been on the market, in each county or region, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 23 January 1992]: The following forest areas are at present being offered for sale on the open market.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, columns 413-14, if he will now give the figures for 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  County/region and name

  Area

  Period on the market

  (Hectares)

  (Months)

  ENGLAND

  Avon

  Camerton Wood

  19

  29

  Cornwall

  Hay Wood

  54

  18

  Treworgey

  17

  18

  Devon

  Brownsham Woods

  71

  18

  Deershill Wood

  11

  18

  Never Be Good Wood

  10

  18

  Pulsworthy

  3

  18

  Dorset

  Alders Coppice

  7

  6

  Blackwater Copse

  13

  6

  Hampshire

  Bordean Estate, Fishers Copse

  28

  36

  Mill Copse

  6

  9

  Roke Mead Copse

  9

  24

  Tapnell

  50

  7

  Norfolk

  Blackwater Plantation

  4

  1

  Northumberland

  Colleylaw

  8

  29

  North Yorkshire

  West Gateforth

  47

  15

  Shropshire

  Coed Detton

  14

  18

  Somerset

  Barrow Wood

  13

  16

  Church Wood

  6

  17

  Fry's Wood

  24

  29

  Higher Bitcombe

  30

  17

  Lower Bitcombe

  18

  17

  South Yorkshire

  Black Carr

  20

  6

  Green Springs

  12

  15

  641

  County/region and name

  Area

  Period on the market

  (Hectares)

  (Months)

  Old Park

  41

  10

  Walker Wood

  6

  15

  Wiltshire

  Chittoe Heath

  19

  7

  Kidney Bean

  3

  7

  Lower Selves

  10

  7

  New Plantation

  8

  7

  SCOTLAND

  Borders

  Cardrona

  3

  28

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Glaik

  63

  21

  Knockinaam

  30

  21

  Lochnaw Estate (part)

  57

  21

  Lochnaw Estate (part)

  56

  21

  Lochnaw Estate (part)

  18

  21

  Tinwald Downs (land at)

  2

  8

  Fife

  Drumtennant Strip

  4

  9

  Rameldry West

  8

  9

  Grampian

  Barlatch

  3

  8

  Berry Hill Woods

  130

  5

  Cummingston Smithy

  6

  5

  Drakemyres

  32

  9

  Hillend Moss

  16

  11

  Knock Hill Wood

  56

  11

  Maryculter

  8

  7

  Mormond Hill

  255

  4

  Tertonie

  7

  7

  Woogle

  26

  7

  Highland

  Cuileannach Woodlands

  237

  2

  Strathclyde

  Carrick Wood

  70

  4

  Daljarrock

  52

  21

  Dalsmirren

  1,202

  3

  Tobermory Grazings (part)

  11

  2

  Tobermory Grazings (part)

  1

  2

  Todlaw

  370

  8

  WALES

  Clwyd

  Coed Pen Y Gelli

  29

  8

  Coed Esgynfa

  6

  8

  Glol Plantation

  27

  8

  Dyfed

  Aberdedle Wood

  7

  7

  Allt Banc Sina

  18

  10

  Allt Fawr

  7

  16

  Allt Ffos Colic

  18

  14

  Allt Llwyn Dyfrion

  11

  10

  Allt Pistyll Dewi

  33

  10

  Cilfowyr

  5

  14

  Coed Ffridd Cwmere

  20

  19

  Coed Gwastad

  28

  24

  Coed Pant y Gasseg

  3

  16

  Coed Rhyd Tir

  16

  19

  Coedmore, Coed Newydd

  17

  24

  Coedmore, Home Farm Wood

  3

  24

  Cwm Cynfelin

  8

  40

  Cynheidre Uchaf

  24

  7

  Danygraig

  10

  10

  Ffynon Lefrith

  25

  27

  Gallt y Cribin

  7

  14

  Glebe Woods

  17

  10

  Glynllydan

  8

  1

  Letterston Moor

  15

  32

  642

  County/region and name

  Area

  Period on the market

  (Hectares)

  (Months)

  Lon Isaf

  7

  7

  Lower Scourfield

  13

  19

  Maestwynog

  12

  27

  Pant Eynon and Allt y Forlan

  29

  10

  Pencwm Fawr

  9

  16

  Penhill Wood

  4

  16

  Portis Pant

  30

  10

  Rams Wood

  26

  19

  Scolton

  30

  7

  Tanyrallt

  6

  27

  Troserch

  35

  16

  Tynton Wood

  4

  16

  Waun Baglan Woods

  26

  23

  Wenallt

  17

  7

  Gwent

  Coed Cae Cendl

  10

  5

  Coed Gastellau

  48

  5

  Craig Y Merchant

  24

  5

  Darren Ddu

  8

  5

  Gorrashill

  8

  20

  Hafodrisclawdd

  23

  5

  Luggas Wood and Youngs Grove

  15

  18

  Gwynedd

  Coed Ty Uchaf

  15

  8

  Coed Dyfi

  17

  19

  Glyn Estate

  49

  4

  Moel Groes Heol

  130

  9

  Powys

  Coed Tyllys

  12

  14

  Craig Yr Henffordd

  8

  7

  Cwmbach and Cwmcoch

  44

  19

  Great Wood

  9

  19

  Pwll Llydan

  31

  7

  West Glamorgan

  Craig Ynysgollen

  10

  54

  Gelligaer

  33

  44

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many youth training trainees in Scotland left schemes without receiving any recognised qualifications on the most recent figures available.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: I regret that this information is not available because no precise count is made of the number of young people leaving youth training in Scotland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what qualifications have been obtained by participants on youth training and employment training places in Scotland in the past five years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Participants on youth training and employment training obtain a very wide variety of qualifications, but full and detailed information on the identity of those qualifications is not held centrally.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the training performance of local enterprise companies.
  643
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The responsibility for monitoring the training performance of local enterprise companies rests with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. They have reported regularly to my right hon. Friend that the Government's guarantees on youth training and employment training are being met and that the needs of the aim group for employment training are also being catered for. In addition, regular management information on a variety of aspects of training performance is beginning to be submitted; and my right hon. Friend and I also receive a variety of less systematic information from diverse sources. The overall picture which emerges is that local enterprise companies are securing effectively the delivery of training programmes which are increasingly better matched to local economic circumstances and focused on securing a steady improvements in quality of provision, including improvements in the achievement by trainees of qualifications.

  Ethnic Minority Grants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what ethnic minority grants, along the lines of those available through training and enterprise councils in England and Wales, are available to refugees and ethnic minorities in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 February 1992]: There is no precise equivalent in Scotland to the ethnic minority grants available through training and enterprise councils in England and Wales; but local enterprise companies have a broader range of powers than training and enterprise councils, which enables them to assist members of ethnic minorities in a variety of ways.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1974 the numbers of patients on hospital in-patient waiting lists at 31 March.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For any individual patient, the waiting time is more significant than the number of patients on the waiting list. The key to reducing waiting times is to increase the number of patients treated. Measured by discharges this has increased by 24 per cent. since 1979. The waiting list has been reduced by 21 per cent. over the same period.
  644
  This is shown in the table:

  NHS hospitals: in-patient waiting lists and discharges at 31 March

  Year

  Number on List

  Number of Discharges

  1974

  156,182

  1717,964

  1975

  153,770

  1697,410

  1976

  54,442

  738,633

  1977

  53,974

  746,259

  1978

  56,987

  738,012

  1979

  76,968

  737,816

  1980

  70,195

  764,301

  1981

  67,908

  785,080

  1982

  66,880

  793,171

  1983

  96,933

  744,436

  1984

  85,543

  809,681

  1985

  79,262

  821,588

  1986

  81,249

  837,044

  1987

  81,324

  842,524

  1988

  267,226

  871,287

  1989

  261,011

  882,347

  1990

  258,287

  895,790

  1991

  260,693

  912,370

  1 Information available only at 30 September.

  2 From 1988 the figures are based on an improved statistical collection system and are not strictly comparable with those collected in earlier years.

  Racial Equality
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to assist the voluntary sector in Scotland to promote racial equality and a reduction of racial disadvantage.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I am pleased to announce today the introduction of a new ethnic minority grant to assist voluntary organisations in Scotland with projects designed to promote racial equality and reduce racial disadvantage.

  The new grant which has a budget of £100,000 will complement the existing funding regimes such as the urban programme and the support given to ethnic minority projects under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The new grant will in particular assist the voluntary sector to operate projects on a Scottish or regional level which cannot readily be funded under existing arrangements.

  The Government have long recognised the benefits that can accrue from an active voluntary sector and the new grant will support voluntary organisations in their efforts to encourage and co-ordinate assistance to ethnic communities. My officials will be writing to relevant voluntary organisations with details of the scheme.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Religious Education: Syllabuses
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress local education authorities have made in the last two-and-a-half years in implementing Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988, which lays down that newly agreed syllabuses have to reflect mainly Christian traditions.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act introduced new requirements for those locally agreed syllabuses for religious education adopted after September 1988. All such new syllabuses must,
"reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".
The Act does not require local education authorities to review their existing syllabuses to take account of the new requirements. However, we are aware that over one-third of local authorities have chosen to do so.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the syllabuses of Oldham, Newham and Bolton are manifestly less acceptable than that of Ealing, which has already been rejected by the Government and is now being revised? What steps will the Government take to disqualify the above three?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, complaints in regard to religious education must first go to the local level. The Government have received only two formal complaints about religious education in schools following a failure to reach agreement at the local education authority level. The Secretary of State has also received a few letters on an informal basis which pay keen attention to the matter.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say what steps are being taken to make Christian parents of Christian children aware of the means of complaint and the remedies at their hands if the requirements of the Act are not properly observed?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, a Bill is presently going through the House which extends the information available to parents of what their expectations from the education system may be. That will improve their knowledge enormously.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government acknowledge that many of these so-called other religions are the result of the
834
creation of the British Empire? In other words, when the British Empire was created. we did not interfere with those religions. The people of other religions would probably not have been here if there had not been the creation of a British Empire. I believe that to be a fair and reasonable question to ask the Government. Further, how does one disqualify a religion?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is probably early days for me to be speechless. I shall try and answer. The noble Lord draws attention to an illustrious past, but perhaps I can quote from today's Radio Four programme "Thought for the Day" when a Sikh said that previously a knowledge of other faiths was desirable; today it is essential.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm my surprise that Mohammed, Buddha and Abraham were creations of the British Empire? Will she also say whether, in her view, the Ten Commandments reflect mainly Christian traditions?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble and learned friend brings additional dimensions to the discussion. It would be extremely foolish of me to disagree with him.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall not ask questions about our illustrious past nor indeed about the Ten Commandments. I should like a simple factual answer to a question about the present. How many complaints has the Secretary of State received in regard to Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act? How is he dealing with those complaints? Are any of the complainants pursuing the matter in the courts?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as in my original Answer, I confirm that the Secretary of State has received only two formal complaints. One covers the area of Ealing, to which my noble friend referred. That is now back for revision. Informal complaints have been made; but, so far as I am aware, there are no legal actions underway.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the North Tyneside syllabus produced in 1990 is the first to use the attainment target approach of the national curriculum and devotes a whole attainment target to Christianity, giving the Bible a pre-eminent position? Do the Government agree that that syllabus represents a shining example to other authorities?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend gives good evidence in support of the Government's view that this is very much a matter for local authorities and local areas.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, do the Government accept that the importance of teaching the Christian traditions to non-Christian pupils is that it enables them to appreciate and understand Western art, which draws its inspirations so very largely from the Christian traditions?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government agree that the more people understand the histories of every nation, the better the future of nations will be.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, last week the most reverend Primate helped to defeat the Government on an amendment to bring the further education Bill into line with the 1988 Act. On the assumption that the Government accept that amendment in the other place, what further steps will they consider to put a limit on procrastination, assuming that the LEAs are just as reluctant to implement the most reverend Primate's amendment as they are concerning the 1988 Act?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, in reply to the assumption that the noble Earl raises, I believe that it will be a matter for business in the other place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me this? If I write a letter to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State, with a copy of the Oldham agreed syllabus, drawing attention to the fact that it falls far outside the prescriptions of his department's letter of 18th March which sets out what he would accept as being within the terms of the Act, have I or have I not made a formal complaint? In other words, is it necessary to do more or will this matter now be treated as a formal complaint?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: No, my Lords. The law requires that the formal complaint goes first through the local system.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the local authorities who are in trouble over this Act are complaining that there is a lack of Christian teachers? If that is so, will my noble friend draw their attention to the fact that the local clergy of various denominations will be very glad to step in to help if there is a shortage?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend that there is no evidence of a specific lack of teachers of religion although I hear his suggestion for alternative action. I also draw attention to the fact that the recent announcement of the pay reviews for teachers should help very much in any small shortages that there are.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in many parts of the country the Churches are very grateful for the impetus for religious education which has been given by the Education Reform Act? Although they are anxious that there should be more qualified RE teachers, is the Minister also aware that they are nevertheless grateful, as in my diocese, for the number of occasions when the local Churches are being called on by schools for assistance in order to implement the measure?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for those remarks. In return, I also acknowledge the great contribution that the Church makes to the working of the advisory committees in this area.

Mr. Salman Rushdie
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps, if any, they intend to take to ensure that the sentence of death passed on Mr. Salman Rushdie by the Government of Iran on 14th February 1989 is lifted.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Iranian Government are well aware of our view, which remains unchanged, that the fatwa is an unacceptable infringement of the human rights of a British citizen. We have raised the issue of the fatwa with them on many occasions and will continue to do so.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. For the past three years from tomorrow, the Iranian Government have continued to incite the murder of a British citizen who expressed himself within the law and have forced him effectively to live in hiding and under armed guard. Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government give an undertaking in clear and unequivocal terms that, so long as the Government of Iran continue to incite terrorists internationally by means of a bounty on Mr. Rushdie's head and continue to urge his murder and that of others involved in publishing his book, there will be no resumption of full diplomatic and economic ties with that country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can only repeat what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said last year in another place:
"There will be no dramatic or immediate change in our political relationship with Iran".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/91, col. 257.]
We would not rule out the gradual development of closer contacts with the Iranians at the right time. For that reason such contacts can reinforce the effectiveness of the views that we make known to them —to cover the exact point that the noble Baroness has put forward.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend share my view that the only effect of the fatwa so far has been to reduce the respect in which the otherwise respectable religion of Islam is held throughout the civilised world? Does my noble friend agree that the only other result has been to make an unreadable novel into a best seller?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first point, there have been a number of repercussions from the fatwa being imposed upon Mr. Rushdie. That is totally unacceptable.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the leaders of the Moslem community in this country are fully aware, because they have chosen to live here, that the fatwa imposing a death sentence on a citizen of this country is against the laws of this country? Will he consider arranging for either his right honourable friend or himself to

837
meet those Moslem leaders with a view to them bringing pressure to bear on the Government of Iran on this issue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, everybody in this country is aware of the situation. Certainly the Moslem element here has had discussions and has firmly been made aware of the British Government's view.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that considerable anxiety has been expressed about this matter in the United States of America? Would it be possible for the Government to contact the American Government with a view to ascertaining whether they can do anything to assist?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord says. I shall pass it on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Earl consider a linguistic question? Is it possible for anybody, except a British judge, to pass sentence on a British citizen in this country? Is it not more correct to refer, as did my noble friend in her supplementary question, to incitement to murder? Is not the word "sentence" out of place in this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a fatwa has been imposed upon Mr. Salman Rushdie. That is totally unacceptable because it is an infringement of the human rights of a British citizen.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who lived through the 1930s detect the same spirit of appeasement in this Government over this matter as was the case in the Tory Government of Mr. Neville Chamberlain? Are the Government really content, having achieved absolutely nothing over the past three years, for their reputation to be, as it now is, as a Government so weak and so irresolute that they have been unable to guarantee the citizens of this country their basic simple right to live and move and express themselves in freedom under the law?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I fully understand the emotion that this issue raises. However, I disagree with the noble Lord on both counts.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is another example of bigotry and intolerance by a certain religion and that that religion follows a very clear example made by the Christian religion at some earlier date?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think we are getting on to what was discussed on the last Question. I had best not answer that one.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I take note of what has been said. However, does my noble friend agree that, while we all deplore the suffering of Salman Rushdie, it is wiser in the circumstances for us to avoid criticism of any religion, wherever that religion may be? The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, reminded us that when we were governing countries overseas we were very careful indeed not to interfere in their religion while
838
following our own religion. As this is a matter about which people get very excited, is it not better to avoid that situation occurring?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are in no way criticising religion. What I have said, and what we shall continue to say, is that the fatwa is an unacceptable infringement of the human rights of a British citizen.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that there is deep disquiet and that there would be repugnance if at any stage this Government were to withdraw from the top of their agenda, in relation to their political dealings with Iran, the appalling situation of Mr. Rushdie? Will he assure the House that that is not likely to happen?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the House that the situation with regard to Mr. Rushdie and the fatwa and the bounty that has been placed upon him will remain very much to the forefront of our minds and in our negotiation.

Unemployment
3.25 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of unemployed at the latest available date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in January 1992, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,604,100.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the figure has risen by 122,000 in one month? Is he not a little ashamed to have to announce such figures to the House? Will he also confirm that these are the worst unemployment figures for four years? They are twice as high as was expected and it is the 22nd consecutive increase in unemployment figures. Under those circumstances, is it not a cruel deception by the Prime Minister to pretend that the recession is over and that recovery is on hand? Will he urge the Government now to take proper and emergency action to reduce unemployment, including an immediate and substantial drop in interest rates?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figures that I announced just now indicate an increase in one month of 53,000 because we are dealing with the seasonally adjusted figure. The noble Lord makes a play on the headline figure alone. Of course, this latest increase in the number of unemployed is clearly disappointing. I fully recognise the difficulties and anxieties that unemployment brings to individuals and their families. However, it is worth noting that there are 600,000 more jobs now than when unemployment was last at this level in October 1987. The United Kingdom has a higher proportion of people in work than in any other EC country, except Denmark.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend draw the attention of the noble Lord opposite

839
to the Statement on Tuesday by the Secretary of State for Employment headed "People, Jobs and Opportunity" and suggest that although, unfortunately, that Statement was not repeated in this House it contains the answer to almost everything he said?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was holding myself ready to make such a Statement and I was disappointed not to be able to do so. I believe that it is the Government's intention that they should pay attention to the individual choice of people. I believe that we have worked hard to make the labour market flexible and that a number of jobs will be created once the economy moves.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while accepting some of the points made by the Minister, would it not help if we injected a little honesty into the debate—if that is what it can be called? Given the length of the recession, and given that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have both said that no further action is necessary in order to have an upturn in the economy, does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to that debate if we start by accepting that, whatever happens now, unemployment will rise to almost 3 million in this year? If he accepts that, can we perhaps have some kind of serious debate?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I always want to engage in serious debate. I am glad that the noble Lord has a grasp of reality. It is a fact that the economic crisis in eastern Europe and what was the USSR has cut world trade by 2 per cent. The world trade growth in 1991 was the lowest since 1982. However, Britain is very well placed to take advantage of the upturn. Inflation in this country is below the EC average and is on a firm downward trend.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the north east of England the increase in unemployment in January was no higher in percentage terms than in the country as a whole? Does he appreciate that that is very different from what it used to be in times of national and international depression when, proverbially, if the country caught a cold the north east certainly had influenza? Will he, with me, take the present situation as an indication of the success of government regional policies in the past few years?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend puts into very eloquent words what I have tried to say on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I can guess what the noble Viscount's reply will be but I shall nevertheless ask the question. Faced with this appalling increase in the number of unemployed, does he agree that one positive way of facilitating the creation of more jobs would be to follow the advice of the CBI and increase the level of investment allowances available to industry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, any form of tax change would have to be for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the
840
most important thing that we can do to assist the unemployed is to give them every opportunity to find another job. I believe that the policy being followed by the employment service and others in assisting people with their training, with employment action and with preparation for seeking jobs is the best we can do.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House how rapidly, given the successful policies of his Government, he expects unemployment to fall below 2 million?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. The Government never anticipate the number of unemployed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the parties opposite tend to look on this country as an economic island and seem to be totally oblivious of what is happening in the countries of our EC partners where unemployment is rising? Indeed, in some of those countries unemployment is considerably higher than it is in this country. Unemployment is not just a problem of this country but a problem of the EC and other parts of the developed world.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. Rising unemployment is not unique to the United Kingdom. In recent months it has risen in most EC countries and is higher today than it was a year ago in every EFTA country and in every G7 country.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, how does the noble Viscount square the Government's belief—which he has just expressed—that training will help with the fact that the Government have cut back the money allocated to the TECs which in fact means that they will do less training?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said that training was one of the opportunities that the Government were making available to the unemployed. It is certainly not the only opportunity. In the individual case it is not always the best opportunity. We have a range of opportunities to enable people to find jobs again.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the job losses are taking place in the defence industries? British Aerospace, for example, has just announced 2,350 job losses and 10,000 production jobs have been lost in recent times. Is it not absurd in the present situation to believe that this can simply be left to market forces? Should not the Government be looking at a diversification programme in order to ensure that these skills are not lost?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there are clear signs that our policies are working and unmistakable evidence that the battle against inflation is being won. What we do not want is Labour's policies. Higher taxes would destroy confidence and reduce incentives; and the minimum wage would destroy jobs, increase inflation and put up unit costs.

The Homeless: Food Costs
3.33 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response, if any, they have made to representations of the London Homelessness Forum about the cost of food for persons placed in temporary accommodation by local authorities under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, following representations from the London Homelessness Forum, revised guidance was issued to local authorities in August 1991 which stressed that where people are temporarily housed in board and lodging accommodation, authorities should aim to ensure that any food provided is adequate. Where food provision is considered inadequate, or where residents do not wish to take meals, authorities are advised to negotiate bed only arrangements.
The Department of Social Security continues to keep all social security matters under review and as part of that process, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, together with my honourable friend the Minister of State for Housing, met representatives of the London Homelessness Forum on 10th December last.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and in particular for his reference to the guidance issued. Does he accept that the thrust of this Question is towards 28,000 or so people mainly in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, almost all of whom lack independent, self-contained cooking facilities? Does he agree that a premium—a modest premium—of perhaps £10 a week per individual would avoid a great deal of hardship?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot confirm or deny the figures given by the noble Lord. The figures that I have refer to something of the order of 13,000 family units, which might certainly equal the figure of 28,000 individuals that the noble Lord mentioned. Certainly, we are not happy that there are still any families having to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have always made it clear that local authorities should only use this type of accommodation as a last resort. As regards whether we should introduce a boarders' premium, I think that this would signal a return to the inequalities of the old system. It would be complex and therefore expensive to administer and it would not be easy to explain to people why their benefit should then drop as a result of moving into more permanent accommodation.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 90 per cent. of bed-and-breakfast establishments have completely inadequate cooking facilities'? Can he imagine the problem for a mother having adequately to feed her small children under those conditions? One bed-and-breakfast establishment that I visited had two cooking stoves to service 18 families. Under those circumstances, will not the
842
Minister seriously consider the idea of a £10 premium which was put forward sensibly by the Homelessness Forum?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have explained that I do not think that a boarders' premium would be a sensible way forward. I also said that we are not happy that there are these people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We feel that it is up to the local authorities to enforce good standards and we are certainly encouraged by what is happening in London, where the majority of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are living, through the work that has been done by what I am told is called BABIE—the Bed and Breakfast Information Exchange—which is helping to ensure that there is some control on costs and better control on standards.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the standard of nutrition among these families and among other people living in that kind of poverty is very low indeed? What do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no evidence that income support levels are not adequate to provide people with a satisfactory diet.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the announcement today of a further increase in the number of housing repossessions, is it not almost certain that the tragedy that we are discussing today will get worse rather than better?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I certainly do not accept that. The numbers in London and the South East in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are in decline. It is not necessary that anyone should be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have stressed to local authorities that it should always be a matter of last resort.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given that, as my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said, 90 per cent. of families do not have access to adequate cooking facilities in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; given that cafe food is costly; and given that there is well-established research showing that many of the adults and very many of the children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are suffering from malnutrition, will the Minister not reconsider his views?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not reconsider my views. I have made it quite clear that we do not consider a boarders' premium appropriate. We think that it is up to the local authorities to maintain adequate standards and to see that, if possible, adequate cooking facilities are provided. I notice that the noble Baroness referred to the cost of cafe food. I notice also that some members of her party are attending a dinner this evening at a cost of £500 per head.

Folkestone Harbour Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Price's Patent Candle Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th February), Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before we say farewell to this consolidation measure, I wonder whether your Lordships would wish to hear a short opinion given by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will enjoy it. The convenor of the institute's taxation practice committee has this short but useful comment to make which I hope will be of use to those who deal in future with consolidation measures relating to taxation. The observation reads:
"The Bill amounts to 306 pages of complex legislation but it has the merit of bringing the legislation on capital gains tax together. Until this Bill is enacted, tax practitioners are faced with the dilemma of dealing with very complex legislation that is scattered throughout the Taxes Act and is difficult to find, let alone understand. We urge the Government and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that the benefits of the consolidation exercise are not lost. We recommend that those involved in progressing the Bill take this opportunity to explore the possibility of framing tax legislation in a manner which would allow it to cope more easily with the inevitable subsequent amendments. To do otherwise will result in the benefit of the newly consolidated legislation being lost quickly as further amendments are introduced in subsequent Acts".
That concludes a very worthy quotation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was about to express, but in a somewhat different form, some of the views just
844
put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We have to face the fact that, although this consolidation Bill is confined to only part of our revenue law, and a rather limited part at that, it runs to 306 pages. It is full of detailed and complex legislation which will sometimes be difficult for experts, even chartered accountants in Scotland, to understand.
While I acknowledge the fact that the draftsman has done the most wonderful job of work—and it was indeed a formidable task for him—I join the noble Lord and those who have made representations to him in hoping that in future legislation of this or any other kind we may somehow achieve greater clarity and simplicity.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not wish to be totally out of order, but perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the best way of dealing with his complaint is to abolish the capital gains tax. That would avoid the necessity of these erudite exercises in producing the most elegant legislation on a subject which would have been better had it not been there at all.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, without wishing to decry the remarks just made by the noble Lord, I suggest that that applies also to much other legislation. It is often very difficult for us laymen to understand the tortuous convolutions of following one Act which amends another and another and so on. Perhaps the passage quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is apt for all our legislation.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but the previous contribution suggests to me that, having disposed of this mountainous task, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might also consider giving the same easement to the officers of social clubs throughout the country by consolidating their legislation soon.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say just a few words. As I was responsible for introducing the capital gains legislation in 1965, I promise to do better the next time I become Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is always very interesting to have such distinguished promises from such distinguished promisers. However, so far as concerns the general advice given by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, I am sure that all of us would do well to take note of it. Obviously the exercise of consolidation is an important one. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have commended the quality of the consolidation. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, that it is an exercise which will gradually, I hope, encompass the whole of the statute book.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Coal Industry Bill
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: 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 Cavendish of Furness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sure that the Committee will understand if, before we proceed to deal with the amendments, I take this opportunity briefly to express on behalf of all Members of this Chamber our deepest sympathy regarding the fatal accident which took place in the North East of England causing the sad loss of the lives of two miners and serious injury to some of their workmates. I believe that I speak for all sides of the Chamber when I send to those workmates our hope for their speedy and complete recovery and when I express our deepest sympathy to the widows and children of those killed.
I can vividly remember reading the terrible headlines about the Gresford accident when I was a newspaper boy; and I was in the Doncaster Rovers football ground for the open-air service for the Cresswell disaster. Sadly such accidents do not end with the funeral; the effects do not suddenly go away. Such tragedies often scar the families and communities who are sadly bereft for a very long time.
Once again, on behalf of all Members in this Chamber I should like to send our deepest sympathy to all those involved. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to respond at this time but I believe that it would be better if he were to do so.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am grateful to the noble Lord. On behalf of the Government I should like to stress the fact that we share to the full his concern and sorrow on learning of the tragic accident at Wearmouth colliery early this morning. The noble Lord is surely right to say that the whole Chamber will wish to express the fullest sympathy for the families of the two men who died and of the seven men who were injured.
I should tell the Committee that a full investigation is under way at the colliery to determine the cause of the accident. I am sure we all hope that the findings of such an inquiry will enable measures to be taken to ensure that such a terrible tragedy does not happen again.
Lord Ezra: As someone who was involved for many years in the coal mining industry I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for having raised the issue before we proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill. It reminds us of the importance of safety in the mining industry. Safety standards in the British mining industry are the best in the world; but, nonetheless, such tragic accidents still occur.
846
I visited Wearmouth colliery many times during my time at the Coal Board. It is one of the best pits that we have. Its standards of safety are as high as those anywhere else. But even so this tragic accident has occurred. It means that we must remain ever vigilant and we must also bear it in mind during our consideration of the Bill.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for the kind way in which he responded to my initial remarks and to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his support. With his tremendous career and record in coal he was close to this type of accident for many years, and knows the full horror it can cause the people who are left.
Clause 1 [Further grants for workforce redeployment and reduction etc.]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (10) there shall be inserted—
"( ) Redundancy terms offered under this grant shall not discriminate between employees in collieries, or other workplaces where the employees have resisted closures or redundancies and those where they have not." ").
The noble Lord said: I understand that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are grouped together. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that restructuring grants are not abused by the British Coal Corporation. The workforce should be properly consulted before grants are used to close mines. The amendments must be seen against the background of the Government's closure of 100 mines in the past six years, and the fact that the Government now propose to run down the industry further to the size predicted in the Rothschild Report.
Amendment No. 1 provides that there should be no discrimination between employees who have resisted pit closures and those who have not. The prospect of losing work through a pit closure is one that no employee or his family relishes. They are not likely to welcome the decision. However, we must be certain that the British Coal Corporation does not use the restructuring grants to blackmail miners into agreeing to pit closures by threatening their redundancy payments. We seek a reassurance that such action will not be allowed.
I have worked in industry and I pay tribute to people who are prepared to resist redundancies. They do not battle simply for their own jobs but for those of the people who may succeed them when they retire. Despite the efforts of the British Coal Corporation and the Government, the closure of mines almost destroys the social fabric of some communities.
It is easy to speak from the Dispatch Box when one is not involved in an industry. But I believe that some redundancies in industry generally might have been prevented if the financial inducement to take redundancy had not been so high so as to take the sting out of it. I hope that the Government will pay regard to the sentiments expressed in the amendment.
Amendment No. 2 refers to the colliery review procedure which was introduced after the 1984–85 miners' strike to allow time for reconsideration when there is a threat of a pit closure. There are fears that

847
the British Coal Corporation is now circumventing that procedure. A number of examples of that were raised in Committee in another place (Official Report, 3/12/91, col. 11). Redundancy may be accepted at different stages of a pit closure. With the amendments we seek to ensure that miners are not manipulated into taking a redundancy package before there has been a chance to reconsider the decision to close the pit. At whatever stage in the process it occurs, the redundancy entitlement should be equally favourable. Will the Minister assure the Committee that the redundancy grants will not, and cannot, be abused by the British Coal Corporation in an attempt to blackmail employees at a time when they and their jobs are most vulnerable? I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With great respect to the noble Lord, I have tried to follow, but I do not understand why either of the amendments is necessary or appropriate. After all, it is a receding industry in which redundancy is inevitable and accepted as collieries end their useful and economic working life. The present redundancy regime with its special redundancy support is an effective inducement to retire and, so far as I am aware, works well.
The object of the clause as a whole seems to be to extend by three years (until March 1996) the period over which the Government may pay restructuring grants. Surely the amendments would spread the special support for all employees for all time, and that would be somewhat unrealistic.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, talked of abuse, blackmail or manipulation; but is there any realistic fear that there would be victimisation on any scale to warrant the introduction of the amendments and so impose an unacceptable fetter on the British Coal Corporation? I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that the provision for miners when they retire was satisfactory and sufficient. We are not talking just about miners who are retiring. Some miners are very young. It is not a question of retiring and having a nice golden handshake. Serious anxieties were expressed in another place by MPs representing miners. They produced chapter and verse. I could read out what they said, but I do not see any point in doing so. They proved that the BCC has closed some pits and has gone outside the normally accepted code of conduct and procedure.
If the noble Lord were to read col. 10 of the proceedings of another place on 3rd December 1991 he would see chapter and verse relating to the pits where that happened. The amendment is not a spurious one to deal with circumstances that might not occur. It is a realistic amendment to try to obviate abuses that have occurred in the past. As Hansard of another place records, when miners appealed against BCC acting outside the procedure, they won their case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept that the noble Lord knows much more than I about the industry. All
848
I say, with the utmost respect, is that as yet—I have listened with care—he has not made out a compelling case for imposing this fetter upon the BCC.
Lord Ezra: I fully support the sentiments lying behind the two amendments. I hope that the Minister will tell us that they are unnecessary because neither of the situations arise. I must say that in my time in the coal industry—if I may refer to that—there would never have been a case such as that mentioned in Amendment No. 1 where redundancy terms would discriminate as between those who supported a closure and those who did not. I hope that we shall receive a categorical assurance that that will never happen. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, would be satisfied with such an assurance.
Equally, in the case of redundancy terms offered at any stage during the procedure involved in the closure of a colliery, it would have been inconceivable for us to have gone back on such an offer. I assume that the people who now run BCC are honourable people who are doing so to the best of their endeavours and who would take up the same position. I hope we shall receive a similar assurance on that point from the Minister.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I should be satisfied if we could have such an assurance. Many of us are worried about the problem because the coal industry is not, and has not been since the miners' strike, run in the way that it was run under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. There have undoubtedly been instances of intimidation since the miners' strike. There is no doubt that miners have had their arms twisted. The NUM has had wage settlements imposed upon it and members of the union have had wage settlements imposed on them, whether they liked it or not.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that there are legitimate reasons for being fearful about what might happen if people decide that they wish to fight to keep their coal mine open. The amendments are designed to deal with those fears. However, as I said, I join the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in asking the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, to give us the assurances we wish. I am sure that if we receive them, my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider not proceeding with the amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: British Coal's redundancy terms are a matter for the corporation and not for legislation. I can nevertheless assure noble Lords that redundancy terms are calculated on the basis of three factors only: the worker's average earnings before redundancy, his overall length of service in the industry and his age on redundancy. Terms are not varied if a worker or the colliery has resisted closure. In saying that, I believe that I am giving the categorical assurance asked for by the noble Lords, Lord Dean, Lord Ezra and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It is unnecessary for the Government to seek to intervene in this area.
Questions were raised about the procedures of the independent review body. That body is part of the

849
modified colliery review procedure which was agreed by British Coal with the trade unions concerned. If the parties to the review procedure find that modification of the procedure is desirable, that is entirely a matter for them. The Government play no part in the review procedure and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on that. The modified colliery review procedure provides the coal industry with the most comprehensive consultation process of any major industry. However, the final decision on the future of an individual pit must remain a matter for the management of British Coal.
With his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, suggests that we are anticipating closures. I can tell him that provision has been made in the department's main estimate for a restructuring grant expenditure of £300 million during 1991–92. The number of redundancies that will occur and the average cost in grant expenditure are subject, as in the past, to considerable uncertainty. However, £300 million is estimated to be sufficient to cover about 6,500 industrial redundancies after allowing for the grant expenditure in 1991–92 in respect of 2,000 industrial workers who left the industry at the end of 1990–91 but did not attract restructuring grant until after the start of the new financial year. There is no anticipation in these assumptions.
I believe that Members of the Committee recognise that British Coal's redundancy terms are generous. They provide for a lump sum of up to £27,000, depending on the length of service and earnings and further lump sums of up to £10,000 depending on age. This takes the maximum payment to £37,000.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was right to say that the existing system works well. Although there are disappointments in the industry, it is also right to recognise properly that the industry is contracting and to manage it accordingly. With those assurances and that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The assurances appear to meet the case. However, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord about one possible scenario. Miners may go on strike to protect their pit from closure. During that strike they are sacked by the coal board. What would their position be? Would they still qualify for the redundancy payments?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I need to check the detailed law about that and whether or not the strike was legal.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What would the position be if it were legal?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I shall have to check on the position. One other question which I did not answer arose out of the first debate. I was asked for an assurance that redundancy payments would not be used as blackmail. I covered that in general: there is no question of redundancy payments being abused by British Coal and I refute suggestions to the contrary. Redundancy terms will only be offered where the rundown of employment opportunities makes them essential.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. I believe that the position is that if miners are on strike and are dismissed while on strike, they would not qualify for the redundancy. That was the position two years ago, it may have changed since then.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am grateful to my noble friend. I have got no further and perhaps to clear the matter up I should write to noble Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Naturally we shall await his written reply on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. I do not always agree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway on trade union matters, but I nevertheless respect them. I am grateful to him for his remarks, but two specific cases were mentioned in proceedings in another place. The collieries were named, dates were given by the chief Opposition spokesman on the Bill. De facto, the action taken by British Coal was only reversed after intervention following the appeals review procedure.
The Minister indicated to my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that he would inform us of the redundancy situation under the law regarding a miner or a group of miners on official strike. If a miner can be dismissed under those circumstances, it leaves much to be desired as regards fair trade union legislation. It would place a weapon in the hands of the employer which, if he wished to use it viciously, could be so used in almost every case where a group of workers decided to stand and fight.
However, in view of the Minister's answer and his undertaking that he will let my colleagues and myself know the full position under the law, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) After subsection (10) there shall be insertedx2014;
"( ) Before making an order under subsection (10) above for extending the duration of and increasing the limit on grants the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to Parliament a report setting out his Department's estimate of the likely calls upon the grant in the forthcoming financial year, specifying in each case how the grant is likely to be spent." ").
The noble Lord said: I believe that we are taking Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. They would require the Secretary of State to:
"prepare and submit to Parliament a report setting out",
what the money from the restructuring fund had been spent on in the preceding year and a report detailing estimates of what the money would be spent on in the forthcoming year. The amendments call for information about what has happened and what is predicted.
The amendments provide an opportunity to debate the Government's calculations underlying the restructuring fund. Naturally, we support the maximum financial provision for unemployed miners and their families. But we seek further information about the Government's plans. The Bill proposes to increase funds available for restructuring and redundancies

851
from £1.5 billion to £3 billion. It extends the period over which funds may be paid to cover the years up to 1995–96.
Through these amendments we seek to discover how much of the money so far set aside has been spent on redundancy payments, how much on welfare payments, how much on concessionary coal, and so on. It is important too that the Government should reveal their plans for the future and how much will be spent on redundancies. The extra sums proposed in the Bill have not been plucked out of the air, the Government must have made an estimate of future costs. In our opinion, £1.5 billion will fund at least another 30,000 job losses and between 30 and 40 further pit closures. This is in line with the figures predicted in the Rothschild Report. It does not seem likely that that is mere coincidence. This Bill asks Parliament to grant more money to British Coal. It does not seem an unreasonable request that Parliament should be kept informed as to how such sums of money will be spent. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope I may respectfully ask the noble Lord a question. Does not Amendment No. 4 seek to import a costing obligation in perpetuity in the process of restructuring the industry? If that is so, is that not unacceptable? As regards Amendment No. 3, is it not right that, broadly speaking, the information sought is available in the quarterly report? Is there not some difficulty in producing figures based upon an assumption? In the circumstances would that not only be improper but also somewhat improvident? How on earth could one achieve any satisfactory accuracy? With respect, I suggest that these amendments, in the way they have been drafted, do not appear to have a compelling justification.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, saying that because matters are kept under review in perpetuity nothing can go wrong? There are thousands of people in this country who have just lost their pension rights as a result of procedures being carried on in perpetuity and as a result of the failure to carry out periodical checks. I believe the views of people who are involved in this industry need to be considered seriously. They want periodical checks to be undertaken. What is more, I want periodical checks to be carried out as a taxpayer funding this measure. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for the safeguards contained in Amendment No. 1. I do not accept that people always behave well in perpetuity. Periodical checks need to be made to ensure things are in order and that moneys are being used for the right purposes all the time. If something is wrong, the longer that position is allowed to continue, the greater the likelihood that money may be used in an improper fashion. I am convinced that these amendments are valid and are worthy of consideration by this Chamber.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I appreciate the noble Lord's interest in restructuring grant estimates and expenditure. He will know that my honourable friend
852
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory in another place acknowledged that perhaps more detailed breakdowns might be useful. Very large sums of public money are involved. The noble Lord may not be aware that the department's Supply Estimates which are presented to Parliament in March each year already provide the department's estimate of restructuring grant expenditure in the forthcoming year as well as provisional figures for expenditure in the current year and audited figures for the previous year.
It may be helpful if I provide the breakdown of figures the noble Lord asked for. The figures illustrate how the £225.9 million restructuring grant was spent by British Coal in 1990–91. For redundancy and early retirement £199.4 million was allocated. Under the heading of changes of work and place of employment £15.4 million was allocated. For concessionary fuel £1.3 million was allocated. For retraining £2.9 million was allocated and for new employment £6.9 million. I believe those are the figures the noble Lord asked for.
I can see no need to require the Secretary of State in this Bill to do what he already does in the Supply Estimates for the purposes of obtaining parliamentary authority for departmental expenditure. He may also wish to note that the department's latest report on expenditure, which was published last week, gives details of restructuring grant payments made in 1990–91. Those are the figures I have just mentioned.
The department therefore already makes available a great deal of information on actual expenditure. Future restructuring grant payments are difficult to predict because they will depend on the coal industry's progress in streamlining its operations, improving productivity and winning market share. It will be misleading to provide more detailed forecasts than those already made available. I hope I have been helpful and that in future we may be able to supply more information of the kind the noble Lord needs. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for the detailed figures he provided. However, if we had not debated this amendment today those figures would not have been provided in the Chamber. I do not know whether they have been provided in another place. However, as I have said, I am grateful to the Minister for providing the figures today. I am not, however, convinced that what the Minister claims are safeguards are total safeguards. Nevertheless in view of the thorough reply the Minister has given, I shall respond to his request and withdraw the amendment. I shall reconsider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) In Schedule 2, paragraph 6, line 1, after "new" there shall be inserted "or continuing").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I hope the Minister will say what the Government's views are on it. The amendment seeks to discover

853
whether eligible expenditure under Schedule 2 to the Coal Industry Act 1987 covers expenditure to secure continuing employment of people in mining areas or whether the money is payable only if there are new jobs. We hope that expenditure is allowed under the existing legislation to allow continuing employment in existing mining areas. However, we understand from the proceedings in Committee in another place that that is not the Government's interpretation of the legislation.
Will the Minister explain why the Government might be opposed to allowing money to be spent on supporting the existing infrastructure? The example was given in Committee in another place of the possibility of investing money in new small mines in the anthracite coalfields of South Wales when the larger anthracite coalfields are closed. I hope the Minister can provide some information about that matter. I beg to move.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dean, was correct in his understanding of the debate that took place in another place. I hope I may clarify the position.
Head 6 of Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act already permits British Coal Enterprise to support job creation in both new and existing companies as long as new employment is involved. So there already is an element of support for continuing activity in the aid provided under Head 6. It would, however, be wholly wrong to use restructuring grant as a means for supporting activities that do not involve the promotion of new jobs. It would also be wholly wrong to use restructuring grant to support activities that do not show good prospects of being viable.
There can be no question of using restructuring grant as a means for subsidising continuing loss making production by British Coal. This would run counter to the purpose of restructuring grant, which is to assist British Coal in putting its operations onto a viable basis, reducing capacity and raising productivity as necessary. British Coal has in the past received production subsidies through deficit and later deficiency grants. That form of assistance has become unnecessary because the corporation's finances are now back onto a profitable footing. That represents a considerable achievement. This Government do not intend to re-introduce production subsidies. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will be satisfied with that clarification.
Lord Desai: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope I may intervene. I am speaking as a comparative stranger to this matter. There have been reports in the newspapers that the German Government give subsidies to their coal industry and that it may be possible for this Government to change their mind about the position here. If that is the case, continuing jobs which are in existence may become possible rather than subsidising new jobs. Is that area covered by the clause?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: If I understand the question of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, the answer is that it is likely that it will be the Germans who will change their practice under other legislation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I think that my noble friend Lord Desai was referring to a matter which I raised in your Lordships' House a couple of weeks ago when an article appeared in a newspaper criticising the EC for allowing the German Government to pay a special subsidy to make their own mines competitive. German mines are by no means as competitive as mines owned by British Coal. I do not want to go into matters which are wide of the amendment because that would not be fair, but I should like to deal with the question which my colleague asked.
We asked why, if rules are imposed on us which require us to operate full market practices and to produce coal in a competitive manner, the Germans are allowed the privilege of a special subsidy to make their mines competitive. We should be fighting for that subsidy to the German coalfields to be removed. If that happened it might not be necessary for our own coal industry to be reduced to the extent that the Government envisage. That was the point at issue on the earlier occasion. However, it is not related to the amendment.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will be tolerant if I broaden the discussion a little in relation to grants for redevelopment, business and jobs in mining areas. I refer mainly to the large areas where coalfields have been closed and removed from the face of the earth. That is a sore point. Those areas are able to receive sums of money from the European Commissioners for the purposes of redevelopment. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is present and he will know more about the subject than I do. Unfortunately, as I understand it, if that money is forthcoming from the EC an equivalent amount is withdrawn by the Government in another way. In other words, those areas lose money from the Government if they receive funds from Europe. Perhaps the Minister will say a few words on that point?
That is the position at present as I understand it. If the Barnsley area, for example, received £15 million from the EC to redevelop the area which had been devastated by pit closures it would lose £15 million from our own Government. That seems an odd way of encouraging people to redevelop their areas. Can the Minister spend a couple of minutes on that point?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The situation is unnecessarily complicated by reference to Community law in this context. For example, German employment laws work entirely differently from the way in which our employment laws work. One problem is that if one imports the concept of continuing employment into English employment law that would create a new concept. Secondly, there is the question of what it means. All sorts of problems would be created which are beyond the scope of the immediate problem. That is because paragraph 6 of the schedule reads:
"Expenditure on the promotion of new employment".

855
That is perfectly clear. However, if one adds the words "and continuing employment" I am not entirely sure what that means. With the greatest respect, I do not suppose that the noble Lord knows either, and Professor Wedderburn is not present.
Lord Dean of Beswick: That is why I said that it was a probing amendment.
Lord Cockfield: I merely wish to be helpful in the case of a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The simple truth of the matter is that the substantial subsidies given by the German Government to the German coal industry are prima facie illegal under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome relating to state aids. Over the years the Commission has exerted pressure on the German Government in exactly the same way as it has exerted pressure on the British Government to reduce such state aids and ultimately to eliminate them. The right answer to the question is that where somebody is behaving in a way which is not defensible we should endeavour to persuade them to toe the line rather than copy what they do.
On the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, relating to the question of grants to particular areas, including the coal-mining areas, there is a difference of opinion at present between the Government and the European Commission on a point of law. One would hope to see that difference resolved in a satisfactory manner, but possibly my noble friend on the Front Bench can give us the latest news, if any, on that particular point.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: When the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, put the question of German subsidies at the end of Question Time I am afraid that I gave him rather short shrift and said that there was no cause to ape the Germans. My noble friend has put it more politely and rather better. Under the general trend in Europe the German practice is wrong and is not something that we would wish to follow. As I have said on other occasions, we support the European Community's so-called RECHAR programme, which should bring real benefit to the coalfield areas. Our position is that we regret that Commissioner Millan feels unable to approve our programme. We hope that the problem will be resolved in the near future. The money derives from money which we contributed to the European Commission in the first place and we feel that we are entitled to get it back. British Coal Enterprise will be seeking to take advantage of the RECHAR programme to bolster its job creation efforts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, acknowledged, that issue is rather wide of the amendment, but I hope that that reply satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: When I moved the amendment I said that it was a probing amendment. Perhaps it probed a little further than the subject on the Marshalled List. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for putting us right on what is happening. It is obvious from what he said that British Coal is not competing on a level playing field with Germany. We ought not to forget that and
856
should try to put the matter right and enable British Coal to compete on an equal basis with its competitors.
The probing amendment has worked. We have been given a certain amount of information on a variety of issues. I shall read in Hansard what has been said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Repeal of Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("except for privately licensed mines as defined under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946").
The noble Lord said: The amendment attempts to protect those working in the private mining sector against the possibility of relaxed safety controls. The Bill repeals the 1908 Act, which limits the number of hours which may be worked under ground. The Government have argued that the 1908 Act would not be repealed unless or until the European Community directive on working time has been brought into force. The inconsistencies in that argument can perhaps be developed later. Here we are concerned to protect the safety of those working in private licensed mines, whose safety record is not as good as that of British Coal.
Information from the NUM shows that the fatal accident rate in the UK private mining sector is 8.8 times higher than in British Coal mines. We are concerned that the repeal of the 1908 Act will leave private mines without protection because the EC directive, even if accepted by the Government, will not apply to private mines. Different working practices apply in the private sector. Workers in private mines are vulnerable to health and safety problems and require protection in legislation. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how the proposed changes will affect private mines and how their safety will or can be improved. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am at some disadvantage. The noble Lord said that the accident rate, so to speak, was eight times greater. I understood that there was not much between private coal mines and the Coal Board as regards the accident record rate. I do not feel that I can contribute anything to the discussion because, if the noble Lord is right about the figures, there is a problem.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My information and my brief come from research people who are usually totally reliable. I quoted the figure given by them. It possibly requires rechecking. However, I suspect that unless it is a typing error it is probably the correct figure.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Perhaps we could leave the matter of the figures for a moment. The noble Lord is absolutely right to be concerned for the workers in coal mines, which include licensed mines. However, it would be wrong to exclude private

857
licensed mines from the coverage of the Bill. The 1908 Act is obsolete in respect of both public and private sector mines.
The only justifiable difference for private sector mines would be over the timing of the commencement of the repeal. If the EC directive is agreed, as we believe it will be, repeal of the 1908 Act will not be implemented for private sector mines until the directive is given force in the United Kingdom through implementing legislation.
So far as concerns safety, the UK legislative system on protection of health and safety at work applies equally to private and public sector mines. The repeal of the 1908 Act will in no way weaken that system of regulation because the Act is not part of the system and is obsolete.
Turning to the statistics, the latest statistics from the Health and Safety Executive show that accident rates in private sector and British Coal mines were at virtually the same level in 1990–91. That is not to say that they have not had a worse history. There has been a welcome reduction in accidents at licensed mines over the past four years. To back that with figures, because some have been mentioned, in private mines in 1987–88 there were three fatalities compared with nine in British Coal mines, which is considerable given the very much smaller size of the private sector. In 1991–92 to date there has been one fatality in a private mine and tragically as of today seven in British Coal. A useful comparison might be made with fatal accidents and major injuries. The HSE 1990–91 annual report shows the following figures for fatal accidents and major injuries per 1,000 employed. In 1987–88 in licensed mines there were 24 per thousand employed compared with 7.1 in British Coal. In 1990–91 there were 8.6 per thousand in licensed mines compared with 8.4 in British Coal.
Let me give one final illustration. It may help the Committee to know that fatalities in British collieries have been reduced from four per million manshifts in the 1930s to one per 2 million manshifts last year. Those figures reflect improved safety consciousness in licensed mines and increased inspection by the HSE. The latest accident figures, some of which I have given, are available from the HSE's 1990–91 annual report which was published last December.
I have endeavoured to show that the amendment would not be helpful or give any additional protection to workers in licensed mines. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Ezra: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify an issue about which I am not very sure. At Second Reading on 31st January he said:
"If the [EC] directive is implemented, it would apply immediately to British Coal as a public sector body".—[Official Report, 31/1/92; col. 1556]
Can he clarify how it would apply to the private mines? Would that come at a later stage?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Yes, it would come following the directive. There would have to be secondary legislation coming before both Houses of Parliament to enact that directive.
Lord Ezra: Would that therefore mean that while the 1908 Act would cease to apply to British Coal, it would continue for that interim period to apply to private mines?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The noble Lord is right.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for having given us the most up-to-date figures available. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("following the application of collective agreements concluded between the two sides of industry which are more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of the workforce.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment goes to the heart of Clause 2. The Government have decided to make this repeal but they have done so without any consultation with the workforce or supervisory staff; nor have they left the issue to be decided by the Health and Safety Executive. The Government propose instead to rely on the provisions of the EC working time directive. However, we fear that that may weaken the current safety requirements. The EC directive is a minimal approach to working hours in all industries and explicitly allows the application of tougher and specific national laws. Mines safety has special needs which should be recognised in legislation. We oppose the repeal of the 1908 Act.
In 1986 the right honourable Peter Walker was asked by the Select Committee on Energy in another place about the need to amend the 1908 Act to allow longer shifts. He said:
"If discussions took place along those lines I presume those discussions would, first of all, take place between the Coal Board and the unions to discuss what effect it would have … there would have to be discussions in the first place with the Health and Safety Commission because the safety aspects of it would be of paramount importance".
However, since 1986 the Government seem to have had a change of heart. It would appear that they are now prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the workforce and its unions. The decision also goes against the advice of the 1988 MMC inquiry which recommended, due to the safety implications, that British Coal should consult with the trade unions preparatory to making further representations to the Government on this matter. No such consultation has taken place.
The amendment suggests that safety should be a matter for collective bargaining. There should have been discussions before the repeal was proposed. There should be discussions now about what will replace the provisions to ensure that safety remains of paramount importance, as it has done for so long. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I agree with the aspirations in principle of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I take the view that as regards safety there is a case not only for legislation but also for collective agreements. Both have a constructive and useful part to play. The status of collective agreements is already under discussion in terms of general application as regards

859
not only legal efficacy but also the recognition of trade unions in particular in the context of safety and health measures.
This is a very important matter. It has already attracted the interest of this Chamber in the context of the shore oil rig situation and the construction industry and in relation to other matters which it would not be right to take time to mention. It is an important subject worthy of sustained and serious debate in a general context. However, perhaps I part company with the noble Lord in that I do not believe that it is right to deal with the matter piecemeal today and try to import provisions into the coal industry in a Bill such as this. The matter is far too important. It requires serious debate in this Chamber, perhaps on a Bill of general application.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I find it almost inconceivable that there have been no consultations about the matter. Safety is paramount in the coal industry and in every other industry. Before I entered Parliament I worked in the electricity supply industry. That too can be a difficult and dangerous industry. I cannot conceive of any circumstance in which the Central Electricity Generating Board and the area boards would not have consulted their staff on matters such as those that we are discussing today.
There is no doubt that hours of work impinge on safety. They are bound to do so. In an era in which the coal industry is being pressurised reach higher productivity targets, and once attained to achieve even better productivity, it is absolutely essential that the trade unions and the workers' representatives at all levels are properly consulted and that reasonable agreements are reached.
If the Minister cannot give assurances about the matter, the Committee must consider seriously whether to tell British Coal that it must embark on consultations, in particular when the safety of workers is involved. Today we received a poignant reminder of the necessity for eternal vigilance in the coal mines. That vigilance cannot be relaxed at any time because always a serious accident is waiting to happen.
I believe that it is the view of Members on all sides of the Committee that proper negotiations should take place between British Coal and its employees and that proper agreements should be reached.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does the noble Lord agree that there are problems in that we have not yet resolved the recognition procedures for the offshore oil industry or the construction industry? We cannot go bull-headed into the matter because I suggest to the noble Lord that so much has yet to be done to pave the way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is right. I would not disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord Ezra: I have considerable sympathy for the intention lying behind the amendment. While it must be accepted that the 1908 Act is out of date and that a great deal has happened in the technology of mining,
860
the question of what is to replace the Act is of prime importance to the people working in the industry. That is not made clear in the Bill.
The mining industry has a great tradition of those involved working together on all matters affecting the methods of work, to which is related the question of safety. It can be argued that the hours laid down in the 1908 Act are no longer valid because of the changes in technology and that different hours can safely be worked. Having accepted that argument, it is right that before any changes are made there should be collective agreements which endorse that.
That is the way in which work is done in the mining industry. I used to have countless meetings on safety and conditions at work. I found it relatively easy to reach agreement because there was a common motivation. Management and workers were equally convinced of the need to work the mines not only efficiently but safely. If the Minister does not accept the amendment as it stands I hope he will say that it is British Coal's firm intention to discuss those issues with the workforce and to reach agreement on the lines indicated in the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Not for the first time today we are reminded of the vital importance of vigilance in the coal mines. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept the Government's utter commitment to making the safety of people working in the coal mines an absolute priority. However, I believe that we are entering dangerous waters. Members of the Committee opposite must decide whether they want the regulation of health and safety at work to be a matter for government or for collective bargaining.
The Government believe that the regulation of health and safety is a matter for government. There is a legislative system of health and safety protection for mineworkers in place in the UK. The 1908 Act does not form part of that legislative structure. The principal statutes relevant to health and safety are the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. There are also numerous important subsidiary measures relating to specific aspects of safety in mines. That system has been strengthened progressively throughout the years and there is no question of it being weakened. Safety for mineworkers is and will remain paramount. This Government will not take any action which threatens the safety of mineworkers.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asked about the 1986 assurance on consultation. The reason for providing for the repeal of the 1908 Act well in advance of the implementation of the proposed EC directive is precisely to permit adequate time for consultation and negotiation on the new working arrangements between British Coal and the mining unions. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, it would be inconceivable that that should not happen. We accept that collective agreements have an important role to play. Under the UK system of statutory regulation of health and safety the employers will have to pay due

861
regard to health and safety when concluding new working agreements. The HSC can take action if health and safety are put at risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has valuable experience of the energy supply industry. Although I can give no better comparison from my own experience, I am advised that there are interesting analyses of statistics relating to accidents in coal mines. Statistics analysed by length-of-shift working have been prepared by British Coal and, curiously enough, they do not show a rise at the end of a normal shift. Accident rates were found to be highest towards the middle of the shift rather than at the beginning or at the end. That is not to say that it will be acceptable for British Coal or for some future private owner to impose longer shifts.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the 1908 Act has no standing in the question of health and safety at work. I hope that I have been able to reassure Members of the Committee on that matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having taken part in this debate because it is a very important one and I appreciate the support in a general sense from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I am sure that many of your Lordships will recall that in the not-too-distant past we have had debates on safety involving a variety of places. I myself initiated a debate about two years ago on the Channel Tunnel and also on Piper Alpha. Everywhere I went visiting sites I found the utmost co-operation among the shop stewards, the men on the site and the management, because in a dangerous situation nothing must be left to chance if you are to maintain maximum safety all the time. It is absolutely essential that the people on the site should be involved from the start, but it seems to me the Minister was saying that the Government have taken a decision to alter the rules of the game in this Bill. They will consult with the people who are affected by the proposed changes in the rules and decide what should be put into legislation.
My argument is the same as that of the people who are concerned with this: consultation should have taken place before there was any thought of there no longer being recourse to the previous Act. There are one or two amendments later that will deal with the question of a variety of—
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way. He has spoken of the rules of the game. But the whole essence of this debate is that the rules of the game are completely discredited, so there is no question of changing the rules. They do not apply and have not applied for some time. They are putting at risk management and miners alike because people are not observing these outmoded and redundant rules.
In a sense I would ask the noble Lord not to suggest that the Government are doing anything disingenuous here because, if anything, the Bill is doing damage. It is in a way placing miners and management outside the law. But having said that, we are bringing in something precisely because, as I said, we want to give the management and the unions time for consultation. I think I am right—indeed I am sure I am right—in
862
saying that it is not open to British Coal to change any working arrangements without giving at least six months' notice.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is it not a fact that change for change's sake is sometimes a bad thing? In reply to an amendment I moved a short time ago the Minister gave us figures on the safety record of British Coal. I think—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also confirmed this—that it is possibly the safest mining industry in the world, at any rate in this particular type of mining. It would seem strange to move away from that situation without the fullest consultation right from the start.
I believe the Minister is sincere in what he says and that the Government are also sincere. But my point is that in a dangerous industry you have to take the workforce with you the whole of the way. At the end of the day they are the people who will be on the site and will see that the safety rules and codes of conduct operate. They know that if anything goes wrong it will be themselves or a colleague who may suffer death or injury.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is right that regarding the rules of the game the Act of 1908 is in fact a dead duck except for one thing; that is, I believe, where it refers to when overtime starts? Is it not a fact that in all other respects it does not affect safety at all? Safety is dealt with in the Mines and Quarries Act and other legislation. Therefore, the rules of the game as regards safety at the moment are covered by a situation other than the Act of 1908. Is that not right?
Lord Dean of Beswick: We may be going down a different road. The noble Lord has just referred to working hours and so on, but I received a document this morning from one of the officers of British Coal making a case for doing what the Government have suggested. However, with my history of engineering and factory working I did not feel in any way convinced. I am not a miner, although I have been down mines. It is only the people at the sharp end who fully understand the problems. There are proposals in this document which I received this morning referring to a similar working week but truncated into fewer shifts.
Anyone who has been involved in trade union law and workshop practice of any kind will know that a mine is probably the most dangerous workshop there is, even with the present safety measures. Every report that has been issued shows that longer shift working generally ends in increased accidents. You get to an optimum of about seven to eight hours in a working day and after that a person's performance and vigilance start to deteriorate. That is what is behind a lot of this.
There are all kinds of proposals in the wind: four 10-hour shifts, four 11-hour shifts, five shifts, six shifts and so on. The only way this can be resolved is by getting the representatives of the workers and the workers themselves involved. After all, all pits are not the same. I am sure the noble Lord would understand that some of them are quite different and they vary in

863
complexity. It is sad that what appears to have taken place is to sour the workforce who are affected by the legislation.
However, I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have made a contribution to this debate. It is a very important one indeed bearing in mind what was said at the commencement of formal business. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. We shall look at this further and may decide to come back to the subject later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("after alternative measures specific to the mining industry have been laid before Parliament and approved.").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this amendment following the concern I expressed at Second Reading about what was to follow the repeal of the 1908 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, referred to the fact that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State had said in another place that he would not implement the repeal of the 1908 Act until either the EC directive on working time comes into force or, if agreement is not reached on the directive, an alternative United Kingdom measure is introduced.
My concern is twofold. First, having looked at the draft EC directive, I must say that I do not believe it is entirely relevant to underground mining operations. It deals with working conditions everywhere in industry. Indeed, I have heard from British Coal that it too has reservations, particularly in regard to what is said about night working. That is reservation number one.
Reservation number two is that, if the directive does not materialise and the Secretary of State has to make his own decisions, then they will be made and will replace the 1908 Act. But I feel that in either event these matters should come back to the House and we should have the opportunity of debating this. Otherwise, we are left in a situation in which, once this Bill leaves us, we have agreed to the abolition of the 1908 Act and have left it entirely to chance, as I see it, as to whether the EC directive (which may or may not be amended between now and then) or something that has yet to be devised by the Secretary of State for Energy is put in its place. I do not think that that is a satisfactory arrangement.
Whether the wording that I have proposed is appropriate, or whether the Minister can give some assurance that these matters will come back again to the House so that at least we are aware of what is going on, I do not know. I shall certainly not insist on my amendment if the Minister can explain how, under the existing procedures, we can come back to this matter so that we can know what is proposed to take the place of the 1908 Act and express our views on that. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Again I share in principle the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Truly I am not trying to be a difficult, fine print
864
lawyer, but there are difficulties about this amendment. What are these specific measures? Ought they not to be identified? I do not think that any government could accept the amendment in this form. But that does not mean that this is not an amendment of the greatest possible import. If some assurances can be given that satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the Committee, the amendment will have served an important purpose.
I should have thought that it is common ground that we all agree that the 1908 Act should be repealed. The noble Lord nods his head. I am grateful. I know so little about this industry, but it seems right that it should be repealed. If it is to be repealed, and if the directive applies to the mining industry, then there must be time for both sides of industry to consider in consultation how it is to work. At all events, there will be some form of directive which will apply to the mining industry, and which would have to be the subject matter of consultation.
However, as the question of safety is governed by the Mines and Quarries Act and other primary legislation, is it not preferable to concentrate on an assurance that perhaps could be given by my noble friend the Minister that these matters will be kept under vigilant review especially when, as we have been reminded today, one really cannot concentrate on any particular aspect? For example, long hours. Are long hours the evil if in fact there are properly organised rest periods? Are there not certain mines where it takes a long time to get to the work face, where a regime would be totally different from the regime in another type of mine?
As it is common ground that the 1908 Act should go, I suggest that it should go, with the issue of how the matter is dealt with left to the good intentions of any government.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I support the amendment. It is a probing amendment asking what are the Government's intentions. It would be a foolish person who discounted the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the question of safety in mines and all that that entails, bearing in mind that he was chairman of the coal board in its halcyon days when it was effectively run with a fellow Lancastrian of mine as president of the union, Lord Gormley, who, had he carried on, I am sure would not have pressed the self-destruct button as somebody else did.
Having said that, I think the Minister would be wise to take seriously the reservations that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about what the Government really mean, and also the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. We, in principle, support the amendment and the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is trying to achieve.
Lord Rochester: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ezra. It is my understanding that the working time directive comes under the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, and it is open therefore to the Government to veto it.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: No.
Lord Rochester: If I am wrong no doubt the Minister will correct me, but that is my understanding. If that were the case, then we should find ourselves in a most unsatisfactory position. Quite understandably in my view, a number of employers are urging the Government to exercise their veto over the directive. For instance, in the case of the chemical industry, of which I have some experience, the provisions in the directive relating to night work and shift work would have a deleterious effect on that industry, dependent, as it is, so very much on continuous process work.
If my understanding is correct, therefore, we shall possibly be left with a position where the directive does not operate in our case and where we have committed ourselves, if this clause goes through, to a situation where the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 ceases to have effect. There will then be no regulations governing the operation of working hours in the coal industry. If that is so—and I am open to correction—then it is a serious situation.
Lord Ezra: I should like to take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his important intervention. He made the valid point that conditions in pits differ, and that you must leave it to the people on the spot. If the Government were proposing to repeal the 1908 Act because of the fact that safety is fully catered for, that conditions differ in pits and therefore different working hours ought to apply, and that there would be nothing to replace it, that would be an issue that we could debate. But that is not the issue that is put before us.
We are being told that the 1908 Act is to be replaced either by a directive—which, as presently drafted, in my opinion is not satisfactory—or by some other measures that the Secretary of State will prepare and impose. My contention is that if that is the case then, whether the directive or measures to be prepared by the Secretary of State are to replace the Act, we ought to have an opportunity to look at them and decide whether we think they are suitable or not.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I understood my noble friend the Minister to say—I may have got it wrong —that if the directive were to be implemented it would be brought before the House for domestic legislation. It would be implemented by some statutory instrument or primary legislation. I may be wrong, but I understood that that was the position.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has a vast experience of the coal industry and, as Chairman of the National Coal Board, had direct experience of the 1908 Act in practice. Perhaps I can clear up one specific matter. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that the UK cannot effectively veto the directive. There is qualified majority voting under the Treaty of Rome legislation. Nor would the directive be affected by anything agreed or said at Maastricht.
Lord Rochester: With the leave of the Committee perhaps I can interrupt the noble Lord. It is my understanding that it would not be dealt with by qualified majority voting but would require unanimity.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Obviously our advice is at odds. Luckily there is time to sort the matter out. I shall look into it and ascertain which of us is right. I shall gracefully give way if the noble Lord is correct.
The amendment proposed would require that replacement UK legislation on working time, specific to the coal industry, should be in place before the repeal of the 1908 Act is implemented. As I understand the noble Lord's position he is not questioning the need for the 1908 Act to be repealed. He accepts, I believe, that the 1908 Act is outdated and widely ignored. He agrees that it is not satisfactory to have on the statute book law which is being broken daily by both miners and management—because it binds on both. He also appears to accept that the present day legislative provision for the protection of the health and safety of our mineworkers is satisfactory in broad terms.
The noble Lord has a sincere concern for the health and safety of Britain's coal miners, as we all do. He tabled the amendment that we are discussing because he believes that without replacement UK legislation specific to the coal industry the safety and health of miners would be at risk to the demands of mine owners, present and future.
I should like to explain why the Government's proposals will not introduce any such risk. I hope also to persuade the Committee that the amendment will not add anything to the statutory protection of the safety of miners. The most important point that I must make is that the 1908 Act is not part of the legislative system that protects the health and safety of mineworkers. The principal statutes on which our very extensive system of protection is built are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974—I am sorry to repeat this but it is important to place it on record—and the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. Those Acts and subsidiary legislation under them will be continuing in force. The vital protection that they afford to miners is not to be changed.
I should like to quote from a recent letter from Sir John Cullen written to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I have shared the information with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity to thank him for taking the time to discuss aspects of the Bill. Sir John is chairman of the Health and Safety Commission which oversees the work of the Health and Safety Executive. The executive enforces the health and safety legislation in our mines through the mines inspectorate. Sir John says that the 1908 Act,
"is not a relevant statutory provision under the Health and Safety at Work Act".
He adds that the current Bill's proposals are unlikely to lead to a reduction in standards of health and safety. He finally points to the powers that the executive has under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to take action if excessive hours are being worked, leading to adverse effects on health and safety in mines. He says that the executive will not hesitate to take action where that is necessary.
In summary, Sir John Cullen has confirmed the Government's view that the 1908 Act is not part of the existing system of statutory protection for the health

867
and safety of miners and that its removal will not affect that protection. Moreover, he says in his letter that the 1908 Act is in any case difficult to enforce. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act provides the Mines Inspectorate with the powers that it needs in order to take action if excessive hours of working threaten health and safety. Those statutory powers are there and will not change. The noble Lord's amendment would not add to the protection of health and safety that the present statutes provide.
I am not clear what view the noble Lord takes of the work of the mines inspectorate; we have not discussed that. The Government's view is that the inspectorate deserves great respect and support in the vital work which it does. Over recent years it has been active in enforcing improved safety standards in the small licensed mines and the accident and fatality statistics have shown much needed improvement in that sector as a result. In British Coal's mines accident and fatalities continue their long-term trend of decline—in spite of today's tragedy—and the mines inspectorate has had no small part in ensuring that outcome. The Committee will have noted that the Health and Safety Commission and Executive and the mines inspectorate are not asking for new UK legislation to replace the 1908 Act. They believe that they have the necessary statutory backing to take action on excessive hours.
The amendment would not add to the protection of the health and safety of mineworkers. With regard to the regulation of working time, the new EC directive will introduce new limits and will guarantee rest periods. That will provide a new framework within which hours of work can be settled by negotiation between employers and trade unions. The Secretary of State for Energy has given an assurance that there will be no gap in the provision of working time legislation and I repeat that assurance today.
I can assure the noble Lord that whether or not the 1908 Act is replaced by the EC directive or by a UK measure, there will be appropriate opportunities for the proposed replacement to be considered by both Houses of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, sees a need for legislation on working time that, in contrast to the EC directive, would be specific to the coal mines. It follows that for such legislation to have any point it would have to be more restrictive than the EC directive. It is important that the Committee should be aware that the 48-hour limit on the working week proposed in the EC directive will place a tight limit on underground working in some mines, as the noble Lord is aware. It will be particularly restrictive at mines where miners have long journeys to make underground and where some weekend working is necessary to keep mines in operation. UK legislation which is more restrictive than the EC directive would discriminate against such pits. The EC directive allows just about enough flexibility for the British deep mine industry to operate successfully; and noble Lords will be aware that our mines have to pursue coal
868
developments at increasing distances from the shaft bottoms as they progressively work out their coal reserves.
I have sought to illustrate that the amendment is unnecessary. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that it may be defective, but we are not making an issue out of that. However, I venture to suggest that it may be damaging. I have gone to some lengths to explain the Government's view to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I hope I have given some satisfaction to the noble Lord and to the Committee in general. It is an important issue. Of course, I can make a commitment for my department to keep an open door at any level so that the issue can be further discussed if the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others are not yet satisfied. Meanwhile, I hope he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I can say that it was kind of him to read the letter from the chairman of the Safety Commission. However, it may save my moving the last two amendments if he can give the date of the letter.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: The letter is from the Health and Safety Commission addressed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. John Wakeham, and is dated 7th January 1992.
Lord Dean of Beswick: That means that the letter was received after the Bill had passed through its stages in another place. I do not blame the Minister, but it is a little naughty. It looks as though he has recruited an ally who was not in the dock in another place. I shall withdraw my next two amendments but I can assure the noble Lord that, on the basis of what he has just said, we shall be returning to this subject at a later stage.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It is entirely proper and there is nothing sinister in my right honourable friend seeking clarification on a point of such importance. I hope that I did not give any impression—
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry, but the contents of that letter are very profound; they are not peripheral to the argument but central to it. That letter was not seen or quoted—it had not been received—when another place was dealing with this Bill. To me that smacks of sharp practice. I shall not be moving my last two amendments tonight but we shall return to them at Report stage.
Lord Ezra: I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for the time that he gave me to speak to him and his officials about this issue and also for his painstaking reply today. I know that he and everyone else in the Committee agrees that we must be very careful about the conditions of work in the mines which, inevitably, are associated with questions of safety. If mine workers work excessive hours they are at risk. We have been assured that the question of

869
excessive hours is fully catered for by the safety of mines inspectorate. I am prepared to accept that and I pay tribute to its work.
I propose to withdraw my amendment following the assurance given to me by the Minister that we shall have full opportunity for seeing and debating whatever replaces the 1908 Act, whether it be the directive as finally amended and promulgated or provisions made by the Secretary of State. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may remove a slightly sour taste which has arisen concerning the letter. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the letter was received before the Report stage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I was going to rise anyway because I believe I went a little over the top. I wish to withdraw the words "sharp practice". However, the matter was dealt with in a way which was misleading. I want to make it absolutely clear that that was not done by the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Citation, repeals, commencement and extent]:
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act,

Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Act,

Severn Bridges Act,

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act,

Social Security Administration Act,

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act,

Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act,

Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act,

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act,

British Railways Act.

Access to Neighbouring Land Bill [H.L.]
5.25 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: 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 Murton of Lindisfarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
870
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Aylestone) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Access orders]:
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("against that other person").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes no change of substance to Clause 1(1) of the Bill. However, I put forward the amendment in order to meet a point raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Coleraine who suggested that there is some lack of clarity in the Bill as to who is to be the respondent to the application. The amendment seeks to bring out in Clause 1(1) even more clearly than it does at present that the respondent is the person against whom the application for an access order is made. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: On behalf of the Government I entirely support this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) An application for an access order made for the purpose of carrying out works to the dominant land may also relate to the carrying out of works to the servient land.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 which are consequential to it. I wish to make it clear that I am not speaking to Amendment No. 6 which is a separate and small drafting point. Amendment No. 2 seeks to provide for what seems to me to be an important and practical need for access which does not appear to be covered by the Bill and which, as far as I am aware, was a point which the Law Commission did not have drawn to its attention and did not address when it prepared its report and the original draft Bill.
The amendment is intended to enable the dominant owner of land which is infected by dry rot to have access to his neighbour's property, the servient land, which is also affected by dry rot. In this case it is not just to carry out repair works to the dominant land but also to carry out remedial works within the neighbour's property. If the court found that this work on the servient land was reasonably necessary for the preservation of the dominant land, the court could make the order. I need not remind the Committee that there is no point in remedying part only of an outbreak of dry rot.
It may be asked why this provision should be necessary. Surely, no neighbour would leave dry rot untreated in his own property. I believe that that is possibly to take an unduly rosy view of the way people behave. I recently had experience of a block of flats where four lessees were buying out their landlord's freehold interest for £1. They did so because the landlord, a company resident overseas, had allowed dry rot to spread within the building. The reversion which it owned (it owned nothing else) was valueless so there was no point in trying to sue the landlord. Unfortunately, the top floor flat had been sublet for a year by the long lessee of that flat who was sharing in the buy-out. Dry rot affected that flat also. The

871
sub-tenancy did not reserve a right for the long-lessee, or the freeholder, to come back into the flat to repair dry rot or to carry out any other repairs. The tenant was not inconvenienced by the dry rot which was behind the wall and he saw no need to be obliging.
I understand that by the time the matter was finally resolved the cost of eliminating the dry rot and treating the structure had risen from around £10,000 to nearer £50,000. That is the kind of case which could be aided if an amendment along these lines were passed. The new freeholders might have been able to obtain a direct access order against the sub-tenant. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: I admire the way in which my noble friend Lord Coleraine has put the case so very well with these amendments. While everyone agrees that the problem to which he has drawn attention—namely the spread of dry rot which affects neighbours' properties—is serious for the unfortunate persons whose properties are touched by it, I do not believe that the answer is to be found in these amendments, sadly though I say that.
It is fundamental to the scheme recommended by the Law Commission and now provided for in the Bill that, in the words of the Long Title, it enables,
"persons who desire to carry out works to any land which are reasonably necessary for the preservation of that land to obtain access to neighbouring land".
The scope of the Bill has been deliberately confined in that way. My noble friend wishes to extend the Bill, in Clause 1, to enable the applicant to obtain access to neighbouring land to carry out works to the neighbouring land itself, as well as to his own land, as he has pointed out in recent correspondence. But I am afraid that that does not help in this respect.
Although, as I have said, the spread of dry rot from one property to another—for example, in the case of adjoining properties—can be a serious problem, there are remedies to hand under the existing law. The tort of nuisance provides a remedy which enables persons to bring an action against a neighbour who omits to take steps to stop the spread of the fungus. I suggest that it is no different from the situation of tree roots which encroach under buildings and may threaten to cause, or actually cause, damage. Unlike the situations for which the Bill is intended to cater, my noble friend has not, to my mind, highlighted a gap in the existing law which needs to be filled.
If an applicant were to obtain an access order to enable him to enter the respondent neighbour's property for the purpose of treating the dry rot on the applicant's property, it is to be expected that many reasonable respondents would, in their own interests, agree to carry out the necessary work to deal with the problem on their own property. A respondent who refused to do so could be threatened with legal action.
Although my noble friend Lord Coleraine has moved a number of amendments to deal with the consequences of the proposed extension of the Bill in Clause 1, the change he is proposing would affect
872
other parts of the Bill; for example, Clause 3(2). For all those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Baroness Elles: I rise to support Amendment No. 2. I find it difficult to accept the reasoning of my noble friend Lord Murton. I must declare an interest in that I have a property to which dry rot had spread from the house next door. I had the dry rot in my property repaired, which affected four other tenants who had bought flats within the property. That was in 1988. The landlords of the house next door have so far refused to repair the dry rot in that adjacent property. Consequently, two of the people who have purchased flats in my block are now unable to sell them because they cannot get a guarantee of no more dry rot in the neighbouring property. They have been put to grave disadvantage in that they cannot let their flats and they cannot sell them.
I do not think that the remedy which the noble Lord, Lord Murton, has indicated is, in fact, available to the owners of those flats. I can see no other way of at least being able to threaten a neighbour who has dry rot and who has taken no action for four years, thereby depriving his neighbour of the right to sell his property, unless something of this kind goes into the Bill.
I very much welcome the amendment in order to draw attention to the problem. It may be that, at the end of the day, inserting these words in the clause is not the right way of dealing with the matter; but the fact remains that this very serious situation is occurring throughout the whole of London where, as we know, there are many properties with dry rot and where landlords refuse to repair properties because they do not wish to spend money on this kind of work. That affects the next door properties which, in my case, is the dominant property. It is putting a great hardship on the owners of flats or houses which are the dominant properties.
In principle, therefore, I totally support my noble friend Lord Coleraine but perhaps we shall have a satisfactory answer from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as to how one can take action against people who refuse to spend money to make necessary repairs.
Lord Wilberforce: I should like to support the amendment, at least to some extent. There is clearly a practical problem here. It may be a larger problem than we had thought, particularly having heard what the noble Baroness said. It seems to be one which requires to be addressed. At the same time it is quite clear, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Murton, that insertion of the amendment would rather dislocate the framework of the Bill as a whole and involve consequences.
I venture to draw attention to Clause 1(2) (a) which would apply to this situation. The order would only be made if,
"the works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the whole or any part of the dominant land".
An access order could not be obtained just to clear up dry rot on a neighbour's land. The court would have to be satisfied that to do so is necessary for the

873
preservation of the dominant land. That is quite a substantial safeguard and limitation of the risk to the respondent.
There is always the safeguard of the court. One would have to go to court and the court would look at it to see what is reasonable, in the interests of both parties. If it is not reasonable and the servient owner makes an objection, then obviously an order would not be made. With respect I suggest that we are fairly near the point where something like the amendment of the noble Lord could be accepted. There are safeguards already in Clause 1(2)(a) and in the general discretion of the court. It may be that other safeguards are necessary as the noble Lord, Lord Murton, said. However, I hope that the amendment will not be rejected out of hand. There certainly seems to be something in it.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: I reply to the noble and learned Lord with some trepidation. Surely the existing law of nuisance provides a remedy which enables persons to bring an action against a neighbour who omits to take steps to arrest decay?
Lord Wilberforce: That requires an action of nuisance, in most cases. I quite see the point, but it would require a strong case to bring a common law action of nuisance.
Lord Mishcon: I was hoping, with great humility, to clarify the legal situation, but sitting opposite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as I do, it will be for him to clarify and I am sure that the Committee will accept his view of the law in preference to mine. However, if we are really to consider, as the noble and learned Lord just said, that an applicant would in any event have to go to court in these circumstances in order to invoke a legal right, it is extremely relevant to see whether the same course of action is not already available.
I can well see that if we were imposing a remedy which did not require an application to the court that would be very sensible, though quite obviously completely impracticable because—to use the example given—we are dealing with someone who apparently has refused to remove his dry rot the danger of which is coming onto adjoining premises.
When I was a student I remember so well having hammered into my mind the principle of Rylands and Fletcher which was the moving of a dangerous substance onto a property which was not permitted according to law. Indeed, an injunction and damages could be obtained.
I rise to speak only because I feel there is a remedy in law in this situation. Why in those circumstances duplicate matters by putting into the Bill a provision which, as the noble and learned Lord willingly admits, means going to the court—so we have not cut out the cost and trouble of that —when in my view the court could make an appropriate order, either by way of an injunction in a suitable case restraining the spread of it, or indeed by way of some action for a nuisance, and deal with the matter in that way?
The Lord Chancellor: This Bill was constructed by the Law Commission in order to deal with the
874
problem of requiring access to neighbouring land in order to perform work for the preservation of the subject land. The whole Bill has been constructed with that in mind. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said on earlier occasions, a quite important change.
It may be undesirable to attempt to make the Bill carry too much on its shoulders. I accept that my noble friend Lady Elles had a problem and that my noble friend Lord Coleraine has a related and perhaps even more difficult problem in that the owner of the premises may have had difficulty in getting at somebody who had resources sufficient to provide for this difficulty. It is highly likely that in many of these circumstances there will be a remedy at common law in an action for nuisance in respect of allowing the fungus of dry rot to spread. Of course not only dry rot would be covered by the amendment; there might be other types of problem as well.
I think that some more elaborate machinery may be required. After all, if one got in under this system one would be repairing one's neighbour's land and possibly removing quite significant amounts of dry rot. Who would have the benefit of that? There is nothing in the Bill to allow the person who does the work, having obtained access under the Bill, to obtain compensation for the benefit that he or she has conferred on the owner of the other land in respect of which the work was done. The whole object of the Bill is for preservation of the land of the first owner, the applicant, under the Bill. Therefore, while I accept that there are problems in this area, I would caution against trying to use this Bill to carry too much weight in case, having done that, we may damage it as a vehicle for dealing with the particular problem with which it was designed to deal.
That is an urgent problem which a number of your Lordships have recognised. I feel therefore that the best may be the enemy of the good in this situation. We may make it too elaborate. I certainly do not claim to have thought out all the possible implications of my noble friend's amendment. Certainly, as he said, the Law Commission did not have its attention directed to this point. We are dealing with a quite difficult area of the law. I am happy to direct the Law Commission's attention to this problem but I think it may be unwise to use this Bill as the means of solving it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful for the support given to the amendments by my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would feel it undesirable at this rather late stage to make the Bill carry too much on its shoulders. It may well be that these amendments would seek to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the case of Rylands and Fletcher. Although my experience of law school perhaps took place after his, nevertheless I would not suggest that my memory of the law is any better or worse than his. It is my recollection of Rylands and Fletcher that it is related to cases where people accumulated things on their land—water in a reservoir or something of that kind. I do not

875
necessarily think that it would apply to dry rot infesting land. I find it difficult to see how the court could grant an injunction restraining the spread of dry rot under the rule in Rylands and Fletcher or any other rule, although I should like to think further about the point that an injunction might be made to compel the servient owner to remedy the rot. So far as concerns the action for nuisance, that would be bolting the stable door long after the horse had fled, although it might be that the injunction combined with the action for nuisance could do it.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for saying that he would refer my point to the Law Commission. There is a problem here and some such remedy as the Bill confers may well not be a superfluous second remedy but a useful adjunct to whatever existing remedies there may be. I should like to think about this further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: I hope very much that for the ease of the sensible discussion of my amendment the Committee will permit me to speak also about Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I was troubled at Second Reading by the fact that the Bill imposes upon the court a mandatory duty. It is contained in Clause 1(2), the words being:
"On an application under this section, the court shall make an access order".
No discretion is left to the court and it is mandatory provided certain conditions are applicable to the particular case. Together with your Lordships I looked at Second Reading at Clause 1(3), which states that the court should not make an access order,
"in any case"—
this was the sole limitation—
"where it is satisfied that, were it to make such an order, the respondent or any other person"—
I read these words slowly on purpose—
"would suffer interference with, or disturbance of, his use or enjoyment of the servient land".
I emphasised those words at Second Reading because there was nothing there—and I instanced this case—about hardship to a person let alone the question of anything that might happen to land. I ventured to bring before your Lordships the case of someone who in the middle of a nervous breakdown suddenly found himself or herself before the court with all the ingredients necessary for the applicant to prove his case and with the judge bound by a mandatory order, unable presumably to do anything other than possibly think about compensation, conditions or whatever it may be.
The noble Lord, Lord Murton, has been kind enough to take account of what I said at Second Reading and as a result I notice that there is an amendment which now adds to Clause 1(3) the further provision that an order should not be made if,
"the respondent, or any other person (whether of full age or capacity or not) in occupation of the whole or any part of the servient land, would suffer hardship".
I cannot ask for more. I tabled the amendment only to insert the word "may" instead of "shall" in order to provide for such a contingency. In the hope that Members of the Committee will approve, as I certainly do, of Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, I very willingly beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wilberforce: I had hoped that we would be able to discuss the two amendments together before the noble Lord made up his mind. He indicated a willingness in a certain hypothesis. I very much hope that the Committee will still give consideration to the noble Lord's amendment. I do not like imposing mandatory duties on courts. I do not like the conception of a sort of "slot machine" in which one inserts conditions—namely paragraphs (a) and (b)— and if they both go in then it makes an order, but if they do not both go in then it does not. It seems to me to be derogatory and unsuitable to a county court to say that an order must be made if (a) and (b) are satisfied.
I should have thought that the Bill would be in a much better spirit, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if it had the word "may" included. One never knows if a county court judge may wish to adjourn the case to allow negotiations to take place to introduce modifications. A cast iron obligation to make an order straight away seems to be inappropriate. However, if the noble Lord still insists on withdrawing the amendment, I cannot object. Certainly, the point is largely met by Amendment No. 5. But even if Amendment No. 5 is accepted, I venture to suggest that the word "may", thus leaving a discretion, is better than the word "shall" which imposes an obligation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): I should point out to Members of the Committee that the Question has not yet been put in respect of Amendment No. 3. I very much regret that fact.
Lord Mishcon: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may now move my amendment. I hope that Members of the Committee will, with their usual kindness, forget what I said previously about the possibility of withdrawing it. I have been given much courage, as is usual with me, by the noble and learned Lord's support. It may be useful in the circumstances for the matter at least to be debated in the context put forward by the noble and learned Lord. On Second Reading I put the point that I thought it wrong to fetter the discretion of a judge. I did so in general terms. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps before my noble friend expresses his view on the amendment, it may be convenient if I were to say a word or two about it. One of the necessities is to do what one can to frame the Bill so as to, so far as is possible, avoid unnecessary litigation. One of the requirements for the avoidance of unnecessary litigation is that the rights that people have should be reasonably clearly defined.
The nature of the right involved here of access to neighbouring land is a new one. In drawing up the Bill, it is very clear that the Law Commission had as one of

877
its stated objectives that it should be possible for the parties or their advisers to know in advance whether or not an order would be made on a given set of facts, generally speaking.
The proposal would make it less clear to an applicant whether the court would be likely to make an access order and litigation would increase. From the point of view of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce and that of the court, I perfectly understand that, once an application is put forward, there is a great deal to be said for having a discretion so that the court has a completely free hand. But, on the other hand, I believe that what the Law Commission had in mind was the desirability to try to state the circumstances in such a way that in at least the majority of cases people would be able to ascertain what was likely to happen without going to the court. Therefore, the party who did not wish to give access would know that, if necessary, the other party could go to the court. That would persuade him or her to grant the access.
We have before the Committee Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 which are intended to reflect the worry expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on Second Reading. I wonder whether this is the best way of meeting that anxiety; in other words, rather than giving the court the discretion, seeking to deal with the real point by giving the court a right to consider the question of hardship in particular circumstances. If the parties investigating the situation before a case is brought could see the possibility of hardship, they would know that there was a question of whether the order would be granted. There is no question of hardship. If the matter was straightforward, people would know that the court would in fact grant the order.
Therefore, to alter the present wording, thereby making the granting of an order a discretion, would I believe, at least to some extent, depart from the stated object of the Law Commission. In such a case, where we are trying to keep matters as simple as possible, I feel that it would be wise to try to define as clearly as this Chamber can in advance what the conditions would be for the grant of the order.
Lord Mishcon: I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for allowing the matter to be discussed. For my part, I am still prepared, with the leave of the Committee, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, after ("order") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for taking such an understanding view over the question of his amendment, and being prepared to consider that which seems to me to be his point.
The noble Lord said on Second Reading that the revised ground for refusal of an order does not take into account an individual's personal circumstances, as opposed to circumstances relating to his use or enjoyment of the land. He gave the example, as he
878
mentioned today, of a person who is ill and suffering from a nervous complaint where noise emanating from work may have had a deleterious effect on his health.
It is perhaps arguable whether the present subsection (3) in the Bill is wide enough to allow the court properly to refuse an access order in such a case. However, I think that the noble Lord made a very good case for putting the matter beyond doubt. For that reason, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 respond to that anxiety by providing for an additional ground as an alternative to the existing grounds on which the courts should refuse to make an order; namely, that the respondent or any other person in occupation of the subservient land would suffer hardship to such a degree by reason of the entry that it would be unreasonable to make the order.
There is reference in Amendment No. 5 to "any other person" in occupation of the land. The subsection has been redrafted to cover,
"any other person … in occupation … (whether of full age or capacity or not)"
of the servient land. That is intended to allow the respondent to raise the issue of the hardship to cover other occupiers of his land such as the seriously ill child. The words in parenthesis are included because in other statutory contexts the courts would have taken the view that children under 18 are not in occupation. I hope that the amendment will meet with the agreement of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Newall: Perhaps I may make a small point. I did not wish to intervene, but it seems to me that if one inserts the word "a", surely one has to delete the word "the". Otherwise it does not make sense.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: I believe that the wording will become clear if one looks at the redrafting which will apply after acceptance of the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I support this line of dealing with the matter that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised earlier. I believe that the amendment moved by noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne is a satisfactory way of dealing with the issue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, after ("land") insert (", or
(b) the respondent, or any other person (whether of full age or capacity or not) in occupation of the whole or any part of the servient land, would suffer hardship,").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is consequential upon the previous amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: I am not happy about the words,
"in occupation of the whole or any part".
I understand the case of the sick or lunatic child on the land. Is it right to say that such a person is in occupation? They are technical words. I should have preferred something like "residing on" or "living on". If the noble and learned Lord is satisfied with the

879
words, it is not for me to object to them. But it seems to me that they are not accurate or apt for the many cases that may arise.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: I get into deep water at this point, and I make no apology for that. I am advised that under the present law the courts have to take the view that children under the age of 18 are not in occupation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("any land") and insert ("the dominant land").
The noble Lord said: This is the drafting amendment to which I referred earlier. It is a small point of drafting about which I should like clarification. The amendment takes out the word "any" at the end of Clause 1(4) and inserts the words "the dominant". When a statute, or any document intended to have legal effect, states a proposition and gives specific instances or examples of how it may have effect, it is often considered necessary to preface the list with words such as "provided that this shall be without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing". Those words are intended to avoid the possibility that whoever interprets the general proposition will feel it necessary to limit its application to cases similar to those given as specific examples.
Clause 1(4) contains what is, in effect, just such a without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing conclusion. Unfortunately, it misdescribes what is in fact the foregoing. The general proposition deals with what is necessary for the preservation of the dominant land. The words at the end of the subsection refer to "any land". That can only cause confusion. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the amendment is appropriate.
I should like to raise a point about that sub-section at this stage. I hope that my noble friend or my noble and learned friend can help me over it. In the earlier Bill on this subject Clause 1(4) provided a list of works which an access order might include. The list was clearly governed by Clause 1(2)(a), which requires the works to be reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land. Clause 1(4) of this Bill is in a much more extended and complicated form. I wonder why. It includes what seems to me to be the curious reference to "basic preservation works" and what is nearly a form of tautology to the effect that, if it is reasonably necessary to carry out basic preservation works to the dominant land, then those works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the dominant land. The only meaning I can attach to that provision is that there are works of a certain character which are deemed to be for the protection of land whether they are in fact of value for the protection of land. That does not seem to be a helpful or satisfactory provision.
I cannot see why that form of drafting is to be preferred to the drafting of the earlier Bill. The Bill is complicated over what seems to be a simple matter. We regret, but must accept, that most of the
880
complications are necessary, but if the Bill, which will be read in every high street, can be made simpler, it should be. I beg to move.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My noble friend raised a number of drafting points in relation to subsections (4) and (5). In all humility, and sensibly, it would probably be appropriate for me to leave the matter to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—if he agrees—to give us his views on those points.
The Lord Chancellor: In order to deal with the point of the amendment, it might be helpful to refer to Clause 1(2)(a) to gain a proper understanding of the purpose of subsection (4). Under subsection (2) the court will make an access order in any particular case only if it is satisfied:
"(a) that the works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the whole or any part of the dominant land".
The term "dominant land" is defined in Clause 1(1). It is the land to which works are desired to be carried out.
The purpose of subsection (4) is to provide a partial definition of works that are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land; that is, the dominant land which is the subject of the application. Subsection (4) deems the works listed in paragraphs (a) to (d), which are called basic preservation works, to be works which are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land in subsection (2) (a). The idea is to provide help. If the work is within the list, it is basic preservation work, but the list is deliberately not exhaustive because it is difficult to imagine all possible cases requiring preservation. There may be other works which may be reasonably necessary for the preservation of land over and above what we have thought of and listed. Hence, the last three lines in subsection (4). That is intended as a generality to describe what could be regarded as reasonably necessary for the preservation of land. It is not related to the particular land; it is in the nature of a definition, or a way of keeping open the definition, of what is meant by the word "preservation" in the context of land.
The land in question does not become dominant land until it is the subject of an application for an access order under Clause 1(1). The purpose of the last few words of the subsection, the subject of the amendment, is to keep open the meaning of the word "preservation" so that if some case arises which has not been thought of and included in paragraphs (a) to (d) it would not be excluded.
The meaning of the word "preservation" has been brought into the matter. The changes we have inserted into Clause 1 were intended to make clear, in response to discussions on the earlier Bill, the scope of the allowable works. However, in line with the Law Commission's recommendations the Bill deliberately leaves the term "preservation" undefined. It will be for the courts to interpret the term, but I believe that it is something which should be understood in its ordinary sense, having regard to the mischief with which the Bill seeks to deal. It would be difficult, standing here, to list every possible type of preservation. On the other hand, given a particular example, it might be easier to

881
say whether or not it amounted to preservation. That is the kind of flexibility which I believe it would be reasonable for the Bill to retain.
Lord Coleraine: I thank my noble and learned friend for that explanation which I look forward to reading in the Official Report and which I shall try to take in fully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Terms and conditions of access orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 43, leave out ("just") and insert ("fair").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes a small drafting change intended to meet the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Coleraine on Second Reading that valuers would be happier to apply the term "fair and reasonable" than the term "just and reasonable" used in Clause 2(4). I am therefore happy to meet my noble friend's worry and make this minor alteration. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.
The Lord Chancellor: I too support the amendment. No doubt many people would be amused to observe that there is thought to be a difference between "justice" and "fairness". However, for consistency "fair and reasonable" seems to be the right term.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 45, leave out ("or to any person") and insert ("and any persons").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, it may be helpful if I speak first to the main amendment, Amendment No. 14, and then return to Amendment No. 12.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 17 is either paving or consequential. The purpose of Amendment No. 14 is to provide an exhaustive definition of "financial advantage" for the purpose of Clause 2(4), the licence fee provision, in place of the existing inclusive definition of that term. Broadly speaking, the financial advantage is now to be taken to be either by (a) the increase in value, if any, of the dominant land, less the costs of the works with the benefit of the access order; or (b) in the case where it would be possible to carry out the works without the benefit of an order, the saving of the cost of the works; that is, the difference between the likely cost of the works without the benefit of the order and the cost with the benefit of the order. In cases where both (a) and (b) apply, the financial advantage will be taken to be the greater of the two sums.
In the debate on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Coleraine was concerned that the existing Clause 2(5) might give rise to double counting which would
882
be over-generous to the respondents and unfair to the applicants. In the same debate, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor doubted whether the courts would be amenable to allowing double counting because the formula is built in such a way that these are the circumstances to which the court has to have regard.
That remains the case, but there is a risk that the current formula may be read the wrong way. I believe that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor accepts that this is so. I am grateful to both my noble friends; one for having raised the problem in the first place, and the other for having helped me to find the answer to it. I beg formally to move Amendment No. 12.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful once again to my noble friend for bringing forward this group of amendments, which corrects the problem of double counting to which I referred on Second Reading. It also corrects what I noticed as a small error in the formulation which I made at Second Reading. It is right that there should not be double counting, and the amendments put the matter beyond doubt. I commend them to the Committee.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for what my noble friend said. I too support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, leave out lines 3 to 5.
The noble Lord said: I regard this as an important amendment and one of principle. I can best introduce it by asking the Committee to look at Clause 2(4) (b) at the top of page 4 of the Bill. Your Lordships will see that the provisions in regard to subsection (4) (a) are not applicable in so far as any payment may be ordered where the works which the applicant desires to carry out by means of the entry are works to residential land.
On Second Reading, we tried to see whether we were effectively covering all the points that arise over the difficulty with which the Bill is meant to deal. All the examples that we examined were of homes. One recognises at once that there may be quite a few cases where industrial or shop premises are involved, but we were in the main thinking of a residence, belonging to a rather difficult neighbour, and where urgent works were required to the person's premises. The Bill would aid that person in getting essential work done if he had to go to his neighbour's property.
I ask the Committee to trace through what happens when there is an invasion of privacy, or inconvenience is caused to a person who is asked to make his land or property available for works to be carried out. Clause 2(2) on page 3 of the Bill states that:
"An access order may impose upon the applicant or the respondent such terms and conditions as appear to the court to be reasonably necessary for the purpose of avoiding or restricting—

(a) any loss, damage, or injury …

(b) any inconvenience or loss of privacy".

That means that the court can impose an order limiting the loss, damage or injury or the

883
inconvenience or loss of privacy where the court thinks it necessary and feels able to do so. There is here no question of compensation. It is a term or condition which will be imposed to avoid or restrict.
On the basis that the privacy of the individual in his home will be invaded or he will suffer inconvenience, he can look only under subsection (2) for the judge's discretion in imposing a term or condition which may restrict or limit that inconvenience or loss of privacy.
Subsection (3) starts with the words,
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)".
So there is no question of it being without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), which further states:
"the terms and conditions which may be imposed under that subsection include provisions with respect to …,
(f) the payment of compensation for any loss, damage or injury which will, or might, be caused to the respondent or any other person".
The Committee will remember from subsection (2) that in the Bill there is a recognised difference between "loss, damage or injury" and,
"inconvenience or loss of privacy".
The Bill takes the trouble to put in subsection (2) (a) "loss, damage or injury", then realising that it does not cover "inconvenience or loss" it then refers to "inconvenience or loss". To date we are in the position that although the judge can try to limit inconvenience or loss of privacy, subsection (3) (f) gives him no power to pay compensation for anything other than loss, damage or injury. I hope the Committee will bear in mind the little man in his home I have referred to. He will undoubtedly suffer quite a loss of privacy and quite a bit of inconvenience.
I shall now consider whether my little man is protected under subsection (4). Subsection (4) states:
"An access order may include provision requiring the applicant to pay the respondent such sum by way of consideration for the privilege of entering the servient land … including, in particular—
(a) the likely financial advantage of the order".
That provision does not cover the case I am discussing. I am discussing a house. I am not discussing industrial or business premises.
However, my eyes lit up when I noticed subsection (4) (b). I thought my little man was covered as a payment may be awarded for,
"the degree of inconvenience likely to be caused to the respondent or any other person by the entry".
I considered that inconvenience would cover loss of privacy and that I should not worry further about it. However, the subsection contains momentous words which my amendment seeks to delete. Subsection (4) (b) states:
"but no payment shall be ordered under this subsection if and to the extent that the works which the applicant desires to carry out by means of the entry are works to residential land".
Therefore the owner or tenant of the house I have referred to in the context of my example may come before the court as a respondent. The judge decides it is right and proper to make an order. He says he will make terms and conditions which restrict the undoubted loss of privacy and inconvenience the respondent will sustain. The judge says he will restrict the loss of privacy and inconvenience as far as is possible. However, the judge will then say, "I am afraid this Bill does not enable me to pay you any
884
compensation. The House of Lords must have missed the point when they discussed this Bill in Committee, or must have intentionally omitted it. It only entitles me to pay compensation if you are suffering loss, damage or injury. The House of Lords could not have intended me to pay compensation for inconvenience or loss of privacy as that matter was dealt with in a previous subsection. When you might have received a payment by way of consideration under Clause 2(4), according to the debate in Hansard—presumably a judge should not read Hansard but for the purposes of my example I shall assume he has done so—"it was decided that a payment could not be awarded for inconvenience or loss of privacy in the case of residential homes. A payment can only be made in the case of industrial or business premises." I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I hope as a layman I may dare to intervene. In my opinion the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is not only extremely reasonable but also wholly desirable. Perhaps in the case of the owner occupier or the tenant occupier of the dominant land the clause as it stands may be justified. However, I am not sure about that. But let us suppose the land in question were to comprise a large Victorian house which a property developer had acquired for the purpose of converting it into a large number of self-contained flats. In the process he hoped to make himself a great deal of money. There is nothing necessarily wrong with property developers making money, but if they are to do so I see no reason whatever why they should not pay compensation to the occupants of the servient land who are inconvenienced by that process.
Lord Coleraine: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a point that I have some sympathy with. The noble Lord did not take the line that has just been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is something wrong with making the distinction between residential land and other land. I do not propose to address that point at this stage. However, as he presents it, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seems to be a "baby with the bath water" amendment. It is a small point and a good one but in making the amendment he achieves much greater amendments to the Bill than he has spoken to. I should have thought if he had wanted to achieve the object he has described—I feel sympathy for that—he should have added the point as an additional paragraph to Clause 2(3) of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I hope the Committee will allow me to reply to points as they are made. I have taken the Committee stage—as I took Second Reading—as a stage where one advances a principle if one has one, but one does not labour the Committee, or indeed persecute oneself, by endeavouring to use the precise words that the draftsman may have used, and to much better effect.
My point is a simple one. I entirely agree that I could have presented the amendment in a different and, most likely, better way. My point is that, on the present wording of the Bill, a residential occupier is, in my judgment, excluded from having any payment or

885
compensation made to him by virtue of his suffering a loss of privacy or inconvenience. That is the point I really wish to make. I am indebted to the noble Lord for suggesting other ways in which I might have dealt with that point.
Lord Coleraine: I am glad the noble Lord is not attacking the general distinction between residential land and other land. I take the point he is making.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is his usual entirely persuasive self. I accept that this is a difficult point and that arguments can be made both ways. For the exclusion one could say rural landowners are used to paying licence fees anyway and this is less common in residential cases. One could also argue that if this measure were included in the Bill it could lead to more litigation. It could also add to the cost of works in an ordinary case such as the case that occurred in the constituency of my honourable friend Mr. John Ward.
On the other hand, against exclusion is the fact that the distinction is a fairly arbitrary one. There could be disputes in borderline cases. Inconvenience to respondents is likely to be greater in residential cases. However, as I understand the position, compensation would be payable for loss. This is a difficult point. I personally think it would be better to leave the Bill as it is at present because I believe it is the custom in agricultural situations for payments of this kind to be made. However, it is much less common in the case of residential land.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment as proposed by the noble Lord relates to the provision with regard to the licence fee. As my noble friend Lord Murton said, it is difficult to achieve a balance here. The Law Commission has proposed no licence fee at all. It is fairly clear that the Law Commission's primary concern is with the preservation of people's homes on residential land.
The debates and discussions we had on the earlier Bill suggested that the Bill could be sufficiently wide in its application to properly include situations where a licence fee should be payable. However, the restriction applies in the situation in which the works to be preserved are situated on residential land. Residential land is narrowly defined in subsection (6) as:
"a dwelling or part of a dwelling",
and the surroundings of the dwelling.
Perhaps I may say a word about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The Bill is not directed at work which involves, for example, the subdivision of dwelling houses. That would not be covered. It relates to work for the preservation of dwellings. Therefore I do not think that the point that he made would be determinative of the matter.
As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would like to see inconvenience to the small person covered. It is my understanding that loss, damage or injury referred to in subsection (3) (f) would include compensation for loss of enjoyment of the property. That is the nature of the inconvenience which is in question. It is difficult to envisage compensation for inconvenience which does not amount to loss, damage or injury. Loss of use of the property or loss of
886
enjoyment of the property to any extent would be covered. The distinction made in the Bill as drafted relates to a situation in which it is proper to have a licence fee for entering property when activity over and above attending to one's house is involved. I suggest to the noble Lord that his point about inconvenience is covered in the only way in which it can be properly covered, namely, by compensation.
As my noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne said, the balance as to whether or not one allows a licence fee is a difficult one. He gave his reason for concluding that the balance comes down in favour of allowing it generally but not in respect of residential land as narrowly defined.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that now that he points it out I accept that Clause 1(4) does not embrace subdivision. However, does he agree that it would still be possible for a property developer to buy a derelict house, repair and renew it without subdividing it and sell it on at a considerable profit, although perhaps not for as much as if he were to subdivide it? That would be a commercial transaction. If the Bill remains unamended the property developer would still be able to make a great deal of money at the expense of the comfort and convenience of the occupant of the servient property.
The Lord Chancellor: It is always difficult to be certain about these matters. Subsection (6) reads:
"For the purposes of subsection (4) above, 'residential land' means so much of any land as consists of … a dwelling or part of a dwelling".
That is the essential character of what is at issue. The intention is to protect the person who is trying simply to preserve his or her dwelling against having to pay a licence fee, which is in the nature of a commercial consideration, to enter the neighbour's land in order to preserve his or her dwelling. It would depend on the circumstances to some extent, but a developer who sought to do what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested would have some difficulty in bringing himself under that particular clause.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may answer the noble and learned Lord in this way. All of us are interested in the Bill emerging as a fair and just Bill. I use both those adjectives as though they were independent of each other. There is no desire to carry an amendment for the sake of carrying an amendment if another course would achieve the right result.
There is a difference of view between the noble and learned Lord and myself. That may be my fault. I do not ask for a licence fee for the owner of my little house. The owner of my little house will, very properly, want compensation for the fact that in certain circumstances—which we can all envisage—he will suffer great loss of privacy. It is summertime. He has a little garden. He has been looking forward the whole year to enjoying that garden with his family. Lo and behold, as a result of our passing this Bill, his little garden is invaded by builders who work during normal hours, bringing in a great deal of machinery, and that little garden which he has tended for so long

887
is not his. In my judgment, at present the Bill provides no power for a judge to give him compensation. I shall explain why.
Forget the licence fee. Forget the consideration in that subparagraph. Look at the Bill as it stands. Under Clause 2(2) all a judge can say is: "I am so sorry for you. I have heard, with pangs in my heart, how you have tended your little garden and how you were looking forward to the privacy of it, which has now been invaded. Under subsection (2) (a) I can do something about that by trying to limit the inconvenience of loss of privacy as much as I can. I can well see that Parliament had in mind that 'loss, damage or injury' did not cover inconvenience or loss of privacy because the draftsman took the trouble to put that as an alternative. The draftsman wrote 'any loss, damage or injury … or any inconvenience or loss of privacy', taking it for granted that, in regard to the court's power to restrict by terms and conditions, that inconvenience or loss of privacy was a different issue from loss, damage or injury". The court can award compensation to my poor chap who has lost the use of his garden and his privacy and has suffered such inconvenience only under subsection (3) (f). However, subsection (3) (f) does not repeat the words "inconvenience or loss of privacy". The only compensation that can be awarded is for any loss, damage or injury. The court will say that it cannot cover loss of privacy or inconvenience because the draftsman has provided for that being a different consideration from loss, damage or injury.
All of us are too old in our membership of this great House to want merely to have the joy of victory in moving an amendment. We might have done that in our early days but experience and age reduce that glory. All I want the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, to do is to take my point, without agreeing it at Committee stage, and to consider whether there is substance in the point that the court must be given a clear power to grant an owner or tenant of a house compensation where the court considers that proper for any loss of privacy and inconvenience. I hope that that can be considered, and I am sure that my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, will help me with the wording which ought to be employed. Whatever the wording, there ought to be such a power for the court. At present it is either excluded or there could well be misunderstanding as to whether it is excluded. I want to see it included.
Lord Coleraine: Before my noble and learned friend responds—the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, continue to strike a chord in my heart—I should like to go back to what he said a moment ago that the matter of inconvenience or loss of privacy might be covered already by the words "loss, damage or injury". If that were so, for the sake of consistency and to provide a level playing field between the residential and non-residential cases, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to look again at the words in Clause 2(4) (b):
"the degree of inconvenience likely to be caused to the respondent or any other person by the entry".
888
I suggest that if what my noble and learned friend says is correct, it might be appropriate to leave the non-residential applicant to his rights also under Clause 2(3) (f) and possibly to strike out paragraph (b) of Clause 2(4).
The Lord Chancellor: Obviously my noble friend will wish to look at this point and I certainly shall do so. My understanding is that anything that is measurable in the sense of loss of enjoyment would be the subject of compensation under Clause 2(3) (f). However, there might be a situation in which a comparatively small inconvenience, which did not amount to loss of enjoyment, could be prevented by the way in which the work was done. For example, in the small garden instanced by the noble Lord, obviously if people came through the garden at the time that one was going to use the garden that would be inconvenient, although it might be only occasional entry. A condition might be to say that instead of going through the garden one had to go round to the gable end of the house and follow a particular route.
So one might have inconvenience or loss of privacy which would be so incidental as not to constitute loss of enjoyment of the property and therefore not be measurable. I understand that that is why one wishes to have paragraph (b) in subsection (2). However, if it is a matter of compensation, it has to be something that could significantly be compensated for in money.
Certainly the point is well worth further examination. I should like to be clear from the noble Lord—I think I am —that he wishes to give effect to the general distinction between residential land, as defined narrowly on the one hand, and other land for the purposes of a licence fee.
Lord Mishcon: I am perfectly content with what the noble and learned Lord has just said in regard to the difference. I made it clear that I am not after a licence fee for my little men. I seek compensation where the court finds that, despite all the terms and conditions that it can impose, there will still be a loss of privacy and inconvenience to the person who is the subject of the order through no fault of his at all.
In those circumstances, I should be most grateful if between now and Report stage the noble and learned Lord, together with the noble Lord, Lord Murton, would be kind enough to tell me how they intend to react to my amendment—the purpose of my amendment rather than its wording. That would save me the trouble of tabling a suitable amendment with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, at Report stage. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert:
("(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) (a) above, the likely financial advantage of an access order to the applicant and any persons connected with him shall in all cases be taken to be a sum of money equal to the greater of the following amounts, that is to say—

889
( ) the amount (if any) by which so much of any likely increase in the value of any land—

(i) which consists of or includes the dominant land, and

(ii) which is owned or occupied by the same person as the dominant land,

as may reasonably be regarded as attributable to the carrying out of the specified works exceeds the likely cost of carrying out those works with the benefit of the access order; and").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("order") to end of line 24.
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 32, leave out from ("them") to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to deal with a further point which my noble friend Lord Coleraine was good enough to raise in our earlier debate in connection with the definition of residential land. That definition is provided for the purposes of the provision (in subsection (4)) for the payment of a licence fee to the respondent other than in the case of works to residential land.
My noble friend pointed out that under the provisions of Clause 2(6) (c) (ii):
"the flank wall of a factory might be repaired under the Act without payment for access just because it adjoined or was adjacent to a caretaker's flat".—[Official Report, 11/12/91; col. 826.]
My noble friend implied that the provision in subparagraph (ii) is too wide. My amendment now provides for the deletion of the subparagraph from the Bill. While there may be disputes on occasion as to whether a particular part of a building is "used and enjoyed" with a dwelling, I believe that the test in paragraph (c) (i) should be adequate for settling most cases. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment which deals with the point that I made at Second Reading and reduces the possible areas of doubt and difficulty where the distinction between residential and non-residential land applies. I hope that the Committee will approve it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("subsection (4) above") and insert ("this section").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) Rules of Court may provide for the costs of an application for an access order to be borne by the applicant
890
unless it appears to the Court that there was no reasonable ground for opposing the application or that the respondent acted unreasonably in opposing the application.").
The noble Lord said: By this amendment I intend to allow the rules committees to make rules of court which would have the effect of providing that, unless a respondent to an application for an access order has been unreasonable, the applicant will have to pay the costs of the application.
The Bill contains no provision covering the liability of the parties for the cost of an application. As I understand it, the effect will be that the court hearing an application for an access order will have what is called a discretion as to costs. However, in the exercise of that discretion the court will be bound by a general rule that costs follow the event. Again, the effect will mean that if the access order is made, it will be the respondent who will normally have to pay the costs of the application.
Many of those consulted by the Law Commission, including the Law Society, were in favour of the applicant normally being held liable for the costs and not the respondent. I share the view of those who would consider it unjust that a reasonable respondent should find himself liable for costs.
I have been over this ground twice in Second Reading debates on this Bill and its predecessor. The Committee will have understood my arguments and I do not propose to repeat them now. Neither my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor nor my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate who responded to the debate on the former Bill in July have yet responded to those arguments. I hope that this may be the opportunity to hear the reply. I beg to move.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: This is a difficult issue. My view is that on balance we should follow the views of the Law Commission, particularly in view of the arguments put forward in paragraphs 4.115 to 4.117 of its report, to which my noble friend referred. However, I am not a lawyer and I recognise that this is a most recondite subject for the uninitiated. I should prefer to hear the views of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Renton: I have not dared to utter on the Bill until this moment. However, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Coleraine's amendment. As he said, in the courts the costs normally follow the event, subject to a discretion of the court. Parliament does not generally give to the courts guidance of the kind suggested in the amendment. However, I believe that the circumstances which arise in respect of this clause require guidance to be given. The circumstances are unprecedented and unusual. Future injustice could be saved by ensuring that those landowners and occupiers who have an interest in the court helping to get the matter right should not be deterred by a fear of having to pay heavy costs in order to do so. Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider the matter both carefully and sympathetically. I believe that a good case has been made for departing from the normal rule that we do not guide the courts in statutes as to matters of costs.
Lord Wilberforce: I support the amendment for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Renton. I do so regardless of whether it is the right technique to use in order to bring about the desired result. I do not know enough about it. The principle must surely be right that in a Bill of this kind the costs should be borne automatically, unless there is unreasonable conduct by the applicant.
The Lord Chancellor: The matter was carefully considered by the Law Commission. When a body of such authority has dealt with a matter one ought at least to start from the presumption that it has got it right. The amendment as proposed achieves nothing that could not be achieved without it. The rules of court could provide for that in any event if the appropriate rules committee thought it right. On occasions my noble friend Lord Renton has drawn my attention to the desirability of avoiding unnecessary words in statutes.
I turn to the principle of the issue. The Law Commission concluded that the usual costs rules should apply. That view was stated in paragraph 4.118 of its report. It put forward three reasons to justify its conclusion. The first was that agreement will be made easier, and the need to go to court avoided, if the respondent knows, or is advised, that he will probably incur an order for costs against him if he unreasonably refuses access in a case clearly within the scheme. The second was that the ordinary discretion as to costs will enable the court to make its decision on the basis of what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case, having regard to matters such as the outcome of the case and the terms offered before litigation. It would be wrong for the rule to be that the applicant, win or lose, should generally pay the respondent's costs. The latter part of the amendment provides that the respondent acted unreasonably in opposing the application. Therefore, that is to some extent a way in which the Law Commission's point could be met. On the other hand, it may be that there are better ways of doing so.
The Law Commission's third reason was that a presumption that the respondent should never be out of pocket would be inconsistent with the provisions in the Legal Aid Act 1988, which restricts the liability of a legally-assisted person to contribute towards the costs of a successful opponent. If a legally-aided person made an application under the Bill the situation would be somewhat complicated. Since an assisted person's liability to contribute towards his successful opponent's costs is limited, a presumption that the respondent should never be out of pocket would cause difficulties if the applicant were an assisted person. Win or lose, the respondent would be unable to recover his full costs from anyone. There does not appear to be a satisfactory solution to that particular point.
Furthermore, in the kind of situation with which we are dealing the respondent would be able to protect his position on costs by making a written offer expressed as "without prejudice except as to costs" setting out the terms on which he is prepared to allow access. The rules of the Supreme Court and the county court rules provide for that. If the order ultimately obtained by
892
the applicant is not significantly more favourable to him, the respondent on producing the letter is likely to win a court order granting him his costs since the date of the letter.
I understand the sentiment behind the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, supported as it is by my noble friend Lord Renton and my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I suggest that if the Committee were to approve the Bill without the amendment I should undertake to draw to the attention of the rules committee the considerations that have been raised in this Chamber. As I said, it may well be that the committee already has the power to do what is required and the considerations put forward would be for it to decide upon. I hope that my noble friend will consider that to be a satisfactory way forward. I should find it difficult to—
Lord Coleraine: Perhaps I may intervene. If my noble and learned friend were to draw my points to the attention of the rules committee with a favourable recommendation I might feel differently. However, so far he has said nothing to suggest that he will do so.
The Lord Chancellor: I should express considerable understanding and sympathy with the view expressed by my noble friend. I should certainly do that but obviously I should wish to put it to the rules committee to consider all the circumstances. Furthermore, the rules committee might develop expertise on the matter as the application of the Bill, if it became an Act, worked out in practice. I should undertake to put to the rules committee the speeches that have been made today, coupled with a view from me that the matter required to be considered most carefully. I should also point out that I thought there was considerable force in the view expressed by my noble friend. Of course, the Law Commission's reasons must be carefully considered also.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Coleraine that I feel confident about the outcome of the undertaking given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and to my noble friend Lord Renton for their support of the amendment. I was originally taken with the idea put forward by my noble friend that this might be an occasion to put something on the face of the Bill. However, I should view that very much a resort after the last resort because I do not believe that this is an appropriate time to put a provision of this kind on the face of the Bill.
I wish to consider what was said by my noble and learned friend. His undertaking is one that I would not lightly pass by. I am sure that in addition to putting forward the points that I have made today he will also put forward my more detailed points and my expressions of the way in which public reaction would respond to this application for costs rules. I hope that my noble and learned friend will place before the rules committee my earlier speeches as well as those made in today's debate. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

893
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 3 [Effect of access order]:
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) Where the applicant or any of his associates is authorised or required under or by virtue of an access order or this section to enter, or do any other thing, upon the servient land, he shall not (as respects that access order) be taken to be a trespasser from the beginning on account of his, or any other person's, subsequent conduct.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which will I hope be uncontroversial but which requires a word or two of explanation. The Law Commission drew attention in paragraph 4.111 of their report to the rule stated in Six Carpenters' case of 1610 to the effect that,
"where a person having entered upon land under an authority given by law subsequently abuses that authority he becomes a trespasser ab initio, his misconduct relating back so as to make his original entry tortious".
The Law Commission's draft Bill had a provision which deemed the applicant's entry under the access order to have been with the respondent's consent. The present Bill omits the deeming provision. However, it has since been noticed that this omission creates a risk that the so-called trespass ab initio rule would apply so as retrospectively to render unlawful the applicant's entry pursuant to an access order if he exceeded the authority given him by the order or acted in breach of a condition. This amendment expressly negatives the rule and so removes that risk.
There are a number of statutory precedents for this negation, for instance, the Child Support Act of 1991, Section 35(5). I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: I congratulate the noble Lord on having unearthed the delightful doctrine of trespass ab initio and the authorities which have supported it. This treasure having been found, it must be enshrined in the Bill. I am happy to support it.
The Lord Chancellor: I should like to join in these congratulations and perhaps add that it is particularly a subject for congratulation that my noble friend has managed to deal with this matter without actually mentioning the phrase "ab initio".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Persons bound by access order, unidentified persons and bar on contracting out]:
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("is") and insert ("shall, subject to the provisions of the Land Charges Act 1972 and the Land Registration Act 1925, be").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 paves the way for the registration of access orders which is provided for by the new clause (Amendment No. 21) which stands in my name. The amendment will make access orders binding on subsequent purchasers of the servient land where the order is registered in accordance with the provisions of the new clause,
894
subject to the provisions of the Land Charges Act 1972 and the Land Registration Act 1925. I have tabled these amendments in response to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the Second Reading debate about the possible difficulties of conveyancers.
Amendment No. 21 (the new clause) makes the necessary technical provisions for the registration of applications and access orders under the Land Charges Act 1972 for unregistered land and under the Land Registration Act 1925 for registered land in subsections (1) to (3). Subsection (4) provides that where an access order has been discharged following an application to the court under Clause 5(1) (a) then the court has power to direct the cancellation of a registered entry, notice or caution in respect of that access order.
Subsection (5) is a technical provision which is designed to forestall any possible arguments that a person who has obtained an access order and is in actual occupation of the land (that is, to carry out the authorised works) from obtaining an overriding interest in the land, that is to say an interest which binds purchasers of registered land even though it is not protected by registration. If access orders were capable of being overriding interests, this would undermine the requirements of registration provided by this amendment.
Subsection (6) is another technical amendment which enables an application for an access order to be registered as a "pending land action"; so that if, for example, a respondent sells the land while an application against him is pending, the purchaser will be aware of the application for an access order and the applicant will, in the case of registered land, be notified by the Land Registry that there is to be a change in ownership of the land. That will enable him to join the new owner to the proceedings without having to start all over again, and without facing an application later on for variation or discharge of the order by the new owner. I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Lord Mishcon: When I raised this matter at Second Reading, I was indebted for the point to the Law Society and indeed I believe, to a member of the Law Commission. Therefore any gratitude for this coming into the Bill ought to go to the Law Society and to that gentleman, as well as to the noble Lord, for having introduced it now.
The Lord Chancellor: I support this amendment with gratitude, and I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in expressing gratitude to the Law Society, the Law Commissioner and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, himself, as well as to my noble friend for having dealt with it, as I think, so well.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne Lord Murton of Lindisfarne moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Registration of applications and access orders
(".—(1) In section 6(1) of the Land Charges Act 1972 (which specifies the writs and orders affecting land that may be entered in the register) after paragraph (c) there shall be added—
"(d) any access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992."
(2) In section 49 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (rules to provide for certain rights, interests and claims to be protected by notice) in subsection (1) (which specifies those rights, interests and claims) after paragraph (h) there shall be added—
"(j) Access orders under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 which, notwithstanding section 59 of this Act, it may be deemed expedient to protect by notice instead of by caution."
(3) In section 64 of that Act (production of certificates for noting on certain dealings etc) after subsection (6) there shall be added—
"(7) Subsection (1) above shall also not require the production of the land certificate or of any charge certificate when a person applies for the registration of a notice in respect of an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992."
(4) In any case where—

(a) an access order is discharged under section 5(1) (a) below, and

(b) the order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Charges Act 1972 or by a notice or caution under the Land Registration Act 1925,

the court may by order direct that the entry, notice or caution shall be cancelled.
(5) The rights conferred on a person by or under an access order are not capable of constituting an overriding interest within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 1925, notwithstanding that he or any other person is in actual occupation of the whole or any part of the servient land in question.
(6) An application for an access order shall be regarded as a pending land action for the purposes of the Land Charges Act 1972 and the Land Registration Act 1925.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 20. I beg to move the new clause as printed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Human Rights in Northern Ireland
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the second report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland presented to Her Majesty's Government on 26th March 1990.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before introducing this debate, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having managed to rearrange his diary for this evening. I know he had a problem with the date and I should like to say how very much I appreciate his being with us. Moreover, I am also grateful to other noble Lords who will be taking part in this debate, although I am sorry that we have lost the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who has gone off for electoral reasons and abandoned us. That is a great pity.
I shall give a little background to this debate. As your Lordships will know, the Standing Advisory
896
Committee on Human Rights was established by Section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973. Its purpose was to advise the Secretary of State on the adequacy and effectiveness of the law for the time being in force in preventing discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion, and providing redress for persons aggrieved by discrimination on either ground.
In February, 1985 the then Secretary of State, the right honourable Douglas Hurd, said that the Government shared the commission's commitment to further human rights in the interests of all the people in Northern Ireland. This is the second report of the commission on its review of the laws and institutions aimed at preventing religious and political discrimination in the Province and providing equality of opportunity.
This follows on from the first report which was on fair employment and which was submitted to Parliament in October 1987. I believe that everybody would agree with me when I say that these reports from the commission are invariably well researched and well argued and that the report before us this evening is a good example of the high standard that they attain. I take this opportunity to congratulate Sir Oliver Napier, who is chairman of the commission, and all the members for the painstaking and valuable work they do.
Before commenting on the content of the report, I must register a word of reproach to the Government, which, I think, is unfortunately unavoidable. It will soon be two years since the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland received this report, but there has not been one word uttered in response. Similarly, although it is now 19 years since the commission was established, Parliament has not yet debated a single one of its 18 reports. It has produced 16 annual reports—the one of last year was of great interest—and these two reports, and not one of them has attracted any word from Parliament. I hope that at least this Unstarred Question will provide the Minister with an opportunity to start to put that right.
May I start by giving a brief resume of the report — it will of course be filled out by other speakers—before turning to one or two recommendations that I find of particular importance. This 135 page report contains 84 recommendations aimed at tackling what it states are gaps in the law, including constitutional law, which help create and reinforce continuing inequalities. In particular it argues that all the state's citizens should be treated equally as of right and that steps must be taken to ensure, through legislation, that all feel part of the state.
Citizens are entitled to have their cultural, political and religious traditions respected. In that regard the lack of race relations legislation in Northern Ireland is noted. It is a point that other noble Lords will bring out in the debate. The lack of any right to use the Irish language for official purposes is also noted. The report argues that these failings need to be remedied and that it should be specified in legislation when Irish can be used in dealings with the state. It also recommends that race relations legislation should be introduced.
A major section of the report stresses the need for anti discrimination legislation, not just relating to employment but to the provision of goods, facilities and services in both private and public sectors. Thus the commission calls for the outlawing of discrimination in, for example, leasing properties, the sale of goods, and the provision of contracts for services. Likewise, no new legislation should be passed which would have a,
"significant relative adverse impact on one particular section of the community".
There is a call for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law, and the establishment of independent procedures for complaints against the British Army. The report also recommends greater energy from the state in promoting integration in both education and housing schemes.
I should like to highlight one or two of the recommendations in the hope that perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will respond to the points I make. First, indirect discrimination. This is obviously an important part of the report. As its authors say, the definition of religious and political discrimination in the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973 did not include indirect discrimination, and they believe that that Act should be widened for this purpose. They say that if the Government do not wish to make legislative changes, then at least these recommendations would be very good subjects for discussion with the leaders of the four constitutional parties. I fully agree with that, and I would be interested to have the Minister's response.
In chapter 2, the report points out that the 1989 survey shows Catholic male unemployment as being two and half times greater than among Protestant males. I should like to ask the Minister whether any measures have been taken in response to the commission's proposals that more labour market information needs to be collected in order to assess imbalances whether in employment or unemployment. If one knows the situation, one is better able to deal with it.
On rather the same theme, the chapter also highlights the all-important need for monitoring. The commission recommends that a procedure should be introduced by public bodies to monitor the impact of their own policies and practices on equality of treatment of the two main communities. It stresses the importance of monitoring and keeping an eye on the changes that are made, and the impact that the changes have on the two communities. That is an important part of the report.
An interesting chapter deals with the effectiveness of the Ombudsman. I hope that perhaps some other speaker will refer to it. I should like to ask the Minister about the important subject of complaints against the security forces, and the recommendation that an effective, independent complaints procedure should be established for complaints against the Army. I know that the Army is separate, but when thinking about Northern Ireland one thinks very much about the security services. I also know that there are assessors to report on how the Army deals with complaints, but
898
the commission was thinking more of the greater independence of the procedure for dealing with complaints against the Army. The commission states that there is considerable cross-community perception of discriminatory practice by the security services and feels that measures to rectify it are of the greatest importance.
In chapter 8 the report discusses education. Again I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the funding of schools, which comes out in this part of the report. The report suggests that serious consideration should be given to the possibility of equal funding to denominationally controlled and integrated schools, and to make more explicit provision in the education legislation of Northern Ireland for parents to have the right to have their children educated in either. Many of us in this House, who were involved with Lagan College over the years, have seen its proven success. The equal funding of the two different kinds of education is an important point.
It seems vital to keep this whole field under constant review. One needs to watch for changes in parents' wishes because this can happen quickly. Parents move away from the old traditional ideas of having their children in a denominationally-controlled school. It is something that has to be monitored. The chapter also refers to the use of the Irish language. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies will say a word about that.
The last point I wish to make regards chapter 10, which is about the future role and function of the commission. Here the report argues that the standing advisory commission must have greater independence and freedom of action if it really is to fulfil its objective of protecting human rights in Northern Ireland. I hope that when he replies the Minister will tell us whether the Government have plans to develop the role of this all-important body by widening its original remit through amending the 1973 Act.
I cannot make any other points about the report. However, in more general terms I wish to say that I do not believe that we in Britain can become complacent in regard to the international view of Britain's record on human rights in Northern Ireland. Last year there were many anxieties expressed from various quarters —Amnesty International, the US human rights umbrella group, Helsinki Watch and the UN human rights committee. In November 1991 a panel of non-governmental organisations met at the UN in New York and expressed serious anxiety about the UK human rights record in Northern Ireland. It is attracting the attention of many human rights organisations throughout the world and is something we must bear in mind.
I understand that the reaction to the report in Northern Ireland was serious. It was well reported in the press and perhaps the only reason it was not more extensively covered was the lack of response to it from the Government. In conclusion, therefore, the commission's role is critical not only to bring about greater justice and increased trust among the people of Northern Ireland but also to improve the human rights image that we have in the world.
Discrimination in employment, together with religious and political discrimination, as well as abuse of any human rights, are at the heart of the division between the two traditions. Britain's apparent failure to deal effectively with such injustices is placing a barrier to the achievement of that final settlement.
I end as I started. The Secretary of State in 1973 thought it right and necessary to set up a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The commission has successfully fulfilled the role given to it. Therefore, why have not the Government made use of that framework for the purpose for which it was set up—namely, to recommend improvements in antidiscrimination law and respect for human rights? The long process towards achieving a just and durable resolution of Northern Ireland divisions can only come out of conciliation. There can be little doubt that conciliation can prosper only in a climate where discrimination is outlawed and human rights are respected.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the report comes, as did its predecessor, as a direct result of events in Northern Ireland which began with the civil rights movement—the highlighting of events in Northern Ireland in 1968 and 1969. At that time the Scarman Tribunal was set up by the British Government. Anyone who has read the tribunal's report and the evidence given can be in no doubt that a disastrous state of affairs had existed in Northern Ireland since the creation of the state in 1920 up to and throughout the civil rights movement.
Because of the positive action then taken by the Labour Government when they began to look at what was happening in that part of the United Kingdom, one was left in no doubt, as the Scarman Report said, that there had been a vicious system of discrimination against the minority in Northern Ireland since the creation of the state. Discrimination in its most brutal form took place in the allocation of homes and houses from local authorities and in the giving of employment.
Northern Ireland since its creation had been run as a one-party state, not unlike the South African Government of today. Indeed, there are many similarities of attitude by those in power in South Africa today and those who were in power in Northern Ireland for 50 years. They saw their political opponents as a threat to their domination. I lived in Northern Ireland at that time; I was born and bred there. I lived in a Catholic ghetto and, like many others of my religion, I was a victim of the vicious system of discrimination.
After the terrible events of Bloody Sunday in 1972—which again was an illustration of the attitude of the Stormont Government to those who dared to oppose them—to their credit the Tory Government abolished Stormont. The following year the Northern Ireland Act 1973 was introduced, under which Northern Ireland is governed at the present time. A commission was set up under the authority of the British Government to look into the allegations being made
900
by the Scarman Inquiry and to see whether steps could be taken which would do away with the most disastrous effects of 50 years of Unionist domination in Northern Ireland.
I do not want to make a party political point here. We had a Labour Government from 1964 to 1970 and from 1974 to 1979. I have already said that a Labour Government instituted inquiries in the wake of the civil rights movement and a Conservative Government in the wake of the Bloody Sunday killings in 1972. But I thought that in setting up the commission and with the people who were appointed to it—people with a knowledge of Northern Ireland—all the areas that needed to be remedied would be defined.
I was somewhat disappointed—and here I make apologies for my own inaction because I was a Member of another place from 1966 until 1983. I read that the commission has said that every year since being appointed in 1972 it has given an annual report to whichever Government are in power. The main report on discrimination led to the promulgation of the anti-discrimination legislation in employment, and now we have the second report. But it is 19 years since the commission was established and neither the House of Commons nor this House has debated any one of those annual reports. One would have thought that the situation was so serious in Northern Ireland that much more parliamentary attention could have been given to those reports.
It is known throughout Irish history that perceptions in either of the communities are what really matter. Statistics are not all-important, although the statistics examined by the commission are relevant. But it is the perception of the discrimination which exists in every walk of life in Northern Ireland that is important. I hope that the debate on the report this evening will alert the Government—whichever government may be in power—to pay much more attention to the perceived and justified allegations of discrimination which exist in Northern Ireland.
The commission said that it would like to see a new Northern Ireland Act to replace that of 1973, be it in an amended form or completely new. It would take into account many of the legalities which are so necessary in trying to juggle with the problems of Northern Ireland. They have existed for 20 years, since the creation of the state, and unless we treat them with the urgency that they deserve, the cancer will continue to grow on the body politic of Northern Ireland and lead to a continuation of the present troubles.
It may be that the 1973 Act will have to be amended or renewed. We may also have to look at the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 because that is also a factor in people's perception of what is happening in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that one can look at one little Act of Parliament piecemeal; the whole question will have to be looked at. I agree with what has been said by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs; namely, that there are many fields in which co-operation could be brought about by the four parliamentary leaders in Northern Ireland and which

901
have nothing to do with the constitution. They could talk about jobs, unemployment and the erasure of discrimination in jobs and housing. There are many fields in which they could co-operate without getting into the terrible morass of the constitutional position in Northern Ireland.
When I was a member of another place, in 1968 and 1969 we set up what was called the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster. All the demands that were made by that organisation have since been granted in Northern Ireland. One of the demands was for the setting up of an ombudsman in Northern Ireland. We had one for this part of the United Kingdom, but we wanted to see that provision extended so that there would be an ombudsman in Northern Ireland. That was one of the civil rights demands which was granted.
In its report, the commission has asked that the ombudsman should be able to take representation from people who feel aggrieved by the state without having recourse to a Member of Parliament. I am only too well aware that a Member of Parliament in this part of the United Kingdom is very conscious of his constituency boundaries. He does not like any other Member of Parliament interfering within his constituency. Northern Ireland is not like that. It has Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Republican representatives. One cannot restrict the activities of aggrieved constituents to go through their MPs.
Can anyone really believe that any Protestant now living on the Shankhill Road in Belfast is going to go to Gerry Adams? Can anyone really believe that Catholics who feel aggrieved are going to go in droves to see Dr. Paisley? I know that he tells everyone that he has millions of Catholics coming to his advice centre. I believe that to be somewhat exaggerated. But MPs who represent constituents in Northern Ireland are not in the same position as MPs in other parts of the United Kingdom. A recommendation has come from the commission that people should be able to take their grievances directly to the ombudsman without having to go through a Member of Parliament.
The commission also says that it is disappointed that the Government have not accepted its recommendation that there should be sound and video recording of interviews by police in the Castlereagh holding centre. I am not an opponent of the RUC. Throughout my political life I have been a supporter of that organisation. I believe that there is the perception in Northern Ireland, be it justified or not, that when people are brought to that holding centre, they are badly treated. That may or may not be true. One way to prove that it is untrue would be by the installation of video equipment.
Again, the commission has said that there may be a reluctance on the part of the Government to initiate any moves in the situation as regards the commission's recommendations because political talks may be taking place. As the chairman of the commission said to me today, he remembered going to the Darlington conference in 1973. Now it is nearly 20 years later, and we have had talks about talks, but the problem is still with us. That is after a period of 20 years. When I refer to a period of 20 years, that does not mean only 20
902
years to me; it means a whole list of people who have been killed in Northern Ireland year by year, month by month and day by day; and 27 of those have been killed this year.
We should try to take steps to bring about a cessation of the violence in Northern Ireland. Therefore no government should use the fact that we are in a political vacuum to say that we cannot do anything in relation to the report because there may be a devolved government settled in Stormont. I have serious doubts whether there ever will be a devolved government. I know that the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 was designed to bring about reconciliation and devolved community government in Northern Ireland. It signally failed to do so. I cannot see devolved government taking place in the very near future although I hope I am proved wrong.
There are many Catholic and Protestant people in Northern Ireland who feel that they may get a better deal, or that they may be already getting a better deal, from this Government in relation to legislation affecting human rights than they would get in the event of a devolved government being installed in Northern Ireland. The Government should not use the possibility of talks to prevent them from taking action in relation to the report. On page 119 of the report a question is raised about discrimination against people in the field of disablement. I know that that would appear to be removed from the main content of the report, but it is something which the commission should look at and report on as quickly as it can.
At page 119 of the report the commission questions its role and its future role. This has been a very worthwhile commission set up under the aegis of this Government. If the commission needs further powers, they should be readily given. The personnel involved with the commission are from Northern Ireland; they live there and they are desperately seeking to bring about a situation that will in some way contribute to cessation of the violence. The report is very worthwhile and it should be given the seriousness that it deserves by the Government.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend for initiating this debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the Second Report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. As the previous speaker rightly said, this is the first time that Parliament has discussed any report of the commission in the 20 years since its inception. The report is a follow up to one presented by the commission in October 1987 concerning fair employment.
It can be said that either I or my noble friend Lord Fitt could have raised the matter of the report. I can only plead an old story among parliamentarians and Lobby journalists, but certainly not among noble Lords, which goes something like this: it is said that when governments face a pressing problem or they have to act or face up to an issue which they are reluctant to deal with, the usual action is to set up a commission to study the issues. The commission takes several years to produce a report which gives the

903
government valuable breathing space. The report of the commission is carefully considered by government Ministers before being ignored.
Some cynics view this Government-appointed commission in that light. It may be that I was one of them; it may be that I have something of a cynical attitude towards all Royal Commissions and government commissions. That is because in the main, and it is not cynical to say, that provision is a good get-out for a Minister or government in trouble and they wish to push an issue under the carpet for the time being. Therefore, there is a certain amount of justifiable cynicism attached to any commission. If it is not cynicism, there are ways of dealing with the situation. "Let us watch the situation and let us see how it goes before we make any comment. Let us have a good look at it and see how it operates". That might have been the reason for the apparent lack of interest so far in the report, and certainly as regards the fair employment report.
That 1987 report began to reverse the process. I obtained the impression that here was somebody who was trying to do a job, but that it was they who were being ignored by the Government not the other way round. I took the trouble to read most of that report. Again, I did not ask for a debate. Perhaps that was a mistake—it probably was—but that is all the more reason why we should discuss the report tonight.
The report deals with discrimination and promotion of equality of opportunities in areas other than employment, although it covers employment as well. As the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, it covers 135 pages of very well argued and very well researched material on how to tackle what it says are the gaps in the law. That term includes the constitutional law. It is a catalogue of continuing inequalities.
I began to read the report and was weaving my way through what seemed to be a jungle of cross-references and paragraphs when I received a copy of the Commission's brief. That made all the difference. I was then able to read with some sense through the whole report. It was an excellent brief and I was very grateful to receive it.
In the introduction to the report the Commission begins by listing a summary of legislation and research and discrimination in Northern Ireland since 1969. It is a very impressive list. It is quite an achievement in the field of discrimination in certain areas since 1969. I shall quote from page 9 paragraph 2/7. The report states:
"The above developments"
—that is the list of legislation—
"important though they are in promoting human rights, must not detract from the need for further initiatives: the evidence suggests that inequalities as between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, have persisted. The Commission believes that Government must ensure that the legislative framework for the administration and regulation of Northern Ireland's affairs cannot be criticised on grounds of failure to afford protection from discrimination or to promote full 'equality of opportunity'".
The report argues, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, that perceptions—certainly in Northern Ireland, we all know that—are as important as statistics. That
904
means adopting the broadest possible approach on discrimination; a far broader approach than some people in this House might interpret it to mean in the circumstances that exist in this part of the United Kingdom.
The Commission goes on to say that laws and practices which are manifestly fair and subject to clearly impartial review have an important part to play in making Northern Ireland a more tolerant society. I would go a shade further and say such legislation and laws are crucial necessities if we are to be taken seriously about our approach to the task of reconciling the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Dr. Christopher McCrudden, an accredited expert in the field and Fellow of Lincoln College at the University of Oxford, writes very openly on these matters. In a contribution to a recent publication on the subject of discrimination and public policy in Northern Ireland he said:
"Greater equality between Catholics and Protestants in the distribution of economic resources remains a key element in the reconstruction and reform of Northern Ireland."
We are saying that there is a consensus of informed opinion among people who live and work there and who represent areas there. Those who take part in academic discussions there form a consensus of opinion that something has to be done if we are to be taken seriously about reconciliation. My own view is that no British Government has taken it seriously so far. It is not too late and I hope that discussions like this will speed up matters.
Perhaps I may say that in view of that consensus we are entitled to ask why we have waited so long for more positive action to be taken on some of the recommendations that have been floating around for all these years. For instance, have they been discussed in the near-secret talks? It is very difficult to get any detailed minutes or information about the secret talks that go on between the political leaders of Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister. We get a couple of sentences if we ask for them; and if we insist we might get a one-page document with little or nothing on it. I have yet to see a detailed minute of any of those discussions. We are denied sight on grounds of security, or some such excuse. I should like to know, if the Minister can tell the House, whether those matters have been discussed in that setting and in that forum?
A few statistics have already been mentioned. Some of them were published in 1989, which is fairly recent. Others go back to 1987—almost 20 years since the beginning of that civil rights campaign referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. That survey, as the noble Baroness said, shows that, in spite of all the activity, Catholic male unemployment is still two-and-a-half times greater than that among Protestant males. That takes account of all the various factors. If 100,000 jobs were created the ratio would still be the same. Whatever happens, the ratio has come out for a long time at about the same figure.
On incomes, a survey shows that where Catholics were working 13 per cent. of them were lucky if they earned over £10,000. That compares with 21 per cent. for the Protestant population. That is a considerable difference in salary.

905
A Policy Studies Institute survey on housing showed that there is a public perception and some evidence that Catholics are getting a worse deal in public sector housing. That is documented again in the Commission's report. In another report on education, commissioned by SACHR and presented by McCormack and Osborne in 1991, a link was found between lower recurrent and capital funding of Catholic schools and Catholic school-leavers' lower academic achievement compared with Protestants. So there is enough up-to-date evidence to show that discrimination still exists in those crucial fields. Therefore, we are entitled to ask such questions as: what measures have been taken in response to the Commission's proposals that the Northern Ireland housing executive, for instance, should move towards explicitly and openly monitoring the equal opportunities implications of its practice? We are entitled to ask that.
Chapter 4 of the report goes on to state that,
"it is not satisfied that the provisions of the 1973 Act provide a satisfactory and effective guarantee against governmental discrimination within the current constitutional framework, either under continuing direct rule or in the event of the re-establishment of a devolved government, or legislature in Northern Ireland".
As has already been mentioned, they are seeking amendments to the 1973 Act to remedy that situation.
Critics of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 as well as a Policy Studies Institute survey in 1987 found that the 1976 legislation had had little effect on employers' attitudes, and even less on their practices. Job discrimination was still thought to be justifiable in certain circumstances—almost like the series of television programmes with Alf Garnett. It was a recent series about a factory situation in Northern Ireland where the question of discrimination arose in respect of the foreman who was employing people. The questions were relevant to the situation. It was a very good skit based on the kind of questions that are asked. It is not necessary to ask where someone went to school because if you know his name is Kevin, Sean or Seamus you will know the answer. If his name is not known and you find out his school you will still know who he is.
I recall reading a health department document in which there was an attempt to get rid of all that. Printed in large letters on the application form were the words:
"There is no need to give the name of your school or the type of your school when you apply for a job in this department".
However, on page 3 of the form the applicant was asked for two references, one of which had to be from the principal of the previous school attended. So the problem still exists even though some half hearted-attempts have been made to overcome it.
I turn now to informal recruitment, where the job goes on the basis of word of mouth recommendations and there are no formal procedures for employment. I cannot remember the statistics but I was quite surprised by how many employment procedures are carried out in that fashion. They contribute to some continuing levels of segregation. Investigations by the Fair Employment Agency appear not to have made any impact. It was felt that the restrained negotiating
906
approach rather than enforcement had failed and that an apparent lack of interest on the part of governments of the time did little to convince people that they were more serious about the issues of direct and indirect discrimination in employment and housing, to mention only two key areas.
That is much the same position as we used to find with the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, under which employers had to reach a 3 per cent. quota of disabled people. There were no teeth in that Act. Every time the issue was raised—it was raised a million times; I raised it time after time—the excuse was given, "We would rather go the negotiating way; we would rather have the softly-softly approach; we would rather try to convince employers". That never worked and eventually it was decided that the system was not working at all and it was scrubbed. That was fought but there has been a state of flux since 1944. Such an approach did not work in that regard and it did not work in regard to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act either.
People question whether there is any point in these commissions. They judge, quite wrongly, that the commissions pussy foot around and cannot do anything because they do not have the necessary powers. The commission therefore believes that there is an urgent need for general legal measures to allow positive action to address imbalances. That is a recognition that the system was not working and it should be recognised by the Government that something has to be done. The Government must promote equality monitoring in all fields and must ensure that any exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation are in compliance with international human rights law.
Chapter 4 makes 21 separate recommendations for legislative safeguards against discrimination and deals with remedies, enforcement and monitoring. Later in the report it is argued that absence of concrete proposals for devolution should not be taken as a reason for delay in bringing forward legislation. I agree with that. There is no point in waiting for proposals from future governments. We can do it in advance if we have the political will. The commission has given us the ammunition and the right to do it. What further consideration has been given to the commission's recommendations on this aspect of discrimination?
The ombudsman has been mentioned by previous speakers. I should like to mention him myself but I am beginning to take up a little too much time. Nonetheless there are some recommendations in relation to the ombudsman. I find it strange that two different offices are set up—one for the ombudsman and one for police complaints—but one man does both jobs. If he does both jobs, why is not the title changed? Why separate them in this way?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, there is an ombudsman for maladministration and an ombudsman for local government, but police complaints are dealt with by the RUC. The ombudsman does not look into complaints.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the roles of ombudsman for maladministration and of ombudsman for local government should be combined and the job renamed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that people should not have to go through a Member of Parliament. I do not believe that people should have to go through a Member of Parliament here, let alone in Northern Ireland. Why erect buffers between ordinary citizens and the ombudsman? The Government are keen on citizens' charters and all kinds of other things. How can they justify erecting buffers between the citizen and the only person who may be able to do something for them? A Member of Parliament is not always prepared to take up an issue. It depends on who he is, even with my party. There is justification in arguing that people should be allowed to go straight to the ombudsman with a complaint.
I wish to mention one other point before I sit down. Page 3 of the summary mentions prisoners' rights, an issue with which I have been involved for a long time. The paragraph in the report—I shall not read it out but I hope that the Minister will read it—covers the rights of prisoners and asks that the United Kingdom should provide explicitly for account to be taken of difficulties which close relatives may have in visiting prisoners. The paragraph goes on to make other suggestions. I agree with what is stated in the summary.
I could be forgiven in some ways for thinking that there is discrimination by Ministers and officials in the length of time taken to answer Questions which I put down on the subject of prisoner transfers and in the quality and content of the replies which I receive. I could quite reasonably accuse them of discrimination in that respect. What progress has been made about the issue of transfers to Northern Ireland, as outlined in the summary? When can we expect some progress? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has already tabled a Question in a similar vein. I hope that we can make progress on that.
I have never disguised my views of the situation in Northern Ireland and I do not intend to do so now. Although it might take much longer than I have tonight to explain all of them, for the purpose of this debate it is enough to say that I do not believe that there is a military solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. There has to be a political solution. While the search for that solution goes on, steps can be taken to try to reconcile the two main communities. It should be recognised that there are two communities—two main communities; there are others now—and that there are inequalities and injustices. In addition, we should accept the recommendations of this excellent report and act speedily on them.
If I had had time I would have liked to have ended with a few more quotations. Suffice it to say that I hope that the Minister is listening. I hope that he will reply to some of the questions raised in the debate and that we shall see promises of action. We know that we will get action after the election but there might still be time before the election is called to put some of these recommendations into being.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am well aware that there has been a great increase in the level of terrorism and intercommunal violence since last Summer and perhaps even more so since last Christmas. It so happens that a longstanding friend of mine suffered very severe damage to his office in central Belfast as the result of a recent car bombing. I also know that terrorist activity has increased not only in Northern Ireland but also in England.
I have the highest respect for the courage, skill and devotion to duty of the vast majority of the security services, both men and women. I am as convinced as any one of your Lordships of the importance of bringing terrorists to justice and of convicting those who are guilty. I am also perfectly well aware that at least some terrorists have been trained to say nothing under questioning and interrogation and are encouraged to lodge complaints if they possibly can, and probably even to invent them where none is justified. It is therefore with some regret that I find it necessary tonight to examine and raise the question of what happens to suspects between the time of their arrest and the moment at which they are charged or released.
My personal background in the matter is a little unusual. I have had some very privileged experiences. As a result of prison visiting I have come to know, visit and correspond over a considerable period of years with one member of the Birmingham Six, one member of the Guildford Four and one member of the Ulster Defence Regiment group which is sometimes also known as the "Armagh Four". As regards the last group of prisoners, the Minister will know quite well that no less than 100,000 people signed a petition asking the Secretary of State to refer their cases to the Court of Appeal. We are most grateful to the Secretary of State for doing just that. I believe that it is widely hoped that those cases will be heard again in the Court of Appeal fairly soon.
I have also recently been able to visit Mr. Thomas Greene, a convicted prisoner in Northern Ireland, who happens to be a Protestant. In the course of a conversation he said to me, "I would have signed for every murder in Belfast to get them off my back". What he meant by "them" in that case was the officers of the RUC who were interviewing and questioning him. It is also a matter of common knowledge that very considerable sums of money have been paid in compensation to prisoners or detainees who had established a sufficiently strong case of maltreatment so that the authorities were prepared to make out of court settlements.
Over the years, we have seen a number of government reports starting, I believe, with the Compton Report, followed by the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the 1979 report of Judge Bennett—which is perhaps the most important one—and more recently the annual reports of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. All of those reports have drawn attention to malpractices concerning persons in custody. But, if that were not enough, the whole subject has preoccupied the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights over a period of years.

909
It has featured in a number of the commission's annual reports. Last year, 1991, major submissions were made by the voluntary body in Northern Ireland which has concentrated a great deal of attention on the problem. I refer to the Committee on the Administration of Justice. There were also unprecedented steps taken by Amnesty International and a whole volume produced by Helsinki Watch to which I believe reference was made earlier.
I hope that the combination of all those documents may have secured an improvement in the situation. It certainly had not done so up until August or September of that year. There have been far too many complaints of a combination of physical abuse, threats and inducements. What happens when such tactics are used? I would say that those who are strongest and toughest are able to withstand such methods, but others, who are not so physically and mentally well equipped, crumble; they make statements and sign confessions.
What are the results of that? First, we get some wrongful convictions. I believe it is important to note that more than three-quarters of the convictions obtained over a number of years in the Diplock Courts have relied either solely or mainly on the evidence of confessions. The second effect is propaganda and recruitment for terrorist groups. There is a third evil consequence; namely, that the good reputation of this country is blackened and diminished, not only in Ireland but also throughout the world. The fourth bad consequence is that Britain finds itself in default or not fully complying with its obligations under international conventions which it has signed.
Therefore, I suggest that we need very greatly improved safeguards for suspects and people being interviewed. A Question I tabled in your Lordships' House and the correspondence which ensued in response from the Minister—which, incidentally, is deposited in the Library—has convinced me at least that the present system of closed circuit television monitoring of interviews which takes place at Castlereagh and the other holding centres is not an effective protection. I am sorry to have to say that, but I think there is little doubt about it.
In the course of one or perhaps more of his annual reports, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has suggested that there should be video and audio taping of interviews. Can the Minister tell us whether and when that will be put into effect? It has also been suggested that there should be a code of practice to cover such matters. I believe that that is provided for under Section 61 of the emergency provisions Act. Can the Minister say when that will be produced?
A further suggested safeguard is that there should be lay visitors, or possibly an independent commissioner, who would be able to visit Castlereagh and the other holding centres at any time of the night or day. Other people have asked for earlier access to suspects by solicitors and also for them to be able to consult their own doctor at an earlier stage than now applies. It would be interesting to have some news or information about those suggestions. Another
910
possibility is that there should be a higher standard of admissibility in court than now applies or that a confession should be corroborated by other evidence.
It occurred to me that it might be an improvement if there were a cooling off period between the time the statement is written down and when it is signed. There may be scope for an independent person to explain to the suspect what the legal implications of his confession are likely to be. Another approach would be for the Government to accept, and act upon, the United Nations principles for the protection of detainees contained in General Assembly document 43/173 of December 1988.
The Committee on the Administration of Justice put forward nine points for remedial action in a submission to the United Nations committee against torture. That document was dated 13th November 1991. I shall be interested to hear whether the Government will comment upon that document and say whether they accept any of those nine points.
I have been inquiring into, and corresponding with Ministers, on those matters for some considerable time. It is very much a matter of regret that it is hard to pin down responsibility. One is likely to be moved around Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, the Chief Constable, the police authority and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. I wish responsibility for those matters were more clear cut. I have also to say that I find it unsatisfactory that when complaints are made it is the RUC which is called upon to investigate itself. There is scope for improvement there.
I conclude by saying that the complaints which exercise us have not all come from fully grown adult men. In July 1991 there were complaints from two women—Rose Maguire and Monica Boyle. Last summer there were complaints from Kevin Mulholland and four other young men arrested at about the same time for similar offences. None of those was over the age of 18 and some were under it. It underlines the seriousness of the matter when we have complaints emanating from women and young adult males. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some satisfaction when he replies.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, a few years ago I was in Northern Ireland trying to help with some of the problems over their museums and galleries. I was taken around by a driver who was born and bred in Belfast. We talked, naturally, of many things. At one point he said, with typical Belfast wit, "You know, sir, there is only one solution to the Northern Ireland problem. You people over there should re-establish the British Empire and persuade those fellows in the South to apply for admission to it." I found that one of my most melancholy moments, because the only solution that that driver could find lay in the impossible recreation of the past.
Today, I am greatly cheered by reading the report of the commission which looks resolutely to the future and seeks its solutions there. I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed that the Minister is today not supported by any of his friends from the Back

911
Benches. Not one has put down his name to speak and, as far as I can see, only one is in his place. I am sure that that fact will not go unnoticed in Northern Ireland.
It is probably true to say that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights commands widespread trust and respect for its integrity, breadth of vision and determination to address the deepest moral and social problems which face it. It was not always so. In the early years after its establishment in 1973, it was sometimes criticised for over-carefulness; for not speaking out; and for what some felt was pusillanimity. But, as the years have passed, it has grown in stature, authority, utterance, and, dare one say it, in favour with God and man. Its second report is a most powerful statement, the most powerful it has yet produced, and it is very welcome. That is not to say, of course, that it is flawless, or that it does not leave many questions unanswered and much still to be done. Its very scope presents problems.
As we have said, the report makes no fewer than 84 recommendations in 11 separate sections. They range from general proposals about the constitutional framework to detailed consideration of specific legislation such as the Race Relations Act. Yet, so far as I can see, there has been no attempt to evaluate and order the relative importance of the proposals, or to establish any order of priority. One could ask, "Well, what shall we do first? Which of these proposals is the key to the others? Which problem is the most urgent?", and the report would not offer an answer.
Some of the recommendations, although they may appear simple, do, in fact, go deep into the social structures and have wide implications. I think especially of the chapter on discrimination in the public sector where the report makes a distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. A most important point is made in section 4.10 where the commission argues that indirect discrimination (that is, discrimination which is not necessarily intentional, but which results from the application of rules, policies or practices) may be as significant in creating or maintaining inequalities as direct discrimination. That is a most trenchant point. The understanding and application of it will need to percolate into all levels of society, and that will not happen overnight.
The establishment and reform of indirect discrimination will be one of the longer lasting activities which the report will initiate. We must all be grateful to Sir Oliver Napier and his commissioners for being prepared to take where necessary the long view. The report is never guilty of short-sightedness or short-termism. Some of its proposals are much more immediate. The recommendations on racial discrimination in the sections following 7.4 (pages 72 to 75) seem to be much more urgent and to allow for little delay.
I must confess to having some slight reservations about that area of the report in that I have neither heard nor read of any great difficulties over race relations in Northern Ireland, certainly nothing
912
remotely comparable with the problems created by the clash of the two communities. I am sure that we would all agree that there is,
"no doubt that racial discrimination or discrimination against disabled people in any form is as objectionable in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom".
That appears on page 71. The report goes on:
"There are no official statistics showing the proportion of the population in Northern Ireland which belongs to an ethnic minority".
There surely should be. If the problem of race relations is acute and sizeable in Northern Ireland, then the commission's recommendations should be implemented quickly. If, on the other hand, the problem is small and infrequent in occurrence, then regretfully one must say that there are more explosive and immediate issues which imperiously demand to be addressed. I should be grateful for any clarification or elaboration which the Minister can give on the question which has been explored at length in the commission's report.
I should also have welcomed greater clarity and guidance from the commission on the relative urgencies in this area, which is perhaps to say no more than I have already said about the importance of establishing priorities among the 84 important recommendations.
I have nothing but praise, however, for the delicate and sensible way the commission has approached the question of discrimination and equality of opportunity in the field of education. Sections 4.20, 6.23 and 8.48 to 8.52, taken together, make a most persuasive case for establishing and maintaining a true balance between Catholic and Protestant schools. The commission has embarked on a major research programme on the impact of segregated educational structures in Northern Ireland for equality of opportunity in employment. The interim statement that it has been able to make in this report is carefully quoted and worth quoting at some length. On page 94 it states:
"There may therefore be some advantage in granting formal constitutional or statutory guarantees to both Catholic and Protestant schools that they will be treated equally and without discrimination, while also guaranteeing in some way the right of parents to choose integrated schooling if they so wish. On this approach the problem of different educational provision and achievement in the two main sections of the community, referred to in chapter 2, may best be dealt with by ensuring that there is full equality of funding for all schools rather than maintaining what amounts to a 'penalty' in respect of capital funding for those schools which wish to maintain some independence from governmental control".
That is expressed in the most measured terms, but it goes very deeply towards the heart of the educational problem in Northern Ireland. The ultimate solution, I suppose, to all the problems of Northern Ireland must in large part depend on the way children are educated. Prejudice, fear, hatred, aggression, mistrust and all uncharitableness, as we well know, can be built into a child's experience in school. It can also be built out, and it must be built out.
I was happy to see that the commission will inquire into these issues and into the solutions that have been adopted in other jurisdictions in the context of its programme of research into the educational system. I

913
would personally put this as one of the commission's highest priorities and most immediate concerns. I hope that the Minister will agree with me.
One can also praise the firm good sense of the commission in refusing to be hijacked by the fashionable excesses in matters of discrimination. Your Lordships will be aware that we are currently deeply engaged in your Lordships' House on work to improve the law on charities through the new Charities Bill. I was pleased to read in the commission's view, in Section 6.20 that,
"it would be unwarranted to attempt to interfere with charities whose beneficiaries are defined or restricted on the grounds of religious belief. It recommends that discrimination on grounds of religious belief should remain lawful for charities".
That is all the more welcome because it would have been easy and have gained such nice cheap publicity to recommend otherwise.
Taken altogether, this is a serious, sensible, weighty and, in some respects, a most courageous report. But there is one fact relating to it which my noble friends and I on this side of the House cannot praise. The commission's first report, the Report on Fair Employment, was presented to Parliament in October 1987. Work on the second report has occupied the commission since that date. Sir Oliver Napier's letter to the Secretary of State enclosing the second report is dated 26th March 1990. So the report has been in the hands of Her Majesty's Government for all but two years. We still await—and more importantly, Sir Oliver and the commissioners still await—Her Majesty's Government's response. The entire report, appendices and all, runs to 135 pages. Granted that there are many other urgent things to do in Northern Ireland, granted that the report deals with concepts and issues which are sometimes of great intellectual difficulty, and granted that officials may be slow readers, surely this is a long silence on such an important matter.
I trust that the Minister will not take refuge in blandishments like, "The commission has been kept in touch with our thinking", or "We shall respond in due course." We all know what that kind of language means. That would not be good enough. It would not — if I may say so with all due respect—be acceptable. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to explain why the Government are taking so long to respond. I hope he will tell your Lordships and the commission precisely when a response will be made. I hope that he will give us an assurance that this report will not be sidelined, marginalised, put on the shelf or consigned to the back-burner, but rather that it will be welcomed, that it will be implemented and that the implementation will be fully funded where funding is called for. This is an important report and it deserves nothing less.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for initiating this important debate and for her notable opening speech. The debate has given the House the opportunity for the first time in 19 years to draw attention to a report issued by the Standing Advisory Commission on
914
Human Rights in Northern Ireland. It has given us an opportunity to urge the Government to emerge at long last into the world with their full response to a second report on religious and political discrimination.
Northern Ireland is interested in the Government's response. I believe that the Council of Europe is interested in their response. As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs pointed out, the world is interested in the Government's response.
At the outset and in support of my noble friend, and like all others in the House, I wish to pay tribute to the commission's chairman, the members and staff of the commission and all those who have served it since it was set up in 1973. I thank them for the assistance that they have given to Members of your Lordships' House to prepare for the debate this evening.
I think it is fair to say that during its early days the commission was somewhat criticised in some quarters for side-stepping one or two awkward issues. However, during the past 10 years or so it has presented the case for reform of law and practice forcefully and with considerable skill. It has fully justified its existence. By today I believe it has won the confidence of civil rights workers as well as retaining the confidence of Ministers. That is not an easy achievement.
In Northern Ireland I believe there is agreement on at least the following. If Northern Ireland is to move towards a lasting reconciliation and stability, the historical barriers of prejudice and of political and religious discrimination which have divided the two communities for generations will have to be broken down. A forward looking policy must include their removal as quickly as possible.
Political and religious discrimination is still there and it is real. In addition to the evidence which my noble friend Lord Stallard has mentioned, the discrimination is illustrated, for example, by three recent decisions of the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Tribunal. Those decisions were announced in November and December last year. I refer to the cases of Duffy v. The Eastern Health and Social Services Board, McGrath v. Viper International Ltd. and the case of Neely v. Mullaqhboy Private Nursing Home. In each case the decision was given in favour of the complainant.
The 1990 Labour Force Survey by the Policy and Planning Research Unit—I believe that is the latest survey the unit has published—demonstrates persistent inequalities between Protestants and Catholics in the workplace. However, I am glad to note that it shows a slight improvement in unemployment rates. I accept that the imbalance probably cannot be fully explained on the basis of discrimination alone.
The commission's statutory remit is much narrower than its name implies. However, it is to the credit of the commission that it is no longer taking too narrow a view of its terms of reference. During recent years it has taken a wide view of the social, political and economic factors responsible for direct and indirect discrimination. As we have heard, the second report which we are discussing this evening is itself a

915
wide-ranging document. It is also a massive document. As we know, it contains about 84 specific recommendations.
I feel sure the commission would agree that some of the recommendations are more important than others. Like my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I believe it would have been helpful if the commission had indicated to which of the core elements of the recommendations it attached the highest priority. Nevertheless, it has emerged during the course of the excellent speeches made in this debate that the thrust of the report commands a great deal of support. Indeed no one has been moved to come to the Chamber this evening and speak against it.
I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will be speaking tonight on behalf of the Government. I am glad he has been able to attend the Chamber this evening. I hope he will be able to give the House an approximate indication of how many of the recommendations have been accepted in principle, how many have been rejected in principle and how many are still under consideration. That information would be helpful.
In the time available to me I wish to concentrate on about half a dozen of the recommendations in the report, some of which have already emerged in the speeches of other noble Lords this evening. I do not propose to raise any issue that was referred to in the 16th annual report of the commission, although obviously that was an important report. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, notice of the issues I intend to address tonight. I hope he will be able to respond sympathetically.
As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs pointed out in her excellent opening speech, it is a matter of major concern to the commission that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 does not specifically prohibit indirect discrimination. In the early 1970s when the Act was drawn up the concept of indirect discrimination was a new concept. That probably explains its omission from the Act. However, today the concept is well understood. The problem of indirect discrimination is real. We are told in the report that it exists in at least six important areas which are referred to in the key paragraph 4.20 of the report. In the judgment of the commission, those areas are education, grants to clubs and associations, broadcasting, the use of the Irish language, some aspects of public housing and some aspects of economic development. I am particularly glad to learn from the chairman this evening that the commission is currently addressing the issue of indirect discrimination in education. That is a crucial area as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
As I have said, indirect discrimination is not specifically mentioned in the 1973 Act. However, as the guiding principles of the governance of Northern Ireland are entrenched in the 1973 Act, and its provisions in the absence of a successor Act would be binding on a devolved assembly, it is important that they are amended to prohibit in clear and specific language indirect as well as direct discrimination. That
916
is the significance of the commission's recommendation. Do the Government agree that the 1973 Act should be amended or supplemented in this way?
The commission also advocates that there should be a statutory duty on all public bodies, including government departments—that point will not be lost on one government department—to monitor the impact of policy and practice to ensure they are not discriminatory, the information being strictly confined to that purpose. It is worth underlining that point. For my part I regard that as a crucial recommendation. Monitoring already plays an important role in the operation of fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can confirm that the Government for their part accept that monitoring should be a necessary and standard element of any anti-discrimination policy and that this recommendation of the commission is accepted.
I now turn to another issue. The report contains a section on the office of the ombudsman. Reference has already been made to some of the recommendations in this section. The ombudsman is an ex officio member of the commission. The present holder of the office, Mrs. Jill McIvor, took up the post after the report had been submitted to the Secretary of State. Therefore she is in no way implicated in this recommendation.
I am interested in two or possibly three of the recommendations. Is there not a strong case, as the commission recommends in paragraph 5.41, for giving the ombudsman the discretionary power to investigate, on receipt of a complaint, all actions, inactions or policies about discrimination? Is there not also a case for giving the ombudsman the power to investigate on his or her own initiative all areas of maladministration which come to his or her attention in the course of investigating a specific complaint? If I understand the recommendation correctly, that is what the commission proposes.
Another interesting point has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords this evening. As my noble friend Lord Fitt pointed out, it is understandable that in Northern Ireland there is a reluctance on the part of potential complainants to go along the prescribed path to the ombudsman's door. It appears that complainants can become bogged down if they set foot on that path. Surely the route to the ombudsman's door should not be perceived by potential complainants to be an obstacle course. The commission is very concerned about that procedure. Therefore, would it not be advisable to give complainants a statutory right of direct access to the ombudsman, as is recommended in paragraph 5.31? I understand that in practice the ombudsman accepts complaints direct from individual citizens, but as that practice rests on discretion we believe that it should be put on a proper statutory basis.
I now turn to the question of the legal status of the Irish language in Northern Ireland, the Irish language being the first official language in the republic. The commission's considered judgment on that issue is this:
"the way in which the Irish language is treated is a touchstone of the extent to which the existence of two traditions in Northern Ireland is treated seriously by the Government and the community at large".

917
Those measured words are set out in paragraph 8.42. The commission goes on to recommend that the ban on the use of Irish in street names should be lifted. In paragraph 8.47 it recommends that the Government, in consultation with other bodies, should consider the enactment of legislation prescribing the circumstances in which individuals or bodies would have a statutory right to use the Irish language in the conduct of their business with official bodies, although I note that the commission does not itself offer a precise legal formula to achieve that end.
I acknowledge that in recent years in Northern Ireland the Irish language has received much greater support from the Government, and in particular this present Government. Nevertheless there is a powerful case for moving ahead along the general lines recommended by the commission. That recommendation has acquired a greater significance since the reliable rumours from Strasbourg suggest very strongly that the United Kingdom, France, Turkey and Greece have it in mind, in April or May, to veto the draft Council of Europe charter for the protection of regional minority languages even though the charter is supported by the remaining 21 member states. The proposed charter would have gone a long way to safeguard the Irish language in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government are not content merely to defend the status quo. I hope that they will not veto the proposed charter and that they will now proceed to commission a review from senior officials of the options for legislation which are possible.
I shall now mention briefly another specialised issue which has already been referred to by my noble friends Lady Ewart-Biggs and Lord Morris of Castle Morris. The commission recommends that the provisions of the Race Relations Act should be extended to Northern Ireland. That recommendation is also supported by the Committee on the Administration of Justice. We are told that it would be helpful to the Chinese, Indian and Traveller communities in Northern Ireland.
However, I believe that I am not the only person who is unclear about that recommendation. It has occurred to me that it should involve an examination of the key term used in the Race Relations Act—"ethnic or national groups". I believe that that is necessary if we are to avoid some of the tricky situations which are suggested at page 65 of Cultural Traditions, published by the Cultural Traditions Group. That is an aspect which does not appear to have been explored by the commission in the report. I wonder whether a compromise is required which would alleviate the problems experienced by members of the Chinese, Indian and Traveller communities without having to rely on the provisions of the Race Relations Act. I look forward to the Minister's observations.
The commission reiterates that the European Convention on Human Rights should be incorporated into the domestic law of the United Kingdom. That has been the commission's well known position since 1976. The arguments are familiar to your Lordships and will be found in the Select Committee report published in 1978. I am sure that if the noble Lord,
918
Lord Holme of Cheltenham, had been able to be here this evening he would have supported that argument strongly.
It is unclear from the report whether the commission agrees that the convention should be incorporated in Northern Ireland law irrespective of whether it is incorporated in the domestic law of the United Kingdom as a whole. I understood from Sir Oliver earlier this evening that the commission agrees that Northern Ireland could, if necessary, proceed and establish the necessary precedent. An important part of the case for going ahead in Northern Ireland irrespective of what happens in the United Kingdom is made in paragraph 95 of the 1973 White Paper. The argument is summarised in these two sentences:
"The protection of fundamental human rights in Northern Ireland will henceforth flow from a number of different sources … But because important areas of government will he devolved to subordinate institutions, and this involves written constitutional provisions, it is practicable to legislate for the protection of human rights in a way which cannot readily be done elsewhere in the United Kingdom".
I was heartened that my noble friend Lord Fitt, who has immense personal experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland, supports the introduction of a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, ahead if need be of developments in the United Kingdom. All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland are in favour of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The case is also powerfully supported by the Committee on the Administration of Justice. It is also supported from these Benches and I hope that the arguments will be attractive to the Government and that a Bill of Rights will be placed on the agenda of the political talks which we trust for the sake of Northern Ireland will restart without too much further delay.
Finally, I come briefly to the need to strengthen the status, authority and legitimacy of the commission itself. We are sure that it should be as independent of the Government as possible. It should have its own secretariat, as it is quite unfair to put staff in the position where there can be a role conflict. It would be an intolerable position; after all, staff have to think of their careers. It should also be adequately staffed with specialist staff.
Moreover, we accept that its future role should be promotional and educational as well as advisory to the Secretary of State. It occurs to me that there is no reason why it should not have the power to convene a conference such as the International Human Rights Assembly in Northern Ireland Conference which is being convened in London on 6th and 8th April by the voluntary organisation Britain and Ireland Human Rights Project.
In conclusion, there is an immense amount of work for the commission to do if the historical barriers of prejudice and discrimination are to be removed. It is our hope on these Benches that the Minister will be able to indicate what improvements the Government have in mind to build into Northern Irish law and into the structure of the commission so that it is properly equipped to meet the challenge.
8.50 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity that the noble Baroness Lady Ewart-Biggs has given us this evening to discuss the Second Report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on Religious and Political Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity in Northern Ireland. I should like to join with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in congratulating unreservedly the members of the commission under the chairmanship of Sir Oliver Napier on such a comprehensive and challenging report. Having listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said in his speech about the importance and value of the commission's work, perhaps I may make it clear on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that he values very greatly the commission's continuing work and advice on a wide range of human rights matters in Northern Ireland.
As the noble Baroness said when opening the debate, the report is extensive and well-researched. Indeed, it contains some 84 recommendations. Many of those recommendations have profound constitutional implications. They go to the heart of the problems confronting Northern Ireland by addressing the problems of equity of treatment and safeguarding human rights as effectively as possible. The Government would most certainly wish to encourage dialogue and debate to continue on the proposals among those concerned with political developments and the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland. We shall be reflecting very carefully on the remarks which noble Lords have made in the debate this evening.
The noble Baroness and other noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in a most incisive speech, were somewhat critical of the period that has elapsed without an official government reply to this important report. I say quite openly that the trouble has been that the centrepiece of the report is a recommendation that there should be provisions in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act prohibiting indirect discrimination on the basis of religious belief or political opinion in the public sector and requiring that both communities in Northern Ireland should be given equality of treatment and esteem by government.
These are very important recommendations and more than simple human rights provisions. They would introduce major new statutory procedures into the process of government at all levels. Because provisions on these lines might be a part of future constitutional arrangements—this is an argument which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, hoped I would not deploy, but I have to do so—the Government have not felt able to make a response, although I think it is fair to say that we have kept the commission in touch with much of our thinking.
That is not to say that the Government do not accept the aims of the commission's principal recommendations. Indeed we are at one with the
920
commission in our commitment to the eradication of all forms of discrimination and the promotion of equality of treatment and esteem.
Nonetheless, some noble Lords—notably the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Fitt—were critical that the non-reply has meant that the Government have been inactive. The Government can claim considerable achievements in the promotion of equality of opportunity and equity of treatment in Northern Ireland in the context of this report. Indeed, the commission recognised in the report that the record of successive governments in this area has been positive. An extensive corpus of law has been built up to address abuses. In addition, the Government are continuing to develop policies which we believe will effectively tackle, by practical means, the inequalities which undoubtedly continue to exist.
Chief among this action is the targeting social need initiative which, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last year, has been accorded the status of third public expenditure priority alongside law and order and strengthening the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asserted that there is a consensus and that something simply needs to be done about reconciliation. Through the targeting social need initiative the Government are working to eradicate the significant inequalities which persist in the social and economic conditions experienced by both Protestants and Catholics. By identifying where the highest levels of disadvantage and deprivation exist, by analysing the precise extent to which their whole range of policies has a differential impact on each side of the community, and by targeting the programmes and resources much more sharply on those areas suffering the highest levels of social and economic disadvantage the Government are genuinely and constantly seeking to remove differentials and rectify injustices. We believe that greater equality can be achieved by improving the social and economic conditions of the most disadvantaged areas and people in Northern Ireland, which in turn will contribute to healing community divisions.
Targeting social need is a long-term programme designed to bring about fundamental change. But immediate work is underway. In particular—this was a point specifically raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—reviews and monitoring arrangements are being put into place already in line with the monitoring procedures recommended by the commission. For example, the employment equality review which will consider the complex range of factors influencing differential access to jobs is a notable example of the extent to which the Government are comprehensively and publicly taking action.
I turn aside for a moment to reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, when he asserted that there is still discrimination in the allocation of housing. I am anxious to say that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has been successful and has been perceived in Northern Ireland as having been successful in removing the controversy from the allocation of housing, which was undoubtedly prevalent in days gone by. All allocations are made

921
under the executive's selection scheme which establishes objective housing need as the sole criterion in determining allocations. Perfectly reasonably, the noble Lord asked about monitoring. The housing executive is now well advanced in developing procedures to allow it to monitor the effects of its policies on the different parts of the community, which should help improve its ability to achieve equality in the provision of housing.
The report also calls for measures to promote equality of esteem among all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. The Government recognise that there are two traditions in Northern Ireland. Through policies such as the cultural traditions programme and education for mutual understanding we are attempting to promote greater recognition of what the two traditions have in common and a sense of mutual respect.
At this point, I refer briefly to the matter of political talks, which is relevant to this debate. It has been well understood by all noble Lords this evening that, despite serious efforts to agree a basis for new talks, the parties have encountered certain obstacles. I am sure that all noble Lords will be pleased to hear that during my meeting with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister earlier this week, the leaders of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland agreed to get together to discuss those obstacles in the hope that substantive talks might start at an early date. I believe that the Prime Minister's meeting with party leaders earlier in the week will have sent a clear signal to terrorists, from whichever organisations they may come, that their activities only strengthen the determination of constitutional politicians to assert democratic politics.
Any changes to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 such as those proposed by the commission would, I suggest, have to await progress towards a political settlement. That is why I have introduced the business of the talks. Changes in the legal protection of human rights of the kind proposed by the commission may form an important part in the political arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, specifically asked about the recommendation concerning indirect discrimination as well as direct discrimination being made unlawful. Other noble Lords also spoke about that issue. The Government do not wish to prejudge the extent of any future changes, although they take the view that the commission's proposals as they stand can in some cases raise difficult issues of principle and practice. However, I must emphasise that the Government have certainly not ruled out drawing upon the report's proposals if in future they are seen to be necessary to meet the objectives that we share with the commission.
The report deals with certain aspects of the work of the ombudsman, also referred to by several noble Lords. The ombudsman is the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Complaints and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Administration, a post currently held by Mrs. Jill McIvor. The post has become a trusted guardian against maladministration and the Government believe that the existence of the office in Northern Ireland is not in danger. We believe
922
that the present system works well. Nevertheless, we have initiated a review to ensure that the ombudsman's role reflects today's needs in respect of administration within the public services and the range of organisations covered by the ombudsman's remit.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and other noble Lords referred to the recommendation in the report that the requirement that reference of complaints to the ombudsman must be via Members of Parliament should be removed. I remind noble Lords that the rationale for that procedure is that the commissioner's role was envisaged as providing a means of assisting Members of another place in carrying out particular aspects of their functions as elected representatives in Parliament. It was considered important that the commissioner, as an appointed officer, should not become a direct alternative source of protection against unjust administration. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will remember more about that matter at first hand than I shall ever know. The noble Lord first substantially raised the issue in the debate. Of course it is not necessary to go to a constituency Member of Parliament with a complaint. Any Member of Parliament can sponsor a complaint to the ombudsman.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in practice when complaints are received directly from individuals showing evidence of maladministration almost invariably the ombudsman is able to locate a sponsor. Therefore, the problems raised by your Lordships are avoided. Before the noble Lord jumps down my throat, I must tell him that I take his point that if that is the case in practice, why not accept the recommendation of the commission and put the matter on an official basis. I simply say this evening that I take on board the arguments put by your Lordships and shall draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the potential complainant should be prevented from using the present route but that an alternative route should also be available.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take the point but I shall not add to my comments by way of an undertaking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Morris, pointed to the absence of race relations legislation in Northern Ireland. I hope that your Lordships will not mistake a brief answer for a lack of regard for the importance of the issue. Previous administrations have not felt that circumstances in Northern Ireland justify the enactment of race relations legislation, although there are extensive provisions to prevent discrimination on religious or political grounds. We are keeping the need for such protection under review. It is a recommendation of the commission to which my right honourable friend intends to respond soon together with other recommendations.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke about education funding. The report is in favour of equality in educational funding, which

923
was also the subject of a separate report by the commission published in its 16th annual report. That report made two recommendations, both of which the Government were able to accept immediately. The report was rightly concerned to ensure that funding was related to need. Through the application of formula funding under the new education reforms I am pleased to say that we have already done a great deal to target resources more effectively. We are also reviewing with the voluntary authorities the present levels of capital grant rate for maintained schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke about the Irish language. According to the commission's report the Irish language is a touchstone of the extent to which the existence of two traditions in Northern Ireland is treated seriously by government. The Government accept that many people in Northern Ireland regard the Irish language as an important part of their cultural heritage which should be protected and cherished. To that end we have provided some £1.5 million in the present financial year for Irish language activities. That does not include the teaching of Irish in schools and universities on which considerable sums are spent.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked the specific question: what is the Government's attitude towards the Council of Europe movement in support of a charter for European minority languages? The general principles underlying the proposed European charter for regional minority languages are very much in agreement with UK policy in this area. However, given the different situations of Welsh, Gallic and Irish, the United Kingdom faces practical difficulties in responding to a measure which would apply to them all. We are also not yet convinced of the appropriateness of attempting to define a European standard based on a menu of choices which the charter provides. Detailed discussions on this matter are, however, continuing and I assure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom will come to a final view on this matter once the discussions have been completed.
Perhaps I may come quickly to the very important proposals for the future of the commission itself. Here the commission is making a number of recommendations which would change its role quite dramatically. The standing advisory commission was established by Section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. Since its creation in 1973 it has built an increasing reputation for its constructive and well-researched advice. I think it is right to say that my noble friend Lord Prior, when he was Secretary of State, acknowledged that the statutory remit given to the commission in 1973 was too restrictive. Successive Secretaries of State have endorsed that view and have welcomed advice on a wide range of human rights matters, even though this is not explicitly provided for by statute.
In practice, of course, the commission is free to offer whatever advice it feels appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about the recommendation that the commission should be given greater independence and have its own secretariat and its own specialist staff. Without going into detail, may I say it
924
is our intention to amend the commission's remit and bring it into line with current practice when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. Of course, the commission already has access to internal research capacity and is able to commission research where it feels that that is appropriate. But the Government remain of the view that the commission's principal role should continue to be to provide independent advice to government. For that reason we do not feel that its legal status is something which ought to be changed.
May I seek to answer some of the individual questions of your Lordships which have not yet been dealt with. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, expressed the view that we need more labour market information. A great deal has been done here, with the labour force survey having been brought into effect—a large-scale survey to provide detailed information on religion, skills and qualifications of people who are unemployed. If one looks at the Fair Employment Act of 1989, we find there the provisions for registration and monitoring returns. I am advised that all the companies required to submit monitoring returns during 1990–91 are now in compliance with their registration and monitoring obligations under the legislation. I should like to say, having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that I feel the 1989 Act imposed new obligations on employers in both the public and private sectors. It also introduced monitoring and is regarded as the most radical piece of anti-discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom. The Government believe that it will make a substantial contribution towards eradicating religious discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, spoke of the need to increase confidence in complaints made against the security forces—a subject which is dealt with in the report. We have made already a number of improvements in the handling of investigations of complaints, including the establishment of the independent commission for police complaints. We have improved procedures for handling complaints against the armed forces. We are currently establishing an independent assessor of military complaints procedures, who will carry out audits of the way in which military procedures operate in respect of non-criminal complaints. He will have considerable powers to require the GOC to review particular cases or groups of cases in which the independent assessor considers that the procedures have operated inadequately. Of course criminal complaints against military personnel are investigated independently by the police. There is then the process of reference through to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I accept the explanation he has given for the present system of complaints procedures against the Army. But how does he respond to the particular points the commission makes that there is no confidence in the impartiality or fairness of the system as it is?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me, may I add one other thing? Of course complaints against the police are subject to the

925
oversight of the ICPC, the independent commission on police complaints, and of course we have before us still the triennial report of the ICPC, which made recommendations to extend and strengthen its role. That is currently still being considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, spoke about prisoners' transfers, and I should like to take this opportunity to say that requests by prisoners in Great Britain prisons for transfer to Northern Ireland are considered under the criteria announced by the Home Secretary in June 1989, relating to the length of sentence, place of residence and behaviour in prison. Each request is considered on its merits; and compassionate grounds can be taken into account.
The present criteria focus more on family circumstances than they did previously. For example, they allow a prisoner with close family connections in the receiving jurisdiction who intends to live there on release to transfer, even though he may not have lived there before conviction. Nevertheless, families often face difficult and long journeys in order to visit prisoners in other jurisdictions; and, following consultation, provisions governing the transfer of prisoners between UK jurisdictions are being reviewed. The review was announced to Parliament on 4th June last year by Home Office Ministers, and includes assistance to relatives visiting prisoners in other United Kingdom jurisdictions.
That brings me almost finally to matters raised by my noble friend Lord Hylton about the holding centres, which perhaps fall outside the scope of the debate that we are having this evening. The noble Lord began his remarks by acknowledging that the interviewing of suspected terrorists—not least at the present time—is something that is exceedingly important. If I heard the noble Lord correctly, he also recognised the fact that those who are terrorists, or have terrorist connections, are in the business of seeking, if they possibly can, to lay doubt upon the way in which the procedures are followed in the holding centres. Therefore, we have a difficult situation to deal with.
It is dealt with by building in considerable safeguards. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that we need greatly improved safeguards. In "shorthand", there is the continuous monitoring of all interviews by closed circuit; there are the provisions for a medical officer having to be called if there is an anxiety; there are the provisions for a medical examination on arrival. In addition, access to a medical officer has to be provided at a set time every day; and there is provision for a medical examination before a suspect is discharged. Then there are rules about informing the family or friend, and consulting a solicitor, about the whereabouts of a suspect.
I do not think that this is the moment for the noble Lord and I to cross swords over those matters. But
926
there is the statutory requirement, as the noble Lord rightly said, that we put into Section 61 of the Emergency Provisions Act which was passed during last summer that there has to be a statutory code of practice, so that rules which are at the moment set down but not set down statutorily, will be so; and we are considering an independent commissioner of the holding centres.
Finally, may I—
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, I shall not for a moment. I shall just finish this point and then give way. May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that where complaints of ill-treatment are made, they are fully investigated by the police complaints and discipline department. Those investigations may be directly supervised by the independent commission for police complaints if it so chooses, in which cases a member of the commission can be present during all interviews and remain in direct contact with the investigation process.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Can he tell us when we may expect to see the code of practice to which he has just referred?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the code of practice has been subject to consultation with various organisations and will be produced publicly for public consultation. This evening I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly when that will be, but I hope that it will be in the foreseeable future because, like the noble Lord, I attach importance to it.
I think that that is more than enough, and on an Unstarred Question I must apologise for speaking as long as I have. I thank your Lordships for taking part in an important debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for making it possible to have this debate this evening. If there are any questions or points that your Lordships have made that I have not answered, I shall seek to write. The Government are, I assure your Lordships, nearing completion on their detailed study of this report, and I expect my right honourable friend to publish his formal and detailed response shortly.

Midland Metro (No.2) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, SCHEDULE 14
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981, SCHEDULE 14
  CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AGENTS: REVIEW
  CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AGENTS: REVIEW
  CRIME AND TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS: STATISTICS
  CRIME AND TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS: STATISTICS
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: ARMED FORCES ABROAD
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: ARMED FORCES ABROAD
  HORN OF AFRICA: BRITISH AID
  HORN OF AFRICA: BRITISH AID
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: COSTS
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: COSTS