Sitting of 9 July 1992

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CROSSRAIL BILL (Br Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL ( By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Exports
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of the United Kingdom's export performance.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): United Kingdom exports are at record levels.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the fiscal imperatives necessary for successful manufacturing exports are low inflation, stable exchange rates and low unit costs? Does he further agree that it is necessary and important that those remain at the core of Government policy, and that that is vindicated by the news that in the past three months exports in the manufacturing sector increased by 4·5 per cent. to a new record level?
    Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to stress that British exports can do well in competitive markets provided that we keep our inflation down, that it is not merely equal to, but better than the average and that it compares well with the rates of the Germans, French, Japanese and Americans. Unless we do that, we shall not gain our market share. Our manufactured exports have increased our share of world trade in the past three years, so I accept and am grateful for what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not admit when he talks about exports
    456
    increasing that imports are also increasing? The latest trend suggests a £9 billion deficit this year on the balance of trade. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to do something about Britain's export performance, he should cut interest rates by 2 or 3 per cent. and get out of the exchange mechanism.
    Mr. Lamont: I do not expect that the current account will be a constraint on growth. Even the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which I do not accept, are a small portion of gross domestic product. The only way that this country can increase exports is by becoming more competititive year by year, by increasing productivity and by keeping increases in earnings and wages down to the levels of our competitors. There are no quick fixes. The idea that we can help this country's economy by depreciating the exchange rate is pure illusion, pure fool's gold. The only way to do that is by improving productivity and competitiveness.
    Mr. Brooke: Is my right hon. Friend encouraged by the work of Edinburgh economists, which shows that during the 1980s there was a marked shift in the destination of British exports from third world to more sophisticated markets, which is a good omen for our competitiveness in the 1990s?
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our largest export customer is Germany, our second largest is France and the third largest is the United States. I do not know how people who believe that there is some easy answer through depreciation think that we are going to compete unless we get our inflation rate down to the levels that pertain in those countries.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Chancellor confirm that, although he said that exports are at record levels, imports are at even more record levels and that our balance of payments is showing a record deficit, even in the depths of the recession? Furthermore, our share of world trade in major manufactures is less than it was in 1979. Do the Government propose to do anything at all about that?
    Mr. Lamont: Our imports have risen, but some pick-up in imports is certainly expected as the economy recovers. I repeat what I told the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner): any prospective current account deficit is of a size that can be easily financed. The only way that we can increase our share of world trade is by becoming more productive and more competitive. The hon. Lady does no one any service by pretending that there is some easy way out.

    Stamp Duty
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the moratorium on stamp duty.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the increase in the stamp duty threshold last December, he made it quite clear that it was a temporary measure for eight months only. We have no plans to extend it beyond 19 August.
    Mr. Townsend: My hon. Friend will know of the importance of the housing industry in pulling Britain out of the recession. Can he offer any hope and further

    457
    assistance to that sector? Does he agree that the stamp duty has some basic flaws? Can he forecast its total demise?
    Mr. Nelson: I must point out that stamp duty on property alone raises about £1 billion, which is a considerable sum to the Exchequer. On the problems of the housing and property industry, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced a significant package last December which included payments to building societies for those in receipt of income support. In the longer term, it is the reduction in interest rates, brought about by the economic policies to which the Government are committed, that will bring about the firmest and surest revival of the property market.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that the stamp duty holiday, which gave some limited help to home buyers and the building industry, was sabotaged this week when a group of Conservative Members did not have the guts to vote in the Lobby in accordance with their declared beliefs?
    Mr. Nelson: I do not accept that for a moment. My right hon. and hon. Friends voted clearly, firmly and unanimously for the reintroduction of stamp duty because they recognised that that was an essential part of the public expenditure programme and the resources that must be raised through it to meet that balance.
    Mr. Budgen: I wish to offer my support to my hon. Friend for his suggestion that interest rates are the most important thing in reviving the housing market. May I suggest, as a matter of convenience, that he arrange for the Bundesbank to communicate direct to the House, because it seems sad that he should have to second-guess what it says and go through the humiliation of being a mere messenger for that foreign body.
    Mr. Nelson: I am not sure that my hon. Friend's point arises out of this question, but no doubt his comments will be heard as clearly by the Bundesbank as they have been by the House.
    Dr. Marek: The Economic Secretary is more or less admitting that his initiative on stamp duty has failed, but we are still in recession, we still have a huge balance of payments deficit and an astronomic public sector borrowing requirement and the Budget forecast of growth is so much pie in the sky. If the Chancellor says that we must be more competitive and more productive, how exactly will that be achieved by Treasury Ministers?
    Mr. Nelson: I do not accept that the stamp duty moratorium was of no help, because 540,000 property transactions took place during that time and the benefit gained was equivalent to £400 million. That real benefit has been left with home purchasers. To extend the moratorium, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would cost another £430 million, which would be a significant burden on the PSBR this year.

    Environmentally Friendly Projects
    Mr. Marten Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to use tax incentives to encourage companies to invest in environmentally friendly projects.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The existing tax regime already gives relief for capital investment by companies on machinery and plant or industrial buildings, including investments in environ-mentally friendly projects.
    Mr. Jones: In the light of what the Prime Minister said 12 months ago at Olympia about energy efficiency and promoting measures to help that, is it not about time that the Chancellor did a little more about that and did something useful, through the tax system, to promote energy efficiency? As a start, perhaps we could get rid of VAT on energy-efficient products.
    Mr. Dorrell: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman concentrates on energy efficiency, because that is a good example of an environmentally friendly investment which any company can make and which is justified by the costs that are saved by saving that energy. Saving energy is not only green but saves costs. It does not need a tax incentive to justify that.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is it not eloquent testimony to the lack of interest in putting the environment at the heart of economic policy that not a single Conservative Member has risen on this question to participate? The Government, for all their fine words, have done precious little to include environmental concerns in their taxation policies. There have been no differentials on VAT, no real incentives for industry and no action on vehicle excise duty. There is an existing green agenda in which the Government should be interested—why are they not?
    Mr. Dorrell: It is eloquent testimony to the fact that the Labour party is uninterested in reducing tax rates that right through the passage of this year's Finance Bill a range of alternatives for tax allowances—for example, against corporation tax—were pressed on us. The only way to pay for all those proposals, had we accepted them, would have been by raising the marginal rate of corporation tax and making this country uncompetitive with other developed countries.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of recent trends in manufacturing productivity; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): Manufacturing productivity stood at its highest ever level in April this year.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our successful economic policies during the 1980s promoted a vast improvement in manufacturing investment towards that end of the decade? What positive conclusions does he draw from that and from his reply?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right to say that manufacturing investment grew by about 31 per cent. from 1986 to 1989. Manufacturing productivity today, as we come out of recession, is higher than it was when we went into recession. That is a reason for having a good deal of optimism about the future.
    Mrs. Ewing: In considering the issue of manufacturing productivity, which is vital, does the Minister recognise the

    459
    role that has been played by workers in manufacturing in reaching targets? Is he aware for example, that 1,300 people are to be made redundant at Ardersier yard in Scotland by the end of September, representing the largest single redundancy measure in the onshore oil engineering industry every recorded in the United Kingdom? If the right hon. Gentleman really cares about productivity and production, will he examine what is happening in the oil fabrication industry and, in particular, consider the possibility of the Government's giving some direction on where the construction of the Claymore jacket for Elf Caledonia is to take place?
    Mr. Portillo: I share the hon. Lady's regret about individual redundancies. At the end of the 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s, we had the highest ever level of manufacturing output, yet about 5 million people were employed in manufacturing, compared with 9 million in the 1960s. Manufacturing productivity has risen steeply and the number of people employed in manufacturing has declined, yet manufacturing output has recently been at its highest ever level. That does not help with the individual redundancies to which the hon. Lady referred, but I want to set the role of manufacturing in the context of the economy as a whole
    Mr John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been an enormous achievement to increase productivity at a time of recession, when one would have expected it to go down? To what extent does he think that that increase in productivity has been due to improved industrial relations, with the number of days lost through strikes being at an all-time low? Does he agree that that has been due to the industrial relations reforms introduced by the Conservatives in the past 13 years?
    Mr. Portillo: The improvement in industrial relations has played an important part. I am pleased to note that earnings are responding to the economic cycle and that the earnings increase has recently been at its lowest level for 25 year. That means that the prospects for employment growth in the future are much better than they would have been.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: it is something of a novelty to hear a Treasury Minister boast about manufacturing industry, and I congratulate the Chief Secretary on his nerve. Will he confirm that about 2 million jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector since 1979? In those circumstances, is he now willing to revise his forecast of unemployment at 2·4 million to a more realistic 2·7 million for this year?
    Mr. Portillo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, although I do not congratulate him on how carefully he may have been listening to what I said. I go further than the figure that he gave. I have told the House that employment in manufacturing has decreased by 4 million since 1966. We are talking about a very long-term trend in this country under various Governments which has occurred in all advanced industrialised countries around the world. My answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about forecasting unemployment is that the Government make no such forecasts.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of the trend in manufacturing investment.
    Mr. Portillo: Manufacturing investment rose strongly during the late 1980s and has fallen back during the recession.
    Mrs. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record investment of British manufacturing companies such as the engineering and lace business in Erewash is now serving those companies well in the difficult world trading climate? Does he agree that the successful conclusion of the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade will help world trade and the British economy? Will he press European Finance Minister colleagues to conclude a successful deal—especially the French?
    Mr. Portillo: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating business men and women in her constituency on their investment performance. During the first quarter of this year, business investment rose by 3½ per cent., including a 3¼ per cent. increase in investment in plant and machinery. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that a successful conclusion of the GATT round will be in the interests of all of us. As she will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed that point strongly at the Group of Seven discussions in Munich.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is it not clear that one of the great barriers to manufacturing investment is the high level of interest rates? Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider himself so bound to act as the poodle of the German Bundesbank on interest rates? Why does he not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and think about a reduction in interest rates, which he could well get away with?
    Mr. Portillo: First, I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, in the first quarter of this year, business investment showed a sharp and welcome improvement. If he considers the underlying rates of inflation, he will find that real interest rates in the United Kingdom are a little lower than those in Germany. He should take that fact into account in his calculations.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Coming as I do from a business background, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will accept from me that it is time that the Government and the House realised that the British economy is in a serious state, unemployment between now and the middle of next year is likely to rocket through 3 million and that, unless the Government reduce interest rates, they will compound the problems facing this country and hinder its ability to recover?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that my hon. Friend, who is indeed a great friend of manufacturing industry, will be pleased that manufacturing output reached its highest ever level in the early 1990s. He will be pleased at the figures that I have given this afternoon on manufacturing productivity, which was at its highest ever level in April. I do not accept what my hon. Friend says about the rising rate of unemployment. If the Government were to give up trying to control inflation—which I fear is the outcome of what my hon. Friend would like us to do—the economy would be in grave difficulty and we would face much higher unemployment.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Chief Secretary realise that the call from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was relatively moderate compared with the call for a large cut in interest rates that came from the former Prime Minister? What went wrong with the policies which she followed and carried out and which were meant to lead to generally lower interest rates? Was she just plain wrong?
    Mr. Portillo: The policies that we followed have led to lower interest rates. Interest rates have been cut on nine separate occasions. They are now 10 per cent. and were previously 15 per cent. That cut has been of tremendous benefit to both business and householders. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that if we had followed a different set of policies, we could have had lower interest rates today. I see no evidence for that.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas the money supply is under Government control, where that money is lent is wholly under the control of the banks? In the late 1980s some banks lent to businesses that should never have been allowed to get off the ground in the first place. It is ridiculous to suggest that the matter is a Government responsibility—it rests with the clearing banks.
    Mr. Portillo: I take my hon. Friend's point. She speaks with the experience of having spoken to some of her business people. Any of my hon. Friends will understand that it is the Government's responsibility to maintain downward pressure on inflation. All our hopes for the recovery of industry in general and for the improvement of our employment prospects rest upon there being absolute certainty that the Government will continue the fight against inflation. I am pleased to say that the markets can have that absolute certainty.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the most recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that manufactur-ing investment in Britain fell by 11·9 per cent. in 1991 and that, even worse, it is predicted to fall by another 3·8 per cent. during the current year? Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? What action will the Government take to promote manufacturing investment, without which there is no prospect of recovery from the recession?
    Mr. Portillo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just quoted a forecast, and he is often sceptical about forecasts. I shall give two facts. First, manufacturing investment rose by 30 per cent. between 1986 and 1989: therefore, we are starting from a high base. Secondly, business investment rose by 3½ per cent. in the first quarter of this year, 3¼ per cent. of which was in plant and machinery.

    National Economic Development Council
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concern-ing the abolition of the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning his announcement on the abolition of the National Economic Development Office.
    Mr. Lamont: I have received a small number of letters commenting on my announcement.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this apparently massive outburst in public concern shows that the only tears that have been shed for the abolition of the National Economic Development Council are the crocodile tears of Opposition Members who are as out of touch with popular sentiment on this issue as they are with economic reality? Does he further agree that he was absolutely right to abolish the NEDC?
    Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I explained to the House when I made the decision, I did not think that the National Economic Development Council any longer reflected the needs and realities of the United Kingdom economy in the 1990s. Of course, we want to talk to industry and to hear its concerns, but I do not think that discussions in the council were helpful or enlightening. In terms of the work carried out by the sectoral working parties, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has announced plans for the reorganisation of his Department and the sponsoring divisions. That is a much more sensible way to listen and talk to industry about the future as industry sees it.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his decision puts the final seal on the former way of running the British economy—the corporatist way?
    Mr. Lamont: As I have repeatedly said, the only way to improve our living standards and increase our share of world trade is by improving our competitiveness and keeping down inflation. That is the responsibility of Government. The discussions at the National Economic Development Council did not contribute to policy in any way.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Chancellor nevertheless agree that one of the unfortunate side-effects of the abolition of the National Economic Development Council is that the Chancellor will no longer have the opportunity to hear views on economic policy that do not coincide with those of the Treasury? On the same lines, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research of economic modelling during the 1980s, which was paid for by the Treasury, showed that the Treasury's performance in such modelling was disastrous? The Treasury's thought police attempted to ban from public funding institutions such as Wynne Godley's outfit at Cambridge university, which correctly forecast the appalling levels of the previous depression and this one. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should no longer be an attempt to create a monopoly on economic policy by withdrawing public funding from universities whose ideas are different from those of the Treasury?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman must surely know that decisions about funding individual universities, individual research bodies and individual eocnomic groups are not taken by the Treasury or by the Government. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course I have made it clear that I am prepared to talk to the Trades Union Congress and to hear its views, but I do not believe that the confrontational talks which took place

    463
    so regularly in the National Economic Development Council were of any use to anyone—indeed, many people who attended them were sheer bored by what went on.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Why, then, do the Japanese and the Germans find it valuable to have continuing dialogue with their trade unions when their countries are a damned sight more successful economically than ours? Why will the Chancellor not treat the trade unions as valuable partners within the economy and start talking to them and stop treating them like traitors?
    Mr. Lamont: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that decisions in the economy are made at the level of the sector. They are made by individuals and by firms. That is the way the economy of this country works. If there are such institutions in Germany or Japan —I am not sure whether what the hon. Gentleman says is right—perhaps that is a comment on the nature of the discussions that take place.

    VAT (Bait)
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review the current VAT liability placed on fishermen buying fresh fish for bait.
    Mr. Nelson: The Government have no current plans for a formal review of the VAT liability of supplies of bait generally. However, Customs and Excise have been asked to contact the fishermen's representatives with a view to identifying specific problems that they may be experienc-ing in the application of the current rules and exploring possible solutions.
    Mr. Steen: The problem is very simple. If an old lady goes to buy some fish for her cat from the fish trader, she pays no VAT. If the same fish is delivered to the quay on a shell fishermen's boat, immediately the fish is delivered for bait he has to pay VAT. That seems a crazy arrangement as anything to do with shell fishermen's boats is zero rated, so why should they pay VAT on that fish when the little old lady does not? More importantly, will the Minister do something to stop the terrible cash flow problems of shell fishermen who face serious difficulties on the south coast of Devon?
    Mr. Nelson: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has championed the cause of crabbers in south Devon and a particular case of arrears of tax. I am pleased to advise him that Customs and Excise will not be calling for arrears of tax in the particular case about which I know that he is concerned, nor in others where a genuine misunderstanding has arisen as to the correct treatment of supplies of bait. However, VAT is applicable to fresh fish when it is bait and is held up for sale as such.

    Exchange Rate Mechanism
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards joining the narrow band of the exchange rate mechanism and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dorrell: Sterling will move to the narrow band of the ERM in due course at the current central rate of DM2·95.
    Mr. Enright: If the Minister is so confident in what he is doing, when will he bring down interest rates?
    Mr. Dorrell: They have already been brought down nine times from 15 to 10 per cent.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the former Prime Minister whose Government forced the ERM business through the House now appears, according to The Evening Standard, to be having second thoughts about the ERM business, would it not be wise and helpful for the Government in a quiet and scholarly way to reconsider the whole ERM business and ask where is the logic of pretending that the pound is worth something that it is not when it is being accompanied, and probably partly caused by, huge Government borrowing, massive unemployment and a chronic balance of payments problem? Is there not a case for the Government quietly and thoughtfully to ask whether there is any sense in that at all?
    Mr. Dorrell: The logic of our determination to maintain our position within the ERM is our wish to match our standards of monetary control and discipline not, like the Labour party, to the average but to the highest standards in Europe. Our determination to do so is based on our recognition of the fact that not to do so would be to impose a quite unnecessary competitive disadvantage on British industry.
    Mr. Bell: Regardless of when we shall be joining the narrow band of the ERM, can the Financial Secretary share with the House the Treasury's views on a general realignment of currencies within the mechanism?
    Mr. Dorrell: Our policy is clearly to move to the narrow band at DM2·95. There is no realignment in prospect and we do not seek one.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who wish to cut and run on interest rates would once again inflict on this country the inflationary problems which have made us uncompetitive and would, through inflation, once again try to disguise the failure to adjust to international markets? Will he therefore reaffirm the Government's intention to maintain the central rate against the deutschmark and to move to the narrow band as soon as possible so that this country can once again be competitive in the international arena and British industry can flourish?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that absolute affirmation. If we consider 30 years of economic history, we should be conscious that not to provide that discipline is to provide a background which is a needless impediment to the development of investment and long-term planning in British industry, especially the manufacturing sector, which is so often espoused by hon. Members.
    Mr. Boyce: Will the Minister be kind enough to tell the House who was responsible for increasing interest rates to 15 per cent. in the first place?
    Mr. Dorrell: This Government have always made clear their determination to use interest rates to bring inflation under control to match, as I said earlier, our standards of monetary control with the highest in Europe.

    Financial Services Regulation
    Mr. French: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concern-ing the reform of financial services regulation.
    Mr. Nelson: I have received a number of such representations.
    Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend recall Sir David Walker, on his retirement as chairman of the Securities and Investments Board, saying that the regulatory organisation is too fragmented, especially as it relates to enforcement and policing? Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a growing feeling among practitioners and members of the public that the Financial Services Act 1986 needs revision, and will he apply himself to that?
    Mr. Nelson: The overall effectiveness of the regulatory structure is a matter of great importance, as my hon. Friend acknowledges. Following the Treasury's assumption of responsibility for regulating financial services, I intend to keep the arrangements carefully under review. This is a matter which I shall want to discuss with the new chairman of the SIB in due course.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware of the reports of Sir Jeremy Morse and Sir David Walker in respect of the Lloyd's insurance market? There have been more than half a dozen such reports in the past 20 years, each followed by small reforms and further scandals. The latest report shows evidence of financial mismanagement, insider dealing and fraud. Is it not time for the Government to introduce proper statutory regulation of Lloyd's to ensure that it stops acting as a law unto itself and that there is modernisation of Britain's financial services sector?
    Mr. Nelson: I take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I have read the reports to which he refers. Matters relating to the insurance industry are more properly the concern of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are fortunate to have the most developed financial services market in Europe? Regulatory regimes are essential for consumer protection, but is it not also essential that we have a simple regulatory structure to ensure that we maintain our European competitiveness in financial services?
    Mr. Nelson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the signal importance of the financial services and banking industries to the economy and to the balance of payments. The expertise, prosperity and ingenuity of the financial services and banking industries are of tremendous importance, and very often we denigrate them to the great disadvantage of the national interest.
    Mr. Boateng: Given that more than 40,000 old and vulnerable people stand to lose their homes as a result of the home income plan scam and the Minister told us yesterday that some building societies are refusing to co-operate with the building societies ombudsman and he has no power to compel them to do so, will the hon. Gentleman consider bringing forward measures to extend the powers of the ombudsman so that he can protect all vulnerable consumers?
    Mr. Nelson: As I made clear to the hon. Gentleman during our extensive debate on this important issue yesterday, the majority of building societies are permitting investigations by the ombudsman concerned. It is to be hoped that the expressions of opinion from both sides of the House will be heard by those few remaining building societies which are having difficulty accepting the inquiries. That is the proper line to pursue for the time being.

    Public Expenditure Planning
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on forecasting public spending planning totals in the proposed new budget cycle.
    Mr. Portillo: Next year the public expenditure planning totals will continue to be agreed by the Cabinet following discussions between ministerial colleagues and the Chief Secretary.
    Mr. Bradley: In the Budget last March, the Chancellor forecast a public sector borrowing requirement of £28 billion. What is the forecast today?
    Mr. Portillo: We publish forecasts twice a year and we shall publish our next forecast when it falls due.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In last autumn's expenditure statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that the net contribution of the United Kingdom to the European Community this financial year would be £2·5 billion, with slightly higher figures for the two subsequent years. Is that still the forecast or can my right hon. Friend give us any hope that there will be an alleviation of that unnecessary burden?
    Mr. Portillo: I have no change to announce to the published forecast. The flows vary from time to time. If my hon. Friend is saying that it is important to continue to bear down on the expenditure of the European Community, and hence on the contribution that we make, I entirely agree with him. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been engaged upon that exercise. It was good that we negotiated an abatement at Fontainebleau, which so far has resulted in a saving to the United Kingdom of £12 billion.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it still the Government's policy to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement to the percentage level—3 per cent. of gross domestic product. I believe—established by the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, it is our intention to meet the criteria for convergence set out in the Maastricht treaty. Indeed, it is our intention to reduce borrowing to about zero over the medium term.

    Inflation
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EC country had the largest fall in retail price inflation in the year to May 1992.
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EC country had the largest fall in retail price inflation in the year to May 1992.
    Mr. Lamont: Of all EC countries, Greece had the largest fall in its headline inflation rate in the year to May 1992; the United Kingdom had the largest fall of the major EC countries.
    Mr. Duncan: I welcome that news. Is my right hon. Friend aware that producer output inflation is now down to 2·7 per cent? As that is the lowest figure since 1969, does he agree that it puts British industry in a strong position to emerge from the recession and to prove increasingly competitive in world markets?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Producer price inflation is a good forecast of the headline rate of inflation. My hon. Friend will be aware that the underlying rate of inflation—the retail prices index minus mortgage interest payments—has already fallen sharply recently. All that is good news for exports, for competitiveness and for recovery.
    Mr. Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend realise that whatever the mixed feelings about the exchange rate mechanism, his answer shows what an effective weapon it is in the battle against inflation? At the same time, does it not provide a stable platform for smooth recovery, with no necessity to resort to the stop-go policies advocated by the Opposition?
    Mr. Lamont: There is no doubt that the exchange rate mechanism has been extremely effective in lowering inflation in those countries that are members of it. Furthermore, my hon. Friend makes the good point that if this country were ever to leave the ERM, we should still have to compete against countries with a low level of inflation gained from membership of the ERM. That is why we should stick with the discipline of the ERM, which we believe is good for recovery and will be good for the medium-term competitiveness of this country.
    Mr. Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is talking a load of bilge when he claims a reduction in the inflation rate? Was not the high level that it reached a result of Conservative policies? Is it not nonsense for the Government to claim credit for bringing down the inflation rate when they were responsible for its rise?
    Mr. Lamont: If I had compared the level of inflation with that of previous Labour Governments, the hon.Gentleman would not have found that a very happy comparison either.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Chancellor accept that if a Government who fail to bear down on inflation are financially dodgy, a Government who have no policy for full employment are morally bankrupt?
    Mr. Lamont: The fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's approach is thinking that we can have growth in employment without an inflation rate equal to or better than that of our competitors. Britain is dependent upon trade. More than 30 per cent. of Britain's GDP is exported and imported. Britain cannot compete, cannot have growth in employment, unless it has a level of inflation equal to the best in the EC and among our major trading partners.
    Mr. Butcher: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the exchange rate mechanism is an external discipline bearing down on inflation, but is it not possible to legislate for internal independent bodies which can perform the same
    468
    function? Bearing in mind the history of the Bretton Woods agreement, the gold standard and the sterling area, each of which collapsed for good reasons, does my right hon. Friend think that it may be prudent to have alternative domestic policies in place in case the same thing should happen to the ERM?
    Mr. Lamont: If my hon. Friend looks back at the period of fixed exhange rates, he will find that the inflation performance, not just of Britain but of many other countries, was a lot better than during the period of floating exchange rates. The ERM has a proven track record in reducing inflation. I repeat: even if we were not part of the ERM, we would have to compete with those countries that have succeeded the hard way in reducing inflation, and we must do that if we are to provide for small businesses, to provide for employment and to achieve growth in the future. That is the way the Germans and the French have done it. I do not know why my hon. Friends think that this country cannot succeed where other countries have.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on his way to Helsinki to attend a conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
    Mrs. Jackson: Will the Leader of the House be so kind as to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that the prompt and efficient administration of public money is his responsibility and therefore, that it is his and his Government's responsibility that many of my constituents are waiting more than six months to have their disability living allowance claims processed? Will he ask the Prime Minister to join me in commiserating with Mr. Michael Bichard who has had no fewer than 26 parliamentary questions and hundreds of letters of complaint referred to him from hon. Members?
    Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I shall invite my right hon. Friend to agree with all that, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree about the duty that we all have to ensure the proper administration of public money, about the satisfaction, which the hon. Lady has not expressed, in the level of demand for the extremely successful new disability benefits, and about the Government's determination to ensure that those benefits are effectively delivered.
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous success of the health service reforms, especially in my part of Devon where the general practitioner fund holdings and the trusts are working for

    469
    the benefit of staff and patients? Will he welcome the changed attitude of the British Medical Association, which shows the popularity and success of the reforms?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, I very much welcome that. It reflects the fact that practical experience throughout the country is demonstrating the benefits of those reforms. There is clearly also a wide welcome for the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which will build further on their success.
    Dr. John Cunningham: What reasons does the Leader of the House give for the Prime Minister's failure to achieve his objectives at the economic summit in Munich?
    Mr. Newton: An economic summit, whether it takes place in Munich or anywhere else, is a gathering of people designed to achieve agreement on the pursuit of common objectives. No one member of such a gathering can force the others to agree. It is clear, however, that useful progress was made at Munich on key objectives relating both to western relations with Russia and to advancing the objectives of the GATT round. Progress was also made in a number of other ways.
    Dr. Cunningham: Is it not clear that no amount of vacuous communiques can disguise the fact that, for the second year running, Britain is bottom of the G7 league in relation to growth, investment and job creation? As even Lady Thatcher is now warning of economic catastrophe in Britain, is it not time for new economic and industrial policies for our country? Will the Government act now or will they simply continue to wring their hands and do nothing?
    Mr. Newton: It is clear that the action taken by the Government in recent months is creating a secure foundation for the country to emerge from the recession in the latter part of this year. If the hon. Gentleman is in a quoting frame of mind, he may wish to know that in a press release issued only three or four days ago the Institute of Directors said that half the directors questioned in June were more optimistic. That is the highest level of sustained optimism since August 1988.
    Dr. Cunningham: Twelve months ago, the Prime Minister claimed a triumph for the economic summit in London, and the Government did nothing. Will they do nothing again about the appalling misery that they are creating in this country?
    Mr. Newton: The Government will continue with the sustained application of policies which are producing the conditions for recovery, and doing so successfully.
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week's announcement of an order for the fourth Trident submarine? Does he agree that the three best recent additions to the future security of the nation are the ordering of the submarine, the re-election of a Government who had the consistency and good sense to proceed with the order, and the defeat of Opposition
    470
    parties whose recommendations vary from scrapping this important deterrent altogether to sending submarines out to sea with no weapons on board?
    Mr. Newton: In a word, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said.
    Ms. Lynne: Can the Leader of the House explain how we can take the proposals on health promotion seriously when the Government are presiding over the collapse of national health service dentistry?
    Mr. Newton: It is absurd to suggest that the Government are presiding over the collapse, as the hon. Lady puts it, of NHS dentistry, given the increases in NHS treatment, the number of dentists and their remuneration over the past few years.
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Haselhurst: In the light of the targets set in the Government's White Paper, published yesterday, will the Government consider removing tobacco products from the calculation of the retail prices index? If we believe that price is the main deterrent to smokers, is it not ridiculous that the Chancellor should feel any inhibition about increasing duty on tobacco products because of the effect that that would have on the cost of living and on benefits related to it?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that an advisory committee looks carefully and independently at the proper make-up of the RPI. I would not wish to dictate to that committee how it should do its work. I should point out, however, referring to the figures given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. that the increases in tobacco prices in recent years do not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been suffering from any inhibition in that respect.
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: At 4 o'clock this afternoon in the Jubilee Room the Spastics Society will launch a report on the problems of disabled people in the 1992 general election. Is the Leader of the House aware that many disabled people could not gain access to polling stations in the election and also had problems with the postal voting system? Will he ensure that the report, entitled "Polls Apart", is studied at the highest level and that action is taken to ensure that everyone, able-bodied or disabled, who is entitled to exercise the franchise, is given access to the procedure?
    Mr. Newton: As a former Minister for disabled people myself, I would not wish to do anything with such a report other than to examine it carefully and draw it to the attention of those concerned, returning officers and others. The hon. Gentleman's concern is legitimate.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Now that Germany has made it clear that it intends to continue for a long period in the maintenance of economic policies which are driving the rest of Europe from recession into slump, so as to re-equip its eastern provinces, is it not more than ever necessary for British Ministers to show the same resolution in supporting British industry? As this country has determined its own money supply for several centuries, why do Ministers suddenly find that they can no longer do that without having their hands held by a group of German bank clerks? Has not the time now come for us to leave the exchange rate mechanism, at least until such time as German interest rates are reduced to a level compatible with the needs of the whole of the rest of Europe?
    Mr. Newton: The British Government—with support from both sides of the House, in my recollection—accepted the disciplines of the ERM as the essential basis for a British policy designed to bring down inflation and to create the conditions for a sound economy. I see no basis for departing from that.
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Primarolo: Will the Leader of the House explain why, under the citizens charter, someone whose train is late is entitled to claim compensation, but when the Government fail to ensure that people's applications for disability allowances are speedily processed, those people are not entitled to claim compensation against the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that proposals for such compensation should he produced as a matter of urgency, to ensure the efficiency of government?
    Mr. Newton: As I believe the hon. Lady knows, in certain fairly limited circumstances compensation may he payable for a failure of the Department—for negligence, perhaps. The key is to ensure, as the Department is actively seeking to do, that the high level of demand for the new disability benefits—having introduced them myself, I welcome that high level of demand—is met by the administration. That is what my colleagues in the Department are seeking to do.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's White Paper on "The Health of the Nation"? Will he also welcome the fact that, at a time of vastly increased resources for the health service, the
    472
    Government are pushing ahead to make further improvements to the health of the nation and will continue to do so?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. Yesterday's White Paper is a significant development in the success of the national health service and in its further success for the rest of this century and beyond. It marks a significant move from the health service's being, in old-fashioned terms, an illness service, to its being a genuine health service.
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Darling: Why did the Government forget to mention in their manifesto of just three months ago that they intended to privatise water supply in Scotland?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had those matters under consideration. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend will set out the basis of Government policy in the appropriate way, at the appropriate time.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is the Leader of the House aware that this is national housing week and that housing provision and the construction industry are gripped in a crisis? Would not this be an appropriate time to organise the phased release of the £7 billion of local authority capital receipts to solve the housing crisis and the crisis that the Government have engineered in the construction industry?
    Mr. Newton: I am tempted to refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply that I myself gave on that point on Tuesday. The Government are in the process of making £6 billion available to housing associations over the next three years. That will produce about 150,000 new homes for rent or low-cost ownership.
    Mr. Moate: Recalling the visit to London by thousands of fishermen earlier this week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to ask Parliament to impose tough restrictions on British fishermen which will not be applied to Common Market fishermen—including those who fish in British-controlled waters, with some taking British quota? As the proposals are clearly unfair and will almost certainly be doomed to failure without the industry's co-operation, will my right hon. Friend consult his colleagues about withdrawing them now and starting new consultations?
    Mr. Newton: I certainly cannot undertake to enter consultations with a view to withdrawing proposals which are most important in relation to the conservation of fish stocks and, therefore, to the long-term future of our fishing industry. Other member states will be subject to Community targets. Our aim is, and will remain, to ensure that the burden of adjustment is fairly shared.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 JULY—Debate on the report from the Select Committee on sittings of the House on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions relating to the nominations of departmental Select Committees.
TUESDAY 14 JULY—Remaining stages of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.
Proceedings on the Protection of Badgers Bill [Lords], the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [Lords] and the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords]. These are consolidation measures.
Motion on office costs allowance.
WEDNESDAY 15 JuLY—Proceedings on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Disclosure of Information) Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion on the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) Order.
Motion on the Value Added Tax (Cars) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY 16 JULY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 21 October at 10·30 am to consider European Community document No. 5894/92 concerning relations with Libya.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER—Debate on the White Paper "Health of the Nation", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 23 OCTOBER—Debate on the policing of London, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Wednesday 21 October:
EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEE B
Relevant European Community Document
5894/92 Relations with Libya
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 79-ii (1992–93)]
Dr. Cunningham: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us notice of the business for the first week following the long summer recess. However, is it not rather curious that he has been able to give us that information three months in advance but has not yet adopted one of the simplest recommendations of the Jopling Committee—to give us the business two weeks in advance? If he can give us the information three months in advance, why has he
474
not been able to adopt that Jopling Committee recommendation, which does not need a resolution of the House for its implementation, before now?
Why are we to debate the Jopling Committee report next week once again on a motion for the Adjournment of the House? Why is the Leader of the House not producing some specific recommendations for action to change the hours and working practices of the House, which would be widely welcomed?
May we have an assurance that, before the House rises for the recess next week, there will be statements in the Chamber on the Bingham report into the collapse of BCCI? Can we also have statements while the House is still sitting about the Government's White Papers on transport and education? Does the Leader of the House accept that it would be an abuse of the House for those very important White Papers to be published once the House has gone into recess, when hon. Members would have no opportunity to question the Cabinet colleagues of the Leader of the House about them?
Can the Leader of the House assure us that he will table today the Government's motion on Members' allowances for employment of staff and the financing of their offices? It is surely important that we see the terms of the Government's motion in good time for possible amendments to be tabled and so that we can all clearly understand the Government's intentions in that regard.
May I press the Leader of the House to ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement before the summer Adjournment on the future of the primary-purpose rule, which affects people and their families the length and breadth of this country? That is an essential matter for almost all hon. Members. It affects many of our constituents and we should have a statement from the Government clarifying their position.
Mr. Newton: Taking those questions nearly in reverse order, I can confirm that I expect to table later today a resolution on the office costs allowance for the consideration of the House. I will also obviously transmit the requests of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for various statements to those to whom the requests are directed. I will do my best to ensure that important statements which need to be made are made in the appropriate way to the House.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the timing of the Bingham report is a matter for Lord Justice Bingham and not for the Government. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he sought in that respect.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's questions on the Jopling report, perhaps we might leave the first of them for discussion in the debate. His question appeared to be an advance contribution to that debate.
The debate is taking place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House for two reasons. First, as I have said on several occasions, it seemed appropriate with a substantial number of new Members and with an entirely different House of Commons that there should be a further general debate on the proposals before we proceed with what will, in some circumstances, be very complex details, on which we may need further guidance from the House. It is appropriate that, in the light of the general indications that the House provides on Monday, there will have to be further discussions between the usual channels, of which no doubt the hon. Member for Copeland may be part.
Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement in the House next week? It is widely rumoured that a consultation document will be published on Tuesday which will lead to the closure of a number of REME depots, including one in my constituency, with a loss of more than 200 jobs. The consultation for such a proposal will expire during the recess. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there are to be changes in the support establishment for the British Army, the House should debate them before the decisions are taken?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on whatever speculation he has picked up, but I will undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Sir David Steel: May I in parenthesis support the shadow Leader of the House in arguing that the matter of the primary-purpose rule should not be left until the middle of the summer recess? It must he dealt with before we rise. Will next Tuedsay's debate on office costs be cast wide enough to allow the argument to be put that those cash allowances, demeaning and misleading as they are, should be abolished altogether in favour of providing hon. Members with the staff and equipment necessary to do the job?
Mr. Newton: It will ultimately be for the Chair rather than for myself to determine the parameters of the debate, but I should be surprised if it were not open to the right hon. Gentleman to raise that point if he wished to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I should be much obliged if hon. Members would ask one question. I could then call all hon. Members who wish to ask a question, and we could have speedy answers. That is a much more efficient way of conducting our business.
Mr. James Paice: Is it correct that the Government's promised proposals on the change of the law on gipsies is to be deferred until the autumn? If that is the case, is it to be hoped that that is because officials and Ministers in the Department of the Environment now realise that my constituents and many others will not put up with those parasites continuing to live off the backs of law-abiding property owners and citizens? We want some draconian legislation to deal with the matter.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has obviously registered that I have not been able to announce a debate on those matters in the two weeks that I have covered in my statement, but I do not think that anyone is under any illusions about the strength of feeling among my hon. Friend and others: I certainly assure him of that.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Leader of the House recognise that, in the uncertain international situation that exists and could persist until October, the House would expect to be recalled before any British forces were committed to military action or British bases were made available for military action? Will the right hon.
476
Gentleman give an assurance on behalf of the Government that the House would be recalled before any of our bases or troops were involved?
Mr. Newton: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Obviously, if it were judged that the situation required it, I would be prepared to make the necessary arrangements, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that such matters would normally be the subject of discussion through the usual channels, and that is appropriate.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on school organisation so that I may bring before the House an application from the London borough of Ealing for a reorganisation of 108 schools which have been without permanent heads for nearly two years? A decision from the Government is urgent, and the matter should be debated in the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend would probably be somewhat surprised if, in response to his question, I immediately changed the business that I have announced for next week. He will be aware that there are several opportunities for raising all sorts of matters, one of which is to occur as soon as this business statement is over—the three-hour debate on the Adjournment.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Leader of the House recall that I asked him last week whether there would be a statement from the Minister of Agriculture on the outcome of the International Whaling Commission conference in Glasgow? He said that he would pass on that request. Did he pass on that request? As we did not have a statement, could he pass it on again, because we need to hear what the Minister feels about the disgraceful decision of Norway and Iceland about the possibility of taking up commercial whaling?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly undertake to re-pass on the hon. Gentleman's request. He will be aware, however, that my right hon. Friend gave quite an extensive written answer last Friday, in which he made clear his views and the views of most other participants about the Norwegian action.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: May I add my voice to those who would like to hear a statement on the Government's proposals for the primary-purpose rule? May I offer my apologies to my constituents for the support that I gave the Government on the primary-purpose rule? I was unwise enough to believe that the House still decided immigration policies. Since we now find that our European masters decide such matters, will the Government please make a statement to explain to the House what little power is left to it?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will find that the judgment to which he refers was a great deal more narrowly drawn than the conclusions that he has drawn from it. Of course, I undertake to pass on his observations to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. David Trimble: May we have an early statement on the Amnesty International report published today which, of course, largely repeats and amplifies the usual propaganda against the security forces in Northern Ireland? Such a statement would be

477
particularly useful because we can see from the Press Association's summary of the report that the propaganda has been too effective. The Press Association uses the word "notorious" about Northern Ireland's Diplock courts—a regrettable lapse from its usual standards of impartiality. As the Leader of the House will know, the record shows that there is cause for more concern about English juries than about Northern Ireland judges.
Mr. Newton: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the headlines in the Evening Standard this afternoon? Are we to have our economic policy led from the other place, or are we to have an economic debate here? Can we not answer the vague remarks that have been made in private? Is it not time that the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet took hold of the situation and arranged for a separate debate in the House on the economy?
Mr. Newton: We have very recently had a debate on the economy. I have seen the newspaper report to which my hon. Friend refers. It appeared highly speculative. All that I should like to say is that I have read it with interest.
Mr. Greville Janner: Following the sad misjudgment of The Sunday Times in employing the services of that hero of the modern Nazis, David Irving, could we have a statement on the defects in the Public Order Act 1986 and the Race Relations Act 1976, which allowed that to happen? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is an abomination and an incitement —
Madam Speaker: Order. We are asking business questions for next week. We are not asking whether Ministers agree on various matters. We must stick with business questions.
Mr. Janner: As part of the Government's statement, could they express their view on the denial of the holocaust, which was an incitement not only to those of us who suffered grievous loss as a result of the holocaust, which happened with the knowledge of Irving's heroes Goebbels and Hitler, but to all of us who remember the past and are determined that it shall not happen again?
Mr. Newton: Many on both sides of the House will understand the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising that matter. All of us would wish to join in the condemnation of what happened in the holocaust.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Following his welcome answer to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is strong support in many parts of the House for the Government's cautious line on risking British lives in Yugoslavia? Does he agree that, before some of our hotter-headed friends on the continent try to talk us into further action, they should consider their position and perhaps consider sending German fighters, French lorries —
Madam Speaker: Order. I am a most tolerant Speaker —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but I will certainly not have political statements made during business questions.
478
If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to put a question that is in order to the Leader of the House, I shall hear it. Otherwise, I shall call the next Member.
Mr. Brazier: I ask again, and I reinforce the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that there should be a debate in the House before British troops are committed in Yugoslavia. There is widespread anxiety among people from all parts of the political spectrum and many parts of Britain about the idea of British troops being put at risk in combat roles on the ground.
Mr. Newton: I very much note what my hon. Friend has said. He is certainly right to expect that the Government will remain cautious in their approach to the matter.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement about 120 unemployed constituents of mine who worked at a company called Lawtecs, six of whom are still waiting after almost a full year to receive their redundancy pay? Surely that is a disgrace which the House should not tolerate.
Mr. Newton: Clearly, I am not familiar with details of the case, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend looks into what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Peter Fry: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is a case for an urgent debate on the future of civil aviation? The Government were recently euphoric over an agreement in Brussels about the liberalisation of European air services, but people who have studied the small print and the deferral of the effect of that agreement feel that many British airlines will not gain very much very quickly from it. Surely the House should have the opportunity to debate the issue, in the best interests of British aviation.
Mr. Newton: Again, my hon. Friend will be aware that there are a number of opportunities today and before the House is due to go into recess to raise a variety of matters. I hope that he will be fortunate in achieving one of those opportunities. I cannot promise to change the business in the forthcoming week to accommodate such a debate.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible before the House goes into recess for the Prime Minister to make a statement giving his views on how keen he is to have the ever ready advice—although it is friendly advice, I am sure—of his predecessor? Would it not be useful for us to know what he feels about Lady Thatcher giving her views on various subjects at every opportunity?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has good reasons for asking the question. I do not want to add to what I said a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill).
Mr. John Gorst: May I urge my right hon. Friend to go a little further than he did in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on the subject of caravan sites? It is a most important subject, and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is proving unworkable. May we urge him to produce a statement on Government policy before we rise for the recess?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend not only can but evidently has urged me to do so. While acknowledging the strength

479
of feeling on the matter, I cannot give him quite the undertaking that he seeks. As was the case with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East, who raised the matter earlier, I shall ensure that that concern is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is there not the strongest case for a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on the 1,300 job losses at Ardersier, which represent 5 per cent. of the Highland region's work force? In such a statement, would the Secretary of State have any policy initiative to announce, whether it be seeking objective 1 status, accelerating oilfield development, studying competitive tendering, or moving oil jobs from London to the north of Scotland? Or will the Government stand idly by and watch an economic blizzard descend on the north of Scotland?
Mr. Newton: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will certainly be concerned to do everything that is proper and appropriate to assist with the difficulties faced by the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred. Of course, the Government's efforts in developing the work of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board, which I am sure will seek to help in that respect, is a good example.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), is my right hon. Friend aware of an article in The Guardian on 8 July, headed "Euro court punches holes in migrants laws", in which it states that our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has promised that a copy of the draft convention on European frontier controls will be placed in the Commons Library? As yet, the paper is not in the Library. Could my right hon. Friend ensure that it is there soon, as the summer recess approaches rapidly?
Mr. Newton: I made some comment on the first point to which my hon. Friend adverted in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). On the latter point, I shall certainly make inquiries about the position and seek to ensure that what my hon. Friend has asked for is achieved.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week to announce the extension of the Jubilee line, which would provide thousands of construction jobs in London and many jobs for those who manufacture trains, such as the work force at GEC in my constituency?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady is well aware of the repeated statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and others about the basis on which the Jubilee line would proceed. I do not think that I can go beyond that today.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before my association with the Select Committee on Health is arbitrarily terminated, may I, on behalf of that Committee of the previous Parliament, ask my right hon. Friend when the Secretary of State for Health will come to the House to make a statement on the Government's reaction and response to the Committee's report on maternity services, which I remind the House was published on 4 March and should have been responded to long before now?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, to my knowledge and from my observation—
Mr. Winterton: No longer friend?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, whom I observed and listened to with care, was in the Chamber yesterday for the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on "Health of the Nation" and he will be aware that that very report was raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). I do not believe that I can add to the comments that my right hon. Friend made at that time.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of the fact that we have a most tolerant Speaker, will there be a statement next week on the extraordinary information which has emerged from the Appeal Court, in relation to the case of Mr. David Mackenzie, whose sperm count and fertility make it quite clear that he was not responsible for the murder of Hilda Murrell? Could we have a statement on that, of which I have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Newton: I have nothing to add to the categorical assurance that was given—and repeated subsequently—by the Minister of State, Home Office in his letter to the hon. Gentleman at the end of 1984 of his belief that the security and intelligence services were not involved in any way in the death of Mrs. Murrell.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will there be a statement next week on the water industry, bearing in mind the fact that a Government discussion paper on this topic is imminent and the terrible hardship endured by the people in the south-west, who last year experienced a 16 per cent. increase in their water rates, had another 16 per cent. increase this year and are likely to face a third 16 per cent. increase next year? Water metering is an extremely important issue. Will my right hon. Friend please arrange a statement either next week or certainly in the week when the House returns?
Mr. Newton: We have had a substantial debate on water issues within the past fortnight, and I do not believe that I can promise another within the next week. I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has his attention drawn to my hon. Friend's comment.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have a statement at the earliest opportunity about whether any improvements will be made to this building during the recess to allow disabled people at least to rest somewhere and perhaps to have a meal as well, given that there are so few facilities for them at present?
No doubt the Leader of the House will have seen the story of Nicholas Killen, the little lad who has had his sight completely removed, of his bravery and the courage of his family. That little boy is now going to Temple Bank school for the partially sighted and blind in Bradford—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will come to the point about next week's business.
Mr. Cryer: Members of that school came round here 12 months ago, and I raised the question of facilities for disabled people then. There are absolutely none in this building, yet the Dining Rooms are booked by organisations where the fat cats can stuff themselves. I was

481
promised 12 months ago that something would be done. Nothing has been done. What will happen during the recess?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that it is entirely appropriate to draw the particular comparison that the hon. Gentleman has drawn between facilities of one kind or another. It is certainly true that all of us would want further improvements in facilities here for disabled people. I am sure that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, now happily set up, will wish to pay heed to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I remind my right hon. Friend that, at the end of the previous Parliament, his predecessor refused to have substantive resolutions tabled on the Jopling report on the sittings of the House? My right hon. Friend is following that sorry precedent even though, at the end of the previous Parliament, there were inevitably more senior parliamentarians than now. Could my right hon. Friend use the period after Monday's debate, before the recess, to table substantive resolutions drawing on the conclusions of that debate, so that we can implement them, hopefully in the first week back or very soon thereafter?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that it would be practicable to table resolutions during the recess, but I shall tell the House on Monday that it is very much my hope that during the recess we shall make progress in precisely the way my hon. Friend wants so that we can take substantive decisions at an early stage after we return.
Mr. Max Madden: I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 113.
[That this House contrasts the willingness of the British Ambassador to America to meet an American citizen, settled in the USA, to discuss why he was refused permission to visit the United Kingdom with the unwillingness of the British High Commissioner to Pakistan to make enquiries about a Pakistan citizen, settled in the United Kingdom for the last 18 years, who has been imprisoned in Pakistan for more than a year; again urges the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the honourable Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, to instruct British officials at our post in Islamabad to contact Pakistani authorities to obtain full information about Chazanfer Ali, a constituent of the honourable Member for Bradford West who first asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for information on Mr Ali's case on 25th March; understands Mr Ali's wife and children, living in Bradford, are desperately worried about Mr Ali, who they have not seen for the past 22 months; and believes Mrs Ali and her family are entitled to expect the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to obtain full information about Mr Ali's circumstances, especially news as to then he is to be released from prison and allowed to return to his home and family in Bradford.]
It concerns my constituent, Mr. Chazanfer Ali, who is in prison in Pakistan, who next Wednesday will lose his automatic right to return to this country and who on Thursday will be making his first court appearance.
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that, despite requests for information about Mr. Ali that I have
482
made in the last three months to the Foreign Office, to the Pakistan High Commission, to the Prime Ministers of Britain and Pakistan and even to you, Madam Speaker, not a single crumb of official information has been passed to me about my constituent? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister that I am grateful for his letter of this week, that I am determined to ask for information about my constituent, and that I am equally determined that he does not become a forgotten man, separated from his wife and five children in my constituency?
Mr. Newton: I understand that there has been considerable correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and Ministers and that the principal difficulty is that Mr. Ali is a Pakistani national. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) told the hon. Gentleman in a letter of 8 May, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no standing to intervene in the case of a Pakistani national detained in Pakistan.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May we have a foreign affairs debate on the question of the decorum of those who represent us abroad? If, by losing his seat, the new Governor of Hong Kong obtains his position, is it appropriate that everybody who greets him should dress properly in uniform while he discards his uniform and dresses like Harry Lime?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I would wish—indeed, I am sure I would not wish—to be associated with that description of my right hon. Friend, a former Member of the House, now the Governor of Hong Kong. But, even from this distance, I hope to find some way of drawing his attention to what my hon. and learned Friend said.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern that has been expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House about the environmental problems that arise from opencast coal operations? Is he further aware that, more than two years ago, we raised with the Department of the Environment the issue of what are called the mineral planning guidance notes, and were promised that the environmental issues would be looked into and consultations held? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week on the results of those consultations and the changes that will be made to the MPG notes?
Mr. Newton: I shall, in the ordinary way, pass on the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I refer the Leader of the House to the motion on the membership of Select Committees and, in particular, draw his attention to the fact that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has been nominated to serve not only on the Scottish Select Committee but also on the Select Committee on Defence. Is he totally confident of his hon. and learned Friend's ability to apply his notable talents to two Select Committees at once—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question about next week's business; he must not make debating points. What is his question about next week's business?
Mr. Home Robertson: I was asking—
Madam Speaker: Order. I heard the preamble. I now need to hear the question.
Mr. Home Robertson: The question is whether it would be appropriate to debate a motion in those terms next week.
Mr. Newton: My task as Leader of the House was, first, to table a motion enabling the Select Committees to be set up, which we have successfully done, and then to table a motion to provide time for a motion to be debated to provide the complement of the Select Committees. Happily, the content of that motion is a matter for the Committee of Selection, and I direct the hon. Gentleman in that direction.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Minister of Agriculture has decided to have a meeting with Bolsover council and other groups next Wednesday on the subject of dioxin, may we have an assurance that a statement will be made by that Minister before or after the meeting, if he still feels up to it?
Mr. Newton: It seems highly unlikely that my right hon. Friend will be able to attend a meeting of the sort outlined by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) without making a statement of some sort.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Home Secretary this week confided to The Guardian that he intended to reconstitute police committees in the same way as he had reconstituted health authorities. Will the Leader of the House arrange for his right hon. and learned Friend to come to the House next week to explain on what principles he will reconstitute the police committees? Are there not sufficient estate agents any more?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should make it clear, in case there was any misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) over my previous answer to him, that I was saying that, if my right hon. Friend the Minister has a meeting of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he will say something in the course of that meeting.
I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the issue raised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright).
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of
484
State for Defence to make a statement next week about the report published today by the marine accident investiga-tion branch of the Department of Trade and Industry into the sinking of the Antares? In particular, will he state whether or not the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy accept the eight recommendations included in that report? It is absolutely essential that those recommenda-tions are accepted if we are to ensure that the tragedy of the sinking of the Antares is not repeated, in the Clyde or elsewhere.
Mr. Newton: I will bring that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement on the Post Office? The President of the Board of Trade recently authorised the dropping of the Royal Mail prefix from the Post Office's Parcel Force. Is it not outrageous that that clear step towards privatisation was not even reported to the House, let alone debated properly?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to record the fact that that change of name has taken place. It reflects the fact that Royal Mail and Parcel Force are significantly different enterprises.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Can I urge the Leader of the House to set aside time before the onset of winter and a return of the scandalous deaths through hypothermia to debate cold weather payments at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Newton: As I well know from my role in a previous capacity, significant improvements were made in the cold weather payments system before last winter. My experience and view is that the new arrangements worked extremely well last winter, and a large amount of money —I think about £23 million—was paid out under them.

Adjournment of the House
Madam Speaker: I must remind hon. Members that, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 16 July, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results will be known as soon as posssible thereafter.

Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16th July, do adjourn until Monday 19th October.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
4.8 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: I shall speak briefly on a subject which is of great importance. Before the House adjourns for the long recess, I want to refer to the serious problem of car crime in our community. Everyone is deeply concerned about the increase of crime, about which we have heard all too frequently. The figures show that the rise is almost entirely caused by the wholly unacceptable increase in crimes involving motor cars. In that respect we compare unfavourably with European and many other countries. It is a disgraceful stain on our reputation.
I should like to declare an interest in the matter. I have the honour to be the president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists, which represents about 70,000 motorists who are greatly concerned about road safety and have made many useful contributions. Car crime affects all parts of the country. It is especially worrying in my area of Cambridgeshire, where the level of general crime compares reasonably favourably with other parts of the country—but not in respect of crimes involving cars.
Not only does car crime affect the convenience and way of life of us all: it also leads to appalling incidents of what people foolishly call joyriding. I call it misery riding, because it leads to death and appalling maiming. The substantial increase in general crime is often facilitated by the use of motor vehicles which are used for burglary, attacking retail stores and bashing into premises and stealing from them.
The Government and responsible bodies should take every step to curb this menace in society. Motor manufacturers and insurers should accept responsibility. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and certainly his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), met the motor manufacturers and endeavoured to persuade them of their responsibilities. I am not at all certain how successful they were. I do not necessarily expect the Leader of the House to tell me about that, but perhaps he would inquire of the Home Secretary.
My impression is that motor manufacturers are not over-keen to do anything other than making cars that will sell. They had to be persuaded by legislation to install safety belts, and other safety features in motor vehicles have emerged only because of Government action. I sometimes maintain that if it were not for the law, motor manufacturers would not bother to fit brakes. We must take a firm line with the manufacturers. It is essential for all new vehicles to be fitted with an alarm system or, better still, an immobilising system, because the only way to reduce car crime is to have vehicles properly immobilised.
I drew the Home Secretary's attention to advertise-ments for devices which could cancel car security systems. I wrote drawing his attention to devices called car grabbers. The Guild of Experienced Motorists and others have said that the device should be outlawed immediately. Apparently the grabbers can be used to open any vehicle
486
with impunity, even when a security device is used. The manufacturers of the device say that it is to be used only by car recovery people, whatever that means.
In reply to my letter, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), said that he appreciated concern about the matter but, speaking for the Home Office, he said:
"We do not…have any evidence that alarm deactivators arc in fact commercially available in this country".
I alert him to the fact that they are available. I shall not mention the name of the firm, because I do not want to give it any publicity, but there is a firm in London which is producing leaflets about devices which can overcome any security system. They are called interceptors.
The publicity states:
"As more and more vehicles are … fitted with remote control alarm systems, recovery is often difficult".
The interceptor can intercept any system. The splendid advertising also states that the device
"has the outstanding ability to disable any remote control alarm system. Specially designed to assist in the recovery of vehicles … simply prevents any remote control alarm system٭ from being armed during the recovery of the vehicle."
After the asterisk, it is stated that the device is "DTI approved", which means that the Government know about the device and appear to have approved it. It strikes me that there is a serious lack of liaison between the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.
The publicity warns:
"It is a criminal offence to use this device for vehicle theft."
Ooh-er—thank you very much. I am sure that all potential burglars and car criminals will immediately desist when they have seen that notice.
The Home Secretary has been rather naive, and I ask him and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to put a bomb under the Home Office and try to get the problem sorted out. It is absolutely disgraceful that we are wringing our hands and saying how appalling it is that vehicles are stolen and used for serious crimes and that people are maimed, injured and killed, yet we do not seem to take the slightest interest in the highly skilled technological devices available to criminals—which are approved by the DTI, if you please. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider the problem seriously—it is not a joke but a subject of immense importance.
Next door to me is the county of Bedfordshire, which has one of the best records for containing crime. As I represent a Cambridgeshire constituency, it sticks in the gullet to praise Bedfordshire, but Bedfordshire has been so successful because the police there took the problem of car crime very seriously.
I shall now sit down because many other hon. Members wish to participate in this short debate, but I ask my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues to consider the issue seriously.
4.17 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: This is the earliest summer Adjournment I can remember. It may well be the earliest that any present Member of the House can recall. Everyone knows the reason: in the last few weeks, Government business has collapsed in the shambles over the Maastricht Bill. Yet many important matters merit urgent consideration and at least an oral ministerial statement before the House goes into recess.

487
The first of the two matters I want briefly to raise is one to which it would be very appropriate for the Leader of the House to respond since, for much of the past 13 years, he has had some responsibility for social security, latterly as Secretary of State.
He will know from our debates last year that the Opposition viewed with considerable scepticism some of the Government's claims about the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance. We felt strongly that false hopes of new help were being raised among people who would not qualify for a single penny piece from the allowances, particularly large numbers of elderly disabled people, and that in consequence there would be not only widespread and bitter disappointment but very considerable delays in processing the applications of entitled claimants.
That is exactly what has happened. In fact, protests from disabled constituents speak of the collapse of the whole benefits apparatus since the turn of the year. They are complaints from people who know only too well that, whereas average earnings have increased by over 20 per cent. since 1979, disability benefits have risen by only 1 per cent.
After the election I had complaints from the Terrence Higgins Trust that applications for attendance allowance for the terminally ill were being delayed by two months or more. What use is that? The right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), who is now Leader of the House, took credit for introducing the special rules, but who takes the blame for the present chaos?
The Benefits Agency told me by letter that targets for delivering attendance allowance have not been met even, in many cases, to people in the final weeks of life. Failure to deliver benefits to the terminally ill must surely be a deeply serious matter. What good is financial help that comes posthumously? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many cases are still outstanding and how long applicants can expect it to take to process their claims?
On 12 May, in reply to a parliamentary question, I received a letter from Mr. Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, giving details of the increase in claims. He told me that due to
"the extraordinarily high but rewarding level of interest that has been shown in the benefits, prompted by a major publicity campaign and the surge of claims that has resulted, we naturally faced early problems."
He added that it was not, therefore, surprising that the agency had been unable to meet the targets set for delivery of the attendance allowance. Rewarding to whom? It was not rewarding to disabled people, who now complain of trying over 20 times a day to phone the agency, without even being able to make contact.
I have been informed by the Terrence Higgins Trust —this was before raising the issue in the House—that the attendance allowance unit had been drained of staff and, in particular, of adjudication officers. This was glossed over in the letter to me, but in one to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 June Mr. Bichard was more explicit. He wrote:
"The national publicity campaign has had a knock-on effect in generating new claims to attendance allowance, at a time when staff were being released for retraining on the new disability living allowance work."
He added:
"I should explain that it was always expected that there would he a backlog of applications to deal with in the early months of operation as a result of the advertising campaign."
488
I do not blame Mr. Bichard or the agency for the shambles and nor, to my knowledge, does any other right hon. or hon. Member.
Ministers must take responsibility for what has happened. That the shambles has taken so long to come to light is due to the ease with which Ministers are now able to hide behind the Benefits Agency. When the right hon. Member for Braintree set it up, he promised that information to Members and the responsibility of Ministers to the House would in no way diminish. Yet almost all the facts are hidden in the Library and parliamentary questions are answered by the standard rubric. It is hard at times fully to understand the system. I still occasionally receive substantive replies from the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. As on the last occasion he had to apologise for giving me the wrong figures, I suspect that this courtesy may now cease entirely.
To test the availability of information to Members, I asked the Library to supply me with copies of all the replies from the Benefits Agency since the election. I was told:
"Unfortunately, owing to the large number of letters concerned, the Library is unable to supply photocopies of all the letters."
I was sent the latest 15, of which seven concerned delays in the administration of the attendance allowance and the disability living allowance. I have no quarrel with the Library, but in previous years all the information would have been in Hansard. It was the right hon. Member for Braintree who changed the system, making it difficult for Members of Parliament, and almost impossible for outside agencies, to obtain data that previously had always been readily available to them.
Apart from two exchanges at Question Time, there have been no opportunities to call Ministers to account. Unquestionably, we should have the opportunity to do so before the summer recess. We should also be told before the debate concludes whether the Benefits Agency's responses to parliamentary questions are covered by parliamentary privilege. That is a deeply important question. At the same time, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how many people have now qualified for the disability working allowance. As he knows, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has disclosed that only 588 claimants were awarded disability working allowance up to 8 May. That is only 6·5 per cent. of the 9,107 who applied. I understand that, in all, there were no fewer than 295,000 inquiries about the allowance.
Another matter that needs clarification before the House rises is the Government's attitude to civil rights for people with disabilities. In a parliamentary reply on 29 June, the Prime Minister said:
"The Government's view was stated principally on 31 January during Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People".—[Official Report, 29 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 375.]
The clearest statement by the Minister in that Second Reading debate was when he said:
"I remain unrepentantly and benevolently neutral in my attitude".—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1252.]
About that, one can only echo the Biblical words,
"He that is not with me is against me."
Perhaps the true position was stated by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment at oral

489
questions on 10 March. In straight conflict with what had been said by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 31 January, the hon. Gentleman said:
"I do not believe, and the Government do not believe, that such a legislative approach is the right way to deal with the problem."—[Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 735.]
For further obfuscation of the Government's position, I turn to Lord Henley. On 15 June, during the debate on the Bill in another place—following its introduction by my noble Friend Baroness Lockwood—Lord Henley inter-vened in a speech by my noble Friend Lord Ennals and said:
I did not oppose the Bill. I said that I could not offer the Government's support. There is a considerable difference between the two concepts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 1992; Vol. 583, c. 86.]
Perhaps the Leader of the House would explain the difference in practice and, at the same time, tell us how to reconcile the three ministerial versions of the Government's attitude to the Bill.
On 5 June, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People sent me an extraordinary letter claiming that my proposed disablement commission
"would conflict with the work of advisory and enforcement bodies which already exist to oversee the implementation of legislation."
What are those bodies? In a reply on 26 June, he revealed —in a bizarre attempt to explain his previous letter—that those bodies included the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Sports Council.
Can the right hon. Gentleman think of one way in which the work of those admirable bodies could be impeded to any extent by my Bill—or, indeed, the work of the British Standards Institution or the War Pensions Committee? Clearly, the strain of being "benevolently neutral" is beginning to tell.
The Leader of the House was, as I have recalled, a Social Security Minister for many years. Understandably, at that time he had to uphold the departmental view, right or wrong. Now that he is Leader of the House, he has a responsibility to Members of Parliament as a whole, irrespective of where they sit in the House. Since becoming Leader of the House, he must have learnt, merely from reading the Order Paper day by day, that there is strong and increasing support, not just on both sides of the House but in every party, large and small, for the enactment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. For example, he must have seen the range of support from all parties for early-day motion 330 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry), which states:
"That this House believes that anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity for people with disabilities; and calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill."
The support here for my Civil Rights Bill reflects closely the range of backing for it among the organisations of and for disabled people. They are utterly united in wanting the Bill enacted and nothing would give them more joy today than to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have now come down from the fence to help forward its enactment. I most strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to do all that he can as Leader of the House to respond positively to their views before the recess. In so doing, he would be agreeing with colleagues in all parts of the House that this is not now a difference between right and left, but one between right and wrong.
4.30 pm
Mr. Charles Hendry: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech and, in advance of the summer recess, to raise matters of great concern to my constituents.
At the outset, however, I wish to pay a warm personal tribute to my predecessor, Christopher Hawkins, who served High Peak so well for the past nine years. He was a man of tremendous intelligence and many new and good ideas. Perhaps in a way that is less normal for a politician, he was much more interested in obtaining results than in obtaining publicity for them. He did an enormous amount for High Peak, which has earned him the great respect of people there and for which he will long be remembered. Fortunately, he is now enjoying much better health than when he decided to retire and I am delighted that his skills and talents will continue to be used as deputy chairman of the Black Country development corporation, continuing the good and important work of my noble Friend Baroness Denton.
In the few short weeks I have been in the House, I have already become extremely well aware of the immense affection also for Christopher Hawkins' predecessor, Spencer Le Marchant. None of us will ever forget that, in the early days of the broadcasting of proceedings of the House, it was Spencer's voice that told the world and a hushed and expectant nation the result of that important vote of confidence in 1979. It was those words which we now know spelt the end of socialism in Britain, which was so clearly confirmed by the results on 9 April this year. However, I must advise hon. Members not to expect from me the largesse of Spencer Le Marchant—obviously not in physical terms, nor also, for the sake of my bank manager, in terms of his legendary generosity.
I should like to express my thanks to two other people who, over the past couple of years, have given me a unique opportunity to see the workings of the House and Whitehall and to play an extremely small and minor part in the development of policy. They are my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and John Moore, who I am delighted is now rejoining Parliament in another place, to whom I was special adviser. At the risk of embarrassing my right hon. Friend, I could not have hoped to work for two more honourable, decent. far-sighted and fair men. I rather suspect that I learnt far more from them than they ever might have done from me.
That was certainly a far cry from the days when I first came to work in the House 10 years ago as a humble researcher for my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in one of his many previous incarnations in the House. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber today. He paid me the princely sum—or whatever his equivalent would be of a princely sum—of £10 a week. I must have been one of the first people to realise, despite many other signs to the contrary, that my hon. Friend was already an ardent supporter of Thatcherite housekeeping principles. At that time I also worked for Peter Fraser—now my right hon., noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate—who paid me no money at all. Only in retrospect did I realise what sound judgment both must have had.
My first election campaign, in 1983, took place in Clackmannan. Contrary to the impression gained by some of my colleagues, I had not applied to stand at Clapham but, having stuttered, ended up 400 miles away in the

491
middle of Scotland! There I learned the importance of brevity. When I asked my agent why he had scheduled no public meetings for me, he said, "Well, Charles, it is better that people wonder why you do not speak than that they wonder why you do."
I want to draw attention to a number of issues relating to High Peak. Listening to the excellent maiden speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was slightly surprised to note how few of them had been there. If they had, they would have had to be satisfied with representing the second most beautiful constituency in the country.
High Peak is a constituency of unique and wonderful contrasts. It combines the rolling valleys of Hope Valley and the charming villages within it with the foreboding splendour and magnificence of Kinder Scout. It combines the majesty of Longden dale with the breathtaking beauty of the Derwent valley; and it incorporates towns such as Buxton—a magnificent Georgian town—with the industrial heritage of the manufacturing centres of New Mills and Glossop. It contains a variety of small towns such as Chapel-en-le-Frith, Whaley Bridge and Hayfield—delight-ful little places—and a host of small villages rejoicing in such names as Dove Holes, Sparrowpit and Wormhill. I have yet to find out why the birds in High Peak live underground while the worms apparently do not. Anyway, it is an area of tremendous contrasts, and it is a delight and a privilege to represent it.
High Peak, however, is not merely an area that people wish to visit; it is much more than that. In many ways, it provides the lungs—the breathing space—for Manchester and Sheffield, being less than a dozen miles from the centres of both those great cities. I simply do not believe that the people of a rural area such as High Peak can claim that the problems of those cities do not matter to them. We depend very much on them; many of my constituents work in them, and are making an important contribution to their revival.
High Peak contains problems as well as opportunities, and it is on those problems that I wish to comment. The first is the problem of access. In the past year, some 24 million people have visited the Peak district, which makes Blackpool seem like a minor resort. The road infrastructure that they have used has scarcely changed in the past 40 years, and we now experience tremendous problems of traffic clogging in places such as Glossop, and on the A628 to the north of that town. Those traffic problems urgently need relief: on weekday mornings the rush-hour traffic is as bad, as slow and as frustrating as it is in any city in the country. Towns such as Buxton also need a bypass if they are to enjoy the growth that they deserve. In places such as Dove Holes, a bypass could be built simply, cheaply and rapidly. I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of building roads in those areas.
Because High Peak is an area of such outstanding natural beauty, I hope that the Government will also pay particular attention to the environmental impact of those roads. The A6 badly needs relief as it is seriously clogged, but it would be a tragedy if that relief destroyed the environment that people wish to visit. I hope that the serious concern felt by people in New Mills will be taken into account.
I also wish to raise the general issue of conservation. Buxton is one of the brightest jewels in the shining crown of High Peak. It is a magnificent Georgian town, and we are fortunate enough to have one of the country's smallest
492
and most special opera houses. Owing to the diligence of those who run it, the opera house has one of the most successful records in the country: it manages to put on new productions that people actually want to see and, more important, it does so with a fraction of the subsidy given to other opera houses. Buxton's subsidy is 27p per seat; the average for similar theatres is more than £3. So, for less than 10 per cent. of the average, people are being looked after and have a tremendous asset.
Next week the international Buxton festival will open, which will bring people flooding into the town not only from the surrounding area but from all over the country and from overseas. Sadly, this year visitors will be shocked by the state of the magnificient Georgian crescent in the centre of the town. It is boarded up and derelict, posing an increasing danger to people passing through the town who visit it. I urge my right hon. Friend to contact his colleagues in Government to find out what can be done by bringing together people who could assist in the restoration of the crescent. I am encouraged by the way in which High Peak borough council, Derbyshire county council—it is rare for that council to be praised—and English Heritage are working constructively together to secure the future of the crescent. but I also urge the Government, through the Secretary of State for National Heritage, to do whatever they can to assist.
In spite of those few problems, we are fortunate to live in High Peak. I invite those who do not live there to come to the festival, or to see something else at the opera house. I consider myself the luckiest Member of the House, because I can be in Westminster during the week and in my constituency in the Peak district for the rest of the time. If some attention could be paid to the small matters that I have mentioned, High Peak would become an even more attractive place in which to live and work, and a more attractive place to visit.
4.41 pm
Mr. Dennis Turner: I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on his interesting maiden speech, which gave us a graphic picture of his constituency. Those of us who know Derbyshire know how beautiful his constituency is. The important issues that he raised about the environment, infrastructure and conservation are all germane to many of our constituencies; they are important matters and should be brought to the attention of the Government. I congratulate the hon. Member on his speech and hope that we shall hear many more contributions from him. When he listed his hobbies and recreations, I was struck by the contrast between his—he talks of skiing and tennis—and mine, which are beer drinking and all card games. I also appreciated his earlier contribution to public welfare when he told us about all the charity work that he did for his colleagues both inside and outside the House in the years before he entered this place.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate and I shall make my points briefly as I am aware that many other hon. Members wish to speak. Earlier this week, we had an interesting and important debate on the recession. On Monday, particular mention was made of the continuing difficulties that we are experiencing in the west midlands. In my constituency in Wolverhampton there are continual job losses, company closures and bankruptcies. Unemployment is at a high level. In most

493
parts of my constituency and the rest of Wolverhampton, male unemployment is more than 20 per cent. That is a serious situation for many of my constituents, who are unable to make a contribution to our society and have no opportunity to live a decent life, because the standard of living on the dole is not, and should not be, acceptable to us.
A further blow to my community in Wolverhampton has been the recent hostile and unwelcome bid made by Kalon plc for the Manders paint works in Wolverhampton. We all understand that in the business world there are times when a merger or takeover is regarded as desirable and is accepted, when a company faces difficulties and needs assistance, but Manders is a company which has traded successfully for the past 200 years. It is the foremost company in Wolverhampton; it has first-rate industrial relations and a first-rate product, and we in Wolverhampton are all proud of it.
The hostile bid is a serious blow to the town, first, because of its effect on jobs. We may lose as many as 500 jobs in Wolverhampton and in a subsidiary company in Yorkshire which will be wiped out if the bid is successful. Furthermore, the company making the bid serves the own-brand paint market, and if it were successful it would control more than 70 per cent. of that market. A serious competition issue therefore arises. If the competition were taken out, the bidding company would be able to increase prices and act not in the interests of our economy or of consumers but against the public interest. Neither Manders and its workers nor our town accept that that bid is in any way helpful to the economy or to Wolverhampton.
The bid should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is a classic case for the anti-competition rules. If it is not a classic case for reference to the MMC, that body and that method of dealing with such issues must be a complete waste of time, and the whole apparatus should be abandoned.
Having listened to my speech, will the Leader of the House be prepared at least to ask the President of the Board of Trade kindly to consider the matter? We are worried about the jobs, about lack of competition in that sector of the market, and about the future of a great company.
Manders was the first company to sign the 40-hour working week agreement with the trade unions back in 1927, and since then it has always operated a policy of good industrial relations. Manders has an excellent product; we in Wolverhampton are proud of the company and of its work force, and we need to keep it in our town. I therefore ask the Leader of the House kindly to refer the matter to the President of the Board of Trade so that justice can be done and we can continue to have that profitable and successful company in Wolverhampton.
4.48 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I join the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on a confident and excellent maiden speech. I remember how nervous I was when I
494
made my own. I admire my hon. Friend for seeming not to have a care in the world, but no doubt a great deal of fluttering was going on inside.
I was grateful that my hon. Friend paid a particular tribute to Spencer Le Marchant, who was one of the most generous people ever to sit in the House. It was brave of my hon. Friend to reveal that he had worked for a pittance for one of my Scottish hon. Friends, and for nothing at all for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. When we debate the subject of people living on small incomes, no doubt my hon. Friend will be able to speak with experience. The people of High Peak made a good choice when they elected him as their Member of Parliament in April. I am sure that he will receive congratulations from every right hon. and hon. Member who heard his maiden speech.
Ticket touting is a serious problem, which must be tackled sooner rather than later. Touts operate in various forms—as private individuals, as organised groups on the streets outside theatres and sports venues and masquerading as ticket agents by operating from apparently authentic premises. The latter present a particular danger in the west end. They have the semblance of respectability. By displaying publicity material for various shows, they give the impression that they are genuine agencies, such as the Keith Prowse chain which collapsed a few years ago. The public are taken in because they believe that they are using a respectable business.
All too often, however, an unsuspecting tourist will find that he has paid well over the odds. Touting can mislead and defraud the public, who may pay an extortionate price that is way above a ticket's face value. It often transpires that the seats purchased have a restricted view, contrary to assurances given at the time of purchase. If one goes to a theatre box office, one will be told if the seats offered are located behind a pillar or at the back of the stalls. It is disgraceful to pay an agency a great deal of money for a ticket, only to find that one's view of the stage is obstructed.
It has also been known for people arriving at a theatre to collect their pre-paid tickets to discover that they are not available because the agency has gone out of business or has moved to unknown premises.
The Society of West End Theatre produced a dossier of cases. Two German tourists paid £75 each to see "The Phantom of the Opera", when the ticket's face value was £8·50. Two Norwegian tourists paid £50 for tickets for "Starlight Express", only to find that their seats offered a restricted view from the back row. A tourist from Essex paid an agency £54 for a ticket that had a face value of £7·50. Tennis fans have paid as much as £650 for finals day tickets having a face value of £36. Football supporters have paid £250 for FA cup final tickets with a face value of £35. I can only imagine that they had more money than sense to pay such prices. Such practices do a great deal to harm the British tourist industry and to deter tourists from patronising certain events.
Touts also enjoy substantial profits without making any contribution to the state in the form of income tax or value added tax.
In February, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made a widely reported speech at Brunel university in his capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms. He announced plans to give consumers more protection and greater redress, including a proposal to

495
ensure that when agencies resell tickets for theatres and other public events, they disclose the location, face value and other relevant information to the prospective buyer. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say when that commitment will be implemented.
Urgent action is needed if London is to avoid the description of ticket tout capital of the world. Of course we must acknowledge market principles, and I know that one of my hon. Friends is in favour of ticket touts. Everyone is entitled to his opinion—but the market mechanism is free and fair only if the buyer of goods or services has full knowledge of the proper market price and can be confident that the vendor is authorised to sell.
Why cannot the code of practice in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 be made statutory so that it becomes a definite offence to deface the face value of a ticket, and amended in such a way that it is legally clear and easier to enforce? Ticket agencies should also be licensed so that tickets can be bought only from authorised establish-ments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should have powers to make regulations allowing local authorities to license ticket sellers and third parties to sell tickets on closely controlled terms. All other sales to the public would become illegal. Licensing must be the ultimate long-term objective.
We can learn from the experience of another great theatre city—New York. There was a time when touting in that city was creating enormous problems, so the state legislature introduced laws forbidding it. New York ticket sellers are required to be licensed, submit a bond of $1,000, print the mark-up on the ticket, display their licence in a public place and keep a record of all their transactions. If such arrangements are possible in New York, why are they not in London and other parts of the United Kingdom?
Most right hon. and hon. Members regard touting as morally reprehensible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, when Minister of State, Home Office, described the practice as obnoxious. I would never buy from a ticket tout. Some years ago, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jnr. and Liza Minnelli starred at a concert in the Royal Albert hall, for which tickets were at a premium. My wife and I very much wanted to attend the last night, but could not obtain tickets anywhere. Someone suggested that I should stand outside the hall with cash in my pocket, because the chances were that just as the show was due to start, the touts would sharply reduce their asking prices. I would rather that they burnt their fingers by being left with unsold tickets and making a loss on their transactions.
Tourism is important to our economy, and tourists are a particular target for the touts. A few years ago, Westminster city council—which covers most of the west end theatres—undertook an investigation that confirmed that foreign visitors were the most likely to be overcharged. The report stated:
"This has important implications for tourism. Why should tourists pay more for the same product?"
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will inform the Department of Trade and Industry's consumer affairs division that many people, including myself, are impatient for the pledge that was given on 20 February by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle to be implemented. I hope that an announcement will be made before the summer recess.
4.58 pm
Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on what I, too, thought was an excellent maiden speech. However, he suggested that many hon. Members had not visited High Peak. My parents lived and worked in his constituency for many years and I had the opportunity to visit it on many occasions. While I accept the way in which he extolled the beauty of his constituency, I am not prepared to relegate my constituency to second place behind his.
I want to raise an issue that is very important for people in my constituency and for those in the constituencies of many other hon. Members. It relates to a group of people who, if we are not careful, may become the forgotten victims of the Maxwell scandal. I gave the Leader of the House warning that I was going to raise the issue and I hope that I will, therefore, hear positive news when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate.
Hon. Members will be aware that a few weeks ago the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that he was making available a sum of £2·5 million
"to provide temporary, emergency funding to help Maxwell schemes which are unable to maintain pension payments over the next few months."—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 20.]
That announcement was warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and many people sighed with relief. For many Maxwell pensioners who already receive a pension, it provided some certainty that those pensions would continue for at least the next few months.
However, there remains a great deal of uncertainty for many other people affected by the Maxwell scandal. I particularly want to draw those people to the attention of the House and hope that before we go into recess we shall be able to resolve their anxieties and uncertainties.
As hon. Members will be aware, the winding-up arrangements of the Maxwell pension schemes mean that people who reach pensionable age after February of this year are still treated as deferred pensioners. In many cases, they will not receive a pension through a Maxwell pension scheme unless the Secretary of State for Social Security and his newly established Maxwell pension unit are prepared to arrange for that to happen.
I have spoken to the Maxwell pension unit and I am grateful for its help. However, it told me that, to date, no decision has been taken on whether that group of deferred pensioners will receive assistance from the £2·5 million fund. It is important that we are told, as a matter of urgency, whether they will be helped in that way.
Another group of victims of the Maxwell pension scandal have been affected in a more complicated way. They are victims of the Maxwell scandal, but they are not currently members of a Maxwell pension scheme. To illustrate the complexity and importance of the situation, I want to refer to a group of my constituents.
In the mid-1980s, Robert Maxwell acquired the Hollis Engineering Group of companies, which included Stothert and Pitt in my constituency and Floform in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The companies that formed the Hollis Engineering Group each had their own, well-funded pension schemes. However, when Robert Maxwell took over the companies, they were brought together in a single, new pension scheme now known as AGB.

497
Subsequently, as a result of a management buy-out, yet another pension scheme—the Victoria Works pension scheme—was established. It was independent of AGB—the Maxwell scheme. An agreement was reached that a sum of about £4 million of transfer-valued assets would be transferred to the Victoria Works scheme. However, only about £1·3 million was transferred, leaving a shortfall of more than £2 million in the new Victoria Works scheme.
At that point, the Maxwell saga blew up. The scandal broke and we discovered that AGB was unable to transfer the remaining amount into the Victoria Works pension scheme. Because of the fraud, AGB cannot hand over money owed to the Victoria Works scheme which affects 70 of my constituents. As the scheme has no other source of funds, it will very shortly be insolvent.
In short, that means that 70 of my constituents belong to a pension scheme which, because of the Maxwell fraud, will become insolvent. They will stop receiving their pensions very soon. In a few months' time, more of the 250 deferred pensioners will not receive pensions. At the moment, they are not part of a Maxwell pension scheme. Therefore, they do not appear to fall within the remit of the £2·5 million fund. Can that £2·5 million emergency fund be extended to the Victoria Works pension scheme?
George Busby is 67 years old and he is one of those affected in my constituency. He paid into a pension scheme for 30 years and retired at the end of 1989. He told me today that he is now seriously considering selling his home and that, with the threat of the loss of pension hanging over him, he is unable to make plans for a holiday. He said:
"The strain of not knowing whether you're going to be able to provide for your wife and dependants is intolerable. All the years of planning for retirement are destroyed."
Given that the Leader of the House has had notice of the matter, I hope that he will be able to assure me that active consideration is being given to the possibility of money from the £2·5 million fund being transferred to the Victoria Works pension scheme, which is not the only scheme affected. There are nine other schemes, with asset values close to £10 million, that still have not been transferred from AGB, and their pensioners are in a similar position. I understand that some other Maxwell pension schemes may also face similar problems.
The issue is complex and it will require a great deal of sorting out. However, I hope that that can be achieved very quickly because many people are affected.
5.7 pm
Mr. David Willetts: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye and so make my maiden speech. I follow the conspicuous and eloquent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). Mine is very much a valley after his great heights.
I have the honour of succeeding Sir Ian Lloyd, who was the Member for Havant for 25 years. He was a most assiduous and well-respected constituency Member and he was ably assisted by his wife Frances who made a particular contribution to the local work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
Ian was a most distinguished parliamentarian. He was never cramped by day-to-day political argument but always took the long view. In his maiden speech in 1965,
498
he reminded the House of an ancestor of his who successfully introduced a measure in 1693 to denationalise the mines—one of the preconditions for our industrial revolution. It is particularly apt, therefore, that we will be able to celebrate the 300th anniversary of that measure by setting the mines free once more.
Perhaps Ian's influence was strongest in science and technology. It is one of those ironies of political life that, within a few months of his taking his retirement, two measures for which he fought long and hard have finally been implemented. On 1 May, we saw created the Office of Science and Technology, falling within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Ian had also fought for the creation of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. For a while, it was financed entirely through private spon-sorship, but again, only a few weeks ago, the House of Commons Commission finally voted public funds to support that office. I hope that both measures can be regarded as our tribute to Sir Ian Lloyd on his retirement.
Before the House adjourns, I should like to raise several matters that are of concern to my constituents. Havant stands literally at a crossroads and has done so since Roman times. It stands where the A3 from Portsmouth to London intersects the A27 coastal road. A new A27 was recently constructed. It was intended to bring relief to the area, but sadly it has blighted the lives of many people in Warblington and Emsworth. Its deeply ridged concrete surface produces the notorious A27 roar. When the road was opened, the Department of Transport described the surface as "experimental". It is an experiment which has failed. We in Havant are fighting a battle for bitumen. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and I look forward to meeting our hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic next week, when we will argue forcefully for resurfacing the A27.
Hon. Members have often referred in their maiden speeches to the sense of community in their constituencies. Havant has its sense of community, too—but perhaps that sounds a trifle worthy or even dull. I assure the House that it is not like that at all. The other week, I had the honour of taking part in the Havant annual town parade, and was preceded by giant Sooty and Sweep puppets, an array of teenage mutant ninja turtles and the south coast's finest Norman Wisdom impersonator. It was a most enjoyable event.
The borough of Havant comprises several distinct communities, and few issues arouse as much emotion as proposals to build on the remaining green land that survives between them. The last thing that we want Havant to become is one long anonymous urban agglomeration. Each part of the constituency, from Hartplain to Emsworth, values its own identity. Waterlooville, for example, is the place where British soldiers camped before embarking to defeat the forces of Napoleonic centralism at Waterloo, that famous battlefield 100 miles south-east of Maastricht. Napoleon, of course, had a notoriously limited grasp of the important idea of subsidiarity—it extended only as far as making his brother King of Spain.
Emsworth used to be famous for its oysters, until a most unfortunate incident at a banquet nearly 100 years ago, when civil dignitaries, local grandees and councillors became extremely ill on eating Emsworth oysters, and I am afraid that some died. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is no way to treat local councillors.

499
There are also the people of Hayling Island, who have taken the sensible precaution of preserving their distinct identity by arranging to be an island. It has rich agricultural land and a very fine beach—one of the 16 in the country to have been awarded the coveted blue flag. It was a Hayling islander who first had the idea of putting a mast on a surfboard, and thus windsurfing was created. I am pleased to say that Hayling remains one of the world centres for that sport.
The names of some parts of my constituency may ring a faint bell with hon. Members who have read their P. G. Wodehouse—Lord Emsworth, Lady Warblington, even the Duchess of Havant. P. G. Wodehouse lived in the area for a time, and parts of it are now immortalised as the titles of upper-class eccentrics in his novels. But my constituents are very far from being characters in a P. G. Wodehouse novel, because, above all, what we do in Havant is make things. We have a concentration of world-class manufacturing firms. We are therefore particularly concerned about the state of the economy.
There is no disguising the recession. Our firms in Havant are going through a difficult time, just like many firms around the country. It is no good gloating over the recession and taking a snapshot of the economy when it is at the bottom of an economic cycle. Instead, we have to compare the full economic cycle—the upswing and the downswing—with the previous economic cycle. That way, we can take a step back and measure the changes in the underlying performance of the economy. We find that a lot has changed for the better in the 1980s. During the full cycle from 1981 until now, the British economy has had an average growth rate of more than 2 per cent. a year. That compares with the previous economic cycle from 1975 until 1981, when we had an average growth rate of a little more than 1 per cent. per year. It is a measure of the conspicuous improvement in the underlying performance of our industry, and I see in Havant the practical evidence that lies behind those statistics.
IBM has a large factory in Havant. Its output has trebled in the past few years. Only the other week, an IBM manager was telling me how his Havant plant could compete with its rival IBM plant in Germany and outperform IBM's Japanese point in both quality and cost control. I asked him how that was achieved and he said that it was because of
"our more flexible employment legislation."
We are now beginning to gain back from the far east the technological lead in computer disc drives which was lost 10 or 20 years ago.
The other day, another Havant firm was floated on the stock exchange—Kenwood. It was created by Mr. Ken Wood, although he was not, as far as I know, a chef. That firm had languished in a large conglomerate, but, after a management buy-out a few years ago, its performance has been transformed. Kenwood's sales have been booming and it is now beating competition from France and Germany. There are many other such firms, such as De la Rue systems, Apollo fire detectors and Colt ventilation systems. They are all at the sharp end of British industry and they are exporting much of their output. The dynamism of such firms lies behind the transformation of our trade performance, with our share of world trade increasing in the past three years, having stablished during the 1980s, after years—decades—of decline.
Several of our exporters in Havant have criticised the performance of the Dutch firm that has taken over some
500
of the short-term insurance responsibilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade about their concerns. Other firms still feel that they do not yet have completely open access to the European market and that we in Britain are more serious about free trade than some other member states of the EC. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have made completion of the internal market one of their priorities for the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community.
Havant is a young constituency, so we are very interested in the standards of our schools. Many were built during the 1960s and, sadly, are in need of repair or even complete rebuilding. We are worried that educational planners are so preoccupied with the decline in the number of secondary school pupils that they have lost sight of the baby boom and the increase in the number of very young children. We now have nearly 4 million under-fives, compared with a little more than 3 million in the early 1980s.
In 1998 there will be about 15 per cent. more primary school pupils than in 1984. Therefore, we need to be wary of closing infant and junior schools precisely when we can see an increase in the number of young infants who will soon join them. I shall fight to ensure that changes to our schools proposed by Hampshire county council take account of these trends and the clear wishes of parents and teachers.
Some people ask me why my constituency, which contains Leigh Park, one of the largest council estates in Britain, returns such a substantial Conservative majority. That is the old snobbish assumption that Conservatism is just for the upper crust. One of the best aspects of the count in Havant on 9 April was when the ballot boxes from Leigh Park were opened and we saw the voting papers pouring out, so many with a cross for the Conservatives. It was evidence that the modern Conservative party understands the aspirations of the people on the council estates as well the people on the Bovis estates.
They are people who have bought their council house thanks to Conservative policies. They are people who work in private firms and know that the success of those firms, their jobs and their prosperity depend on a healthy private sector. They are people who care about standards in their schools. They are people who try to bring up their children decently and have no truck with the sociological defences of the criminal. They are people who want more choice in health and education, who want to keep a greater share of their pay packets to spend in the way that they know best. The modern Conservative party speaks for them. I am proud to represent them.
5.21 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: It is with pleasure that I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on his maiden speech. He showed a great deal of self-confidence and a clear and intimate knowledge of his constituency. I am sure that his constituents will realise from what he said that he is keen to represent them. I am sure that they recognise that his voice will be heard on many occasions on their behalf in the House.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman's views on education with some interest. I also noted his comments about the state of the British economy. I know that it is a tradition

501
of the House that maiden speeches should not be controversial, so I wait for further comments from the hon. Gentleman on the state of the British economy. I wonder whether, in view of one of his previous incarnations and his close relationship with a new Member of the other place, he has read in tonight's Evening Standard the criticisms of the state of the British economy. But perhaps that debate is better left for a later occasion.
I also heard with interest and welcomed the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about his predecessor, Sir Ian Lloyd, who was well known and respected in the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, he was particularly respected for his work on science. It is appropriate that the issue that I wish to raise relates to science. It is one in which Sir Ian Lloyd would be particularly interested.
I wish to raise the case of Dr. Chris Chapman, who is faced with the sack from Leeds general infirmary. Dr. Chapman is, in the new journalistic jargon, a whistleblow-er. He is a man who has told the truth. In the new world of the national health service, he is about to lose his job because he has courage, integrity and a willingness to tell the truth. He will lose his job on the day before his 50th birthday, so he will not receive the enhanced pension to which he would be entitled 24 hours later.
So keen was the senior managment of Leeds general infirmary trust to ensure that Dr. Chapman lost his job on the last day of his 50th year that the notice of his dismissal was sent by a courier on a motorbike. There was no personal notice for Dr. Chapman, but simply a motorbike to ensure that the enhanced pension was lost.
Dr. Chapman has served our national health service for more than 20 years. He has given his life to the national health service; he has given considerably more years than those who wish to get rid of him; he has made a significant scientific contribution; he is respected widely as a scientist; he has saved the national health service an estimated millions of pounds.
According to one of Dr. Chapman's colleagues quoted in one of our national newspapers, Dr. Chapman is
"probably the most competent scientist in the department, a good innovator and has an excellent relationship with his staff."
One would think that those were good attributes which would allow someone to maintain his job. In the new national health service and the new Leeds general infirmary trust, that seems to be a condemnation.
Dr. Chapman is a man of service who has made a scientific contribution and, above all else, he is a man of integrity. He has played the game by the internal rules; he has never rushed to the papers; he has never uttered a word to the newspapers, television or radio. At all times he has raised issues internally within the national health service.
On three occasions, in 1987, 1989 and 1991, Dr. Chapman raised issues of substantial importance. Now we are told that he is to lose his job. The reason given is that he is redundant. I put it to the House that there are 200 people in the department and only one person is to be made redundant. The man to be made redundant is the one described by one of his senior colleagues as the best scientist in the department. Some of us have had experience of industrial relations in private industry. I have never come across a departmental reorganisation involving 200 people which has led to the sacking of only one person. It is a unique experience.
502
Who are the people who have made the judgment that Dr. Chapman, this able scientist, is no longer needed at Leeds general infirmary? Let me name them. They are Stuart Ingham, the chief executive, on £90,000 a year. He was charged by the statutory auditors in 1987 to have a more direct responsibility for what has happened in the department in which Dr. Chapman works. Ingham has failed to fulfil that responsibility. He survives, Chapman is sacked.
Professor John Whicher has been involved all the way through as head of department. He failed to fulfil his responsibility. Not only does he survive, he has been promoted. Dr. Ian Barnes was also involved in the decision about Chapman's redundancy. He survives despite his involvement, to which I shall refer later.
On the first of the three occasions, in 1987, Dr. Chapman raised issues about money and financial irregularities in Leeds general infirmary. Those allegations were proved correct by the statutory auditors, who said that various people—Ingham, Barnes and Whicher—had a managerial responsibility to ensure that there was no repeat of the events in that department. Yet we now know that they did not fulfil their responsibility and further transgressions took place. Dr. Chapman made two further allegations, both of which have sadly proved correct.
The first allegation involved Dr. Barnes, the head of the immediate unit in which Dr. Chapman works. Dr. Ian Barnes has worked for the Leeds general infirmary since 1987. He has had a consultancy contract with a Belgian firm called Medgenix. That firm, that contract and that consultancy have all operated against the NHS circular HS62/21 which, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, asks that consultancy arrangements between NHS staff and outside organisations should be clear and known and that the details of the financial transactions should be available. In Dr. Barnes's case, that simply does not seem to have happened. The substance of the evidence is that Dr. Ian Barnes was employed by the national health service and was also engaged as a consultant for the biochemical supply firm, Medgenix. That engagement has never been properly declared by Dr. Barnes and, in contravention of NHS procedures, he received payments from that firm.
Dr. Chapman made that allegation and it was subsequently substantiated. Dr. Barnes was on the committee that decided that Chapman should lose his job —that there is no causal relationship stretches belief.
The Leeds general infirmary management and senior executives of the trust argued that Dr. Barnes was not immediately in receipt of money and therefore the relationship with Medgenix did not exist. At the hearing on Dr. Chapman's appeal against the redundancy notice, Dr. Barnes confessed that he was a consultant with Medgenix and he pushed their products and science into the department, even though they did not stand up to examination, as Dr. Chapman rightly said.
Barnes is part of the group which sacked Chapman, who was the whistleblower and man of integrity. Barnes is the man who failed to disclose what was going on.
In 1991, Dr. Chapman made another serious allegation about a project headed by Professor Whicher and indirectly involving Dr. Barnes. He alleged that there had been scientific fraud and that, in essence, results were being fabricated. The project was called Interleukin 6—IL6— and it was crucial to the development of biochemistry. It was believed that the project would give the Leeds general

503
infirmary a head start over other organisations in a commercial world. The research findings and processes were fraudulent.
Chapman argued for an inquiry and, to its credit, the university of Leeds set up an internal inquiry. Sadly, although the inquiry came to a conclusion on 9 March 1992, its report was not published. Yet Dr. Chapman's allegations were proven to be correct. It is worth studying the panel of investigators, which comprised Professor Willoughby of the experimental medical college of St. Bartholomew's hospital in London, Professor Gowland of the immunology department of clinical medicine at the University of Leeds, and Professor Brown of the department of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Leeds. They are three eminent people and not three junior scientists. They all came to the conclusion that the allegation of fraud against Dr. Evans had been proven. They said that the balance of evidence supported the view and that there had been fraud in so far as Dr. Evans has falsely claimed to have had bioassays performed on his putative IL6. That was the substance of the allegations and findings.
The management of Leeds general infirmary, under Mr. Stuart Ingham, said that it was not a matter for them, but it is, for two reasons. First, while a university employee committed the fraud, NHS moneys were involved. At least £100,000 of NHS money has been wasted on fabricated results. As taxpayers, we have a right to ask questions about the money. We also have the right to ask other questions. If scientific fraud has been committed in one of our great institutions, surely we should know what is going on. The results of the inquiry should be published.
Secondly, Professor Whicher was head of department. The university report criticised him for negligence. He was also a founder member of the hospital trust and a close friend of Ingham. Whicher was accused of negligence, and was promoted, and his friend Ingham is sacking Chapman. Only one conclusion can be drawn from that—the man of integrity goes down and the others survive.
The general infirmary management has an interest. It has been said that the matter solely concerned the university and that supervision of the project was nothing to do with the infirmary. Let us forget about the NHS money involved for the moment, although it is important. If a journalist fabricates stories for 12 months, one would expect him to be sacked and would ask questions about the editor of the journal. In the case of the Leeds general infirmary, the person who fabricated the story is still in a job and the editor's equivalent, Professor Whicher, has been promoted.
These are serious matters. We are dealing with an injustice against one person. I know that Conservative Members do not like it and I know why. We are talking about injustice and they are not bothered about people who suffer that sort of injustice. They are not bothered about the new-style management of the NHS, which has so little time for men of integrity. That is why it is prepared to sacrifice Dr. Chapman.
If Dr. Chapman is sacrificed next week, it will be a blow to the integrity of British science and a blow to the way in which we manage the NHS. Even at this late stage, the Government have a responsibility to intervene. I do not want a world or a national health service in which people are afraid to speak out and are not allowed to tell the truth because they fear for their jobs.
504
Since 9 April, health service trust managers have had a green light to sack whistleblowers. Dr. Chapman is one of a small and courageous group of people who want to defend the taxpayer and British science. The House has a responsibility to save that man's job, his future and the reputation of our science.
5.36 pm
Mr. Michael Trend: Before the House decides to adjourn for the summer, with its leave I shall bring some concerns of my constituents to its attention. I warmly congratulate the two other Conservative Members who have been called to address the House for the first time today—my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
Windsor and Maidenhead, the constituency that I am honoured to represent, unlike the pudding which so disagreed with Sir Winston Churchill, has a clear theme. It is provided by the silvery thread of the River Thames in its most appealing reaches. The Thames flows softly from one end of my constituency to the other. To the west lie the charming settlements of Hurley and Bisham, which were both originally monastic foundations, where the former ecclesiastical buildings tell a fascinating tale. The Cookhams come next. They are famous for swan-upping and were once the home of that very individual painter, Stanley Spencer. Then comes Maidenhead, which owes its local pre-eminence to the bridge which made it an important post town on the road from London to Bath. Originally sited some way from the river, in recent years it has grown substantially and was one of the many towns in southern England which flourished in the 1980s. That growth has led to problems in the more recent past. Boulters Lock is more popular with my constituents in Maidenhead than the too many office buildings which are standing empty.
Maidenhead is a purposeful and popular town. Nevertheless, it should strongly resist further domestic in-filling and should not encroach on precious green belt land that surrounds it. I am utterly opposed to further erosion of the green belt.
Further downstream is the village of Bray, which is famous for its remarkably flexible vicar. As those who know the old English song will recall, the vicar of Bray changed his heart to match the political conditions of the day. He did so from
"Good King Charles's golden days"
to when
"George in Pudding time came o'er".
I dare say he is a model for some contemporary politicians.
On the north bank of the Thames we then come to Eton, except that one does not just "come to Eton"—not even the many former Prime Ministers who went to that school. Facing across the river is one of the jewels of our universal heritage: Windsor. I almost feel like apologising for this embarrassment of riches. That town was honoured when King George V took its name for that of his family.
My predecessor in this House, Sir Alan Glyn, represented the royal borough of the royal county for 22 years. His attendance in this House was praiseworthy and, almost uniquely among Back Benchers, he had a recognised place of his own in this Chamber. With his indefatigable wife, Lady Rosula, he served the people of Windsor and Maidenhead loyally and assiduously. My constituency association recently honoured Sir Alan and

505
his wife in Sir Christopher Wren's magnificent guildhall at Windsor. On that occasion we also welcomed Sir Alan's predecessor and his wife, Sir Charles and Lady Mott-Radclyffe. Sir Charles represented the constituency for 28 years, so between them they chalked up half a century of service. Some Members and Officers may well remember Sir Charles; he is certainly still a legend in cricketing circles in the House.
While on the subject of former Members, I might add that Sir Christopher Wren was once a Member for Windsor, but unfortunately, for a few days only, following which he was debarred from the House because of an "irregularity" in his campaign. He was obviously not the best architect of electioneering.
With its outstanding buildings and extensive parks, Windsor struck the poet Michael Drayton thus:
"Windsor, where abound All pleasures that in Paradise were found",
Paradise or not, however, the problems brought by millions of visitors each year have to be paid for in financial and environmental terms by my constituents. It is a matter of some concern that the community charge raised by the royal borough contains a substantial element —about £10 per year each for the people of Windsor and Maidenhead—to cope with those problems. That is a full 10 per cent. of the borough's standard spending assessment.
The Department of the Environment insists that day tourism affects many parts of the country and that it is difficult to measure, and I accept that that is probably the case on a national scale, but the evidence of one's own eyes in Windsor is too strong to be denied. Every year some 4 million day tourists come to Windsor, which is not by any means a large town. It is not difficult to visualise what that means in terms of traffic management, litter disposal, and other amenities that visitors require, the cost of which falls directly on my constituents. It cannot be beyond the skill of Government to develop a formula that would recognise those specific financial strains. If ever there was a special case, this is it.
I am also disturbed by the effect that the all-ages social index has on the SSA. Again, I refer to the evidence of my own eyes. It is nonsense to suggest that the differences between my constituency and the neighbouring town of Slough are so great as to justify the £100 per capita difference in Government support. That decision is largely due to the social index.
I cannot help feeling that the social index is an anachronistic way in which to judge local expenditure and that it has not kept pace with changing times. I hope that the Department of the Environment will be prepared to look at this matter afresh before entrenching the present arrangements in the new council tax.
I have endeavoured to take the House on a brief cruise down our great River Thames and to describe some of the riparian delights of my constituency. I recommend that as a form of leisure for all under pressure and in need of relaxation. In this House we are familiar with our own historic part of the Thames. I hope that others will share my discovery of another more gentle stretch which commends itself unselfishly to all.
I have covered the water and the land, and now I want to turn my attention to the skies. Maidenhead, and particularly Windsor, are continually affected by aircraft
506
on their way to or from Heathrow airport. From living in Windsor, I know that the horrendous noise of aircraft coming in to land can shatter the good night's sleep to which my constituents and I are entitled. I am conscious of the many benefits brought to the area by the airport and of the important part it plays in the local economy, but I believe that more can and should be done to control aircraft noise. In particular, I should like a total ban on night flights, much closer monitoring of the decibel levels produced by individual aircraft, and fines for irresponsible carriers.
My constituents share anxieties common to people in other parts of the country. In Windsor and Maidenhead, there are a number of victims of the criminal acts of Mr. Robert Maxwell. Many angry dentists come to see me in my surgeries. Other people are unhappy about the fate of whales which are slaughtered for commercial gain and of the distressing circumstances in which battery hens are kept. I would not be honest if I did not add that there is concern about the proposed combining of the two Household Cavalry regiments—the Lifeguards and the Blues and Royals. Hon. Members may know that Combermere barracks in Windsor is the present home of the Blues and Royals.
In common with other Members, since I was elected to the House I have been impressed by the amount of correspondence which comes our way. It has been instructive to see which public services have been most responsive and helpful. I have been pleasantly surprised at the speed and sensitivity with which local hospitals and doctors deal with complaints. Other letters, however, betray what I regard as a potentially dangerous development which faces parliamentary democracy in all parts of the developed world—the current tendency to blame Governments and legislatures for all life's ills. Such writers are often encouraged—irresponsibly, in my view—by insidious single-issue lobby groups. I believe that we are heading for troubled times unless we can be more precise in the limitations of government and the obligations of people.
Some years ago we talked of the nanny state. It is time that the influence of such a state was further curtailed. The Governments of the 1980s achieved much in that regard, but more needs to be done. Many different people have a part to play in that—the Government, Ministers, Members of Parliament, religious leaders, teachers, judges, parents and others with influence.
The essential order which lies at the heart of civil life is based on simple courtesies which must be transmitted from generation to generation. The spiritual element of life must also be given prominence in an increasingly materialistic world.
On the domestic side of politics, I warmly welcome the great education reforms introduced in the past 10 years. My constituency is blessed with excellent maintained schools, and the pupils are intensely proud of them and of their teachers. That represents best practice and the best guarantee for the future.
On foreign affairs, I believe that our country still has many important responsibilities throughout the world. In particular, we should never cease to speak up for the human rights of those unable to do so for themselves. I have a particular interest in the people of Tibet and on future occasions I may bring their plight to the attention of the House.

507
Like many colleagues on both sides of the House, I have now fulfilled a long-standing ambition to become an elected Member of the Chamber. I am not in the least bothered by the fact that for a number of weeks I lived out of a locker, nor that I have now acquired one desk, alongside many others, and one telephone, nor that I am not provided with hordes of researchers and that I have to spend long hours in this beautiful building when I could be spending more time with my family—as they say.
I do not believe that having to rough it slightly, compared with being de luxe middle management of a company or a pampered shop steward of a union, calls for any complaint. I am honoured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and indeed humbled to be a Member of this great House of Commons. It is, I may say, an added bonus to be sitting on the Government side.
I also regard it as a privilege to have the opportunity to follow on the service of distinguished predecessors for my constituents of Windsor and Maidenhead, on whose behalf it is my intention to work to represent their interests. I intend to support the policies on which I was elected and the principles in which I believe.
5.50 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: It is my pleasure to speak following the able maiden speech made by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend). I trust that he will not suffer the fate of Sir Christopher Wren but will join his two immediate predecessors, who gave long and distinguished service in the House on behalf of their constituencies.
We have enjoyed three excellent maiden speeches today. I appreciated the humour of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who commented on the poor salaries that he had received from his employers. As an Ulster Scot, I appreciated his humour, but I know that he was not suggesting that the Scots were niggardly. Indeed, I am sure he knows that they are warm-hearted.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) paid an excellent tribute to his predecessor, but I particularly appreciated his tribute to Lady Lloyd. Let us not forget that the spouses of hon. Members contribute much, and Lady Lloyd has served the community at large in her own right. I feel that we sometimes take for granted the services that our spouses provide to our constituencies and to the country in general.
I wish there had been time before the recess to deal with a number of other major issues, especially as we have gone astray with Masstricht. I should have liked time for the House to examine the whole question of constitutional and political reform. With the fervour in that direction that is evident in the country, it is a pity that the Prime Minister has not been able to express in the House his views about how the constituent parts of the nation should be governed as one part. I believe that in the onward evolution of democracy there is a place for a federal system, even in our nation.
I wish today to probe the role of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, particularly in its dealings with a part of the nation: Northern Ireland. I do not object to the Foreign Office representing us internationally. My gripe at times is that it does not represent us internationally as eloquently and efficiently as it should.
I have been puzzled at having received in June, and again this month, background briefs from the Foreign
508
Office, one entitled "Northern Ireland: The Economy and Employment" and the other entitled "Education in Northern Ireland: A New Direction." I wonder whether the Foreign Office gives the same service to the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. Does it all mean that, despite the tributes paid to the Northern Ireland education service, there is a lack of education and ability in the Northern Ireland Office? Or is it simply that the Foreign Office is playing the same role as it has played on those issues over the years?
The briefs are helpful and interesting and I do not intend today to analyse or criticise them: I am simply probing them. Does the Leader of the House agree that it should be the role of the Northern Ireland Office, rather than of the Foreign Office, to explain the policies, economic issues, matters affecting tourism and the development of education in the Province? Are such briefs provided for all Government Departments for the benefit of people overseas who wish to know what is happening, for example, in the Department of Trade and Industry, in the Scottish Office and in the Department of the Environment?
To ask the question in a more sinister way, is it the continuing policy of Her Majesty's Government to keep Northern Ireland as a satellite in orbit, controlled by Foreign Office computers looking after international affairs rather than representing the rights of British citizens in Northern Ireland? Is it, as some have feared for a long time, part of a process of seeking to break up the Union? When talking to a distinguished servant of the British Government yesterday, I discovered again that there is speculation that the way forward might involve an independent Northern Ireland.
I wish to place on record the fact that if Northern Ireland—little Scotland, the Ulster Scots—goes, we would like to think that the House would go on to consider where Scotland goes in future. Lest some do not understand the analogy and relationship, Scotland means the land of the Scoti—the land of the Irish. We believe that we are part of that nation, where the O'Donnells of the glens of Antrim are similar to the O'Donnells of the glens of Scotland. Some relationships are conveniently forgotten.
Some of us wonder why the Foreign Office, in supplying talent on a regular basis to the Northern Ireland Office, including writing briefs, seems to be acting in a contrary manner in Yugoslavia. There, I gather, the Department believes that small groups who were part of other groups have a right to self-determination. Apparently a British warship is to be deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia. Does that suggest that one should be deployed off Dundalk bay because a Government there are giving, directly or indirectly, sustenance to those who seek the break-up of the United Kingdom and who act against the democratically declared wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?
As many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I shall not deal with other issues that I would otherwise raise. Recently the Prime Minister went to Czechoslovakia —among other places, to Prague, the home of Jan Huss, an outstanding reformer of an earlier day—and I sympathised and empathised with the right hon. Gentleman as he apologised on behalf of our people to the Czech people for the actions of a previous British Prime Minister who returned to Britain with a piece of paper proclaiming, "Peace in our time."

509
Can we look forward to the Prime Minister coming to Northern Ireland in the near future to apologise on behalf of another British Prime Minister who signed a piece of paper that was supposed to lead to peace, stability and reconciliation? While I have empathy with the former Prime Minister, who is now in another place, in some of her thinking, I have been amused by the fact that she now wants a referendum when she refused to accept the will of the people of Northern Ireland, democratically expressed at the ballot box, and imposed on Northern Ireland a programme which had the effect of taking us out of the normal role of government in this place. That is why I ask whether Northern Ireland is now being ruled by the Foreign Office rather than being accountable to the House of Commons through the Northern Ireland Office.
5.57 pm
Mr. David Nicholson: I wish at the outset to congratulate warmly my three hon. Friends who have made maiden speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts) are both well known on these Benches for their previous service, before arriving here, to the Government—to the Leader of the House in one respect—and to the Conservative party. Their speeches were elegant, witty and effective, and we have high hopes of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant was the author of a pamphlet on the Government's national health service reforms which was the only presentation at the time that I found comprehensible in explaining those reforms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) raised in his maiden speech a number of matters of interest to all hon. Members, such as whales, battery hens and low-flying aircraft. He also, justifiably, criticised in part the way in which Government grant to local government is assessed and the standard spending assessment arrangements, and many of my hon. Friends will appreciate those remarks.
All three maiden speakers showed great interest in raising problems affecting their constituencies. I shall raise three matters affecting my constituency, all of which have wider implications. Two of them have been long-standing matters of concern.
The first issue involves the problems faced by a number of my constituents in a part of Taunton called Galmington. They are owner-occupiers, and living in Woolaway homes that were constructed in the early 1950s. There was a public sector connection at the time, as almost all the people who originally lived in the homes were public servants of one sort or another, but they were ineligible for specific grants for repairs or improvements by virtue of the original arrangements drawn up by the company that built the homes.
The problem is that those homes are non-traditional build. They do not have faults now, but their owners are finding it extraordinarily difficult to sell them. I believe that there are 29 such homes involved: they are three and four-bedroomed houses. Ten of them are occupied by elderly people, several of whom want to sell them to move to smaller residential accommodation, and six are occupied by single people. Therefore, there is this unused housing space in Taunton, but people cannot move due to the problems associated with non-traditional build houses.
510
An estate agent wrote to one of the couples stating that last year,
"there were a number of viewings, ranging between 25 and 30 applicants, although for one reason or another none of these applicants wished to proceed further. Some of these applicants, as you know, were concerned that the property was not of traditional construction."
The estate agent spoke of another applicant who had discussions with a surveyor and builder. He said that, while they did not inspect the property, they said:
"the type of construction may prove to have problems in the future and … there was some doubt with regard to the saleability of properties of this type."
Last year, another couple with a similar residence found that several sales fell through once purchasers discovered the nature of the construction. An estate agent from a different firm told them:
"I entirely concur with your views regarding the saleability of the properties you occupy in that the construction of the properties is deemed by Building Societies and other lending Institutions to be of a standard which is unacceptable to them as a security, unless, of course, remedial works"—
which would cost large sums of money—
"have been carried out to the main structure and a certificate to that effect presented. It would, therefore, not be unreasonable to state that the properties. in their present condition and at this time, are unmortgageable."
Those are the problems that my constituents face. Due to various rules on the use of its resources, the local authority cannot take over those properties, although a number of the occupiers wish it to do so. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing construction, but we are faced with a growing dilemma, which has existed since before I was elected to the House.
The second problem I wish to raise has also existed for some time. I spoke about it just before Christmas, when we discussed the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill in Committee. As Mr. Moynihan, then the Minister with responsibility for energy, confirmed in Committee, 2,400 properties in the United Kingdom are not connected to the electricity grid. Quite a concentration of those properties exist in the south-west, including some dozen or more on the edge of Exmoor in my constituency.
Since I raised the matter before Christmas and it attracted publicity, South West Electricity has offered to connect those properties to the grid. However, in return, it requires an extraordinarily rigorous mortgage, which is unattractive to those involved. The cost required by SWEB is far too high for my constituents to contemplate, and I fear that there may be no likelihood that their properties or others in the south-west will be linked to the grid. I know that my hon. Friends who represent constituencies with the same problem are trying to pursue the matter. In the year of grace 1992, I think that properties—apart from those that are very remote, and those involved in this case are not—should he connected to the electricity grid.
The third problem has recently developed and typifies debates that we have had, and will have, in the House on the future arrangements of the railway system. particularly freight transport. I think that many hon. Members will have heard of Taunton Cider. A day or so ago, Taunton Cider floated its shares on the market after a successful management buy-out last year. But it faces problems in transporting its excellent—and in summer, very popular—goods about the country by rail freight.
Since the withdrawal of British Rail's Speedlink, which served Taunton Cider well, and the collapse of Tiger Rail. Taunton Cider is allowed to move by rail one full train

511
load a week. That is adequate for its purposes in winter, but inadequate in the summer months. Only this Monday, my wife and I were driving through the village of Norton Fitzwarren, where Taunton Cider is based, when we passed in the space of four or five minutes three large lorries transporting the company's products. The village has a winding main street and those large lorries will pound up and down it, clogging up the roads of Taunton as they pass to the motorway.
As the Government consider the future of British Rail, particularly its freight as the channel tunnel conies on stream, I am anxious that we should find a way of servicing not only Taunton Cider in my constituency but the many other companies in the south-west that face similar difficulties transporting their goods by British Rail. I was informed of the wider scope of the problem by Taunton Cider this week. I hope that those problems will be addressed.
6.6 pm
Mr. John McFall: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a pressing case to the Leader of the House on a constituency matter. I have made the right hon. Gentleman aware of my intention to speak today. The Government plan to introduce privatisation measures that will affect the Clyde submarine base and the Royal Naval armament depot at Coulport—two of the most sensitive military establishments in the United Kingdom. Trident submarines are berthed at the Clyde submarine base.
The Ministry intends to introduce market testing and privatisation measures into the base. That fact came to our attention through a report in one of the Scottish newspapers last week when we discovered that, despite ministerial agreement to the contrary, the Ministry was to go ahead with the plans. Alarm and concern was expressed not least by the unions at the base, and by the national organiser, Jack Dromey. He was quoted as saying that the privatisation of the support services could lead to the handling of the nuclear warhead being transferred to private contractors. The security implications of that would be considerable. Indeed, one commentator referred to the policy as a potential backdoor to nuclear terrorism.
Our concerns are threefold. The first involves the ministerial guarantee. I have a statement made by the Commodore Clyde in 1989 stating:
"The Ministry of Defence at the highest level are prepared to exempt the Clyde submarine base work force and the rest of the base from contractorisation for the foreseeable future providing a package of sensible economic measures can be introduced within a realistic timetable."
Those economic measures have been introduced to the satisfaction of both management and unions at the base. However, although the issue was not raised in the Conservative manifesto, we find that, post-election, the Government intend to go ahead with the privatisation measures.
The ministerial guarantee was given on the grounds of security implications—on which I shall elaborate later—and operational considerations. The naval authorities do not want the work force to be privatised or contractorised, since it wishes to have direct control over it for the operational viability of Polaris and Trident submarines. That guarantee was given in 1989. Why does it now seem to be in jeopardy? That is the core of my case.
512
About 2,000 jobs could be in jeopardy in the constituency. That is bad enough in itself, but the security implications are the overriding concern on this occasion. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence in the previous Parliament, I am aware of the security implications. I was one of the members of that Committee who looked at privatisation measures and our sixth report in the 1989–90 Session examined the physical security of military installations in the United Kingdom. The report states:
"With the trend of privatisation and contractorisation the MOD's responsibility for security cannot be diluted."
We were supported by the Public Accounts Committee which said that, in considering how to provide security services for departmental and service establishments, the Department's prime considerations must be the safety of the service and the people employed in it.
Our report on physical security highlighted some of the horrendous consequences of privatisation. There have been violations of security at the Clyde submarine base in the recent past. On 30 January 1989 three protesters forced their way into the base and entered the control house of HMS Repulse. No one stopped them. In October 1988 five protesters were taken into police custody for disrupting a major exercise designed to test emergency procedures in the event of a nuclear accident. In January 1986 the Ministry of Defence ordered a full inquiry into an incident in which three people dressed as Santa Claus walked on to two submarines at the base. If three people dressed like that can enter a nuclear submarine at Christmas without being stopped, sophisticated terrorists can do it without dressing up. The Leader of the House must address that issue.
The Select Committee on Defence investigation into physical security at military installations revealed some horrendous incidents. In one such incident the Ministry of Defence took on a private contractor and subsequently found that the base on which the contractor was working had been vandalised. An investigation revealed that it had been vandalised by the contractor's employees. Such are the dangers of privatisation and contracterisation without due regard to security and control.
The Select Committee on Defence said that the controller of naval security should conduct a searching investigation into all such aspects before further privatisation measures were undertaken. However, less than two years after that report I have to plead with the Leader of the House not to proceed with privatisation in the No. 1 military installation in the United Kingdom. There are lessons to be drawn form the report of the Select Committee on Defence and the incidents at the base. First, security does not come cheap. Secondly, Ministers are not always told about lapses in security and about the effect of their policies.
Mr. Hastie Smith, the under-secretary for civilian management, appeared before the Select Committee on Defence on 31 January 1990. A former right hon. Member, Sir Barney Hayhoe, asked him about reporting to Ministers and Mr. Hastie Smith said:
"I am trying to phrase the answer as delicately as possible. Ministers who are told by officials that their policies are not working very well are inclined to doubt the enthusiasm of the officials for the policy."
That is to say, Ministers are not told because civil servants are scared to tell them that the policy is not working. A reckless policy of privatisation for the Clyde submarine base may not work, but perhaps in the light of Mr. Hastie

513
Smith's comments Ministers will not know that. The Leader of the House should communicate that information to his ministerial colleagues.
I spoke about the unions. They tell me that their members will not accept the abrogation of the exemption clause, which was freely given by ministerial directive. But that does not mean that unions have not been working alongside management. First, they have accepted and welcomed the implementation of the MOD's guard force. Secondly, they have openly said that they do not like market testing but realise that the Government have a mandate because the White Paper "Competing for Quality" and the citizens charter were put before the people in the election on 9 April.
However, the ending of the ministerial exemption on privatisation measures in the Clyde submarine base was not put before the electorate. Naval personnel and unions do not want it and it is incumbent on Ministers to heed that and not to accede to any decisions that may have been taken by civil servants.
In The Sunday Telegraph on 22 January 1989 the late Simon O'Dwyer Russell wrote about the three protesters who entered the control room of HMS Repulse. He stated:
"Defence ministry officials told me that the armed forces Minister, Archie Hamilton, was 'absolutely hopping bloody mad' at this particular incident."
I share the Minister's sentiments, but, in addition, I am fearful of the future if privatisation proceeds and if the Government sacrifice quality and security to their obsession with what is cheapest but perhaps more dangerous.
As I said, security is not cheap. Will the Leader of the House arrange a meeting with the Minister of State so that we can look at the ministerial agreement and so that I can reassure my constituents and workers that the Government continue to consider the Clyde submarine base and the Royal Naval armament depot at Coulport to be the most sensitive security installations in the United Kingdom? I should like an assurance that security considerations will continue to be paramount in the eyes of the Ministry of Defence. In order to maintain such security, market testing must be rejected, and the Government must adhere to the line that was agreed as late as January 1989.
6.17 pm
Mrs. Angela Knight: I add my congratulations to those that have been expressed to my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), for Havant (Mr. Willetts), and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) on their elegant and interesting maiden speeches.
I should like to discuss a matter of considerable concern to most of my constituents. On 23 June, Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary published a report on policing in Derbyshire. It was the final report of a series and, uniquely for this country, a certificate of efficiency was not given to Derbyshire constabulary. That is in no way a reflection on that force or on the policemen and women who do an excellent job in the county. However, it is a reflection on the county council, which for some years has consistently failed to ensure that the police force was adequately funded to police the county satisfactorily.
514
While police numbers have risen elsewhere, numbers in Derbyshire have fallen and the force is now 140 below strength. The county has the worst police-to-population ratio of any force in England and Wales.
One of the conclusions of HMI's report was:
"The Council allowed the manpower situation to become progressively worse."
That situation has been developing for some time. In debates last year, my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) raised some of these issues, which I know are also of great concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), for Derby, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for High Peak (Mr. Hendry).
Some of the recommendations in the report of 23 June make extraordinary reading. They state that the police force should be brought up to establishment level, as should civilian support.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mrs. Knight: I shall give way in a moment. The report's conclusions talk about training being reinstated and more resources being directed to tackling the record increases in burglary and crime. They might be obvious recommendations, but the fact that they have to be made is an example of how the police force has had to cut vital parts of its work because of the constraints put on it by the county council.
Mr. Barnes: The money that the chief constable asked Derbyshire county council for is the money which has been granted by the council for improvements in provision. The Government are asking that the improvements should be made in 10 months' time and the awarding of a certificate should then be re-examined. What difference will it make to the current position? There would be only three monthly reports and then an acceptance of a certificate on the basis on which the county council is already acting.
Mrs. Knight: The hon. Member has been too hasty. I shall come to that matter in a moment. I am sorry that he is not supporting the other hon. Members who represent Derbyshire constituencies in trying to ensure that there is adequate policing in the county.
I deal now with the police authority. As with other county forces, the police authority is a committee of the county council. The inspector of constabulary last year informed the chairman of the police authority, who is, incidentally, a Labour county councillor, that he considered the force inadequately resourced to provide an efficient service. The county council then requested an increase in the standard spending assessment, which it got.
At the end of last year, it emerged that in recent years the Derbyshire constabulary had not been allowed to submit a budget for consideration by the police authority. No other police authority is treated in that way. In the end, the chairman of the police authority agreed that the chief constable could submit a budget in February but, long before that date, the chairman said openly that he would not allow the police force a budget that was up to SSA level—the new SSA level which the county council had asked for. However, I am glad that the police authority took a different view, and granted a budget which was up to SSA level. The county council then overturned that decision. That is an appalling case of mismanagement of the police by the county council.

515
I make three further points. First, the recommendations of the inspector of constabulary's report should be implemented to ensure effective policing for my constituents in Erewash and for the residents of Derbyshire. To do that, the Home Office must continue to put pressure on the county council as that is the only way of ensuring that it discharges its duties. Although I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for his persistence in seeking regular progress reports, there is, sadly, no evidence whatsoever of the county council having a real determination to deal with the issue properly.
Secondly, in former metropolitan counties such as South Yorkshire, the police force is allowed to precept separately, to raise its money separately from the local authority. That means that it has greater financial independence and is not dependent on the whim of a local county council and its spending plans. The police authority is still there, but it is able to discharge its duties more effectively because its financial decisions cannot be overturned, as happened in Derbyshire. Consideration should be given to that proposal for county forces so that they are allowed to precept independently.
Thirdly, few people doubt that today's police have a tough job, as increasingly violent crimes are committed on people and property. The police have an unenviable job, because we expect them to protect us. We should do all we can to support them, but that has not happened in Derbyshire.
For those reasons, I believe that the House should not adjourn until it has discussed the matter more fully.
6.25 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out '16th July' and insert 30th July'.
I am delighted to move the amendment and to provide an opportunity for the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) to engage in a wider debate. The three hon. Members who have today made their maiden speeches said that they were lucky to be here. We are all lucky to be here, but I suspect that they will be tumbling into the Lobby to vote for the House to rise on 16 July instead of voting for my amendment which would extend Parliament's sitting until 30 July.
Such an extension would enable my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has gone into the subject of the policing of Derbyshire in great detail, to deploy the arguments necessary to destroy the speech made by the hon. Member for Erewash, who criticised the county council.
Mr. Barnes rose—
Mr. Cryer: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East because we are so short of time.
It is not a good sign when there is consensus between the two Front Benches, as there is about the date of the Adjournment. We have a three-hour debate because there was a consensus in 1981 that the Adjournment debate should be so limited. If the same rules applied now as applied in 1980, the debate would be open-ended and everyone who has been here today, hoping to participate, would have had the opportunity to do so. However, several hon. Members have now left the Chamber because
516
they would have been unable to speak due to the three-hour time limit. I hope that they will vote for my amendment.
If the Government are short of subjects for debate, I can give them a string of subjects that we could debate in the extra fortnight between 16 July and 30 July. I shall be brief, because other hon. Members want to speak, but I shall mention two of those subjects, which are linked.
First, I hope that we have the opportunity—hence my amendment—to debate the vexed question of Menwith Hill near Harrogate where there was a demonstration last Saturday. About 150 people turned up to demonstrate against the listening base—or spy base—of the National Security Agency of the United States. I have here a copy of the New Statesman dated 16 July 1980. It contains an article headed "Phone tapping—America's big ear on Europe." The article reads as follows:
"'Tinkerbell'—the national phone-tap centre which the New Statesman revealed in February—is only one part of a massive exercise in spying on civil and commercial communications. A much bigger role is played by America's highly secretive National Security Agency … operating from a remarkable base at Menwith Hill, eight miles west of Harrogate in Yorkshire.
Menwith Hill—unless the KGB has something even bigger —appears to be the biggest tapping centre in the world. From its heavily guarded operations room a special high-capacity cable runs underground to the Post Office microwave tower at Hunters Stones five miles away: this provides an umbilical cord link into the national telephone and telex system running through Britain. A direct tap which is placed on lines to France and elsewhere in Europe has been in operation for more than 15 years."
Phone tapping is being carried out in this country by the National Security Agency of a foreign power without any authority. Indeed, the agency does not even have Home Office warrants for tapping.
It can be argued—the Government advance the argument when they choose to release a few closely guarded words about Menwith Hill—that the facility can be used to tap into potential terrorist activity or other potential illegal activity. It may be that the Government had information about the Maxwell scandal through eavesdropping in this way, but they never used it.
The demonstrators at Menwith Hill found on Saturday that the station has grown instead of being reduced at the end of the cold war. It is becoming larger. There are eight radons instead of the two that were there when Duncan Campbell's article was written. Duncan Campbell was at the spy station addressing the demonstrators, as I was, and we intend to maintain the vigil against a foreign presence that is breaking United Kingdom law by tapping into the British Telecom network. There is a cable linking Hunters Stones tower and Menwith Hill that can carry 24,000 conversations simultaneously. It does not go into Menwith Hill to serve the telephone kiosks and the telephones of the 1,000 or more people who live there. Instead, its purpose is to ensure that the station at Menwith Hill can spy.
It is part of a system of intelligence eavesdropping. It is maintained by the National Security Agency of the United States, which was carrying out illegal activities in the United States. It was revealed to have been doing so in the immediate post-war period by the United States Congress. It is acting with impunity and the Government do not exercise control. That is why we should have some time over the next fortnight to go into all the details. There are

517
not many opportunities to go into the sort of detail that is necessary and to put the facts on the Hansard record so that those outside know what is going on.
It is a scandal that the House is proposing to wrap up on 16 July when there are so many issues to be debated. It is in a lacklustre position because the Government have abandoned, thank God, the Maastricht Bill. They are short of material to put before the House, but there are many issues that need to be discussed. That is why my amendment is necessary.
Secondly, there has been a parliamentary question and a written answer about the extraordinary decision to order a fourth Trident. There should have been a statement followed by a debate. I am all for keeping people's jobs going, but surely we should investigate the lack of a diversification programme as we move from the cold war to peace. There are many things that people need and there are many in manufacturing industry who could undertake the necessary activity to meet their needs. We do not have to go to war; we do not have to spend the huge amount of money on the programme that the Government have decided to embark upon.
Why is it so difficult to obtain £30 million for the rolling stock for the electrification scheme from Leeds to Bradford, with crazy arrangements for leasing this, that and the other? The Industrial Bank of Scotland says that it cannot grant the leasing money because it is frightened of privatisation and the Toms, Dicks and Harrys are dubious organisations who will take over railway services. When it comes to mass extermination, however, by means of Trident nuclear warheads, the money is available. There is no question of going to the Industrial Bank of Scotland and asking for a leasing arrangement to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement—that is what it is all about.
How much money is involved? Greenpeace has produced a document entitled "The Rising Cost of Trident". I do not have time to go into it in great detail, but I shall refer to a few salient points. The Government's estimate is slightly more than £10 billion while Greenpeace claims that that is an underestimate by £22 billion. It states that only £52 million of a £1 billion construction programme at the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston is officially attributed to Trident. Yet under the construction programme it will not be possible, unless it is completed, to produce the full complement of warheads for Trident.
If we did not go ahead with the fourth submarine, we would save £1·3 billion. According to Greenpeace, if we cancelled the entire Trident programme, we would save £16 billion. We are, of course, crying out for money for the national health service, for local authority housing and for other vital needs. Against that background we should be aware of the money that could be saved if we cancelled the Trident programme.
I am a long-standing member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and I shall not leave it. It is a principled campaign and we should sustain the argument. I say that Trident is a waste of money; it is a costly exercise in futility. That is why I want to deploy the relative arguments, but unfortunately there is not sufficient time to do so because other Members want to speak. The debate demonstrates the great need for Parliament to extend its
518
sitting by a fortnight so that we can debate important issues before we get our buckets and spades and go on holiday.
6.37 pm
Mr. David Porter: I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are looking forward to a break. Some press hacks have described the Session as a very boring Parliament so far, but only you and the other occupants of the Chair can judge whether that is so. I certainly shall not oppose the motion for the Adjournment of the House for the summer recess. However, if the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had sought to bring the House back in September, he would have carried me with him.
Many of us will be looking forward to spending a little extra time with our families while we and our fellow citizens become tourists. The help that the tourist industry will receive will be concentrated in large part on rural Britain. It is on rural Britain that I ask the House to focus before we adjourn, tempting though other matters are, such as the late and unlamented treaty of Maastricht.
I put in a bid for a timed Consolidated Fund debate, which will follow this debate. I drew 27th position with a debate entitled "Quality of Life in the Rural Areas". I gather that there was some discussion between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, neither of which thought that it should send a Minister to reply to my debate. That illustrates admirably the point that I wish to make. I want to know who is responsible for rural areas within the Government.
The traveller who fills his car with petrol may catch a whiff of country air and be under the impression that he has contracted the rural experience. The InterCity rail traveller may notice cattle in a field between housing estates and do-it-yourself stores as he travels from city to city. The name InterCity highlights a real divide, the rural-urban divide. It is what I call another divide, another country. It may not have the great appeal of the north-south divide, but it is real.
Just over five years ago, I made my maiden speech in the House. Describing my constituency, I said that support for inner-city priorities could be forthcoming from rural areas, but only up to a point. Most of my constituents live in or around Lowestoft, but more than 20,000 live in the market towns of Beccles, Bungay, Southwold and Halesworth or in the major villages and small villages. I am talking not about people who know that milk does not grow in bottles and packets but about those who make up the rural economy, those who are the rural community that so enriches our nation. Unfortunately, this community is easily forgotten. Few members of it can talk about being on the soil man and boy, but one in five people in England lives in a rural area.
Most hon. Members recognise that farmers in England have been going through a difficult period lately, but if we take any other issue—cottage hospitals, emergency services, prescriptions, village schools, housing, transport, planning, waste disposal, food-related industries, local services such as shops and pubs, the uniform business rate, the aging population or the shortage of youngsters—we find that there is a rural angle to it.
A million-member alliance of 10 national countryside organisations—as diverse as the Council for the Protection

519
of Rural England, the Country Landowners Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—has overcome tensions within its membership to speak with what it calls the rural voice. The members agree that it is essential to face and not conceal the tensions that often exist between different rural interests as well as the natural tensions between town and country. They seek from the Government a considered rural policy, wide in scope and as integrated as possible, which automatically considers the effects on the countryside of proposed legislation and spending programmes.
In the past, it has been suggested that there should be a House of Commons Select Committee for the rural areas. Of course, that is not feasible, but a rural audit of all policies would help a great deal. While rural residents do not expect special privileges just because they live in rural areas, they expect a recognition of the special needs and problems unique to rural areas. Their manifesto for rural England in the 1990s summarises the problems superbly and makes suggestions for overcoming them. That could form the basis for a rural audit for all Departments of Government, national and local. We already accept cost-benefit audits, a citizens' audit—which, in effect, is the citizens charter—environmental audits, which are becoming more popular, and even family audits. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider introducing a rural audit.
I had intended to raise two other points, but I am conscious of the time. I shall seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, at a future date.
6.40 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) for shortening his speech so that I can say a few words before my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) replies to the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
I checked with the Library and, going back to 1950, there is no record of the House rising as early as it will rise this year. There should be no illusion about this—it is not happening for the benefit of hon. Members on either side of the House. It is entirely due to the good people of Denmark, who made a good and correct decision in their referendum. Had it not been for that referendum result, the House would he sitting well into July and perhaps into August. There would have been a tremendous amount of arm twisting by the Government Whips to ensure that their people went into the Lobby to vote for the Maastricht treaty. When the House returns, we shall know whether Conservative Members who hold critical views on that matter will have the courage of their convictions and vote as their consciences and principles dictate.
Before I discuss the position in my area. I want to say that I fully agree with those of my hon. Friends who have said that if there is to be any further military development relating to the former Yugoslavia, the House should be recalled. I have taken note of what the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said, including what the Leader of the House has said today. If circumstances change or if the Government's policy changes, it is only right and proper that the House be recalled and its authority sought for any further military developments in that terrible civil war. I hope that that point is well taken by the Cabinet.
520
We shall be breaking for the long summer recess when there is little sign of any economic recovery in the west midlands and the black country. Far too many people in my area are unemployed. Far too many of them, having been made redundant, have not been able to find jobs. Far too many young people cannot find jobs after leaving school. I have said before, and I shall continue to say, that it is disgraceful that so many of our fellow citizens in their 40s and 50s—the same age group as many Members of Parliament—have been made redundant and day after day, week after week, month after month, try desperately to find work. It is a lie that unemployed people are work shy and do not want to work. A large majority of my unemployed constituents are only too willing to work, but they are denied that opportunity.
It was recently announced that 170 jobs would be lost at three lock factories in Willenhall and surrounding areas. Willenhall, which is in my constituency, is the home of the lock industry. Unfortunately and sadly, it is likely that during the summer recess more jobs than those that I have already mentioned will be lost in that industry locally.
Treasury Ministers and the Leader of the House may make optimistic noises, but the local chamber of commerce in my borough—I do not suppose that it has many Labour supporters—published a survey only yesterday showing little activity in the job market, with 64 per cent. of firms surveyed saying that they were not recruiting labour. All in all, it was not an optimistic survey of what is likely to happen in the borough and in the black country.
The talk of economic recovery that we heard repeatedly during the general election has come to nothing. Ministers kept saying that if the Government were returned to office there would soon be signs of recovery, but I am afraid that there are little or no such signs. Indeed, there appears to be a correlation—the more that Ministers talk of economic recovery, the more the economy takes a nose dive. If that connection is right, if Ministers started talking pessimistic-ally about the economy, there might be some small sign of recovery.
Due to the local election results on 7 May, the Tories, with Liberal support, now run my council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those shouts of "Hear, hear" from Conservative Members will not be echoed by the 68 gardeners employed by the council who have been given the sack. They will not be echoed by the council's direct service organisation, whose workers face redundancy because of the determination of the Tories, with Liberal support, to break up the organisation. A great deal of maintenance and repair work will go elsewhere—[Interruption.] I make no apology for saying that that is disgraceful. Tory Members can mutter, but it is indeed disgraceful to add to the unemployment in my borough and the black country, which have gone through two major recessions since the Government took office.
Now in addition to all the redundancies and job losses, the Tory council is doing its utmost to sack its employees. The Tories on the council gloat about that, which is disgraceful. I shall take every opportunity in the House and outside it to make my views known, no matter how many supporters the Tories who now control the council, with Liberal support, find on the Conservative Benches in the House of Commons.
6.47 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: During recent years, it has often fallen to me to round up these debates. I have always tried in vain to find a general theme running through the speeches, because they are extraordinarily difficult debates to respond to. Today, I almost feel that I could say "Eureka", because a theme has run through virtually all the speeches from both sides of the House —that an enormous amount needs to be done, but little is being done by the Government. That theme was clear even in a number of speeches by Conservative Members.
I want to refer to the maiden speeches of Conservative Members. Even they unfailingly referred to the need for more Government action and often more Government expenditure. They were good speeches, and no doubt those who made them will return to the theme in future debates.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) made a speech of considerable wit, but he also called for more expenditure on roads in his constituency. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) likewise made a witty speech, but he also called for, among other things, expenditure on the resurfacing of roads in his constituency. He was concerned about school closures and other matters that involve Government action and expenditure.
The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend), in an affectionate speech about his constituency, called for a rescheduling of grants and the reallocation of local government expenditure. In particular, he wanted more Government regulation of aircraft noise.
Those were all very good maiden speeches, and I look forward to hearing those hon. Members again. It was interesting that they all asked the Government to do more and to spend more.
The speeches by Labour Members were more modest. Most did not call upon the Government to spend more money, because we all know the difficulty in approaching the Government on that matter. Instead, most called for the Government to recognise existing problems, where intervention is extremely important.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) called for a much more effective system of payment of disability benefits and a speeding up of the Government's administrative machine. I hope that the Leader of the House has noted that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), who has had to leave, had a particularly pressing constituency problem, in which I can declare some interest, having a nearby constituency, affecting some 500 jobs and requiring referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He urged the Leader of the House to draw that matter to the attention of his Cabinet colleagues, and I reiterate that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), again not calling for great Government expenditure but in a speech which demanded a response from the Leader of the House, requested a proper inquiry into some unpleasant-sounding activities in the operation of the health authority in his part of the country. That was a reasonable request, to which I hope the Leader of the House will respond.
My hon. Friend the Member or Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) spoke for many hon. Members. It will be interesting to see how many Conservative Members raise such themes in the months ahead if the Government
522
persist with present policies. I echo my hon. Friend's concern about the effects of privatisation on Ministry of Defence depots, again a matter on which I can speak with feeling with regard to my constituency. He made a case that needed a response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was particularly concerned about phone tapping and possible intrusions into privacy. That again is a matter which requires a response from the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), another nearby west midlands constituency, effectively pointed out the continuing effects of the recession.
There was a collection of requests from both sides of the House. I have mentioned only those of Conservative Members who made maiden speeches, but there were many more requests for Government intervention, Government activity and very often Government expenditure as well.
What sort of response are such requests receiving from the Government? I do not anticipate any great responses. We have not been receiving any responses in recent debates of this sort. Can it be that the Government cannot respond to such requests because they are short of money? It is difficult for Labour Members to believe that, because for six years Ministers have been lecturing us on the Conservative economic miracle.
I recommend hon. Members to start re-reading the Conservative election manifesto. I found one phrase which has particular resonance in the light of today's debate. Under the section headed "Your choice at this election", it says:
"We know how tough it has been for many but we are poised to move forward again, lacking only the spark of confidence with which a Conservative victory would ignite recovery."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Tory Members respond predictably. If they are waiting for ignition, my advice to them is not to hold their breath. We have seen no sign whatever of any economic ignition or recovery since the general election. There has been precious little in the constituencies that Labour Members have the honour to represent.
According to the Government's election manifesto, it cannot be a shortage of money which prevents the Government from responding to all the requests that have been made, so is it a shortage of parliamentary time? Governments are always complaining that there is no time to do all the things they want to do, so I thought that it was worth checking what sort of hours we have been sitting since we returned after the general election.
In the last year of the previous Parliament, the average daily sitting was eight hours 23 minutes. We all know—even the Government admit it privately—that the Government did not really know what to do for the last year of the previous Parliament. They were simply waiting for the general election and filling time as best they could. Since the general election, the average daily sitting has gone down to eight hours and 10 minutes. This is a Government whom one would expect and assume to be enthusiastic following the election, wanting to do all sorts of things. But there is no indication that that is the case.
We face a most bizarre political situation, which the Lobby correspondents recognise well enough and which the Government can barely recognise but which they know in private to be true. Just three months—that is all it is —after the general election, the Government are calling

523
for an early recess, the earliest that anyone can remember, as many of my hon. Friends have said, and they are having tremendous difficulty filling parliamentary time. with shorter sittings than we have been accustomed to.
The truth is that the Government have lost their way almost before they have begun. They are wondering how to fill the next four years—if they survive that long. We shall do our best at by-elections and by other means to prevent their survival. The Government must be wondering how on earth to pass the time. They have shown no evidence of any enthusiasm or vision—not that we often look to Conservatives for vision—in the three months since the general election.
What will the Government excite us with in the months that lie ahead? I am always trying to be charitable to the Government in circumstances such as this, but I looked in vain for any source of inspiration for them. It so happens that this week is the first anniversary of what the Government claim to be their bible, the citizens charter. I decided that we should monitor the citizens charter, particularly a nice little section—I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North for drawing one of the key elements in it to my attention in a timely way—entitled "A charter for job seekers". I am sure that Conservative Members carry a copy of the citizens charter around with them, but I shall remind them of that paragraph. It says:
"The Citizens Charter will reinforce the Employment Service's aim of giving unemployed people, and others who use its services such as employees and those changing jobs, the individual approach that they need".
I want to let the Government share an insight which they seem woefully incapable of understanding. Unemployed people seek not an individual approach or a nice office in which to be told that there are no jobs, but jobs. That is clearly not understood by the Government. Since the Government published the citizens charter 12 months ago, the total number of unemployed in Britain has risen from 2,213,784 in May 1991 to 2,707,892, and that despite the charter for job seekers and the individual attention that they have all been guaranteed. That is an increase of 500,000.
We approach the summer recess with a Government who, in three short months, have managed to lose their way. They never had any vision, but now, particularly in the aftermath of Maastricht, they do not even know how to pass the time. They have no philosophy other than the hope that something will turn up, and no policies which will ensure that something does. They are deaf, as I am sure the Leader of the House will shortly demonstrate, to the pleas for more expenditure from their own Back Benchers and, I am sure, deaf also to my hon. Friends. The Government, three months on, are, unbelievably, past their sell-by date.
6.58 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Perhaps it is an interesting illustration of my deafness, but I entirely failed to hear the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) offer the House any advice about whether to vote for the amendment. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and the pleasure of listening to it almost tempted me—but not quite—to advise the House to accept his amendment. I shudder to think of the response that I would receive from my hon. Friends and,
524
indeed, his hon. Friends if I gave such advice, but it struck me as notable that the hon. Member for The Wrekin refrained from doing so. My only other thought about his speech was that he appeared to be complaining about what amounted to the advance implementation of the. Jopling report—I think that he referred to shorter hours and longer holidays—on which I was pressed to make progress by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) earlier today.
As ever, the debate has been interesting. This is the second occasion on which I have had the privilege of being asked to wind it up. We heard three elegant and attractive maiden speeches from Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) took us on what he described as a cruise around the riparian delights of the Thames. Given some of what has been written about our rivers in recent weeks when we have been short of rain, I was pleased to hear that the Thames was still flowing through my hon. Friend's constituency. He paid charming tributes to his predecessors, whom we remember well—Dr. Alan Glyn and, before him, Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe. I had not realised that Sir Christopher Wren was another of my hon. Friend's predecessors, albeit rather briefly.
My hon. Friend's speech was remarkable in two respects. First, he almost tempted a Government Whip to break his normal vow of silence. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay)—who is, I believe, my hon. Friend's neighbour—was making distinct murmuring noises of approval in response to some of his remarks about aircraft noise; indeed, he is doing the same now. Secondly, by mentioning a number of issues on which he had been lobbied by his constituents, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead managed to perform the equivalent of signing about 25 early-day motions in 30 seconds. I am sure that he will be duly noticed as a result.
I was greatly struck by the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), whose path has crossed mine many times. He, too, made a charming and attractive speech—an appropriate maiden speech. I can only say that my hon. Friend can hardly cause me more difficulty in the House than he occasionally caused me outside it. He was a frequent and thoughtful writer on social security matters, but I was not always able to respond to each and every one of his thoughts, and we had our differences of opinion. I well remember appointing him to the Social Security Advisory Committee, from which—unhappily—he has had to resign, but to which he made a distinguished contribution. He paid tribute to his predecessor, Sir Ian Lloyd: I am certain that Sir Ian would have been fighting for a place on the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which we are about to establish, and that he would have made an important contribution.
I do not know what to say about my hon.Friend's reference to the works of P. G. Wodehouse. My knowledge of the novels is not as extensive as it might be, although I remember reading a number of them in my youth. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that I do not see him as the Jeeves of the House.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), I remember his predecessor, Chris Hawkins—another man with plenty of ideas, who nobbled me with a new one almost every time I passed through the Tea Room, and who made a lively contribution to all our proceedings. As my hon. Friend says, he and I had the

525
pleasure of working together closely when he was my special adviser, both at the Department of Trade and Industry and later at the Department of Social Security.
I endorse all that my hon. Friend said about the beauties of his constituency, although I had better not endorse his claim that it is the most beautiful in the country. That would upset every other hon. Member—which I do not wish to do—and might even upset some of my constituents, because my constituency contains some pretty nice areas too. I can support what he said about the attractions of his constituency, however, having had the advantage of staying with him after the Conservative party conference the year before last, visiting the Buxton opera house with him and seeing the beauties of the Georgian crescent to which he referred. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Ministers whom they concern.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made a number of comments about disability benefits and the legislation on disabled people's rights that he feels should be enacted. Some of what he said about disability benefits sits rather ill with the criticisms that he advanced when we introduced those benefits, claiming that few people would benefit and that they would gain very little.
We always expected that a major effort would be required to introduce disability living allowance, but there was an even larger surge of claims than we had anticipated. My hon. Friends do not consider the position acceptable, and—as I believe the right hon. Gentleman knows—they are taking firm action to try to accelerate the handling of cases. Nearly 400 extra staff have been added to the 2,000 already employed in disability living allowance and attendance allowance work, and I hope that that will contribute to the improvement that both the right hon. Gentleman and I want. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand if I rattle on, because I have only three minutes left.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) courteously informed me before making his speech that he would seek to raise the question of the Victoria Works Engineering Services pension scheme. He may know that, when I was Secretary of State for Social Security, I met some representatives of the scheme—along with his predecessor, who is now Governor of Hong Kong. The Government are well aware of the problems faced by the 73 pensioners to whom he referred, and, as the hon. Gentleman may know, officials are already in touch with the scheme's trustees to see what can be done to help. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will pay close attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) made a number of points about car crime, and spoke of Minister's efforts to persuade motor manufacturers to improve the security of vehicles. My hon. Friend is entirely right in thinking that my right hon. and hon. Friends continue to press the matter. The motor manufacturers have undoubtedly made good progress in some respects, but more action is needed, and the effort to introduce greater vehicle security will certainly continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) referred to the problem of ticket
526
touting. As he knows, we have an outstanding commitment to legislate on ticket touting in respect of football matches when parliamentary time allows. I am afraid that I cannot predict exactly when that will be.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—who, I understand, has had to leave—that the takeover that caused him concern is now being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading. He will be aware that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. As for the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I think that I would be wise not to enter into the details of the case that he raised.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 157.

Division No. 60]

[7.08 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

McFall, John

Adams, Mrs Irene

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ainger, Nick

Madden, Max

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Meale, Alan

Barnes, Harry

Morley, Elliot

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Raynsford, Nick

Bermingham, Gerald

Reid, Dr John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Spearing, Nigel

Eagle, Ms Angela

Tyler, Paul

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Wareing, Robert N

Flynn, Paul

Welsh, Andrew

Foster, Donald (Bath)

Winnick, David

Gerrard, Neil

Wise. Audrey

Gordon, Mildred

Harvey, Nick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hoyle. Doug

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

McAllion, John

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Duncan, Alan

Amess, David

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Arbuthnot, James

Elletson, Harold

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Faber, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Fabricant, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bates, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bellingham, Henry

Forman, Nigel

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Booth, Hartley

Freeman, Roger

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley. Peter (Eltham)

Fry, Peter

Bowis, John

Gallie. Phil

Brandreth, Gyles

Gill, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Gillan, Ms Cheryl

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Golding, Mrs Llin

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gorst, John

Burns, Simon

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Burt, Alistair

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butler, Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hawkins, Nicholas

Cash, William

Heald, Oliver

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Hendry, Charles

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Home Robertson, John

Coe, Sebastian

Hordern, Sir Peter

Congdon, David

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jack, Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Jessel, Toby

Couchman, James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Dixon, Don

Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

527

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shersby, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Sims, Roger

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Speed, Sir Keith

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spink, Dr Robert

Legg, Barry

Sproat, Iain

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Lidington, David

Steen, Anthony

Lightbown, David

Stephen, Michael

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Stewart, Allan

Luff, Peter

Streeter, Gary

MacKay, Andrew

Sweeney, Walter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sykes, John

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thomason, Roy

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Thurnham, Peter

Merchant, Piers

Trend, Michael

Milligan, Stephen

Trotter, Neville

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moate, Roger

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Wallace, James

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Watts, John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wheeler, Sir John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Widdecombe, Ann

Page, Richard

Wiggin, Jerry

Paice, James

Willetts, David

Patnick, Irvine

Wilshire, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wolfson, Mark

Rathbone, Tim

Wood, Timothy

Richards, Rod

Yeo, Tim

Riddick, Graham

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Tellers for the Noes:

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Sackville, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16th July, do adjourn until Monday 19th October.

Statutory Instruments, &c
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c).

SUMMER TIME
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1992 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd June.

PARLYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1387), dated 12th June 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mae Kay.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND [APPROPRIATION] BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put. forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills),That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  Homelessness
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of homelessness at this stage in this series of today's debates. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I want to hear the hon. Member. Right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quickly and quietly.
  Mr. Raynsford: It is right that Parliament should debate homelessness before it adjourns for the summer recess. The extent of homelessness in Britain is a terrible scar on the face of society and a savage indictment of our failure to provide adequately for the housing needs of all our people.
  Official figures show that the number of homeless households accepted by local authorities in England has trebled over the past 15 years—from 50,000 to 150,000. Homelessness has continued to increase relentlessly throughout the lifetime of this Government and, sadly, all the signs suggest that it will continue to do so until present Government policies are reversed.
  The figures are only the tip of the iceberg, because they exclude all those who apply to local authorities but are refused help—usually because the council does not accept that they are homeless or decides that they have themselves contributed to their misfortune. The statistics exclude also those who have never applied to a local authority—usually because they are not eligible for housing even if they are homeless, including most single and childless homeless people.
  It is a sobering comment on the official statistics that they do not include the majority of those who sleep rough on the streets at night. Because they are single and childless, they are unlikely to qualify for local authority help and so have not bothered to apply. Such figures as are available generally come from surveys made by voluntary organisations. Last year, a Salvation Army survey estimated that there were around 75,000 homeless single and childless people in London, including 2,000 literally on the streets—rough sleepers, 18,000 in hostels, 25,000 in cheap lodgings and bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and 30,000 in squats.
  Other surveys confirm that homelessness is by no means confined to London and other big cities—even though numerically its incidence is much higher there. In countless rural communities throughout Britain, the problem is manifested as the sons and daughters of long-standing residents discover that they cannot afford or obtain housing in the area, and are forced to leave and to move elsewhere. Many end up in the big cities—some of them homeless and on the streets, and at risk.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend makes the point that homelessness is no longer a problem associated only with London and other big cities. Changes in benefits have contributed to homelessness becoming a national problem. That is the tragic and disgraceful result of 13 wasted years of Tory rule.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend highlights a point that I hope to raise later. I wholly concur with his view that wider economic and benefits policies also contribute to homelessness nationally.
  530
  The fundamental reason for homelessness increasing so alarmingly given by anyone who has seriously studied the problem over the past 30 years is the shortage of suitable affordable housing in places where it is needed—and particularly the shortage of rented accommodation. It is hardly surprising that more and more people are at risk of homelessness, when the past years have seen the biggest loss in rented housing in Britain's history.
  The combination of the long-term continuing decline of private renting and the recent. dramatic decline in the supply of council accommodation has proved a lethal cocktail. More than 2 million rented homes have been lost from those two sectors.
  The one and only growth area in rented housing is the welcome increase in housing association lettings—but it is nowhere near adequate to offset the losses. The appalling human consequences of that loss, which was deliberately fuelled by the Government's attack on local authorities, have been extensively documented over the past 10 years —most recently in the Audit Commission's devastating critique of the inadequacy of Government housing policy. The Government, however, turn a deaf ear to all the calls by experts holding widely diverse political and apolitical views. The most recent came in a new report from Shelter, which argues the need for between 30,000 and 90,000 extra homes a year over the next decade.
  Even the Audit Commission's plea that the Government should publish projections of the need for social housing—the obvious starting point if policies are to be devised to respond to those needs—has so far met with no response. All we hear is the oft-repeated statement—I dare say we shall hear it again tonight—that the Government hope that housing associations will achieve a programme of 50,000 homes a year over the next three years. That will be welcome if it is achieved, but, as the commission proves, even if it is and if all possible empty properties in the public sector are brought into use, there will still be a critical shortfall, and the crisis will inevitably worsen.
  A shortage of housing is not the only factor that contributes to homelessness. Personal, social, and economic factors are also at work. No one with any experience of working with and on behalf of homeless people denies that sometimes people contribute to their own misfortune. That is not a reason for turning away from their needs. In his classic 1970 study on homelessness in London, Professor John Greve commented:
  "There are chronically inadequate families among the homeless and there are families whose only misfortune is the loss of a home. The former need support: both need a home. Between these extremes is a large number of families who have a variety of disadvantages in addition to the lack of a home. In some ways their difficulties might be resolved or reduced to manageable proportions by adequate housing."
  Sadly, those wise words have not prompted the response that they deserve.
  Among the other factors at work is the evolution of policies towards institutional care. Most right hon. and hon. Members support the concept behind care in the community, but it is impossible to do other than express alarm at the implications of numbers of vulnerable people being pitched out of institutional care without making a success of the care in the community policy. The small supportive hostels and group homes which provide the right environment for the discharged mentally ill or recovering alcoholics are two of the most obvious examples of which there are many others. How sad it is,

  531
  therefore, to have to report that, when asked last month whether it could estimate the housing costs arising from the community care plans and the implementation of the Children Act 1989 for each of the main groups of people in need, the Department of Health had to reply that it had no such estimates available.
  It is only nine months before that policy comes into effect next April. What a comment it is on the lack of preparation for the implementation of a major plank of Government policy when the lead Department cannot provide estimates of the likely financial implications of providing the new smaller supportive accommodation that is required to ensure the success of the care in the community policy. I fear that the outcome will be more distressed and vulnerable people at risk of homelessness or actually on the streets.
  When considering the wider economic factors, there is also the crisis of repossessions, of which there were 75,000 last year. According to evidence published by Roof magazine and, most recently, by the Rowntree Trust, the number is likely to continue at a relatively high level for at least two years because of the huge overhang of people in debt. Some 275.000 people are more than six months behind with their payments.
  Although there has been a short-term fall in the number of repossessions in the first months of this year, the number of people in long-term debt continues to rise. The consequence is bound to feed through in due course into a further high incidence of abandonments and reposses-sions as borrowers decide that there is no way out, that they cannot cope, that there is no way in which they can rescue their position and that it is better to hand in the keys, or as the lenders decide that they can no longer afford to allow the debt to continue to escalate.
  I should be surprised if significantly more than half those 275,000 households more than six months in arrears at the moment manage to get through the next two years without losing their homes, either by handing in the keys or through repossession. That implies a home loss of around 70,000 a year over the next two years as a result of mortgage problems.
  The Government's response to that crisis, as to so many other aspects of the housing and homelessness crisis, has been to resort to cheap palliatives to try to cover up the worst public signs of the problem, while doing nothing to attack the underlying causes. Hence the abortive mortgage rescue package, which appears to have attracted only 12 takers to date. It depended on the financial institutions to bail out the Government simply because the Government were not prepared to provide the subsidy necessary to ensure a really effective mortgage rescue scheme.
  Similarly, the Government's rough sleepers initiative was designed to sweep the streets of London, but significantly not anywhere else in the country, in advance of the general election. That initiative is now coming to an end, and the signs are that there is no commitment for on-going finance to maintain it in the years ahead.
  There is escalating dependency on temporary accom-modation for homeless people, with 62,000 households, the highest number ever recorded, now living in temporary accommodation as at the end of March this year—the latest date for which figures are available. One third of those households are in expensive and unsuitable bed-and-breakfast hotels. That problem is left unresolved because of a shortage of adequate move-on accommoda-tion. As the supply of permanent homes dries up and more
  532
  and more people are waiting longer in bed and breakfast and other forms of temporary housing, much of which is not just squalid and unsatisfactory but actually more expensive than permanent homes, we must ask why the Government are dithering.
  Looking at all those trends—the shortfall of affordable housing, the demand for new homes, the need for care in the community provision, the continuing loss of repossessed homes from the owner-occupier sector, the backlog of people in temporary accommodation—any informed observer can only conclude that the number of homeless people in Britain will continue to rise alarmingly over the next year or two. If the problem is compounded. as some commentators have feared, by further cuts in social security benefits, notably housing benefit and sbenefits for the young unemployed, the escalating crisis will become an unstoppable avalanche, the like of which we have never seen even in the grim history of the past 13 years.
  The Government have no policy to deal with the problem. All that Ministers can offer is temporary palliatives which are short-term and limited in their impact. like sticking plaster on gaping wounds. Ministers may speak soothing words while stepping over the homeless on their way to the opera. but they have failed to reverse, or even halt, the escalating crisis. In doing so. they have betrayed a whole generation whose formative experiences too often comprise the seedy lodging house. the squat or the cardboard box on the street.
  It is time for a fresh start. It is time for Ministers to recognise that their current policies are leading nowhere but towards ever more of the same human misery of which we have seen far too much in the past 13 years. We urgently need new initiatives which grill attack the causes of homelessness in Britain today, not just tinker with the symptoms
  We urgently need an expanded housing programme, using all available resources, including the tragically wasted local authority capital receipts, which would, if released, generate desperately needed move-on accommodation to take some people from temporary accommodation. The rough sleepers initiative should not be discontinued or watered down by the Treasury, as appears likely. It should he expanded to cover areas outside London where there are people sleeping on the streets. It should be expanded also to ensure that there is within London adequate provision of move-on accom-modation as well as the much needed emergency housing into which people on the streets can move first of all.
  The problem of mortgage default and repossessions should be attacked seriously with a combination of a mortgage benefit scheme, a properly funded mortgage rescue package and tough new restrictions on financial institutions to prevent them repossessing unless they can demonstrate that all available alternative options have been explored.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has described a number of areas in which we need a large volume increase in housing available for rent and for purchase. That will mean either a big expansion in public spending, as the hon. Gentleman obviously recommends, or, as Conservative Members would prefer. a big expansion in the amount of private sector finance attracted to those types of housing. Is not the problem the fact that, when we go for big expansion, we fail to deliver

  533
  the quality? Does he not agree that the citizens charter has a big role to play in ensuring that we achieve the quality of housing—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is becoming a speech.
  Mr. Jenkin: I apologise. Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to finish.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, you will—right now.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman made one good point when he said that a rapid expansion of housing, which has occurred in the past, without concern for quality would be a mistake. However, he failed to make the point that a rapid contraction of provision has resulted in people on the streets and people living in far worse conditions. The bed-and-breakfast hotel is far worse than the worst jerry-built council housing of the 1960s.
  I accept that we need the maximum use of all available resources: I made that point. We must attract more private investment by various routes into the provision of housing. We need to encourage housing association programmes, but we also need council programmes to be restored to a reasonable level to provide a mixture of housing options, choice for the customers and an adequate supply. Everyone who examines the issue seriously—I offer the Audit Commission as evidence of that—must reach that conclusion. Housing associations alone cannot deliver enough homes.
  In addition to the various items that I have recommended so far, we must also consider benefit entitlement. Benefit entitlement should be restored for 16 and 17-year-olds, and the injustices done to the under-25s should be reversed. The concept of the boarders' premium, advocated very sagely in another place earlier this week, should be explored urgently to assist particularly young single people to allow them to survive without recourse to rough sleeping or squats.
  There should also be a co-ordinated programme to ensure that unsuitable and expensive temporary accommodation is discontinued as soon as possible. That should include targets to reduce the number of homeless people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by 50 per cent. in 12 months and by 75 per cent. within two years. A limited amount of targeted initial finance, which would be needed to achieve that, would of course in turn be more than offset by the long-term savings of getting people out of bed and breakfast into permanent housing, which all the studies show is cheaper for the public purse than bed and breakfast.
  When the Secretary of State for Health outlined her White Paper yesterday and announced the new health targets, she failed to mention homelessness until prompted from the Labour Benches. She and her Government colleagues, as well as Conservative Back Benchers, must be aware of the extent to which homelessness and bad housing damage the lives, health and prospects of thousands of our fellow citizens.
  It is time for those connections to be recognised. It is time for the Department of the Environment to recognise the need to set targets to tackle the needs of the homeless. I have suggested some targets tonight; hon. Members may be able to suggest others. Above all, it is important for the
  534
  Government to recognise the alarming crisis. The matter is set to deteriorate further unless urgent remedial action is taken. The spectre of homelessness will cast an ever longer and darker shadow over our society unless those responsible wake up and accept the need for new policies and new energy to tackle and overcome that crisis.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I warmly welcome the opportunity to discuss homelessness. I applied for a debate on it, and although I was unsuccessful in securing it, I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on his great success and on his speech. The hon. Gentleman returns to the House with quite a reputation as a housing expert. In his moderate speech, he showed that he was prepared to embrace a wide range of options. Unfortunately, he made the same parrot cry that we hear time after time from the Opposition—that the Government should allow local authorities to spend more money building council houses. The hon. Gentleman failed to tackle two of the fundamental problems of homelessness: first, the appalling record of local authorities in the provision of public housing and, secondly, the difficulties that have been experienced by the private rented sector.
  Last year, I visited a day centre for homeless people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation just down the road in Westminster. Many of them were mothers with young children. Before I arrived, I expected that they would trot out the standard line about homelessness and attack the Government and their policies. However, I should have known better, because they were ordinary people living in the real world. Almost without exception. they had two common complaints. First, they complained about the way in which local councils treated them as homeless people. They were treated like dirt on the floor. That upset me greatly. Secondly, they would say, "I know of an empty council house just down the road from where I am living right now. Why can't I go there?" I would say.
  "Yes, indeed, why can't you go there? That is a very good question."
  The hon. Member for Greenwich and his colleagues have often suggested that local authorities are the answer to the problems of homelessness. Local authorities are part of the problem. Because of the sheer incompetence of the way in which that housing is managed. the number of council houses that are allowed to lie empty, councils' refusal to co-operate with the private sector, and the political manipulation which drives many of our council housing policies, local authorities are one of the prime causes of today's housing difficulties.
  Mr. Clive Soley: It is important to have some facts. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on Government figures which show that local authorities have an average void rate of 2·5 per cent., housing associations 3·1 per cent., the private sector 5·9 per cent. and his own Government no less than 16·1 per cent.? As local authorities have the best record of all put together, why does the hon. Gentleman not tell us about that?
  Mr. Riddick: We hear that comment time after time. The reason why a significant number of Government houses are empty is that they are Ministry of Defence houses. Many of those service people are posted overseas. The hon. Gentleman must accept that. He knows that it is

  535
  true. Does the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that Liverpool has nearly 6,000 council houses, or 9 per cent. of its housing stock, lying vacant? Does he agree that that is an absolute disgrace? It is shocking that almost 100,000 council houses are standing empty, and it is shameful that local authorities have rent arrears of £430 million. Opposition Members say that local authorities should be allowed to build more houses and manage more of this country's housing stock. I just do not buy that.
  I am sorry to say that such problems are not confined to the empires of lunacy based in Liverpool, Manchester or some London boroughs. I have some of those problems in my own back yard. My local council, Kirklees, which is Labour-controlled, has almost 1,000 council houses standing empty. That makes Kirklees council the 23rd worst-performing local housing authority out of 333 authorities. Kirklees also has rent arrears of almost £4 million, which makes it the 33rd worst-performing authority in respect of rent arrears.
  I recently learned that, a few years ago, the local private landlords association in Huddersfield raised £25 million of venture capital for low-cost housing in the area. Private landlords offered to buy derelict houses from the council and provide houses for low-income families, but the council refused to co-operate.
  For the past four years, investment in housing associations in Kirklees has been extremely low, not because the money for such investment has not been available, but because Kirklees council has been refusing to co-operate with housing associations on purely ideological grounds. The Labour-controlled council does not approve of housing associations. I wonder what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has to say about that.
  My right hon. Friends might know that I raised that issue on the Floor of the House last year. I am pleased to say that, as a result of my exposure of that shocking behaviour by Kirk lees council, that absurd policy has been reversed. The result has been dramatic. Housing association investment in Kirklees for the financial year 1992–93 will rise by almost £6 million to £18 million, which is a massive increase of 46 per cent. The number of homes provided by housing associations is to increase from 275 last year to 409 this year, as a direct result of that increased investment by housing associations and the change of policy by Kirklees council. Housing associations now feel able and willing to invest in our area, but no thanks to Kirklees council. Week after week, local Labour councillors bleat about homelessness in Kirklees and say that it is because the Government refuse to provide enough money for the council, yet the council's own dogma and pigheadedness have helped to bring about the problem.
  Many private landlords in Huddersfield refuse to take tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit, not because they have anything against such people but because it takes landlords between three and six months to recoup housing benefit from the local authority. That is just not good enough. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister not to allow councils to build any more houses.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That is already happening.
  Mr. Riddick: Councils are allowed to build a small number, as we know. Because of their record, they should not be allowed to build any more houses.
  536
  The Government need to be more radical and move the provision of public rented accommodation out of the hands of local authorities. That could be done by increasing the role of housing associations and contracting out the provision of housing stock to private companies. It might be necessary for local authorities to have a place in co-ordinating the placing of homeless and needy people in appropriate accommodation, but even that is dubious as long as Labour councillors regard public housing as something to be manipulated for their own political ends.
  Mr. Raynsford: I accept that, for political reasons, the hon. Gentleman may not want to listen to what Opposition Members say, but has he read the Audit Commission's report? Does he accept its view that, even if the Government achieved their full housing association programme and even if local authorities brought all empty properties back into use, there would still he a shortfall and there is a need for a continuing local authority contribution?
  Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point because it moves nicely on to my next point, about the private rented sector. That sector needs to be stimulated.
  It is absolute nonsense for anyone to suggest that the Government have done nothing to increase housing provision. Today, there are slightly fewer than 23 million homes; back in 1979, there were slightly fewer than 21 million—an increase of 2 million. That is no mean figure. We should not forget that. One sad and telling fact is that, in the same period, the private rented sector has continued to decline as a direct result of rent controls and rent restrictions. Indeed, as a result of the Rent Act 1974, which extended security of tenure and so-called fair rents to furnished lettings, 400,000 private dwellings ceased to be available between 1974 and 1979. That was Labour's contribution to homelessness.
  I am pleased to say that the Labour policy appears to have been arrested by the Government's new policy. At the turn of the century, 90 per cent. of housing was accounted for by the private rented sector. Today, that figure is 8 per cent. In Germany the figure is 45 per cent. and in countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and France, 23 per cent. There is clearly scope to increase the private rented sector in Britain.
  There are hundreds of thousands of empty privately owned rooms, fiats and houses. Many are not let because people still believe that they will have difficulty removing the tenants if they wish to do so. The way to improve the conditions in which private tenants live and to keep rents down is not to apply controls which act as disincentives to let but to increase the supply. That is why I welcome all the steps taken by the Government to expand the private rented sector.
  Clearly, many people are still not aware of the more free and open situation. They are potential landlords. Their empty properties and rooms are potential homes. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to launch a crusade to turn potential landlords into real landlords and potential homes into real homes. That is the challenge. Let us stimulate the private rented sector. Let us fill those empty council houses. Let us build co-operation between local authorities and the private sector. Let us get politics out of local authority housing.

  537
  Let us enable housing associations to build more homes. In that way, we could provide for the men sleeping rough in London and for the families in London and, indeed, in my constituency. living in cramped bed-andbreakfast accommodation. We could provide what they want—somewhere warm and comfortable to live, somewhere that they can call home.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I support many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). He gave evidence of the increase in homelessness; it is increasing for a variety of reasons.
  I looked up some of the figures for my local authority to see what had happened in the past year. I saw an increase of more than 40 per cent. in the number of people who need to be rehoused because they have been evicted by private landlords, whom we have just been told would provide the answer. There was an increase of 157 per cent. in mortgage defaults. Most striking of all, there was an increase over two years of 400 per cent. in the number of single people with a mental illness who had to be rehoused because they had been thrown out of institutions.
  Of course, there is a great deal that the statistics do not reveal. Statistics tend to show only the people who are rehoused as priority cases. They do not include all the people who are actually or potentially homeless. Especially, they do not show how many young and single people are homeless. As has already been said, the figures are not available.
  Various surveys show that in London at least 100.000 young people live in unsatisfactory accommodation such as squats and bedsits, sleep rough or are homeless at home —living with friends or relatives in precarious circumstances where they cannot expect to stay permanently.
  Most of us welcome some of the Government's initiatives such as the sleeping rough initiative and so on. However, they are not enough, they are not long term or permanent and they are not countrywide. Other aspects of Government policy do nothing to address the problems of young single people. People receive less benefit if they are under 25. If they go to a private landlord, the landlord does not reduce the rent because the person is under 25. The benefit is cut, but the rent is not.
  There is a further impact on single homeless people. Councils often have to house families in accommodation that could be used for single people. I know what happens in my area. The pressure on housing caused by coping with homelessness puts a great strain on the local authority's housing policy. Homeless families end up going into one-bedroom accommodation because that is all that is available. At first, they are grateful. It is preferable to being on the street or in bed and breakfast. But they quickly realise that they are trapped in accommodation where they will be overcrowded. They are added to the housing transfer list the moment that they arc rehoused. For anyone else seeking a transfer, there is virtually no transfer activity.
  People in temporary, bed-and-breakfast accommoda-tion suffer perhaps the most of all. They do not know when they might be moved to other temporary accommodation. In many boroughs no support services arc provided. Such
  538
  families suffer a complete lack of stability and the consequences for the family and the children's education are terrible.
  In newspaper reports today we see another aspect of the impact on people in temporary accommodation. In today's The Guardian there is a report on people who apply to the social fund for grants and loans. The research commissioned by the Department of Social Security shows that the decisions taken on whether to award a grant or loan are completely nonsensical. The researchers said that the only pattern that they could find in the decisions was similar to that which would obtain if awards and refusals occurred completely at random. One is just as likely to be refused a grant or loan as to be awarded one. One's housing conditions are irrelevant. About three quarters of the people who received loans found that the money taken out of their income support made it impossible for them to live.
  The most crucial requirement is investment. The private rented sector has been in decline since the first world war —for 80 years.
  Mr. Riddick: Why?
  Mr. Gerrard: The hon. Gentleman asks why. The Government have been in power for 13 years and the private rented sector has continued to decline throughout that period because nothing that the Government can do will reinvigorate it. A measure of—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Tony Banks: The 1988 Act.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to hear the hon. Member because of seated interventions.
  Mr. Gerrard: A measure of what has happened in investment in public housing is that the number of starts by local authorities in London in 1990 was 2 per cent. of the number in 1978. The lack of investment seems to be recognised by everyone except the Government.
  In 1990, the then Conservative chair of the London Boroughs Association said:
  "A substantial increase in the financing of social housing provision and the release of more council house sales proceeds is urgently required in order to prevent a crisis becoming a catastrophe".
  None of that has been done.
  Last year there was a national inquiry into British housing in which the Duke of Edinburgh was involved. On the renewal of housing, it said:
  "So little housing has been demolished that every new home built today in Britain will have to last 2,700 years if present trends of repair and demolition continue."—
  [Interruption.] That is not my figure; it comes from the national inquiry. The Audit Commission report said that, depending on the range of projections for the increase in the number of households during the next 10 years—that number is increasing—social housing provision, and not council housing, needs to he in the region of 60,000 to 90,000 per year. In 1990 it was 28,000. Under current plans, whatever happens, if the Government meet every target for housing associations, they will not make up that shortfall.
  The Audit Commission clearly said that expenditure was required and that even if local authorities did nothing but maintain existing stock and support the private sector, there would be a shortfall of £1 billion in 1993–94, on present plans. The commission also said that, whatever

  539
  local authorities did about efficiency, there would still be a large gap between supply and need—not supply and demand.
  I was first involved with housing in 1974, when I became the chairman of a London borough housing committee, in Waltham Forest. I inherited a mess. There were many empty properties, about 200 to 300 were squatted and there were long waiting lists. Now it seems like the beginning of the homelessness crisis, although it was bad enough then. The next four or five years were the only period that I can recall from my involvement in housing when it felt like real progress was being made. We did not achieve perfection, or cure all the problems, but there was progress, because there was real investment. At the end of four or five years of investment in that authority there was virtually no squatting, empty properties were being used, or given to housing associations, and people were being rehoused from the waiting list.
  The reasons for the improvement were that we had done something about efficiency in management. There is no excuse for inefficiency and for properties standing empty when they could be used. We also used housing associations. I believe, as do many of my hon. Friends, that we should use housing associations, and we have no problem with that. However, councils were also building houses and buying properties on the open market and were able to make up some of the gaps in their provision.
  The cuts started in 1978, and it is true to say that they began under a Labour Government. The famous speech by Anthony Crosland—when he said that the party was over in local government—signalled the beginning of cuts in investment in housing and it has never recovered. Until we make simple changes in policies and put real money into public and social housing, homelessness will increase.
  8.3 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reflect on the cause of homelessness, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). In passionate tones, he said that homelessness has caused a savage scare in our society and he feared that it would treble in 15 years.
  Putting aside the natural human agony involved, I fear that the hon. Member was suggesting that homelessness was somehow the Government's fault. We must try to put things in perspective. Society has changed enormously. there are now more divorces than ever before, and each time that parents or a couple break up, the husband or wife must move into another home, which creates greater pressures. One family in three breaks up, so there are enormous pressures on local authorities and society to provide for homelessness. Therefore, when we consider homelessness, there is no point in saying that the Government should have done this, that or the other. It is more a question of what we are doing.
  There has also been speculation about the number of people who have suffered from mortgage repossessions. I know that that is an agony and I have just had to deal with one such case in Sutton. The hon. Member for Greenwich mentioned that 70,000 families would come into that category, but my research shows that the overall figure makes up about 12 per cent. of people who are made homeless. A sense of proportion is relevant, although it is a tragedy for the families concerned.
  540
  The hon. Member for Greenwich gave the impression that the rough sleepers initiative was a poor effort by the Government. barely worthy of the enormous funds put into it. You spoke as if they were going to cast it aside, but that is not the case. The Government have committed £96 million to the rough sleepers initiative, to be spent over three years. You are absolutely right—the initiative is largely focused in London, because that is where all the assessors agree that there is the most acute need. However, more money has now been allocated, giving about £300 million to the south-east to renovate properties for the people who most need them.
  It has been suggested that 16 and 17-year-olds are not on income support and are therefore tossed out on the streets. Again, we should have a sense of proportion. All 16 and 17-year-olds living at home have the option of going on a youth training scheme, of further education or of getting a job. We accept that some fall through the net, but there is no question of them being thrown into the gutter. Income support is made available for the disabled, for lone parents, for those estranged from their parents and for those who have left care and are living away from home.
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Last week there was a meeting of the all-party group on homelessness in this place to consider the precise issue that the hon. Lady is talking about—single homeless 16 to 18-year-olds. Five young people were present. One had had to leave home because the domestic situation was unbearable and untenable, and three had been in care all their lives until now. Each and every one of them said that they had nowhere to go but the street. They were sleeping on pavements or in doorways. The severe hardship payments which the Government usually produce to explain that those young people are not without any financial support —[Interruption.] It is no use winding your hand in that fashion, hon. Gentlemen. Those young people are sleeping on our streets now. You may find it intensely amusing, but they do not.
  If young people present themselves at offices where severe hardship payments are made, they only get the money in their hands if they are assisted by a voluntary worker. They do not know how the system works and no one within the system is helping them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to interrupt new Members, as I do not want to throw them during their speeches, but it is an appropriate opportunity to remind them that they must not use the word "you" unless addressing the Chair, and that interventions are supposed to be short.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) for her comments, although from my experience there is no reason or excuse for young people to be in the circumstances she described. I should like to meet those young people and to help them, because there is no reason for them to be in such difficulties.
  It is interesting to note that the number of people sleeping rough has dropped dramatically. Voluntary organisations in central London estimate that, since the rough sleepers initiative was introduced in January, the

  541
  number of those sleeping on the street has dropped from 1,000 to about 400. It is expected that that number will fall to nil within a few months.
  Another important factor is that, no matter how hard one tries to provide accommodation for those sleeping rough. they do not all want to take it up. When a journalist or someone else conducts an investigation down the Strand and taps people on the shoulder to ask why they have not taken up the accommodation provided, they answer that they do not like the discipline, there is not enough television and entertainment or that they do not like this or that. Some people do not want to be taken care of. Although we have a responsibility to make accommodation available, it is important to point out that people do not always want to take up that option.
  I have particular concern, which I raised briefly a few weeks ago, about homeless people who are put into bed-and-breakfast hostels. Last year, I spent a week in a hostel for the homeless in Haringey as part of a television documentarry on the experiences of people in hostels. It was a salutary experience for me. I was put into a hostel despite the fact that Haringey has thousands of empty housing units. For some reason, it seems incapable of matching the homeless to its void properties. The hostel in which I stayed was clean and adequate. My bedroom was perfectly okay, although it just had one single bulb by which it was difficult to read.
  During that week, however, I met other homeless people in other hostels, whose conditions were quite different. The communal kitchen was filthy, tiles were coming off the walls. the cookers had never been properly cleaned, the floors were ripped, the bathrooms did not properly function and the lavatory seats were often Missing. The condition of the bedrooms was also intolerable. with broken furniture, cockroaches and so forth.
  If it was possible to put me into an adequate. clean hostel, why has Haringey not ensured that all its other hostels are of the same standard? I suspect a lack of control. We should have independent inspectors to ensure that everyone has a decent. clean bed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider setting up an independent inspectorate of those hostels. Certain standards should be insisted upon, and hostels should be subject to a code of practice. People may be homeless. but they are entitled to be treated as dignified human beings. That was not the case for the people I saw suffering in some hostels in north London.
  It is also interesting to note how different local authorities handle homeless people. Haringey chucks its homeless into hostels. That may be an easy option. but it is not practical. Although Haringey tries to keep families together in the same building. they arc sometimes separated. It is extraordinary to consider that the cost of putting a family of four into a hostel is about £400 a week. That money could be far more practicalln spent on placing those families in private rented property.
  Mr. Soley: They cannot do it above a certain level.
  Lady Olga Maitland: They certainly can.
  My local authority, Sutton and Cheam, has gone to a lot of trouble to ensure that people can live in dignity and at a lower cost to the local authority. That authority has
  542
  just 19 couples living in bed-and-breakfast hostels, while it has placed 110 families in private rented property, which it has rented for a set lease from the landlords. It has another 147 families living in temporary accommodation in empty council stock, and about 50 families living in housing association property.
  Unfortunately. some local authorities display a certain laxity and lack of care about the condition of homeless families. I congratulate my local authority on putting so much effort into caring for the homeless—it is supported in that by the Conservative Government—and for ensuring that families are housed in flats rather than bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  We should make the arrangements governing rented accommodation more flexible, so that better use can be made of it. Part of the problem is that, in the past, landlords were afraid that they would be unable to get tenants out. It is important to remember that there are now 600,000 empty housing units—often flats above shops. I welcome the fact that the Government are now providing a grant to bring those flats back into the rented sector. I also welcome the fact that the Government are making it easier for young homeless people to rent a single room from householders. The householder can now let out a room, tax-free, for £65 a week. Such a system benefits both parties.
  Sometimes, a family or a single person who may want to rent a flat cannot afford to pay the deposit in the first place. I was interested to learn that Colchester council helps those who have become homeless either through repossession or who have been discharged from the Army, who have the prospect of a real income but who cannot put the money up front for a deposit. That council has found that it is worth its while to pay the deposit in advance, and it is rare for people to default on their payments. The Government should consider such a scheme.
  Thurrock council operates a scheme for those on income support. Sometimes there is a delay before someone receives housing benefit, and that means that that person is often refused rented property because the landlord is concerned about the delay in getting his money. The council has come up with a damage-limitation scheme, which guarantees the money to the landlord right away. It also operates a system for people who agree to have their housing benefit paid directly to the landlord.
  I also agree with the call for greater flexibility in the housing market. Concern has already been expressed about the constraints on housing association tenants, who do not currently have the right to buy their homes from those associations.I would welcome a re-examination of that arrangement so that such purchases are possible in the future. That would make a tremendous difference to the housing market.
  The important thing is to keep people moving and to get them into homes. Above all, we must ensure that people continue to live in the dignity that they deserve.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Jim Dowd: I am not sure how to follow that rich mixture of prosperous, suburban, middle-class bigotry, fantasy and insensitivity, so I shall get on with the points that I had intended to make, for time is pressing and many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

  543
  It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate in national housing week, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on the good fortune and persistence which has led to our considering the whole issue.
  To native Londoners, homelessness is not just an indication of the decline of this once grand city. Perhaps the finest metaphor for the London of the 1990s is the image of young people sleeping in cardboard boxes in the west end and along some of London's major thoroughfares.
  An elderly resident of Sydenham, in my constituency, told me recently, as she recalled life during the war, that the situation was never like it is today. "Why is it like this now?" she asked. The Government have never adequately answered that question.
  Homelessness can be defined in a number of ways. We can count the number of people who literally do not have a roof over their heads, but if we include in the definition of homelessness those who are in need of a decent home —of somewhere adequately to meet the needs of themselves and their families—the numbers rocket alarmingly. I shall not this evening trade figures, because my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich did that more than adequately. Nor shall I attempt a detailed analysis of the position. I shall concentrate on one theme— the inadequacy of Conservative policy for the homeless.
  The winter weather initiative was part of the rough sleepers initiative. It was a totally inadequate response to a problem that had grown to epidemic proportions. If more care had been taken earlier, the scheme would not have been necessary. The fact that it was necessary was a condemnation of the inactivity of the Conservatives over the years.
  I shall tonight draw attention to one scheme—I call it a project—in Lawrie Park road in Sydenham, in my constituency. It is not just a hostel. I call it a project because that is what it has become. It was set up with winter weather initiative money, but it has done far more than simply provide people with a place to keep them off the streets. The project has expanded into counselling and giving advice, and Conservative Members will be interested to hear that it is located in a leafy street close to the boundary with Bromley. A great advantage of that is that it is a long way from the west end and the temptations and influences—in particular for the youngsters for whom the hostel was created—there. It is also a long way from the royal opera house, so Conservative Members are not at risk of tripping over them.
  Mr. John Marshall: Shame.
  Mr. Dowd: It is a damn shame that Government insensitivity is forcing the scheme to close, throwing the youngsters back on to the streets. Perhaps it is suffering that fate because it is in a desirable location. I suspect that if it were located in a draughty church hall and was open for just a few months, with people being taken in to get them out of the weather, it might be treated with more sensitivity.
  The project of which I speak was a purpose-built hostel constructed by the NatWest bank for its management trainees while in London, so the standard of accommoda-tion is not just adequate but exemplary for most of the young people who are there. It is designed for youngsters aged 16 to 25, the most vulnerable group among the
  544
  homeless in London. There is an equal number of young men and young women, and in terms of those most at risk, young women on the streets of London must be at the top of the list.
  There are 40 places there, with a capacity for 80. It has never been fully funded to enable it to be used to its full capacity, so the scope for improvement is enormous. Of the 250 young people who have been through the project since 1991, nearly 50 have gone on to obtain permanent or semi-permanent accommodation. In other words, they have found homes and are now permanently removed from the streets of London and have been given a chance to make something of their lives.
  The project was funded until the end of March, when the winter weather initiative money ran out. Surprise, surprise—more money was found to enable it to be run until the end of May. I leave hon. Members to conjecture what happened between the end of March and the end of May. Department of the Environment funding ceased, and unless arrangements could be made to enable the project to continue, 40 young people would have been thrown back on to the streets of London.
  People need homes in all weathers, not just between December and March. They need permanent, decent homes just as much as we all need them, and Conservative Members have acknowledged that. We approached the Minister informally on a couple of occasions to see whether anything could be done to help the project, but the answer was negative. That is why I have felt compelled to raise the matter this evening, because if the project closes, neither I nor those connected with it will allow it to go with a whimper.
  Various organisations are involved, notably the South London family housing association, the Tudor trust, the London housing trust and the London borough of Lewisham. Few of the residents came from Lewisham originally. The local council is trying to find money to keep it open, for it recognises that it has a role to play in providing homes for Londoners and people who come to London.
  Those connected with the project have even approached Telethon to see whether money can be obtained from that source to keep the project going. That of itself represents a condemnation of Government policy, with money-raising game shows on television having to be devised to give young people a decent home and a reasonable start in life.
  The youngsters came to the House of Commons a few weeks ago with a petition. It was, for many of them, their first visit to this place, and they were confused. I would not say that they were overawed; they simply found the place incomprehensible. As a result of the attitude of the Government over the project, I am forced to share their conclusion. I sent the Minister their petition and received a wholly inadequate response. Not once has the Department offered any assistance or advice on how the project might be kept open. The Government have adopted a Pontius Pilate-like approach and have said, in effect, "That is the end of the matter. You knew when the money was dished out how far it would go. It has now gone and you are on your own."
  That happens in many areas of Government spending. Money is provided up front and, its having been provided on a one-off basis, it is left to others, notably local authorities, to go on dealing with recurring problems which are not amenable to one-off solutions. The idiocy

  545
  and futility of that approach is demonstrated by the fact that come next December, if the winter weather initiative is introduced—there is doubt about whether it will be—it is admitted that the Lawrie Park road hostel will qualify under the scheme. That shows the bankruptcy of Government policy.
  I implore the Minister to reconsider the matter, to provide some hope to the project and its residents and, by so doing, to give some hope to every homeless person in this city and throughout the country.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: In view of the pressure on time, I shall not make the measured, well-balanced and reasoned speech that I intended to make. Instead, I shall concentrate on one issue that must be aired as a result of the comments of Opposition Members, who do not come to the debate with clean hands. They come here with hypocrisy and humbug. Why, when we discuss homelessness, will they not tell us about Southwark borough council, which is Labour controlled and which is owed £30 million in uncollected rents? Why will they not tell us of the 8,000 empty properties owned by that borough council? Imagine what it could do, if it collected those rents, to bring those unfit and dilapidated units back into occupation. Labour inefficiency is depriving the people of that borough of decent homes in which to live.
  Instead of trying to beat the Government with a big stick, Opposition Members should describe the position in the borough of Newham, which has rent arrears of £11 million—[Interruption.]—and more than 5,500 units unfit for human occupation. If Newham collected those rents, it could renovate those houses and flats and people could move into them.
  I speak with some knowledge of the area, for not only have I been to Newham but I worked for Southwark district council. I know what I am talking about. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) might refer to the rent arrears of £13 million in his borough. He should castigate his borough council for not collecting that money and using it to bring unfit units back into public use.
  Mr. David Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in the middle of his litany of extremely worrying cases which, as he says, should be brought to the public's attention. Has he considered the fact that it has been reported in Southwark that three of the people with severe rent arrears are Labour councillors?
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has reinforced my opening remarks that Opposition Members do not come to the debate with clean hands.
  If we are to tackle the problem of homelessness, we must take a radical approach to local authority housing management. We must make local authority landlords far more efficient. To that extent, I welcome the excellent consultation paper "Competing for Quality in Housing". I welcome the Government's radical approach in making local authority landlords contract out and buy in the services that they need, when they need them, at the best prices, to give their tenants the best service. That is the way forward if some of the unfit, unlet, empty units are to be brought back into public service.
  546
  When my hon. Friend the Minister considers his response to the consultation paper, will he bear in mind that I do not believe that it goes far enough? The consultation document states that the client will remain the local authority housing committee, still steeped in the local authority culture that we so desperately need to get rid of.
  Will my hon. Friend consider converting housing committees and departments into semi-detached housing boards or companies, as the Institute of Housing suggested? We should do that, not so that they can build new properties but so that they can better manage the ones that they have. Unless we do that, many Labour-controlled local authorities will seek ways of getting round compulsory competitive tendering by making life impossible for contractors who win tenders or by ensuring that in-house people win them, thus gaining only minimal savings.
  If we introduce those radical changes, we shall make great savings in housing management. Local authority landlords will become much more effective and one of the factors causing homelessness will have been diminished.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) says that he knows Newham—I must test him on that some time, but not tonight. I shall tell him something about Newham and the voids that exist there. A large number of them are in the Taylor Woodrow Anglian tower blocks. The hon. Gentleman is probably too young to remember Ronan Point, but people had to be moved out of those tower blocks because they were unsafe. The Minister for Housing and Planning knows about those tower blocks as we went on an inspection together and saw how badly they had been built. They were jerry-built flats. We cannot place people in some of the accommodation units in Newham because the structures are too dangerous.
  The hon. Member for Sutton might think it is a good thing for Labour party people to be placed in dangerous structures, but I do not think so. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why there is a housing crisis in London, he does not have to look around to blame local authorities. It is a cheap and easy shot for Conservative Members to say that the housing crisis is caused by Labour local authorities. It is the crass, narrow-minded, narrow-sighted, stupid, ignorant attitude that I expect from Conservative Members as they know nothing about the subject.
  What do Conservative Members know about living in rotten accommodation? How many Conservative Members are homeless? Most of them probably have two or three homes. We do not want lectures from a bunch of well-heeled Tory layabouts telling us what is endured by our constituents. If the hon. Member for Sutton wants to know why there is a housing crisis, I shall tell him.
  In 1987–88, the London boroughs started building more than 13,000 new homes. In 1990, London boroughs started to build only 302 homes. The reason for the housing crisis is that the Government have ensured that the boroughs cannot provide accommodation for those who need it. It is absolutely disgraceful that in 1990 only 302 new homes were built—2 per cent. of the 1978 total. Between 1981–82 and 1989–90, the available permanent lettings to new tenants were reduced—a loss of 20,000 units.

  547
  One does not need a PhD in housing administration to know why there is a housing crisis in London. Some £8 billion is sitting in bank accounts, but no local authorities are allowed to use it to build new homes. The Government conned the House and the rest of the country by saying that if' local authorities sold houses, the money would be available to build new homes—lies. The authorities have not been allowed to use their own money to build homes for their own people.
  The reason for the housing crisis sits on the Benches opposite—the nasty, ugly face of Toryism. Until we get rid of that, I am afraid there will be more and more people sleeping on the streets and in the doorways of London. That is a damned disgrace and so is the Minister.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: We have heard the usual emotional speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The real reason for the housing crisis in London is socialism. We have suffered from decades of socialist legislation stating that it was immoral to make money out of renting properties or offices. The reason for the surplus in office accommodation in London today is that office rents have never been controlled.
  Why is there a shortage of accommodation to rent? The answer is that for years and years there were rent controls, and today many potential landlords fear that a future Labour Government would reintroduce rent controls. Investing in property is a long-term activity, and no one will invest in property while there is a threat of a future Labour Government reintroducing rent controls. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West would do his constituents' cause much good if he said that a future Labour Government would never reintroduce rent controls, as that is the fear.
  The second fear of those who are considering renting out their property is that of long delays if the tenant refuses to leave at the end of the lease. Some constituents told me that they had let out their property to a tenant for a specific period. At the end of the lease, the tenant said that he would not go. It took my constituents five months to get the tenant out and regain control of their home. Such legal delays prevent some people from renting out their property.
  The final reason for the shortage of property in London today and why a few hundred people are sleeping rough is that five Labour councils have 8,163 empty houses. Why is it that vacancies in the London borough of Barnet constitute 1·1 per cent. of its housing stock, but in the London borough of Brent, which is Labour controlled, the figure is 5 per cent. and in Hackney the figure is 4·8 per cent.—excluding the illegal tenancies that Hackney council has decided to allow? In Tower Hamlets the figure is 4·5 per cent., in Newham it is 3–8 per cent., in Southwark it is 3·6 per cent. and in Islington it is 2·6 per cent. Those councils are the cause of homelessness in London today.
  The Labour party, Labour legislation and Labour threats are the cause of homelessness in London. It is not for the Labour party to talk about homelessness. Labour Members should come to the debate and admit that they are the cause of homelessness.
  Mr. Cryer: Homelessness was lower under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman who speaks from a sedentary position should know, the long-term effect of Labour policies has caused homelessness. There is no shortage of any other commodity in London. If we did not face the threat of rent controls from a future Labour Government, there would be no housing shortage in London tonight.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on initiating the debate, may I say that he has left me with the difficult task of trying to tell some Conservative Members in about seven minutes why there is such a housing crisis in this country. Two of the Conservative Members have less excuse for not knowing than the other two as they are older. I think that one of them was elected in 1987, and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) was elected before that. Both have had the advantage of gaining a knowledge of the subject from documents placed before the House, whether by the Environment Select Committee or the Audit Commission, or by reading the Duke of Edinburgh report or questions that I and other hon. Members have tabled.
  The two new Members do not have that advantage and can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing all the facts. I reiterate some of the facts that I put to the hon. Member for Colne Valley who tried to avoid them. In percentage terms the Government are the worst owners of empty properties in the country and it is not just the Ministry of Defence which is at fault. But even it has no excuse for keeping properties empty.
  I asked a question just before Christmas and was told that 24 good, well-appointed, centrally heated houses in the middle of Swindon were to be sold after remaining empty for two years. I tabled the same question last week and was told that they are still empty. One in five police houses in London was empty just a few years ago hut. marvel of marvels, it is now down to about one in eight. It is disgraceful that houses are being sold when the market is flat. There are 36,000 Government-owned houses and if they are put on the market prices will be depressed. The ownership or management of the houses could be transferred to a local authority or a housing association. That would get people out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and save taxpayers' money.
  I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to say that local authorities could not continue the lease-back scheme because the Government and, sadly, the Minister restricted the extent to which that could be done. When councils such as Haringey and others reached the limit, they were stopped from continuing such schemes unless they were prepared to lose subsidy. It is costing a fortune to keep people in bed and breakfast so as to conform to that bizarre rule. We pay more to keep people in bed and breakfast than it would cost to keep them in the flat or house from which they have been evicted. That is because the Government will not introduce a mortgage rescue scheme of the type that I have been suggesting for more than two years.
  We saw the repossession crisis coming. The Duke of Edinburgh report, the second Rowntree report, which is not a Labour party document by any stretch of the imagination, showed that since 1979 we have lost more

  549
  than 2 million rented sector homes. It was 1·9 million at the time the report was written. One million have been lost from the council sector and about 1 million from the private sector. When Labour left office, the private sector accounted for 14 per cent. of the rented market but it is now down to 7 per cent. That is the extent of the Government's failure.
  The hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Colne Valley seem to blame the decline in the rented sector on the rent Acts. They should know, because they have heard me say it often enough, that the rented sector has suffered a straight line decline since the turn of the century, about 14 years before the introduction of any rent Act. When the rent Acts were abolished in 1957 the decline became faster, and speeded up when they were abolished again in 1980. When they were removed in Northern Ireland in 1957—and no party ever advocated putting them back—25 per cent. of the rented market there was private. It is now 5 per cent.
  The rented sector has collapsed because.in this country, almost uniquely, there is an enormous subsidy for home ownership and no equivalent subsidy for renting. For landlords and tenants alike, it is not worth being in the rented sector. The Government's stance is hideously stupid. They should not worry too much about ownership. I am not too worried about who owns the rented sector, but I am worried about quality of management, affordability and tenants' rights. If the Government can get those three factors right, the local authority sector, the housing associations and the private sector can deliver good housing. The Government concentrate on attacking local authorities, and so ignore the problem that relates to the 2 million properties that I mentioned.
  Another component of the problem is the cut in benefits for 16 and 18-year-olds. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam thinks that the problem is caused by the break up of families, but it is not because the rate of homelessness has accelerated faster than family break-ups which have slowed in recent years. The problem has everything to do with social security changes by the Prime Minister when he was a Social Security Minister and by the lack of rented housing.
  It is a damning indictment of the Government that they do not have a housing policy. For the first time in 75 years homeless British children are begging on British streets. That is disgraceful and I never thought that I would live to see it in my country. There is no point in the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam saying that it is not the Government's fault. Is nothing the Government's fault —the slump, the health service, education, housing? The Government must be the most ineffectual of all time because apparently they have no effect on anything. They are so worried about winning a propaganda argument that they walk by the homeless thinking, "It is a great pity but we cannot do anything about it." The Government put those people there, it is their fault, and they could do something about it if they took on board the policies that we set out at the last general election. They must concentrate on quality, affordability and tenants rights, and not take them away, as compulsory competitive tendering does. I am in favour of compulsory competitive tendering if the tenants can make it compulsory, but I do not want the sort that the Government are introducing
  550
  because it is imposed by landlords on tenants and takes away their right to vote on it. Tenants' rights, quality of management, affordability and the building of houses could enable us to live in a civilised society again.
  8.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on introducing this debate, which takes place in national housing week. I always welcome an opportunity to expound the Government's policies on housing. Our clear housing strategy is to ensure that every family has a decent home. Of course, many people wish to make their own provision through owner-occupation. Many people aspire to owner-occupation and we have ensured that the number of people enjoying that has substantially increased. Of course, we are concerned when some people get into difficulties with their mortgage, but that must be kept in perspective.
  The latest figures show that of the 10 million home owners with a mortgage, less than 0·4 per cent. were subject to repossession in the second half of last year. We are keen to ensure that mortgage lenders talk to people who may be in difficulty. The message that we need to get across is that people should not simply walk away from the problem but should get in touch with the mortgage lender. As a result of the difficulties that some borrowers have experienced, mortgage lenders are now beginning to appreciate that they will have to take arrears counselling much more seriously and introduce help schemes. They are doing that.
  The initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor seem to have been judged by some people simply on the basis of mortgage-to-rent schemes. That is not the test. The test is how successful they have been in keeping people in their own homes. The mortgage lenders have committed £75 million to mortgage rescue. Only a small proportion of borrowers are in difficulty and a tiny minority face repossession. We must judge the initiatives on the fact that mortgage lenders are determined to do everything possible to ensure that people can stay in their own homes.
  Of course, the Government recognise that, for some people, home ownership is not the way forward. There will always be a need for affordable social housing and we arc committed to making sure of investment in such housing. We have a clear commitment to invest £2 billion in the Housing Corporation each year for the next three years. That money will go from the corporation to housing associations. I barely heard Opposition Members mention housing associations. They clearly do not appreciate our intention that new affordable social housing should, by and large, be provided by the housing associations, which are increasing the number of housing units. They are able to do that because they arc increasingly successful in attracting private investment to add to that made available by the Treasury.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich waved the Audit Commission report in support of his estimate of the number of houses that will be needed. In the second paragraph of its report, the Audit Commission stated:
  "Considerable uncertainty surrounds projections in this area."

  551
  We are determined to ensure that local authorities, as enablers, work in partnership with housing associations to provide the number of units which is needed.
  Of course, the Audit Commission's report was aimed at developing local authority housing strategies. The report set out initiatives that local authorities can take in working in partnership with housing associations to provide more units. Indeed, if local authorities let their properties faster, reducing the length of time that properties are left empty between tenancies to six weeks in London and three weeks in the rest of the country.. which is perfectly possible, the result would he an extra 26,000 lettings in England in a year.
  Mr. Raynsford rose—
  Mr. Baldry: No, I shall not give way because I have only one minute to respond to the debate. What we are—
  In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

  Merchant Fleet
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am very glad to have the opportunity to open the debate on the defence implications of the reduction—and I immediately emphasise, the continuing reduction—in Britain's merchant fleet. The issue is not new: it has been raised in questions and debates in the Chamber and in Committee many times in the past decade, and also before that. Many right hon. and hon. Members and many Members of another place have, so to speak, hoisted the red ensign to express their worry and to warn the nation and to alert the Government to an increasing weakness in our defence system. Until now, those warnings appear to have fallen on deaf ears.
  Until 1966, Britain's merchant fleet was the largest in the world, but since the mid–1970s there has been a dramatic and, some of us would say, catastrophic reduction in the size of the United Kingdom fleet and in the number of United Kingdom seafarers. The United Kingdom-owned British islands fleet—vessels owned and registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles—has declined from almost 9 per cent. of the world total in 1957 to just 1 per cent. in 1991. By 1990, British seafarers employed on United Kingdom ships numbered little more than a third of those in 1975.
  Early this year, the Chamber of Shipping reported that, unless urgent action was taken by the Government to arrest the decline, the merchant fleet could well cease to exist in three years' time. Even in recent months, major British shipping companies such as Blue Star and Shell among others have re-flagged some 40 ships to tax havens and hired foreign crews in order to remain competitive.
  A simple projection of the decline shows that the United Kingdom-registered fleet, currently some 3·7 million tonnes, will disappear by 1995. It is already one tenth of the size it was 10 years ago, on the eve of the Falklands war. That figure is very little appreciated by the nation at large. A further 11 million tonnes is British-owned but foreign-flagged, yet, on present trends, that could also go within the next 20 years. The experience of the Gulf war, when foreign ships were chartered to transport British forces, makes it crystal clear why shipowners and naval officers at the very highest levels argue that the British fleet is already dangerously small.
  In their responses to the repeated reports of the Select Committee on Defence on this matter, the Government have said that they do not share the concern about foreign shipowners and crews being unwilling to sail into a war zone, and that insurance arrangements could encourage neutrals to trade. Is that a sound view, and on what information is it based?
  Britain's defence strategy now emphasises the necessity to be able to deploy our land, sea and air forces in distant places. The Falklands and Gulf conflicts demonstrated that need, and the requirements for transportation by sea. The number of British seafarers is already inadequate to fulfil the likely sea transport requirement in the event of a future conflict without mobilisation and direction of labour but—more important, because I am looking forward—unless measures are taken now to stop the decline of the merchant fleet, even that very inadequate pool of personnel could disappear.

  553
  There are no longer sufficient numbers of militarily useful merchant ships on British registers to fulfil the national requirement for sealift in an emergency. Again, that already inadequate fleet is coming to the end of its life. They are the major problems—vessels and men—and the solution is to re-establish a healthy national shipping industry.
  For years, the industry has suffered from unfair competition. The Government admit that, but argue that the way forward is to persuade our competitors to stop their tax subsidies and other benefits to their shipping industries, which will achieve a level playing field. Worryingly for the British shipping industry—and, I argue, worryingly for all of us and for our defence forces —there is no evidence that progress is being made in achieving a level playing field. I believe that the reverse is the case. Other countries continue to improve their Government's help for their shipping industries. If that is not the case, perhaps the House will hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement give examples to prove me wrong.
  I now examine in more detail some of the points that I have already highlighted in support of my arguments. A clear trend can now be seen in British strategic orientation since the end of the cold war. The United Kingdom has redefined her defence policy away from a major commitment to land and air forces for the now non-existent central front towards flexible forces available for global contingencies in a range of conflicts, be they lateral or multilateral. Our leading role in the NATO Rapid Reaction Force clearly demonstrates that, as does the new orientation of the Royal Navy away from submarines towards carrier and amphibious task forces, which are capable of projecting our power on a global scale.
  Britain has chosen to play its part in the maintenance of stability in Europe and beyond by having a real ability to employ and maintain mobile and flexible ground forces. The arguments for that were used all the time in debates and questions in the Chamber when justifying the changes being made in the armed services. We have an amphibious brigade that is based in the United Kingdom, an airborne brigade and two mechanised brigades. Based in mainland Europe, we have an armoured division and an air mobile brigade. Added to that, the Royal Air Force is in a position to provide a powerful striking force.
  What we have not done is define the shipping that is necessary to deploy these forces. I argue that without that shipping being available immediately as required, those forces—they are purchased at great expense—may well not be able to operate where and when we immediately require them.
  We must learn from recent experience. The Falklands war demonstrated what was needed to deploy two lightly equipped brigades to the other side of the world, far beyond the reach of an airlift. We still have a continuing commitment to defend the Falklands, and that cannot in the longer term be fulfilled without sea vessels. The fact that we decided to procure a strengthened amphibious squadron for the Royal Navy implies that maritime flexibilty is still a national priority. Unless we have the sealift to back it up, there is little point in building expensive and specialised amphibious shipping.
  554
  The Gulf deployment demonstrated another sort of United Kingdom global operation—the distant deployment of a reinforced armoured division and an RAF striking force. That involved 144 voyages—70 roll on/roll off, 67 general cargo and seven container. All but eight of the voyages involved foreign-flagged ships, of which 105 were chartered, along with five British vessels. Although we were able to charter ships, there were particular features of the Gulf war that enabled that to be done. It might not have been possible to do that in other circumstances.
  What were the special features? There was a truly remarkable international consensus behind the operation. No Government had to exert pressure on their seamen to co-operate. Some countries saw involvement with merchant ships as one way of making their participation real. There was only a limited threat to the coalition shipping that was involved in the sealift. That might well not be the position next time, especially as submarines are proliferating in other defence forces.
  Ships were readily available, because it was the time of a seasonal downturn in the shipping market. Even more important, there was time to look for suitable shipping on the international market. In addition, total shipping demand in 1990 was probably the minimum required for such a deployment. There was the availability of the Suez canal, good fuel supplies locally, an excellent port infrastructure that enabled us rapidly to unload, and over-flying rights and landing facilities for the Air Force. Without those factors, the number of ships needed and the tonnage required could have been very much higher.
  Personnel is the other vital consideration. There are not enough ships available flying the red ensign, in its various forms, to be available to service future military deployments. Whether there would he sufficient reliable personnel to man those ships is also dubious. Since 1979 —for 12 years— the number of British nationals employed in the United Kingdom shipping industry has dropped by 60 per cent.
  Some of the tonnage that was chartered by the Americans for the Gulf war had crew difficulties. That demonstrates that there is no certain substitute for a country's own nationals in a crisis or a war. In the Falkland crisis. British seamen had to replace personnel who were forbidden by their Governments or their unions to take part. Unless the disappearance of the mercantile marine is prevented, the current stock of seafarers will rapidly waste away. The average age of a merchant seaman officer is now more than 40. Indeed, the Department of Transport has said that it expects a serious shortfall of United Kingdom seafarers by the year 2000.
  According to some authorities, we have about 166 ships that could be reliably used as a militarily useful fleet. Those figures are frighteningly small for a country that only 20 years ago had well over 2,000 ships on its registers. I contend that the assumptions of 20 years ago still hang around. There have been many warnings in this House and elsewhere about the problems that could be caused by the decline of the British merchant fleet—yet many people, for one reason or another, still assume that the ships are there. They are not.
  What about any future crisis? Each war is unique. Modern defence policy, even more so than the defence policy of the cold war, is about preparing for the unexpected. Again, those were the arguments used for "Options for Change". If we assume that a deployment

  555
  were needed in future, comparable to that which went to the Gulf but in a less favourable geographical position, the demand for shipping could he very much higher. If an airlift were impossible. up to eight cruise liners or large ferries could be required to move personnel; some 60 ro-ro vessels, mostly cargo ships, would be needed to move the equipment; and about 125 general cargo ships would be needed to provide stores and ammunition. Perhaps 10 small and 30 medium-sized tankers would be required to supply fuel and water to the forces ashore and to the fleet. About three large container ships would be needed to transport aircraft.
  Overall, that possible demand is far above the capacity of the current British registers—and it takes no account of attrition or action damage. We have no guarantee that repair facilities could act swiftly enough to make those ships available again during the crisis.
  Then there is the age problem. The existing fleet is coming to the end of its active life. The average age of the United Kingdom-owned and registered fleet is now something over 18 years. If we take 20 years as an average for the normal life of a merchant ship, 1994 will see all five United Kingdom-owned and registered large break bulk cargo liners over age, along with 14 of the 24 large container ships and five of the seven passenger liners. Those are disturbing statistics. I come hack to my earlier point: the only way to overcome that problem is to rebuild a healthy merchant fleet on the basis of the present British shipping industry.
  It is not just members of the Select Committee on Defence or Back Benchers who have been concerned about the issue. The Select Committee on Transport, in its report on the decline of the United Kingdom-registered fleet as long ago as 1987, identified various arguments for maintaining a United Kingdom-registered merchant fleet. Among those arguments was the danger in defence and economic terms of being totally dependent on others to move the United Kingdoms imports and exports and the further loss of international influence.
  Surely it is not unrealistic to suggest that the defence dimension needs to be taken into account in Government policy towards our shipping industry. The French used that argument in the report on their contribution to the Gulf war. They said that the rapid and effective deployment of their merchant fleet and its ability to make a significant contribution to their forces in the Gulf war justified in their view the support that it was given on commercial grounds, but that in that case there was a justification for that support on defence grounds as well.
  We know very well that the British shipping industry is asking for a beneficial tax regime of capital allowances for its ships and specific personal taxation benefits for British-based seamen. Those arguments have been deployed many times in the House, but they have not been acted upon by the Government. I believe that they should be, not only because of the commercial importance of the British merchant fleet, on which I have not focused tonight, hut, most importantly with regard to this debate and my hon. Friend's response tonight, in defence terms.
  We want to hear the justification of the Ministry of Defence for its apparent complacency that all is well and that, if a future crisis arose, we would have the capability —not surely with British flagged vessels but by chartering foreign vessels—to meet our needs. I doubt that, and I look for reassurance tonight.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is a great privilege to follow such a comprehensive account of the problems caused by the decline in Britain's merchant fleet. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) for his introduction to the debate.
  Let me declare an interest. For nearly three years, I have had the privilege of advising the Chamber of Shipping—formerly the General Council of British Shipping—on matters relating to the debate. Some hon. Members expressed surprise at my intention to speak. feeling that a landlocked constituency such as Worcester hardly qualified for serious concern in connection with the future of the Merchant Navy. Let me give them a brief history lesson.
  Not so long ago, Worcester was one of Britain's biggest ports. In the early days of the industrial revolution, it sent coal to Coalbrookdale and Ironbridge. I am reliably informed that the county of Hereford and Worcester also enjoys the highest per capita recruitment to the Royal Navy. Distinguished retired and serving Merchant Navy and Royal Navy officers and ratings live in my constituency. Moreover, as many people are in danger of forgetting, 95 per cent. of the country's trade goes by sea. The future of the Merchant Navy is therefore crucial to every hon. Member.
  As I said, I have advised the Chamber of Shipping for some time, and during that period I have become convinced of the urgency of its case. There is a tragic irony in the decline so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. Although it is easy to paint the picture of an industry in a terminal condition, many sectors of that industry are still the best in the world. Its ferries, cruise ships and container ships are the envy of the world, as are its officers and ratings and its management skills. If we throw away the shipping industry, we shall bear a heavy burden of guilt.
  The debate is primarily about the defence implications of the decline in the merchant fleet. I find it extraordinary that we can be so complacent about the decline. The Merchant Navy provides a fourth arm of defence, at no cost to the country. Indeed, if the Government introduced the modest measures suggested by the shipping industry, they would probably find that a profit would be made as the fleet revived. That cannot be said of many elements of the defence budget.
  I do not pretend to be a military analyst; I must look to others for advice on defence matters. In June 1991, Lord Fieldhouse observed:
  "The number of British-manned ships, sailing under the British flag and available for defence purposes, is now at a crucial level and may already be too few. We ignore this situation at our peril."
  I believe that we are inoring precisely that. How many of our constituents really understand the impossibility of mounting another Falklands operation in 1992? My brother-in-law served in that operation, in a ship taken up from trade, and I know the crucial role played by such ships in its successful completion.
  The Ministry of Defence often argues that the Gulf war proves that we no longer need a British flag fleet. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks explained eloquently how untrue that is. No serious risks were posed to ships that participated in that operation. As Lord Sterling—a

  557
  past president of the General Council of British Shipping —observed, as soon as a shot was fired, those chartered ships would have disappeared
  "like snowflakes on a summer day."
  I do not want the debate to focus entirely on the defence implications of the decline. I that, if we allow it to do so, my hon. Friend the Minister will give an eloquent account of why he does not share our sense of urgency, and the whole case for the shipping industry will go by default. We must remember that the industry brings at least four more clear and distinct benefits to our country. First, it contributes some £4 billion gross—£2·4 billion net—to our balance of payments. The loss of that contribution—a loss that must be very much on the cards if the rate of decline that we have seen during the past three or four years continues—would mean a halving of the country's invisible surplus, and I do not think that that could be tolerated.
  Secondly, it is not widely appreciated by those who do not study such matters deeply that the maritime skills and expertise created by those who work in the industry bring enormous benefits to other aspects of the economy. The shipbuilding industry, the marine equipment industry and the ports and harbours cannot function without an adequate supply of retired officers returning to serve on shore and bringing their skills to bear in vital economic activities. The City of London's earnings depend more than is widely recognised on the continuing strength of our merchant fleet. Maritime banking and insurance, shipbroking, ship classification and legal services all depend on the credible position of this country in the world as a significant maritime nation.
  As the chairman of one of the country's leading P and I clubs said to me recently, the red ensign fleet provides the ballast to all this country's activities. It is also appropriate, at a time of increasing environmental concern, to recognise the fuel efficiency of the merchant fleet. We hear a great deal from our right hon. and hon. Friends in government about the need to shift goods from road to rail, which I welcome, but we could make an even more significant contribution towards saving our valuable fossil fuels if we shifted more goods to seaborne transport, especially the coastal trade, which is by far the most fuel-efficient system of delivering goods in this country.
  Almost exactly a year ago in the Chamber, in an attempt to still the vocal criticisms from hon. Members on both sides of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was one of them—the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the then Financial Secretary both promised that a statement would be made to the House on the defence needs of the shipping industry. A year later that statement has still not been forthcoming. I regard that as a significant breach of trust by the Government.
  The British industry is lean and fit. It can take on the world, but only if the unfair barriers in other countries are met by similar action in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said, it is simply not credible to expect other countries to dismantle the protection which they give to their domestic industries when they are doing so well from it.
  In the last Session of Parliament, before I had the privilege of joining the House, early-day motion 500 attracted what was almost a record number of 353
  558
  signatures—the 10th highest ever number of signatures to such a motion, I believe. The motion set out, more briefly than I have done tonight, the basis of what I have been saying, and concluded that the House
  "calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate and positive action to first ensure that the British fleet is strengthened by appropriate stimulation of investment in modern tonnage and second encourage the recruitment, training and employment of British seafarers."
  That motion flowed directly from a report by the Government's joint working party with the industry. It has given added strength and urgency to all that we have heard this evening.
  I am concerned that the Government are playing a game of financial pass-the-parcel between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Transport and the Treasury—and, to a lesser extent, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Not so very long ago, the red duster ruled the world. It could so so again today, because of the inherent strength of the industry. The modest concessions on cabotage recently won by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport are welcome, but they are not an adequate response to the challenge that the industry faces. If the British merchant navy is to make the contribution that it can and should make to the defence of this country, something must be done. The industry has suggested capital allowances and national insurance and taxation reliefs for seafarers. One of those measures was before the House yesterday, but sadly it was not moved.
  I understand that the Government do not like those proposals, but if they do not like them, let them suggest some proposals of their own. Something must be done, and soon, if the consequences that have been spelt out tonight are not to take place all too early.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on his passionate plea for the merchant marine, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoakes (Mr. Wolfson). I cannot, I fear, back up their detailed exposition of facts and figures, but I shall consider the subject in a historical perspective. We all know that those who ignore the lessons of history are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.
  Most if not all of us in the House were brought up on tales of brave sailors of the past—Hawkins, Raleigh and Drake. If we look back beyond the Gulf war and the Falklands, right back to the armada, we see that it was our sailors and our ships that protected our shores. In Napoleonic times, the battles of the Nile and of Trafalgar developed our naval strength in the protection of our own shores. Many members of another place if not of this House will remember how crucial was the battle of Jutland in the first world war.
  Dr. John Reid: As was the battle of the Falklands.
  Mr. Robathan: That is so. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember Dunkirk, when our merchant ships, small ships, and amateur sailors came to this country's defence. They saved the British Expeditionary Force, played a crucial part in raising morale, and ensured a successful outcome to the second world war. So, too, did the Atlantic convoys. I could mention many other examples.

  559
  Many people viewed the Suez crisis with some misgivings, but our Royal Navy and merchant ships lent their support in that episode, too. We heard from other hon. Members about the Falklands and the Gulf war. Less than two years ago, we relied on our merchant shipping and merchant sailors to support our operations overseas.
  Times change. It may be argued that we no longer need such defence support. Who can predict the future and know what it will hold? Whose crystal ball could have predicted the anarchy in Yugoslavia given that, when Tito died, a marvellous future seemed to await the Balkans?
  It will not have escaped the notice of the House—including those right hon. and hon. Members who usually sit on the Benches opposite, which are now empty—that we are an island. However many tunnels are built, we will always rely on shipping. As we withdraw from overseas territories such as Hong Kong, it is more important than ever to have home-based ability and experience in reserve. In future, we will not be able to call on our friends and dependencies overseas.
  At army staff college I was taught about something called STUFT. As right hon. and hon. Members can imagine, that prompted many puns. It actually stands for shipping taken up from trade. The importance of STUFT was the great lesson of the Falklands. Shipping taken up from trade is no longer available because the British merchant marine has declined so much.
  Positive action is required. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the issue closely. Financial incentives are needed to keep British shipping alive and vibrant. I will not dwell on the consequences for trade—and we will always be a trading nation—gross national product, and the employment of mariners if they cannot be provided.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester said that the House was promised a statement last year on the grave defence implications of the rundown in merchant shipping. That statement must be made. If we have no merchant fleet, we will weaken our defence. We will have no mariners, experience, tradition or shipping to call on. We cannot sit hack and let the merchant fleet perish by default. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to produce a happy solution.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) did well to continue a Kent tradition, in securing a debate on shipping. Over the past 12 months, I have initiated two debates on the subject—as right hon. and hon. Members might expect from a Member of Parliament with considerable constituency interests in shipping, in terms of both jobs and a thriving ferry industry.
  In my Adjournment debate earlier this year, I secured from my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping a promise to monitor carefully the subsidies and support given by other countries to their shipping. I was therefore disturbed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks say that other countries are still increasing their support and subsidies, whereas we are not competitive in that regard.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Lull) said, I initiated a debate last year, to which a Treasury Minister replied. I was promised that the defence review would consider whether support should be provided under the Defence budget as approved by the
  560
  Treasury and how some assistance might be appropriate in that area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with that specific issue later. The excellent speeches made by my new hon. Friends the Members for Worcester and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) raised a number of issues which suggest that our shipping industry is not thriving as it should be and that we shall have to monitor it most carefully. The Government must take an active role in that respect.
  The merchant fleet is terribly important to this country. Attention has been drawn to its military and civilian importance. The ferry industry in my constituency provides many thousands of jobs and I hope that it will continue to do that for many years to come. Many of the seamen who live in my constituency do not just work in the local ferry industry: they work on our deep sea ships and travel to ports around the country to engage in our shipping industry.
  The decline in our merchant fleet has not simply occurred under this Government. It is important for the House to recognise that the decline started when Labour was in power in the mid-1970s. The British shipping industry was not helped by the subsidies made available by the then Labour Government to Polish ships. Nor was it helped by the support given by the Labour Government to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development code which encouraged the developing countries to develop subsidised fleets of their own. That competition in the international shipping markets was severely subsidised and it caused considerable damage to our fleet.
  The changes that the Government have made to capital allowances—ironically made by the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby—have gone too far. They have encouraged disinvestment in shipping to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks referred earlier. Many ships are now transferring to foreign flags.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks referred to tax havens, I was reminded of my debate on that subject yesterday. I am concerned that there is a considerable transfer of assets away from the United Kingdom to tax havens in other countries which make it more favourable for ships to he held as assets registered in those countries. That is ludicrous. If, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will claim when he replies, those ships would be available to the Royal Navy if they were required in times of war, they should be available as ships registered in the United Kingdom.
  We should ensure that our tax regime is sufficiently favourable so that the tax havens do not receive the business. Why should lawyers and accountants in those countries form companies and earn the fees? The money should be brought back to this country, be that in respect of the advisory services for lawyers and accountants or through ship ownership.
  It is in the interests of the Ministry of Defence to persuade the Treasury that the capital allowances regime is enouraging disinvestment, not investment. My hon. Friend the Minister represeents a constituency which has shipping interests and I know that he will endeavour, perhaps with a little difficulty, to reconcile his sympathies with his responsibilities. However, I am sure that we can rely on him for a forthright speech which will endeavour to point out that he will take forward the battle in Whitehall in the interests of shipping and in the interests of his constituents. I hope that, in due course, he will try to

  561
  tackle within Whitehall the issue of re-flagging to tax havens, as it must be stopped. I hope also that he will take a robust line in negotiations with the Treasury and point out that the money should not come out of the budget of the Ministry of Defence. It is an adjustment to capital allowances that has gone too far.
  The capital allowances regime is unfavourable. There have been international reports, and I have previously referred to the report of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York into international allowances on assets. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will go into battle on capital allowances and tax matters. My hon. Friend is an expert on financial matters, having had a financially oriented career, among other skilful careers. I hope also that he will seek changes to the capital allowances regime which will allow our shipping industry to develop further and allow us to be comfortable and to sleep easy in our beds at night knowing that our defence is properly integrated not only in terms of military shipping, nuclear deterrence, or having many skilled people in our Army, as we saw in the Gulf war, but in terms of a properly managed defence capability that is backed up by a competent, able and well-invested merchant marine.
  9.35 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The House has been privileged to hear four excellent speeches amounting to a useful and interesting debate. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on the way in which he presented his case. He is a worthy champion of the red ensign, and he asked a number of questions to which I shall return. I was glad that he recognised the changing defence strategy of this country and our emphasis on mobile and flexible ground forces. He is right to ask whether we have the sea-lift required to move those forces in certain situations and whether we have defined the shipping required for such operations. I shall return to those questions, but I can tell him now that the answer is in the affirmative.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Lull) as a new, fluent and articulate voice on the subject of British shipping. I noticed in his presentation a slight difference of emphasis from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, who, at one point, seemed almost to make our flesh creep by his descriptions of the terminal decline of British shipping, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester perked us up no end by his strong words about how British shipping is still the best in the world and the ballast to all our activities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who brings to such debates his own distinguished military experience, was right to go back to the lessons of history. It certainly struck a chord with me when he rolled off his tongue great names such as Hawkins and Drake. Only yesterday, I was in Plymouth standing at the site where Drake had been when, just 304 years and 16 days ago, he launched the armada. It is impossible to be in such surroundings without wondering whether the lessons of history will teach us that we have to learn again from the lessons of the past and that one day again we will be launching major seafaring operations. The probability is
  562
  not high, but Defence Ministers have to plan for improbabilities. I was glad that my hon. Friend reminded us of the importance of not forgetting the lessons of history.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has long been a persistent and passionate crusader for Britain's seafarers and British shipping. In the previous election campaign, he was something of a heart of oak, politically. The local paper predicated that he would lose the seat of Dover with a swing of 23 per cent. to Labour, but the good arguments that he has put forward in the House on behalf of his constituents' interests won him the day and he came back. We are very glad to see him.
  Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as he knows that I am somewhat restricted by protocol because I shall speak in the European fighter aircraft debate. As he has paid such compliments to the erudite and informative speeches that have been made, and as he knows that, even in 1989, the Defence Select Committee was speaking of six successive years of decline in the merchant marine, he will know that the defence statistics that have just been revealed show evidence of the claim of a further 42 per cent. reduction in the number of United Kingdom-registered general cargo vessels between 1984 and now. Even more alarming, there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of officers and ratings since the Falklands conflict in 1982.
  Therefore, will the Minister respond to the erudite speeches made tonight by going to the heart of the problem and what Conservative Members called at one stage a breach of trust [strong words indeed from the Minister's own side? The Government said in the White Paper that they were conducting
  "a detailed review of the defence requirements for British merchant ships and seamen in times of crisis."
  While we welcome that, what does the Minister mean by "in times of crisis"? In what strategic context is he considering the requirements? Is he contemplating changes in the legislation? Which organisations is he consulting as part of the review? In order that we do not have a further breach of trust next year, will he say when the review which has been announced again this year of the merchant marine will be completed?
  Mr. Aitken: I am glad to respond to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). I shall do so quickly and cover the detail later. First, the review is complete and I shall announce it tonight, although it will not necessarily gladden his heart. It was an interdepartmental Government review, but we took into account the representations that have been made by a range of organisations, including at various stages the Chamber of Shipping, the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers and other such organisations. We also studied the Grove report.
  I do not accept that there has been any breach of trust in the matter of the regrettable decline in the British merchant fleet. I shall turn to the specific statistics which are at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's case and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks in a moment. As my hon. Friend said, the subject is not new. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover reminded us that I, too, as a maritime Member represent a channel port. We have debated the decline in Britain's merchant fleet for all the time that I have been in Parliament.

  563
  Of course, the decline in our merchant fleet is a matter for general regret. To give some hard facts, the number of United Kingdom registered trading vessels of 500 gross registered tonnes—that is, of a size likely to be important in any defence calculation—has fallen from 1,614 in 1975 to 321 at the end of 1991. However, in the past few years the decline has slowed and in the four years since 1988 it has been at the rate of some 12 or 13 ships a year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks somewhat over-emphasised the nature of the decline when he said that the British merchant fleet would soon cease to exist if the rate of decline of the past four years continued. The cessation of existence of the merchant fleet is certainly a long way away.
  The reasons for the decline are many and various. They include the changes in the pattern of international trade and the commercial pressures on British shipowners to sell vessels or transfer them to foreign registers. I take the sensible point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover about the need to crack down on tax havens which may encourage such transfers. Then there was the decision of the last Labour Government to begin phasing out capital allowances for ships. That perhaps started the process of decline.
  The reasons are many and the solutions are also many. The Chamber of Shipping, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester properly declared an interest, has been vociferous in suggesting solutions, as has the former chairman Lord Sterling, who has made many representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others.
  The ingenious fiscal concessions that have been suggested are not within my responsibility. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand if I do not refer to them at any length other than to say that I will bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks concentrated on the defence dimension of the issue, as I wish to do.
  Mr. Wolfson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On tax measures, I compared the position in the United Kingdom with those abroad and mentioned our lack of progress in achieving a level playing field. I hope that my hon. Friend will return to that subject, as he promised.
  Mr. Aitken: I heard what my hon. Friend said, and I undertake to bring his remarks to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A Defence Minister cannot respond satisfactorily to such subjects as the level playing field on tax concessions. During the debate on the Finance Bill last night there was an opportunity to raise those matters, although sadly the amendment concerned was not moved. Debates such as those on the Finance Bill, when a Treasury Minister is responding, are the proper occasion for those subjects to be ventilated and questions answered, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's argument is considered by the Treasury.
  Mr. David Shaw: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on that issue, and declare an interest in what I am about to say, as a chartered accountant. The Treasury is well staffed with accountants and other supporting staff who are used to figure work. If the Ministry of Defence is taking that
  564
  argument and need on board, it might be appropriate for it to sort out the accounting arguments with its accountants, ready for the battle that needs to be fought in Whitehall.
  Mr. Aitken: As my hon. Friend is an accountant, he knows more about battles between accountants than I do, but I am sure that they will, as usual, occupy the attention of the Treasury. The defence of the realm transcends accountancy. The question whether we have to spend public money, or in any way change our policy, because of the defence requirement is to be decided not through mere financial calculations, but through the deeper defence calculations.
  Dr. Reid: Before the Minister gets into a labyrinth of tortuous arguments about accountancy, and without any sour grapes, as it is not often that a Minister gives me a straight answer to a question, he said that the review has been completed and that he is about to announce it. Does he think it appropriate that a review of the merchant marine, presumably undertaken with a view to reversing some of the disastrous trends of the past few years, should be suddenly announced at this time of night, at the tail end of a Session?
  Mr. Aitken: I repeat that I do not think that the review is likely to gladden the hon. Gentleman's heart. Nevertheless, we shall announce our conclusions at the earliest possible opportunity. It has literally just been completed. No one can he accused of trying to smuggle something under the carpet if a Minister responds to a debate and answers the questions that have been asked. There will be plenty of other opportunities to ask questions, including at Question Time, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not engaged on some nocturnal concealment exercise—far from it—and I shall face up to the announcement of the review,. although it may be found disappointing.
  Mr. Bryan Davies: Is the Minister confirming that the review will be the subject of a statement to the House in the near future, or simply that it will be made public at some stage?
  Mr. Aitken: Towards the end of my speech I shall announce the results of the review. As I said earlier, the frissons of excitement that seem to be building up may not be entirely justified when the announcement is made.
  I was about to turn to the historical theme, the necessity for preparedness, touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. In recent history, there has rarely been a time when the strategic uncertainties of a changing world, and the changing threats that come with it, have posed such difficult challenges and questions to defence planners and Ministers.
  It remains a near certainty that in times of tension or war the United Kingdom will need a significant number of merchant ships. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North tried to bowl me what he thought was a clever question about the definition of a time of crisis. I can only say that a time of crisis is when the House of Commons has the kind of debates and exchanges that took place at the time of the Falklands or the Gulf war, which suggest that we are in an hour of national crisis. Parliamentary indicators are as good a signpost of crisis as any.
  It is a virtual certainty that in such times the United Kingdom will need a significant number of merchant ships

  565
  for European and out-of-area reinforcement. The merchant ships will also be required to support naval operations. It is possible that with lower force numbers, longer warning times, larger aircraft and newer methods of transportation, such as the channel tunnel of which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks was once such an ardent enthusiast, we may have a more flexible task when providing such reinforcement and support. Nevertheless, the importance of merchant shipping for Britain's defences in an emergency remains pivotal. There is little doubt, therefore, that the theme of this debate is correct: a healthy British merchant shipping industry may have to provide a vital lifeline and supply line to British forces in an hour of peril.
  In an ideal world we should like to have a large pool of British-flagged, British-crewed vessels to choose from in time of war or crisis. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world when it comes to the health of the British merchant fleet. We share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks at the decline in the number of British-registered vessels—I have already said that it is down to 321 vessels of 500 tonnes or above. However, we do not believe that the situation is so critical that we could not manage to carry out the type of crisis resupply and reinforcement task that faced us at the time of the recent Gulf war or at the time of the Falklands invasion—tight and more difficult though that task might be.
  May I remind the House of what happened at the time of the Falklands crisis and of Operation Granby for the Gulf? In Operation Granby 109 foreign-flagged vessels and five United Kingdom vessels were engaged in the reinforcement and movement of men and equipment to the Gulf. On the return phase, 81 foreign vessels and three United Kingdom-flagged vessels were chartered. The cost of the operation was about £140 million.
  We had no difficulty in obtaining all the British forces shipping requirements on the open market. Virtually all the movement of men was done by air, hut the equipment was largely moved at sea. Although some might say that it was disappointing that the United Kingdom-registered vessels represented a comparatively small percentage of the operation, that was a voluntary decision on the part of the British shipping industry. Lord Sterling wrote to The Times during Operation Granby to say that the British shipping industry was then extremely busy with existing contracts and did not necessarily wish to hid for the contracts that were on offer to the shipping industries of the world. We were able to undertake Operation Granby successfully.
  At the time of the Falklands crisis 52 merchant ships were used, the majority of them British. Half of them were requisitioned, half chartered.
  Dr. Reid: I am sory to intervene again, but I did not realise that such a substantial response would be made tonight.
  Does the Minister realise that what he has said about Operation Granby is at total odds with the Select Committee on Defence analysis, on which it spent a great deal of time? It concluded that there was
  "an almost total absence of UK shipping from the lists of ships providing the sealift for Granby … The significance of the degree of dependence displayed must be addressed by MOD in its analysis of the lessons of Granby."
  566
  Is the Minister saying that the Select Committee was totally wrong and that its analysis has been either ignored or rejected after investigation under the MOD review? Can he confirm that MOD police are now investigating allegations of fraud during the chartering operation for Granby? I am not asking for details, but can he confirm that an investigation of fraud during the chartering contracts process is under way?
  Mr. Aitken: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point is that I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence police fraud squad is conducting investigations into the chartering of some shipping for the Ministry of Defence during the Gulf crisis. It is not our practice to comment on Ministry of Defence police investigations while they are under way, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
  The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that the Select Committee was factually correct, and in my factual analysis I confirmed that. There is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Select Committee in that we believe that Granby was a successful operation, that it offered charters to British shipping and that while those offers were perhaps not taken up as widely as we would have hoped, our job was to make sure that Operation Granby was a success. From the point of view of shipping, it was a success. We believe it indicated that a British defence movement on that scale is entitled to go and can successfully go out on to the open market to fulfil Britain's defence needs.
  Mr. Luff: I am sure that the Minister is not suggesting that the shipping industry in some sense turned its back on Operation Granby. Will he join me in congratulating the British shipping industry on the efficiency with which it is run, which meant that it did not have ships available at the drop of a hat? Will he learn the lesson from that and accept that if we could encourage the industry to grow, more ships would be available for such an operation?
  Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. The British shipping industry was at that time enjoying a high level of success and efficiency and, reasonably enough, did not want to disturb its existing charter arrangements. The wider interests of British shipping to which he referred earlier are well taken.
  The Falklands operation is the kernel of the argument because it was a British-only operation and the question is whether we could do it again if we were called on to do so. That is extremely unlikely, particularly as we have built a new runway in the Falklands and installed there a formidable garrison.
  Without being complacent. the answer is that we could. Fifty or so similar ships could still be requisitioned or chartered from the United Kingdom shipping register or from the British dependent territories shipping register. Although it would be tight in some categories, the answer, without being complacent. is that we could do it again.
  Mr. Robathan: I seem to remember that during the Falklands operation the Indian Government objected to some of its nationals on British ships being sent to the Falklands.
  Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is correct, and I shall come to the subject of seafarers, which is different, though important, in relation to the subject of ships, with which I have been dealing so far.

  567
  Even though there are fewer British flag vessels from which to choose, it can be claimed, without complacency, that we should be able to mount operations similar to Granby or the Falklands. There are good grounds for believing that by a combination of chartering foreign vessels on the open market and chartering or, in some cases, requisitioning them, British ships could meet the expected requirements of a crisis or wartime situation, even in the worst and surely unlikely scenario that we were acting alone, without allies or friends.
  Mr. Wolfson: Is it not a fact that a key difference between the Falklands operation and the Gulf was the need to requisition ships, as opposed to being able to charter on the open market? In addition, there was danger to shipping—as was seen in what happened in terms of sinkings—in relation to civilian ships. The need to requisition must be a high focus for the Ministry of Defence.
  Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right. There are circumstances of greater danger than Operation Granby. There were dangers—which have been somewhat minimised in this debate—to shipping at the Lime of Operation Granby and we must, and do, focus on the possibility of requisitioning British ships, not only from the United Kingdom register, as we are entitled to do, but from the United Kingdom dependent territories register. The figure given earlier of only 166 ships being suitable was not correct when one takes into account, for example, the ships on the Bermuda register. There are many BP tankers and other vessels on that. We have carefully considered the requisitioning possibilities.
  I said that I would mention the review that we have been conducting internally—as promised—between Government Departments on the defence requirement for merchant ships in times of crisis. It follows from the argument that I have been advancing that the review concluded that there was no need for special measures for the British shipping industry now. However, there may be a need to do something more about crewing to ensure an adequate supply of British seafarers, and that aspect will be the subject of further study. I shall tell the House something of our thinking and past practices on that feature.
  Given the importance of merchant shipping, the Government have introduced a number of measures to help the industry and ensure the availability of vessels and crews for national needs. Those include financial assistance for the training of recruits under the Government's assistance for training scheme—the GAFT scheme—which commenced in 1988. Before the introduction of that scheme, the annual recruitment of cadets had fallen to a low of 162. By the end of the 1988–89 period, the figure had risen to 289, and it reached 521 at the end of 1990. Government assistance has also been made available for the travel expenses of deep-sea crews for the repatriation of seafarers, and there has been a relaxation of foreign earnings deduction rules to allow British seafarers to spend more time in the United Kingdom. In addition, a Merchant Navy Reserve was established in May 1989 to provide a pool of British seafarers who could be called upon in times of national emergency to man merchant vessels. That reserve establishment was a direct
  568
  consequence of some of the problems that arose in the Falklands war, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby referred.
  The purpose of the establishment is to cover two perceived shortfalls in manpower. First, it replaces foreign nationals serving in United Kingdom flagships when, in time of crisis or war, they are deemed to be a security risk, or when they express a desire to leave the ship or are ordered to leave by their Government. I think that that is what happened in the Indian shipping case to which my hon. Friend referred. Its second purpose is to man British-owned but foreign-flagged vessels returning to the United Kingdom flag in time of tension or war as a result of emergency legislation. In that case, it may be necessary to provide full crews.
  Recruiting for the Merchant Navy Reserve got off to a slow start, but a campaign in major British ports at the beginning of 1992 increased the numbers in the reserve to more than 650. The Department of Transport, which administers the scheme, hopes to build up the reserve's strength to more than 1,000 by 1993, and is aiming for a final establishment of about 2,000.
  The Government also provide war risks insurance to indemnify shipowners against loss: and there are agreements with open registry states. In that connection. we have already signed agreements with Liberia. Bahamas, and Vanuatu, where there are approximately 100 British-controlled ships registered. That would mean that in times of crisis it would be possible to gain access to those vessels with the consent of the countries of registration. Furthermore, in the unlikely event of a full-scale war involving the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we would have access to the shipping resources of our NATO allies.
  The Government also participated in a joint working party with the British shipping industry. The recommendations of the working party included the introduction of more flexibility into the rules governing the nationality of officers on British ships. The main justification for those rules is one of defence, and we have made major concessions at the request of the industry. The Department of Transport has recently issued a consultative document recommending that the existing nationality conditions for United Kingdom-registered merchant vessels, covering the ship's master, first officer and chief engineer, be relaxed to require that only either the master or the first officer be British. In the case of those vessels of strategic importance, the master would still be British.
  I hope that the House will accept from the range of measures and practices that I have outlined that some progress has been made on the availability of British seafarers in time of war for ships that have to go to an area of danger.
  I realise that the announcement of the review that I have made will not be greeted with cheering and will not gladden the hearts of my hon. Friends who have so properly and ably raised matters of concern tonight. I hope that they will accept that the argument about the defence dimension in Britain's merchant shipping is really about defence priorities and defence spending priorities. There are competing requirements for defence funds, and our review of the defence requirements for merchant shipping in times of crisis shows that at this juncture we cannot allocate defence funds in support of the British shipping industry. I am sorry to be the bearer of those bad

  569
  tidings, but I hope that it is some reassurance to know that we have taken careful measures to ensure an adequate supply of British seafarers in times of crisis.
  There is a vital role for merchant shipping in an emergency and we continue to keep a close watch on the state of the industry and the trends to ensure that our plans are capable of being met. We carefully review shipping requirements and our latest review shows that there is no need at the moment for any special measure. I assure the House that we continue to give the defence needs of merchant shipping a high priority, and I hope that after this useful debate there is still no doubt about our commitment to making sure that this need will continue to be met.

  Student Hardship
  10.5 pm
  Mr. Bryan Davies: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate student hardship, which causes a great deal of concern not only to me but to many of my hon. Friends. Representations from students show the difficult circumstances in which they now find themelves, and those difficulties are the direct result of a series of disastrous Government decisions in recent years on student finance.
  I am glad to see an Education Minister in his place. It is a long time since we had an opportunity to debate this issue. When it was last debated in November, the Government, by some strange quirk, decided to field a Social Security Minister who spent a great deal of time denying her Department's responsibility for student problems. I am glad that the winding-up speech will be delivered by a Minister who accepts responsibility for the welfare of students. However, some contributions should also be made by the Department of Social Security.
  Over the past few years, the Government have followed the principle that gave birth to one of our more famous supermarkets—"stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap". The principle followed by the Government in higher education —if principle is not too dignified a term—is pack 'em in and slash their cost. The deliberate impoverishment of students has been part of Government policy in the welcome move towards increasing the number of people in higher education. However, no policy should make life increasingly difficult for those who participate in higher education, and Government policies have had extremely deleterious consequences.
  What other group of people has been told that basic income should be frozen at 1990 levels? The grant component of higher education support for students is frozen at precisely that point. What other group of people would be told, "We know that this may prove to be inadequate, but we have a battle against inflation"? Britain still has higher inflation than many other countries in western Europe, and over the past three years there has certainly been a decline in the purchasing power of the student's pound. What other group of people would be told to take out loans and become dependent on finance that would have to be paid back with interest in the future? Such policies are implemented by a Government who bleat about the dependency culture even though they are deliberately inculcating exactly that dependency among a large section of our young people. It is detrimental for students to be placed in such an invidious position.
  The Minister has written on several occasions—certainly once in response to hon. Members who raised the issue with him previously—that he believes that it is important that students are gaining greater independence and economic awareness. He believes that that is happening. Greater independence looks like a sick joke when students are being plunged into debt. I do not doubt that they are gaining greater economic awareness. Many are being taught some fairly harsh economic lessons by the Government: they are being taught about poverty, dependence on loans and how helpful it would be if one had a relatively prosperous father or mother.
  I have not the slightest doubt that when Tory Members of Parliament send their offspring into higher education, in many cases after having spent thousands of pounds on

  571
  secondary education in public schools, thereby increasing their children's chances of going into higher education, they bail out their offspring when they say that the level of parental contribution, assessed against the grant, is too low to live on. It is clear from all quarters that the support is inadequate.
  Whereas it may be possible for members of the Conservative party, Tory Members of Parliament and some sections of the community to bail out their children and ensure that students get through this period without total impoverishment, that option is not open to large numbers of my constituents who have no spare resources to supplement the inadequate student grant.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Which countries in the western world do not have a loan system to help towards the maintenance of students?
  Mr. Davies: I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we managed to run a higher education system for a very long time on the basis of respect for students and the provision of the resources necessary to give them adequate grants. I do not remember the Conservative party telling the nation that it would set out gratuitously and deliberately to make life more difficult for students seeking to enter higher education.
  Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer my question?
  Mr. Davies: The question is not apposite. Many features of our higher education system compare very favourably with those of other countries. For example, our success rate at graduate level is the envy of many countries, and there is a correlation between support for students and success rates. if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it would be more appropriate for us to adopt other countries' systems of financial support for students, he may also find that he is embracing the notion that more of our students should fail their courses, in line with other countries. That is not a particularly progressive or constructive way to view young people's education.
  The Minister must face the problem that not only is the student grant inadequate, leading to dependence on loans, but all other means of supplementing student finances are effectively blocked. The Government have made it abundantly clear that there is to be no form of benefit support for students. That is a substantial loss. A study carried out by the students union of the university of Manchester has demonstrated that, for the average student in Manchester, housing costs have increased from between 45 and 50 per cent. of his income up to 71 per cent. That is a considerable slice of a student's income. It is a fact that students can no longer apply for housing benefit. The result—I am sure that the Government did not wish this upon the students—is that students are so impoverished that their standard of living is below the level of unemployed young people between the ages of 18 and 24. We are asking the young unemployed, who have an extremely difficult time, to exist on about £60 a week if they have access to housing benefit, but student support is only just over £50 a week.
  I wonder whether Conservative Members have considered the privations that students face. I know that some people will say, "Students have always been poor. Our own generation at university was scarcely well-off, but it survived". The majority of students of my generation
  572
  survived because we were able to obtain vacation jobs. We could not make our grants last throughout a full year unless we were able to have some earning powers during at least the long vacation.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: What was wrong with that?
  Mr. Davies: Many of us had substantial earning power over the Christmas period because of the institution of the Christmas post.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what was wrong with working during the long vacation. I do not think that anything is wrong with that, provided that students have access to work. The bald fact is, however, that students cannot obtain jobs during vacations. It is not possible in circumstances—
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish. He has said that Tory Members bail out their children. Perhaps he will name the Tory Members whom he has in mind. I have four children, all of whom managed to get jobs and work their way through in the way that he said he did. What is wrong with that? I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that it cannot be done now. The fact is that it can be done.
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman's children were able to obtain vacation jobs, that may reflect the rather more privileged position that they enjoy compared with that which faces many of the children from my constituency. There are unemployment rates of 16 per cent. in Oldham. In Manchester, a few road-sweeping jobs attracted more than 1,000 applicants. Many were graduates who had recently qualified at university. Students do not have much hope of easily finding casual vacation jobs that will enable them to supplement their income. That is a measure of the impossible situation that students face.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: At one time, as my hon. Friend says, students were able to get jobs in various industries and in many other sectors. During the recession, those jobs are no longer available. As a result of the squeeze, local government—which used to make many jobs available to students during college vacations—is no longer able to offer vacation work. It does not have the necessary finance available to it.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. It reflects the grim situation that we all face. As unemployment moves inexorably towards 3 million, there are no jobs for students to take up.
  Access funds are another aspect of support that the Government suggest for students, but the higher education institutions have always said that they provide inadequate support. It was predicted that the £25·8 million voted last year would be speedily exhausted because of the real hardship claims by students. During the past two weeks, the Labour party has carried out a survey of access funds, and almost 50 per cent. of the institutions surveyed have already exhausted their full entitlement. That means that students who still have almost three months to go before their next grant cheque and have no access to benefits and, in many cases, no possibility of supplementing their grants with jobs will find that when they apply to their institutions for help they will receive only the bleakest of answers.

  573
  Problems also confront students at the end of their courses. Unemployment is reflected in the extent to which this year's recruitment fairs have been operating at only half the level of previous years. Major companies have virtually abandoned graduate recruitment. After just three or four years at college, students are saddled with debts of more than £1,000. They cannot fulfil the Government's rosy view of how they can solve their debt problems, which is to get a job to repay those debts in a short period. For large numbers of students, graduate unemployment means no jobs and substantial debts once they have successfully graduated.
  What does all that mean for education? I ask the Minister to reflect on just what perspective he believes the next generation takes of higher education in those circumstances. The moral must be clear, especially for the children of low-income families. Faced with the prospect of debt and of extreme difficulty in sustaining themselves through their higher education courses, children will decide that if there is a job available when they leave school, however poorly paid and low in prospects, it would be better to take that job than to follow the somewhat hazardous prospects of higher education. The Government's oft-declared objective, to increase higher education participation by children from lower-income groups and reduce the extent to which it is enjoyed predominantly by children from middle class homes, will suffer while student support operates at such an inadequate level.
  If there is that long-awaited recovery in the economy and the beginnings of some green shoots—although most of us have failed to see them, despite the many Government promises—and if a few jobs are created, young people will seize those jobs rather than put themselves through three or four years of higher education, with all the difficulties that they face and limited prospects when they have graduated.
  On the evidence of the past two years of increasing difficulties for students, I appeal to the Government to rethink the basis of student support. If they do not, students and staff of the battered higher education section of our education system, which has been quiescent in recent years—perhaps previously hoping that some of its difficulties would be overcome by a change of Government at the last election but now coming to terms with the fact that this Administration will be in power for at least the next three to four years—will press their grievances, and if they are not met students are bound to advocate their cause. That, as we know from the past, has often led to considerable disruption in higher education, to the cost of students, the education system and, ultimately, the nation.
  If students are impoverished, if they receive the harsh lesson from the Government that reason will not prevail, the Government will have only themselves to blame for the reaction that will undoubtedly result.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on applying for a debate on such an important subject. I speak as the parent of a daughter who has just
  574
  completed her second year at Chester college. Therefore, I have a vested interest—an expensive one—in the cost of keeping my daughter at college.
  As my hon. Friend said, the problem is that for the younger generation of people we have made going to college or university dependent on their parents being both willing and able to contribute to their further education. I stress that they must be both willing and able, because the one is not satisfactory without the other. The situation is extremely difficult.
  I spoke against student loans on several occasions at the time of their introduction. The concept is totally wrong, and the sooner we revert to the grant system the better. Loans are wrong, because to allow people in education to acquire a debt is nonsense. I know that the loans are effectively zero-rated, and that if earnings are below a particular level in subsequent years, the loan does not have to be repaid; but the simple fact is that the loan is seen as a debt with which students are saddled, and that is nonsense. Moreover, it would be a rare student who did not build up a debt in addition to the student loan resulting in two debts on completion of his or her education.
  The statistics clearly show that those who have had the advantage of a university or college education earn more in later life than those who have not had such an advantage. Therefore, they will pay back not only their tuition fees but the whole cost of their education in the higher taxes that they rightly pay in a fair society on their higher income. That is fair, and that is the system that we should have. Student loans should clearly be scrapped, and the sooner we scrap them the better. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will admit that they have got it wrong and will not allow the system to continue for a third year.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who has now left the Chamber, said that it was easy for students to find jobs in the vacations. If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he does not live in the real world. In 1992, with the country in the longest and deepest recession that it has known since the war, it simply is not possible for students to find vacation jobs in most parts of the country. They cannot find work in factories, with local authorities or even at McDonalds or Wimpy bars because of the recession that the Government have created; moreover, they are not eligible for benefits, which is outrageous.
  When I was on Burnley council, we used to employ students in a number of jobs during the vacations. Over the years, however, those jobs had to go as the Government squeezed local authorities' budgets and hammered their spending. Nowadays, authorities are rarely able to take on any temporary labour.
  Housing costs and benefits are also an increasing problem. The Government must deal with the accommodation issue in any event. Some of the student accommodation that I have seen—not my daughter's, but that of other students—is of a very low standard. Much more properly run, properly maintained halls of residence are needed. Private sector rented accommodation should be properly supervised as well, as much of it is not only of a poor standard but increasingly expensive. Local environmental officers have not sufficient powers to supervise such properties: they need greater powers, the standards must be raised, and rents must be better controlled to provide value for money.

  575
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton mentioned the access funds. In this instance, access is certainly not a flexible friend; for most people, the funds are a joke. Either they arc spread too thin, or the money has gone. Most student unions consider them an insult.
  If we are to compete in the world, emerge from recession and keep the economy permanently out of deficit and financial difficulties, investment in education and training is crucial. It was one of the key issues at the time of the election; sadly, the people made the mistake of failing to recognise how different Labour's policy was. They did not realise that we considered investment in all levels of education and training to be vital.
  Higher education is currently the subject of debate. The problems created by the Government will bar more and more people from continuing their education. The Minister will say that statistics show a higher percentage of people to be doing so, but he should bear in mind the number who are dropping out because financial pressures prevent them from concentrating fully on their studies and taking all their opportunities. The Minister and the Government must understand that, if they do not put that right, think again and change their policy, it will be the Government and the country which loses out. Not only young people in education but the nation as a whole will suffer, and will pay the price for this short-sighted folly and the hardship which will prove detrimental to this country's education and training opportunities.
  The need is crucial and the case made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton is overwhelming. The Government must think again, change their policies and give our people a better opportunity to go on to higher education.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on initiating the debate and on the powerful case that he has made for his constituents and for students in general. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for the strength of his contribution. They both showed how great is the Labour party's concern about this important issue.
  As this is my first opportunity to do so, I welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education to his post. Because of his distinguished interest in the social sciences, it will not have escaped his attention that there were above average swings to the Labour party in the seats where higher education is especially important. We can hope only that the lesson that he learns from that fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley explained, the need to change Government policy rather than to punish students and academics further for their dissidence, as some of his hon. Friends would like him to.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said, the debate is timely to the point of urgency. The prospect facing tens of thousands of students this summer is grim. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the series of disastrous decisions on student support made in recent years. First, there are the cuts in the value of grants. Since their cash value was frozen two years ago they have been reduced by the rate of inflation. Then there was the introduction of student loans, the ending of entitlement to
  576
  income support and housing benefit, and the cynical abolition of the vacation hardship allowance, combined with the difficulties which students have in finding vacation jobs, especially now in the depths of recession. There are also escalating rents, the pressure on institutions' libraries and the superinflationary rise in the cost of books. Those factors have all conspired to condemn students without other means of support to spiralling debt and the prospect of a summer of poverty.
  Mr. Pike: Is not another of those problems the lack of access to computers? Many students have to pay for computer facilities because in many places insufficient facilities are available for all the students.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Of course we welcome the increase in the numbers of students in our educational institutions, but equally we deplore the fact that resources have not kept pace with that increase so that, as my hon. Friend says, facilities of all kinds, including essential equipment such as computers, come under enormous pressure. When students have to buy equipment themselves, that imposes a financial penalty which many of them cannot bear.
  Our charge against the Government is that, faced with the prospect of deepening student hardship, they offer students and their parents nothing but complacency, incompetence and indifference. Clearly the Government have learnt nothing from the experience of last summer, when the situation was so serious that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux dealt with so many cases that it was impelled to draw up a special report, entitled "Diminishing Options". It concludes:
  "On the basis of cases reported by Citizens Advice Bureaux, the basic student grants and loan alone are not providing an adequate income for many students and they are suffering considerable distress as a result. One of the groups hardest hit are students whose parents are on low incomes and also mature students who are fully independent and who have their own financial commitments. Some are considering giving up their courses, and there is a real danger that access to higher education for poorer people will be reduced.
  That is backed by the requests for help received by the National Union of Students and the higher education institutions themselves, and the volume of mail on the subject that Members of Parliament receive.
  The Government's response is to deny hardship—typified by the former Secretary of State for Education in his letter to Members of Parliament last year, and by his remark in the House that
  "I do not accept that the 'scores' of cases stand up to examination."—[Official Report, 12 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 885.]
  The Government also point to access funds as a source of help—and I dare say that we will hear more of the same tonight.
  If the Government seriously expect students, their parents, and the rest of us to treat their claims with anything but contempt, they would have made an objective study of the extent of student hardship, and monitored the use of access funds. They have done neither.
  On 8 June, I asked the Minister when he would undertake a survey of students' income and expenditure. He replied only that the Government would do so "as and when appropriate." On 25 June, I asked the Minister what representations he had received on the prospect of student hardship this summer, to which he gave no answer, and whether he intended to increase the availability of access funds. He replied:

  577
  "We believe that the sums made available to the funds should be sufficient for their purpose, if properly targeted." —[Official Report, 25 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 273.]
  On 2 July, I asked the Minister how many institutions had already spent their access funds. He answered:
  "The information is not kept centrally."—[Official Report. 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 663.]
  He should certainly consider having it centrally recorded.
  On 3 July, I asked what assessment the Government had made of the need for additional financial support for students this summer. The Minister referred to his previous answer, and added:
  "We do not consider that additional provision is required."—[Official Report, 3 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 713.]
  The Government have learnt nothing from last year and have failed to assess student need for this year. They will not make additional student support available, and do not know how access funds are being spent. More comprehensive evidence that the Government could not care less about what is happening to students would be difficult to imagine.
  The ultimate cynicism is that last summer institutions were allowed to bring forward 10 per cent. of access fund expenditure to the current academic year. What is the difference between last summer and this? None—except that last summer was the last one before a general election, and this summer is the one following it.
  The Labour party is so concerned that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said, we made our own survey of access funds depletion. Of a sample of 27 higher education institutions, just under half have already used all their current allocation. Nearly two thirds of them have less than £1,500 to see them and their students through the summer.
  One institution attempted to bring forward funds from next year, and several more hope that they will be able to use some of next year's allocation in advance. It is plain for all to see that there will be a real crisis of student hardship this summer. It will be especially acute for students who are on low incomes, for older students and for those whose institutions have already run out of access funds. A Government who took their responsibilities to students seriously would act now. They would carry out their own immediate check on depletion of access funds, increase the size of those funds and replace the money that was pre-empted last year.
  I ask the Minister to recognise at last the seriousness and urgency of the situation and to take those steps now to avert a summer of student hardship. I urge him also to introduce measures to restore vacation hardship allowance and to introduce a targeted system of housing benefit for students. That is what Labour pledged at the general election. Nothing less will do if we are to stop the crisis of student hardship becoming an ever-worsening annual event to the enormous cost of countless individuals and to the detriment of opportunities in higher education.
  The Government are doing a grave disservice to the students of this country and to their hard-pressed parents. It is time that they dumped their failed policies on student support, addressed the crisis that is staring us all in the face and took the action that the Labour party has been urging on them for some time.
  10.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on his success in the ballot for the debate. It was welcome to hear the views of the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, East in particular for his kind tribute to my academic credentials. It remains to be seen whether he will feel as generous after what I have to say.
  I am all the more glad to take part in the debate as the Government have cause to be justly proud of their achievements in higher education generally and, in particular, with regard to student support. I must make it clear that I do not dismiss allegations of student hardship and I will endeavour to respond to the points that have been raised.
  I must make it clear at the outset that no system of student support can protect every student against hardship. However, we have an impressive array of arrangements for that purpose and we shall certainly continue to monitor the situation carefully. Before I come to the main burden of my remarks, I will try to answer some of the specific points that have been raised.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton began by saying that he thought that it was wrong for students to be deprived of benefits. He felt that students should continue to have support from the benefit system. The Government believe that support for educational purposes should he directed through educational channels. The decision to undertake full-time study is a decision to invest in one's own future rather than to enter employment straight away. Ever-increasing numbers of young and mature students are taking that decision.
  As the hon. Members for Oldham, Central and Royton and for Oxford, East recognised, the expansion of student numbers has been considerable and has been achieved in a way that has maintained quality and access for all categories of students. In case the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton leaves the debate with the impression that students are fundamentally worse off, as he suggested, I remind him that the grant and full-year loan together are more than 30 per cent. higher than the grant was on its own in 1989–90. That has more than compensated the majority of students for any loss of benefits. On top of that, the access funds to which Opposition Members have referred, worth more than £25 million this year, allow colleges to support students in financial need and can be carefully targeted.
  It is wrong to say that student support is inadequate. The figures on the full package of support available to students, both from grants and from loans, make it clear that the system is generous and is meeting needs.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: If the system is as generous and adequate as the Minister claims, what advice would he give a student this summer whose institution has already spent all its access fund, who is not entitled to income support or housing benefit, and who has exhausted the patience of his or her parents, bank and landlord?
  Mr. Forman: Hard cases make bad law. There is no doubt that, from time to time, a small minority of students will find themselves in hardship, but the vast majority of students are very adequately helped by the buoyancy of

  579
  student loans. It is somewhat surprising —the hon. Gentleman should recognise it —that the take-up of student loans is still less than 40 per cent., according to the latest figures. Given that those loans are available to students, that hardly suggests that hardship can be all that widespread or deep. If there were the problems that the hon. Gentleman suggests and on the scale that he talks about, students would be wise, and indeed they are still able, to apply for a loan before the end of the relevant period.
  The hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on a very small part of the sample. He should take account of the fact that the majority of students still are adequately financed from grants, from holiday work or from parental contributions, or a mixture of those things, and that they see fit not to take out the student loan that is available from the student loans scheme.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: If the Minister is not prepared to accept Opposition Members' concerns, does he accept that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has expressed concern about student hardship and the quality of education that it is able to offer with available resources not matching the increase in student numbers?
  Mr. Forman: I am aware that the increase in student numbers has been accompanied by a maintenance of quality in all its forms and that there is no sign from the figures relating to new entrants into higher education that anybody is being deterred from entering higher education by the arrangements that we have in place.
  I link that comment with a point that was made by the hon. Member for Burnley. The drop-out rate from higher education is the lowest in the advanced world. It is about 5 per cent.—I speak from memory —which is much lower than in comparable countries. That is because we have an efficient, cost-effective education system which, on all the evidence, is not deterring new students. Indeed, the number of students has increased by 16 per cent. this year over last year. and we expect the number to continue to increase in future. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) probably knows, current projections suggest that, whereas one in four of the relevant cohort is entering higher education today, it is likely to be one in three before the end of the decade. I do not accept the argument that students are deterred by the financial arrangements—quite the contrary.
  Several Opposition Members made points about graduate unemployment and the difficulty in obtaining jobs. I accept that graduates may temporarily be finding it somewhat less easy to obtain employment of the type that they would ideally like, but the fact remains that investment in higher education is good for the young people in question. Ever-increasing numbers recognise that fact by entering higher education.
  One of the many advantages of the student loans scheme is that if graduates cannot find work or are on low incomes for a while, they may defer their repayments for a year at a time. The possibility of deferral exists.
  As for the point about vacation work to supplement the money available to students, I took the trouble just this afternoon to look at today's copy of the Evening Standard. In the section on hotel and catering—just one page—several jobs are available to young people. They include jobs as bar persons, catering assistants, sandwich bar
  580
  assistants and other such part-time jobs which pay reasonable money and would be ideal to provide a supplement for many students. It is common knowledge that successive generations of students both in Britain and elsewhere have found it normal to supplement their income while at university by working part time.
  Mr. Greg Pope: I suspect that it is slightly fewer years since I was at university than since the Minister was a student. I certainly had to supplement my income when I was at university. I did several different jobs in the summer holidays. Does the Minister agree that student hardship is not simply a matter of grants versus loans—although I find it despicable that students have to start their working life with a debt hanging around their neck —and that the real issue is benefits? Thousands of students live in sub-standard housing because the Government refuse to allow them housing benefit. The amount of money that it would cost the Government is small. The Government's attitude is petty and mean-minded. Does the Minister agree that it would be better for all involved to reinstate housing benefit as soon as possible for students?
  Mr. Forman: That is not the best way forward. The Government took the decision to withdraw housing benefit from students. It is available in only a small minority of cases for particularly vulnerable groups. It is right to concentrate on them. Supplementary allowances protect the most vulnerable groups.
  Several hon. Members referred to the access funds. The hon. Member for Oxford, East referred to the survey of access funds carried out by his party. He should be careful not to draw sweeping conclusions from such relatively flimsy evidence. As I understand it—he will correct me if I am wrong—the survey covered a third of higher education institutions. It found that a third had completely exhausted their access funds and a third had no more than £1,500 left. He must realise that arithmetically that is a shaky sample. It implies in any case that for each finding one is talking about one ninth of the institutions. That implies that seven ninths are in a satisfactory position with the access funds and the vast majority target their money in the appropriate way.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I referred earlier to the Minister's distinguished credentials in social science. Does he accept that a random sample of 27 out of 100 or so of higher education institutions is a good and indicative sample? We found that 44 per cent. had totally exhausted their fund and 63 per cent. had less than £1,500 left. The overwhelming probability is that that is typical of the higher education institutions and their students. The survey is a solid basis for supposing that there is, indeed, an imminent crisis of acute student hardship this summer.
  Mr. Forman: We take the view that it is for higher education institutions to decide on the allocations. In the previous year they were able to bring forward a portion of that money. We should target on the most needy students, because that is what the funds are designed to do. They are designed not to be a flat-rate, across-the-board supplement for all students, but to be targeted on those in greatest need.
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He referred to the fact that last year institutions were able to pre-empt 10 per cent. of the access funds from

  581
  the current year's expenditure. If it was right to do so last year, why is it not right this year? Will he give a commitment that institutions can draw on next year's access fund?
  Mr. Forman: It was right to do so last year because it was at an early stage in the access fund arrangements. We believe that it is now right to continue on a regular basis and not to have that arrangement for the coming year.
  I should return to the main thrust of my remarks. There are some widespread misconceptions about financial support for students, some of which have been mentioned in the debate. For the benefit of the House, I shall set out five key facts about the situation of students.
  First, we have increased students' resources substantially in the past two years. Grants and loans form the central elements of our support package. The full-year loan, together with the grant, now gives students over 30 per cent. more than the grant two years ago. This autumn, we shall uprate average student support from grant and loan by a further 4·5 per cent., thereby maintaining its value in real terms. As a result, full-year support this autumn will be nearly 40 per cent. higher than the grant alone in 1989–90. That represents a substantial real-terms increase. It has been achieved at a time when some members of society have been much less fortunate financially. Students should recognise that. In other words, a considerable number of the people who contribute to student support, through the tax system, are less well off than the students themselves, and one needs to consider that.
  In addition, it is often forgotten that we are continuing to uprate the supplementary allowances that are payable with the grant. This autumn, we shall increase them by 4·5 per cent. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience of such matters that they go to, among others, mature students, students with dependants, disabled students and those studying at their colleges during the vacation. They provide an important additional resource for many students with additional needs, and that is a good example of the targeting in which the Government believe.
  Mr. John Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Much of our discussion has been about students in higher education. Is he satisfied with the current financial provision for students in further education, because many students in local colleges in my constituency have been complaining about the low level of support that they get from their local education authorities?
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman is right to use those words—it is for local education authorities to decide on the support that they can allocate to students. It is not for central Government to step in to suggest increases, or changes in the system. I am satisfied with the present arrangements. It must be for local education authorities to determine to what extent they support students.
  The access funds are worth more than £25 million in total this year. They enable institutions to provide discretionary support for students in financial need. We have taken care to ensure that the distribution of the access funds to institutions is weighted to reflect regional
  582
  variations in the cost of accommodation, for example. For this academic year, institutions can provide help from the funds at any time up to 31 August.
  Secondly, we have started to reduce in real terms the average parental contribution to the grant. It is now frozen in cash for those parents whose residual incomes rise in line with national average earnings. Such parents will find that they are paying less and less in real terms over time. Indeed, they are already paying less than last year. Those whose income rises faster than average earnings may pay a little more out of their higher income. Conversely, those whose income does not rise as fast as average earnings will pay less in cash than they did before. Many other parents, of course, are not assessed for any contribution at all. As a result, the loans scheme is now starting to share the cost of student maintenance more fairly between students themselves, their parents and the taxpayer. I regard that as an equitable sharing of the burden of student support.
  Mr. Pike: The Minister has said that the parental contribution is fixed by the grant regulations. Does he accept that the majority of parents give more than their set contribution—if they can do so—to avoid their children suffering hardship? In some cases parents will go short to ensure that their student children do not suffer. Those extra parental contributions hide the real problem.
  Mr. Forman: I pay tribute to parents who make a substantial contribution towards the costs of their children's education. It is right and proper that they should. Most parents that I know with children in that category strive to do just that.
  Those contributions represent part of the burden that is borne by parents and it is quite right that the increments of financial support available to students in the coming years should be taken up principally by the loan, which is not means-tested and which is a buoyant source of finance.
  I mentioned vulnerable students earlier and it is important that the funds for such students are now rightly directed through the existing funding channels. We have ensured that those students remain eligible in certain cases for housing benefit and income support. As hon. Members are aware, those students include disabled students, lone parents and those with dependent children. Many other students did not claim those benefits when they were available some time ago. For them, the new grant and loan package has presented them with a big gain in resources.
  Many students find income from other sources as a result of part-time work in term time or summer jobs. Opposition Members must acknowledge that from their constituency experience. The facts are clear. A recent survey by the National Union of Students, for what it was worth, suggested that 65 per cent. of students found work in summer 1991. They earned about £800 on average, which is not insignificant. That money represents an increment and is in addition to other streams of income available to students.
  I have already spoken about the loan facility, which is generous and buoyant. Let me remind Opposition Members of the generous terms of that scheme. Loans are indexed to the rate of inflation. Last year, that meant an indexation rate of 9·8 per cent. This year, it has been 5·8 per cent.—a full four percentage points lower. That is a consequence of the Government's success in reducing inflation. For next year, the rate will be the increase in the retail prices index in the year to June. We shall announce

  583
  that figure tomorrow. I look forward to seeing what it is. I should be surprised if it did not offer good news for students and borrowers under the loans scheme. There is also generous provision for borrowers whose incomes are no more than moderate. Under the present arrangements, they can defer their repayments if their gross income is £1,055 a month or less. From September, that threshold will rise to £1,130 a month, equivalent to more than £13,500 a year. Taken together with the indexation rate, that means that student loans are available on far more favourable terms than any other form of credit. They are the best deal in town. Loans are here to stay. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton devoted the bulk of his speech to calling on the Government to get rid of the student loan scheme, but I must tell him that we intend it to expand gradually in time so that it takes up proportionately more of the weight of student support.
  Last year, only 28 per cent. of eligible students actually took out loans, despite the fact that the scheme was widely publicised. This year, take-up has been considerably higher. Nevertheless, we expect that, by the end of the academic year in a few weeks' time, at most 40 per cent. of eligible students will have taken out loans. It is their right to make that decision, but our policy has always been to make the extra money available and to leave it to the students to decide whether to borrow those resources. However, that does tell us something about alleged student hardship. It suggests that many students are able to manage on the grant alone, supplemented by other income. The fact is that many simply do not seem to need all the resources that the Government have made available.
  There is now widespread and increasing agreement that students should make some contribution to the cost of their higher education. Of course, they do not contribute while they are studying. They start to repay after they have completed their course and then only when they have started to earn reasonable incomes. In time, many will
  584
  enjoy a much higher income than the taxpayers who paid for the costs of their education. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. Thus, by spreading the cost of student support, we can pay for the rapid expansion of higher education that we have seen—and welcomed—in recent years. We must not forget the extraordinary surge in participation that higher education has witnessed. It is proof positive that our financial arrangements for student support have not deterred an increasing number of people going into higher education. In 1979, only one young person in eight entered higher education. It is now one in four. And, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear at Portsmouth recently, we now expect participation to reach one in three well before the year 2000. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Is the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) seeking to intervene?
  Mr. Forman: I do not claim that the resources available to students during their studies enable them to live in affluence. But I do believe that they can enjoy a reasonable level of support and that there is a satisfactory system in place. Next year, full-year students living away from their parents' home and studying outside London will have £2,980 available to them in grant and loan. Those studying in London can get £3,675. Many students receive supplementary allowances with the grant. Others receive access fund payments. A few in special categories receive benefits. Many can get part-time or vacation jobs if they wish to top up those resources.
  By providing these greatly increased resources and funding the huge expansion of higher education, the Government have shown their whole-hearted commitment to students and to higher education. We know that, in time, that commitment will pay dividends for the individual concerned and for the nation as a whole.

  Latin America
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I am delighted to have this opportunity to introduce the fifth annual debate on relations between this country and Latin America. I know that all the officers of the Latin American committee are also grateful for this opportunity. These rather arcane procedures that see us having debates going through the night at this stage of the term can at least be used to sensible advantage from time to time. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not take that as meaning that we are satisfied with these arcane procedures, and I hope that the proposals for change that are before the House will have their blessing, and that we shall find new ways to have debates on vital subjects such as this.
  Last year, I said that all hon. Members were distracted by many other developments from the sort of attention that we might profitably give to Latin America. What was true last year has now become even more obvious. As Members of Parliament, we are all concerned with a variety of issues that affect our constituents—including the economic problems of not just this country but the world. When we consider matters relating to the European Community and Maastricht, events in what used to be the Soviet Union, in eastern Europe and, above all, in what used to be Yugoslavia, it does not seem surprising that hon. Members' interest in tensions in Latin America has been less than many of us would wish.
  I believe that the Latin Americans, although sensitive to our attitude, also understand it, and may even take comfort from the fact that, whereas in the past we were ready to point a finger at tensions and border disputes in Latin America, those problems are as nothing to the horrors that we on the continent of Europe have generated during the past one or two years. I do not know the Spanish translation of the word "schadenfreude", but whatever it is, that is the way that Latin Americans might be considering that development.
  All of us who take an interest in Latin America understand the importance of maintaining and developing Britain's interest in that continent. We recognise that there should be a renewal of the well-known—at least among hon. Members present this evening—historical links that Britain has for so long enjoyed with that continent.
  We are at an important juncture because, in the past few weeks, there has been a major development: the visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Colombia and Brazil. His visit to Colombia was the first ever visit of a British Prime Minister when in office to a Latin American country. That thought is in itself extraordinary, but at least the precedent has now been established, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that. I understand that his awareness of the countries that he visited and the whole of the sub-continent was alerted. In the wake of that visit, it is time to launch a renewed effort to develop this nation's interests in Latin America. I have every reason to hope that that will happen.
  Twenty years ago, when I was a diplomat in Buenos Aires, a special conference on Latin America was organised in Lancaster house. It was a way of focusing the interest of Britain—particularly British business, but also our other cultural, social, academic and political links—on
  586
  Latin America. I believe that everything that has happened in those 20 years—especially the encouraging developments of recent years—mean that it is now time to launch another conference at the highest, prime ministerial, level.
  Next year is the 50th anniversary of the creation of Canning house—an institution which is well known to those hon. Members present in the Chamber, and of which we should all be proud. It is a unique focus of the study and development of links with Latin America. It is a small cost burden to the British taxpayer and is greatly supported by private interest. I commend that part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget and hope that that support will continue, even in these straitened times. Next year is the 50th anniversary of Canning house, and that would be an appropriate time to stage a new conference to demonstrate Britain's interest in and commitment to a continent of 450 million people and the commercial, political and economic importance that that implies.
  The realisation has dawned that Latin America is no longer a continent of tinpot dictators and banana republics, and it is now understood that democracy has been established. However, it is not quite understood that the democratic Governments in Latin America are still relatively tender and need as much support as possible. That support should be internal, but the more traditional and longer established democracies also have a role to play.
  In Latin America, the 1980s were known as the lost decade, when the gross domestic product of almost every Latin American country and its standard of living fell. Those phenomena put great strains on the body politic. Therefore, it is especially remarkable that democracy emerged, but it means that in some Latin American countries the democratic institutions that we all take for granted are thin and embryonic and need much help and understanding from the developed world. I shall devote the rest of my speech to that.
  Our media have an unhappy record on extending and improving the understanding of what happens in Latin America. Everyone in political life is familiar with the sad but undoubtedly true platitude that good news is not news and bad news is what is published. That means that only the difficulties and disasters in Latin America form the diet on which we are fed. That is a sad fact, but as politicians we expect to live with it. That does not mean that we should accept or take it for granted. We should complain about it, and I hope that those responsible for reporting on Latin America will take note.
  Another even more worrying phenomenon is the extraordinary tendency of those who claim to be the intellectuals or the intelligentsia of western Europe, including the United Kingdom—the chattering classes generally and the media—to light upon every far-out, left-wing organisation that appears on the scene and to invest it with a haloed, sanctified status as the defender of the people of Latin America against a cruel and oppressive dictatorship. That has happened in the past, but much more often than not, and certainly in recent years, that has not been the true picture. [Interruption.] I note the scoffing reaction of the hon. Member on the Labour Front Bench, who represents a Scottish constituency but whose name escapes me. He thinks that this is a laughing matter.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whitney: Certainly, when I have finished my sentence. It is not a laughing matter but a matter of great concern to all of us who value democracy and human rights in Latin America.
  Mr. Foulkes: One of these days I shall take the hon. Gentleman around Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley so that he not only knows how to pronounce it but knows more about it. I know that he knows a great deal about Latin America. I was not laughing. I was astonished that he was dismissing so lightly dictatorships such as that of Pinochet in Chile, that of Somoza in Nicaragua and the others under which the people of Latin America have suffered. It was that which was causing us concern. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has a good record of supporting democratic development in Latin America, agrees with us about that.
  Mr. Whitney: I am glad that the hon. Member from Scotland was not laughing about the problems of Latin America. Had he been listening carefully, and if he reads the transcript of what I said, he will see that there is no question of my defending the Somoza or Pinochet regimes. Using a little psychiatry or psychology, I would suggest that that was a transference of the hon. Gentleman's own prejudices rather than mine. I think that the hon. Member —or certainly some of his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in whose presence we usually rejoice on such occasions but who, sadly, could not be with us tonight—is a splendid manifestation of what I was talking about. Cuba is a long-standing favourite of such hon. Members. While every other communist, Marxist or Stalinist regime has collapsed in disorder and contumely, Cuba clings on. It has an ever decreasing band of supporters and defenders but some of them are to be found—not tonight, but from time to time—on the Labour Benches.
  Napoleon Duarte, a very brave man and a dedicated democratic socialist, struggled against the FLMN in El Salvador. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua were the friends of many on the left and many of the more normal members of the Labour party. They were the darlings of the chattering classes and of the media. It required only one democratically run election for the people of Nicaragua to eject the Sandinistas.
  This is the opportunity to draw to the House's attention —and I hope that it will go further—a much more worrying phenomenon: the treatment given by some circles in London and other western European capitals to the extraordinary regime of the Sendero Luminoso in Peru. We know that there are serious difficulties in Peru at the moment. We are studying carefully the action of President Fujimori some months ago, and we appreciate the tensions and pressures, but that does not mean that the terrorism of the Sendero Luminoso can be excused. There is no doubt that the struggles and terrorist tactics of the Sendero Luminoso are adding significantly to Peru's problems.
  The Sendero Luminoso was formed by Abimael Guzman in 1980. He rejoiced in the successes of Stalin and said that Mao Tse-tung's only mistake was that he did not go far enough. He has led the terrorist regime which has been responsible for about 30,000 deaths in Peru. Yet some in the media naively accept the claims of this terrorist organisation, Sendero Luminoso. There was an especially depressing example in June when a programme entitled
  588
  "Condemned to Win" was broadcast as part of the series called "Dispatches". It was a flattering and sympathetic portrayal of a barbarous and bloodthirsty organisation.
  An exception to the worrying tendency of so much of the media to accept far-left and bloodthirsty movements was an extremely informative and reliable article written by Caroline Moorehead, which appeared in The Independent magazine of 20 June. She recited several instances of terrorist activities. For example, there was the murder of the deputy mayor of Villa El Salvador on the outskirts of Lima, one Maria Elena Moyano. She was shot and her body was blown up by dynamite. Her two sons, aged 11 and 12, watched over her. There are many such examples, yet The Guardian will carry a letter from a lady who calls herself a representative of the Federation of Democratic Women of Peru, who seemingly rejoices that Maria Elena was executed for a long list of offences.
  For a major British television channel to broadcast such a sympathetic portrayal of such a bloodthirsty organisation as Sendero Luminoso is a grave indictment of the British media. Yet again, it increases the problems with which we all wrestle—veracity and responsibility as against the difficulties of censorship. I earnestly hope that we are not moving yet again into a cycle in which certain quarters in London and other west European capitals allow distortions of realities, whether it be Peru now, Nicaragua in the past or whatever Latin American country it will be in future.
  We have a duty in the House and outside to ensure that we become increasingly better informed. There are many opportunities to develop our links with the 450 million people of Latin America. We in the United Kingdom must continue to deal with the Falkland Islands, which is a special issue. That means that we must deal with Argentina. We are delighted that relations with Argentina have moved as they have over recent years, but the issue of the Falkland Islands still awaits a solution. The resolution of the problem will be to the interest and benefit of the islanders as well as of the United Kingdom and Argentina.
  Beyond that, we in Britain have tremendous economic opportunities. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, will enlarge upon those issues. That being so, I shall not trespass into that territory.
  Problems still remain in Latin America, such as debt, population, disparity of wealth and institutional weaknesses, but there have been real achievements. There are challenges for the United Kingdom. I hope that, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with his new awareness of the significance of the South American continent, we shall take advantage of the opportunities.
  11.34 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome this, the fifth annual summer debate on Britain's relations with Latin America. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on so ably leading the debate. It is a case perhaps of quality rather than quantity of hon. Members.
  When the House is concerned with vital matters such as the trouble in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, it is important that we do not overlook the quietly developing region of Latin America. It has many qualities.

  589
  First, every republic in the region, with the sole exception of Cuba, is run by duly elected presidents. Every republic is practising liberal market economics. They are dismantling the 1950s and 1960s models of import substitution and massive nationalisation, which caused such stunting of their economies. Their enthusiastic adoption of the free market system and the fact that they are now working through the world open trading system give great inspiration, which this House should duly recognise. In particular, those countries are following the example of Chile, which through the adoption of the free market economy has proved that considerable success can be achieved in Latin America.
  Latin America is based on a largely European culture and immigration. It has a cadre of business men, lawyers, diplomats and scientists of a world standard, with whom we could easily work. The past year has been a good one for Britain's relations with Latin America. Only last month there was the first visit of a British Prime Minister in office to that continent. My right hon. Friend visited both Colombia and Brazil during the Earth summit. It is not a breach of confidence to say that he was enthused by what he saw. He told the House in his statement on 15 June:
  "The purpose of my visit was to reaffirm our support for Colombian democracy, her market economy and her brave and successful fight against drug trafficking."—[Official Report, 15 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 650.]
  My right hon. Friend's visit and the renewed interest in Latin America is not a flash in the pan. Last month, The Guardian reported my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as saying:
  "The British Government decided to make a deliberate and vigorous effort to restore the historical relationship with Latin America."
  The article states that my right hon. Friend
  "added that both Government and business in Britain were looking with fresh eyes at this region."
  Much of the credit for the growing interest in Latin America should go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-J ones), who was aptly described in the same article in the following terms:
  "A fluent Spanish speaker, he has emanated a clear vision that Britain is missing out on business opportunities."
  Latin America is under way. Nevertheless, the two great pillars of its resurgence are akin to two young saplings, both fragile but both offering excellent prospects for the future. The first of those saplings is democracy. As I said, all of Latin America, with the exception of Cuba, is now run by elected presidents. However, there are problems. After decades of military rule, many of the Congresses are populated by a combination of grand extinct volcanoes from ancient political dynasties and—disturbingly for us—very young politicians.
  Only yesterday, the Speaker of the Panamanian Congress visited this House. He was only3l years of age, which makes some of us feel desperately old. What we have found in the young parliamentarians from Latin America who have visited this House is that many of them offer great hope for the future. Their problem is that they lack so many of the procedures, practices and experiences that we in this House take for granted. But that is precisely where we can be of use and help them.
  In particular, I commend the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. For example, a delegation of
  590
  Paraguayan parliamentarians came here last year and next week we shall have a delegation from Mexico. The Paraguayans were impressed by much of what they saw here. They took a particular interest in the parliamentary ombudsman and have set up exactly such an institution in their own country, based on the British model.
  However, democracy in Latin America is susceptible to corruption and disorder, and that has led to the first blemish on the escutcheon of restored Latin American democracy. When President Fujimori, the duly elected president of Peru, recently closed the Peruvian Congress, he said that the aim of his military-backed self-coup on 5 April was to replace Peru's frivolous, inoperative and corrupt democracy by what he termed an authentic one.
  With the coaxing and encouragement of many countries, not least our own, President Fujimori has mapped out what he means by an authentic democracy and has laid down a timetable, through a constituent assembly, for a new Congress early next year. The Government must staunchly uphold democracy, but we should admit a touch of sympathy and understanding for President Fujimori's dilemma.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe touched on the kind of problems with which Peru has to cope. President Fujimori and his country suffer from ruthless and merciless terrorists—the Sendero Luminoso. Inspired by Chairman Mao and financed by drug money, they have extended their pitiless activity into the urban area of Lima, the capital, from the peasant areas in the south of the country which they have terrorised for years. Some years ago I travelled in southern Peru and saw some of their activities for myself. Peru therefore has problems in maintaining democracy, and the kind of thing that we saw on television in Britain not so long ago does nothing to help Peru return to and develop a full democracy.
  Peru is not alone in having problems maintaining its democracy. There are other rumblings in Latin America. If we do not help in those areas, we shall see a collapse into dictatorship, from which Latin America has only just emerged.
  Only this year, the stresses of economic reform have brought an attempted coup in Venezuela and in Brazil there are moves to impeach President Fernando Collor de Mello on corruption charges. President Rodriguez of Paraguay has reacted angrily to his Congress's action to block his standing for re-election.
  Yet democracy is taking root in Latin America. Recently—the first time ever, I believe—one elected president has followed another in both Argentina and Peru. Chile too has carried through local elections which have proved that representative democracy is taking root once again in that country as well.
  The other of the two saplings in Latin America is the free enterprise, free trade economy. Those of us who have taken an interest in Latin America over the years have been used to decades of protectionist import substitution economic policies in Latin America, with self-serving nationalised industries which have wasted vast resources. We can only marvel at the new approach that we are seeing today. The trade barriers are coming down and with them have come massive opportunities for Britain which we overlook at our peril.
  The Government have started some imaginative initiatives to take advantage of those same opportunities. The imaginative Proyecto Venezuela recently carried out a project identifying opportunities for British goods and

  591
  services in Venezuela and potential British suppliers, bringing them together through well-produced directories so as to build up British trade and investment in Venezuela. I understand that that was a prototype and I hope that it will be followed in an increasing number of countries, not least in Latin America.
  International trade, however, is a two-way process. It is praiseworthy that Latin American markets are now open to British exports and investments, but European markets must likewise be open to Latin American exports, especially exports of agricultural products. That is why the continuing efforts of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to obtain a final settlement of the Uruguay round of the GATT is so critically important. If we let Fortress Europe develop to the detriment of the developing world and its exports, we shall destroy the new economic order in Latin America.
  We should note what is already happening. We should note the development of the North American free trade area, taking in Mexico. It could play an increasingly protectionist role, opening Mexico to United States exports at the expense of exports from Britain and the rest of Europe.
  Furthermore, other Latin American countries are queueing to join because we are not providing the opportunities here. Chile is ready to join;Venezuela considers itself a US strategic partner, because it supplies so much of its oil to the US; Panama also claims to be such a strategic partner, on the ground that it has the Panama canal. And so it goes on. If we do not solve the problem in the near future, we shall see Latin America, in reverse order, carrying out the Monroe doctrine and becoming a supplicant of the United States. That is not in the interests of Europe, or in those of Latin America itself.
  Even in the south of the South American continent, countries are turning inwards by linking up through Mercosul, and likewise within the Andean pact. If they turn inwards and exclude their foreign partners, it will be to the detriment of both them and us, as trading partners.
  I should like this country to be Latin America's champion in the European Community, which remains one of the principal obstructions to the completion of the GATT round. We in Britain are singularly well equipped for the role. Historically, we were the champions of Latin American independence. In 1826, in this very House, George Canning—then Foreign Secretary—declared that we had
  "brought the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old."—[Official Report, 12 December 1826; Vol. 16, c. 397.]
  British soldiers and sailors fought alongside Bolivar's army to bring about independence in the north of the continent. Lord Cochrane's ships fought with the Brazilians and the Chileans for their independence. Since then, we have invested and created the railways, the utilities and the industries. We were the co-operators, not the conquerors, of Latin America. We have a continuing fund of good will in that continent—a fund that we are not tapping, but could well tap.
  In the context of today's European Community, the interests of the United Kingdom have converged with those of Latin America. We believe in and practise free trade; we oppose the agricultural subsidies on which the countries of southern Europe depend. Spain and Portugal, the metropolitan countries, both rely on subsidies from the European Community and oppose the import of much of
  592
  Latin America's agricultural produce. Latin America itself knows that we shall fight its corner, and we must press on. The Government must continue their efforts to strengthen Britain as the first port of call for Latin Americans in Europe.
  Three practical measures can be undertaken. First, we must further extend the teaching of Spanish, and even Portuguese, in our schools and colleges. Secondly, we must reinforce the work of the British Council, and its offshoot the Cultura Inglesa in Latin America. Their teaching of English—by which I mean English English, not United States English—is invaluable, and traditionally preferred by Latin Americans. Thirdly, we must strengthen Latin American institutions in London. Principal among those is Canning house, the Latin American centre in London. Canning house will celebrate its 50th anniversary next year, and I hope that the Government will give thought to the ways in which they may support its proposal for a major conference then, in which some of my right hon. Friends could play a major role in drawing in the captains of British industry to consider opportunities for Britain in Latin America.
  We can all see that Latin America is on its way again. There is wind in its sails, and I hope that this country will take a leading role in working with it.
  11.50 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I shall start by quoting Lady Thatcher, although I do not often do that —It's a funny old world." Here we all are again. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has again been lucky in the draw, and we must congratulate him on his energy and diligence as well as on his luck. This year our annual Latin America debate is two weeks earlier in the month, and, thankfully, two hours—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): No.
  Mr. Foulkes: I should have said that unfortunately, although it is two weeks earlier in the month, the debate is taking place two hours later in the day. I must get that right, as the Minister has corrected me.
  We have much the same cast for the debate as we had last year, although the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), is no doubt pursuing the interests of this country in some far-off Eldorado while we welcome in his stead the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. I am pleased, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) has sat through the whole debate, and shows a keen interest in Latin America.
  However, this year we do not hear such delight at the outcome of the G7 as we heard last year about the London G7. The hon. Member for Wycombe praised the outcome last year, and talked about the great opportunity for the completion of the Uruguay round of the GATT talks. A year later we are in the same position as we were then, and the hon. Gentleman is not praising the Munich G7. I quite understand why.
  Mr. Whitney: I am puzzled; I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not exulting in the fact that our high hopes of last year have not been realised. Generous as he is, I hope that he will use the opportunity, while dwelling on the present situation of the GATT round and the G7, to

  593
  pay due tribute to the tremendous efforts of the Prime Minister in the past few days to persuade his colleagues in G7 to make progress on the Uruguay round of GATT.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am certainly not exulting, and I shall come to a tribute to the Prime Minister soon, which will surprise the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I was showing that I had done the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of reading the speech that he made last year, and I noted that his tone and some of his remarks had changed this year. I shall come to a little bit of humility soon, which will also surprise Conservative Members.
  There is also, rightly, a little less euphoria this year about the democratic revolution in Latin America. Unfortunately, the causes for euphoria are not as great as they were last year—I shall dwell at some length on that fact. I even detect some slight tempering of last year's claims by some Conservative neo-economists about the miracles that the market economy can deliver everywhere.
  Now I come to the humility: one of my predictions last year—that we should be conducting the debate from different Dispatch Boxes this year—has also proved less than inspired. However, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that pleasure has merely been postponed — although I shall not say for how long.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: I have only just started. Oh, all right.
  Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman forecast whether, if the occupant of the Chair on that occasion is willing, he will be replying to a debate on Latin America next year?
  Mr. Foulkes: I have ambitions, although I shall not reveal them now. We have just started the elections to the shadow Cabinet, so this is not the time to talk about such matters.
  In passing I should also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who has sat through almost all the debate, and who has long shown a special interest in Latin America.
  A debate about British relations with Latin America is even more important now that the conditions are right for those relations to be strengthened, with Britain leading the European Community, as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said a few minutes ago. Prevailing democratic trends and the growing economies of much of Latin America provide an opportunity for closer links. While the Prime Minister's visit to Rio was welcome—even if its purpose was the Earth summit and not establishing closer relations with the region —
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend visited Colombia as well.
  Mr. Foulkes: Yes, and I welcome that. He was the first-ever British Prime Minister of any party to set foot on South American soil, and that indicates how little attention the British Government have paid in the past to Latin America. I am glad that is being corrected.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in Mexico two months ago:
  "The British Government have decided to make a deliberate and vigorous effort to restore the historical relationship with Latin America."
  594
  That serves to remind us that our trade with Latin America remains marginal. As other hon. Members said, only £1 billion of our exports go there.
  I am sceptical about Government claims of increasing trade and co-operation with Latin America. The Opposition strongly believe that such links should be strengthened. I know that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with his special knowledge, is keen to see that done, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that he believes that there are tremendous opportunities for investment and trading co-operation with that region. I hope that he will confirm also that the region's stability, prosperity—with some qualifications, which I shall mention later—and developing democracy provide the opportunities described by Conservative Members.
  In last year's debate, we all expressed optimism about the continuation of democracy in Latin America. In retrospect, perhaps we were a little complacent. The succeeding 12 months have underlined that the fight for democracy is a long and continuing struggle. The outlook for democracy in Latin America still gives cause for concern.
  Just a short time ago, almost the whole continent was under democratic rule for the first time in its history. I do not share the view taken by the hon. Member for Gravesham. I believe that the picture has clouded. The backward steps of the attempted coups in Venezuela, Haiti, and Peru emphasise how fragile democracy remains in some parts of Latin American. I welcome the establishment recently of the British-Venezuelan Cultural Trust, founded by Marcel Curiel, a prominent Venezuelan business man who provided the initial funds. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and I have the privilege of being two of its founding trustees. We hope that it will help to establish cultural, educational, and other links between Britain and Venezuela. My earlier remarks emphasised the importance of doing so.
  Recent events in Peru also sound ominous warnings for the survival of democracy on that continent. I make it clear to the hon. Member for Wycombe in particular that we hold no brief for Sendero Luminoso—Shining Path. My hon. Friends and I would feel concern at any parallel being drawn between the activities of Sendero Luminoso, which is a terrorist organisation, and the fight by the Sandinistas against a dictatorship in Nicaragua. I regret the unfortunate remark by the hon. Member for Wycombe.
  As to Peru, now is the time for the rest of the world to demonstrate that the days of South American dictators are over. There can be no justification for the suspension of democracy in Peru. The whole international community must show that leaders such as Fujimori cannot seek to solve their country's problems—and Peru certainly has vast problems—by carrying out army-backed coups. That —as Fujimori has already found out—is the route to increased problems. There is no doubt that he greatly underestimated the scale of international condemnation of his actions.
  A direct consequence of that external criticism was the alteration of the timetable for a return to democracy, as the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) rightly said. Elections for the constituent assembly are now to be held in November. However, the pressure from the international community must be maintained to ensure

  595
  that Fujimori, who has displayed a very strong authoritarian tendency, keeps his pledge to ensure real democracy in Peru.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: When terrorism becomes an extreme menace to the state and threatens the lives of democratically-elected representatives and ordinary civilians, the state must take drastic measures to preserve itself as we did within our own polity when, in 1972, we abolished a democratically-elected assembly in Northern Ireland. We would not have done that had the IRA campaign of terror not been in full swing. We still do not have proper representative local government in Northern Ireland after all these years. That is a direct consequence of terrorist action.
  Mr. Foulkes: I do not want to consider Northern Ireland in detail. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that Northern Ireland is still subject to democratic Government from this very House. He is part of it. In his army-backed coup, Fujimori undermined democracy and dissolved the elected Parliament.
  I hope that Conservative Members will agree that the pressure should be kept on. We believe that Peru's dependence on international financial assistance means that the international community can play a key role in restoring democracy. In particular, Britain, in its presidency of the Community for the next six months, must play a leading part in keeping the pressure on. All co-operation must be conditional on the swift return to democracy. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the British Government, in their Community presidency role and other roles, will keep that pressure on.
  In passing, perhaps we should issue a little warning to our friends in the United States who might be thinking of diverting from their traditional political loyalties. The experience in Latin America of moving away from traditional political parties has not been that wonderful in Peru and Brazil. They might be wrong to believe that their salvation lies in moving away from traditional political loyalties.
  No one has considered Haiti in detail during the debate. However, by saying that there is democracy in the whole of Latin America, the implication was that Haiti has some kind of democratic system. The situation in Haiti is even less encouraging. Marc Bazin was named Prime Minister in June, supported by the military and, of course, by business. Since he became Prime Minister repression has greatly increased. He achieved only 14 per cent. of the votes in the last presidential election when Father Aristide received 67 per cent.
  The prospect of democracy in Haiti is, once again, very distant. The Tontons Macoutes have returned and political assassinations are commonplace with at least 2,000 people having been killed since the coup took place. The British Government, acting with others, must do all that they can to maintain and increase the isolation of Haiti. Brian Mulroney, the Canadian Prime Minister, said recently that he, with President Bush and President Mitterrand, were discussing plans to speed the return of Father Aristide to his role as the duly democratically elected president.
  What will the British Government do? Are they involved and, if not, why not?
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a problem: where does Latin America start
  596
  and finish? Haiti is a francophone country and there is therefore some doubt as to whether it should be included with the other francophone countries of the Caribbean where it is located. If we are to include the islands of the Caribbean, and as Latin America is hispanic, as is Cuba, will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that communist Cuba is the only country in Latin America that does not have an elected president?
  Mr. Foulkes: I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman about the definition. We would spend hours doing that, and we do not have hours. I want to give the Minister some time to reply. However, that is an interesting argument.
  In relation to Cuba, I repeat what I said last year. It applies equally today. I said:
  "Let me express the hope … that the conditions in Cuba will soon allow a move towards pluralism. I strongly deplore the continuing confrontational attitude of the United States, which is hindering such a development."—[Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 856.]
  That remains equally true today and it certainly is our position in relation to Cuba.
  Overall democracy will be put to a severe test in Latin America over the next year or so. In several countries, including Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua and even Brazil, there has been talk of coups. We must do all that we can—Conservative Members agree with me—in aid and in trade co-operation to ensure that the age of democracy in Latin America does not become a short-lived, transient fluke but is a lasting tradition as it moves from one democratic Government to the other, whether of the right or the left.
  I now refer briefly to some social problems. Although the economic revival of Latin America is certainly welcome, the view has been expressed—perhaps not tonight, but elsewhere and on previous occasions — that all the problems are being solved by the economic revival. Latin America is a continent with a vastly unequal distribution of income and wealth. The neo-liberal policies advocated by Conservative Members, including again by the hon. Member for Gravesham, of low expenditure, privatisation and free markets have resulted certainly in lower inflation, in higher exports and in money pouring into the region, but at what social cost? Some of the incoming investment is just speculative. The deep, grinding poverty remains. National economies are still imbalanced because state action is minimal in many parts, and gross national product has not gone past the levels that it reached in the 1970s.
  Not only is it clear that market forces are not enough, but there is a real danger that the neo-liberal economic strategy that is now dominant will increase inequalities and widen social cleavages. That will create a much greater potential for disruption and division within the region and put fledgling, fragile democracies at risk.
  In Brazil, the drastic austerity programme, for example, has resulted in 12 million unemployed, wages that have fallen by 20 per cent. over the past year, and a minimum wage that has been reduced by successive freezes to a pitifully small amount. Brazil, the largest and richest country in the continent, now has the world's worst income distribution—a huge gap between the very rich and grinding poverty of many people. It has homelessness on the increase, rapidly growing shanty towns, and a rapidly

  597
  rising infant mortality rate. That picture will not help to stabilise, protect and preserve the fragile democracies that we have been talking about.
  The truth about Latin America is that the hidden price of neo-liberal macro-economic success has been the living standards which are no higher than those of more than a decade ago—high unemployment, widespread lack of education and appalling housing and urban slums. In 1960, of the 400-odd million people about whom the hon. Member for Gravesham spoke, 100 million were below the poverty line. Thirty years later, after 30 years of so-called progress, more than 200 million are below the poverty line.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Much of those 30 years was under military dictatorship, nationalised industry and state control. It is only in the past very few years that we have had free trade and liberal economics. At least we now have a chance of a breakthrough. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that 30 years of military dictatorship and nationalised industry are the fault of the current economic policy.
  Mr. Foulkes: Unemployment, social divisions and divisions of wealth have increased in the past few years under the new liberal economic policies. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some of the dictators followed those policies, too.
  While it is welcome that El Salvador's 12-year war is this year officially over, problems remain with the peace process. The fact that the fragile peace has held is as much a testament to war-weariness, after all the years of struggle and conflict, as anything else. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that it is to be deplored that while the Government of El Salvador have complied with the letter of the peace agreements, for example by disbanding the police units, they have not complied with the spirit. They have merely transferred the men and equipment to other units.
  Despite the inevitable mutual distrust, the United Nations representatives in El Salvador have expressed some optimism that progress will continue to be made. But it is essential that the social and economic issues that caused the conflict in the first place are tackled, if the peace is to last. In that respect, reconstruction aid will be crucial. It is important that the American Government be encouraged to change military aid into aid for reconstruction. It is also important that Britain plays a role in providing much needed assistance. Even if the Minister cannot tell us anything tonight, I hope that he will undertake —
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can.
  Mr. Foulkes: Then I look forward to his saying it tonight.
  Chile was mentioned by several Conservative Members. In some ways it is paradoxical that Chile provides one of the most encouraging models of the new Latin American democracy. Its Government take the most positive attitude of all Latin American countries to human rights. They are facing up to the unhappy legacies, instead of sweeping them under the carpet, as some other countries have tended to do. Chile has a compensation scheme for families of Pinochet's victims and is setting up a national organisation for reparation and reconciliation to seek a long-term answer to the problem of human
  598
  rights. That is a follow-up to last year's Rettig report, which detailed more than 1,000 cases of army responsibility for killings and disappearances.
  There is to be a case against 17 of the carabinieros, including the commanding officer General Mendoza, for three murders, despite the amnesty granted by Pinochet for human rights abuses. That determination to face up to the past and seek justice is a notable example, which we hope that the rest of the region will follow.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Including Cuba.
  Mr. Foulkes: Yes, the whole of the region. I hope that the Minister will support that.
  It is also worth noting that President Aylwin's Government, who preside over a booming economy, remain popular and secure. The right was humiliated in the recent historical municipal elections—in Chile, if not in the United Kingdom. I am honest, as ever.
  We see great opportunities for developing trade in the economies of Latin America. I see that the time is moving on. I do not want to cut the Minister short so I shall cut my remarks short. I see great opportunities, but it is important that Britain sees and seizes the opportunities. In spite of all the United States rhetoric of enterprise for the Americas, when it has come to matching that rhetoric with real dollars, it has often failed. I hope that we shall see our opportunity and seize it.
  As in many other areas, the British Government seem to have run out of steam in their relations with Latin America. Great opportunities exist in Latin America for Britain and the European Community. Britain has an opportunity as President of the Community to lead the way. We should break away from our preoccupation with Maastricht rebellions, looking over the Government's shoulder, additionality and subsidiarity. As 1994 approaches, it will be 500 years since the landfall of Cristobal Colon—to bring a little culture into the occasion I have got the pronunciation correct. As we do not have the Minister of State but only the Under-Secretary of State, perhaps I had better say Christopher Columbus. We should also look beyond Europe, and our day-to-day preoccupations with the European Community, to the new world and Latin America to provide at least a significant part of our future trade and political co-operation.
  12.14 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on initiating the debate. He is the acknowledged leader of the Latin American group in the House of Commons. He mentioned that this is the fifth annual debate of this kind, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). I have no doubt that, as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is a Member of the House, he will take every opportunity to ensure that Latin American affairs are properly debated at this time of the year.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), should have been replying to the debate, and I apologise on his behalf for his not being here. Among Foreign Office Ministers, he is the acknowledged expert on Latin America, as every hon. Member knows, but he is engaged on important European Community business

  599
  connected with the presidency. He would have had to cancel that appointment to be here tonight, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that that would have been the wrong decision.
  As all hon. Members have recognised, Latin America has experienced dramatic political and economic change in recent years. Despite setbacks in one or two countries, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) among others, and despite the unreformed communist regime in Cuba, democratic government is now the norm in most of the region. Of course, there is a little less euphoria now than there was 12 months ago. Earlier, I read the debate of 12 months ago, and I can judge that as well. However, there is a little less euphoria elsewhere in the world —for example, about eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
  Dr. John Reid: And Britain.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his comment from a sedentary position.
  In Latin America, we are observing free market economic policies, aimed at steady growth. The control of inflation and the encouragement of investment and competition have also been adopted by most of the countries in the region. Regional integration is being pursued, for example, through the establishment last year by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay of Mercosur —a new southern-cone free trade area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned, Mexico is negotiating a north American free trade area with the United States and Canada.
  All those developments point to a transformation of the prospects for Latin America, by comparison with the gloomier prognosis of the 1980s. Together they have rightly been dubbed "the quiet revolution" by British press commentators. British business, investors and financial markets are all taking notice. We are already one of the largest foreign investors in the region, and are keen to promote more exports.
  The British Government are responding energetically to the changes, to strengthen already good relations with Latin America. We have resident United Kingdom-based diplomatic representatives in every continental Latin American country. We are doubling our bilateral development aid during the next few years, albeit from a modest base, and, of the European Community aid programmes to the region of about 200 million ecu per year, we contribute about 20 per cent.
  We are strengthening political links. In June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister became the first holder of his office in history to visit South America, when he made his successful visits to Colombia for talks with President Gaviria and his Ministers, and to Rio, in Brazil, to represent the United Kingdom at the Earth summit. Of course, my right hon. Friend also had talks with President Collor.
  In May, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Mexico, and we look forward to welcoming President Salinas as a guest of the British Government on his visit to London later this month. Last year, the then Secretary of State for Education also visited Mexico, and the then Secretary of State visited Venezuela to launch the Projecto Venezuela to encourage British exports to that valuable market.
  600
  We have just started our presidency of the European Community, and during that time we shall do what we can to strengthen the EC's already good relations with Latin America. Those relations are based mainly on the EC dialogues with the Rio group and Central American countries. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State represented the United Kingdom at the annual meetings between the EC and the Central American Ministers in Lisbon in February and Rio group Ministers in Santiago in May. During our presidency, we shall build on those contacts so that the EC can best make its contribution to encouraging development and regional integration in Latin America, the consolidation of democracy and the observance of human rights.
  I should like to make some lengthy remarks on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, who launched this interesting debate. He mentioned Colombia, with which we enjoy excellent bilateral relations. Inevitably, the successful visit by the Prime Minister in June has enhanced our relationship. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley also said that that historic visit was a gesture to remedy the less than dynamic interest in South America that our country had shown for many years, especially in view of our historic relations with that part of the world.
  In his talks with President Gavira and senior Colombian Ministers, the Prime Minister agreed that we will continue our co-operation in the important matter of drugs, and that both countries would work towards greater bilateral trade and investment. It was agreed that that would include the proposed signing of an investment promotion and protection agreement. My right hon. Friend also invited the Colombian Minister for Foreign Trade to visit the United Kingdom in the autumn.
  Hon. Members will know that, in 1991, BP made a great oil discovery at Cusiana, which was the culmination of nearly five years of exploration work. It represents BP's largest find in the world for more than 20 years. A number of United Kingdom companies have expressed interest in the opportunities presented by that significant discovery.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the ancien regime of Latin America in Cuba and Nicaragua, as it once was. Castro's regime is the best example of the terrible impoverishment that results from bad economic policy. That country is impoverished notwithstanding the enormous subsidy that it received from the Soviet Union for many years. Now that that subsidy has come to an end, its poverty has got even worse. There is no willingness to undertake political reforms, despite recent attempts to attract investment. It is increasingly an anachronism in a region where democracy, with all its difficulties about which we have heard, is none the less almost universal. The persecution of dissidents in Cuba is unacceptable.
  My hon. Friend condemned the terrorist campaign of the Sendero Luminoso in Peru, as did the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has painted a very one-sided picture of Cuba, which has made substantial advances in health and education and has one of the best literacy rates and health services in Latin America. It is also under great pressure from the economic embargo from the United States. I am not saying that everything in Cuba is wonderful, but there must be a balance in the way that one looks at it, and that balance is not coming from the Foreign Office or from the Minister.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If a country receives billions of dollars-worth of subsidies from the Soviet Union over many years, it must have something to show for it, and Cuba set up schemes for education and health care. However, it destroyed human rights and failed to develop a market economy or any way to sustain prosperity for its people. It is a country with enormous potential, but it has been ruined since the Castro revolution.
  All hon. Members who have spoken mentioned Peru. I recognise that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley unreservedly condemned the dreadful campaign of Sendero Luminoso. We also condemn the indiscriminate violence in that brutal campaign and the dreadful violence of the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac AmarU terrorists in their efforts to destabilise Peru. The terrorists clearly intend to exploit the situation for their own ends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham emphasised the enormous importance of the trade opportunities available to Britain in Latin America. He drew attention to the great importance of the Uruguay round and the GATT negotiations. In that, I heartily concur with him. It was right to point out to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley the tremendous efforts of the Prime Minister last week in Munich to press this point on our European and other G7 colleagues.
  Mr. Foulkes: It was a total failure.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It may have been a failure, but he made a valiant attempt, and the failure was not his fault.
  It is all too easy for forget, and many people do not know, that Latin America accounts for 9 per cent. of the world gross domestic product. Its total GDP is over $1,000 billion, more than the combined GDP of Africa, excluding South Africa, the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia. Brazil is the eighth largest, and Mexico the 16th largest, economy in the world. The continent is rich in natural resources, with one third of the world's copper and bauxite, 20 per cent. of iron ore, plus vast energy reserves of coal, oil gas and hydro-electric potential. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe was right to underline this.
  Perhaps I may correct the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. I think that he said that our trade with Latin America amounted to only 1 per cent. of our —
  Mr. Foulkes: No, £1 billion.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is right. It was £1·2 billion in 1991, accounting for 2 per cent. of our exports. It is still a small market for us, and it must be improved, but in several markets the United Kingdom is the second largest foreign investor and has been so for a long time. British companies are expanding and making new investments.
  I shall now deal with the constitutional position in Peru. On 8 April, together with our European Community partners, we expressed deep concern at President Fujimori's suspension of the constitution rule and reports of human rights violations. Meanwhile, we have suspended the balance of payments assistance promised to President Fujimori during his visit to the United Kingdom.
  We can all agree with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that the day of the dictators must be over—that is absolutely right. Naturally,
  602
  international reactions to events on 5 April were universally critical. Peru's friends in the wider world should work for the earliest possible restoration of Peruvian democracy, as we are doing. It is also important to encourage the efforts of the Organisation of American States in that sphere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said that Peru has many problems. The election of the constituent assembly is fundamental to the settlement of Peru's constitutional crisis. It is unfortunate that the elections planned for 18 October have been postponed until 22 November. We believe that there are valid reasons for that. The delay was for practical reasons. It is essential that the elections should be properly organised. However, we will continue to monitor progress, as it is most important that the elections should now proceed without further delay if the Peruvian Government's good faith is not to be challenged.
  In developing his thesis about the fragility of democracy in Latin America, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to Haiti, which was correctly described as French America. With our European Community partners, we support the efforts of the Organisation of American States to work for the return of President Aristide on the basis of the Washington accords.
  The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Mark Bazin was chosen as Prime Minister of the consensus Government, provided for in the tripartite agreement between the illegal regime, the Parliament and the army. He was right to say that the Bazin Cabinet does not represent a true consensus in Haiti. It excludes the pro-Aristide FNCD and the M RN party of Mr. Theodore. It is not clear that Mr. Bazin has the will or the capacity to negotiate a settlement, even were President Aristide to agree to negotiations. We shall press that during our presidency of the European Community.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley also mentioned El Salvador. We are extremely pleased at the progress on the peace process in El Salvador. Credit must be given to the leaders of both Government and FM LN for the fact that they have overcome the obstacles in the implementation of the 16 January agreement. The United Nations, particularly ONUSAL, played a critical role in keeping the two sides talking. There is now a good chance of implementation being completed by the 31 October deadline.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned aid, and asked me to comment on aid for El Salvador. The European Community has pledged 50 million ecu to the reconstruction plan, of which the United Kingdom contributes 20 per cent. I am glad to report that the first group of projects has been approved, including the establishment of a land bank to help the ex-combatants to purchase land. I am also glad that the reconstruction plan recognises the importance of the non-governmental organisations' efforts, which the British Government have long supported.
  The hon. Gentleman also cited Chile as a paradoxical example—because of its past, sad history—of a country that has emerged as a modern democracy. Our bilateral relations with Chile have grown in warmth and substance since its smooth and peaceful return to democratic rule in 1989. President Aylwin made a successful visit to Britain in April last year as the guest of the Government. Our contacts with his Government are good and frequent at senior and working level. Chile is a valuable trading

  603
  partner. Its liberal market economy is an example to its neighbours and it provides excellent opportunities for British investment. I am glad that more companies are discovering what the Chilean market has to offer.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe and for Gravesham spoke about their proposal for a Latin America conference next year and paid tribute to Canning house, which next year celebrates its 50th anniversary. I am happy to agree with my hon. Friends that Canning house plays a most valuable role in United Kingdom-Latin American relations. I am glad to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue its financial contribution of £30,000 in 1992–93. My hon. Friends are discussing with the Secretary of State the imaginative proposal for a Latin American conference in this country next year. Those discussions will continue, and my right hon. Friend will carefully consider the proposal.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to review Britain's relations with Latin America. The changes in the region represent an irreversible commitment to progress and reform. Undoubtedly, there will be setbacks, but the general trend is set, and the Government will do what they can to reinforce it. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said that the conditions were ripe for an improvement in relations. They are, and there will be an improvement. He also said that some of our relationships had run out of steam. That is a little inconsistent with his averment of an improvement in relations, which will certainly come about.
  The future will provide many more opportunities to strengthen our relations in economics, culture, science and education. We shall certainly work to that end.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  12.37 am
  Dr. John Reid: This is another opportunity to discuss a matter that is vital to our industry, to thousands of our workers, and to the future strategic requirements of the British armed forces. We are discussing the provision of the best possible equipment at the best possible cost to the world's best airmen. Therefore, it is fitting to place on record my condolences and those of the whole House to the family of Flight Lieutenant James Henderson who was tragically killed yesterday evening on a training flight in a Buccaneer jet. When I last checked the news agency tapes, his navigator was still missing. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are with the families of both airmen.
  In terms of the armed forces in general, the past two years have not been good for the Government. They managed to lose the confidence of many of their Back Benchers over "Options for Change", especially over regimental changes. They found themselves in conflict with the Select Committee on Defence, dominated by Conservative Back Benchers, over the way that the changes were carried out. As I checked the tapes tonight, I saw that in another place Lord Chalfont has criticised the Government's defence policy as being
  "trapped in a time warp and increasingly out of touch with international realities."
  The Minister will be pleased to know we support him this evening, or at least his position on the European fighter aircraft. I say his position because, clearly, it is not necessarily that of the Government as a whole if we are to believe the press reports to which I shall refer later. In all humility, I hope that the support that he has received and will continue to receive from my party for the Ministry of Defence's declared position will be of not insignificant, although not earth-shattering, use to him as he continues the labyrinthine discussions with his ministerial colleagues.
  Tonight's debate provides us with a welcome opportunity to discuss more fully the implications of the decision, taken by the German Government some days ago, not to proceed with the production phase of the European fighter aircraft programme. It is especially important that we have this opportunity as, in the past few weeks, there has been a disturbingly large amount of ill-informed comment on the subject not only in some sections of the press but in some sections of the Government.
  I hope that it will be useful if I make it plain for those who have commented in the press on the Opposition's position that it does not stem from a knee-jerk reaction which is somehow required of us because of past defence mistakes. While I have the highest regard for the psycho-analytical powers of some commentators in the press, they would be better served studying the objective analysis of future military needs than delving into the supposed psycho-analytical processes of the collective Labour party and its need to prove itself more macho than the Conservatives. I assure the House that that is not the reason we support the continuation of EFA.
  Nor do we believe that the continuation of the EFA is only a matter of jobs or of industry. Again, that is a supposition made by people who are usually more sympathetic to my party but who, for some reason, believe

  605
  that we could not possibly defend the aircraft because in their analysis—which I believe to be mistaken —of the current military situation, it is no longer required. We do not believe that.
  There are two essential points that must be grasped before the relative merits of the project are discussed. First, if the Gulf war taught us nothing else, it taught us that the provision of modern, state-of-the-art air power is an essential ingredient in any successful military operation. It may not be a sufficient condition, but it is increasingly becoming a necessary condition. Therefore, allied air supremacy of itself could not have ended the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, but it ensured the rapid success of the ground operation with the minimum number of casualties in the shortest possible period.
  Secondly, if the United Kingdom is to retain an effective air power capability into the next century, we shall need to undertake a replacement programme for many of our existing aircraft. Anyone who examines the issues objectively must come to that conclusion unless one believes that we no longer need an air force. The RAF's Phantoms and Jaguars, in their respective air defence and offensive support roles, are becoming technically obsolete and will in any case be uneconomic or unsafe to operate by the turn of the century. According to the Select Committee on Defence, our other air defence fighter, the Tornado F3, will also have reached the end of its useful service life by about the year 2005.
  As our equipment is approaching obsolescence, we see the development and proliferation—the latter perhaps being the most important—of a new generation of Soviet-made, latterly Russian-made, aircraft with superior avionics, and greater combat effectiveness. The MiG29 is the most frequently mentioned of those aircraft and, although it entered service with the Soviet air force in 1983, it remains a highly potent threat. This should be of interest to those who think that the dissolution of the Soviet Union necessarily means the wholesale dissolution of the hardware which it produced. The countries currently in possession of MiG29s include several with a proven track record of authoritarianism at best and external aggression at worst—I refer to Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria.
  Although Iraq, for reasons best known to itself and perhaps to some of our airmen, chose not to deploy MiG29s during the Gulf war, it would be naive to assume that they do not pose a considerable threat, or could not be deployed and employed by Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Syria, among others, in future. With the extremely harsh economic conditions being experienced in the former Soviet republics, we must expect—despite our hopes—that these aircraft will become available to other unsavoury clients along with even more sophisticated designs, such as the Su27 and the MiG33.
  Those who have argued that the EFA was designed to meet a threat that no longer exists have missed a vital point. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact no longer exist but their hardware has not evaporated into thin air. It is being acquired increasingly by regimes whose intentions remain suspect to say the least. We would be failing in our duty if we did not take account of that in future provision for our airmen and airwomen.
  The case for a new aircraft that is capable of carrying out both air defence and offensive support missions is
  606
  undeniable. It is incumbent on those who argue against the EFA, including those in the Government—there are those in the Treasury who have been muttering behind their collective hands —to say which other options would fulfil the requirement at a lower cost to the public purse or with a better cost-capability. I issue the challenge because it is perhaps easier for me to do so than the Minister, although I know that the Treasury will have noted his long-term commitment to open government. Against that background I have no doubt that the Treasury will be prepared to come out into the open to tell us which option it would prefer if the EFA were not to proceed.
  Every authoritative survey has arrived at the same conclusion: each of the available options to the EFA is either less capable or more expensive. Some of the options are both less capable and more expensive. Of the American options, the F15s and F16s are both designs of the 1970s and significantly less capable than the aircraft that the EFA is intended to counter. Similarly, the F18 is regarded as a less capable aircraft. It may even have a higher unit cost than the EFA. The remaining American option, the F22, will not be ready for three or four years after the EFA. It is not designed as a multi-role aircraft and it is expected to cost about 60 per cent. more than the EFA. The F22 is certainly the most capable fighter currently under development—we could have disputes about whether the marginal increase in capability is compatible with the supposed 60 per cent. extra cost—and it is unlikely that the United States Government would allow it to be sold abroad for many years. If they did, it is at least questionable, and perhaps highly suspect, whether they would allow the full array of avionics that accompanies the aircraft to be part of the agreement.
  Of the European options. the French Rafale is the most often cited. The French pulled out of the EFA project in 1985 because their requirements for a future fighter differed from ours. The Rafale has therefore been developed primarily as a replacement for the Jaguar in an offensive support role, whereas our priority—mainly but not exclusively—is for an agile air-defence fighter. The Rafale is judged to be a less effective fighter and it is expected to be more expensive than the EFA.
  As I watched some of the interviews that took place last week, especially of Conservative Back-Bench Members, I could not help being suspicious that at least some of their opposition to the EFA was because it was a European collaborative project. It seemed that it was becoming deeply embroiled in the Eurosceptic or anti-European section of Tory Back-Bench Members. I hope that I was wrong. I hope that a judgment was being made purely on the basis of future military need, cost and capability. It seemed, however, that some of the comments were inspired by a deep suspicion of anything that smacked of co-operation between European nations.
  As I said, of the European options the French Rafale has been most often cited, and I have tried to explain why that would not fit the bill for us. Another favourite solution of the EFA sceptics is that we should buy MiG29s and Su27s from Russia because they are the aircraft that we expect to counter. The flaws in that argument are manifold, but there is one that I put above the rest. It is the duty of the Government and of the House to give our airmen equipment that is better than that of our potential enemies and will offer them more than a 50–50 chance of survival in combat. If, within cost-capability limits, we can produce a fighter that will, by objective standards and

  607
  judgments, give an 80–20 chance against MiGs, we would be lacking in our duty to our airmen if we produced one with only a 50–50 chance.
  Secondly, while theoretically the purchase of Russian aircraft would undoubtedly be cheaper initially, it may turn out to be a false economy in the longer run. It is now widely recognised that the airframe life of a MiG29 is estimated to be as little as one third of the airframe life of an EFA. It is also said that the MiG29 is much more expensive to maintain and purchasing countries have already experienced significant problems obtaining spare parts. There appears to be no doubt that long-term servicing support for MiG29s —or, indeed, any other MiG—would be highly suspect.
  Surely the most absurd idea that we have heard over the past two or three weeks is that we should begin to develop from scratch what has become known as a lighter, cheaper aircraft. Given that the whole point of the exercise would be to save money, and given that the £5 billion spent so far on developing EFA would be wasted, the argument cannot stand up under the weight of its own contradictions. Not only would we end up with a less capable aircraft, which would probably cost us more, but it would not be ready for service until many years after the withdrawal of those that it is supposed to replace. Whichever way we look at it, we are driven to the same conclusion—the EFA is the best option available. Surveys show that it is second only to the F22 in fleet and combat effectiveness, and in cost-effectiveness it has a clear lead over the F22.
  Those who have argued for abandonment of the EFA have palpably failed to make a credible case for any alternative programme. As I said earlier, the only sustainable argument that they could make is that we do not really need an air force. If they maintain that we do, the obligation is upon them—commentators, the Treasury, Back Benchers, political analysts and military strategists—to tell us how we could possibly achieve an equally effective fighter at a lesser cost with guaranteed servicing, and which would meet the requirement of the Royal Air Force. They have failed to make any credible case on any of those points for any alternative programme.
  Even if we could achieve the savings sometimes imagined —and they are imagined —they would be dwarfed in public expenditure terms by the devastating effect that they would have on the British economy. I have tried to make plain our view that we base that not purely on either jobs or industry, but also on military and defence requirements. It would be wrong to make the case for the EFA purely or even primarily on the basis of its effect on employment. We should not fall into a trap of seeing defence procurement as some sort of grand job creation scheme. I hope that I have made clear the overwhelming strategic case for the continuation of the EFA programme.
  However, it would be equally wrong of us wholly to exclude economic considerations from the equation, especially as the case against the EFA is supposed to be financial—at least in the arguments of many of those who oppose it. There is not a British-made alternative to the EFA. Any foreign import, even one that involves some workshare arrangement, would lead to the loss of tens of thousands of mainly skilled jobs. In what possible sense would that lead to budgetary savings for the Treasury or the Government?
  We welcome recent orders won for the airbus by British industry but, notwithstanding that, the loss of the EFA would be a major disaster for our aerospace industry. We
  608
  are talking not only about the loss of thousands of jobs, but about the loss of an entire industry; an industry of vital strategic importance to Britain. If the EFA programme is abandoned and we are forced to import the next generation of fighters from abroad, we risk destroying our aerospace industry altogether, civil as well as military, because the two are inextricably interlinked. To put ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers for all time and pay for the privilege would serve neither our security nor our economic interests.
  There may be a case for adjustment of the original numbers of EFAs ordered, and there may even be a dispute between the Government and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen when we come to discuss those numbers—it is widely recognised that there may well be some adjustment to those numbers because the original calculations were made in about 1986 and the world has moved on—and while I would urge the Minister to continue in his efforts to keep the costs of the EFA down, because, obviously, every time we can reduce the cost, the cost capability factor is far more beneficial from everyone's point of view, it remains the Opposition's view that the continuation of the programme is vital for our defence needs and represents the most economical option available.
  If any other option met our defence needs and requirements, saved those numbers of jobs and advanced an industry which is not only strategic but at the forefront of technology, the Opposition, like anyone else, would be prepared to accept it. Thus far, that alternative has not been put forward by anyone inside or outside the House, and until we see it we shall continue to support the Ministry of Defence and trust that we shall be able to ensure that the EFA will be produced and eventually supplied to the Royal Air Force.
  12.56 am
  Mr. John Wilkinson: We all owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) for introducing this important debate. He has, as is his wont, done much research and produced thoughtful and cogent arguments in favour of pursuing the European fighter aircraft programme to a successful conclusion whereby it is purchased by Her Majesty's Government to enter service with the Royal Air Force, where I am sure that it will fulfil an invaluable and essential function.
  It is a comment on our somewhat arcane parliamentary practices that a debate on the single most important military procurement issue of our time should take place in the middle of the night by virtue of an initiative of this kind under the Consolidated Fund Bill. It would have been better if we had been able to have the two-day defence debate before the summer recess. Over the years, I have always argued that the White Paper should be published as near to the spring as possible. In that way we could have a debate before we all disappeared for the recess and if there were a major issue hanging over us, as is the case now with the future of EFA, we could dispose of it in a proper manner and in the right time scale.
  I do not wish to be over-critical because, by our presence in the long watches of the night, we have shown that we seek not so much to be in our beds but to be vigilant and evidently concerned for the future defence of our country and our country's defence industrial base.

  609
  That said, I must wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's robust reply to the private notice question on Tuesday, following the visit to the United Kingdom of the Defence Minister of the Federal German Republic, Herr Volker Rae. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend's replies were admirable. They showed an unequivocal personal commitment—as well as an unequivocal commitment on the part of the Ministry—to this important programme. They also showed a clear determination to take on all corners, from the Treasury or from other quarters, who might make his life difficult over the future of the European fighter aircraft, the Panther, or Panthera, as I prefer to call it.
  The German Government's decision to withdraw from the production of the project once the development phase has been completed poses a challenge to us, but we may well obtain commensurate benefits. I hope that the production process will be rationalised. The proliferation of assembly lines and flight test centres never made much sense; nor did the strong desire—which was put into effect —to re-invent the management wheel by having a Eurofighter organisation in addition to the Panavia one. Eurofighter could have grown organically from Panavia, as the Airbus consortium was able to produce a whole family of Airbus aeroplanes. The creation of a NATO European Fighter Management Agency, NEFMA, when there was already a NATO Aircraft Management Agency, NAMA, to manage Tornado also struck me as unnecessary.
  Those are little quibbles relating to the past, however. We must now show that there is a requirement which really needs to be met. There is a strong temptation to be project-led—to be so keen to replace particular aeroplanes, in this case the Phantom, the Jaguar and the Tornado F3, that we lose strategic perspective and may forget what we are actually seeking to do. We are seeking to procure for the United Kingdom—and, we hope, for our Italian and Spanish friends, and the Germans if they come to their senses—the most flexible instrument to project military power, not only within the NATO theatre but, if need be, outside it, to deter aggression and to secure our commercial and strategic interests and our security.
  In recent years, we have seen—from Korea through the Arab-Israeli wars, through the Falklands conflict to the Gulf campaign—that air power is critical to the security of the west and for the preservation of our values and our way of life. Consciously to forgo the most effective instrument available to us for the pursuit of such a strategy would indeed be perverse.
  I go so far as to say that if the worst comes to the worst we ought to be prepared as a nation to build EFA alone. I hope that our Ministers will, by means of good diplomacy and by maintaining effective collaboration, make certain that the Italians and the Spanish stay in the programme. If not, however, I believe that the industrial and military stakes are so high that we ought ultimately to be prepared to go it alone. In the last analysis, there is no task more crucial than preserving the peace and defending the integrity of these islands. We discovered that just over 50 years ago, at the time of the battle of Britain, and the lessons learnt then are just as real today.
  610
  In the 1920s and 1930s, there were those who thought that we could afford to disarm. They were disabused of the idea in a most painful way—it was a close-run thing.
  As the gestation time of modern combat aircraft is so long, it behoves us to make the appropriate dispositions now, and not to throw away the advantage that we have gained from all the time, effort and investment already put into the development phase. Nor do I believe that we should allow the Swedes and the French a virtual monopoly in western Europe of the construction capability for high performance military aircraft. We should stay in the business ourselves.
  There may have to be commensurate savings in the defence budget, because at a time of negative growth it will not be easy for the Treasury to provide additional funds. If so, we ought to look to where the problem lies—to Germany itself. If the German Defence Minister is correct, then the threat to his country in central Europe is greatly diminished by the end of the cold war, the break-up and dissolution of the Warsaw pact, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union into its constituent republics, many of which now have values similar to our own. If that changes the security situation in central Europe so dramatically, especially if the Russians withdraw from eastern Germany and Poland on schedule—and ultimately, one earnestly hopes, from the Baltic states, too—any savings necessary should be made in the forces we intend to maintain in Germany. Those forces are relatively inflexible and costly in foreign exchange, whereas a combat aircraft is infinitely flexible. It is essential for the defence of these islands and it can be projected rapidly around the globe to wherever it is required. The same cannot be said of tanks by the banks of the Rhine.
  I repeat that we owe the hon. Member for Motherwell, North a debt of gratitude, and that we appreciate the firm and rational stance of the Government to date. I shall not repeat the arguments so well expressed by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, but I will express my personal commitment to the success of the programme. I want to see the Panther flying in Royal Air Force colours and, it is to be hoped, in Italian and Spanish colours—perhaps even in German colours, too. I believe that it will sell in substantial numbers around the globe, because there is no other aeroplane in its class.
  1.7 am
  Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in the debate, and I reiterate the congratulations offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on securing the debate and allowing us to discuss this important topic, even at this late hour. I am grateful that the project has cross-party support. Its chances of going ahead are greater as a result of that support.
  Over the decades aircraft projects have always had a drama and excitement about them, and not a little political controversy, too. I remember most poignantly from the past the TSR2 project. I joined the Air Force four months before the aircraft was cancelled—I, together with a number of others, had been recruited specifically to fly it. I saw it fly once, then it was cancelled by the incoming Labour Government.
  I recently read Lord Jenkins's autobiography, and until then I had not appreciated how close the decision was on

  611
  whether to cancel TSR2 or Concorde. One reason that the former course was chosen was that the TSR2 was a national project and Concorde a collaborative project. The latter may, by their very nature, be difficult to devise initially, but once the partners have been assembled, the contract makes it difficult for them to pull out. That is how it should be. Aircraft contracts span decades, whereas Governments and individual politicians have much shorter lives.
  As to the EFA, we are currently tightly tied—as are the three other nations—to its development phase. Its cost is about £7 billion, split between the four partners dependent upon the number of aircraft that they said at the beginning that they wanted to purchase. Thirty three per cent. of that cost will be borne by ourselves, the same percentage by the Germans, 21 per cent. by the Italians and the remainder by the Spanish.
  Many billions of pounds have already been spent by the German Government on developing the EFA. They and the new German Defence Minister, Herr Volker Rühe, make it clear that Germany intends to remain in the programme. Herr Rühe pointed that out to me on Monday, when he confirmed that the first prototype will take off from a German airfield at the beginning of next year.
  Given that the Germans will remain in the programme —which lasts until 1998—they will spend more than £2 billion developing an aircraft that they accept they will not put into production. It is worth bearing in mind that they do not have to decide until midway through next year—when all four partners will determine whether to go ahead with the EFA's production, dependent on the progress of the development programme and, more specifically, how the aircraft flies.
  I believe that most right hon. Members agree that that picture is very different from the one painted by the newspapers over the past two weeks. If one believed the leader writers, even in the better newspapers, one would think that Germany had totally withdrawn from the project. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the very time that those words were being printed, the Bundestag had voted £300 million in this coming year's federal budget for the EFA's further development.
  In analysing why Herr Rühe said that Germany would not produce the aircraft, it is worth considering the original requirement. I will not reiterate the points made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North but I will add to them. Despite the German Defence Minister's comments, I believe that the requirement itself is more relevant today than in 1985, and not, as the Germans would have us believe, the other way round.
  Built into the EFA requirement was not only the need to move out of area but sufficient range to deal with threats—particularly in Africa and the middle east. That was prompted not only by us but by the Italians and Spaniards, who said that their countries were threatened just as much from the south as from the east. If nothing else, that demonstrates the problem of analysing the German's present position.
  The Germans maintain that, because the threat has changed, there is no longer a need for such a large, long-range aircraft. However, one could argue that, as a result of the changing threat, there is a greater need for such an aircraft.
  If the threat is less than before, we must bear in mind that the capacity —the aircraft opposing NATO which
  612
  EFA was designed to deter—has not changed. As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North said, the MiG27s, MiG29s, Su27s and MiG33s are increasingly being dispersed around the rim of the Mediterranean. That is a potent potential threat.
  If the German Government honestly believe that they can meet that threat, which they will have to in the NATO context, with a smaller, lighter and inferior aircraft, they have got their calculations totally wrong. When the German Defence Minister made that point, he also said that the rest of the German armed forces—apart from the Luftwaffe—would have to become more mobile and more able to move to the peripheries of NATO and, provided that they changed their constitution, even beyond the edge of NATO.
  I believe that there is a big conflict between what the German Defence Minister said and the reality of the next five or 10 years. A much more rational reason for the German decision is that it is based on short-term politics and, more specifically, the popularity of the Christian Democratic Union and, in financial terms, the problems that it will have with the budget over the next two or three years in respect of reunification. I believe that the smaller, lighter aircraft is simply a paper exercise to keep the German aerospace industry quiet.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, North made a very good point about the alternatives. Looking at the other options and off-the-shelf purchases—the only option for the Germans if they do not want the EFA—I agree with the hon. Member. If we analyse the alternatives aircraft by aircraft, none of them comes up to the EFA's specifications. The exception is the F22, but that is very expensive. The newspapers failed to point out that the F22 is not actually for sale. It contains much technology that the Americans would not like any nation—and certainly not the Germans and the others—to take on board just yet. The F22 is not an alternative to the EFA.
  I want now to consider some of the consequences of the German withdrawal from the production phase of the project. The programme is going to be disrupted. A four-nation programme, with all the involved management referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, is bound to be disrupted if 33 per cent. of the project is removed. That will cause problems, particularly in respect of the teams that have been brought together for specific purposes, for example, in respect of the fly-by-wire system and the compressor for the engine, both of which are the responsibility of the German contingent.
  However, savings can be made by reducing the tooling up of a reduced number of production lines. A larger number of contracts can be awarded based on cost rather than work-share arrangements. There should be consider-able savings in respect of the project's cost that fully outweigh the smaller production which will increase costs. The two should balance out: the smaller production line against the cost reductions, because fewer units will be needed.
  There is another point: if we decided that one of the member states had to leave the project in order to keep the costs down, we would choose the Germans because their production costs are between 20 and 25 per cent. higher than ours and those of the Italians.
  We can produce the aircraft as cheaply or nearly as cheaply without the Germans as we can with them. Equally, the reasons for the Germans withdrawing do not

  613
  relate to the other two countries that remain with us in the project. They do not have the same problems with budgets and reunifications. They also stated in their original specifications that they need an aircraft with a longer range that can operate over the Mediterranean. There is no reason at the moment to suggest that either of the other two countries would, in any foreseeable circumstances, want to withdraw from the project.
  What should we do now? We should do very little. We are in the development programme. No decisions have to be made about the production programme until midway through next year. All that we have to do is sit tight. By all means, we should listen to any suggestions from Germany about the new lighter, inferior fighter, but I strongly recommend my hon. Friend the Minister to ask for further and better particulars of that aircraft, just to see what it actually amounts to. Bearing in mind the stringent economic requirements put on it by the German Defence Minister, that it will cost the same as the EFA and, taking into account the remaining development funds available in the programme, we will end up with a brand new Hawk 200 as a result of that exercise. We are still developing the EFA, the Germans are still paying for it, and, half way through next year it will become only too clear that the production of the EFA is the most cost-effective solution for the Royal Air Force and the other two air forces remaining in the project.
  Like the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, I have not based my argument on employment or technology reasons. Those matters are important in my area of Lancashire, where jobs and technology are at stake. British Aerospace is the high-tech part of Lancashire. Without it, we would be in a sorry state. The project represents the right aircraft for the three air forces. I end on a personal note. I have mentioned factories around Preston. I have flown every aircraft that those factories have produced and that the Air Force has bought since the war—the Canberra, the Lightning, the Jaguar and the Tornado. I have no doubt that, when British Aerospace gets around to producing a two-seater, I shall be able to have a trip in that as well.
  1.22 am
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Like my hon. Friends, I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on initiating the debate and on his well-informed and well-researched speech. We have heard three excellent speeches, and I do not want to duplicate the points that have already been made. I should like, first, to dig a little deeper into the German question—what exactly is the German stance on the EFA and what implications does it have'? Secondly, I shall refer briefly to the case for the EFA and, thirdly, discuss where we go from here in a slightly wider context.
  In several speeches on defence procurement, I have tried to stress that the spirit of a defence contract is as important as the letter. For example, even with an ordinary national contract, it is important in respect of intellectual property rights that, if a certain company has developed a good idea, even if the idea is the property of the Ministry of Defence, it is almost always right to let the company that has come up with it go as far as the production phase, because it will do it best. That means
  614
  that there is an added incentive for excellence in the industry. We saw the best form of spirit coming out of our defence contractors in the Falklands war and the Gulf conflict, with the extra mile and the extra mile beyond the extra mile to which they were willing to go in supporting British armed forces.
  The central problem with the EFA project is the fact that the Germans have so manifestly breached the spirit that lies behind the contract, and breached it in a fashion that we should find profoundly worrying in ways that go well beyond the contract.
  In order to see the size of the breach, we have to look, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) has just done, at the words of Chancellor Kohl and Herr Volker Rühe and their approach to the project. They have continuously reminded us of the disjunction and the great change in Europe as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. They and, indeed, the press have made many references to the terrifically changed climate in Germany. There is overwhelming opposition among the German people and in their Parliament to the project.
  However, no serious effort has been made to address the military position. If the EFA is not appropriate, what is appropriate? I have heard nothing from any German source about what possible threat any aircraft that could be purchased for the Luftwaffe, even only the Hawk 200, would be supposed to face. We certainly have not heard any discussion of what aeroplanes such an aircraft could expect to face. We now hear that the Germans are seeking a new format for which there is no intellectual basis whatever.
  The problem for Britain is that our most important European ally appears to have closed its eyes completely. The Germans are fulfilling the letter of the contract. They are paying a lot of money to complete the development. But we have to realise that by withdrawing from the production phase because of sheer emotion—to put it bluntly, sheer political pressure—without making any effort to examine the military rationale for any subsequent course of action, the Germans have changed. That is important.
  Germany has been overwhelmingly the most important continental European prop for NATO in the past. It is also the paymaster of the EC. In the past generation, while the French have been in "internal exile" within NATO—nominally a member but outside the command—Britain and America have looked to Germany as the main continental prop for NATO. The fact that the Germans have treated the most important collaborative venture within European NATO in this fashion has profound consequences for foreign as well as defence policy. We must address those consequences.
  My second question goes back to back with the German issue. Why do we need the European fighter aircraft'? We have heard cogent expositions already in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. We must remember how dangerous the world is. Two conflicts are going on side by side in Yugoslavia. In Moldova a bloody little war is going on which is not being reported on television screens. Fighting in Azerbaijan continues sporadically. Nuclear technology is spreading into Algeria, Libya, Syria and Iraq.
  We do not know how long Boris Yeltsin will last. Mr Gorbachev disappeared in a hurry. We can only admire

  615
  Boris Yeltsin for the way in which he overcame the coup, but he may not last long and, if he does not, we do not know who his successors will be. Of course, the military capability remains in Russia. A formidable array of aircraft remains in Russia, as well as all the countries to which the Russians have sold them.
  In Britain we are trying to make a desperately difficult decision. A substantial peace dividend has been extracted from our defence budget in the past five years. The percentage of gross domestic product that we spend on defence has fallen by a quarter in the past five years.
  What should be our approach to the EFA? I share the view of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North that we must have the EFA. We must have it ultimately for the reason expressed by Enoch Powell in an article in The Field, which has been largely overlooked. He said that if one has only a limited amount of money which cannot possibly cover all the commitments and all the things that we should like to buy, one must give priority to projects with the longest lead time for rebuilding. In reality, that means that the Air Force comes first, the Navy second and the Army last—I come from a long line of soldiers—and land forces have to put a greater reliance on reserves.
  In a modern world, in which aerospace technology has travelled so far, armed forces without a modern fighter are not worth having. That is the central case for having a modern aeroplane. and the only one on offer that can fit the bill, I am afraid, is the EFA. That is why I share the view that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre has just articulated so clearly, that even if we have to go it alone on the EFA, it is worth doing.
  I also endorse the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood when they said that many of the extra costs associated with a shorter production run can be balanced by eliminating the vast amount of extra work involved in trying to produce the parts in four different places, and with the vast costs in paperwork and inefficiencies in project management that stem from being based in four different languages and places. The biggest loss through costs of scale is in the development phase, which we do not have to worry about. The case for going ahead with the EFA is overwhelming.
  On the industrial and defence side, we must go ahead with the EFA. It can be done within a reasonable price. We must be clear that if we go ahead with the project, within a shrunken defence budget, the Royal Air Force must look to other areas to save money, because it has not suffered the same cuts in manpower as the other two services. The manpower of the Army and Navy is so overstretched that it is beginning seriously to affect the morale of soldiers and sailors, who see their families more and more rarely. The Air Force must take its share of manpower cuts to help to pay for this machine.
  I hope and believe that we shall build the aircraft, but we must not lose sight of the frightening wider implications of the German withdrawal from the EFA. The fact that the country has so strongly, emotionally and irrationally turned against the project, and that the German leadership has buckled in the face of political pressure, should worry us severely.
  There is no Consolidated Fund debate on Yugoslavia, although a British warship has been sent, and British troops are on the ground there in various non-combatant roles; and at a time when emotions, largely stemming from
  616
  Germany, persuaded the countries of the west—wrongly, in my view—to recognise Croatia, it should worry us that our most important European ally is apparently being driven by emotion. I welcome the Government's stance. I shall not stray too far from the strict confines of the debate, but I welcome the sensible and cautious view that the British Government are taking on developments in Yugoslavia.
  During the next few weeks and months it will be important for us to remember that we are dealing with an ally whose attitude towards defence has changed profoundly, and their attitude to foreign policy too. I fear. A great deal may be required of our political leadership during the next few months to keep rational thinking alive in Europe, and to remain strong in our capabilities and cautious in our willingness to use them. It looks as though Britain may have to adopt that role, as the only country in western Europe which still espouses what used to be the view of NATO as a whole—that we do not want to deploy force unless we have to, but we have the force there if we need it. That has been the traditional NATO stance, and I am glad that it remains British policy. I am also glad that we are firmly committed to developing the EFA.
  1.34 am
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) for instigating the debate. In common with those who have already spoken, I shall not put the case for the EFA simply on the grounds of jobs. We would be insane, however, if we did not recognise the jobs and skills implications behind any decision. Should the Germans decide not to continue with production, which looks increasingly likely, they will make a false economy if they look for a cheaper aircraft.
  This week Volker Rühe addressed Members of the House and I was singularly unimpressed with his arguments for not continuing with the production of the EFA. I am proud that we have participated in a project that will produce an aircraft with the technology suited to the next century.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Motherwell, North included me when he spoke of some hon. Members who have doubts about European union and who see the EFA problem as a reason for not going ahead with that. I should much prefer to see four countries acting in unison to produce the aircraft so that we retain a defence capability which can compete with the Americans and the Russians. It would be a mistake and short-sighted to argue that we should buy our equipment off the shelf from the Americans and the Russians. Such a decision would have dangerous implications for defence and our defence equipment manufacturing capability.
  Hon. Members will know that British Aerospace has a factory in my constituency. Many of its workers would feel that their jobs were under threat should the Germans pull out. Given the all-party support for the project, I cannot imagine that the Government would decide to pull out of it. But were that to happen, imagine how difficult it would be to build up our skills base again once it had been lost. If the Germans decide to buy their aircraft off the shelf from another country, they will be exporting German jobs and future skills to other countries.
  I strongly believe that one gets what one pays for, no matter what it is. Volker Rühe said that one must decide

  617
  what one can afford to pay and then discover what one can get. That is an extremely naive approach. When it comes to the defence of the European alliance, the last thing one wants to do is to end up with an aircraft that is less capable than that of one's aggressor. That is what would happen were we to choose a less capable aircraft.
  I was proud to visit Germany recently with colleagues from all parties to try to persuade our German parliamentarians of the need to continue the EFA project. Many of them appreciated the need for the EFA and were searching for ways in which to continue in that project. They know that, like Britain, Germany will need a replacement aircraft sooner rather than later. If we can act in unison on that project that would benefit all of us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned that much has changed in the past three years and said how easily things could change again. Who could have predicted the break-up of the Soviet Union in such a short time? Who can say what will happen over the eight years that it will take us to reach the year 2000? We need to be prepared for all eventualities. There have been options to save and I am sure that all parties have looked at them. However, there is no option to axe. We should all work as hard as we can to persuade those who need to be persuaded—whether it is the Germans or people on our own side—of the need for the EFA project to continue, and of the fact that this is the best course for Britain and the best course for Europe.
  1.40 am
  Mr. Harold Elletson: I, too, am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell. North (Dr. Reid) for drawing this issue to the attention of the House, because it is one which concerns the large number of my constituents who work at British Aerospace plants in Lancashire. I want to pick up on one or two of the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). In doing so. I pay tribute to the remarkable all-party campaign mounted in defence of the European fighter aircraft project, largely through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre.
  My hon. Friend mentioned what he perceived as being the main underlying political reason for the German withdrawal—that the German Government think that the threat in Europe and the world has changed. That is right, but it has not diminished, and the German Government seem not to be sufficiently aware of that point. The House has a great understanding of the tremendous insecurity that has arisen in Europe as a result of the break-up of the former Soviet Union. We can all cite areas—Moldova, the Baltic states, the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, the various Muslim states—n which conflict could arise at any moment for a number of reasons which we cannot, perhaps, immediately call to mind but which make the whole region unstable.
  What is even more worrying than the growing political instability in the region is the other issue which has resulted from the break-up of the Soviet Union—the proliferation of the sale of former Soviet Union military technology, advice, hardware and expertise to out-of-area countries, particularly third world countries. I am aware, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, of a number of recent instances of former Soviet military and
  618
  security service personnel being involved in the sale of nuclear materials and military technology, advice and hardware to third world states which we would regard as unsavoury.
  What worries me about the German Government's attitude is that they seem not to be taking any notice of the dangers inherent in the situation. They seem not to understand the responsibility that we in Europe have for the defence of freedom out of area. That is something which is always at the forefront of our thinking, and this attitude leads one to question the German Government's motives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said.
  What underlies the fears of my hon. Friends about the German Government's withdrawal from the EFA project is the suspicion that it is part of a somewhat wider shift in German foreign policy which may lead them not to amend their constitution to allow German armed forces to take part in out-of-area activities with NATO. That must be of great concern to the House because if that is right, we should know about it. We should question the German Government in detail about that. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give that matter careful consideration and make our concerns known to the German Government?
  1.45 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief as I have come from Committee. I share the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) who, like me, wore the light blue uniform of the Royal Air Force earlier in their lives. There is no question but that RAF crews, particularly pilots, would expect the RAF to have an aircraft that could compete on at least favourable, if not better, terms with an opposition aircraft that they were likely to meet in the skies.
  No one denies the fact that the RAF requires an air superiority, agile aircraft. Some people suggest that we should buy the F22, which is a fine aircraft. Whether the Americans will ever sell it to anyone must be questionable, but even if they were to, it is an expensive aeroplane and is probably much more sophisticated than we require. I doubt whether we shall ever fight the Americans, so that aircraft will not be an enemy aircraft. The likely enemy aircraft are those that have their origins in the former Soviet Union, and they will become more available in those parts of the world where we would rather they were not.
  Experience in the Gulf demonstrated clearly that if one has command of the skies, the ground casualties can be relatively light. The RAF must have the European fighter aircraft for that reason, if no other. But there is also the issue of Britain's base in the aerospace industry, and the high technology involved in manufacturing the EFA, particularly technology in the use of composite materials, is something that we abandon at our peril. In addition, the aircraft will carry modern avionics and a range of weapon systems. Therefore, there is no question but that the RAF needs the EFA. The doubters should remember that, in 1940 the Luftwaffe would have been delighted to have bought the Spitfire, and I judge that, in future, it would be happy to buy the EFA.
  1.47 am
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): This has been a debate remarkable for its quality, expertise and thoughtfulness, and I shall do my best to respond to the—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The Minister requires the leave of the House to speak again. I am sure that it will be granted, but we must go through the motions.
  Mr. Aitken: With the leave of the House, I should like to begin by associating the Government and the House with the kind and thoughtful words of condolence that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) expressed to the families of the late Flight Lieutenant Henderson and his missing navigator. They were the crew members of the Buccaneer that so sadly crashed on training earlier today. I know that the House will wish to join in those expressions of sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives in that tragic accident.
  The hon. Gentleman began by drawing attention to the unity of view of the two Front Bench teams on the EFA. That unity is valuable, much appreciated and remarkable for the Labour party. The EFA was planned as a peacekeeper, but I am sure that, even in their wildest dreams, its designers did not think that, long before it flew, it would become a peacekeeper for the Labour party, whose defence policies have hitherto been more notable for discord than for harmony. However, I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth and I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. He showed sound military and strategic sense. I agreed with almost every word that he said.
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and for Tayside. North (Mr. Walker) for their contributions. It has been a debate of experts. We have heard a wealth of aviation, military, Anglo-German and Lancastrian expertise.
  The calm and thoughtful nature of the debate is in sharp contrast to much of the debate outside, because many commentators seem to be flying by the seat of their pants, often through a fog of ignorance about an aircraft that has not yet flown.
  My hon. Friends spoke about the threat to which the EFA is being built to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood put it well when he said that air power is critical for the security of the west. The international security environment has changed radically since the EFA was originally conceived. The direct threat posed by the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union has disappeared. However, the EFA will be in service throughout the first quarter of the next century and the world could be a very different place by 2020. That is why it is important to look at capabilities rather than intentions and at a realistic assessment of the scenarios that might unfold on the international scene over the next quarter of a century.
  We all recognise that there is considerable and growing instability in areas adjacent to NATO within and outside Europe. There is ethnic and territorial conflict in eastern Europe and within the former Soviet Union, where the race between the new democracy and a return to the old despotism with new faces could yet be close run.
  620
  The middle east remains unpredictable and, despite the collapse of the former monolithic threat posed by the Soviet Union, there still exists a number of risks to security and the United Kingdom could be involved in joint military action with our allies designed to promote stability or halt aggression. It is essential for our armed forces to be fully equipped to cope with any emergency requiring military intervention.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North spoke about large numbers of sophisticated aircraft being sold around the world. There has been a widespread export drive. The MiG29 Fulcrum has been delivered to all former Warsaw pact countries except Hungary and to some other countries including Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and former Yugoslavia. The Su27 Flanker has been sold to China. The Russians are also developing new fighters, including improved variants of the Su27 and the MiG29 which could be exported. Observant hon. Members may have read in the technical press of a recent briefing by the Mikoyan design bureau about the remarkable capabilities of the MiG33. Many sophisticated American aircraft have also been sold in the middle east and elsewhere.
  Against that background, an aircraft of EFA's capability is essential to match potential threat aircraft. We need to provide an effective defence of the UK and of British forces wherever they may be deployed. Our current air defence aircraft, the Tornado F3, was designed to intercept bombers at long range. It does not have the agility to defeat hostile agile fighters in the former Soviet arsenal. It is not a suitable match for aircraft such as the MiG29 and Su27, let alone future upgrades of these types or even more modern Russian aircraft.
  Thus there is a need for an agile aircraft with a modern radar, other sensors to enable it to exploit modern weapons, and a sophisticated electronic warfare suite to enable it to survive. Today's greater emphasis on NATO rapid reaction forces reinforces the case for a multi-role capability. Multi-role aircraft should offer economies in support and operational flexibility. It is not surprising, therefore, that the chiefs of air staff of the four EFA partner nations, including Germany, reaffirmed as recently as 10 March that they considered that the requirement for an aircraft of the EFA's capabilities was still valid.
  The recent visit of Herr Rühe has attracted much comment in the debate. As the House is aware, Herr Rühe, the German Defence Minister, visited London on 6 July. He told my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and myself that Germany did not intend to proceed with the production of the EFA and would like to redirect the unspent EFA development money to the construction of a completely new smaller aircraft with much lower production costs for delivery about the end of the century, just two years after the date planned for the EFA. The Germans wish that activity to be undertaken collaboratively by the present EFA partners and perhaps also France. He confirmed, however, that Germany would nevertheless honour its obligations under the memorandum of understanding to complete the remainder of the present development phase which will continue until 1999.
  Herr Rühe cited two reasons for his interest in a new but less capable aircraft. First, he said that Germany would have difficulty accommodating the cost of producing the EFA in its budget, alongside the heavy expenditure it faces for reconstruction of the former GDR. Secondly, he considers that since the threat of a massive

  621
  Warsaw pact attack, against which the EFA was originally designed, has completely disappeared, an aircraft of the EFA's capability is now an anachronism.
  I found Herr Rühe a captivating and charismatic political personality, but I thought that his EFA Lite thinking—as it is known—was seriously flawed on economic and military grounds. As I listened to him, his performance reminded me of what is perhaps one of the most dramatic moments in Wagner's great opera "Das Rheingold" when Donner, the god of lightning and thunder strides on to the stage with a hammer which he whirls above his head. He brings it down on the anvil with an ear-splitting crash and, at that moment, the clouds roll away, there is clarity in the sky and the shining Valhalla appears. One realises that a great moment of truth has arrived. The difference with Herr Rate's performance is that his hammer blow had the opposite effect to Milner's: instead of the clouds rolling away, there was a thickening of the clouds; instead of clarity, there was obscurity; and instead of the shining Valhalla or EFA, one could see only an absurd spatchcock political contraption known as EFA Lite.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre was right to pour a little political scorn on the nature of a fairly transparent device. The smaller aircraft that Herr Rühe is proposing could not, using present technology, possibly provide the performance needed in the air defence role to match potential threat aircraft. There is no point in building an aircraft which cannot do the job that we require of it. If we introduced EFA Lite, the old SAS motto "Who dares wins" would create a new motto for the RAF, "Who flies loses". We would be sending our pilots up, destined to lose in combat.
  Moreover, it is unrealistic on financial grounds to think that, given the seven years and £5 billion which we have jointly already effectively spent on the development of the EFA, developing a completely new aircraft could be any cheaper than continuing with the present EFA airframe and engine combination or that it could be done in half the time of the EFA programme. We would have to go back to the drawing board. It would mean throwing away the EFA prototypes and engines and repeating much of the development work which, together with the preliminary studies, has taken us seven years to reach the present point.
  What Herr Rühe is suggesting is likely to result in an inferior product, some five to eight years later than the EFA and costing more rather than less. It would be like building an expensive loser, and I think that that description would stand even if we followed the good advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and sought further and better particulars. I think the more we got of those further and better particulars, the more we would find that my description and that of many hon. Members was correct.
  I shall say a word about the costs, which are central to the project. The EFA is admittedly an expensive programme. The United Kingdom's share of development amounts to about £2·7 billion and if we were to buy 250 aircraft, which is the number we forecast at the start of the programme, it would cost us another £9 billion for production. Therefore, there is a common interest on the part of all four partners in getting the costs down. We are determined to do just that, but, before Germany's decision
  622
  not to proceed to the production of the EFA, we had agreed to seek ways to reduce the costs of the programme to make it affordable to all the partners.
  The German Ministry of Defence is not unique in having pressures on its budget. We have already made encouraging progress in identifying savings, and industry had unilaterally offered a 5 per cent. cut in its production prices before the present German demarche occurred. We believe that there are further savings to be made, and we shall continue to examine them in co-operation with our partners.
  The best way forward must be to build on our investment in the EFA, not to throw it away. If Germany perceives a reduced threat, it can by all means opt to fit less capable equipment in the aircraft, but a new airframe and new engines at this stage is merely a recipe for delay and extra expense. The delay involved would not only add to the cost but would cause massive disruption to the aerospace industry in the four EFA nations. Indeed, it is questionable whether, when the time came, the capability would still exist to build the new aircraft that Germany has proposed. Technological development is an ongoing capacity. We cannot put it down and expect to start again with it intact several years later. My hon. Friends who represent Lancashire constituencies are well aware of that. Nor can we keep aircraft factories idle for up to five years and then expect to find a skilled labour force that is ready and waiting to start work again. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley, for Blackpool, North and for Wyre all know that if we take the present German route there would almost certainly be serious disruption and reduced employment prospects and technical skills in factories in their constituencies.
  Dr. Reid: I know that the Minister is pushed for time and I do not want to delay him for long. All of the discussion tonight has focused on the British and German angles on the EFA. Will he take the opportunity to tell us whether he is aware of the latest developments in the thinking of the Italians, especially in view of their budget deficit and the cuts that they have made in the past few days?
  Mr. Aitken: I shall be glad to deal with those matters in a moment.
  The House will want to know what we propose to do in the light of the meeting of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State with Herr Rühe earlier this week. We are talking, of course, about a collaborative programme that involves four partners. Perhaps there are only three partners now, but we are not sure of even that yet. First, we need to discuss Germany's stated position with our partners. We need also to discuss any detailed proposals that Germany may make about the smaller aircraft that Herr Rühe has been suggesting. We think that the first priority is for my right hon. and learned Friend to meet his Italian and Spanish colleagues at the earliest opportunity to discuss the implications of the EFA programme in the light of the German decision. The signs that have come from the Italian and Spanish Governments have been distinctly encouraging. Robust views have been expressed in support of the aircraft. However, all Governments are committed to attempting to reduce costs. All the three remaining partners are determined to meet at the earliest opportunity, and I think that an announcement

  623
  about such a meeting will he made shortly. As partners, we wish coolly and calmly to find the right way ahead for the project.
  We shall take a measured approach. The signs are that our partners wish also to take that approach. They do not wish to waste, as the German Government appear to be willing to do, the £5 billion that has already been spent on development. We all feel that it would he wrong to rush into decisions about the EFA before we are sure that what is proposed represents the most cost-effective way forward, that it represents value for money and that it is affordable for all the Governments concerned. We shall not know this until we have examined and debated all the options with our EFA partners.
  It was always the plan and the timetable that these matters would be discussed when the development phase reached its end, or moved towards it, early next year. We are now having discussions a little earlier than expected. Germany has said that it will continue to meet its obligations in the development of the EFA, and final discussions about production are still some way off. It remains the Government's hope that we shall be able to continue with the programme with or without Germany. As one of my hon. Friends said, we are optimistic that, even if we were to go ahead with a three-nation programme only, the costs would be no more than they were planned to be had Germany not withdrawn from the project.
  As the debate has shown, the EFA project has profound industrial, political, strategic and economic implications, as well as fundamental military ones, which I have been outlining and concentrating upon tonight. Decisions on its future will therefore rightly be subjected to intense scrutiny and debate within the Government, in the House, in the country generally and by all our EFA partners. We should welcome that debate, which can be a well-informed one only if the facts are coolly and quietly analysed. The aircraft has not yet flown, but some of those who are talking and writing about it seem to have become airborne far too excitably and far too soon. I believe that tonight's debate has been a welcome contrast to some of the ill-informed debate that has taken place outside the House. As I have said, the debate has shown real expertise and knowledge among Members. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North for initiating it and for his lucid presentation. I hope that I have answered all my hon. Friends' questions. I trust that I have indicated that we think that a calm, thoughtful and positive way forward can be found in conjunction with our remaining EFA partners.

  Population Policy
  2.4 am
  Mr. Anthony Steen: It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad of the opportunity to raise a matter which should concern not only this House, but all the Parliaments of the European Community. It is slightly strange that this matter should be discussed immediately after a debate about the European fighter aircraft. It is as though nobody has noticed that the cold war with Russia has ended and that the biggest threat to world survival is not bombs or fighter aircraft, but people. The problem is that there are too many people. It is not an external problem—it is within man himself. It is the very way man has been designed that puts the globe at risk and the future of human life in jeopardy.
  I will explain the scale of the problem. First, three babies are born every second. While I have been speaking for the past two or three minutes, many hundreds of babies have been born. Some 300,000 babies are born every day, and there are 90 million new mouths to feed every year. In a little more than 50 years, it is estimated that the world population will have doubled from the present 5·.4 billion to 10 billion in the year 2050.
  Sir Crispin Tickell put it very well when he said:
  "the logic is relentless. This animal—you and 1—cannot continue to multiply, consume more natural resources, and do more environmental damage indefinitely. Our long suffering earth simply cannot take it."
  We have a global problem, which can be tackled only by international action. It is only a total world effort that can stop the world community committing hara kiri.
  Just as we are mutually assured of destruction if we do not control weapons, so we are mutually assured of destruction if we do not take action on the population problem. When Nietzsche said that the world is a great death cell he must have foreseen man's potential for massive self-destruction—not creating anything outside that will destroy him, but destroying himself inside. Suicide is no longer about bombs or fighter aircraft, but about the manufacture of too many babies for the world's natural resources to sustain.
  The world can sustain 5 billion people, which is the present population, but the train is moving inevitably forward and we cannot stop the world population doubling to 10 million by the year 2050. The question is whether we can stop the world population tripling. If we cannot, the world cannot sustain itself with its current natural resources because they will have been exhausted.
  This is a world problem which requires a supranational response. The European Community is one of the world's greatest trading and economic blocks. It must take the lead, force the pace, and drive forward the programme to curtail the onward movement of the train and the seemingly unstoppable growth in the world's population. The EC should not just be imposing the optimum length of the cucumber, considering whether federalism is desirable, or determining fish quotas.
  The debate on fish quotas is nevertheless illuminating. We are running out of fish. Too many people want fish and there has been overfishing. Already, the EC is having to curtail the amount of fish caught because the demand for fish by the ever-increasing population cannot be sustained. Fish quotas are an early warning of the problem. We need to realise that our fishing problems are the result of an

  625
  ever-growing and demanding population. During our presidency of the EC, we should be moving towards a new priority on the world agenda in terms of how to deal with the world population.
  I am delighted to see one of my favourite Ministers on the Front Bench tonight. He has already replied to one debate. In case my hon. Friend has any doubt about the scale of the problem, I will give him some figures which may help him to see just what I am getting at and why this is probably one of the most important debates that we have had in the House for some time.
  The world population stands at 5.5 billion. The population of the more developed countries, including the EC, stands at 1.25 billion, leaving about 4 billion from the under-developed or less developed countries. At the present rate of population growth, it will take 148 years for the population of the more developed countries to double. In the developed world, the 1.25 billion will double to 2.5 billion in 148 years. But the population of the less developed countries—about 4 billion—will double in 34 years. By 2025 the population of the under-developed countries will have doubled.
  Let us look at where the problem is. North Africa has a population of 147 million. That will double in 27 years. West Africa has a population of 182 million. That will double in 23 years. Nigeria has a population of 90 million. That will double in 23 years. East Africa has a population of 206 million. That will double to 412 million in 22 years. By 2020 the population of eastern Africa will go from 206 million to 412 million. Ethiopia has a population of 54 million. That will double in 25 years. Kenya has a population of 26 million. That will double in 19 years. Zambia has a population of 8 million. That will double in 18 years. Tanzania has a population of 27 million. That will double in 20 years.
  The problem occurs not just in north Africa, west Africa or east Africa, but also middle Africa, where a population of 72 million will double in 23 years. In south Africa, 47 million will double in 26 years. So Africa has a problem, but it is not the only country with that problem.
  Western Asia has a population of 139 million; in 24 years that will have doubled. Iraq has a population of 18 million; in 19 years that will have doubled. Turkey's present population of 59 million will double in 32 years: southern Asia's population of 1,231 million will double in 31 years. If the present birth rate continues, India's population of 882 million will double in 34 years, and Pakistan's population of 121 million will double in 23 years, though it will take 270 years for Japan's population of 124 million to double.
  We see a dramatic and appalling picture in Africa and western Asia, but it is not confined to those countries. There are 453 million people in Latin America; if the present birth rate continues, that population will double in 34 years. North America's population of 283 million, though, will take 89 years to double. In other words, Latin America's population will double three times as fast as north America's.
  From those figures, it seems that populations are doubling every 20 to 25 years in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Now let us consider the figures for Europe. The European Community—if we include Scandinavia—contains 511 million people. If the present birth rate
  626
  continues, it will take 338 years for that population to double. It will take 753 years for Denmark's population to doube, and 257 for the United Kingdom's to do the same. Germany already has a minus population trend and Austria's population will take 495 years to double.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are not all those figures based on the assumption that no major advances will be made in birth control technology? The hon. Gentleman has referred to population's doubling in 20, 30, 50 or 300 years. Surely it is inconceivable that major advances will not be made in that time. Although the hon. Gentleman's statistics may appear very dramatic today, I do not think that they will materialise.
  Mr. Steen: That is, of course, an important point. We are always hearing scare stories about terrible things which are going to happen. The technology, however, is not the problem. The technology is there; the problem is access to it. It is not available to some of the world's poorest countries. Populations in western Europe, America and Russia are now under control, but unless we can persuade the developing countries to practise controls which will reduce the current alarming birth rates, the population increases that I have described will come about just 20 or 23 years from now.
  There is now way in which we can stop the world population from doubling: it is inevitable. By the year 2050, the world population will be 10 billion. The machinery has already moved into position. What we must do, now that Britain is president of the Community, is to find a way in which to stop it from tripling.
  Why, then, are we experiencing this appalling problem of population growth? The reason is the reduction in infant mortality rates, about which we should of course be delighted. People also live longer because of the progress of modern medical technology. But there has been no corresponding reduction in the number of children born. That is why populations have continued to rise so dramatically all over the world.
  People's habits are lagging behind technology. The fact that millions of the poorest people have not had access to the technology has resulted in the problem. I draw the attention of the House to an important article on that subject in The Economist on 30 May, which said that 300 million of the poorest couples in the world want to restrict the size of their families but cannot get access to family planning services.
  It is not a matter of shoving family planning down people's throats, if that is the right metaphor. The problem is that people cannot get access to the facilities which would allow them to control their own destiny. That is the root of the problem now.
  Power stations in the third world are pumping out noxious gases which require flue gas desulphurisation and other expensive systems to prevent the pollution of the atmosphere. They may have to be rebuilt at enormous cost. There is a thrust to cut down carbon dioxide e missions, which is difficult, expensive and unpopular. In contrast, family planning is cheap and effective, and people are crying out for it. Furthermore, it has a lasting impact on the environment. The technology is readily available. The problem is that the world's poor cannot get hold of it.
  The European parliamentary conference, promoted by the British all-party parliamentary group on population

  627
  and development, of which I am proud to be a member, was held in London on 31 January. At that meeting, Sir Crispin Tickell considered the impact on the environment and said that the civilisations of Crete, Petra, central America, the Mexican plateau and Easter island had all collapsed because of an imbalance between population and the environment. He explained that population increase was a major contributor to environmental change and that it put severe stress on the life-supporting capacity of the planet.
  We should consider the use of land, water, energy and air. In Ethiopia the fertile upland areas where 88 per cent. of the population live have been losing between 1.5 and 3.5 billion tonnes of fertile topsoil per year. The population was 20 million in 1950; it is 50 million today. During the famines of 1984–85, when an estimated half a million people died of hunger, that number was replaced by new births in little more than six months. When there was such interest in Ethiopia with the national media and enormous sums raised, when we had airlifts and fund raising by pop stars, all the people who died were replaced by new births within six months.
  Access to uncontaminated water has barely kept pace with population growth. According to the World Health Organisation, 1·6 billion additional people were given access to water of a reasonable quality. In rural areas more than 855 million people have no access to safe water Most of the countries with limited renewable water resources are in the middle east, north Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa—the regions whose populations are growing fastest.
  In developing countries, resource consumption per capita is lower, but rapidly growing populations and the pressure to develop their economies are leading to substantial and increasing damage to the local environment. That is caused by direct pollution through energy use and other industrial activities, clearing forests and unsympathetic agricultural practices.
  One fifth of humanity—more than 1 billion urban dwellers—breathe unhealthy air. In the 1980s, Bangkok, Beijing, Calcutta, New Delhi, and Teheran exceeded the World Health Organisation's guideline of 200 days per year of maximum urban air pollution levels. We have seen examples of such damage in Madagascar, with deforestation and all the other environmental issues.
  Someone must take the lead. Britain's presidency of the European Community provides us with a great opportunity to change the order of priorities. There are many short-term and medium-term competing demands, but the United Kingdom could rejig the priorities—realising that the population issue is more important than any of the short-term environmental problems that it may be politically expedient to defeat, but that that will not deal with the long-term issues.
  A policy paper published by the Commission's Directorate General VIII, with much input from our own Overseas Development Agency, was discussed by development Ministry officials in Brussels on 4 June. A redraft is being circulated in the corridors of the Commission, but I am not sure what will happen next. It might go before the Council of Minister in November, and be debated in the European Parliament. The most important issue facing the world just might be debated in the European Parliament in November.
  The EC development budget, known as 'B/75050 Budget Line"—that is how they talk over there—provides for 2 million ecu for demographic programmes. I believe
  628
  that that is code for family planning, and two million ecu is about £1·25 million. When the EC is spending so little money on the problem, it is hardly surprising that it does not give the problem a high priority.
  Can my hon. Friend the Minister reveal the timetable for discussion on the issues paper? When will the European Parliament debate the subject? What funding is currently devoted to population-related activities within the EC development budget? Which director-general is responsible for that funding, and for policy? Has the possibility of establishing a health and population unit, on the lines of our own Overseas Development Agency, been examined? How many health and population experts are there working in the Commission, and for which director-generals do they work? We ought to know what is going on in the EC, and what hope there is of the Community taking a lead, with us pushing from behind.
  EC representatives should have attended the Rio summit, but Ripa di Meana did not feel like going, for understandable reasons. I believe that the Pope and other religious leaders should also have been there, because the population problem has religious overtones. Not only was the Pope not at Rio, but population was barely on the agenda. The debates were on the more fashionable environmental issues like global warming, biodiversity, chlorofluorocarbons, and carbon dioxide emissions from car exhausts, but ignored the major, all-embracing world population problem which should have been on the front page and at the top of the queue. It has been waiting long enough for international recognition and for the international community to take action. The subject has been shouting to be taken seriously, but it was hardly noticed in Rio.
  The £500,000 that it cost the British delegation to travel to Rio, with Ministers and their private secretaries flying first class and the rest of the officials flying club class, might have been better spent on a grant to increase the work of organisations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and other non-governmental organisations which are trying to reduce the population problem that threatens the stability of countries all over the world.
  The problem is not just about the priorities at Rio or in the EC. Opposition Members will share my concern about the equally important problem of how we can educate and train women to develop their interest and concern about the population problem. There cannot he many other issues where investment could do more for the development of the environment.
  Studies by the World bank have shown that when women have no secondary education, they have an average of seven children. If even 40 per cent. of the women have been to secondary schools, family size drops to three children. Better educated women also have healthier babies. If they are farmers, they are better at managing the environment on which their livelihoods depend. They are more likely to find employment, financial independence and thus the sexual independence that they need to decide how many babies to bear.
  Educating women may be less intellectually challenging than keeping the planet cool, but few investments would do more for development and the environment. The EC could play a part by providing greater funds to educate and train women. That is the key to starting the process of reducing the world's population. Before the world's powers look around for enemies to fight with increasingly

  629
  sophisticated weapons, they should first identify the enemy. The enemy is not outside. The enemy is actually staring us in the face. The enemy is ourselves. The enemy is not a soldier with a gun, but the life force within the human race.
  The task, therefore, is gargantuan. My hon. Friend the Minister has no time to sleep tonight. He should go back to his office immediately after the debate, call out his civil servants, send a fax to all his ministerial opposite numbers in the EC, jump on the first plane to Brussels in the morning and say that population must move up the list of priorities on the agenda. He should also adopt a target of 4 per cent. of this country's overseas development finance for population activities.
  We give about 1·5 per cent. of our overseas aid—a substantial sum for which I give credit to my hon. Friend the Minister—to family planning and population activities, but that is wholly inadequate. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to urge the Commission that population priorities should be translated into action as a matter of urgency. Stronger initiatives should be taken in the Community to assist in making family planning universally available before the end of the decade for more than 100 million couples who want it, but have no access to it. Or do my hon. Friend and the world want to wait until it is standing room only and too late to do anything?
  2.34 am
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: About 18 months ago, the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and I were privileged to go on a trip, which was organised by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, to Malaysia and Thailand to study population techniques in those countries.
  I could not possibly disagree with many of the interesting comments made by the hon. Member for South Hams. I agree wholeheartedly with his point about the importance of investing in women. We cannot say often enough that it is the best investment that Governments can make. That is why I have frequently questioned our Overseas Development Administration on its policies on population assistance.
  It is regrettable that, until very recently, we spent only about 1 per cent. of the budget on population assistance. From 1979 to 1990, we cut by about 63 per cent. our contribution to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. It is regrettable that that should have happened, particularly as the Minister for Overseas Development made many speeches in Rio and elsewhere about the importance of population assistance. Of course, she omitted to mention that the Government have been lax in pursuing that important policy.
  In the past, when I have questioned the Minister for Overseas Development about what percentage of the ODA budget was focused on women, the answer has been that, as 50 per cent. of the world's population are women, it was assumed that 50 per cent. of the budget was spent on women. By no stretch of the imagination could that be considered fine tuning. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will tell us that the ODA can be more accurate in its answers on that matter. There is no point in the Government's paying lip
  630
  service to the importance of investing in women if they cannot guarantee that some of their main policies and expenditure are directed at investment in women.
  As the hon. Member for South Hams said, rapid population growth imposes an enormous burden on mothers, communities and the earth's resources. Mothers who have many children are more likely to suffer ill health or to die in childbirth than those who can space their children. Their children, too, are more likely to be ill. As population growth outpaces economic growth, more people sink into poverty and are forced to scratch a living from the diminishing natural resources around them.
  There is no easy way to stabilise population growth. Widespread access to family planning, education of women and of men, and measures to raise family income and reduce health risks must all go together. One of the clearest lessons of the past two decades is that investment in women—that is, raising their status, providing access to education, to health care and to family planning—not only improves the quality of life but is the best and quickest way to reduce population growth rates.
  A recent report published by the World bank makes the same point. Educating women is the biggest single solution to poverty and environmental destruction. Women hold the key to prosperity because they control their fertility and the fertility of the soil. A secondary education reduces family size from seven to three children. Nothing could be clearer than that. I still find it incredible that the rich countries of the world do not respond to the challenges that such reports place before us.
  In many developing countries—I have had the opportunity to visit several of them to see United Nations programmes in action—the lack of knowledge of contraception or access to family planning denies women the chance to space their children. A study in Nepal showed that almost 40 per cent. of women with children did not want another child. But 90 per cent. of married women in that country did not know where to obtain contraception advice or supplies. Every year the complications of unplanned pregnancies and abortions kill 200,000 mothers in that country.
  I went to Ethiopia about two years ago and saw the United Nations programme on population in action. I saw the long queues of women outside the rural clinics. Many of them would be turned away that day because the staff simply could not cope with the demand. I realised that Britain had cut our contribution to that important United Nations fund. I hope that we shall revoke that particularly bad decision and increase our contributions to those United Nations funds which everyone knows make a worthwhile contribution throughout the world.
  Mr. Steen: Perhaps the hon. Lady is coming to what Britain could do as president of the European Community. If she is, I shall not say any more. If she is not, I hope that she will.
  Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman is impatient. He gave us a tour around the world. I suspect that if he had had the opportunity to display his visual aids and maps more prominently, many hon. Members might have benefited. So he must forgive me if I take not quite such an extensive tour as he did but nevertheless mention parts of the world where I have seen important programmes in action.
  Women need to be confident that, if they limit the number of children, the children will survive into

  631
  adulthood. With up to one in three children dying before their fifth birthday in some of the poorest countries, it is not surprising that some parents feel that as an insurance policy they need to have several children. Therefore, investment in primary health care is essential. It is estimated that simple measures could save about 11,000 children who die from diarrhoea every day in the developing world and 8.000 who die from six major preventable diseases every day. Obviously, that must be tied up with the level of overseas aid that developing countries are prepared to devote to reducing such problems.
  In the west and some middle-income developing countries, growing economic security has, for example, brought slower population growth. In most developing countries, the downward spiral of poverty, large families, ill health, lack of resources and increasing poverty still predominates.
  In the long term the key to stabilising the world population is to support broad-based development and to promote economic security throughout the third world. That will require increased aid, debt relief, trade reforms and an international commitment to invest in the poor. That is the only way in which to give women, their children and the planet a fair chance.
  Those of us who were able to attend the Rio conference deeply regretted that the rich countries were not prepared to address themselves to the agenda of the poorer countries. That agenda calls for increased aid flows, reductions in debt, increased trade possibilities and the transfer of technology. Whatever rhetoric the richer countries care to use to describe their so-called achievements in Rio, they cannot get away from the fact that they were not prepared to offer to meet any of those requests. Rio gave us the opportunity to redress the inequalities in the world and it was deplorable that the richer countries were not prepared to promote third-world issues.
  If the Government had maintained their contributions to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities at the 1979 level up to 1990, the UNFPA would have received an additional £42·3 million. That substantial sum of money has been denied to the developing world because of the priorities that our Government have chosen to adopt. In 1979, UNFPA received £9·2 million at 1991–92 prices; in 1991–92 the sum stood at £7·5 million and in 1992–93 the planned figure is £9 million. I hope that the Minister can give us better news on that UN fund.
  Last month's report from the UNFPA, "State of World Population 1992", the first for 10 years, shows how serious the situation has become. In the 1980s, food production fell behind population growth in 69 out of 102 developing countries. As the hon. Member for South Hams said, in the next decade world population will accelerate by the fastest rate in history. Almost all the population growth will take place in Africa, Asia and south America—more than half of that in Africa and south Asia, which are already suffering the greatest difficulty in meeting food, health and hygiene needs. As the hon. Gentleman said, further delay could be fatal.
  Some third-world countries have already shown that family planning can succeed. The key to success is, once again, secondary education for women, plus access to land, jobs and family planning methods. One need only consider what has happened in certain states in India to see what a difference in attitude can achieve. Kerala and states
  632
  in the north of India have been extremely successful in their control of population. The "State of World Population 1992" report is worth reading because it makes that achievement clear.
  The report states:
  "Kerala's female literacy rate of 66 per cent. is almost double that of its nearest rival. In the five northern states, only 11–21 per cent. of women can read.
  Kerala has the lowest infant mortality rate in India…In the northern states infant mortality is between four and five times higher.
  Kerala's fertility rate has fallen to the astonishingly low level of 2·3 children per woman—lower than Thailand or China, the former USSR or Ireland. Contraceptive prevalence is three times the national rate."
  The report suggests that two factors explain Kerala's success in human development:
  "One is the priority given by the state government to spending on education and health, continuing a tradition that reaches far back into colonial times…Kerala is the only state in India…where the rural death rate is lower than the urban. A far-reaching land reform from the 1960s, has benefited three million tenants and landless.
  The second factor, whose roots reach even further into history, is the status of women."
  I recently heard a group of women from Kerala take part in an Institute of Development Studies seminar at the university of Sussex. It was fascinating to listen to some of them argue for improving the status of women in many other parts of the world.
  In Kerala, as in the north and many other parts of India and Africa, women inherit land. In Kerala, the husband's family pays the bride price to the wife's family on marriage and women—unlike some other parts of India—are considered an asset. In the north they are considered a burden. In reality, they are a wasted asset.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and I saw and heard of some of the attitudes towards women in India, especially in northern India, recently and saw the different approaches to their importance in that country. The waste of that asset has immense human costs and has led to economic stagnation and rapid population growth in the north of India.
  Thailand has reduced its fertility rate, from an average of almost seven children per woman to just over two, and I must pay tribute to what we saw in that country during our visit. Kenya, which used to have the world's fastest rising population, has apparently turned the corner. It is interesting that for every priest in Africa preaching against modern contraception, there are five Catholic nurses urging women to go to family planning clinics. That is also a welcome development.
  Whatever the Minister says about population policy, I am sure that he will use many encouraging words. However, in the context of an expanding aid budget— although I suspect that it is likely to continue to shrink as regards some of the poorer developing countries as resources are channelled towards central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union—the problem is that the Government analysis treats effects—population growth—not causes. The Government do not often talk about poverty. If Government policy is based on diverting funds away from poverty alleviation, it will be self-defeating. Family planning must be seen as part of a wider health care provision.
  The hon. Member for South Hams mentioned the United Kingdom presidency and the Development Council of the EC. He scoffed at some of the budget lines in the European Community, but, as a former Member of

  633
  the European Parliament, I found the budget lines of considerable advantage because, in contrast with what happens in the Westminster system, Members of the European Parliament can amend the budget line by line. If some of his colleagues in the European Parliament wished to put in additional lines on population assistance in the Community budget, they would be able to promote such a policy. Unfortunately, we do not have such an opportunity in Westminster. An Opposition Member has considerably more powers in the European Parliament to promote policies and obtain funds for subjects that he considers important.
  As we all know, there is a logjam in the Community, and it is important that, as the United Kingdom holds the presidency, the Commissioners, and particularly some of the Development Commissioners, are encouraged to move rather faster on certain policies than they have done. I hope that, during the United Kingdom presidency, and while we have the chair of the EC Development Council, the Government will be extending their policies on the debts of developing countries to take into account debts to multilateral institutions and to commercial banks. After all, in 1990, for the first time, Britain received more in debt repayment from the third world than it gave in aid and new loans.
  I hope that the Government take the lead in the Community in dealing with the enormity of the famine in Africa. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Hams would not like to see population decline as a result of famine. Africa needs something on the scale of a Marshall plan. What is offered is a desperate, last-minute reliance on emergency aid with no timetable for delivery. It is to the shame of the House that we have not had an opportunity to debate the crisis in Africa before the recess, because, before we meet again, it will have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, unless the EC and the Government move swiftly to do something about getting food aid faster to those African countries suffering from drought and famine. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances on that.
  Will the Minister assure us—again as the United Kingdom holds the presidency—that we shall address the trade issue, and stop treating the floundering GATT negotiations as a panacea for the ills of the developing world? GATT is a United States-EC dialogue and any advantage to the third world will be only a spin-off from that. I hope that the Government will back up their rehetoric on GATT with action and announce a strategy for improving the trading position of developing nations.
  I think that I have made it clear, as the hon. Member for South Hams did, that population assistance cannot be treated in isolation. It must be treated in the context of all the subjects that I have mentioned. The figures tell a story of considerable cuts and disregard for the needs of women in the third world.
  Despite what the Government said about population, at the Rio conference they gave no strong commitment to increase population assistance within the present meagre aid budget. I hope that the Minister will be able to address that on behalf of a Government who have done little about population over the past 13 years.
  3.2 am
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on their constructive and well-informed speeches. They have obviously travelled widely and have had a great chance to study the problem in detail. I shall be brief in addressing one or two important aspects.
  The matter was last debated in the House on 25 June during the debate on the Rio conference. It was heartening to hear many hon. Members speak about the vital and immediate problem of the huge growth in world population. I put the topic into context when I spoke in that debate and I gave the figures—an increase from half a billion people at the time of Christ to today's world population of 5 billion, a number which will roughly double in the next 30 to 40 years.
  After Rio, an article in The Economist stated that the growth in world population was a severe hindrance to economic and environmental improvement.
  I hope that the amnesia of Rio can be more than rectified at the EC Development Council meeting on 18 November. As a result of the debate, I hope that the Minister will pass on to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister our pleas to move this vital issue up the agenda during our presidency of the EC so that it is discussed not only in the Development Council but at the summit in Edinburgh in December. If the problem is placed nearer the top of the agenda, we might start to get some action.
  I listened carefully to the debate and noted the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams that the resources devoted to the UN FPA are insufficient. It is sad that such cost-effective aid was not increased. I join in urging the Minister to see whether some of the new resources promised by the Prime Minister at Rio can be used to help solve the world's population problem.
  One cannot totally separate the problem of population increase from economic growth and the exploitation of environmental resources; the three are inextricably linked. It is a sad fact that in poorer countries as economic activity falls, poverty and the population increase. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, the extra children born often do not live beyond the age of 30.
  As I said in my speech on 25 June, there is a clear case for increasing resources to educate women. That will enable us somehow to break out of the vicious cycle in which women emerge from the family unit when very young and immediately start to bear children. If we could improve education in some of the poor countries so that people delayed having children, and brought them up and fed them better, and had improved health resources, housing and schooling, we could start to break the cycle.
  That process is not without success. The link between population and economic growth has been proved in the four "dragon countries"—Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea—which have dramatically stabilised their populations as a result of improved economic activity. One of our major contributions is to try to reduce third-world debt. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimated that, in 1989, the level of third-world debt had reached record proportions.

  635
  I welcome the initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that the Trinidad terms are not only adhered to, but advanced. That is a significant contribution to reducing world poverty, particularly in the third world, and is a subject of which we do not hear enough.
  It is vital to increase trade in third world countries. We have heard much this evening about the growth in the world population. At the height of the growth of the western world during the industrial revolution, the population was growing at about 1–5 per cent. per annum. My hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that that means that the population would double in 30 years. At its height, when there was a great economic push for people to emigrate to north America, the world population was increasing at about 2 per cent. per annum. It is a sad fact that, of the 42 countries where population is increasing at more than 3 per cent. per annum, 24 are in the African continent. It is a great pity that we do not hear enough about a strategic plan for helping the African continent.
  The EC Development Council has produced a paper called "Horizon 2000"—to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams alluded. He rightly asked which directorate of the commission was responsible for that paper and which was responsible for financing it. I suspect that it is a little like the "Agenda 21" document at Rio —it lacks teeth. The issue must be moved up the political agenda. It is a sad reflection of the importance of this subject that, despite the lateness of the hour, there are not more hon. Members present to debate it.
  I do not know whether there will be sufficient action at the European development summit. I hope that one day, within my lifetime—certainly in this Parliament—the issue will take on greater urgency. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether we can meet the United Nation's target of doubling our aid from 1 to 2 per cent. of the United Nations population fund by 1995, as that would be an extremely cost-effective way of alleviating some of the worst poverty in the world.
  One of the major problems relating to third world poverty, debt and population explosion is the sort of Government with whom we have to deal. In aiding countries in one way or another, we are trying to help them to help themselves. I think that Christopher Patten was the first person I heard talk about the problem when he was Minister for Overseas Development. It is no good flooding countries with emergency aid. The aid must be properly structured and planned.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said, there was a great deal of razzmatazz in 1985 when 500,000 people died in Ethiopia and Bob Geldof proposed Live Aid to raise about £20 million. Sadly, within a year, that population had been replaced. Such aid is typical of what I call "fire brigade aid" going to a despotic, tyrannical Government. We need to continue what Christopher Patten began and link our aid to democratic government.
  Progress is being made in some parts of the world, as we heard in our earlier debate on south America. Some countries there have a growing population problem and are progressing to good democratic government. We heard in an earlier debate how Venezuela and Colombia in particular have now had two terms of democratic government.
  I see that the lateness of the hour is getting to us all. It is time for me to finish and let the Minister wind up. I hope that he will bear my comments in mind. I also hope that
  636
  he will bring the debate to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and move it up the political agenda so that we get some action.
  3.11 am
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I had not intended to speak in the debate, so I rise without notes, but I should like to say a few words in response to some of the issues that have been raised.
  I wish to place on record the appreciation of many of my hon. Friends for the important work done by the all-party group on population and development and, in particular, to express our appreciation to miss Dilys Cossey for the way in which she advises Members of Parliament. I know that many of my hon. Friends are deeply indebted to her for her work.
  I mention the personal position of women in third world countries who are faced with the problem of fertility and their considerations when deciding—if it can be said that they have a choice—the size of their families. Millions of women have no choice.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I were in India, we were fortunate to be able to interview a young woman outside the Rihand power station in central India. We asked her about problems of contraception and how to decide the size of her family. It was a very personal conversation and, within a few minutes, she was reduced to tears, but we learned the truth. She lived on very little money in an area with very little primary health care cover.
  She faced a dilemma. She had a very low income but recognised that, if she were to live to 50, which might be deemed an old age in India, she would need some form of financial security in her old age, which she believed meant having children. Therefore, there were economic considerations to be taken into account when discussing children. However, she could not afford to raise children as her husband was unemployed so, in effect, she had no choice. It was only when we provoked the discussion with her that she broke down and explained her dilemma in detail.
  If we are to resolve these matters in the longer term we shall not do so simply by education, although that is extremely important. We must secure economic development so that people are enabled to take real decisions on whether it is necessary to expand their families. That brings us back to the allocation of resources. I think that the European Community has a special role to play in developing programmes for sustainable development so that women know that they can look forward to longer-term economic security.
  We were able to visit a clinic in India. It was not particularly hygienic. As we walked into it, we saw several women lying on the floor who had just had sterilisation operations. When we went into the so-called theatre at the back of the clinic, we saw that the conditions were pretty poor. The authorities in the area were clearly quite proud of the provision that was being made, but I left with a great sense of unease about whether population controls could be dealt with in that way.
  It cannot be beyond the wit of man in coming decades to find ways further to improve the advanced technology that now exists. Some of us object to the proposition that we can leave these matters to market forces and that private companies will develop the technology. A huge

  637
  international effort is required. States, Governments and research institutions must be involved if we are to make further major advances so that women are not required to go through the indignity of the operations that my hon. Friend and I saw being carried out in India. Even today, crude technology is applied to women who face the difficulties that have been described. Equally, a huge effort must be made to ensure that that does not continue.
  We must avoid reliance on private sector industry initatives operating in commercial market conditions. Governments are invariably the purchasers and states must be involved. They must promote research so that people throughout the third world can benefit.
  3.17 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): With the leave of the House, perhaps I might speak for a second time in this debate on the Consolidated Fund.
  First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on drawing an important subject to the attention of the House. I extend my congratulations to the all-party group on population and development for the constructive role that it plays in the continuing debate. We shall certainly continue to listen to what it has to say on this important subject. It is a critically important topic, which is central to the goal of overcoming poverty and achieving sustainable progress within developing countries. I am glad to say that it is of particular and growing interest to many hon. Members.
  I believe that the Government can claim some credit for the role that we have been playing internationally in ensuring that population is given the attention that it deserves. Over the past year or so, our voice was significant in helping to ensure that population was placed firmly on the agenda of the Earth summit in Rio. It was an initial disappointment when it seemed as though the summit would not address the issue, but latterly it did. The subject was recognised by the participants for its importance.
  During the summit, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development made a notable speech —it has drawn praise from many quarters—pressing the case for population to be tackled seriously by the international community. We have also been pleased by the support that we have been getting from many quarters for the principles and goals that we have adopted under the Overseas Development Administration population initiatives, "Children by Choice not Chance", which was announced last year, accompanied by an admirable pamphlet which I know that my hon. Friend will have seen.
  The subject of the debate relates particularly to the Government's population policy with regard to the European Community and to the period of the United Kingdom's presidency. This debate provides a welcome opportunity to explain our intentions during the presidency. We believe that the European Community's aid programme should pay more attention to supporting programmes which extend women's and men's right to choose whether, and when, to have children. Its present involvement in this area is not substantial. Fortunately, there are a good number of people in Brussels who share our view that that needs to change.
  638
  We are not actively involved with the European Commission in an initiative, to which my hon. Friend referred, which we hope will significantly enhance the support that the Community provides to population programmes in developing countries, especially in the strengthening of family planning services. We are very pleased that the Commission—the DG8—has already acted by organising a recent meeting of population experts from EC member countries. I could say more about that, but I want to make progress. I will write to my hon. Friend and deal with any points that I cannot answer in detail tonight. Unfortunately, I have only 14 minutes left.
  That meeting was especially useful in helping to move towards a more coherent European position on the essential components of family planning programmes and how donor countries should be helping.
  The next important step, in which the United Kingdom presidency will again be collaborating closely with the European Commission, will be to ensure that population features as a key item of attention at the next Development Council in November. I am pleased to confirm that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be in chair at that important meeting. I shall be representing the United Kingdom.
  The Government's aim is that the Development Council will agree a new, stronger resolution on population which will build on the existing rather imprecise declarations of principle in favour of population support contained in the Lomé convention. We hope that that will provide the Commission with a clear political push for greater involvement in support of population programmes and also specific operational guidelines for the Community's aid programme in that area. It is our hope that such an outcome will also encourage member states to pay greater attention to population programmes within their own national aid programmes, as we have already been doing in the United Kingdom under our own population initiative.
  I wish to rebut some of the points made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). She failed— characteristically, I regret to say—to give any credit to the Government on the Toronto and Trinidad terms, which have been a major initiative over the years and a major engine to help reduce the burden of debt in the third world. I fear that she was not sufficiently generous to the Government in relation to their enormous promotion of the Uruguay round on the GATT negotiations, which is absolutely essential to the Government's policy on aid. We never stop emphasising that it is an essential feature of our policy to help the third world to trade with the rich world and to raise its standard of living in that way.
  I wish to correct two errors in the hon. Lady's speech. She repeated the canard that, in 1990, third-world countries paid more back to the rich west than they received in aid and loans. That is not true—it is merely an accounting factor, because when debt has been written off it is considered as a debt repayment. That is the reason for that statistical misinterpretation. If the hon. Lady does not accept what I say, I will ask my right hon. Friend to write to her in graphic detail so that the point is put clearly and she can be relieved of any misapprehension.
  The hon. Lady was under another misapprehension in suggesting that in some way our aid programme for the third world will be reduced because of commitments to the former Soviet Union. She knows that that is a different budget. It is perfectly true that raising Government

  639
  expenditure generally in one area affects the potential for Government expenditure in another. If that is what the hon. Lady is saying, fine, but that is not an argument of any substance. We are helping the former Soviet Union from a different aid resource, as she well knows. She should not use that argument to suggest that in some way aid to the third world is threatened.
  The amount that we devote to population within the aid programme has risen from 1·1 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. of our aid budget during the last two years, and it is likely to continue to rise during the next two years in the same sort of way.
  My hon. Friend the member for South Hams brought to the House some alarming statistics on world population and how the less developed countries are growing in such a frighteningly fast way. He gave graphic examples from Africa and Asia.
  My way of understanding that terrific explosion is to say to myself that anyone who is a shade older than 40, or about 40—we are all a shade older than 40—will have seen the world population double in his or her lifetime. In the next 30 years it will double again. That means that in 30 years' time the world's population will have quadrupled in the lifetime of a 70-year-old person.
  That is why, with the best will in the world—I know that it was not mentioned in a tendentious way—the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was being a little complacent when he intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. Of course science may solve the problem, but it is precisely to ensure that people who are in a position to influence world events do so that we are having this debate. It is crucial that the issue should not just he left for wise men to come to the right conclusions about. It must be constantly repeated for people to realise the enormous importance and priority that must be attached to it. We do that within the aid programme.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of being complacent. All that I was pointing out was that the assumptions are predicated on the bases of existing technology. Inevitably, there will be technological advance which may to some extent mitigate matters.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I accept that, but the important point of my hon. Friend's contribution is to ensure that people address the issue.
  Our aid programme spending on direct population activities has grown fourfold since 1981 and it was £26 million in 1991. That is a 55 per cent. increase during the past two years. I gave the percentage figures earlier.
  We plan to do more. By next year we intend to have established at least 15 new projects aimed specifically at strengthening the coverage and quality of family planning and maternal health services, improving the reliability of contraceptive supplies and enabling women to take greater control over their lives. We are on course to achieve that target.
  It is inevitable that population policy should play a large and growing part in our aid programme. It is precisely because the rich world has been successful in humanitarian relief from famine of the kind experienced in Africa and described by by hon. Friend that we must pay particular attention to population principles.
  We attach particular importance to some guiding principles in our population aid. First, individuals, and
  640
  women in particular, should be entirely free and able to choose for themselves when to have children. Secondly, those choices should be fully informed and not subject to pressure or coercion of any kind. Thirdly, the quality of family planning services, as well as their availability, must be improved if they are to win people's confidence.
  Let me say a little about the ODA's support for multilateral population agencies such as the UNFPA, which was mentioned by both the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). A major part of our assistance is channelled through the multilateral population programmes. Our support for the United Nations Population Fund has increased by more than 50 per cent. over the past two years, to £9 million in 1992. That is a substantial increase. Dr. Nafis Sadik, the UNFPA's executive director, has publicly expressed her appreciation of the United Kingdom's example to other donors.
  Our support for the International Planned Parenthood Federation has also grown, to £8 million this year. In 1990, our contribution to UNFPA amounted £6 million. It was paid over two periods, in 1990 and at the beginning of the calendar year 1991. The hon. Lady seemed to want to establish that a cut had been made in 1990; in fact, the money was paid over two calendar years but in the same financial year.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I have before me a table showing the United Kingdom's contributions to multilateral agencies between 1979 and 1990, in real terms. It shows that in 1979 our contribution was more than £8 million, and that it declined each year between 1979 and 1990. The Minister said that the contribution spilled over into 1991, but the 1990 figure shown here is £3 million, compared with £8 million in 1979. Until very recently, each year showed a steady decline. I do not think that anyone would congratulate the Government on that.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The important point is that our contribution has grown significantly in the years to which I have referred.
  The hon. Lady spoke of the need to educate women. Women's literacy is a vital element of any influence on population growth. There is clear evidence that better-educated women, able to receive the written message on family planning and child spacing, have smaller families, and that the children of those smaller families are healthier and better educated as a result.
  Progress is being made globally in terms of population dynamics. Fertility levels are declining, as were mentioned by the hon. Lady and others. The average family size in developing countries has fallen from six to four in the past 30 years, and more than half the couples in the world are now using some form of family planning. Of course much more needs to be done to extend reproductive choice; otherwise the health and welfare of countless millions of women and children will continue to suffer and we shall be unable to prevent the world population from trebling, or even worse.
  I end by quoting what was said by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker in her important speech at Rio last month. I think that it summarises the Government's position on population very succinctly and very well:
  "My Government's position, is that women and men should be able to choose when to have children, and should

  641
  have the means to put their choices into effect. We know that even the poorest people in the world want to make these choices and will make them readily when given the opportunity to do so. Hundreds of millions of couples throughout the world need family planning services to exercise their right to choose. We must not fail them."
  I assure the House that the Government will keep that goal —indeed, necessity—clearly in view during the period of the United Kingdom presidency and beyond.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  3.34 am
  Mr. Ken Eastham: I realise that the night is very late—or rather, the morning is very early. Nevertheless, this debate is important for many people, especially old people—pensioners. It concerns the failures not only of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation but of the Securities and Investments Board, in what the Opposition believe is a most shameful affair.
  We see many scandals nowadays. It has become almost routine that every few months there is a scandal in banking or insurance, as a result of which there is a serious loss of confidence in the country, and a feeling that the honest brokering that we always saw as part of the British tradition can no longer be expected. We seem to be becoming a set of financial spivs. Britain seems to be a spivs' paradise for people who can work the system and avoid being caught out.
  The Maxwell pension fraud has often been compared with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International affair and the Barlow Clowes scandal. However, we do not believe that it is the same. The fundamental difference is that in those two other cases clients made conscious decisions to opt for the chance to gain extra interest, and therefore it could be said that, partly knowingly, they chose to take a risk. In spite of that, the Government were most considerate over the Barlow Clowes affair, even though some of the money was being invested abroad.
  In contrast, the Maxwell pensioners were not even informed, let alone consulted. That adds to the insult involved in other people simply taking over. As a result of that rough treatment, all those pensioners will pay a terrible price, which will cause sheer misery for many old people. It has ruined their lives and is undoubtedly ruining their health, too.
  Ultimately, many hundreds of Maxwell pensioners will have to plead with the Department of Social Security, unless the Government face their responsibilities, step in and do the right thing by them. Those pensioners do not deserve such treatment. No one can stand idly by and say that they have brought the situation upon themselves. They have not.
  What has happened in recent times should give us food for thought, and should give rise to a determination on both sides of the House to take a fresh look at the pensions question. Not only with the Maxwell swindle but time after time in the past few years, we have seen company takeovers conducted with an eye on the pension funds. When the asset stripping takes place, there are great advantages to be derived if there is a handsome pension fund thrown in. Contribution holidays and other features have also been introduced without those who contribute to the schemes being consulted or allowed to express an opinion.
  Ministers cannot say that they knew nothing about the Maxwell risk, because it is now public knowledge that the Department of Trade and Industry expressed serious reservations about Maxwell years ago. The Bank of England had also sounded warnings, and it was said that Maxwell was not a trustworthy enough person to run a company.
  I wonder whether there are any more skeletons in the cupboard. Will other scandals emerge in a few months' time, with more workers discovering that their pension

  643
  funds have been plundered by their employers? Only time will tell. That prospect is certainly sending a shiver down the spines of many people, who wonder where it will all end.
  I do some unpaid work in the House as honorary secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union parliamentary group. A few weeks ago, I was approached by one of the union's district secretaries. He had written to the managements of three Watford companies requesting the appointment of an engineers' trustee to their respective pension funds. He was turned down. I then wrote a courteous letter to each of the companies, expressing concern at their attitude—especially in the light of recent events.
  To date, I have received only two replies, and they were both disappointing. One stated:
  "Given the AEU position on occupational pension schemes, the disappointment of the Parliamentary Group is not surprising. I would stress however that our intention is to abide by any present and future legislation relating to the operation of these schemes."
  It went on to say that the company was
  "actively seeking to improve the level of understanding and confidence of pension scheme members."
  However, that reply clearly implied that in the absence of any statutory changes, the company did not intend to make any of its own.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security, in his statement to the House on 8 June, said that the Government were establishing an emergency £2·5 million fund for Maxwell pensioners. When we consider that several thousand pensioners are affected, one becomes extremely anxious about a sudden draw on those funds. As someone said to me, that fund of £2·5 million is, in football terms, about half Gazza's transfer fee and it has to provide for some 30,000 pensioners.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has taken a close interest in the matter. He told me that he had referred to the ombudsman in respect of maladministration, but that he was still waiting for a reply. I do not know whether the Government have any influence to allow them to delay the appearance of observations by the ombudsman. I hope that that is not the case. I hope that the ombudsman will clearly condemn what has happened as a result of the huge scandal.
  I met some of the pensioners three or four weeks ago and I was saddened to learn that, in trying desperately to take legal steps to protect themselves, they face bills of £1 million a month in respect of court judgments. That is beyond the pale when we consider that those people paid out their money and are being further insulted because, if they have the temerity to try to use the legal options through the courts, they will possibly face massive costs.
  I speak with feeling about some of the Maxwell pensioners because many Maxwell pensioners worked for the Mirror Group at Withy grove in Blackley in Manchester. They have formed a committee and earlier today I spoke to their chairman, Mr. Ken Martin. He told me that at the moment they are partly relieved because their pensions are being made up by the Mirror Group. However, the proviso is that they will be made up only so long as the group is in profit. If the group has a sudden nose dive and falls into recession, will that hit the pensions? If the company decides to spend money on new plant and equipment, which can be vey expensive, will the pensioners fail to receive their returns?
  644
  There is obviously no guarantee for the pensioners and it is certainly a most hit-and-Miss affair. I hope that the Minister will be able to speak with confidence and reassure me about some of my constituents who are on the edge and do not know whether they will still he receiving a pension, to which they are entitled and for which they have paid, in three months' time. If the Mirror Group encounters difficulties, how will they make up for that loss of pension?
  I was tipped off earlier this evening that a reply had finally appeared in the Library to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer certain questions about the Securities and Investments Board and IMRO. I took it upon myself to take some photocopies of the reply, which was published today. It is a long reply, which makes us realise that that we are on to something very big. Normally, replies from Secretaries of State are about two sentences long, but the Chancellor's reply is about three pages long.
  A couple of extracts are worth spotlighting. The right hon. Gentleman states:
  "SIB's assessment concludes that there were serious deficiencies in the supervision of IMRO".
  On the following page, he states:
  "IMRO was not, and is not, responsible for ensuring that pension fund trustees respect their wider obligations under trust law. Moreover, effective regulation must in the final analysis involve the active co-operation of the private sector".
  It appears that, if there is no co-operation by the private sector, there is nothing that we can do. That is outrageous.
  The other document that was made available tonight is the Securities and Investments Board press release, which I have not read in great detail as it is several pages long. However, one or two points bounce out. In part, the first page states:
  "IMRO accepts that its supervision of these Maxwell companies fell short of the standards that should he achieved by a financial services regulator."
  The second page contains the comment—this one really stunned me—that
  "it was unduly ready to rely on the good faith and professionalism of those with whom it dealt".
  It is like the old boy network. People were expected to do certain things and act like little gentlemen, but they did not. When people dip their fingers in the till, they do not always act like gentlemen and they are not always concerned.
  The press release mentions good faith and professionalism. We are entitled to something better than that comment. The press release refers to
  "an alertness to information in the public domain (including in the media), and an application of a spirit of critical enquiry in relation to assurances or information given."
  Everyone seemed to know what was going on—nudge, nudge. Nobody dared do anything because big money people threaten to take people to court if they dare to question what is going on.
  One or two pages later—I wish to highlight one or two observations that I made as a layman—the press release states:
  "as a matter of urgency, to produce proposals for strengthening:
  the experience, skills mix and organisation of its monitoring staff."
  That indicates that there was little skills mix and experience in the past. I wonder what the SIB has been doing to give IMRO such responsibilities.
  My last quote from the document seems to let the cat out of the bag. The document says:

  645
  "Andrew Large, the SIB chairman, said:
  `The fact that such a massive fraud could be carried out reflects badly on the United Kingdom corporate financial system as a whole, as well as on a number of institutions and individuals within that system.'"
  In other words, it reflected on a set of what I would call financial spivs. We have to make sure that such cases are not repeated. The only place that it can be done is Parliament. I do not believe that self-regulation can work when people are dealing with hundreds of millions of pounds of other people's money.
  To conclude my remarks on this terrible scandal, we must call for a realistic grant from the Government. They are not faultless in the matter. They made arrangements for the Barlow Clowes victims. If anything, the Maxwell pensioners have a better case than the Barlow Clowes people had. It is not unreasonable to expect some compensation from IMRO. When I say compensation, I am not thinking about petty cash. It cannot give pensioners £2 million of £3 million and say, "That's your lot." We are talking about a massive fraud. We are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. We should consider some form of penalty for IMRO for its incompetence and certainly its slackness in protecting the interests of the pensioners.
  It will be years before ordinary working people regain confidence in pensions schemes—that is, if ever they do. What is more, I sincerely believe that the Government have some moral responsibilities in the matter. We hope that the Minister will make a statement tonight which is worthy of being passed on to the unfortunate pensioners.
  3.56 am
  Mr. Paul Boateng: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) for initiating the debate. He has done his constituents—several of whom, as he said, are affected by the Maxwell scandal—and the House a considerable service in enabling us to respond to his debate. It comes on the day after the formal response by the Securities and Investments Board to the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation report; so my hon. Friend's debate is in every way timely as well as welcome.
  I shall respond to several matters which arise from my hon. Friend's speech and relate that to the SIB response. It was clear from a reading of the SIB response to the IMRO report that at one stage the SIB considered withdrawing recognition of IMRO. It decided instead that IMRO
  "should be retained based on appropriate strengthening".
  That strengthening is nowhere defined in the SIB's response. It would be helpful to know how it is proposed that IMRO should be strengthened, what role the Government intend to play in that and what action they propose to take.
  My hon. Friend referred, and went straight to the point in so doing, to the position in which IMRO found itself. That position is criticised by the SIB. IMRO failed to have its ear to the ground to take note of what is described as "market talk" and should have been more sceptical about the information that was given to it.
  Had IMRO paid more attention to market talk, and been more sceptical, it might have been able to see what
  646
  other people suspected about Robert Maxwell's operations—and what IMRO clearly neither saw nor suspected —and the extent of that massive fraud. The SIB said that it
  "views this with particular concern as the availability of such practical knowledge and alertness inside the regulators is a key feature of our"—
  the United Kingdom's—
  "regulatory system."
  When that is not found to be available, it undermines that system.
  If the present system is to be retained, we must hear from the Government—and those who maintain that the system should be retained in more or less its present form —how we can ensure that its basis is not undermined as a result of IMRO's failures in the Maxwell case.
  The purpose of the present mix of statutory and self-regulation is contained and underpinned by the belief that IMRO, and the self-regulatory mechanism, is more desirable because it is closer to the market and is therefore more able to respond to what goes on in it. If, as would appear to be the case, that closeness is no guarantee of scepticism, or of being aware of the whisperings in the market and taking action accordingly, that calls into question the basis of the present regulatory system.
  SIB goes on to say that IMRO's arrangements for granting admission to new members need "further scrutiny". Again, that begs the question: what form will that scrutiny take? What will happen when it is concluded, how long will it take, has it already started and when can Parliament expect to be advised of its outcome? So long as a question mark remains over the admission of new members, the very people to whom my hon. Friend referred—those whom the regulatory system is primarily designed to protect, people who are not necessarily sophisticated and aware of the ins and outs of the market, but who are drawn into and affected by it—cannot be sure that the regulatory bodies admit new members on a basis that is satisfactory in terms of their bona fides and their providence, and their confidence in the system is undermined.
  Another key matter, as the SIB points out, is that IMRO needs to strengthen its rules on the handling of private interests of board members. That is certainly so and was evident in aspects of the Maxwell scandal which, with good cause, gave rise to public concern.
  We believe that the SIB is in its own way as much to blame in this matter as IMRO. It was responsible for devising the principles of self-regulation, including the system whereby the self-regulatory organisations assess their own performance rather than subjecting themselves to outside examination. That is why my hon. Friend was absolutely right to link the SIB with the debate on the role of IMRO. They cannot be separated in this matter and both must bear a degree of culpability.
  We have heard and read what the SIB says about the future of IMRO—we do not believe that it can survive. By postponing the inevitable, as the SIB does by its response, it does the system of regulation no service. We need to simplify the regulatory structure. We believe that we should have just one SRO for retail investment business and one to deal with the rest of the industry. In our view, that is the only way forward and the only way in which to ensure that confidence in the system is restored.
  The Government must also address a number of other important issues. We would set them a number of tasks in

  647
  relation to the regulation of businesses managing pension fund investments. There is no room for tardiness, no room for a wait-and-see approach. The public demand expedition in this matter and I am afraid that that has not always been apparent in the Government's approach. There has been complacency. We can only hope that the transfer of aspects of responsibility from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Treasury shows the Government's determination to get to grips with the issues.
  It is good to see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in his place at seven minutes past 4 o'clock. I am used to seeing him at this time because of our time together in the Committee considering the Finance Bill. In fact, during that Committee stage, I saw more of the hon. Gentleman than I did my spouse—much to her chagrin. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
  We need to ensure that the responsibilities of all the regulatory authorities are clear, consistent and comprehensive. We need to provide for all investment business to be scrutinised adequately and continually, not only when such businesses are initially granted a licence. We need to lay down clear requirements for the other professionals involved, especially the auditors and the custodians of pension fund assets. There should be clear and regular reports to pension fund members.
  My hon. Friend referred to some of his constituents who are Maxwell pensioners and who have suffered as a result of recent events. Those pension fund members are most immediately in our minds. The Government need to introduce a package that will be of immediate assistance to them. Compassion and the desire to preserve confidence in the regulatory system, the probity of our markets and the provision of financial services demand that. All those things demand action in support of the Maxwell pensioners. We look for some answers from the Government this morning and in the days to come.
  4.9 am
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I have listened with great care to the comments of the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I appreciate that both of them have raised the general but important issue of public confidence in occupational pensions, and they are right to request reassurance on this matter. I trust that what I shall say will reassure the constituents of the hon. Member for Blackley and the public generally about the probity of pension funds and the investment management thereof, and the supervisory arrangements for the management and administration of pension funds.
  Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Securities and Investments Board had published the summary of conclusions and findings of IMRO's review of its regulation of Maxwell companies—including Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd, and London and Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc. The SIB has also published its assessment of its own and IMRO's performance in this affair and the action that both the SIB and IMRO are taking to rectify the shortcomings identified. The SIB's assessment concludes
  648
  that there were serious deficiencies in the supervision by IMRO of BIM and LBI. My right hon. Friend has placed a copy of the SIB's statement in the Library of the House.
  The Government have made it clear throughout that it might not be possible for the SIB to publish the review in full. We have been advised that publication of the full review by the SIB or the Government at the present time could be severely prejudicial to criminal proceedings. The summary of findings and conclusions which the SIB has published is the most that the SIB believes it safe to publish consistent with this advice.
  It may be helpful to hon. Members if I explain some of the background to this review and why it was necessary to examine thoroughly the regulatory and supervisory aspects of the investment management of Maxwell pension funds. As soon as the extent of the problems became clear last December, the SIB began conducting with IMRO a detailed review of IMRO's exercise of its regulatory responsibilities for BIM and LBI. It was essential to ensure that the review was comprehensive and thorough. The review deals with serious issues and the SIB needed to consider the findings carefully in order to assess the discharge of its responsibilities under the Financial Services Act 1986. My right hon. Friend received the SIB's assessment of its own and IM RO's performance only a few days ago, and asked the SIB to clarify a number of further issues raised by the IMRO review. The conclusions have been announced just as soon as this work was completed.
  The central conclusion of the review is that IMRO fell short of the high standards which it properly expected of itself. In its own words:
  "IMRO's verdict on itself is 'not good enough'."
  The review concludes that BIM and LBI were properly admitted to membership, and that IMRO's admission procedures were adequately thorough. At the same time, the review concluded that monitoring was applied over-literally and without adequate senior control and review, and that when "high risk" members were identified, this was not always followed through by adequate monitoring thereafter. IMRO also accepts there were lapses of judgment, inadequate alertness in picking up signs of possible trouble and failure to relate diverse pieces of information.
  On the positive side, the review notes that IMRO's monitoring procedures have been reviewed over the past six months; that IMRO has already put in hand some organisational changes and a modified system is being introduced to identify and focus resources on areas of higher risk. The review also notes that further re-examination is being undertaken and that IMRO will increase and strengthen the resources that it devotes to monitoring. In addition, the SIB has requested the IMRO board, as a matter of urgency, to produce proposals for strengthening its monitoring and other aspects, with which I will detail later.
  The Government view the shortcomings identified in the SIB's assessment with serious concern and attach importance to the need for early action to ensure that the regulatory system is implemented more effectively.
  However, neither regulator nor the system of regulation can guarantee that all fraud will be prevented or identified. The Maxwell affair was, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement, wholly exceptional—the vast majority of pension funds have served their members well. Furthermore, the IMRO review covers a relatively limited part of the Maxwell story. Under the Financial Services

  649
  Act, IMRO's role in supervising pension funds was to regulate and authorise pension fund managers. IM RO was not, and is not, responsible for ensuring that pension fund trustees respect their wider obligations under trust law. Moreover, effective regulation must in the final analysis involve the active co-operation of the private sector, including the professional advisers, financial institutions and others, all of which have their own responsibilities.
  IMRO's performance also raises questions about the SIB's monitoring of IMRO and its general oversight of the self-regulatory organisations under the Financial Services Act. Both those issues were raised by the hon. Member for Blackley. My right hon. Friend has therefore asked Mr. Andrew Large, the SIB's new chairman, to conduct his own review of how the SIB carries out its regulatory responsibilities.
  My right hon. Friend has also discussed with the chairman of the SIB the need to strengthen the implementation in practice of regulatory standards. Mr. Large fully understands the urgency and importance of that task. My right hon. Friend has asked to be kept closely in touch with progress on the further work, reviews and improvements that are now in hand.
  The SIB and IM RO are effecting a number of measures immediately. A number of changes in the senior personnel of IM RO are taking place. First, Mr. Charles Nunnely, the deputy chairman of Robert Fleming, will chair the board of IMRO until a permanent success to Mr. Nissen has been appointed, and IM RO will also be appointing a new chief executive. Secondly, IMRO has put in hand organisational changes and will strengthen its monitoring resources. Thirdly, IMRO has issued a consultation document on changes to its regime for occupational pension scheme managers. Fourthly, at SIB's behest, the IMRO board is producing, as a matter of urgency, proposals for strengthening the experience, skill and organisation of its monitoring staff, its arrangements for dealing promptly and effectively with potential and actual investor risk and its rules on board members' interests.
  For its part, the SIB wil review urgently IMRO's admission procedures and practices to ensure that its arrangements are satisfactory. It will also review IMRO's approach to monitoring its members, to ensure that the lessons of this particular case are applied generally.
  Under its new chairman, Mr. Andrew Large, the SIB will re-examine the conduct of its own regulatory responsibilities and how to ensure that the lessons of Maxwell are taken into account in ensuring that all the regulators supervised by the SIB meet their responsibili-ties. In addition, the SIB intends to explore wider issues which fall within the responsibility of other regulators. Those issues include: a review of the supervision of the custody of investors assets; a review with the SROs and the accountancy organisations of the relations between auditors and regulators, particularly the mechanisms by which auditors pass relevant information to the Financial Services Act regulators; and arrangements to ensure effective communication between supervisory authorities.
  It is to the credit of the SIB and IM RO that they have carried out this self-critical examination of their performance, published the findings for all to examine and presented positive proposals to improve regulation in future. [Interruption.]
  650
  It is easy for the hon. Member for Brent, South to be somewhat derisive about that, but we would be the first to criticise bodies that presented a whitewash report of their part in any scandal or collapse. The fact that IMRO and the SIB have been self-critical and have pointed to the need for changes and improvements in some areas is to their credit. The House should be grateful for that. It is to be hoped that others in the private sector, including the professional advisers and financial institutions, will examine their own roles as thoroughly and openly.
  In this and earlier debates, hon. Members have asked whether the Government have responsibilities in this matter. First, it has been suggested that the DTI should not have granted LBI a principal's license under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. The hon. Member for Blackley spoke about that. I shall give him the facts. The licence came into effect on 26 April 1988 and lapsed on 29 April 1988 when the Financial Services Act came into force. The directors were notified as Andrew Smith, Kevin Maxwell and Larry Trachtenberg. Robert Maxwell did not become a director of LBI until June 1988. The DTI did not license Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd. The grounds for refusing a licence under the legislation then in force were, in fact, very limited. Unless there were previous convictions for fraud or dishonesty, or any other circumstances likely to lead to improper conduct of business, there was not sufficient reason for refusing a licence.
  Under the Financial Services Act, however, IMRO was required to satisfy itself that the applicants were "fit and proper" to carry out an investment business and that they continued to be so. The fact that LBI was licensed briefly by the DTI did not in any way reduce the obligation of IM RO to conduct rigorous checks before admitting LBI to membership or to monitor LBI's performance.
  In publishing the findings and conclusions of the IMRO review, the SIB has made it clear that IMRO complied with all its normal procedures in admitting LBI to membership and did not rest on the DTI licence.
  The Leader of the Opposition has made several allegations that IM RO warned the Government that it could not do its job properly because of problems over the relationship between the Financial Services Act regime and trust law. This is quite wrong. In his statement, my right hon. Friend made it clear that he has looked into these allegations. Neither he nor the SIB has found any evidence to substantiate them. IM RO and the SIB made representations to the DTI over a number of years about the legal uncertainty which they believed was created by the interaction of the Financial Services Act and trust law. However, there was no suggestion that that uncertainty posed a threat to investor protection, and the SIB's conclusion is that neither the legal uncertainties created by the relationship between the Financial Services Act and trust law nor the existence of IMRO's special occupational pensions scheme regime made any material difference to IMRO's regulation of the Maxwell pension fund companies.
  Much has been said about Professor Hayton's review. What it actually says is that pension fund regulation should he left to trust law. Following Professor Hayton's report, the DTI told IM RO and the SIB not to rely solely on trust law for regulating the management of occupational pensions schemes, and that it was for them to operate the system of regulation under the Financial Services Act to deliver adequate investor protection.

  651
  Neither IMRO nor the SIB at any time advised the DTI that it disagreed with this advice or was unable to deliver the degree of investor protection required.
  Mr. Boateng: Is the Minister satisfied with the current state of trust law, on which the self-regulators are obliged to rely? If he is not, when and how does he propose to reform it?
  Mr. Nelson: The Goode committee will consider such issues in its wider review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced the establishment of the review, which will be thorough and wide-ranging. I am sure that it will examine carefully the question of trust law and the proper ambit of statutory law. I acknowledge the importance of these issues, and it is vital that they are considered carefully and that the House subsequently has an opportunity to examine any recommendations because they will have major implications for the structure and liabilities of pension funds and their trustees. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that the matter is continuing to be considered. It will, I am sure, be a central part of the Goode review.
  It has been suggested that, in view of the shortcomings identified by the IMRO review, the Government should now pay compensation. The Government have made their position on compensation quite clear. Everyone sym-pathises with the hardship and uncertainty suffered by victims of fraud, but no Government can accept a duty to make good losses resulting from fraud or theft of savings. The taxpayer cannot guarantee to make good losses in such cases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced, however, a series of measures to help current and future pensioners, including emergency funding to underpin those Maxwell pensions at immediate risk.
  Five positive measures are being taken to help current and future pensioners: first, emergency funding to underpin the Maxwell pensions at immediate risk is being made available by the Government; secondly, since 8 June, a special unit working with trustees and others to secure the speedy return of assets and the rebuilding of funds has been set up; thirdly, a trust is being established into which the private sector can pay voluntary contributions; fourthly, as I said, a comprehensive review of the framework of pension law is under way; and, finally, proposals have been announced on the introduction of employer debt provisions.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has made it clear that the priority must be to identify, locate and establish ownership of the stolen assets and to secure their return. The Government want to encourage and enable the financial institutions which have profited from Maxwell to assist the pensioners who have lost in this affair. Only those on the Opposition Front Bench seem to feel that this will be helped if the Government decide to make good some of the shortfall. There is no question of that.
  It is clear that the chain of responsibilities had failings at many links, including trustees, banks, auditors, and investment advisers. The Government are doing all that they can to ensure that the assets of the Maxwell companies' pension funds are restored. We believe that all who have profited from Maxwell must meet their full responsibilities to help the Maxwell pensioners. Only those
  652
  on Opposition Front Bench seem to think that this will be helped by the Government stepping in to offer compensation.
  Mr. Boateng: And the pensioners themselves.
  Mr. Nelson: The position of the pensioners themselves varies. As has been said, some of them are being provided for by the acceptance of responsibility and continuation of payment of funds. Of course, for the time being, those pensioners are certainly content with that position. I acknowledge that there may be some uncertainty about what the future holds when a pension is not fully funded and is reliant on the commitment of the company involved. However, the Governnment have proposed a package of financial help and have instigated a review, which is as much as they can and should do in this instance. Such measures are to be warmly welcomed by contributors to and beneficiaries of pension funds at large and, in particular, by the Maxwell pensioners.
  No doubt the Goode committee will consider whether a wider compensation scheme should be established for occupational pension schemes. In the meantime, the Government are not prepared to pre-empt the committee's discussions or anticipate its recommendations in any way.
  I turn finally to the regulatory framework, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South referred in his closing remarks. Perhaps it will help some Opposition Members if I explain how it works. The Financial Services Act 1986 introduced a new framework for investor protection, including wide-ranging statutory powers and new criminal offences. Responsibility under the Act is shared between the Treasury, which is responsible for the Act as a whole, the Securities and Investments Board, to which responsibility for the discharge of statutory functions under the Act has been transferred as the designated agency, and the regulatory and practitioner bodies, including IMRO, which are recognised by the SIB to discharge its statutory functions.
  IMRO is responsible for ensuring that, in carrying on investment business, its members meet standards of honesty, competence and solvency. It is the SIB'S job to be satisfied that IMRO continues to meet the criteria for self-regulatory bodies under the Act. These include having adequate arrangements and resources for the effective monitoring of its members and for enforcement and compliance with its rules and procedures. The Treasury is responsible for ensuring that the SIB is able and willing, as the designated agency under the Act, to discharge the statutory functions which have been transferred to it.
  I do not accept that the Maxwell case demonstrates that the supervisory structure itself is deficient. The failings identified by IMRO and the SIB are shortcomings of implementation. The integrity and success of other businesses authorised under the Financial Services Act show that the regime can and does work well.
  I acknowledge, however, that regulatory standards need to be strengthened. I have informed the House of the steps that are being taken by the SIB and IMRO, and the steps that my right hon. Friend will be taking to ensure that the operation of the regulatory system is sufficiently strengthened to deliver effective protection to investors.
  I understand full well the concerns that the case has generated. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor stressed in his statement that he will be assessing the effectiveness of all the action already taken and proposed, together with

  653
  the outcome of the SIB's further reviews. There are, of course, other issues which need to be examined, including the role of the other trustees of the Maxwell pension funds.
  The lessons will need to be carefully considered to ensure that the regulatory system is sufficiently strengthened to deliver effective protection to investors, including members of pension funds. The Government are determined that all the lessons of the Maxwell affair, in its many aspects, must be learnt and implemented. My right hon. Friend and I will assess in detail over the coming months the effectiveness of the steps already taken by the SIB and IMRO, the additional action now proposed and the outcome of the SIB's further review. My right hon. Friend has promised to report back to the House.
  I have spoken at some length about the Maxwell case, the review and my right hon. Friend's statement. I have done so in response to the real concerns that have been raised by the hon. Member for Blackley and the general points that he and the hon. Member for Brent, South made about public confidence in the pension industry. I hope that what I have said provides them and a wider audience with some reassurance.

  Local Government Expenditure
  4.33 am
  Mr. David Wilshire: I am sure that you are well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Members who seek debates at this hour are probably either mad or feel strongly about a particular subject. In the next hour or so, I suspect that you will have the chance to decide which state of mind applies to me.
  It seems that the subject needs an airing for the following reasons. Over the years, our debates about local government finance have led to repetitive legislation and repetitive failure. Every piece of legislation has resulted in continued lack of control. That has led to more legislation. The circle goes round and round.
  There are appalling relations between local government and central Government and a lack of affection for local government by the public. This adds up to a shaky future for local government. That is why the subject needs an airing, but why does it need one at 4.30 am, shortly before Parliament rises for the summer recess? [Interruption.] There is a good answer to why 4.30 am—my luck ran out. If I had drawn a reasonable hour, others would have been mocked for turning up at 4.30 am and I could have gone to bed and slept soundly.
  Whether at 4.30, 5.30 or 6.30 am, the issue certainly needs raising before the House rises for the summer recess. The Local Government Commission is about to embark on its review of structure and services and the Government are still examining accountability and local democracy. If those matters are being considered, finance must also be considered. They go together. One reason for the failure over the years to get local government reform right is that one minute we consider finance and the next we consider structure. Whether it is 4.30 am or not, there is a real urgency to make the point that finance needs to be considered alongside those other matters.
  There may be a temptation for people to say, "Ah yes, but we have done that. We are replacing the community charge with the council tax." However, the review of the community charge and the introduction of the council tax do not constitute a review of local government finance, just a review of one bit—that is, how to raise income. My argument is about the totality of local government finance, not simply the council tax. The Government need to go further than that.
  If the totality of finance is not reviewed, the work of the Local Government Commission will ultimately fail and the future of local government will stay in doubt. If it is not done in the right order, finance will dominate. If all that we do is change to the council tax and say that that is the review of finance and all else follows from it, local government will continue to be dominated by finance as an end in itself, rather than the means that it should be.
  If my argument is that the totality of finance needs reviewing now, why have I applied to have a debate on expenditure control in the early hours of the morning? It is because, in all the issues involved in local government finance, expenditure control is the key political issue which must be tackled first in any complete review of local government finance. Finance is a finite resource; there is never sufficient money to go round, irrespective of the political ideology brought to bear on the problem. Yet politicians of all ideologies—my party is as bad as the others—find it desperately easy to pretend that finance is

  655
  an infinite commodity. The result is that deficits, borrowings and so on are used to postpone the day of reckoning. Sooner or later, a total lack of realism develops, which leads to absurdities such as the lease and rent back of parking meters, and the whole issue of local government finance falls into further disrepute.
  Expenditure control is the key priority and action is urgently needed. Expenditure must be kept within the finances available, whether we like that or not. Until that is achieved, all other financial issues—including whether we have a council tax, rates, or whatever—are red herrings. However—this is the rub—in this day and age the public find it intolerable that all their needs cannot be met at once, which leads to politicians finding it almost impossible to grapple with the problems of expenditure control. That makes expenditure control a high-risk topic, but that is inevitable. Those who ask the Government to face up to it usually end up being unpopular, but I am resigned to that.
  To obtain effective expenditure control in local government, we must first control total expenditure, and that is highly controversial. Secondly, we must control properly the allocation of all the funds involved; that, too, is highly controversial. Thirdly, we must control and maximise the value obtained from the money that we spend. That should not be so controversial, but at the moment people seem to focus on that; yet it is mainly a managerial issue. It has become controversial because politicians have homed in on it and interfered in what is primarily a management matter, ducking the first two issues.
  Perhaps I may digress slightly to say how we should not seek to achieve expenditure control, and that is by fretting over income. Looking back through Hansard, one sees recent attempts at that. There were debates about whether rates are the right way in which to obtain effective control, and it will be seen that that led to the introduction of the community charge. One of the great arguments was that that would make it easier to control things because it would result in greater accountability. That was discovered not to work, so the argument was deployed that the council tax would be the right way forward.
  All those debates are about income and the methods of income control which have come on the back of that. First, we had rate capping—the capping of income. That did not work. We then had charge capping—the capping of income. The history of the whole subject proves that the approach of trying to control expenditure via income is doomed to failure. Any attempt to control expenditure via income leads to ever more draconian and ever more silly attempts at expenditure control. That route must be abandoned. The bad news for the Government is that capping will not work. The only way to control local government expenditure effectively is by controlling expenditure itself. That is what politicians hate, but unfortunately they have no choice but to do it.
  We should be clear about the Government's role in the process of expenditure control in local government. That, too, is a highly controversial matter. If there were others silly enough to be here at this time of the morning, they would be jumping up and down saying that any discussion of the Government's role is all about centralisation and the removal of local democracy. That point is inevitably made, but it is nonsense. That, too, is a red herring.
  There are two areas of expenditure control where the Government have a primary responsiblity about which we
  656
  should be clear. The first is that, whether we like it or not, the Government have an on-going concern in all expenditure, simply because all expenditure affects the state of the economy, which means that the Government are bound to be involved. As all expenditure affects the state of the economy, that means that Government intervention in such matters is inevitable.
  Again, if there were people here on the Conservative side they would be jumping up and down saying that we believe in non-intervention, but in a national economy even non-intervention has an effect on the economy. Therefore, non-intervention amounts to intervention. That particular circle will go round and round so that we end up concluding that, whether we like it or not, the Government have a role in all expenditure. We cannot get away from that. No amount of flag waving about local democracy can change that.
  The second reason why the Government have a role to play in local government expenditure control is the good old principle of he who pays the piper calls the tune. Central Government currently provide some 86 per cent. of local government's money, and it follows as day follows night that the provider of such a large proportion of income will, quite properly, want an enormous say in how the money is spent. For better or worse, central Government are involved.
  What should we do to control local government expenditure? I believe that there arc three requirements. First, we must be absolutely clear about the source of all the finance with which we are dealing. Secondly, we must be absolutely clear about the purpose of all expenditure. Thirdly, we must know on whose behalf the expenditure is taking place; we must be absolutely clear about that, too.
  The first requirement is fundamental, for a simple reason. Each source of money requires its own method of control. Central Government, for instance, can best control their own expenditure by simply saying no. In the case of spending by private citizens, however, it is not sensible for the Government to say no; the best way of controlling private expenditure is the imposition of expenditure taxation.
  One of the worst examples of categorisation by source of money is the category that we call local government expenditure—the subject of this debate. That is perhaps the best example of how not to do things. What we call local government expenditure has not one but two sources. The first is local money; the second is central Government money. The local source can be further subdivided. Local money comes in the form of local taxation, fees, charges, interest on investments, borrowing, and so forth. Each of those many sources raises different issues in regard to control, and each is best controlled in a different way. In reality, local government expenditure—the label that we apply to all that money—is a pool of funds from a number of different sources, rather than a category in itself. That must be put right.
  The second requirement for the proper control of expenditure is the clarification of its purpose. Currently, huge sums are allocated in a very general way, and apportioned to a particular purpose later. The result of that process is entirely predictable: it is acrimony. The recipient of the money does with it what he thinks right; the provider, who has not got what he expected, objects —and rows break out. Hansard and the newspapers are littered with examples.

  657
  Why are we in this mess? There are two reasons. First, central Government, the provider of so much of the money, are in fact a multi-agency conglomerate with lots of different Ministries, all making their own allocations. Secondly, local government is a mini-government in its own right, and there are lots of different people deciding what to do with the money when they receive it. Each Ministry, and each council, determines its own priorities, and switches resources around as it thinks fit. Friction and muddle are inevitable in that process, and things are made worse by using the wrong approaches to try to solve that muddle. At present, attempts are made to control expenditure via the type of allocation rather than via the purpose of the expenditure.
  For example, general allocations in local government are worked out using wondrous formulae. Allocations against bids, such as those for the housing improvement programme, are worked out in a general way. Allocations against bids for lumps of money or general allocations via grants are both incredibly easy to reallocate. If money is handed out in that way, we should not be surprised if it is not used for the purpose for which it was intended.
  The other method is agency allocation. Motorway repair contracts are a good example of that. If money is allocated to repair the M3, it is incredibly difficult for the person who receives it to use it for any other purpose. It seems crystal clear, therefore, that we should allocate all money against specific purposes rather than shovelling it out in large sacks.
  The third requirement that central Government must take on board is the need to clarify whether expenditure is being made to purchase a service or to provide a service. Those are fundamentally different functions. The test is to ask on whose behalf the expenditure is being made. Taking the fire service as an example, we must ask whether its expenditure is carried out on behalf of the Home Office or of local government. Confusion may arise, and some people may say that the money is spent on behalf of local government while others say that it is on behalf of the Home Office—but that is because many people fail to think through what local government really amounts to, and what it really does when it provides a specific service. Sometimes—as, I suggest, is true with the fire service— local government acts simply as a service delivery agent. The Home Office provides more than 85 per cent. of the money for the fire service and also sets the standard, so the Home Office is purchasing a service.
  On the other hand, when local government acts as a mini-government in its own right, it is free to decide what to do. It cannot be acting in that capacity with the fire service, because it is not free to abandon its fire service or to lower the standards. One has to think that conclusion through. If we give local authorities large amounts of general money and leave them to get on with it, they will always act as mini-governments.
  For example, the standard spending assessment for my county of Surrey says that the authority needs to spend a certain amount on social services, so it is given an allocation of money to spent that amount. But Surrey spends £8 million less than its allocation on social services, with the result that my mailbag is full of complaints about the poor standards of social services—yet the county still receives that money.
  658
  However, if we look on the process as one of purchasing services from local government, an authority is pinned down to acting as a contractor, not as a mini-government. Then one can control the expenditure if one provides the money, and can specify via a contract the standards that, as the provider of that money, one expects. Thus, effective expenditure control requires us to be absolutely clear when local government is acting as a contractor and when it is acting in its own right. That confusion must be sorted out.
  How can central Government improve their role in the control of local government expenditure? The thought process starts with a paradox: the current arrangements appear to be designed to weaken rather than to strengthen expenditure control. The source categories are wrong and there are huge, generalised allocations—both marvellous ways of weakening control rather than strengthening it. If central Government want to control local government finance effectively, they must reorganise provision, allocate all moneys to specific services, end the use of general formulae, and specify the basis on which funds are transferred to local government.
  The first step is to reorganise the provision of finance. I said that central Government is a multi-agency arrangement. The process is that central Government gather in most of their money via one Ministry—the Treasury. Many separate Ministries then decide expen-diture allocations, and the resources are then handed over to the Department of the Environment to pass on to local government.
  That is a wondrously effective recipe for ineffective control. All sorts of different people have a finger in the pie. I argue that every Ministry should pass on its own funds direct to those whom it chooses to provide services. That is bad news for my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am sorry—but the Department of the Environment should be involved in handing on only money for which it is responsible, rather than in passing on money via a general allocation in respect of services in which the Home Office or the Department of Education, for example, is involved. That fundamental change must be made as quickly as possible.
  The second step is for central Government to allocate all their funds to specific services and to specify and clarify the categories of service to which moneys are being allocated. The problem is that we do not get those categories right either. The general formula used now includes many categories which do not represent whole services. If money is allocated to such categories, attempts to exercise control become fragmented—with the result that the public's needs are not met, services are duplicated, and there is a great deal of waste. That is a recipe for disaster.
  If service categories are too big, other problems arise. Education provides a classic example. As a label for local government purposes, it covers a wide range of provision —including nursery services, primary schools, secondary schools, school lunches, clothing grants, and special help for the poor and handicapped. They are all separate services, and they each raise different issues of service provision and control. If progress is to be made, they all require a different approach and must not be lumped together.
  Education is seen as an all-embracing term, but for a local government councillor, it does not encompass private schools or universities. Muddle comes out of that. Large categories also mean different things to different people.

  659
  When councillors meet a Minister and say, "We want to talk about education," they mean schools, lunches, clothing grants, and special schools. However, the Minister in the Department of Education to whom they were speaking would not mean the same thing when he or she replied. The Minister would mean schools and universities, but the councillors would not be talking about universities. While listening to the councillors saying that it was very difficult to help the handicapped, the Minister would have no right to discuss that issue. Councillors would mean one set of services and the Minister would mean something else. That would be a dialogue between two people using different languages. Using too large categories can produce that kind of muddle and that must be sorted out.
  The Government must move away from using formulas which are the consequence of having too large categories and simply shovelling out large amounts of money. Because they do not work, they become ever more complex and silly. The best example of that at the moment is the fact that the allocations of all councils in England have been affected in the current year by the number of tourists in London. That cannot be sensible or a recipe for effective service delivery or financial control.
  The Government must also specify the basis on which they are handing over the money. By that I mean that they have three choices: they can tell local government that they are handing the money over as a grant; they can tell local government that they are lending the money and that they want it back at some stage in the future; or they can say that they are paying local government to do something for them.
  If one gives someone a grant or loan, one puts a huge distance between oneself and the person who receives the grant or loan. If that distance is established, it is almost impossible to control what happens after one has made the grant. If one makes a payment for something, however, one maintains that link. If one focuses on making payments and treating local government as a service delivery contractor, one will have maximum control of expenditure and maximum input into the standards received.
  For example, if one makes a general grant to a local education authority, one has very little control over what happens in that LEA, but if one makes a payment to a grant-maintained school, one has a great deal of say in what happens in that school.
  It follows that deciding who purchases each service is at the heart of getting effective expenditure control. However, local government seems to be obsessed with what it controls, even though it provides only 15 per cent. of the finance. In other words, it does not control what it thinks it controls, but only a very small part of it. That thought process must end. I believe that in future local government should control only what it actually purchases with its own money. It should not control what it purchases on behalf of central Government using central Government money. That amounts to a fundamental change in the role of local government.
  We must be careful when we ask ourselves who should purchase what. My argument is that those who decide what needs will be met, and what standards should be achieved, should be the people who purchase the service. If we break that link and the person doing the purchasing does not decide the needs or standards, there will be an
  660
  endless dispute about the adequacy of money, about value for money and about standards. That is exactly what we have now.
  Although that approach is radical, I believe that it is the only way to achieve what we seek. Turning every central Government Ministry into the purchaser of its own services would enable each Ministry to decide who to use. Of course, the Ministries will want to continue to use local government when local government seems to he the best way to deliver the service, but they will have a choice. That route will maximise effectiveness and improve value for money, because there will he a much closer specification of what is expected from the allocation of money than there is at present.
  There will be some who say that such an argument appears to preclude any local input. That is the centralising argument which will crop up from time to time. Nevertheless, there is a role for local government and for local governing bodies, and that must be strengthened; however, I would digress if I went down that track.
  Those proposals add up to a radical overhaul of local government finance. Central Government must assume responsibility for their own expenditure. Each Ministry must do its own purchasing. Local government, when acting as a service delivery agent, must compete for the work that it wants to carry out. Each service delivery organisation, be it local government or the voluntary sector, must have it own governing body. The impact of that for local government is clearly profound. Some say that it will take away power, but the impact on local government will he to free local government from its preoccupation with the limited range of services that it currently provides.
  Local government will be free to play a monitoring role in all local services, whether or not it provides them, which is a great enhancement of the role of local government and would give it scope to have an input into meeting all local needs. Even if local government does not provide the service, it will have a role in saying how such needs should be met.
  The result for local government is not bad news, but good news. It will make local government focus on the needs of the people, which is what it should be doing. It will make councillors' work much more rewarding and much more respected by the public. It will also give central Government Ministries far better control over their own standards. It will mean that central Government will be seen for what they are—the source of help when a service is provided and when central Government pay for it. Councils will be free to spend their own funds in any way they wish. For the money that they raise locally, it will be much easier for them to set their own priorities. Local taxation will be drastically cut and, with a bit of luck and a following wind, there will be far fewer debates on local taxation. The real bottom line of that train of thought is that, for the first time in a very long time, we shall achieve expenditure control in local government.
  The benefits of such a radical rethink are huge. We shall have an increased diversity of services, greater sensitivity to needs, better management, increased competition, reduced centralisation, and greater accountability to the public. We shall actually have stronger local democracy, because it will be more respected, and there will be more scope for citizens to do their own thing and to take part. That list of benefits was to be found in every party manifesto at the previous general election, so my points

  661
  should not upset any hon. Members, whether they support my party or somebody else's party. That radical rethink leads to what all manifestos want. Therefore, I not only urge my hon. Friend the Minister to go down that track but hope that Labour Members and others will encourage him.
  5.8 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for the lucid way in which he made his case. At the very least, he has ensured that, in years to come, if I am asked whether I have lost sleep over control of local authority finance, I can answer in the affirmative.
  My hon. Friend and I go back a number of years. On the Environment Select Committee, we somehow contrived not to discuss that issue, but we have obviously enjoyed the experience today. I have a certain sense of déjà vu coming to another debate about the control of local government expenditure so soon after we have completed the capping round for 1992–93. My hon. Friend has, however, taken this opportunity to raise a number of significant issues about the way forward.
  I am, of course, happy to set out why we have attached and will continue to attach great importance to the level of local government spending. Although there is a good deal of common ground between us, I feel that the approach which he advocated, which would involve a much greater role for central Government as the purchaser of services that are currently the responsibility of local Government, has distinctively different emphases from the vision which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recently expressed as to how we see the future of local government.
  The starting point of expenditure control must be that Governments are responsible for the overall management of the economy. I know that I am at one with my hon. Friend on that point. The Government are concerned with levels of borrowing, spending and taxation at national and local level. There is nothing new in that. Parliament has always exercised control over the financing of local government as regards the nature of local government's sources of revenue and the extent to which local expenditure is supported by central Government.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made this point to the House with his accustomed eloquence on 5 December 1990 when he said:
  "in the end, power lies in this House … no Chancellor of the Exchequer can tolerate a challenge to his authority to manage the economy with prudence and discipline."—[Official Report, 5 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 319.]
  Local authority revenue expenditure, whether it is financed by national or local taxation, affects the overall burden of taxation in the economy. Local authority taxation—whether community charges under the current system or council taxes from next April—feeds directly into the retail prices index. Indeed, what I might call the twin purposes of capping are to contribute to the control of public spending, thereby continuing the pressure on inflation and maintaining economic progress, and to limit the burden of national and local taxation.
  It is worth reminding ourselves that local authorities are responsible for more than a quarter of all public
  662
  spending. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities told the House during the recent debate on the capping order, local government expenditure is now running at some £65 billion. That is well over £1,000 for every man, woman and child every year.
  The need for some control over that volume of expenditure is scarcely a new idea. I recall that it was a Labour Secretary of State for the Environment who declared all those many years ago—indeed, even before the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and I were thought of in political terms—"The party's over." He secured a considerable reduction in the level of local government current and capital expenditure.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: When the then Secretary of State said of local government that the party was over, I am sure that he did not mean that the wake was about to begin. The tragedy for local government under the stewardship of the Conservative party is that that stewardship precipitated the end of local government as we knew it and the beginning of something different, totally centralised, grossly under-resourced and ill-equipped to do its job.
  Mr. Squire: I reject that view of what has happened in local government. As I said not a moment ago, when local government spends some £1,000 each year for every man, woman and child, I would have to go a long way to recognise the description that the hon. Gentleman gives.
  We take the view that it remains reasonable in the interests of our wider economic goals to expect local authorities to play their part in restraining their expenditure, just like others, throughout the public and private sectors.
  Indeed, I may embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne by quoting back at him, with approval, some remarks that he made at the time of the capping debate in 1990. That debate, which I am sure that many hon. Members will recall, was a somewhat highly charged affair, full of speeches about savage cuts in services which came to assume the generic, if not necessarily elegant, title of "bleeding stumps". His comments then were a salutary corrective to some of the wilder allegations and, if I may make so bold, form an excellent summary of the Government's position. He said:
  "The debate … is not about how local government is financed …. It is not about the structure and size of local government … Nor is it directly about services themselves … However important services might be, and I do not seek to underplay them … This debate is about how much local government spends … at the end of the day we cannot spend what we have not got."
  In 1990–91, local authorities used the move to the new system as a smokescreen to disguise vastly increased expenditure. Spending rose by 13·5 per cent. and during the two-year period to April 1991, spending had risen by about a quarter. That was, I am afraid, the result of allowing authorities to decide what level of expenditure they felt appropriate. Such increases could only be described as staggering.
  With the fundamental shift from local to national taxation for the funding of local services, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the 1991 Budget, we were even more determined to ensure that there should be no repetition of such overspending.
  I am happy to report that those extra resources from national taxpayers have not been frittered away. Although

  663
  I am sure that that is in large part due to a greater sense of realism on the part of authorities, it is also because we signalled our determination that it should not happen.
  For 1991–92 and 1992–93, we took action to announce provisional capping criteria, so that authorities were aware of our intentions before setting their budgets. As a result, local authority spending came out only about 1 per cent. above the amount for which we had made provision in the settlement.
  This year, more than 400 authorities have budgeted within, or very close to, the limits implied by our provisional criteria. That is a result in which local government can take considerable satisfaction. It is also one which shows that some of the more hyperbolic statements made from time to time about capping are, to put it mildly, exaggerated.
  That is where we are. There is certainly room for improvement. We would wish to see—and my right hon. and learned Friend has expressed the hope—the year when no authority will be capped. For 1993–94, we have signalled our intention to follow the precedent of this year and the preceding one, and to announce provisional capping criteria in the autumn, so that those can be taken into account by authorities in the process of setting their budgets for the year.
  Next year is, of course, an important one. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities mentioned in the debate on the capping order that local government needs an independent tax which can be brought in at sensible and affordable levels. Next year is the first year of the council tax. Some things will change. Perhaps most significantly—unlike both the rates and the community charge—the council tax is both a property tax and a personal tax. But, although the nature of the tax will change, the wider context will not.
  We remain committed to the principle that local authorities should not be able to obscure their true levels of expenditure from their domestic taxpayers. That is had for business and had for accountability. We consider that there should be stable grant system to equalise bills throughout the country. The council tax system will not be accompanied by significant changes to the revenue support grant system. We remain committed to the principle that overspending against standard spending assessment should come home directly to those who pick up the bill. But we are also determined to safeguard the position of local residents, as both local and national taxpayers. We have taken powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which are analogous to the current charge-capping powers.
  Those with good memories may, however, recall that, for the first year of capping under the community charge, we used only the "absolute excessiveness" criterion—the comparison between an authority's budget and its SSA. That allowed many very significant increases in budget from the last year of the old rating system to go largely unchecked. I should therefore mention that our powers under the 1992 Act allow us to specify a base position at the start of the new system for measuring increases in budget for 1993–94. That is important.
  Looking further ahead, we can expect the structure of local government to change as the Local Government Commission goes about its work. Although organisation and functions may alter, there is no reason why local taxpayers should be exposed to higher bills as a result. They will be receiving the same services albeit, perhaps,
  664
  from a new authority. Nor is there any reason why new authorities should be removed for the first year of their existence from the capping regime, as far as increases in budget are concerned. Thus, for the years after 1993–94, we shall also be able to specify a base position for measuring increases in budget, where there has been structural or functional change. However, although we must ensure that we are able to take action, as I have said, we very much hope that it will not be necessary to do so.
  My hon. Friend has suggested that the achievement of financial control is concerned with three issues. The first is the control of total expenditure, and as I have said, I think that we are at one on that. Secondly, my hon. Friend suggests that the allocation of funding between competing needs should be directly controlled. His concern is that purchasers of services should be identified and have responsibility for the necessary resources; thus, central Government would assume full control of much expenditure and would directly purchase those services that it funds. Local government would raise only that amount of funding required to meet community needs that are truly local.
  My hon. Friend's third main point relates to the importance of maximising value for money. It is a point closely related to the purchasing of services and is something to which I wish to return a little later. My immediate concern is with his proposals for the allocation of responsibility for certain services and their associated funding. That issue is, at heart, about local accountability and responsibility. My hon. Friend had some words of wisdom in the capping debate in 1990 with which I cannot but agree. He said:
  "Local councils are best at assessing local need, and in responding to it. They are best at service assessment and arranging service provision. Parliament exists to settle what is best for the nation … the Government will settle what expenditure limits there must be, and local councils, which arc closest to the people, must sort out the priorities."—[Official Report, 11 July 1990; Vol 176, c. 416–420.]
  We do not wish to tell local councils how to order their priorities or which services to provide.
  Mr. Wilshire: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Squire: Yes, but I do not want to do so too often.
  Mr. Wilshire: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that central Government, quite properly, do not leave those things to local government. If I understand the situation correctly, Derbyshire police force, which is a local government matter, has been refused a certificate of competence. The Government have stepped in, entirely correctly, because they recognise that certain things cannot be left to local government although the money goes to it. Is that not the point that I have been trying to make?
  Mr. Squire: I draw a distinction between the monitoring of areas of local authority expenditure. including the example that my hon. Friend cited, that will often fall either on Government or on a Government agency, and, quite separately, the centralised funding of local authority services where, as my hon. Friend knows and as I am seeking to make clear, the Government believe that local authorities should be able to determine their priorities. It is the proper exercise of that local discretion that forms the basis of local accountability by which we all set considerable store.

  665
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his recent speech to the Association of District Councils' annual conference, we do not need to imagine that central and local government will agree about everything to accept that there can and should be a good working relationship between the two within a broad consensus. There will never be complete agreement about spending. That is perhaps too much to ask. However, the vast majority of authorities have accepted the need— albeit, perhaps unwelcome—for restraint and the need to set sensible budgets which local people and the country can afford. But within those broad constraints there is considerable scope for authorities to improve the quality and the value of their services while setting reasonable levels of council tax.
  I am sure that the majority of authorities no longer consider that there is a pot of gold from which an endless supply of resources can be provided. They accept that it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what the country can afford and for local authorities themselves to use that provision to the best possible effect. In doing so, they should be mindful not only of costs but of the quality of the service provided. Through our powers to cap. we can exert restraint on the amount that authorities can raise from local people so that they are not soaked. Through our other initiatives to encourage greater efficiency, particularly the client-provider split and increased competition, we can move towards securing a better return for those resources.
  I know that my hon. Friend has consistently argued that councils should be representative of the whole range of local services rather than those which are currently the responsibility of local government. Our views about the future structure of local government will he well known to my hon. Friend. He has made a valuable contribution to the final form of the legislation and his views have helped to shape the guidance which we will issue to the Commission. I know that there are still differences between us on some specific points, but certainly we share the same goals. We want the authorities emerging from the Commission's work to be well placed to address the needs of local people. We want a structure of local government to suit the needs and wishes of local people, not the administrative convenience of service deliverers. There is nothing between us on that.
  Local authorities are responsible for a wide range of functions and it is in discharging those functions that they meet or fail to meet the demands and proper expectations of their people. We therefore must have a structure of local government which enables local authorities to carry out their functions effectively and conveniently. That is not, of course, to say that the authorities must deliver all their services themselves—far from it. The best way to meet local needs is to check all the options for service delivery and to go for the best. That is the heart of our policy on the enabling role of local authorities.
  Our view of the role of local government is one of facilitating the provision of services and of acting in partnership with central Government and others to secure that provision. We see a clear role for local government as the representatives of local communities, responsive to their needs and—this is the vital point—best able to assess in many instances their requirements. It is being close to
  666
  the grass roots, to those for whom the service is being provided, that is important. Local government in many cases fulfils that role and does so effectively. It is therefore frequently appropriate for local government to decide how it responds to local needs.
  I know that my hon. Friend distinguishes very clearly between the centralised purchase of specific services and the provision of those services. Some of the initiatives that we have developed—I am thinking here of grant-maintained schools—show that it is not necessarily local government which is best placed. Sometimes it is possible to move even closer to the grass roots and to respond, for example, to the views of parents. In these cases, we are providing people with greater say on choice and we are involving people more directly in the way that services are run.
  I have my doubts that creating councillors who are responsible for monitoring the standards of local services but who are not responsible for securing their provision and who raise only a very small amount of money locally is likely to enhance local accountability.
  Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Squire: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman for the second time.
  Mr. Boateng: Is not that precisely what the Government have done in housing? They have taken away from local authorities the responsibility for the direct provision of housing. given it to the Housing Corporation and housing associations and then expected local authorities to provide for the homeless and to have an overall monitoring role. Given the hon. Gentleman's rational analysis. is it any surprise that that simply is not working?
  Mr. Squire: The House will have difficulty recognising reality in what the hon. Gentleman says. My memory is that, in the current year, local authorities are still spending up to £3 billion, which is a significant sum by any standard. Many of those authorities are spending it wisely to improve their existing stock. If they are also bringing into use many of the empty properties that, sadly, too many local authorities still have, they will be doing a double service to their local charge payers.
  It seems to me that the principle of local accountability must rest on the decisions of local councillors—rather than central Government—who are responsible for services which their communities use and who raise a reasonable amount of money locally to contribute towards those services. I suspect that, if local taxation were to be marginalised to the extent that my hon. Friend suggests, the importance of local government would be correspondingly reduced and there would certainly be problems with accountability if they had only limited influence over service issues.
  It seems to us that the key to securing better value for money in the provision of local services does indeed lie with the purchaser-provider split. We believe that the closer the purchaser is to those for whom the service is being provided. the more responsive and effective will he that service. It is for this reason that we believe that local authorities will continue to have a major role as a facilitator and hence purchaser of services for local people.
  The purchaser-provider split in local government is a major force in securing value for money on behalf of

  667
  councils' residents. It ensures that councils are accountable not only for the choices which they make between competing priorities but for the efficient delivery of high-quality services to meet those needs.
  Local government has historically been at the forefront of delivering services, often of a high quality, to the general public. The challenge facing local authorities is to identify local requirements, establish priorities, determine the appropriate levels of service which charge payers need and demand and ensure that those levels of service are consistently achieved. Those tasks are the very heart of what a local authority should be achieving for local people. An authority is not simply a bureaucracy which imposes restrictions on their aspirations; it is the means by which local communities can secure a better quality of public service and a better quality of life.
  Compulsory competitive tendering has not just been a financial success but has made local authorities consider carefully, perhaps for the first time, what levels of service are required and how to measure outputs to ensure that those services are properly provided. That has given local authorities the ability to decide what standard of service they should seek. They have found that there is often room for quality to improve without a corresponding increase in costs. It is generally recognised that CCT has encouraged greater efficiency. Far from declininig, standards of service in the activities subject to CCT have, in fact, generally been maintained or improved. Authorities have taken advantage of the need to sit down and think through the needs of their communities and to demand higher standards. CCT has made a direct contribution to an improved quality of public service and we look to seeing it continue to do so in services currently subject to competition.
  I think that most people accept that CCT for manual services has been successful in terms of the benefits which it has delivered both to local authorities and to their charge payers. However, now is not the time for authorities to sit back contented, or perhaps even to breathe a sigh of relief. There are other local authority activities that could benefit equally from the improved levels of service, greater efficiency and better value for money which can be realised through competition.
  Many authorities have already recognised that and have gone beyond the requirements of legislation to try novel approaches to the delivery of a much greater range of services—[Laughter.] A number have organised service departments into separate business units that now act as contractors, working to the specification of the client core of the authority. Others have market-tested or contracted out a range of professional and executive services, and all have found that they have shown financial benefits or benefits in the quality of service delivered, sometimes both.
  I note that some of my comments in the past few minutes have apparently aroused amusement in the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
  Mr. John Home Robertson: And among the Back Benchers.
  Mr. Squire: And among the massed Back Benchers.
  As recently as yesterday, I met and spent a long time with representatives of a county council who convinced me of the many significant steps that they were already taking, in advance of any legal requirements, to make themselves more efficient and effective. I congratulate them on that, as
  668
  I do all authorities that are taking such steps. I do not regard that as humorous; I regard it as in everybody's wider interests.
  Mr. Boateng: It is because a number of Opposition Members present—
  Mr. Squire: Two.
  Mr. Boateng: I repeat: it is because a number of Opposition Members present—
  Mr. Home Robertson: One.
  Mr. Boateng: It is because one of us has a certain fondness for the Minister, remembering him in his role as the representative—sometimes the lone representative—of sanity among the Conservative ranks against the then Government, and as a distinguished member of the Select Committee on the Environment, that I laugh now to hear him become so very much the perfect ministerial man. He repeats a brief—
  Mr. Home Robertson: Parroting.
  Mr. Boateng: As my hon. Friend says, the Minister parrots a brief that bears no resemblance to what he must know is the case on the ground—the tragedy of what local government has become.
  Mr. Squire: My only response is to regret that the hon. Gentleman—who indeed spent many happy hours in my company on the Select Committee on the Environment—has lost contact with what is happening in local authorities since he turned his attention to Treasury matters.
  Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman has become an embittered man.
  Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend suggests, the hon. Gentleman may have become an embittered man. It is very sad.
  The Government have made clear their commitment to the principle of extending competition in the provision of local authorities. The proposals contain plans to extend CCT to the construction-related professions such as architectural, engineering and property management services. We recognise that those services differ in character from the blue-collar services that are already subject to competition. The evaluation of tenders, for example, is not simply a matter of price. Authorities may also need to evaluate the quality of tenders, in itself sometimes a subjective judgment.
  The areas to which we have proposed to extend CCT are different from those activities that have thus far been subject to the regime, and the consultation paper recognises that there may be a need to modify legislation in some cases. I cannot pretend that there has been a positive rush of support from all sides of local government for our proposals. Perhaps many of the objections stem from a misunderstanding of what we propose. It is clearly not sensible simply to apply the existing CCT regime to professional services which are themselves different in character from services such as refuse collection or street cleaning.
  The question that we need to ask is not whether competition is appropriate for these services but how best it can be achieved, and how best to balance the flexibility that authorities rightly seek against the need to ensure that

  669
  the benefits of competition can be brought to authorities unwilling to look properly at alternative forms of service delivery.
  Both central and local government have as their raison d'être the provision of high-quality services to the general public. The citizens charter will play an important part in promoting high standards. Local authorities are already responding to the challenge. Competition has also proved an effective tool in improving public services and has benefited not only local taxpayers but authorities themselves.
  We have successfully moved away from the idea that in order to improve services, it is necessary to spend more. I think that there is also broad acceptance of the need to spend only what the country can afford. I hope that this will mean that our capping powers become more a symbol of our determination not to let up on the need for sensible and affordable budgets, rather than being a tool which we frequently use to curb the excesses of individual authorities. I hope that all this will mean that we can concentrate on the real job of local government, which is to facilitate the provision of services to their local communities, which are high in quality and low in cost, and to he accountable to them for the results.

  Nuclear Waste Store (Torness and Hunterston)
  5.36 am
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I seem to recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and I were elected to the House at by-elections on the same day in October 1978. I wish that I could congratulate you at a time other than 5.36 on a Friday morning on your elevation to the Chair, but I do so anyway.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the proposal by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. to store 1,200 tonnes of highly radioactive waste nuclear fuel for at least 80 years in a building at Torness in East Lothian and a slightly smaller quantity at Hunterston in Ayrshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), whose constituency includes Hunterston, cannot be present for the debate, although he has an obvious interest in the subject and had an article on it published in the Glasgow Herald earlier this week.
  There has been remarkably little public debate on the proposal. Therefore, I am anxious to ensure that all aspects of the idea should be fully understood. That is why I have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to order a public inquiry in the Dunbar area to consider the whole subject before any decision is taken on the construction of a dry store for nuclear fuel.
  I stress that my comments about the lack of public debate are no criticism of Scottish Nuclear, which from the start has been commendably open about its ideas and plans. That is a welcome contrast to the regime of secrecy which has tended to surround all aspects of nuclear energy policy in the past. Scottish Nuclear originally gave me a full briefing at Torness power station on 12 April 1991, and last month it went to the length of taking me and my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) all the way to Denver in Colorado to see a dry store for nuclear fuel which is almost identical to the facilities that it plans for Scotland.
  I put a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 18 April 1991 asking for a statement on Government policy. I raised the subject in a debate on 25 April last and I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 27 May 1991 expressing various concerns. On 17 February this year, I tabled a further question calling for an inquiry, and most recently. on 6 May, I wrote again to the Secretary of State for Scotland underlining my view that an inquiry should be held before any decision is made about the construction of a dry store at Torness.
  However, the Scottish Office seems to keep hedging. A reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 3 June merely confirmed:
  "a Public Local Inquiry may indeed be the best way of considering unresolved representations."
  Incidentally, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eastwood, who is responsible for these affairs, is not here to face the music, and I am especially sorry that it is my old friend, the other Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has had to spend part of the night waiting to reply to this debate.
  To return to the issue of unresolved representations, I understand that there have been very few representations, although East Lothian district council and the East

  671
  Lammermuir community council, which covers Torness, have joined me in expressing reservations and in calling for a public inquiry.
  It is amazing that a proposal to erect repositories for high-level waste nuclear fuel, close to populated areas in central Scotland, has not generated more attention. I say that particularly in view of the fuss some years ago about the proposal for a repository for low-level waste in Essex and the outcry against plans for underground repositories for intermediate-level waste at various sites at present. I cannot understand why a permanently shielded and absolutely secure underground store should be so controversial if the storage of high-level waste fuel in a simple concrete building at Torness can progress without any opposition from the organisations which usually have so much to say about the possible hazard of nuclear physics.
  It seems that debate has been somewhat restricted because of a very unusual coincidence between the financial interests of Scottish Nuclear and one of the campaigning objectives of organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace: Scottish Nuclear properly wants to save money by avoiding the costs of having fuel reprocessed and stored at Sellafield, and the anti-nuclear lobby wants to undermine the future of Sellafield by depriving it of its work.
  That is all very well, but the lack of the usual chorus of objections might lead to a decision being taken before my constituents in East Lothian have a proper opportunity to consider the possible consequences for their neighbour-hood and their descendants in the next century and beyond. That is why I am taking this opportunity to make a further plea for a public inquiry, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something positive about that.
  I stress again that I have no complaints about Scottish Nuclear. It has a duty to make decisions on a commercial basis, and that is what it is doing. I also fully accept the important role of nuclear power generation at present and in the foreseeable future. Most of Scotland's electricity is generated at Torness and Hunterston, and the nuclear industry is an important element of the economy not only in my constituency but in North Ayrshire, Caithness and, indeed, in the Minister's constituency of Dumfries. The nuclear industry in Scotland has a good record and I welcome the fact that it is still in public ownership. That should impose a duty on the Government to face long-term decisions about the storage of waste fuel and other radioactive residues. The industry requires decisions for the permanent storage of its radioactive residues, and my main concern about the current proposals is that they are another stop-gap effort to postpone costly decisions which the Government should face.
  1 have already said that I have seen the modular vault dry store—MVDS for short—which has been constructed, and loaded, to the design of GEC Alsthom at Fort St. Vrain in Colorado. It is an admirably simple design. The fuel elements are contained in steel tubes, which are retained vertically in a concrete structure. There is a natural air flow from an inlet at the base of the store, past all the tubes and out through a chimney at the top, which keeps the stored fuel cool. It is a bit like an old-fashioned farmyard corn stack.
  The principle is admirably simple and it is difficult to believe that much could go wrong. In theory, nothing should go wrong although there was serious trouble at the only similar facility in the United Kingdom at Wylfa in
  672
  Anglesey in 1991 when water got through a flat roof—surprise, surprise! it has been known to happen in other buildings—and corroded the magnesium containers. A report in the New Scientist of 2 March 1981 states:
  "Rotting fuel rods in the world's largest dry store for spent radioactive fuel in North Wales could cause a catastrophic fire. The magnesium 'can' which surrounds the rods has corroded so badly that the radioactive metal is exposed.
  If water penetrates the cladding of the element it can react with the metallic uranium fuel. One of the corrosion products is uranium hydride, which can ignite spontaniously in air. If enough uranium hydride burns, it can ignite the metallic uranium and release the highly radioactive fission products "held" in the uranium bar. This would constitute a major nuclear accident."
  Happily, none of those things came to pass. I understand that the problem has been dealt with at Wylfa. I am glad to say that the buildings that are proposed for Torness and Hunterston have pitched roofs. Nevertheless, the incident shows that things can go wrong.
  Other possible snags include corrosion from inside the tubes caused by water picked up by the fuel elements while they are being cooled in ponds before storage, or physical damage to fuel if a tube is accidentally dropped during handling.
  The fundamental issues that must be addressed are, first, whether it is right to be proliferating stores containing highly radioactive fuel elements at power stations around the country and, secondly, how long will the fuel remain in these temporary stores? Thirdly, where will it be taken for permanent storage and/or reprocessing? Given our habit of fudging difficult questions about radioactive waste, there must be genuine concern that the fuel might remain for literally centuries in stores that are supposed to have a design life of about 80 years.
  I mention in passing that we have at least five nuclear submarine hulks gathering barnacles in the water at Rosyth and Devonport docks because nobody wants to decide what to do with them. I fear that temporary dry stores might have to linger on indefinitely if we continue to avoid long-term decisions.
  As for proliferation, I know that Windscale and Sellafield have had problems over the years, and I am familiar with the public anxiety about the transportation of nuclear waste to Sellafield. I have to say that the transport flasks that are now in use are virtually, bomb-proof. Certainly they are spectacular when compared with the light vehicles that I saw being used during my visit to the United States. As for Sellafield, there appears to be evidence that British Nuclear Fuels plc has developed a high level of efficiency and safety at its thermal oxide reprocessing plant. Its expertise in storing radioactive material must be second to none after all the experience that it has gathered.
  The nation has invested heavily at Sellafield and it seems rather perverse not to use the facility to the full now that we have it. Given the complex and hazardous nature of radioactive material, it would seem more prudent to operate the single centre of excellence, where there is all the necessary expertise and equipment to manage such material, rather than distribute the material throughout the country to on-site stores at power stations at different locations.
  That point is connected with my next concern, which is the day-to-day supervision, security and management of a dry store. I accept that it is straightforward for the normal staff at a power station such as Torness to look after a dry store, but it must be said that the 1,200 tonnes of waste fuel

  673
  would remain in store for at least 50 years after the power station had been closed and the reactors had been deCommissioned.
  The life of the Torness power station will come to an end in about the year 2030, but the fuel would remain in the temporary dry store until it stopped generating heat, which would be about the year 2080. By that time, I shall be dead. If my children are lucky, they might be centenarians, and their grandchildren will have to worry about the nuclear legacy that we may be leaving at Torness power station. I think that it is worth putting that chronology on the record.
  It is one thing for a dry store to be supervised by nuclear technicians at a working power station, but 50 years later it would probably be left to occasional visits by a contract security man and his dog. Vegetation might choke the air inlet. If I know seagulls, they would probably invade the air outlet. Concrete and other parts of the structure might begin to decay. Goodness knows what mischief might be wrought by 21st century vandalism, accidents or neglect of a building whose significance may be largely forgotten with the passing of time.
  That is not the end of the story. In theory, the contents are supposed to be shifted for reprocessing or permanent storage after those 50 years. That means handling the material in cylinders that might not all be in perfect condition 80 years on, shifting them to Sellafield or a similar facility for reprocessing and storing what is left in an underground repository for spent fuel, about which Nirex has not yet even started thinking.
  Sooner or later, we will have to face the need for long-term decisions to deal with the long-term problem of nuclear waste. We cannot continue stacking the stuff in temporary stores for ever, whether it is submarine propulsion reactors in the water at Rosyth and Devonport or all the stuff at Sellafield or Drigg or, indeed, the proposed short-term, on-site stores such as Torness and Hunterston. Temporary storage is no substitute for permanent storage. There must be doubts about the economics of investing in such short-term measures. It is a little like investing in a temporary shed for one's house to store the rubbish, instead of getting a contractor to take it away in a skip.
  The radioactive residues of the nuclear industry will not disappear if we bury our heads in the sand. As this generation is getting the economic advantage of today's nuclear industry, surely this generation should face up to the difficult and costly decisions about safe storage of nuclear waste, instead of leaving a load of trouble for our great grandchildren to worry about at the end of the 21st century. That probably means a permanent underground store in a geologically suitable location, which will have to be monitored and managed for all time.
  I do not underestimate the political problems of finding such a site, but it will have to be done sooner or later, and it is perhaps time that we stopped running away from that decision. That brings me back to the proposal to spend £40 million on a temporary store at Torness, which might have to outlast its design life if we keep avoiding decisions about permanent storage.
  From what I saw at Fort St. Vrain in Colorado, and from what I have heard and read about the design of the MVDS, I would not necessarily object to the principle of
  674
  such a temporary store at Torness, provided that it genuinely will be emptied at the end of its planned life—in other words, a maximum of 50 years after the closure of the power station.
  I raised that very point during my visit to the dry store at Fort St. Vrain last week. The radioactive waste programme's director, who manages the facility on behalf of the Public Service Company of Colorado—Mr. Steven Sherrow—specifically told me:
  "The dry store is a short-term solution to a long-term problem."
  The trouble is that it will be difficult to believe any undertaking that the store at Torness will be cleared within that 50-year time scale, in the absence of any progress towards planning and constructing a permanent storage facility in the United Kingdom for nuclear fuel and high-level waste.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has certain statutory duties, and one is to establish that any new process involving radioactive material uses the "best available technique" under section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In other words, he must positively establish to have temporary local stores such as that proposed by Scottish Nuclear for Torness and Hunterston, or to continue with the current plans to transfer the material to Sellafield and processing and storing it there.
  The Secretary of State also has a duty to recognise that the proposals are a major departure from the planning consent originally granted after public inquiries into the proposals to build the reactors and generating stations at Torness and Hunterston. Those plans and the relevant consents clearly stipulated that high-level waste fuel was to be removed from the site for reprocessing and storage on another site. We are talking about major changes from current plans and consents and that underlines the case for a further proper public planning inquiry before the matter is concluded.
  I have sought to approach the question fairly and constructively, and I do not want to indulge in any nuclear scaremongering, not least because I have the highest respect for the skill and diligence of Scottish Nuclear's staff and management at Hunterston and Torness. But I am concerned that there has not been a proper public debate about the proliferation of stores containing nuclear fuel and the implications of further temporary decisions about material which requires permanent solutions.
  I am grateful for this opportunity to put those points on record in the House of Commons and I hope—I say this once again—that the Minister will now be able to agree that there should be an inquiry into all aspects of the proposals before the Secretary of State makes his decision.
  5.55 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for initiating this important debate. He has great expertise in nuclear matters and has been assiduous in representing his constituents with regard to Torness. As he mentioned, we have an affinity in that I probably live as near as any Member of Parliament to a nuclear power station, Chapelcross. His comment that there has been little high-profile debate about the nuclear dry store was interesting because when the Central Electricity Generating Board considered Chapelcross as a possibility

  675
  for a similar type of store a few years ago there was a good local debate but, because at the end of the day the board did not put in a formal application, the possibility of an inquiry did not arise.
  So often in nuclear debates the word "waste" is used when it is spent fuel that is being discussed, which is a somewhat different matter because if it is taken hack to Sellafield it can be reprocessed, as the hon. Gentleman well understands. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, as I do the high standards that Scottish Nuclear has achieved and the way in which it has been open and frank on all issues. Obviously, it keeps its Member of Parliament well informed about what is going on. Scottish Nuclear is one of the most important Scottish companies and Torness is one of the two advanced gas reactors operated by SNL, which is a major employer in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere.
  The hon. Gentleman, like all of us, is interested in the safe operation of reactors, which provide up to 50 per cent. of Scotland's electricity needs. It is a matter of pride for the company that it has set and achieved such an excellent safety record. But the debate is really about the proposed building of a dry store. I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman what is proposed because he has obviously had detailed discussions with SNL. He most interestingly told us about his visits to Fort St. Vrain in Colorado, where he saw a dry store which had been completed and was in operation. He is probably as well informed about the issue as any Member of Parliament.
  In essence, SNL has been looking at the whole range of its fuel handling and other services. As part of the process, it has been considering options, very much with safety in mind, for controlling costs. As a result, it has concluded, as other nuclear operators in other countries have, that dry storage of spent fuel for a number of years would he an appropriate immediate method of handling such material.
  The proposal would involve keeping irradiated fuel in vertical storage tubes within a concrete structure. The vault storage would provide the necessary radiation shielding for the stored fuel, with integrated air flow ducts for the removal of heat from the vaults. I liked the hon. Gentleman's observation that it was similar to a haystack. I hope that it keeps cooler than most of mine, which sometimes look rather lopsided after a day's heating.
  The drawing in of cold air would provide a continuous self-regulating cooling system. There would be safety features to contain any escape of radioactive material. The whole plan would be subject to approval by the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive.
  I cannot say more about the proposals. As the hon. Gentleman knows. Scottish Nuclear has applied to the Secretary of State for Scotland for consent under the Electricity Act 1989 to construct such a spent fuel storage facility, or dry store. The company's present application is for a dry store at Torness only. I understand that Scottish Nuclear has it in mind to proceed down the same route at Hunterston, but it has not yet developed its proposals in that regard.
  The company's proposals raise a number of issues. The application has been accompanied by public advertise-ment, and the preparation of an environmental assessment which addresses the issues. As a result of that wide consultation exercise, a number of representations have been received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman said, local councils and
  676
  individuals have written letters, and I know that he has done so as well. The representations will be considered as required by the procedures laid down in the Electricity Act.
  I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that relevant issues should be thoroughly examined, and a public local inquiry may well be the best way of doing that. Indeed, everything that the hon. Gentleman has said suggests that it would be the right course. My right hon. Friend is now examining the matter very closely. It is only a matter of weeks since the formal application was presented to him, but I hope that he will be able to reach a conclusion very soon. As the hon. Gentleman said, wide debate is necessary on such an important issue. It would set a precedent in Scotland, and I think that the more discussion that takes place, the better.
  Meanwhile, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in any way on Scottish Nuclear's proposals. This is a quasi-judicial decision for the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I must not prejudice the consideration that he must give to the proposals—and to representations from the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister referred to his right hon. Friend's duty to make a decision in terms of the Electricity Act. Will he confirm that his right hon. Friend also has a duty to consider the matter in terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990?
  Sir Hector Monro: I can give that assurance and I hope that there will he the widest possible opportunity for consideration and discussion of all the issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates my difficulty in going further. but it is very likely that we shall proceed by means of the public inquiry system.
  I emphasise the high regard that I share with the hon. Gentleman for the safety factors in the nuclear industry in Scotland—and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom. We can move forward with confidence, but always in the certain knowledge that safety is the prime consideration.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman talk in terms of the future, because we know that with Chapelcross, for example, the design life has long since passed. Yet it can still satisfy the most stringent safety requirements, because of the high standards of mainte-nance and the continued development throughout the life of the plant. I am sure that will be SNL's view and that that is what it will put into practice.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I do not want to be difficult; I take the Minister's point about the quality of the work at Chapelcross, Torness and all the other locations, but does he accept that there is a distinction between an operating reactor at a power station or at the Chapelcross facility, where a full range of specialist nuclear staff are on the spot to keep an eye on it, and a "ghost" situation—a building with fuel simply in store, being supervised by security men from time to time? As the decades pass, it is quite possible that there could be difficulties.
  Sir Hector Monro: That question will be discussed in depth if there is a public inquiry, which seems a likely conclusion following my remarks. If I said any more than that, however, I should be doing what I said that I must not do and prejudicing the Secretary of State's decision on the inquiry and what may come out of it.

  677
  Nevertheless, I am glad that we have had the chance to discuss the matter. It has now been highlighted, and I hope that there will be a decision from my right hon. Friend on the inquiry in the not-too-distant future.

  Pornography
  6.6 am
  Mr. Michael Stephen: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the subject of action against pornography. Pornography is a subject of great concern to my constituents, who often raise it when they write to me and when I meet them.
  I am disappointed to see that no Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament has seen fit to attend this important debate.
  Before I talk about the action against pornography which I propose, let me first put the matter in context. Some people think that the 1960s were a golden age, but I believe that they were a decade when our country embarked upon a moral decline which has not yet ended. The time has come to reverse that decline and to rediscover the Christian values upon which our society should be based.
  In the 1960s, we saw the breakdown of respect between men and women and between parents and children; there was a breakdown of respect for the aged and a general breakdown of respect for our fellow citizens and for their persons and property. Since then there has been an unacceptable rise in crime of all kinds, and a horrifying increase in teenage pregnancies, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health referred in her excellent document, "Health of the Nation" published yesterday.
  Child abuse causes us all great concern nowadays, the number of births outside marriage has soared from 51,000 in 1961 to 235,000 in 1991, and the number of divorces rose from 27,000 in 1961 to 167,000 in 1990. Also some people now believe homosexual behaviour to be just as normal as heterosexual behaviour.
  What has been the cause of all this? There are many causes, but two are especially significant. One is the permissive ideas which got into the education system in the 1960s, and the other is the increasing availability, and the increasingly disgusting character, of pornography.
  Permissive ideas still exist in the education system—in schools, in local education authorities and in training colleges, but I am optimistic that the Government's reforms are beginning to put things right. But what of pornography? It is no accident that in the 1960s television became widely available in homes throughout the land. Those who remember television in those days, as I do, cannot fail to have noticed the steady and insidious increase in pornography and violence which has been fed into the living rooms of our nation over the past 30 years.
  Television producers argue that they merely reflect public attitudes. I say that television is the most powerful medium ever invented for changing attitudes and moulding ideas. Anyone who doubts that should consider the thousands of pounds that companies are willing to pay for a few seconds of television advertising.
  I well remember the "Lady Chatterley's Lover" trial in the 1960s. It concerned a book, but that case had an influence on television, films, newspapers, magazines and, more recently videotapes. I recall the legal arguments about that book's artistic merits, and the venerable witnesses called by the defence. However. I have no doubt that that case gave the green light to the pornographers. It showed them that there were vast profits to be made from

  679
  peddling their wares in the United Kingdom. In this country today. pornography is a multi-million pound industry.
  I am as much in favour of commercial enterprise as anyone on these Benches, and I believe that the freedom of the individual is the essential foundation of our society. There is, however, a difference between freedom and licence. In any civilised society, it is necessary to balance the freedom of the individual against the public good—so we were right to ban publications calculated to incite racial hatred.
  It is often argued that pornography should be allowed unless it can be shown that it causes deviant behaviour. That is the difficulty with the "deprave and corrupt" test found in section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. In 1990, the Home Office Commissioned Messrs Howitt and Cumberbatch to inquire into the connection between pornography and deviant behaviour. Their report was inconclusive. Paragraph 3 of their conclusions stated:
  "the recording of sexual crimes lacks the detail which would help understanding of changes over time while evidence on patterns in hard core pornography and their possible relationship to sexual offences is virtually non-existent."
  Paragraph 5 stated:
  "There has been little attempt to categorise pornography into types which may be related to possible specific effects. We also lack any understanding of the ways in which the symbolic messages of pornography are communicated and interpreted by the reader or viewer. Research evidence in this area could be easily obtained."
  I find persuasive the following passages from an article by Dr. Raymond Wyre, a specialist in the treatment of sex offenders, published in The Scotsman on 4 April 1991:
  "The cause and effect argument can never be conclusive. Most men have seen pornography, and most men will not afterwards go out and rape women. Pornography is not the cause of the problem, it is part of the problem … In working with sex offenders over 15 years, it is impossible not to believe that pornography plays a part in sexual violence. As we constantly confront sex offenders about their behaviour, they display a wide range of distorted views that they then use to excuse their behaviour, justify their actions, blame the victim, and minimise the effect of their offending. They seek to make their own behaviour seem normal and interpret the behaviour of the victim as consent, rather than a survival strategy. Pornography legitimises these views."
  Dr. Wyre concluded:
  "So, in the case of pornography, I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that there is a connection between offending behaviour, sexual aggression, and sexist attitudes."
  It is no mere coincidence that pornography is almost always found in the homes of rapists and serious sex offenders. Whether or not Dr. Wyre is right, I do not think that it is necessary to establish that pornography causes deviant behaviour, because I have no doubt that pornography coarsens and degrades our society and has an insidious and corrosive effect on us all.
  It does not matter what time of day we buy or see that material; it affects us whether we are young or old; it does not matter whether we have to pass a notice that warns us before we go to buy the material. The question is whether, and to what extent, pornography should be banned. That is a question of balance between, on the one hand, the protection of society against degradation and corruption and, on the other, the freedom of the pornographers to make vast profits and the freedom of the individual purchaser to engage in a pursuit which, at the very least, is to be discouraged.
  I do not think that those particular freedoms are worth protecting. The Government have a right and a duty to
  680
  take action not only against the worst and most revolting examples, but also against material that is euphemistically described as "soft porn". Lest it should be thought that the Government have been idle in the matter, I pay tribute to the Government for the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981; the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which empowers local authorities to adopt a licensing system for sex shops; the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982; the Video Recordings Act 1984; the Criminal Justice Act 1988; the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Broadcasting Act 1990.
  1 also pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and to the work of Mr. Gerald Howarth and Mr. Andrew Stewart who are no longer Members of Parliament.
  They know—and I share their view—that in the battle against pornography we are dealing with an industry, which I would prefer to call a racket, which is well financed, well organised and very ingenious. We cannot afford to let it win the battle. We must equip our law enforcement agencies with the legal tools and backing that they need. Above all, the House must show leadership. We must make it clear that the activities of the pornography industry will not be tolerated.
  Having read the debates on the subject before this one, I must say that I am concerned by the flippant attitude to the matter displayed by some members of my sex and, indeed,, by some members of my party. Their very considerable talents, wittingly or unwittingly, have served the interests of the merchants of degradation.
  If the Broadcasting Act 1990 is adequate, how is it possible that BBC2 screened a programme called "Do the Right Thing" on 28 June 1992 and Channel 4 screened a programme entitled "Bill Hicks-Relentless" on 4 May 1992? In both those programmes language was used that was so revolting that I will not read it out as I do not wish to turn Hansard into an obscene publication. I have, however, given a copy to my hon. Friend the Minister.
  We must give the Broadcasting Standards Council our full support so that, in next year's annual report, we will not read what we have read in this year's report. At page 26, the Commission says that it chose one week when it monitored all television programmes and that its
  "analysis showed that bad language had been used in 112 programmes (40 per cent. of all programmes analysed) and on 833 occasions."
  At page 29 of the report, we find that
  "One in ten of all the programmes analysed contained some element of sexual activity, and just under one-quarter of all scenes portrayed coital acts."
  When the BBC charter and the commercial franchises come up for review, let those who are responsible for those broadcasting organisations be in no doubt that their conduct between now and then will be watched very carefully by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  If the Video Recordings Act 1984 is adequate, how is it possible that the British Board of Film Classification has given a certificate to a video called "Gay Man's Guide to Safer Sex"? It purports to be an educational video, but in reality it is as lewd and disgusting a publication as one would ever be likely to see. If the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is adequate, how is it possible to pick up a family newspaper almost every day of the week and see in it

  681
  written and visual material which one would have had to go to the top shelf of a seedy newsagent's to find 10 years ago? If the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is effective, how is it possible to print and distribute a book so disgusting that no fewer than 87 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 312 about it? I will not name the book or its publisher because I do not wish to advertise it, but I shall read the rest of the early-day motion. It states:
  "this House deplores the publication"
  of that book, and—
  "notes with deep concern that this book both glorifies and positively advocates the torture, rape and murder of babies, children and adult women and men including the inmates of prisons and patients in mental hospitals; regrets that the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the publishers of this book under the terms of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government urgently to review the laws on obscenity and pornography to ensure that the desire of this House to encourage freedom of speech is balanced by the responsibility which it has to protect children, women and men from degradation and violence."
  We need to introduce a new definition of obscenity, and look again at Gerald Howarth's 1987 Bill. I would be quite willing to introduce a new Bill, but that should not be a matter for private Members. This is an important matter for the moral health of the nation. The 1982 legislation to control sex shops was a Government Bill, and the Government should bring forward further legislation. In the meantime, I urge the Government to use section 3 of the 1959—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying now, referring to future legislation. This is not the time to discuss that. I am advised by the Clerk that incidental reference is allowed, but the hon. Gentleman must not stray too far.
  Mr. Stephen: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In the meantime, I urge the Government to use section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which enables a constable to apply to a magistrate for a warrant to search premises and seize material which he has reasonable grounds to believe to be contrary to that Act. He must bring that material before a magistrate, and the magistrate can then decide whether it is contrary to the Act, and, if so satisfied, order that it be forfeited.
  In that way, one will avoid two problems which one encounters using section 2 of the Act to prosecute a person. First, the question whether the material is or is not obscene has to be decided according to the civil standard —on the balance of probabilities—not the criminal standard—beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, juries are not involved. These two factors of the difficulty of proving to the criminal standard and of satisfying juries make prosecutions under the 1959 Act so difficult.
  I tabled a parliamentary question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about the matter. He said that he did not think it appropriate to use section 3 of the Act against the book to which early-day motion 312 refers. I cannot understand that. Taking essentially civil proceedings to confiscate pornographic literature is a different matter from taking criminal proceedings to impose criminal penalties on a person or company.
  The difficulty with seizing pornographic material under section 3 is logistic. The police would have to bring in
  682
  many tonnes of the material. I suggest that private contractors could be used, as they are used for wheel clamping and the management of prisons. We need a company which knows the printing, publishing and distribution industry, will know where to go to find the material and could bring the material before magistrates and secure orders for confiscation. The intervention of the constable would be necessary only for the execution of the warrant.
  If the material is found to be pornographic, the court should order the pornographer to pay the costs of the private contractor in confiscating the material. There should also be no question of the pornographer being able to claim tax relief in respect of the expenditure that he incurred to print, store or do anything else with the pornographic material.
  I will not go into the European dimension, except to say that pornography is so readily available in Germany, Holland and other parts of the continent that it is vital to do what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House a short while ago he intended do and make sure that our own border controls are maintained.
  I am grateful to the House for listening to me. I should like to conclude with two short quotations. The first is from The Guardian of 8 May 1990, from a man who was introduced to pornography in the 1960s and has since become a reformed character:
  "Some three years on from my decision, I cannot deny that I am still sometimes attracted to pornography. But mostly, I now feel that it is not only unappealing to me but also degrading and dangerous to women. I no longer feel shame or guilt about having used it, although I do feel sad and angry at how it has affected me."
  The second quotation is from the sermon which the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered to us all at St. Margaret's church on the occasion of the opening of this, my first Parliament. He said:
  "I ask for recognition that the sense of shared values, so vital to long-term wellbeing, derives from our Christian heritage; I ask that we should not be ashamed to declare our loyalty to Christ in this nation. If we do so, I believe that we will acknowledge that human life, and hence the ordering of society through Parliamentary Law, has a religious and spiritual dimension which is a source of hope."
  6.28 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) on securing this important debate and on the clear and powerful way in which he put his case on a subject which matters a great deal to him and to many millions of people. He expressed his views with considerable clarity and I listened to him carefully. His remarks were made in the context of a view of the state of the nation's morals and of some of the influences that have affected them, especially in the 1960s. I noted a powerful plea about television in his introductory remarks. I agree that television is a powerful medium of communication, with considerable ability to influence people.
  I also noted my hon. Friend's argument about advertising. He was generous to the Government about what they have done and I hope that he will take some comfort from the fact that the Government have set up the Broadcasting Standards Council and enabled, for the first time, an independent voice to have its say on standards in television.

  683
  I want to put on the record the Government's comprehensive view of pornography because, in consider-ing parts of the law, there is a danger that we may Miss the whole picture of control. I also believe in the power of people and of public opinion. I hope that those who read my hon. Friend's words and this debate will take comfort from the fact that there is now an outlet for their views, as the Broadcasting Standards Council can listen to them.
  I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in giving me a copy of the script of the television programmes which so troubled him and, I am sure, many millions of viewers. That is precisely the sort of subject on which the council should receive letters—and other forms of appropriate representation—if people feel that it is not reacting.
  It may be useful for me to list the subjects that I intend to cover. They will include the book that my hon. Friend mentioned, and I shall try to deal with the decisions not to prosecute its publishers. I shall consider the legal controls on obscenity and the implications of the single market for our controls. My hon. Friend mentioned Europe, and it is worth talking for a few moments on that subject. I shall also mention the ways in which he suggested that we might amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and deal with the Government's attitude to legislation and reform of the law. I hope that he will not find my remarks unsympathetic. Not unnaturally, I shall also reflect on that which has gone before.
  One difficulty in discussing pornography is that it is sometimes difficult to decide what is meant by the term. In legal terms, the word has no significance, but for an individual it can encompass anything, from pictures of scantily dressed women, which appear in certain newspapers and which some people may dismiss as merely risible or titallating, to unspeakably vile child porno-graphy, which amounts to a real sexual abuse of children. My hon. Friend referred to that, and I understand his point about the way in which some of that material is handled by newspapers. He was right to draw attention to that.
  The Government's task, and indeed the task of the House, is to ensure that the law is strong enough to catch the worst material, while safeguarding the rights of citizens to see, read, write and do what they wish, without an oppressive level of state censorship or intervention.
  Where precisely the boundary should be drawn between material which is caught by the law and material which is not is still a difficult question, and one which can never be resolved to every body's satisfaction. However, it is clear that many hon. Members believe that the law is balanced too much in favour of the pornographer and not enough in favour of the ordinary, decent citizen. On balance, the Government agree with that view and believe that the law could with advantage be tightened. That is why, when there have been clear cases of gaps in the law on videos, indecent displays, broadcasting and child pornography, the Government have been only too willing to introduce or actively support legislation to plug those gaps. However, it is more difficult fundamentally to change the whole basis on which the law operates, and I hope to consider that aspect in greater detail later in my speech.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I mention the title of the book in question. I do not want to advertise it any more than he does, but it was the subject of an Adjournment debate and, for the sake of clarity, I must
  684
  mention it. The book, as my hon. Friend knows, is called "Juliette" and that earlier debate revealed hon. Members' passion and feeling about it.
  I asked to see a copy of the book and was revolted by the language which it contained. I can tell my hon. Friend unequivocally that I would not have used my money to buy it. I can appreciate the sensitivities that it shocks. Anyone who thought that it was an easy, titillating read is in for a rude and nasty shock. It is a disgusting publication.
  My hon. Friend referred to the actions of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the book. As I said last week in the Adjournment debate, last December it was decided not to prosecute the publishers on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. I appreciate hon. Members' concern at that decision. As my hon. Friend probably gathers from my description of the book, I share some of their views.
  However, it would be quite wrong for me or for any Minister to attempt to persuade the DPP to prosecute in a case where she did not believe that she would be justified in doing so. It is right that the DPP should not seek to prosecute in cases where, after detailed consideration, she concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. Nevertheless, as I promised last week, I have reported the concerns of hon. Members to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I know that he has taken careful note of what was said in that debate.
  My hon. Friend said that the book highlighted a weakness in our law, because the Obscene Publications Act 1959 was unable to catch it. He deduced that that Act must be inadequate. As I have said before, I have some sympathy with that view. But it is not easy to go on to say that X is the cause of the weakness and Y is the solution. A decision whether to prosecute in a particular case can be based on one of a number of considerations touching on the likely chances of success.
  In the case of a possible prosecution of a book under the 1959 Act, it must first be decided what the likely readership of the book is—will it, for example, fall into the hands of children? Then there must be an assessment of whether the book has a tendency to deprave and corrupt that likely readership. The chances of a successful public-good defence must also be evaluated. Only if the DPP believes, after weighing up those different factors, that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, taking account of any possible defence or any other relevant factors, can she properly decide to prosecute. That is, of course, the criterion that she applies to all offences.
  Whatever change might be made in the law, no one can guarantee that a particular publication would be caught by it and there would inevitably be some who would be disappointed that the law was not as effective as they had expected. Even if the DPP thought that a case was suitable for prosecution, in the end everything would still depend on the decision of the particular jury which heard the case.
  I believe that, last week, my hon. Friend raised the possibility of the book being available in prisons. Concern was expressed about the possibility of that publication circulating freely in prisons, perhaps even among sex offenders. I understand that it would be contrary to our international human rights obligations to enforce an arbitrary ban on the circulation within prison of material which was legally available outside. However, a prison governor has a discretion under Home Office standing order No. 4(b)(23) to withdraw or withhold any book if he

  685
  considers that its contents could present a threat to good order and discipline in the prison, or is likely to have an adverse effect on an inmate from a medical point of view. It is for individual prison governors to decide whether "Juliette" comes within the terms of the standing order.
  My hon. Friend rightly spoke of seizure of materials. He and others have asked why some action cannot be taken to seize "Juliette" under the provisions of section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act. My hon. Friend tabled a question on this, to which he referred. Forfeiture proceedings would not be appropriate because, after the book was seized, the magistrates would have to address precisely the same issues as to whether the work had a tendency to deprave and corrupt which a court would consider on a prosecution and about which the DPP had already come to a view.
  Mr. Stephen: The point I was making was that the magistrates would determine the matter according to a different standard of proof. If they were not being asked to convict somebody of a criminal offence, the standard of proof applicable would be the civil standard. Furthermore, no jury would be involved.
  Mr. Jack: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I shall give a little more detail about success in seizures, which illustrates the effectiveness of that point in general terms, although I note the terms in which he questions the use of that part of the Obscene Publications Act in respect of this book. It is important that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is drawn not only to those remarks but to concerns about this aspect of the law.
  During the Adjournment debate on this subject instigated by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne), I wa anxious to allow as many hon. Members as possible to have their say. One of the problems that we faced was that we did not look at pornography in the round and at all the controls on it. If the House will bear with me, I shall try to remedy that deficiency. It is important that our discussions on pornography—my hon. Friend was kind enough to mention some of the Government's successes —should not be based solely on the Obscene Publications Act. It is one important element in a series of controls, both statutory and common law, that affect pornography.
  Last week I mentioned the Post Office Act 1953 and the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955 in some detail. There are also the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, which makes it an offence to display indecent matter in a public place, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which allows local authorities to control sex shops, the Theatres Act 1968, the Video Recordings Act 1984, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and the Cinemas Act 1985, which provides for licensing or regulation of these forms of entertainment and prohibits obscene performances of plays. All those Acts play their part in the legislation to deal with pornography.
  Most important, in my view the law properly contains very stringent provisions to protect children against sexual exploitation. In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, we reinforced earlier legislation—the Protection of Children Act 1978—so that
  686
  it is now an offence to take, distribute, advertise, show or even possess any indecent film, photograph or video of a child under the age of 16.
  In the Criminal Justice Act 1991, we implemented the Pigot report's recommendations and allowed children to give evidence by pre-recorded video. We plan to implement those provisions in October. More generally, the Government's commitment to the protection of children was demonstrated in the Children Act 1989, which provides that when a court is determining any question relating to the upbringing of a child, the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration.
  The importation of obscene material is prohibited by the Customs Consolidation Act 1876, and that prohibition is enforced under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Those measures amount to the toughest controls in Europe on pornography. It is an important package in total. I want to emphasise that the Government have played a significant role in either introducing or supporting many of the Acts that I mentioned. As I have made clear, the Government are committed to maintaining those tight controls.
  I understand that there has been concern about the possible effects of the European single market and the abolition of trade barriers on our control of pornography. The first thing to stress is that our internal domestic controls will remain unchanged. The suggestion that we will be obliged to accept supposedly lax continental standards in relation to pornography are simply misplaced. That matter will continue to be judged by each European Community member state for itself, and the difference in standards between the United Kingdom and, for example, the Netherlands will remain.
  Customs controls will be affected by the general move towards selective, intelligence-based customs checks, rather than random checks, but the Government have no intention of relaxing their prohibitions on the trade in obscene materials. No Community measure requires them to do so. There is increasing recognition across Europe of the danger presented by the worst kind of pornographic material. The Council of Europe has considered the problem of the distribution of video works having a violent, brutal or pornographic content and has issued advice to member states. Although the European Community has not formally considered that matter, when the opportunity has arisen we have made known our view that European Community members should act against pornographers, particularly against the trade in child pornography. I hope that my hon. Friend will take some comfort from that.
  I noted my hon. Friend's comments on seizure. I was interested in his remarks on private contraction, and some of the solutions that he proposed. I should like to take time to reflect on those matters and then correspond with him.
  Debates such as this inevitably dwell on weaknesses in the law. But as I said last week, whatever criticisms there may be, the existing legislation is effective, especially in controlling the worst sorts of pornographic videos and magazines. In 1990, the most recent year for which figures are available, 73 people were convicted of offences under the Obscene Publications Act. In 1991, 20,000 articles were forfeited under section 3 of that Act in the Metropolitan police district alone. I do not want to distresss hon. Members who may have returned from breakfast in the Tea Room by reading out a list of the titles of the material,

  687
  but I shall be glad to supply that information to my hon. Friend so that he understands the seriousness with which we take such matters.
  In practice, prosecutions seem to be successful when they concern explicit visual representations, in magazines or on video, of actual sexual intercourse or of such activities as cannibalism, bestiality, buggery, sadism and child abuse. However, it is possible that prosecutions purely in respect of written descriptions present greater difficulties. As my hon. Friend mentioned, ours is a visual society, and the written word is a less direct medium of communication, requiring some intellectual interpreta-tional effort by the reader. The impact of the written word is less immediate than images and there may be problems in persuading juries that the written word by itself has a tendency to deprave and corrupt. When deciding whether to prosecute, the Director of Public Prosecutions must take into account all those matters, in terms of their application in law.
  At the heart of my hon. Friend's remarks was the question whether we should reform the Obscene Publications Act. The Government are not complacent about the matter. We believe that there is room for reform of the Act, but, hitherto, suggestions for reform have concentrated on replacing or supplementing the "deprave and corrupt" test, which is at the heart of the Act. I commend a Library note to my hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge of the subject. It is a useful document and summarises the issues and work and the fate of some of the legislative attempts on this matter.
  Mr. Stephen: I have seen it.
  Mr. Jack: I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen it; I found it a useful work when I was preparing for this debate.
  Problems have been encountered in previous legislation containing features such as a shopping list of activities or the test of gross offensiveness to a reasonable person. My hon. Friend mentioned that test in relation to the Bill which was introduced by Gerald Howarth but which, sadly, ran out of parliamentary time. If my hon. Friend reads the report of the debate on that Bill, he will find that the Government were supportive and helpful.
  In many respects, the difficulties that the Bills encountered reflect the wider problem of legislation on this matter. For example, if one sought to compile a list of activities or subjects that must not be depicted, there would be considerable debate about what the list should contain. One would have to decide whether all depictions of a listed activity should be prohibited, no matter how oblique or inoffensive they were, or whether the restriction should be limited to a portrayal which is regarded as offensive—for instance, because of its blatant or titillating nature.
  There would be particular difficulty in applying such a test to the written word. One might think, for example, that it would be right to ban a work which opens with satanism and includes insanity and child murder, or one which includes eyes being gouged out, hanging and suicide, or one which includes rape, cannibalism, murder and mutilation. But, of course, hon. Members will recognise these references as brief descriptions of "Macbeth", "King Lear" and "Titus Andronicus", all by
  688
  our greatest playwright. I do not think that anyone seriously advocates a return to the days of Dr. Bowdler's edition of Shakespeare.
  It could be argued that a work's offensiveness to a reasonable person is an easier test to apply. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage supported Gerald Howarth's Bill. We are also conscious, however, of the potential dangers that some would see to freedom of speech in making something illegal simply because it is offensive to some or even most people, and we would need to be sure that any future legislation did not open the way to an enforced political correctness before we could support it.
  My hon. Friend asked why the Government have not acted in that area and he addressed the problems of deficiencies in the law. We did not introduce legislation. because of the difficulties that I described. I spoke about child obscenity and pornography on which we have moved decisively. There has never been a difference of opinion in the House on the need to act in such cases. It appears to be possible to distinguish between attempts to reform wide-ranging obscenity laws in a fundamental way and much more limited measures to deal with specific identifiable gaps in the law.
  I hope that what I have said about our attempts to deal with the vile trade of child pornography illustrates the Government's willingness to act where there is a clear reason so to do. Such measures are important because we must ensure that children are not caught up in the production of pornography. As my hon. Friend said, we do not in any way want to fuel the activities of paedophiles. The extension of the obscenity legislation to broadcasting was a recognition of the indefensible situation whereby that most important and pervasive of media was the only one untouched by the law.
  Legislation to reform the Obscene Publications Act is a different matter. Obscenity legislation is all-embracing and involves difficult questions of balanced priorities. on which there will be genuinely differing opinions about the sort of material that should be prohibited. By contrast, child pornography has no creditable proponents and can never be justified.
  Pressure to reform the Obscene Publications Act takes a range of forms and the nature of the demands varies greatly. For instance, most people, thankfully, do not encounter really objectionable material such as "Juliette", but my constituants tell me and I know from my postbag that there is much concern about material widely available in our high streets.
  Some people agree with my hon. Friend about the contents of our newspapers. Some of the correspondence that we receive argues that, because of the wide circulation of such material and its easy accessibility, it is a more serious threat to our national life than hard-core pornography because it acts insidiously in reinforcing sexist attitudes, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Other people, while seeking controls over what may lawfully he made available, are also legitimately concerned that any new measure should not oppress the rightly valued freedom of expression on which the vitality of our national cultural life so depends.
  The difficulty is, therefore, that there is a wide continuum of possible measures, from the comparatively mild to the draconian, each of which has its own constituency. Unlike the specific measures to which I referred earlier, it is not enough to agree generally that the

  689
  law needs changing. Any legislation must be based on a clear assessment of what material should be caught and what should be excluded.
  There is an understandable but unspecific general concern that the law is inadequate, but there is no identifiable consensus on precisely what changes are necessary in the public interst and on the basis of which a Government would be justified in acting. I am aware of my hon. Friend's personal wish to introduce legislation, but it is from our search for common ground that we draw some of our reasons for continuing to believe that our predecessors' policy was right: legislation in this acutely difficult, sensitive and personal subject is essentially a matter of subjective judgment and personal conscience. We still feel that the traditional prerogative of private Member's business is the right way to proceed.
  The fact that the House has so far not succeeded in agreeing on a general reform of the law is proof of the difficulties that we face. It does not mean that the Government have shut the door to reform. On the contrary, as our record shows and as I have sought to show this morning, we remain willing to support attempts at reform, provided that they seem to us to be desirable in themselves, enforceable and likely to commend parliamentary support.
  My hon. Friend made his comments courteously, forcefully and clearly. I hope that the debate will continue the dialogue between us so that we can find grounds which might ultimately satisfy him and those whose views he represents.

  Marchioness Disaster
  6.57 am
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I take no pleasure in raising the issue of the Marchioness tragedy and, in particular, the publication two days ago of the report of the Hayes inquiry.
  At this stage, it should not be necessary for an hon. Member to raise an issue which it is the Government's responsibility to pursue. I very much regret that the Government have not yet been seen to do so. The Minister was only appointed to the Department of Transport, with particular responsibility for London, in this Parliament. Most of the matters to which I shall refer were the responsibility of his predecessors in the previous Parliament, so I absolve him, but he has a hot potato to handle.
  I shall make my own position clear. One of my constituents was unhappily a victim of the Marchioness tragedy, but I raise the issue rather because it is 50 years next year since I first navigated the tidal Thames, and I have been doing so fairly regularly ever since. In politics, emotion has a part to play, and in this instance it has given me the necessary steam. In the mid-1940s when I was a teenager, I brought a small craft down river and moored it to a buoy at Westminster pier. I had my tea alone in that small boat. I looked up at Big Ben and thought, "Goodness, wouldn't it be extraordinary if ever I were in that place." I have been here now for 22 years. I found that I was on the wrong mooring. A boat came along—it was literally a steamer— and a member of the crew shouted, "Come along here, sonny. Moor against us." I did so and chatted to the watermen. That craft was the Marchioness. It was then in its first edition, as it were, as a steamer.
  Apart from that specific interest, I have taken a non-political interest in rail and water transport for some years. It is the responsibility of the House and of the Government to have a structure of protection for marine, road and rail transport which helps to provide safety. When things go wrong, we have a responsibility to ascertain why. In the case of the Marchioness, those who are left bereaved and those who are concerned about the matter are determined that those who died so close to the House should not have died in vain.
  When the tragedy occurred there was not a great deal of surprise, unfortunately, among the river fraternity. The Bowbelle had been known for some time as a rogue vessel. It and its two near sisters, the Bowtrader and the Bowsprite, were well known on the river. The Bow boats had been involved, so the Hayes report tells us in the appendix, in no fewer than 40 incidents on the river since 1965. It is notable that only the Hayes report, which was published two days ago, has brought out that fact. It could not he inferred from the earlier report of the marine accident investigation branch, which was published in August 1981.
  One would think that the purpose of a statutory inquiry —the Hayes inquiry was one because the then Secretary of State for Transport requested that the matter be examined —is to ensure that we pinpoint problems and ensure, as far as possible, that repetition does not occur. That should be the purpose of statutory inquiries. Unfortunately, I do not think that there can be public confidence in the report which has been so recently published. If anything, the position is the reverse of that.

  691
  There have been three unsatisfactory phases. First, the content of the MAIB report was clearly deficient, as was the manner in which it was produced. Members were not properly notified and it was difficult to obtain copies of it. The report leaves much to be desired, as I shall demonstrate. Secondly, after much agitation the then Secretary of State, in December 1991, appointed the Hayes inquiry, which was popularly supposed to be a follow-up. As I shall demonstrate, its terms of reference were somewhat constrained. Thirdly, one of its principal recommendations has been turned down. The current Secretary of State for Transport welcomed the report, but promptly turned down one of its major recommendations even before some Members had been able to read I t and before there had been an opportunity to debate the report in the House. It was thought by some—cynically, perhaps —that the report would be published later next week after the House had adjourned for the summer recess. Ai least we have had the small mercy of its publication earlier this week.
  The statutory side of the procedure has been dealt with in three phases. There is the coroner's procedure, which may not yet have been completed. I think that everyone would agree that a coroner's court is not necessarily the best place to deal with some of the technicalities which arise in transport tragedies. Such a court does not necessarily have the scope to investigate the technicalities. The Director of Public Prosecutions has brought a charge against the master of the Bowbelle. Two court cases ended in the juries failing to agree.
  There has also been a private prosecution against the owners of the Bowbelle, but a few days ago the court decided that it could not proceed. There is now no sub judice block on debate in this House or outside. However, as yet there is no sign, other than the completion of the coroner's proceedings, that there can be any further public inquiry. Indeed, so far as I am aware, the Secretary of State's decision earlier this week—taken before there was much opportunity for informed comment or debate—is that there will he no further inquiry. That is is not good enough. The proceedings to date have left as many questions unanswered as were answered during those proceedings.
  I shall start with the legal proceedings in the court, and I shall use lay language. The Director of Public Prosecutions brought the marine equivalent of a charge of driving without due care and attention against the master of the Bowbelle. I understand that that was done because bringing any higher charge might not have led to a successful prosecution, as the DPP explained on the radio only a few days ago. Although it might appear not to be a grave charge in view of the results of the tragedy, we can at least understand its nature.
  To be successful, however, the DPP had to prove that there was no contributory cause. I understand that, contrary to what may be the public 's impression, only a limited number of witnesses were called in the proceedings. I have some sympathy, as we all have, with the master of the Bowbelle. Despite the traumatic experience, he was not called and he did not volunteer any evidence. The jury disagreed. There was a second case hearing—
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I remind the hon. Gentleman that the jury disagreed, and then disagreed again on the second trial.
  Mr. Spearing: I was about to say that. If I am inaccurate in my speech, I should like the Minister to intervene again and say so. We want to get the matter right and not have to correct ourselves.
  We all waited for the MAIB report, which arrived in August last year. Some of us who know the river and know something about that tragic affair read the report with considerable interest. Frankly, I was shocked. I knew—it is in Lloyd's List—that the Bowbelle had been involved in six previous collisions. Only one was mentioned in the report; the others were not. I wrote to the Secretary of State pointing that out. However, that was only one of a number of matters of concern about the report. There were no quotations from eye witnesses, but there must have been quite a few of them. There did not appear to be the same logical description of events that we found in the two parallel inquiries that everyone has in mind: King's Cross and Clapham.
  There was no description of the qualifications, experience or biographical details of the two skippers concerned, or of the background to the instructions of their respective firms. That was dealt with only in outline, if at all. Another matter that the report did not cover was a question which arises immediately, but was not even asked: why did the Bowbelle not stop after the accident? We know from the description that the man was standing by on the bows ready to let go of the anchor. That was one of his duties. It is suggested in the report that he was more concerned with that than with keeping a look out. Why did he not do that?
  Fifthly, even if the Bowbelle had decided to proceed for whatever reason, or was instructed to do so, what about throwing overboard some of the floating equipment which must be carried by sea-going vessels, or launching a boat? Could it have moored at Tower pier, only a few hundred yards further downstream? That vessel could manoeuvre easily because it was going against the tide at that point. That was not raised in the report.
  Sixthly, we read that the two other Bow boats had arrangements for an officer to be on the fo'c'sle during such a journey, but for a reason which does not carry much conviction, that was not done in the case of the Bowbelle. That was not followed up.
  Seventhly, there is not much in the way of description of the Thames navigation service and tapes which I believe were taken by the Port of London authority officials at the barrier controls. That is not gone into. So far as I know, evidence was not taken from those persons either.
  Eighthly—this is only a selection of matters which should have been raised—there is the whole question of the considerable time taken for the rescue vessels to reach those still in the water. That is not dealt with in the report either.
  So from the time when the report was published until the belated appointment of the Hayes inquiry, there was great concern. In fact, it was rather more than that. I would say that there was evasion on the part of the Secretary of State. I wrote immediately to the Secretary of State to ask about the six collisions. I tabled a question to be answered when we returned on 14 October last year asking what representations the Secretary of State had had relating to facts not in the report and he said that he had had none.
  After a series of exchanges through written questions, it emerged that the Secretary of State or the Minister thought that the six collisions were not relevant factors.

  693
  Yet they were clearly relevant to any sort of investigation at that point. It was not until 21 January this year, when I used the device of asking the Minister to refer the six collisions, which I listed, to the Hayes inquiry, that we finally got those on the record at column 157.
  The Hayes report, although headed "The Marchioness", was not just about the Marchioness, as people may have thought it to be. The terms of reference are as follows:
  "In the light of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster to examine the handling since 1980 by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers and inland waters and to report on the effectiveness of the present approach. The enquiry should take account of developments in the field of marine safety at the international level."
  In other words, although the Marchioness disaster was relevant, the terms of reference of the Hayes inquiry were not specifically related to that tragedy, or any deficiency in the report already published, but tangential to it. The conditions on inland waterways of the United Kingdom, particularly non-tidal waters, are different from those which pertain on the relatively dangerous tideway of the Thames. After initially being glad to have a proper inquiry, those concerned were perturbed because of the relatively limited nature of the Hayes inquiry.
  Having looked at the Hayes inquiry and consulted others, I had the impression that it did a good job, but only within the limits of the terms of reference. I submitted evidence asking Mr. Hayes to send it to the MAIB for its comments on what I considered were deficiencies in its report. He did not feel able to do so, because in his view —with which I sympathise—the terms of reference did not cover that point.
  Mr. Hayes's main recommendation is very germane. Paragraph 2.5.8 on page 5 states:
  "There should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames which should take account of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster and the views of those who witnessed it. The results should be published and it should be undertaken by an independent person. The recommendations from such a review should be disseminated widely and considered as a basis for action by Riparian and Canal Authorities. It will need to be wider in scope than the present POLACAP emergency plan"—
  a plan which the Port of London Authority implements when it has problems on the river.
  Although I would welcome such an inquiry, it does not seem to amount to what was required following the King's Cross and Clapham disasters—and, indeed, the Marchioness disaster. More than one person may be needed to conduct the inquiry, and it may need to be even more precise than the recommendation suggests. On Tuesday—as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker; you made some helpful comments, which can be found in column 275—the Hayes report was published, and Lord Caithness, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, made some radio and television broadcasts. A summary of the report was sent to the press, and appeared the next day. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I were not officially informed, although we had been heavily involved in the matter; we were informed by Thames Television. Even before we were informed, however, the Secretary of State for Transport sent out a press statement, which said
  "Mr. Hayes recommended that there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the
  694
  Thames. The Government has given careful consideration to the recommendation but has concluded that a further review of this kind would not be justified."
  I am staggered that in 1992 a Secretary of State, knowing all about the public concern that was felt about this terrible tragedy, and knowing that it had not been examined to the same extent as two rail tragedies which had preceded it, could make such a statement, even before those most closely concerned had so much as seen the report, let alone read or debated it. It struck me as extraordinary behaviour for any Secretary of State. I do not know whether the present Secretary of State could possibly have reached such a conclusion: he is new to the job, but he was a good Leader of the House. Perhaps the Minister can give us some of the background.
  As I have made clear, many questions have been left unanswered. The Hayes report is good as far as it goes, but it could not go very far. Paragraph 7.10 contains a couple of sentences about the inadequacies of a previous report, mentioning that survivors had not been interviewed. Of course it is difficult to interview survivors and report on the interview, but Hayes merely says:
  "They also confirmed the view expressed in paragraph 4.2 of their report that 'requiring them to rehearse yet again the events of the night would in many cases simply have added to their distress without any gain to the Inquiry'. It is difficult to criticise MAIB for wishing to protect survivors from further anguish but there are a number who still feel that they had material evidence which was not considered during the investigation."
  The unfortunate people who were in the water are not the only ones who feel that. It is also felt by those who know something about these matters, who presented evidence to the Department, the MAIB or Hayes and who know that that evidence has not received due consideration.
  Now the Secretary of State is apparently putting a stop on any further investigation of any sort. As I understand it, it is still open to the Government to institute a proper inquiry even wider than that recommended by Mr. Hayes, which the Minister turned down.
  The Minister must tell us why there has been such a degree of reticence. All sorts of wild rumours about what happened on that terrible night are heard up and down the river. I have not repeated any of them. The only question that has been asked is about the relationship, if any, between the ultimate owners of the Bowbelle and any political funds which may have benefited from that firm. That question is in order, and if the answer to it were positive, that would make clarity in such matters even more important. If there were any such connection, it would be unfortunate if people drew the wrong conclusions.
  The House has debated the tragedies which took place at Clapham and at King's Cross. Surely it is the duty both of the Government and of the House to ensure that those who died in the middle of our city in such tragic circumstances did not die in vain. Only a proper inquiry, parallel to the other two, can clear the air. It is the Government's duty to set up such an inquiry, and if they do not want to do so it is the duty of the House to insist that one takes place.
  7.20 am
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on his success in initiating the debate and on its timeliness. I congratulate him, too, on the excellent manner in which he presented his case.
  My hon. Friend and I have both had a long involvement with the issue, since the tragic disaster in August 1989 in which 51 people were killed as a result of the collision between the Marchioness pleasure craft and the dredger, the Bowbelle. Since then, I have worked closely with the Marchioness action group and have presented its considerable concerns to the various Secretaries of State for Transport who have been in post since that time.
  As my hon. Friend said, that group has consistently called for a proper public inquiry, such as would be established—indeed, such as has been established—for other comparable transport disasters. However, as we have heard, those arguments have always been rejected by the Government, who first authorised the marine accident investigation branch to carry out an inquiry and then set up the broader inquiry into river safety conducted by Mr. John Hayes.
  As usual in such cases, the Department of Transport made the Hayes report available to the press but not to Opposition spokespeople. The report is welcome, but it is no substitute for a public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster.
  Before I comment further on the report, I wish to put on record the continuing distress caused to survivors and to the families of victims of the disaster because of their great sense of injustice. The lack of a public inquiry has prevented those who survived from cross-examining experts and has prevented public scrutiny. Many questions remain unanswered—my hon. Friend listed some of them. Not least among those questions are those about possible negligence on the part of the operators, about the lack of observation of the rules of navigation and the lack of enforcement by the Department of Transport, and—perhaps more significantly—about the lack of a proper analysis of the rescue operation. I remind the Minister, who is new to his post, that on that fateful night more people died in the water than in the fabric of the Marchioness.
  The survivors and the families are still pressing for the resumption of the inquest. Part one has yet to be held for seven of the victims, and the holding of part two is still a matter for debate. It is imperative that the proceedings are resumed as quickly as possible.
  I apologise to the House, I have lost my place m my notes, due to the late hour and lack of sleep and concentration—or perhaps I should say the early hour rather than the late hour, depending on where one considers we are as between night and morning.
  We are deeply concerned that the inquest proceedings should be resumed as quickly as possible. I ask the Minister to state his view of those proceedings, and to comment on the inquest legal expenses incurred by the victims' families. Many of them have been in financial difficulties as a consequence, which adds to their sense of great injustice.
  696
  The Hayes report is welcome, and it author must be commended for his attention to detail and care. I congratulate Mr. Hayes and strongly support his recommendations for improving river safety.
  The report's key finding was that the Department of Transport must take considerable responsibility for failing to give a lead on river safety. The marine accident investigation branch report referred to an historic malaise in the Department and listed a number of its failures. They included, in particular, lack of attention to improving the conspicuousness of passenger launches, lack of action to improve visibility from the wheelhouse and the fact that it allowed to remain on the river vessels whose design hindered the task of lookouts. Those are serious charges.
  Mr. Hayes supports those statements and draws his own conclusion. He states:
  "the Department showed technical competence and dedica-tion but lacked the vision and the drive to lead the river marine industry into accepting that high safety standards and commercial success were compatible."
  Mr. Hayes specifically draws attention to the hands-off culture promoted by the Department in the 1980s, which asserted that less regulation was required in order not to fetter business. Although Hayes does not suggest that safety was put at risk, it is clear that the Government's ideological preoccupations at the time meant that the Department did not take the lead that it should have taken in creating a safety culture on our rivers.
  Such inactivity is all the more inexcusable when set against the growing awareness of many of the dangers posed by pleasure launches and the problems of lack of manoeuvrability of vessels such as the Bowbelle. The Hayes report states that, despite being aware of the problems and agreeing measures to improve the situation, the Department agreed that the responsibility for enactment should rest with the operators themselves. No checks were made on those operators. That failure to take a more proactive role meant that when incidents occurred no action was taken, when it should have been.
  In answer to a parliamentary question of mine, the Minister's predecessor admitted that the Bowbelle and her sister ship the Bowtrader had been involved in 14 accidents since 1981. The collision between the Bowsprite and the Bowbelle in 1983 highlighted the lack of a lookout. That failure was to prove critical in the Marchioness disaster. Mr. Hayes comments that, despite that warning, the Department took no action to require lookouts, believing that the company itself would remedy matters.
  The Bowbelle has at last been barred from the Thames—presumably in response to Mr. Hayes's concluding question. He asked whether large vessels with limited manoeuvrability and pleasure boats with limited vision could safely remain on the same stretch of water, especially at night. The answer is clearly no.
  I echo the concern expressed in the report that implementation of the new regulations from the MAIB that were drawn up after the Marchioness disaster is again being delayed for commercial reasons. The consultation period is to be extended, which will further delay the regulations' implementation. I endorse Mr. Hayes's warning to the Government against going for the lowest common denominator.
  The regulations cover vital safety aspects, such as minimum standards of visibility and hours of work and

  697
  giving boatmen's licences statutory status. They must be implemented without further delay and I ask the Minister to comment on that when he replies.
  I want to comment on and draw attention to several specific points in the Hayes report. I make no apologies for first reiterating the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South about recommendation 8 which states:
  "there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames which should take account of the Marchioness disaster."
  Like my hon. Friend, I am appalled by Government's precipitate and negative response. It is extraordinary that, despite all the clear evidence that improvements to the rescue operation are needed, despite what Hayes has said and despite the fact that more people died once they were in the water than died because they were trapped in the boat when it sank, the Government immediately responded negatively to the request for an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment.
  There is no statutory authority responsible for rescue in inland water accidents. That problem is compounded in London by the absence of a Londonwide strategic body. The Marchioness disaster showed confusion between the existing emergency services. The Port of London authority does not deem rescue to be its responsibility. Some person or some organisation should have the responsibility for rescue equipment.
  I also want to support and draw attention to the recommendation that the Department of Transport should promote legislation to introduce a breath test for skippers and crews similar to that applied to car drivers. I understand that the Department is considering that idea and we are glad about that.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he can tell us what further steps he intends to take to control the design of craft like the Marchioness. Clearly, if there is insufficient visibility, the passenger certificate should be withdrawn. Repeated concerns have been expressed to me that those boats are totally unsuitable for conversion to their present-day use.
  The Marchioness action group has asked me to raise another point which is of concern to the group. The group will shortly publish its own report now that the sub judice rules, which have hung over the case for the past two years, have been raised. The report will contain many issues that will have to be addressed by the Government. One of the group's concerns is that there is still no provision for lifejackets on pleasure boats, nor do those boats have rope ladders or ling rope around the side, which is an important safety issue. The survivors strongly believe that if there had been lifejackets on the Marchioness, some of the victims would have survived. I ask the Minister to comment on that particular point and its relevance to the Hayes inquiry's call for a proper investigation into the rescue operation.
  It is time for clear and consistent policy on marine safety and it is obvious that such a policy is long overdue. I hope that the Minister will take up the challenge issued by the Hayes report. It is not good enough to depend on self-regulation and market forces. It is up to the Department to ensure that the highest safety standards for our rivers are formulated and enforced.
  698
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said in conclusion that it was our wish, desire and determination that never again should river safety on the Thames be so jeopardised that we could have a disaster of such proportions, resulting in the death of 51 innocent people.
  7.33 am
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing} for giving us the opportunity to consider the Hayes report this morning. I acknowledge his considerable interest and experience in these matters. I acknowledge also the interest and concern of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who is also present this morning. I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to call it "this morning". I normally refer to 25 to eight as the morning, but no doubt our clocks, as in so many other matters, are differently arranged.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to legal actions that have taken place since the disaster. He will know that it is not appropriate either for me or, dare I suggest, for him to rerun cases which have been heard in the courts. The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to allow me to intervene on his speech. I did so just to confirm that, as he knows, on the first occasion, the Director of Public Prosecutions instituted against the master of the Bowbelle proceedings under the merchant shipping Acts in which the jury failed to agree a verdict. That of itself may or may not be significant. As I have said, it is not appropriate for me to draw any conclusion from that other than to note the verdict.
  What is perhaps of greater interest is that, on the second occasion on which the DPP instituted a rerun of the first case proceedings, the jury again failed to reach a verdict. I shall not go over the reasons why I conclude that. The hon. Gentleman will know what principal issues would have been of interest to the jury, but it is worth putting it on record that there has been no lack of enthusiasm by the DPP in bringing appropriate proceedings. On the two occasions when evidence has been heard, the jury have failed to agree. The hon. Gentleman will know also that the private prosecution which was brought against senior officials in the company which managed the Bowbelle also failed.
  Mr. Spearing: I assure the Minister that I, too, do not suggest having a rerun of those three cases, but they underline my point about the need for a wider inquiry. In prosecuting the skipper, who may have been under some constraint over which he had no control, perhaps any hon. Member would have come to the same verdict as the jury. To emphasise the personal responsibility of either the officials of the firm or the skipper is surely not the right way to consider the totality of the tragedy, which illustrates the inappropriateness of using the normal courts in respect of such a tragedy. That is why there should be a big inquiry.
  Mr. Norris: As the hon. Gentleman will expect of me, I shall refer to the desirability of any further inquiry proceedings. In essence, the hon. Gentleman has raised two issues. The first is his long-standing concern about previous collisions in which the Bowbelle was involved. As my predecessor explained to him last year and as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the MAIB was aware of those

  699
  collisions but it considered that only one of them was relevant to the collision with the Marchioness. That is why the others were not mentioned in the MAIB report. That is a matter for the investigation board, but it was also for Mr. Hayes to decide what should be included in his report to the Department. Hon. Members have acknowledged that Mr. Hayes produced a good piece of work—one which challenges the Department. He, too, took the view that those incidents, which were related to the disaster and which referred to the history of the Bowbelle had been appropriately treated. I merely leave that on the record.
  As for the idea that there should be a further public inquiry, there have been two major inquiries into matters connected with the Bowbelle-Marchioness collision. One was the MAIB report and the other was the report by Mr. Hayes. They are substantial pieces of work. Evidence was collected widely. Advertisements were placed in the press for contributions to the work. In addition, there have been the three prosecutions to which I referred, all of which have been unsuccessful.
  Hon. Members will know that the purpose of a public inquiry is to establish what happened and to ensure that the accident or incident does not recur. There is no case for one in this instance because, as far as we are aware, all the facts have been established. An inquiry would therefore serve no useful purpose. It is worth noting that the Hayes report does not suggest that a public inquiry or any other investigation into the cause of the Marchioness disaster is needed.
  If the hon. Members for Newham, South and for Deptford have any new evidence, they should conic forward with it at the first opportunity. Knowing the assiduity of the hon. Member for Newham, South, I am sure that he would have done so if he had such evidence. Although I understand that, for example, some members of the Marchioness action group have called for a public inquiry—a call reiterated by the hon. Member for Deptford this morning—there is no case for an inquiry. It is clear that all the facts have been established.
  Ms. Ruddock: I do not believe that the Minister can substantiate his remark that all the facts have been established.
  Mr. John Marshall: What facts?
  Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position, "What facts?" If he waits a moment, I shall try to explain my position. I had hoped to make a brief intervention.
  Those who survived the disaster, who might have most information on what happened that night, and the eye witnesses have not been given the opportunity to present their evidence in a public arena. Just as importantly, they have not had the opportunity to cross-question the assumptions, presumptions, opinions and judgments of the experts who compiled the reports. For those two salient reasons, the Minister cannot substantiate the assertion that all the facts are known. We are convinced that they are not known. Those who have suffered most—those who survived and the families of the victims—have an on-going sense of deep grievance at the injustice of not having had a public inquiry.
  Mr. Norris: I understand the sincerely held feelings of grievance among relatives of those who lost their lives in the disaster and of the survivors. I understand their natural
  700
  concern. We are in difficult territory when either of us attempts to allege that all the facts are known or not known. However, in support of my proposition, I have the reports of the inquiries which have already been held. Both reports are substantial. On the hon. Lady's own admission, Mr. Hayes's report is challenging. I know that she does not suggest for one second that either inquiry has attempted to cover up information which is available and ought to be in the public domain. Therefore, the onus is on her. If she makes allegations that evidence is available which has not so far been adduced, I suggest in all seriousness that it is for her to bring that evidence forward.
  As Mr. Hayes concluded more expertly than I, on the basis of what is currently known, no grounds exist for a public inquiry. That is not to say that many of those who were involved in one way or another in that accident do not have an understandable desire to express their feelings about the actions of some people on that dreadful night. I quite understand that. It is the most natural human emotion in the world. But we are dealing with the proposition that a public inquiry is needed. The basis for that inquiry would be that some part of the affair needs to be investigated because it has not previously been considered and material conclusions relating to it have not been drawn. I do not believe that either the hon. Lady or the hon. Member for Newham, South has made that case.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman mentioned me as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). May I draw the Minister's attention, when he reads Hansard, to the six unanswered questions in the MAIB report which I listed. There are many more. Surely it is not merely a question of the opportunity of witnesses to give evidence. For example, witnesses on the Hurlingham are not quoted at all. Questions which have arisen in the informed public's mind should be investigated and answered. I produced some questions that were not answered.
  Mr. Norris: Perhaps I may say a few words about the Hayes report, and in that context we may be able to answer some of the detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. I intend to cover much of the ground that he mentioned.
  Ms. Ruddock rose—
  Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to continue for a few seconds.
  Last December, as the House will know, Mr. Hayes was invited to conduct his inquiry into river safety. His precise terms of reference were:
  "In the light of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster to examine the handling since 1980 by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers and inland waters and to report on the effectiveness of the present approach. The enquiry should take account of developments in the field of marine safety at international level."
  I shall deal with the report first and then come back to the specific matter of the Marchioness disaster.
  Ms. Ruddock: It is helpful that the Minister has given way at this point because he has just given the terms of reference, which contradict his recent statement that the facts of what happened in the Marchioness disaster had already been established. It is clear, from the terms of reference of the Hayes committee, that Hayes was not charged with finding out what happened during that

  701
  disaster. He was charged with wider terms of reference and therefore it is wrong to say that Hayes and his report have established the facts of what happened during the disaster.
  Mr. Norris: But the hon. Lady did not hear me say that, precisely because I entirely accept her definition of what Mr. Hayes was dealing with. She has ignored the existence of the MAIB report, to which I shall refer later.
  I remind the hon. Lady that the Hayes inquiry is the subject of our debate and that it was conducted on an informal and independent basis. Mr. Hayes had two advisers, one to cover marine matters and one to advise on safety. The inquiry received written and oral submissions from more than 130 sources and was given full co-operation by the Department of Transport. Mr. Hayes completed his work and submitted his report in May, and it was published by HMSO on Tuesday 7 July.
  As I believe that the whole House acknowledges, Mr. Hayes has prepared a thorough and comprehensive report. He has not pulled his punches, and the report is all the more valuable for that. It makes it clear that there is, of course, a fundamental obligation on those who provide services for profit for travellers. But, as he also points out, it is the Department of Transport which, with the Port of London authority, is responsible for regulating the operators on the Thames.
  I make no bones about straightforwardly saying that Hayes has concluded that while the Department
  "showed technical competence and dedication",
  it
  "lacked the vision and drive to lead the marine industry into accepting that high safety standards and commercial success were compatible."
  That is straightforward and, as I think that the House would agree, it does not mince words in any sense. It makes it clear that the Government, together with industry and the authorities concerned, have to aim higher in the future.
  The report made 22 specific recommendations, which cover the future organisation of marine safety, specific action on river safety, the staffing and organisation of the marine accident investigation branch and its role in the dissemination of information, specific minor improve-ments to marine legislation and merchant shipping Acts in various contexts and new powers over boat owners and operators. I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Newham, South that we are considering all those recommendations carefully, because he said that some had already been rejected. My specific advice is that all those recommendations are being considered.
  Some recommendations will require further considera-tion and consultation with other interested organisations—as the report suggests—so we cannot give a full response to them now. Action on others, however, can be taken quickly. In some cases, action is already in hand. That has been fully described in the set of initial responses to the report, which we also released on Tuesday.
  Several of the Mr. Hayes's recommendations concern the Department's overall approach to the exercise of its functions in this sector. The report urged the Department to take a much higher profile in promoting safety among a variety of disparate operators and regulators. We clearly intend to do that. The House will know, however, that part of the background to this matter is that a variety of bodies have responsibility in relation to safety on rivers and
  702
  inland waters. That is as it should be, but it follows that a uniform approach would not necessarily be practicable, because conditions vary so greatly between one part of the country and another and between one river and another.
  Mr. Spearing indicated assent.
  Mr. Norris: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.
  The police and harbour authorities and the Health and Safety Executive have different safety responsibilities and it is proper that they should continue to have those individual responsibilities. We have therefore decided, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to establish a series of district marine safety committees throughout the United Kingdom, which will be based on the Department's six marine districts.
  The committees will review in each area the way in which the responsibilities for safety, rescue and accident prevention are currently distributed. They will identify the scope for improvements; suggest ways of making those improvements; and most importantly, ensure that the improvements are implemented and maintained. They will also make proposals for legislative change if they think that that is necessary.
  We intend that each committee will include represen-tatives of relevant organisations in the district, both public and private, and will be chaired by a departmental chief surveyor. We will achieve national co-ordination and a consistent approach to how those committees undertake their work through a national steering committee. I am sure that the House would agree that it is appropriate, on that basis, that after two years, we should review what those committees have achieved and consider whether they should be established as permanent bodies.
  We have endeavoured to accept that it is right that a multiplicity of bodies should have responsibility in various locations for various safety issues of local importance. We also believe that there should also be a mechanism to ensure that the new impetus, which Mr. Hayes has charged us to give to the matter, is maintained.
  Mr. Hayes also made a number of recommendations about the way in which the surveyor general's organisation—SGO—should exercise its responsibilities in future concerning safety on rivers and at sea. Following recent reports by the National Audit Office and a Committee in another place, an internal review of this matter has been carried out. It recommended that the SGO be reconstituted as a marine safety agency; it would be responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and would have the same degree of independence as other next steps agencies. Work is now in hand to establish whether the organisation should become a candidate for executive agency status. The conclusions on this will be announced in due course.
  The hon. Member for Deptford spoke of the importance of recommendation 8 of the Hayes report, which I know we will all agree is the most crucial: it is that there should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames. We have reflected on this carefully, but our conclusion, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, and as we discussed earlier, is that a further review would not be justified.
  Action is being taken to ensure that the lessons learnt from the Marchioness-Bowbelle disaster have been fully assimilated. The Home Office is asking the main parties

  703
  involved in the rescue—in this case, the Metropolitan police and the PLA—to confirm that they have drawn the appropriate lessons, that their contingency plans have been amended and that those plans are regularly reviewed and practised. In addition, Thames rescue arrangements and equipment will be examined by the relevant district marine safety committee under the new arrangements that I mentioned earlier.
  Mr. Hayes recommended a number of measures that, as I have said, are already in hand. For example, we have increased tenfold the number of spot-checks on Thames passenger vessels since the loss of the Marchioness, in addition—I want to make this clear in case there is any doubt—to the annual survey of every passenger vessel. I know that Opposition Members will know that, rather than there being on average less than one spot-check a week, there are now half a dozen spot-checks in addition to the annual safety check. We are monitoring the effectiveness of the bridge lighting system. The hon. Member for Newham, South has a lot of experience of this, and that was shown by the way that he narrated the history of the Bow class vessels. He will know that passenger certificates will not be granted to any vessel that does not satisfy the new stringent visibility criteria.
  Mr. Spearing indicated assent.
  Mr. Norris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of that.
  We are also reviewing the M notice system to make sure that the whole process is much more user friendly, and I think that that will be useful. I am sure that everyone will agree that to issue notices to all the vessels where the advice in those notices need apply to only a small number is the wrong way to ensure that those operating that small number of vessels realise that this is one of those countless pieces of paper that they should read and understand. Full details of our initial response to the Hayes report are available in the Library. We shall inform the House as our consideration of the recommendations proceeds and we are able to give firm responses.
  I should like to say a little about the Marchioness-Bowbelle disaster. I know that the House will want to join me in saying that, despite the passage of time, the grief does not lessen. We shall all want to express our sympathies to the survivors of, and those bereaved by, one of the most horrific disasters that we can remember. This is my first opportunity to express my personal condolences.
  Although the Hayes inquiry looked at the overall issue of river safety, it was clearly prompted by the concerns
  704
  expressed after that disaster, which happened in August 1989. The Government were, and remain, determined that a disaster such as that should never happen again. An investigation by the independent MAIB was at once mounted and some new safety measures—for example, passenger counting and safety announcements—were initiated immediately after the accident. The MAIB's interim report was made 10 days after the accident and included six further safety recommendations, considera-tion of which was put in hand immediately. The MAIB carried out a thorough investigation and produced a hard-hitting report. It made 27 recommendations, all of which were accepted.
  Although the report could not be published at once because of the proceedings that were then being taken against the master of the Bowbelle, its recommendations were published in July 1990 so that action could begin as quickly as possible. The Department has moved rapidly to implement those recommendations.
  It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 14th July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Office Costs Allowances not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; and the said Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 15th July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Education not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION) BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Disclosure of Information) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Wood.]

  War Crimes Act 1991
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  8 am
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise in the House an issue that has divided both sides of the House and another place, and has divided the House from another place: the War Crimes Act 1991.
  From time to time, the Government of the day, sometimes for lofty reasons, embark on a course of action that immediately strikes one as being astonishingly stupid and bound to end in disaster. Over the months, more and more people sense that something is going badly wrong, but do not feel able to speak out; disaster finally strikes and, suddenly, everyone wonders why that action was embarked on in the first place. Something similar happened in the case of the poll tax, and that pattern of events has occurred in relation to the War Crimes Act, except that disaster is still round the corner.
  This controversial piece of legislation is believed to have flowed from a visit paid to Israel by Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. Having correctly criticised the Israeli Government for the abominable treatment of the Palestinians on the west bank and in Gaza, she was looking for a sweetener for the Israelis. She was asked whether the United Kingdom would be prepared to try alleged war criminals said to be living in Britain, and she agreed to have the matter investigated on her return to London.
  In February 1988, the then Home Secretary was persuaded to set up an inquiry, the terms of reference of which were:
  "To obtain and examine relevant material, including material held by Government Departments and documents which have been or may be submitted by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and others"—
  Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend seeks to draw a parallel between a visit of the then Prime Minister in May 1986 and the setting up of the inquiry in February 1988. Is he not aware that Baroness Thatcher normally works at a faster rate of knots than that?
  Mr. Townsend: My hon. Friend will know that there was considerable feeling against the proposal in the Cabinet and in Government ranks, which may be one reason for the long delay before the inquiry.
  The inquiry was told to obtain and examine relevant documents, which it duly did. Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. William Chalmers submitted their report to the Home Secretary in June 1989. They considered that some action should be taken
  "where the evidence is sufficient"
  and suggested
  "legislation to allow prosecution in this country is preferable to extradition."
  Bearing in mind that the countries in which these crimes allegedly took place have since gained their independence, has extradition been reconsidered?
  The inquiry looked into just over 300 cases, of which it recommended that 75 should be accorded further investigation. The inquiry then came to the remarkable conclusion that there were only three individuals against whom evidence to mount a prosecution existed. Rightly,
  706
  Parliament was given an opportunity to express a view on the inquiry's report and the proposed legislation. Debates were held in both Houses in 1990 and in 1991.
  On a free vote, the Commons backed legislation, and the Lords rejected it by an overwhelming majority, the Law Lords apparently being unwilling to go down this path. With due respect to their lordships, they are inclined to be slightly older than Members of this House. They represent the generation that went through the war and they know all about the Nazi horrors, the holocaust and the events at Nuremburg. Their wisdom was overwhel-mingly against proceeding with the proposed legislation.
  In the House of Commons, 55 Tory Members, including myself I am delighted to say, but, sadly, not the Minister—I checked this morning—voted against the legislation and the total included at least two members of the present Government. I understand that the Prime Minister voted against the concept right at the beginning of the proceedings.
  The Act is directed against a small group of men, now British citizens but formerly citizens of the Baltic states, who are accused of being responsible for murders in German-occupied territory during the second world war. It is restricted to them and does not cover the all-too-many atrocities committed elsewhere during and after the war. Japanese war crimes are ignored, although we know that they were horrendous, as are war crimes committed in the former Soviet Union. We know that Stalin killed considerably more of his own people than Hitler killed in Germany. More recent crimes in Palestine, Cambodia and Iraq are not covered, either.
  It is retrospective legislation, and surely we should all be cautious of that. It is also selective. Britain is about to follow the old Soviet Union and modern Israel in staging vindictive show trials. The grim and grisly affair of the wrong "Ivan the Terrible" being convicted in Israel should surely ring the alarm bells in the Minister's elegant private office.
  Conservative peers who opposed the legislation were led by those of the calibre of Lord Carrington, Lord Hailsham, Lord Home of the Hirsel and Lord Havers—men of great experience in international affairs. In this Chamber, we were led by my distinguished parliamentary neighbour my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who fought in western Europe and ended up a lieutenant-colonel. They believed that the more atrocious the crime, the more scrupulously the rules of criminal justice should be observed. Amendments to the normal rules of evidence procedure will give an unfair advantage to the prosecution and penalise the defence.
  My second question to the Minister is, what is currently being planned to enable fair trials to take place? With regard to evidence, there has been talk of televised interviews being transmitted from the Baltic states. Has such procedure been used before, and is it seriously contemplated now? Are videos to be used? One must bear it in mind that most of the witnesses live there, although I gather that some are to be flown to Britain—is that still being considered?
  Lord Shawcross, a chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, wrote in The Times on 29 July 1989:
  "Revival of these sad and terrible matters by sensational trials of a small handful of aged men, which will take years to conduct and which will start with an assumption of guilt, will not help to promote understanding and friendship between

  707
  the different peoples of the world, will not help eliminate the evil of anti-semitism nor, still less, enhance respect for British justice."
  Those remarks very much represent my views. We are all aware that anti-semitism has been growing in eastern Europe.
  As I said, only three elderly individuals are expected to be prosecuted. There must be a chance that none of them will still be alive by the time they are due to be sentenced, even if a jury can be found to convict them after 50 years. I draw the Minister's attention to a trial following the recent riots at Wapping. It was dismissed by the judge on the grounds that the event took place too long ago for people to recall the exact details, but here we are talking about events of 50 years ago.
  The whole sorry saga has been brought about by a tiny, highly financed overseas pressure group, which, I believe, is seeking not justice but revenge and retribution. It has effectively activated the Jewish voters in the constituencies. I believe that many hon. Members found it prudent to go along with the legislation rather than be thought to be soft on Nazi criminals. It is a deplorable case of the tail wagging the dog.
  A special group of police officers has been formed to seek the evidence. From parliamentary questions, I have learnt that in England and Wales there are 11 such officers, led by a detective chief superindendent and a detective chief inspector. Scotland has a further three officers led by a detective inspector. I say unhesitatingly that those detectives would be much better used bringing to justice today's terrorists, murderers, rapists and burglars in Bexleyheath and in Bexhill, and in other of my hon. Friends' constituencies. It is a truly remarkable waste of precious police manpower, especially detective manpower.
  In answer to a parliamentary question in February, I was also told that the additional police expenditure associated with the War Crimes Act 1991 is estimated to be nearly £1 million for the financial year 1991–92. No doubt it will rise year by year. My third question is, what are the estimated costs to the Home Office in the next three years? In addition, there will be legal costs. Does the Minister's brief state what those costs are estimated to be? Is it conceivable that they will be even greater than the police costs? Perhaps we could be looking at a bill of some £10 million before this shocking affair is behind us.
  At a time of considerable financial restraint, which affects the Home Office and other major Departments of State, it is perverse and foolish to spend such a sum raking over the ashes of the past and events that took place nearly 50 years ago, possibly before the Minister was on the earth.
  The purpose of this short debate is to warn the Government that this matter will blow up in their face during the lifetime of this Parliament. The Government will come under growing pressure here and in another place. It looks increasingly like an exposure and spiteful vendetta against a group of pathetic old people. Whatever may be alleged about what they did or did not do in other countries so long ago, the reality is that they have nothing left to offer and a short while left to live. The British people will pick up that what is being proposed is unBritish and inherently unfair. They will be right, because it stinks.
  If show trials take place, the tabloid coverage and the radio and television coverage, gruesome and appalling as it will be, will do nothing to help the reputation of the House, it having allowed the trials to take place in the first
  708
  place. Many decades ago, Winston Churchill, with his usual verbal vividness, spoke about the need to draw a sponge across the crimes and horrors of the past. He well understood that it would not be possible to prosecute every lance-corporal for what happened in Nazi Germany. I believe that Churchill was right. I call upon the Government to be prudent and to think again.
  8.16 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on his success in raising an important and sensitive issue. How to deal with allegations of the most dreadful crimes and whether to deal with them such a long time after they are alleged to have been committed were matters that were debated at length and with much feeling by both Houses of Parliament in 1990 and 1991.
  My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully and has given his interpretation of the events that led to the war crimes legislation. He asked several questions. First, extradition has not been reconsidered. The War Crimes Act 1991 is now the law. Secondly, my hon. Friend asked about the use of television for giving evidence—
  Mr. Townsend: Have there been any discussions, bearing in mind that certain countries are now independent sovereign states, which they were not when the machinery moved into motion?
  Mr. Wardle: There have been discussions with the new sovereign states. I repeat that extradition has not been reconsidered.
  Bearing in mind the time, I shall take now my hon. Friend's second question. He talked about the use of television for giving evidence. In England, the procedure for evidence by live television link is enabled by section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The provisions were brought into force by a commencement order of 26 November 1991 in respect of cases of murder, manslaughter or serious and complex fraud. The procedure has not been used in Scotland because there is no equivalent statutory provision that equates to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Government have brought forward provisions in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill, which recently completed its stages in the other place. The measure will come before the House in the autumn. Its provisions will admit evidence from abroad by live television link in Scottish criminal proceedings. I understand that an amendment tabled in the other place has sought to disapply the relevant provisions to any proceedings under the War Crimes Act 1991. That is the present situation.
  Before taking up some of the other specific matters that my hon. Friend raised, it might be helpful if I briefly remind the House of some of the background to the War Crimes Act.
  In February 1988, the then Home Secretary established an inquiry to consider allegations that some perpetrators of war crimes committed during the second world war had taken refuge in this country. The House will recall that the inquiry reported in June 1989. It had concluded, among other things, that there were, among the many innocent people who had come here at the end of the war, some who might have committed the most terrible of crimes—the

  709
  mass killing of the civilian population in towns and villages in central and eastern Europe. Some allegations relate to the destruction of entire villages with the murder of all inhabitants in reprisal raids following partisan activity.
  Most often, the victims of those atrocities were Jewish men, women and children who were targeted for extermination as part of Nazi policy. They were punitive organised murders and not part of military conflict. The subjects under investigation for those crimes are mainly collaborators from the local communities who were formed into auxiliary police battalions under German command to control the civilian population, and they were also used for those killings.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that there has never been a statute of limitation on murders in the United Kingdom? Indeed, this very week someone has been accused of a murder that he allegedly committed 14 years ago. Those who believe that war crimes should not be prosecuted are suggesting that those who were guilty of especially offensive murders should be given a degree of immunity denied to any other British citizen.
  Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend makes a telling point most forcefully. The Government, having considered the inquiry's report, decided to introduce the War Crimes Bill. For reasons with which the House will be familiar, and to which my hon. Friend alluded, the Bill received a Second Reading in this House on two occasions. It is worth reminding the House of the majorities on those occasions. On the first, on 19 March 1990, the Bill was passed on a free vote by 273 votes to 60. On the second occasion, on 18 March 1991, again on a free vote, it was passed by 254 votes to 88. The Bill proceeded to Second Reading stage in another place on 30 April, where it was defeated for a second time. That vote cleared the way for the operation of the Parliament Acts and the legislation came into force on 9 May, just over a year ago. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall the emphatic support given to the Bill.
  I want to deal with the progress being made in the investigation of allegations of offences under the terms of the Act. The task of investigating allegations of those offences has been given to police officers based at New Scotlandyard and to the Crown Office, assisted by police officers from Lothian and Borders police in Scotland. As my hon. Friend is aware, the police war crimes unit in England and Wales is staffed by 11 police officers, led by a detective chief superintendent, and in Scotland three police offices are led by a detective inspector. That is a significant number of police officers.
  Police costs of more than £900,000 in 1991–92 and estimated costs in the order of £1·6 million in the current financial year show the commitment that the Government have made to this investigative effort. I must tell my hon. Friend that he should take this year's expenditure as some indication of the expenditure trend over the next two or three years. Legal costs will depend on the number of cases brought to court.
  There are those who suggest that the employment of valuable detective expertise on investigating allegations of those offences must have diverted officers from the investigation of more contemporary offences. My hon. Friend made that point. I hope that I can reassure the
  710
  House that because the two police units are fully funded by the Government, neither the Commissioner nor the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police have to divert officers from other work; they are separately funded by the Government.
  It might be helpful if I set out the nature of the work of the police war crimes unit based in New Scotland Yard to illustrate the challenges facing our police officers. That is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend. Some 301 relevant cases were identified by the Hetherington-Chalmers parliamentary inquiry. Since its establishment, the unit has received a further 54 allegations.
  Each of those allegations has had to be separately reviewed to establish the following essential facts: first, that the allegation, if proved, would come within the terms of the War Crimes Act and, secondly, that the person against whom the allegation is made can be traced in this country and is still alive. As a result of that exercise, the unit has been able to eliminate some 250 people from further investigation at this time.
  Independent from the police unit, but working closely with it, is the Crown prosecution service war crimes unit headed by a senior lawyer. Over the past year the police and Crown prosecution service have made joint visits to Austrlia, Canada, the United States and the former Soviet Union.
  Those visits have been very productive. Agreements were made with the Australian, Canadian and United States war crimes units to share information and to co-ordinate inquiries. Agreements were also obtained with the procurator general of the former Soviet Union that our officers could carry out work in their jurisdiction.
  Of course the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that separate such arrangements needed to be made with the procurator generals of the new sovereign states to which my hon. Friend referred—Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. That delayed the work of the units. However, representatives of the police and the Crown prosecution service units have now visited each of those jurisdictions and have received co-operation from the authorities there.
  The House will be aware that those investigations are unusually challenging. The Crown prosecution service unit is working closely with the police and will continue to do so, advising as to evidence, how it should be presented and, where necessary, supporting the police unit with advice on the interviewing of witnesses in the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states.
  The police and prosecutors are, of course, working against considerable pressure of time. As my hon. Friend has made clear, the alleged offences were committed some 50 years ago and many of the suspects and witnesses are elderly. Core evidence from witnesses and documents must be gathered from abroad. Interpretation and translation at every stage means that completion of inquiries takes longer than in more usual police investigations.
  Although investigation into priority cases will be completed as soon as possible, I cannot say when all investigations will be completed. Whether or not there will be any prosecution will depend on the most careful scrutiny of the available evidence to determine whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
  The Demjanjuk case in Israel highlights the importance of accurate identification of suspects. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate require a very high standard of evidence,

  711
  and will therefore scrutinise very carefully the issue of identification before they agree that proceedings may be instituted.
  The House will also be aware that there is a case in the Court of Session in Edinburgh concerning an action of defamation against Scottish Television. The Lord Advocate is aware of the case, but the question of a criminal prosecution is separate from and is not determined by a decision in the civil court where the issues and standard of proof are different. Nor should the House make any assumption about whether any individual is being investigated. It is not the Crown's practice to discuss individual cases. Any such investigations are confidential. Any decision on criminal proceedings will be a matter for the Lord Advocate in Scotland or the Attorney-General in England and Wales.
  712
  I conclude by reminding the House again of its overwhelming support for the legislation that the Government introduced to deal with dreadful crimes committed during the last war. Some of the allegations relate to punitive organised murders where innocent people were herded to mass graves. To those who witnessed and survived those terrible events the experiences of many years ago doubtless remain as clear as if those events had occurred only yesterday.
  It is now for the police and prosecutors to carry out their duty to investigate and bring to justice those who committed such crimes.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eight o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Obscene Publications
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will take action under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to confiscate copies of the book published by Arrow Books of which the hon. Member for Shoreham has given him details.

  The Attorney-General
  It is the police rather than the Crown prosecution service who initiate proceedings under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 by the obtaining and execution of a search warrant. The Crown prosecution service would, however, expect to be consulted in advance of such action and would not endorse any such application in respect of the book in question in view of its decision not to institute proceedings under section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

  Mr. David Irving
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration the Director of Public Prosecutions has given to prosecuting Mr. David Irving under the Race Relations Act 1976 over the organisation of revisionist seminars describing the holocaust as a liberal myth.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions is not currently giving consideration to any proceedings against David Irving. Anyone who has evidence giving reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed should report it to the police.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesian Military Personnel
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Indonesian military personnel have recently been awarded Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships awards schemes to study at the Royal College of Military Science at Shrivenham, Swindon.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Two Indonesian military officers are currently at the Royal College of Military Science at Shrivenham on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships award scheme. One student was at the college last year on the same basis; a further student is expected to attend the college in the next academic year.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will cancel the invitations issued to Mr. Kustanto Widiatmoko, Mr. Akmad Buldan and Mr. Minulyo Suprato to attend the Royal College of Military Science at Shrivenham under his Department's scholarships and awards scheme, in view of Indonesia's human rights record.
  276
  Mr. Goodlad
  Only one of the three Indonesians named —Mr. Widiatmoko—is to attend a course at the Royal College of Military Science, Shrivenham. The other two are to undertake studies at Nottingham university and at the Cranfield Institute of Technology, Bedford. There are no plans to cancel these scholarships awards. We do not believe that the cancellation of this form of educational assistance would help the human rights situation in Indonesia.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the first meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Budapest, between 3 and 6 July.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I welcome the addition of a parliamentary dimension to the CSCE process, and in particular the adoption by the parliamentary assembly of declarations in favour of strengthening CSCE institutions. I agree with the assembly that respect for CSCE values, including parliamentary democracy and human rights, should be translated into every day practice, and that CSCE should seek to prevent and resolve conflicts both within and between states.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the names of each of the organisations and individuals who have sent responses to the White Paper on a national lottery; and if he will make a statement on the timetable for completing his consultation process.

  Mr. Mellor
  A total of 224 respondents were listed on 6 July,Official Report, columns 23–26, most of whom submitted their comments to the Home Office before 1 June. In addition, the Department of National Heritage has now received seven further communications from organisations and individuals. These are from the Continental On-Line Lottery and Totalisator Advisors; Nairn district council; Northern Arts; the Sports Council for Northern Ireland; the United Kingdom Lottery Company Limited; the Victoria and Albert museum; and the hon. Member. This brings the total to 231. Over the next few months we will continue discussions with key respondents. Legislation will be brought forward in due course.

  Press (Self-regulation)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for reviewing press self-regulation.

  Mr. Mellor
  When the report of the Committee on Privacy and Related Matters was published in June 1990, the then Home Secretary said that the Government would review the effectiveness of press self-regulation once the new Press Complaints Commission which the committee recommended be established had been in operation for 18 months.
  277
  Now that the 18 month period is over, I have decided to ask Sir David Calcutt QC, the Master of Magdalene college Cambridge, who chaired the earlier committee, to undertake an assessment of how self-regulation has worked in practice since his committee reported. His remit will be to assess the effectiveness of non-statutory self regulation by the press since the establishment of the Press Complaints Commission and to give his views on whether the present arrangements for self-regulation should now be modified or put on a statutory basis. I have also asked him to consider whether any further measures may be needed to deal with intrusions into personal privacy by the press, and to make recommendations.

  I believe that a further independent analysis based on recent experience of self-regulation will be of great assistance in determining the way forward in this difficult and sensitive area. In view of his chairmanship of the earlier committee, Sir David is uniquely qualified to carry out this task, and I am very grateful to him for agreeing to take it on.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Over the next 12 months, I shall continue to follow up commitments in the White Paper Cm 1200 "This Common Inheritance" and its successor Cm 1655 "The First Year Report". I shall also be contributing to the second anniversary White Paper in the autumn. By the end of 1992 my Department will have developed an environmental housekeeping strategy for the management of its accommodation and purchasing, and over the next year and beyond I shall continue to ensure that environmental concerns shape the policy and work of my Department whenever appropriate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Marine Theft
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total value of marine theft of United Kingdom vessels stolen in United Kingdom territorial waters for the last five years; and if he will tabulate.

  Mr. Jack
  The requested information is not collected centrally.

  AIDS
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation so that charges of(a) indecent assault. (b) assault occasioning actual bodily harm and (c) procurement of sex with a woman by false pretences, may be brought against a person who is an HIV/AIDS carrier who wilfully infects others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have no current plans to introduce such legislation. There are difficulties both of principle and of practice in bringing this type of behaviour within the scope 278
  of the criminal law. The issue is, however, being kept under review and we will he taking into account the precedents in other countries before reaching a final view.

  Mr. Martin Foran
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will refer to the Court of Appeal the conviction of Martin Foran, presently at Her Majesty's prison, Millers Park, following the receipt of the letter from the Crown prosecution service of 28 May, 11NN 158212 Foran, relating to non-disclosure of evidence during his application for leave to appeal.

  Mr. Jack
  We are considering, in the light of further representations from solicitors for Mr. Foran, including the letter to them of 28 May from the Crown prosecution service, whether there are any grounds to justify intervention in the case. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as consideration of the representations is complete.

  Police, Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of police officers in Wales relieved of duty because of criminal misconduct in(a) 1991, (b) 1990 and (c) 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The table gives total numbers of officers suspended from duty pending investigation of a criminal allegation, in respect of each of the four Welsh constabularies in the years in question. The figures in brackets denote the number of officers who were convicted of a criminal offence in those years. Any conviction of an officer who has been suspended from duty may take place in a year subsequent to that of his suspension.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Dyfed-Powys

  0 (0)

  3 (1)

  0 (0)

  Gwent

  6 (0)

  3 (1)

  4 (1)

  North Wales

  3 (1)

  1 (0)

  4 (1)

  South Wales

  8 (6)

  9 (3)

  14 (1)

  Total

  17 (7)

  16 (5)

  22 (3)

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current backlog in dealing with referral cases at each of the immigration centres.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of passengers detained overnight under Immigration Act powers during 1991 by nationality.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Passengers1 detained overnight or longer in 1991, by nationality

  Geographical region and nationality2

  Number of persons

  All nationalities

  8,016

  European Community

  35

  279

  Geographical region and nationality2

  Number of persons

  Belgium

  —

  Denmark

  —

  France

  10

  Germany

  2

  Greece

  —

  Italy

  2

  Luxembourg

  —

  Netherlands

  4

  Portugal

  13

  Spain

  4

  Other Western Europe

  689

  Austria

  6

  Cyprus

  42

  Finland

  12

  Malta

  7

  Norway

  3

  Sweden

  27

  Switzerland

  8

  Turkey

  229

  Yugoslavia

  355

  Eastern Europe

  198

  Bulgaria

  28

  Czechoslovakia

  22

  Hungary

  27

  Poland

  48

  Romania

  55

  USSR

  18

  Americas

  1,031

  Argentina

  24

  Barbados

  5

  Brazil

  204

  Canada

  17

  Chile

  23

  Colombia

  297

  Cuba

  2

  Guyana

  11

  Jamaica

  219

  Mexico

  21

  Peru

  29

  Trinidad and Tobago

  16

  USA

  148

  Uruguay

  1

  Venezuela

  14

  Africa

  2.902

  Algeria

  232

  Egypt

  31

  Ethiopia

  113

  Ghana

  539

  Kenya

  50

  Libya

  27

  Mauritius

  34

  Morocco

  138

  Nigeria

  1,036

  Sierra Leone

  211

  Somalia

  190

  South Africa

  56

  Sudan

  52

  Tanzania

  41

  Tunisia

  19

  Uganda

  72

  Zambia

  26

  Zimbabwe

  35

  Indian sub-continent

  1,047

  Bangladesh

  497

  India

  223

  Pakistan

  327

  Middle East

  298

  Iran

  53

  Iraq

  81

  Israel

  71

  Jordan

  12

  280

  Geographical region and nationality2

  Number of persons

  Kuwait

  3

  Lebanon

  62

  Saudi Arabia

  2

  Syria

  14

  Remainder of Asia

  521

  China

  32

  Indonesia

  6

  Japan

  26

  Malaysia

  175

  Philippines

  31

  Singapore

  12

  Sri Lanka

  176

  Thailand

  12

  Hong Kong3

  51

  Australasia

  33

  Australia

  27

  New Zealand

  6

  Others

  1,262

  British Overseas Citizens

  33

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  861

  Stateless

  368

  1Includes some illegal entrants and deportees.

  2Or claimed nationality where the nationality is in doubt.

  3British Dependent Territories citizens and British Nationals (Overseas) only.

  Derek Bentley
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 18 May,Official Report, column 10, when he expects to make an announcement or decision on his study of the report submitted to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the case of Derek Bentley.

  Mr. Jack
  This report is receiving careful consideration together with other material which has been submitted more recently, including a letter and dossier received on 1 June from solicitors acting for Miss Iris Bentley. My right hon. and learned Friend will decide as soon as possible whether any action on his part would be appropriate.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public money has been made available to victim support organisations in the mid-Essex area in each of the last three available years.

  Mr. Jack
  Home Office funding of local victim support schemes is channelled through the National Association of Victim Support Schemes, and is allocated by the Victim Support local funding panel on which the Home Office has observer status. There is one local victim support scheme in the mid-Essex area, the Chelmsford and Braintree scheme. Home Office funding allocated to that scheme amounted to £14,484 in 1990–91, £15,788 in 1991–92, and is planned to amount to £26,208 in the current financial year.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders he has signed in each month in 1992.
  281
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  January

  62

  February

  49

  March

  74

  April

  109

  May

  77

  June

  85

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on deporting foreign nationals whose families reside in this country and who have no means of support in their own country.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Deportation will normally be the proper course where a person subject to immigration control overstays a permitted leave, breaches a condition attached to it or engages in serious criminal or other activity against the public interest. Each case is considered on its merits having full regard to all known compassionate circumstances including age, character, domestic circumstances, length of residence in and strength of ties with the United Kingdom. The effect of deportation on a person's family in the United Kingdom and the situation he or she will face on return are factors to be taken into account.

  Prison Service
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will publish a statement of the annual objectives of the prison service and of the resources provided for it.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am placing in the Library a copy of the "Statement of Objectives and Resources for HM Prison Service, 1992–93", which is being issued today.

  The statement forms the "compact" between Ministers and the Director General of the prison service recommended by Lord Justice Woolf. It sets out the prison service's purpose and goals, the planning assumptions and resources for 1992–93 and the service's objectives, targets and performance indicators.

  It was announced in March 1992 that it was intended that the prison service should become an executive agency on 1 April 1993. The framework document and corporate and business plans for the agency will succeed the present statement from 1993–94 onwards.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the substantive reports from the departmental Select Committees in the 1987 Parliament which have not been debated, or referred to on the Order Paper as relevant to a debate.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Office Costs Allowance
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he intends to publish the Top Salaries Review Body's report on the office costs allowance and the Government's response to it.
  282
  Mr. Newton
  I have today placed copies of the TSRB's report in the Vote Office.

  The TSRB's proposals

  The TSRB's wide-ranging report recommends fundamental changes to the level and structure of the OCA.

  The main recommendations are:

  (a) to disaggregate the OCA into separate allowances covering expenditure for different purposes (eg staff, equipment etc) in order to improve accountability;

  (b) a separate staff allowance of £33,360 (includng the 4·25 per cent. uprating from 1 April) to enable MPs to employ up to 2 full-time staff rather than 1½ as at present;

  (c) a separate allowance of £4,000 for general office expenses;

  (d) central procurement of IT equipment, to be introduced as soon as possible;

  (e) as an interim measure, a separate one-off initial acquisition grant for IT equipment of £5,000. available to all MPs, but with the general office expenses allowance halved in the year in which the grant is taken;

  (f) a separate additional allowance of £2,000 a year for MPs basing their activities in their constituency, provided they occupy only "the basic minimum accommodation at Westminster as defined by the House";

  (g) the creation of a Personnel Office, separate from the Fees Office, to advise MPs and their staff on matters including rates of pay and job specifications;

  (h) (in the expectation that their Report would not have been implemented in advance of the general election this year) only one quarter of the allowance for 1992–93 should be available to Members between 1 April 1992 and the election.

  If implemented in full these recommendations would increase the maximum of the OCA from the 1991–92 figure of £28,986 to between £37,360 for a Member not entitled to the constituency office allowance and not claiming the one-off initial acquisition grant and £42,360 in 1992–93 for a Member claiming both, which would cost up to an additional £8 million in the first year. In percentage terms the increases would range between 23·6 and 40·2 per cent. in addition to a 4·25 per cent. increase due from 1 April 1992 in line with the existing uprating formula.

  The Government's Views The TSBR's proposals raise three fundamental issues: compartmentalisation of the OCA; central procurement of IT equipment; creation of a separate Personnel Office.

  The key argument for compartmentalisation of the OCA is that it would improve accountability. But almost all MP's expenditure on office, secretarial and research support is disbursed directly by the Fees Office or reimbursed on the basis of invoices submitted. The Government do not consider therefore that disaggregation would significantly improve accountability, but it would reduce MP's flexibility to make most effective use of the OCA. The Government do not therefore support this proposal. It follows that we oppose the creation of a separate constituency office allowance. It would be exceedingly difficult to define an acceptable criterion based on a Member occupying "minimum accommodation at Westminster". It would also be difficult in some areas—for example, portable office equipment—to distinguish between general office expenses and constituency office expenses.

  Turning to the provision of IT equipment, we believe that the case for central procurement needs further consideration. It should be possible to negotiate discount arrangements without the need for bulk purchase of equipment by a central procurement authority which

  283
  would inevitably base its specification on a generalised requirement rather than specific needs. The Government therefore have strong reservations about this proposal. In of these concerns we also do not favour the introduction of a separate initial acquisition grant pending the introduction of central procurement. We consider that MPs should continue to lease or purchase equipment which best meets their particular requirements from the aggregate OCA. Subject to the views of the House, however, the Government would be content for an invitation to he extended to the Information Committee of the House to consider the TSRB's proposals on equipment provision in the light of planned progress on the study of networking in the House.

  The final fundamental issue is the proposal to create a separate Personnel Office. The Government appreciate the reasons underlying the recommendation, but are conscious of the concern of many Members about possible external intervention in the relationships between themselves and their staff. Subject to the views of the House, therefore, the Government do not propose to pursue this proposal.

  Against this background, the Government consider that the most sensible course is to retain the OCA as a single sum but increase the maximum level. We accept that there is a case for increasing provision for support staff but taking account of both the TSRB's findings and the public expenditure implications and wider economic considerations we do not believe an increase as high as the TSRB recommends would be appropriate. The Government propose, therefore, that the OCA should he increased to provide for a maximum additional one quarter of a staff member, or equivalent expenditure, per Member. We also accept the TSRB's proposal that provision of £4,000 should be provided for general office expenses, but as part of the aggregate OCA rat her than as a separate allowance as the TSRB suggests.

  Taken together the Government's proposals would increase the maximum OCA from £28,986 in 1991–92 to £33,190 in 1992–93. This represents a 9·8 per cent. increase, to provide for additional support from members, in addition to a 4·25 per cent. increase from 1 April in line with the existing uprating formula.

  Finally, the Government note that at present an MP who joins or leaves the House part way through a year is entitled to claim against the full year's OCA. The TSRB addressed this point in the run-up to the election, but made no longer-term recommendation. The Government propose that from 1 April 1993 eligibility to the OCA will be calculated on a quarterly basis.

  Overall, the Government believe this new higher level of OCA, while less than the TSRB recommended, provides a substantial increase which represents a fair balance between the taxpayers' interests and the needs of MPs for sufficient support to enable them to carry out adequately their duties to their constituents. It also provides MPs with continued flexibility in the ways they organise staff and equipment support to meet best their individual requirements.

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS COMMITTEE

  7 Millbank
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what percentage of the floor space of 7 Millbank is to be used for House of Commons purposes; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for not leasing the whole building.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  In response to the recommendation of the Services Committee that alternative accommodation should be provided for the occupants of St. Stephen's house, which has to be demolished as part of the works for the Jubilee line extension, the Secretary of State for the Environment took a lease on the basement, ground, first and second floors. Based on the figures provided by the landlord's agents, these floors represent some 50 per cent. of the total space available. Following the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, the lease has been transferred to the House authorities. The accommodation will become available during the summer recess.

  I understand that, in addition, the Department leased the third floor of 7 Millbank for use by the House of Lords.

  It is a matter for the Accommodation and Works Committee to consider against progress on the next phase of the new parliamentary building, whether further space should be taken in 7 Millbank or any of the other available buildings in the area.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Finance Bill
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what extra costs were incurred as a result of the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill sitting after the House adjourned on 16 June, 23 June and 30 June.

  Mr. Beith
  The calculation of detailed and meaningful statistics in relation to extra costs incurred as a result of any specific late night sitting is complex and cannot begin until all claims for extra payment are received. However, the Finance Office will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is able to provide this information.

  1 Parliament Street
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, whether he will make arrangements for a fax machine to be installed at 1 Parliament street for the use of hon. Members with rooms in that building.

  Mr. Beith
  The provision of facsimile machines for Members was examined by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to the Services Committee in May 1988. It was resolved that centralised facsimile machine facilities in the House would be inappropriate and that the provision of these machines should be the responsibility of hon. Members. I understand that some 332 hon. Members now have individual facsimile
  285
  machines. Any proposal to review these arrangements would have to be considered by the Administration Committee.

  Transport Office (Bank Notes)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will make it a requirement of the continuation of Thomas Cook Ltd.'s operation of the Transport Office that the company will exchange Scottish and Northern Ireland notes on the same basis as it exchanges Bank of England notes.

  Mr. Beith
  It has never been the policy of the Transport Office in the House to impose a charge for the exchange of Scottish or Northern Ireland bank notes, or to charge for transactions settled in those notes.

  I am advised that within the United Kingdom no charge has been made by Thomas Cook for transactions made in these notes, except at Heathrow and Glasgow airports where, until recently, a commission was charged. That practice was terminated on 1 July.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Guyana
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the environmental projects currently funded by the Overseas Development Administration in Guyana.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ODA is currently funding two projects in this field. These are:

  (a) Research project on the major problems of the regeneration of Greenheart timber. Funded through Imperial College. Cost to the ODA: £200,000 over three years.

  (b) Support for the Commonwealth Programme for Sustainable Tropical Forestry. ODA commitment approximately £180,000, to meet the costs of the Phase 1 preparatory work programme, carried out by the Natural Resources Institute.

  Malawi
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position on the loan by the World bank to Malawi for construction of the Malawi V project; and what human rights considerations were taken into account when reaching this decision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Malawi power V project was approved by the World Bank's executive board on 17 June. The United Kingdom judges all world bank loans on their economic and technical merits, in line with the provision of the bank's article of agreement. The proceedings of the World bank board on individual projects are confidential.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to reply to the letter dated 21 June from a constituent of the hon. Member for Brent,286
  East, the name and address of whom have been supplied to him; and what is the Government's commitment in the citizens charter about the length of time members of the public should expect to wait for a reply from the Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for the matter on which the hon. Member's constituent wrote to me. The hon. Member's constituent will therefore receive a reply from officials at the Department of the Environment. That is normal practice where a correspondent raises matters with a Minister which do not relate to that Minister's responsibilities.

  I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend's officials will reply to the hon. Member's constituent by Friday, 10 July.

  The citizens charter calls for all public services to set standards for response times to correspondence. These should be appropriate both to local circumstances and to the needs of their clients.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on his way to Helsinki to attend the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  Top Salaries Review Body
  Mr. King
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement 'on the Top Salaries Review Body report.

  The Prime Minister
  The Review Body on Top Salaries —TSRB—has submitted to me the report of its fundamental review of the pay of the posts within their remit groups. These comprise about 1,290 members of the judiciary, 660 senior civil servants, and 190 senior officers in the armed forces. The TSRB last carried out a fundamental review in 1985. I am grateful for the work which it has done on this further review.

  The recommendations would add 19·7 per cent. to the pay bill for the remit groups, at a cost of £27·6 million. The Government understand the reasons which underlie these recommendations, which relate to senior people whose work it relies upon and greatly values, but believe that on this occasion there are also wider considerations which they must take into account. The rate of increase in average earnings is now at the lowest level for 25 years, and pay settlements in the private sector are running at around 4 per cent. The economy is moving to a low rate of inflation as the essential basis for resumed and sustained growth. Against this background the Government have decided to moderate the proposed increases.

  The increase from 1 April this year will therefore be limited to 4 per cent. The main new rates of pay for 1992–93 are set out in the table. A further 3 per cent. will be paid from 1 April 1993 and a final stage of 2·8 per cent. from 1 April 1994, in addition to whatever annual increase may be decided for those years. The total increase will, therefore, be about half of the recommended level.
  287
  For those groups which are covered by performance pay arrangements, individual increases will vary within the overall increases in the pay bill. The Government attach importance to strengthening links between pay and performance, in line with the principles of the citizens charter; I have therefore asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other Ministers the possibility of extending the performance pay system.

  The TSRB has also made a number of additional recommendations affecting the judiciary and senior civil servants. The Government are considering the recommendations on regrouping for the judiciary, but have decided to reject the other recommendations affecting the judiciary and the increase in London pay for grade 3 civil servants.

  TSRB remit groups: existing and recommended salaries

  Group

  Existing Salary (£) (1 December 1991)

  Plus 4 per cent 1 April 1992

  Judiciary

  Lord Chief Justice of England

  104,750

  108,940

  Judicial Group 2 (includes Lords Justices of Appeal and President of the Family Division)

  97,000

  100,880

  Judicial Group 3(includes Lords Justices of Appeal and President of the Family Division)

  93.000

  96.720

  Judicial Group 4 (includes High Court Judges)

  84,250

  87,620

  Judicial Group 5 Official Referees

  73,250

  76,180

  Judicial Group 6

  —

  67,564

  Presidents of Industrial etc.

  Tribunals, Judge Advocate

  General (new appointments)

  Circuit judges etc.

  61,600

  64,064

  Judicial Group 7 (includes Chairmen of Industrial Tribunals and Magistrates)

  50,500

  52,520

  Note: The Government is considering the recommendations for regrouping of Senior Circuit Judges etc.

  Senior Civil Service

  Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service

  104,750

  108,940

  Permanent Secretary to the Treasury

  98,000

  101,920

  Grade 1 (Permanent Secretary)

  84,250

  87,620

  Grade 1A (2nd Permanent Secretary)

  77,500

  80,600

  Grade 2 (Deputy Secretary)

  range minimum

  60,100

  62,504

  range maximum

  70,400

  73,216

  Grade 3 (Under Secretary)

  London range minimum

  49,300

  51,272

  range maximum

  57,000

  59,280

  Elsewhere range minimum

  48,000

  49,920

  range maximum

  55,700

  57,928

  288

  Group

  Existing salary (£) (1 December 1991)

  Plus 4 per cent. 1 April 1992

  Senior Military

  Admiral of the Fleet

  104,750

  108,940

  Field Marshal

  Marshal of the RAF

  Admiral

  84,250

  87,620

  General

  Air Chief Marshal

  Vice Admiral

  60,600

  63,024

  Lieutenant-General

  Air Marshal

  Rear Admiral

  53,000

  55,120

  Major General

  Air Vice-Marshal

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the position of the United Kingdom in the league table of growth of employment among the Group of Seven countries in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government do not publish forecasts of employment growth.

  VAT (Charities)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to require Oxfam and other charity shops to introduce VAT on their operations.

  Mr. Nelson
  We have no such proposals. Agreement has been reached with other member states that the United Kingdom's existing social VAT zero rates, including those specifically designed to benefit charities and charity shops, can be maintained at least until the end of 1996 without prejudice to their future thereafter.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts on the EC budget proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with his EC counterparts on the future financing of the Community, most recently at the ECOFIN Council on 9 June, at which a majority of member states indicated that they found the Commission's proposals excessive.

  Housing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the prospects for recovery in the housing market.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As was said in this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report, any recovery in the housing market during 1992 is likely to be slow.

  Unemployment
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Government have made of the impact on Government revenues of any increase in unemployment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The projections of revenues in the Financial Statement and Budget Report take account of all relevant factors.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning stamp duty.

  Mr. Nelson
  We have received a number of representations that the temporary increase in the threshold for stamp duty should run for a longer period. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) earlier today.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the location of the proposed European central bank.

  Mr. Lament
  I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's report on the discussions at Lisbon on 29 June,Official Report, column 588.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Last ham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the level of manufacturing output over the last three years.

  Mr. Lamont
  Manufacturing output fell by about 6¾ per cent. between 1989 and the first quarter of 1992, following a rise of over 30 per cent. between 1981 and 1989.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to bring the calculation of the public sector borrowing requirement into line with European practice.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is no standard European practice nor any internationally-agreed guidelines for the definition of the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public sector borrowing requirement as a percentage of gross domestic product for each EC country since 1989.

  Mr. Nelson
  Comparable data for the public sector borrowing requirement in each Community country are not available. The following data are for general Government net borrowing as a percentage of GDP.

  General government net borrowing as a percentage of GDP

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Belgium

  6·5

  5·3

  6·2

  Denmark

  0·5

  1·4

  2·0

  Germany (West)

  -0·2

  1·9

  3·1

  290

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Greece

  18·3

  19·6

  16·5

  Spain

  2·8

  4·0

  4·4

  France

  1·2

  1·6

  1·7

  Ireland

  2·2

  2·6

  2·3

  Italy

  9·9

  11·0

  10·2

  Luxembourg

  -5·5

  -5·6

  -2·5

  Netherlands

  5·2

  5·3

  3·9

  Portugal

  3·4

  5·8

  6·4

  United Kingdom

  -1·2

  0·8

  2·0

  Note A negative number indicates a budget surplus.

  Source: European Economy

  VAT (Second-hand Goods)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to apply VAT to second-hand goods.

  Sir John Cope
  The sixth VAT directive requires tax to be charged on the full selling price of all goods and services unless otherwise relieved. Although there is no general relief for second-hand goods, there are special schemes for certain of these goods and works of art, antiques and collectors' items under which tax is charged only on the seller's margin.

  The draft EC seventh VAT directive, which requires unanimity for its adoption, proposes a harmonised scheme which will in general extend this relief to other second-hand goods. The Government have taken the representations that they have received fully into account in establishing their negotiating position.

  Economic Recovery
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the assumptions underlying his oral statement of 22 January 1992,Official Report, column 323, that there remain good grounds for believing that the recovery will become fairly established in the course of 1992.

  Mr. Lamont
  I spelt out the reasons underlying my statement of 22 January 1992 at the time—Official Report, column 323. The forces making for recovery are still in place. These include low inflation, reduced interest rates, rising real earnings, improved personal and corporate financial positions, higher consumer and business confidence, and renewed productivity growth. So I continue to believe that growth will become firmly established in the course of 1992.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for a realignment of currencies within the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the balance of payments.

  Mr. Nelson
  United Kingdom exports are at record levels.

  Taxation, West Midlands
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the proportion of income currently paid in tax by average income families in the west midlands.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not available.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications the Bank of England as now received for compensation under the deposit protection scheme from former depositors of Bank of Credit and Commerce International; if he will list the amount claimed in monetary bands; how many claims are still with the liquidators of BCCI; and what is the current backlog at(a) the Bank of England, and (b) the liquidators.

  Mr. Nelson
  By 1 July 1992 the Deposit Protection Board had received some 15,600 claims for compensation under the deposit protection scheme from former depositors of BCCI. The board does not maintain an analysis of these claims by monetary bands. On that date approximately 2,900 of these claims had been settled; another 1,800 were in the process of being settled and further clarification was being sought from depositors on another 500 claims. The remaining claim forms are currently awaiting clearance by the liquidators, once proof of debt forms have been received.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the Bank of Credit and Commerce International from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public.

  Mr. Nelson
  My Treasury colleagues and I have received some 17 letters on BCCI from hon. Members this year and some further 50 from members of the public.

  Public Sector Undertakings
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 5 June,Official Report, column 652, if he will list all those other concerns or undertakings which operate under public sector management.

  Mr. Nelson
  Sections four and six of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement"—Cm 1920 —give details of the nationalised industries and other public corporations.

  VAT (Hoteliers)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has during the EC presidency to call for a study of the avoidance of VAT luxury rates by hoteliers in the EC member states.

  Sir John Cope
  I have no such plans. It would be for the Commission to propose such a study if it is required.

  VAT (Local Government)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those EC member states where local government, or its equivalent, can recoup VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  Article 4(5) of the EC sixth VAT directive allows member states not to treat local authorities as taxable persons in respect of those activities in which they engage as public authorities.
  292
  There are special provisions in United Kingdom law that permit local authorities to reclaim VAT on activities which they perform as public authorities.

  I have no information on how other member states implement this provision.

  Hospital Volunteer Drivers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider his decision to tax hospital car service volunteer drivers' mileage allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The position in law is that motor mileage allowances paid to individuals, whether employees or volunteer drivers, who use a car on health service business are liable to income tax if, and only if, the allowances exceed the costs of running and maintaining the car for health service driving and so result in a profit.

  While I am very much aware of the important and valuable service provided by volunteer drivers, I am not persuaded that there is a case for amending the law to exempt them from tax on any profits on their mileage allowances. But, as the hon. Member may be aware, it has been decided to phase in the arrangements which were introduced last year for collecting tax on these allowances. For the period from 6 October 1991 to 5 April 1993 only one quarter of the profit element will be taxed; for the tax year 1993–94, one half of the profit will be taxed; and for the tax year 1994–95 three quarters of the profit will be taxed. Tax will not be payable on the full amount of the profit element until 1995–96.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the exchange rate.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government remain firmly committed to sterling's membership of the ERM and to its moving in due course to the narrow band at the current central rate of DM2·95.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding interest rates.

  Mr. Nelson
  Interest rates will continue to be set to keep sterling within its ERM band and to bear down on inflation.

  Investment Management Regulatory Organisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral answer to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) of 30 June,Official Report, column 709, if he will make it his policy that so much of the content of the IMRO report as is to be published under Her Majesty's Government's auspices is published before 16 July.

  Mr. Lamont
  The Securities and Investment BoardSIB—has today published the summary of conclusions and findings of IMRO's review of its regulation of Maxwell companies—including Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd.—BIM—and London and Bishopsgate
  293
  International Investment Management plc—LBI. The SIB is also publishing its assessment of its own and IMRO's performance in this affair and the action both the SIB and IMRO are taking to rectify the shortcomings identified. The SIB's assessment concludes that there were serious deficiencies in the supervision by IMRO of BIM and LBI. I am placing a copy of the SIB's statement in the Library of the House.

  The Maxwell affair was wholly exceptional—the vast majority of pension funds have served their members well. Moreover, the IMRO review covers a relatively limited part of the Maxwell story. Under the Financial Services Act, IMRO's role in supervising pension funds was to regulate and authorise pension fund managers. IMRO was not, and is not, responsible for ensuring that pension fund trustees respect their wider obligations under trust law. Moreover, effective regulation must in the final analysis involve the active co-operation of the private sector, including professional advisers, financial institutions and others, all of whom have their own responsibilities.

  None the less, in the Government's view the shortcomings identified in the SIB's assessment are of very serious concern. The SIB and IMRO are undertaking a number of actions, detailed in the SIB's assessment, to ensure more effective regulation in future.

  IMRO's performance also raises questions about the SIB's monitoring of IMRO and its general oversight of the self-regulatory organisations under the Financial Services Act. I have, therefore, asked Andrew Large, the SIB's new chairman, to conduct his own review of how the SIB carries out its regulatory responsibilities.

  I have also discussed with the chairman of the SIB the need to strengthen the implementation in practice of regulatory standards. I am confident that he fully appreciates the urgency and importance of his task and I have asked him to keep me closely in touch with progress on the further work, reviews and improvements that are now in hand.

  I have also looked into the recent allegations that IMRO warned the Government that it could not do its job properly because of problems over the relationship between the Financial Services Act regime and trust law. Neither the SIB nor I have found any evidence to substantiate these allegations. IMRO and the SIB made representations to the DTI over a number of years about the legal uncertainty they believed was created by the interaction of the Financial Services Act and trust law. However, there was no suggestion that this uncertainty posed a threat to investor protection. And the SIB's conclusion is that neither legal uncertainties created by the relationship between the Financial Services Act and trust law nor the existence of IMRO's special occupational pensions scheme regime made any material difference to IMRO's regulation of the Maxwell pension fund companies.

  No regulator and no system of regulation can guarantee that all fraud will be prevented or identified. But the Government are determined that all the lessons of the Maxwell affair, in its many aspects, must be learned and implemented. I will be assessing in detail over the coming months the effectiveness of the steps already taken by the SIB and IMRO, the additional action now proposed, and the outcome of the SIB's further reviews. I shall then report back to the House.

  Pensions
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those EC member states who pay their local government employees, or the equivalent, index linked inflation-proofed pensions.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the United Kingdom, index linked pensions are available to former local government employees who have contributed to public service pensions schemes. Information is not available on a comparable basis for other EC member states.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  County Courts, Northern Ireland
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he has any proposal to increase judicial and other county court manpower and improve equipment and county court premises following the increase in the limit of the county court jurisdiction in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has announced his intention to increase the current financial limits on the general civil jurisdiction of the county courts in Northern Ireland. This will initially be achieved by an increase to £10,000—from £5,000—in November 1992, with a further increase to £15,000 in September 1993. In determining the new jurisdictional levels, the Lord Chancellor has given careful consideration to the ability of the county courts to cope with any increased workload resulting from the increase and is satisfied that the county courts have sufficient capacity and resources to cope with the increased volume of business. At the same time, the Lord Chancellor recognises the need to continue to keep the position under review to ensure that the county court system in Northern Ireland is adequately resourced and equipped.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has for a general reform of county court rules in Northern Ireland; and when he expects such a review to be completed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The regulation of the procedures in the county courts in Northern Ireland is a matter for the County Court Rules Committee established under article 46 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980. The Lord Chancellor is aware, however, that the rules committee intends to carry out a wide ranging review of county court procedure to determine ways in which the current arrangements might be improved.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he proposes to replace the present periodic county court sittings in Northern Ireland with a system of continuous sitting along the lines current in the Northern Ireland High Court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The present arrangements for periodic sittings of the county court in Northern Ireland have generally worked in a satisfactory manner. The Lord Chancellor is conscious, however, that a system of continuous sittings may have some advantages and will wish to explore alternative methods of entry and listing of
  295
  county court actions. Accordingly the Lord Chancellor's officials in Northern Ireland will be examining, in consultation with the County Court Rules Committee and interested parties in Northern Ireland, the possibility of introducing a continuous listings system.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) whether he will introduce automatic discovery and disclosure of medical reports in personal injury actions in the county court in Northern Ireland;

  (2) whether he intends to introduce into the county court in Northern Ireland a procedure for summary judgment analogous to order 14 procedure in the High Court in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The revision of county court procedures in Northern Ireland is primarily the responsibility of the rules committee established under article 46 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980. It is understood that further consideration of the present procedures on discovery of documents, exchange of medical and other expert evidence, and procedures for obtaining summary judgment will form part of the rules committee's review referred to in my earlier answer.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many different types of originating process exist in the county court in Northern Ireland; and what proposals there are to reduce the number thereof.

  Mr. John M.Taylor
  'There are currently three basic means of initiating proceedings in the county courts in Northern Ireland; by civil bill, by petition and by notice of application. There are, however, five types of civil bill—ordinary, equity, ejectment, default and summary civil bills. As explained in previous answers, the forms of originating process to be employed in the county courts are determined by the County Court Rules Committee. It may be that some reduction in the number of types of originating process will be effected by the rules committee as a result of the wider review of county court procedures mentioned in the answer to an earlier question.

  Appeal Hearings (Compensation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce a scheme of compensation for legal costs incurred in abortive appeal hearings where the court service or Government Departments are responsible for delays.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department is prepared to consider claims for compensation where loss is sustained through maladministration by court officers in matters for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible.

  Where loss is sustained as a result of the actions of one of the parties or of another Government Department it is open to the party who has sustained the loss to apply for an order for costs in cases where it is appropriate to do so.

  Mr. Mohammed Khan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to provide compensation to Mr. Mohammed Khan in respect of abortive costs incurred in an immigration appeal hearing on 20 December 1991.
  296
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I regret that I cannot consider payment of compensation in this case as there was no mistake or failing by the immigration appellate authorities.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out those matters in regard to the Public Record Office for which he will in future answer parliamentary questions by referring the matter to the Keeper, following the establishment of the Public Record Office as an executive agency.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government's policy on answering questions on agency matters was most recently set out in the Government's reply to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's 1991 report on the next steps initiative—Cm 1761—which said:"In normal circumstances the source of the reply should follow the allocation of responsibilities as between the Secretary of State and the Chief Executive in the Agency's framework document; but in all cases the decision on who will respond rests with the Minister."

  The Lord Chancellor will be following this policy with regard to the Public Record Office. Copies of the Public Record Office's framework document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Expert Witnesses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much notice is given to expert witnesses attending cases at the Crown court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is the responsibility of the prosecution and defence, and not the court, to notify witnesses of the date their attendance is required. The period of notice differs from case to case according to the circumstances of the case. However, those responsible for listing in the Crown court are aware of the difficulties faced by expert witnesses and, wherever possible, seek to give the parties as much notice of trial dates as they are able. Fixed dates for trial are often requested in cases involving expert witnesses, and such requests are acceded to wherever practicable.

ENVIRONMENT

  Building Temperatures
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, columns 187–88 what publicity there has been for S.I. No. 1013 (1980) to the heating and ventilation industry, owners of non-residential buildings and trades unions; what inspections are carried out to ensure compliance with statutory instrument; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Reference to the statutory maximum legal heating limit of 19 C is included in the EEO's publication "Energy Efficiency in Buildings (Offices)." No inspections are carried out to ensure compliance with SI No. 1013. The Energy Efficiency Office encourages consumers to take cost-effective energy efficiency measures by providing independent and authoritative advice through a range of initiatives and programmes.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all contracts to advise his Department within the last two years let by single tender action; and if he will make a statement.

  Consultant(s)

  Subject of consultancy

  Financial year 1990–91

  Action Resource Centre

  Private sector secondments to City Action Teams

  Almondhall Computer Staff

  Business model: Planning Inspectorate

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Grant Redemption Fund

  BIS Applied Systems

  North Sea database

  Burgess Cyril

  Review of HQ scientists and specialist professional and technical officers

  Chapman Hendy

  Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust

  Ekotheipi Electrical Associates Ltd.

  Development and production of MK.2 universal motor speed controller

  Electoral Reform Society

  Hull shadow Housing Action Trust

  Ernst and Young

  Local authority and housing association management and maintenance grant

  Forman L.

  Index to office instructions and staff handbook

  Geary N. R.

  Safety of manufacturing processes

  Gibson Dr.

  Meadowell Estate

  Griffiths K. F.

  Housing Topics

  Hanlon Computer Systems

  Inter-departmental urban database

  Hance Dr.

  Fate and behaviour of pesticides

  Healey and Baker

  Disposal of New Town assets

  Hull City Council

  Housing Action Trust team

  Imperial War Museum

  Staff inspection of the Royal Armouries

  Infologistix

  Translation service; software evaluation

  ISMa Consultants

  Computer risk analysis

  Kermon Management Consultants

  Network infrastructure project

  Kidd Susan

  Loose-leaf commercially produced reference works

  Kidson Impey

  Local authority waste disposal companies

  Kings College, London

  Design improvement controlled experiment

  KPMG Peat Marwick Mclintock

  Management accounting systems

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Analysis of sludge/effluence

  Land and Urban Analysis

  Employment densities

  Linierman Prof.

  Performance measures

  Logica

  Technical assurance: local authority statistics

  McHugh, E.

  Enterprise and employment

  Mindworks

  Financial monitoring system

  MORI

  Barriers against uptake of unleaded petrol

  Otitoju, F.

  Training of ethnic minority staff

  P. A. Consulting

  Neighbourhood renewal manual

  298
  Mr. Howard
  The following contracts are recorded as having been let to consultants by single tender action in the last two financial years:
  299

  Consultant(s)

  Subject of consultancy

  PA Consulting System

  Security review of INFORM

  Peter Peregrinus Ltd.

  Register of research

  Phillips D.

  Air pollution management

  PIC Services

  Southwark Housing Action Trust

  Price Waterhouse

  Performance measures

  Rechem

  Analysis of emission-incinerator

  Safe Neighbourhood Unit

  Estate Action

  Signal UK

  Database archiving for Private Office

  Softlab

  SSADM training: Planning Inspectorate

  Tuffin, Ferraby and Taylor

  Works and maintenance services

  Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board

  Certificate of technical competence

  Watson Hawksley

  Technical audits of water companies (Phase 2)

  Financial year 1991–92

  Aspinwall & Co.

  Special hazardous wastes

  Brennan, Mrs.

  Library bibliographies

  CICA

  Disc general assembly representation

  Gibbs Environmental Sciences

  Landfill levy

  Green Alliance

  Comparative study of five national environmental plans

  Institute of Waste Management

  Review of waste management paper

  Knox Associates

  Co-disposal in the United Kingdom

  KPMG

  Small combustion plants directive

  London Waste Regulation Authority

  Review of waste management paper

  McCarthy, Kevin

  United Kingdom European Community Presidency Conference

  Middlesex

  Air pollutants factsheets

  National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors

  Review of waste management papers

  National Economic Development Office

  Construction research

  Nottingham Polytechnic

  Statistical basis for landfill sampling

  Offline Computer Services

  Computerised record-keeping and report-generating

  PA Consulting

  Criteria for award of eco-labels to washing machines and dishwashers

  Parry, Professor

  IPCC working group

  The Department's policy is to appoint consultants by single tender where they have unique experience or expertise relevant to the subject matter, or —exceptionally—where there is overriding urgency to let a contract without a tender process.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of reported breaches of trees preservations orders for each year since 1982; and if he will make a statement.
  300
  Mr. Maclean
  It is a criminal offence under section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to contravene a tree preservation order. The number of prosecutions for each year since 1982 are as follows:

  Number

  1982

  42

  1983

  54

  1984

  71

  1985

  20

  1986

  56

  1987

  44

  1988

  57

  301

  Number

  1989

  72

  1990

  55

  Statistics are not yet available for the situation post–1990 where similar provisions are contained in section 210 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  Local Authorities (Operating Companies)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the operating companies for services provided by each county and district authority, together with the number of directors appointed by each authority, their percentage voting power and the amount of equity retained by each authority in each company.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Such information is not held centrally.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in the United Kingdom qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; how many houses have been improved under the scheme since its inception; and if he will give a breakdown for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for a grant under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible are not available.

  Since the inception of the scheme on 1 January 1991, 208,055 homes have benefited from HEES grant; of these 155,776 were in England, 39,949 in Scotland and 12,330 in Wales. The scheme does not operate in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in the network installer area which contains the constituency of Banff and Buchan have been improved under the home energy efficiency scheme since the scheme's inception.

  Mr. Maclean
  Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 2,950 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by local authority area the proportions of local authority finance derived from revenue support grant, specific grant, non-domestic rate income and poll tax for 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am arranging for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House, together with the amount of revenue support grant, special grants, and redistributed non-domestic rate income paid per adult to each authority.

  Share Lending
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he has received any advice from the Bank of England on the practice of share lending by local authority superannuation funds;

  (2) if he will amend the superannuation regulations relating to the pension funds of local authorities in order to clarify the vires of share lending.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Share lending is among the issues relating to investments under the local government superannuation scheme which are the subject of regular discussions between my Department, the local authority associations and other interested parties, including the Bank of England.

  Public Analyst Laboratories
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make available additional resources to public analyst laboratories to support their accreditation under the national measurement accreditation service—NAMAS—quality control scheme and to assist in the implementation of the in-service training required under NAMAS.

  Mr. Maclean
  All analytical laboratories should have systems for ensuring the quality of their results. The Government have recognised this by encouraging the setting up of NAMAS. It is not for the Government to subside any additional costs to laboratories of NAMAS accreditation. Such costs should be recovered in charges to their customers who benefit in terms of the quality and the reliability of the analyses carried out for them.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the structure of the regional aggregates working parties to include representation by elected members of mineral planning authorities and third-party interests.

  Mr. Baldry
  I will consider membership of the regional aggregates working parties when the present review of mineral planning guidance note 6 is complete.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a summary of the views expressed to his Department on the national aggregates demand forecasts by the regional aggregates working parties in the regional commentaries.

  Mr. Baldry
  A summary of the views expressed by the regional aggregates working parties will be made available when the revised draft guidelines are published for public consultation.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new national forecasts of aggregates demand have been prepared for his Department since the publication of the document "Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England and Wales Review of MPG6"; whether they will be circulated to the regional aggregates working parties for comment; whether they will be published for public comment; and whether they will be used in the preparation of a revised mineral planning guidance note 6.
  303
  Mr. Baldry
  New forecasts of aggregates demand have not yet been finalised by the independent consultants. I shall consider whether they should be circulated when they are available.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations were made to him by the regional aggregates working parties on the environmental implications of the national aggregates demand forecast published by his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  The views of the regional aggregates working parties on the environmental implications of the demand forecast were published earlier this year in their regional commentaries. These views will be taken into account by the Department in the preparation of the revised draft guidelines.

  Mineral Planning Guidance
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects drafts of mineral planning guidance note 1 and mineral planning guidance note 6 to be published for public comment.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is hoped that drafts of the revised mineral planning guidance notes 1 and 6 will be published for public consultation by the end of this year.

  Council Housing Investment
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has reached conclusions following his recent consultation exercise on the development of the local authority housing investment programme process.

  Mr. Howard
  On 21 May, my Department launched a major consultation exercise on the further development of the local authority housing investment programme—HIP —process. The proposals which we have put forward build on the measures begun last year by seeking to achieve better value for the money spent through housing capital programmes.

  The consultation paper made proposals in four broad areas: on the preparation of housing strategies by local authorities, and the co-ordination at area level of decisions on the initial allocation of Housing Corporation funding with local authorities' housing strategies; on the further development of recent trends in our approach to the allocation of all-purpose housing annual capital guideline —ACG—resources within the HIP process; on the development of the system of forward indications of housing ACGs; and on the further development of recent trends in the approach we have taken to the advance allocation of specified capital grant—SCG—resources for private sector renewal.

  During the consultation period, we agreed to a request from the local authority associations that discussions should continue after the formal close of the consultation exercise on the longer-term proposals. We have therefore taken decisions at this stage only on matters relevant to the arrangements for the 1993–94 HIP round.

  We have received a total of 211 responses, including material from the four relevant local authority associations, the Institute of Housing, the National Federation of Housing Associations, 161 local authorities and 29 housing associations. Discussions have also taken place with the Housing Corporation.
  304
  After considering and taking in to account the representations which have been made, I have decided to invite authorities to prepare comprehensive housing strategies for the 1993–94 HIP round as described in the consultation paper. This will involve authorities in preparing strategies which cover the housing needs and resources of their areas over a three-year period, set in the context of a realistic assessment of priorities and proposals. My Department will issue guidelines to authorities very shortly which will provide further details.

  We will carry forward the new arrangements made last year to place emphasis on the efficiency and effectiveness of authorities in our decisions on the allocation of HIP resources. This will help ensure that best value for money is obtained from capital resources for social housing and that there are incentives for authorities to improve their performance as landlords and enablers.

  I have also decided to proceed with our proposals to draw together, on to the same timetable for decision making, both the HIP process, which applies to local authorities, and the approved development programme —ADP—process which is used for the allocation of funds through the Housing Corporation to housing associations. The principle of co-ordinating these two funding streams, in the context of a single housing strategy, met with almost universal support; discussions will continue with interested parties on the practical details of implementation.

  Last year, Housing Ministers attended a number of successful presentations from local authorities, based on their housing strategies and HIP proposals. These occasions heightened the awareness and involvement of tenants and other local people in the HIP round, and pointed to the scope for partnership between local authorities, the private sector, and the Housing Corporation and housing associations in the provision of social housing. I have decided to continue this initiative during the coming year, and the Minister for Housing and Planning has written today to the leaders of 33 authorities inviting their authorities to give presentations to Housing Ministers during the autumn. A list of the authorities concerned has been placed in the Library and letters have been sent to local Members.

  A copy of a commentary paper on the responses to the consultation exercise has been placed in the Libraries of the House. I intend to report back to the House once the remaining decisions have been taken later this year.

  Livestock
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to support(a) a world watch system on indigenous livestock breeds, (b) the strengthening of the animal genetic resources data bank and (c) the completion of the system of regional animal gene banks.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  As members of the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation and contributors to its regular programme budget, the United Kingdom already supports these three initiatives. Under the budget for 1992–93 which was agreed at the last meeting of the FAO conference in 1991, over $1 million was allocated to the sub-programme on animal genetic resources from which these programmes are funded.

  Urban Development Areas
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will listt for each local authority which contains an urban development area the level of(a) urban programmes, (b) housing investment programmes and (c) derelict land grant for each year from 1987–88 at current prices and at 1987–88 prices.

  Urban Programme expenditure outturn (current prices)

  (000)

  Authority

  DC

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Black Country

  Sandwell

  4,400

  5,211

  4,689

  4,682

  4,646

  Walsall

  1,560

  1,533

  1,652

  1,925

  1,728

  Wolverhampton

  5,420

  5,062

  4,733

  5,625

  5,148

  Bristol

  Bristol

  1,570

  1,494

  1,377

  1,470

  1,590

  Central Manchester

  Manchester

  16,290

  20,906

  19,312

  19,650

  19,777

  London Docklands

  Newham

  1,720

  2,109

  2,690

  2,850

  2,750

  Southwark

  1,830

  2,032

  2,113

  2,025

  2,720

  Tower Hamlets

  4,470

  3,390

  3,693

  4,464

  4,335

  Leeds

  Leeds

  3,990

  4,810

  4,798

  5,333

  5,342

  Merseyside

  Liverpool

  16,490

  14,435

  16,473

  17,918

  17,940

  Sefton

  1,500

  1,470

  1,412

  1,682

  1,667

  Wirral

  3,610

  3,496

  3,262

  3,582

  3,544

  Sheffield

  Sheffield

  5,630

  5,519

  5,739

  6,614

  10,932

  Teesside

  Hartlepool

  1,270

  1,347

  1,721

  1,821

  1,926

  Langbaurgh

  1,340

  1,508

  1,538

  1,979

  1,887

  Stockton

  1,380

  1,125

  1,388

  1,485

  1,638

  Middlesborough

  5,290

  5,636

  5,073

  5,170

  5,178

  Trafford Park

  Trafford1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salford2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle

  17,600

  15,776

  17,933

  16,503

  16,263

  North Tyneside

  3,490

  3,448

  3,286

  3,604

  3,570

  South Tyneside

  4,950

  4,489

  4,799

  5,067

  5,023

  Sunderland

  4,310

  4,735

  4,890

  5,287

  5,257

  1 Not an Urban Programmee Area.

  2 Include in the Manchester figure.

  Housing investement programme expenditure outturn (current prices)

  (£000)

  UDC

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Black Country

  Sandwell

  24,079

  41,287

  42,058

  26,659

  21,113

  Walsall

  17,551

  14,231

  30,318

  10,184

  15,039

  Wolverhampton

  13,436

  13,717

  29,957

  18,808

  20,347

  Bristol

  Bristol

  22,857

  34,971

  45,358

  33,859

  35,150

  Central Manchester

  Manchester

  83,268

  93,109

  110,426

  52,783

  53,021

  London Docklands

  Newham

  27,499

  28,880

  75,826

  29,648

  34,450

  Southwark

  49,816

  43,308

  101,326

  39,493

  46,262

  Tower Hamlets

  29,150

  34,353

  121,378

  42,558

  50,121

  Leeds

  Leeds

  36,933

  39,708

  41,469

  32,419

  38,992

  Merseyside

  Liverpool

  64,651

  45,151

  49,338

  55,194

  50,578

  Sefton

  9,460

  8,918

  8,907

  7,217

  8,332

  Wirral

  16,184

  13,095

  18,024

  12,945

  12,827

  Sheffield

  Sheffield

  55,070

  59,067

  70,717

  66,683

  49,211

  Teesside

  Hartlepool

  6,342

  5,621

  6,397

  5,088

  6,472

  Langbaurgh

  8,115

  9,509

  8,245

  6,769

  4,722

  Stockton

  12,053

  7,420

  13,898

  7,992

  6,158

  Middlesbrough

  8,837

  12,359

  13,228

  9,009

  11,529

  Trafford Park

  Trafford

  8,721

  8,893

  12,059

  9,213

  4,128

  Salford

  21,020

  24,200

  21,075

  18,606

  16,495

  306
  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: Details of expenditure at outturn prices by local authority and financial year from 1987–88 onwards are listed in the table. To convert into 1987–88 constant prices, the 1988–89 figures should be multiplied by 0·93261, the 1989–90 ones by 0·87501, 1990–91 by 0·80877 and 1991–92 by 0·75586.
  307

  UDC

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle

  24,915

  25,116

  23,037

  22,209

  18,878

  North Tyneside

  14,934

  9,237

  16,361

  11,802

  11,141

  South Tyneside

  13,029

  13,819

  13,536

  6,823

  7,174

  Sunderland

  16,900

  15,059

  14,494

  17,693

  21,826

  1Local authority estimate.

  Derelict land grant outturn (Current prices)

  (£000)

  UDC

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Black Country

  Sandwell

  2,470

  2,063

  1.322

  1,865

  1,024

  Walsall

  3,117

  3,474

  3,779

  3,738

  4,223

  Wolverhampton

  539

  826

  585

  447

  1,676

  Bristol

  Bristol

  68

  215

  —

  41

  84

  Central Manchester

  Manchester

  423

  177

  33

  —

  373

  London Docklands

  Newham

  —

  159

  441

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  27

  55

  196

  1,371

  Leeds

  Leeds

  126

  169

  228

  850

  771

  Merseyslde

  Liverpool

  249

  560

  403

  1,747

  2,289

  Sefton

  341

  534

  185

  606

  409

  Wirral

  188

  559

  175

  372

  351

  Sheffield

  Sheffield

  514

  1,078

  53

  134

  636

  Teesside

  Hartlepool

  586

  268

  81

  257

  12

  Langbaurgh

  319

  184

  202

  244

  28

  Stockton

  229

  262

  76

  35

  155

  Middlesbrough

  443

  156

  12

  50

  297

  Trafford Park

  Trafford

  45

  69

  12

  7

  20

  Salford

  5,255

  4,292

  3,120

  564

  820

  Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle

  1,181

  474

  194

  105

  539

  North Tyneside

  723

  643

  485

  774

  509

  South Tyneside

  1,096

  263

  299

  342

  297

  Sunderland

  1,336

  1,373

  1,240

  1,404

  1,594

  Stray Dogs
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the measures taken by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Leeds to control stray dogs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: None.

  Housing
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to determine the provision for new housing to be made in the new regional planning guidance for London and the south east.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a letter which I have sent to the chairman of SERPLAN, the London and South East regional planning conference. SERPLAN is invited to put forward proposals for the allocation of future provision for new housing between London and the counties of the south east. These proposals should be based on a regional total rate of 57,000 additional dwellings per year, over the period 1991 to 2011. I will take account of SERPLAN's proposals, together with any other views on these matters which are put to my Department, in deciding the regional 308
  housing provision to be included in the draft new regional planning guidance for the south east. The draft will then be published for consultation in due course.

  Botanical Gardens
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state in(a) cash terms and (b) at 1991 prices the funding provided from Her Majesty's Government to (i) Kew and (ii) Edinburgh botanic gardens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The planned grant in aid provision for The Royal Botanic gardens, Kew for 1992–93 is £14·3 million. At 1991–92 prices this is equivalent to £13·6 million.

  Responsibility for the Royal Botanic gardens at Edinburgh rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland but I am advised that the planned 1992–93 grant in aid provision for the Edinburgh Garden is £5·4 million. At 1991–92 prices this is equivalent to £5·1 million.

  Lead Water Pipes
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for assisting households on low incomes with the costs of replacing lead water supply pipes.
  309
  Sir George Young
  Further to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) to my then hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 19 February 1992,Official Report, column 201, following consultation with interested bodies, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have today announced the extension of minor works assistance, under the provisions of part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Local housing authorities are to be given wider scope in providing discretionary assistance to meet the cost of replacing lead pipes used to supply drinking or cooking water to all resident owner-occupiers or tenants on income-related benefits. The new measures which come into force on 1 September 1992 will enable authorities to respond speedily and effectively with discretionary help while targeting resources on those least able to meet the cost of replacement.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries Protection
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources in terms of(a) personnel, (b) expenditure and (c) numbers of vessels, have been deployed in the fisheries protection service of Scottish waters for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: The information requested for those fisheries protection vessels directly operated by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency for the years 1985–86 to 1991–92 is set out in the table. Information for previous years is not readily available in this form.

  Expenditure1£ million

  Personnel2

  Numberof vessels

  1985–86

  7·2

  117

  7

  1986–87

  6·9

  117

  7

  1987–88

  6–9

  117

  7

  1988–89

  7·4

  92

  6

  1989–90

  7·4

  92

  6

  1990–91

  7·6

  92

  6

  1991–92

  8·0

  92

  6

  1Full costs including capital utilization charge and superannuation.

  2Total crewing complement.

  In addition, the Scottish Office makes a payment to the Ministry of Defence for fisheries protection services from the Royal Navy. These payments are related to the estimated costs of purchasing the service from the private sector. Payments by the Scottish Office since 1985–86 have been:

  Ministry of Defence £ million

  1985–86

  2·1

  1986–87

  1·0

  1987–88

  1·0

  310

  Ministry of Defence £ million

  1988–89

  1·0

  1989–90

  1·1

  1990–91

  1·2

  1991–92

  1·2

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) Spanish, (b) Portuguese, (c) French and (d) Danish skippers have been (i) charged with and (ii) convicted of offences relating to illegal fishing in Scottish waters in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: the information requested is as follows:

  Spanish

  Portuguese

  French

  Danish

  (i) Skippers charged

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1983

  2

  —

  —

  7

  1984

  5

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  3

  —

  —

  5

  1986

  2

  —

  —

  7

  1987

  7

  —

  1

  5

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1989

  2

  —

  —

  7

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1991

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1992 to date

  5

  1

  —

  —

  26

  1

  3

  42

  (ii)Skippers convicted

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1983

  2

  —

  —

  6

  1984

  5

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  3

  —

  —

  5

  1986

  2

  —

  —

  6

  1987

  7

  —

  1

  5

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1989

  2

  —

  —

  5

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1991

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1992 to date

  3

  1

  —

  —

  24

  1

  3

  38

EDUCATION

  London School of Economics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost of tuition per year for a student from outside the European Community to attend the London School of Economics; what is the number of such students who attended the LSE last year; and what are the comparable figures for the previous two years.

  Mr. Forman
  Information about the average cost of tuition fees for overseas students from outside the European Community is not held centrally. The numbers of overseas students from outside the EC who attended the LSE in the last three available years, are as follows:
  311

  Non-EC overseas students at the London School of Economics

  1988

  1989

  1990

  UG

  PG

  UG

  UG

  PG

  UG

  UG

  PG

  UG

  Full-time

  705

  735

  1,440

  764

  735

  1,499

  775

  800

  1,575

  Part-time

  1

  103

  104

  59

  109

  168

  74

  120

  194

  Full-time+part-time

  706

  838

  1,544

  823

  844

  1,667

  849

  920

  1,769

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement concerning the possible relocation of the London School of Economics to the county hall building.

  Mr. Forman
  The disposal of county hall is primarily a matter for the London Residuary Body and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said on the matter during the Adjournment debate on 26 June,Official Report, columns 555–62.

  Full-time Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of children are in full-time education in the United Kingdom and each of the other EC states.

  Mr. Forth
  The available data are shown in tables AA and BB of the Department's publication "Education Statistics for the United Kingdom 1991 edition", copies of which are in the Library.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have this responsibility in the Department: we will continue to pursue a number of initiatives relevant to environmental matters both during this year and for the rest of the parliamentary Session.

  These will include the development of environmental education as a cross-curricular theme in schools, which will be reflected in in-service training.

  Professor Toyne's expert committee on environmental education within further and higher education will report in the autumn, and we shall be considering how best its recommendations might be followed up. We shall also foster the development of energy efficiency initiatives in schools and colleges.

  The Department's own accommodation and purchasing policies reflect its concern for green issues. A strategy is being prepared and will be in place at the end of the year. The Department continues to monitor the scope for recycling glass, paper and plastics and the reuse of cartridges for machinery replenishment.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foxes
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has carried out on the impact of predation of farm stock by foxes.
  312
  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Bananas
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to give effect to the Lome convention provisions requiring bananas from the African, Caribbean and Pacific states to gain access to United Kingdom and EC markets without being severely disadvantaged by banana imports from Latin American producers.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom's current banana market arrangements are designed to ensure preferential access for our traditional suppliers in African, Caribbean and Pacific states. Formal Commission proposals are expected shortly for harmonised EC arrangements to complete the single market, to replace these and other national schemes. The Government are determined to ensure that these new arrangements will fully meet our Lome convention obligations, while being compatible with a successful conclusion to the GATT Uruguay round negotiations.

  Seafish Industry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the total number of fishermen involved in the United Kingdom seafish industry.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1990 there were some 17,000 fishermen regularly employed and some 5,000 partially employed.

  Fish Licences
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many British fish licences are issued directly to owners in Spain and Holland by his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  As the Department's green Minister, I will ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in all its policies and spending programmes and that the relevant commitments in the Government's White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and subsequent anniversary report are followed up.

  Slaughterers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of licensed slaughterers' or knackers' yards in each year since 1987.
  313
  Mr. Soames
  All abattoirs and knackers' yards currently operate under licences granted by local authorities. With the exception of abattoirs approved for intra-Community trade, records are not maintained centrally on the status of individual premises. However, annual statistics derived from state veterinary service visits produce the following approximate figures for abattoirs in England and Wales:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  905

  1988

  855

  1989

  780

  1990

  700

  1991

  640

  In the case of knackers' yards, it is estimated that in 1990 there were approximately 120 operating in England and Wales, and that currently there are 107.

  Plant Health and Pesticides HQ
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to announce a decision on the choice of site in York for the plant health and pesticides headquarters before 16 July; and what is the scheduled operational date of the new headquarters.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have nothing to add to the reply given on this matter on 8 June 1992.Official Report, column 13.

  Banned Farm Produce
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by location, the number of farms that have been banned by his Department from supplying farm produce from their premises to the public because of the possibility of toxic chemicals entering the food chain; what review he is currently carrying out to safeguard the farmers' livelihood; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  One farm, near Bolsover in Derbyshire. is subject to an order, under part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 because it is contaminated with dioxins to an unacceptable degree. Following the placing of restrictions the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service has given free advice to the farmer on his future farming options. The Government policy with regard to compensation which applies in cases of this nature is that it is the polluter who must pay.

  Cockles
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Gower on 24 June, Ref. 55919, regarding the treatment processes for cockles, if he will publish the date when he submitted for approval the Torry process to the EC's standing veterinary committee.

  Mr. Curry
  We have not at present submitted an application to the Standing Veterinary Committee for the approval of any specific heat treatment. We are formulating for early submission an application covering the use of processes which embody the principle of a minimum temperature of 90 deg C maintained for at least 90 seconds, the essential feature of the Torry process.

  Mink
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to allow the Mink Keeping Order 1987 to lapse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 expires on 31 December 1992. A consultation exercise will take place this summer to seek the views of interested organisations on future arrangements for the secure keeping of mink. Following this, the Government will decide whether to make a new order.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food how much money was paid in set-aside payments in 1991 and 1992; how many individual payments were made; what was the average size of the payment and the largest payment made; and what were the numbers of payments in each British county.

  Mr. Curry
  The set-aside scheme year runs from 1 October to 30 September. Payments are normally made in arrears in the last quarter of the calendar year, although for various reasons a small number of payments cannot be made until early in the following year.

  Total set-aside payments in respect of England in the set-aside scheme years 1989–90 and 1990–91 are set out in the tables.

  Payments in respect of set-aside year

  Made in financial year

  1 October 1989 to 30 September 1990

  1 October 1990 to 30 September 1991

  (Made in financial year)

  (1990–91) £

  (1991–92) £

  Total payments

  15,301,906

  20,357,861

  Average payment per agreement

  6,596

  6,677

  Largest payment per agreement

  112,723

  114,151

  Number of participants eligible for payment

  Set-aside scheme year

  County

  1 October 1989 to 30 September 1990

  1 October 1990 to 30 September 1991

  Avon

  28

  45

  Bedfordshire

  51

  77

  Berkshire

  40

  54

  Buckinghamshire

  108

  140

  Cambridgeshire

  83

  120

  Cheshire

  29

  36

  Cleveland

  5

  7

  Cornwall

  50

  66

  Cumbria

  11

  12

  Derbyshire

  27

  37

  Devonshire

  89

  118

  Dorset

  40

  51

  Durham

  17

  26

  Essex

  115

  149

  Gloucestershire

  74

  106

  Greater London

  8

  16

  Greater Manchester

  7

  10

  Hampshire

  70

  92

  Hereford/Worcestershire

  48

  64

  Hertfordshire

  52

  64

  Humberside

  47

  60

  Isle of Wight

  6

  8

  315

  Set-aside scheme year

  County

  1 Ocober 1989 to 30 September 1990

  1 Ocober 1990 to 30 September 1991

  Kent

  117

  160

  Lancashire

  11

  14

  Leicestershire

  38

  50

  Lincolnshire

  72

  95

  Merseyside

  13

  14

  West Midlands

  5

  6

  Norfolk

  115

  135

  Northamptonshire

  76

  98

  Northumberland

  35

  39

  Nottinghamshire

  28

  38

  Oxfordshire

  110

  157

  Shropshire

  22

  29

  Somerset

  39

  56

  Staffordshire

  35

  43

  Suffolk

  151

  193

  Surrey

  44

  51

  East Sussex

  69

  91

  West Sussex

  77

  88

  Tyne and Wear

  10

  14

  Warwickshire

  61

  82

  Wiltshire

  67

  98

  North Yorkshire

  95

  110

  South Yorkshire

  15

  16

  West Yorkshire

  10

  14

  TOTAL.

  2,320

  3,049

  Sensitive Area Payments
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money in total was paid in environmentally sensitive area payments in 1991 and 1992; what was the average payment to recipients; how many recipients there were; and what was the largest payment to a recipient.

  Mr. Curry
  The total cost of payments under the ESA scheme in England for the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 was £7,459,000 and £8,005,000 respectively. There were 2,926 agreements in 1990–91 and 3,105 agreements in 1991–92 giving an average payment of £2,549 and £2,578 in each year. The largest single payment was £185,139.82.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what plans there are for improving the training of non-specialist staff in her Department, with particular reference to training involving the disability organisations;

  (2) what quality standards have been developed for monitoring the use of outside agencies for the assessment, counselling and rehabilitation of disabled workers; which interested organisations have been consulted on this matter; and will such standards be made available to the House.

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

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the percentage unemployed for the United Kingdom, and for each standard region, on the broad and narrow definitions for April 1984, November 1984, April 1990, April 1992 and May 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Economic Activity Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the travel-to-work areas, or smallest area available, concerning the 35 per cent. of United Kingdom population with the lowest economic activity rates according to 1981 census data and for June 1984, June 1990 and the latest available date with the areas with the lowest economic activity rates listed first; and if she will distinguish between the 15 per cent. of population in areas with the lowest economic activity rate and the 20 per cent. of population with the next lowest activity rates.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest available data on economic activity rates for travel-to-work areas are from the 1981 census of population. These can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Emergency Standby Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport of 30 June,Official Report, column 451, what contingency plans she has developed or is considering for the provision of adequate safeguards for offshore installations should be a substantial proportion of the emergency standby vessels currently under assessment be taken out of service by their owners; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive has made it clear to the industry that it is the responsibility of each individual operator to ensure that there is adequate standby vessel cover available at all times to provide the necessary safeguards. The code of practice on standby vessels which was published last July and the deadlines set out in it were prepared in full consultation with the owners and operators of standby vessels; and the HSE considers that the final deadline for necessary improvements is achievable. The HSE is continuing to monitor the situation.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in each year since employment training started, what has been the cost of ET; what contribution has been made by the European social fund; and what would have been the cost of trainees' entitlement to social security benefits.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The table shows the expenditure on ET since it began and estimated expenditure on that part of the trainee allowances equivalent to previous entitlement to social security benefit. The contribution made to employment training by the European social fund in 1989 was £72 million, in 1990 £126 million and in 1991 £157 million.
  317

  Employment training

  £ million

  Total expenditure

  Estimated benefit equivalent element of trainee allowances

  1988–891

  425

  117

  1989–90

  1,107

  425

  1990–91

  1,076

  425

  1991–922

  844

  337

  1992–933

  807

  318

  1ET began in September 1988. Transitional arrangements applied to participants previously on wages on the community programme.

  2Provisional outturn expenditure.

  3Planned expenditure.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how European social fund money has been distributed in each year since employment training started to(a) ET, (b) youth training, (c) voluntary organisations, (d) local authorities and (e) other purposes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Until the end of 1989, individual applications for European social fund support were submitted by a range of organisations which included Government, local authorities and voluntary organisations, for approval in Brussels.

  Since 1990, when new regulations took effect, applications have been made to the Department of Employment for approval. The money is paid out to applicants in three tranches. Advance payments of 50 per cent. and a further 30 per cent. are normally available during the life of a project and a final claim of up to the last 20 per cent. is payable after accounts have been scrutinised.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much an employer would have to supplement the minimum youth training allowance to compensate for its loss of value through inflation; and what evidence she has as to the proportion of employers who are paying supplements of these amounts.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 8 July 1992] : Supplements of £8·54 and £16·02 per week respectively would be needed to restore in real terms the value of the current YT minimum allowances of £29·50 for 16-yearolds and £35·00 for 17-year-olds and over to the levels when they were last changed.

  The level of the YT allowance is a minimum level and employers, providers and training and enterprise councils are free to arrange higher levels.

TRANSPORT

  Antares
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the circumstances of the loss of the fishing vessel Antares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The marine accident investigation branch report on the loss of the fishing vessel Antares with the loss of four lives has been published today. The report deals with the collision between the trawler and the Trafalgar class submarine HMS Trenchant in Bute sound, north east of the Isle of Arran, in the early hours of 22 318
  November 1990. The report finds that Antares foundered as a direct result of its net being snagged by Trenchant and that that was caused by a partial breakdown in both the structure and standards of watch keeping on board Trenchant following the completion of a command course exercise. The Ministry of Defence has admitted full liability for the accident.

  The report makes eight recommendations which substantially reflect the findings of the Royal Navy's own board of inquiry, and the determination made by the sheriff principal following the fatal accident inquiry. The majority of the report recommendations have already, as a result of similar recommendations from the earlier inquiries, been accepted and implemented either in full or in part. Major changes have been made in submarine operating policy and procedures in order to improve the safety of fishing vessels, in particular the mandatory minimum separation between dived submarines and fishing vessels has been extended to 4,000 yards. Further changes are under consideration by MoD, in consultation with my Department and with the sub-group of its fishing industry safety group which was established specifically to consider submarine and fishing vessel safety issues. As part of this continuing work, the Government will consider any remaining actions which may need to be taken in the light of the MAIB report.

  Aeroplane Crashes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of aeroplane crashes in Wales last year; what were the comparable figures for the previous two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The safety data and analysis unit of the Civil Aviation Authority advises me that there were 15 reportable aircarft accidents in Wales in 1991. The comparable figures for 1990 and 1989 were nine and eight respectively.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to require low-flying aircraft in rural areas to be equipped with silencers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Speed Traps
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether speed measuring cameras would have a greater effect on reducing driving speeds(a) if they are covertly placed or (b) if they are preceded by warning signs.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Studies are currently being carried out to assess whether the use of area-wide signs to indicate the use of enforcement cameras increases driver compliance with speed limits.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will place warning signs in the areas where new speed measuring cameras are to he placed.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter which my right hon. Friend will consider in the light of the current studies to assess the effectiveness of such signs in increasing driver compliance with speed limits.
  319
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what increase in fine income he expects as a result of the new speed measuring cameras.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The income from fines and fixed penalties will depend on factors such as the number of cameras deployed, their effectiveness in reducing speed, the number of suspected offenders and the proportion of them who are tried before a court rather than paying the fixed penalty. It is therefore not possible to give an estimate with any degree of accuracy.

  Waterway Safety
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he published the report by the Maritime Accident Investigation Branch into the Marchioness disaster; on what date he appointed the Hayes inquiry into safety on inland waterways; and on what date he expects to publish the report of the Hayes inquiry.

  Mr. Norris
  The marine accident investigation branch's final report into the collision between the passenger launch Marchioness and MV Bowbelle was published on 15 August 1991. The report's safety recommendations had previously been published separately on 24 July 1990.

  On 20 December 1991, the Secretary of State for Transport appointed Mr. John W. Hayes, LLB, to head an inquiry into river safety. Mr. Hayes' report was published on 7 July 1992.

  Road Accidents, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor vehicle accidents there were in the Chelmsford local authority area in each of the last three available years; and how many deaths and how many personal injuries occurred.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The figures for the years 1989 to 1991 are as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  (1) Total accidents

  832

  716

  615

  (2) Casualties

  (i) Fatal

  16

  16

  18

  (ii) Serious

  208

  166

  106

  (iii) Slight

  947

  829

  726

  M11
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to reject the proposed private sector plans for an extension of the M11 motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have decided after careful consideration that the Government cannot support the project by providing the very large sums of public money, of the order of £750 million, which the promoters are seeking.

  I am determined to improve the road system on the eastern side of the country to promote the economic prosperity of all the areas which it serves. But I believe that our policy of upgrading the Al to motorway standard and improving the roads linked to it will achieve this objective more effectively, give better value for money and will be more environmentally acceptable.
  320
  The roads programme now includes schemes for upgrading all those sections of A1 which are not already motorway at a cost of almost £1·5 billion. This programme also includes a number of other schemes to improve road links in the east, at a cost of almost a further £1 billion. The northern section of Mll is to be widened and the A604, which connects it to the A1, will also be upgraded to motorway. A45 and A47 are also due to be improved. We have given 100 per cent. grant towards the cost of building the A15 in Humberside, much of it as dual carriageway, most of the A15 between Lincoln and the Humber bridge has been trunked and we are dualling the A46, in recognition of the importance of this regional route. The programme also includes 12 schemes for improving A16 and A17, important routes through Lincolnshire. Hull and the Humber ports are already well served by M62/A63 and M180/M18 respectively: a new route from the Humber bridge to the A1079 trunk road has been built with Government grant aid, and six other improvements are planned for the existing A1079, Al237 and A19 trunk roads north from the Humber Bridge towards the north east.

  I recognise the very considerable efforts which the promoters have devoted to this project. They are of course still free to pursue it if they wish as a privately financed one.

  M25
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the estimated cost of his plans to widen the M25 Motorway at 1992 prices in respect of(a) the new six lanes between the M3 and M4 intersections and (b) an additional lane on the rest of its surface sections.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The proposals announced on 25 June for link roads between Junctions 12 and 15 are estimated to cost £144 million. Those announced last September for rapid widening to duel four lanes between junctions 5 and 28 will cost an estimated £625 million.

  Rail Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure the use of cost-benefit analysis assessment in the evaluation of rail infrastructure projects.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to an answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) on 3 July 1992,Official Report, columns 733–34.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Over the next year and beyond, I have many environmental priorities. For a start, I am devoting part of the Informal Transport Council on 16 and 17 July to a discussion on the Commission's Green Paper on Transport and the Environment. I shall continue the policy of giving strong emphasis to environmental aspects in the road programme. I shall work towards more
  321
  environmentally acceptable standards for road vehicles. This I intend to do in collaboration with the European Community. I also want to see more traffic—both passengers and freight—transferred from road to rail. Our policy for involving the private sector in providing railway services will encourage this. And I shall support action to deal with traffic congestion and pollution in urban areas such as parking controls and other traffic restraint measures as well as encouraging the use of buses and safer cycling.

  Air-sea Rescue
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes any changes to the current arrangements for air-sea rescue in Kent, Sussex and Hampshire.

  Mr. Norris
  There are no current plans for the movement of the Coastguard helicopter from the Solent area. The MoD is responsible for the positioning of military aircraft having regard to agreed DTp/MoD criteria for helicopter civil search and rescue cover around the United Kingdom.

  To date, my Department has not been informed by MOD of any proposed changes which would affect such criteria.

  British Rail
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what firms are advising him on the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  Samuel Montagu provides merchant bank advice; Coopers and Lybrand advises on the liberalisation of access to the railway network; and Debenham Tewson Chinnocks advises on stations.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representation the United Kingdom has on the special permanent working party for the transport of radioactive substances set up by the European Commission this year; and what plans he has to review the arrangements for the transport of radioactive materials within, into and from the European Community during his presidency of the European Transport Council.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom is represented on the special working group on the safe transport of radioactive material, which has been meeting since 1982, by officials from the Department's radioactive materials transport division.

  During the United Kingdom Presidency the main work of my Department on the transport of radioactive material worldwide will be continued participation in the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with which the Community has close links.

WALES

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for Tir Cymen.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A countryside stewardship scheme in Wales, to be called Tir Cymen, has been developed by the Countryside Council for Wales and an announcement regarding its introduction will be made shortly.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications he has received for participation in the countryside stewardship programme from farmers in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The countryside stewardship scheme run by the Countryside Commission in England is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. A countryside stewardship scheme in Wales, to be called Tir Cymen, has been developed by the Countryside Council for Wales and an announcement regarding its introduction will be made shortly.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were in employment in each county in(a) 1978 and (b) 1989; and how many were in employment in Cardiff, Swansea, Camarthen, Llanelli, Newport, Bangor and Wrexham (i) in 1978 and (ii) in 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Numbers of employees in employment are shown in the following tables:

  County

  11978

  1989

  Clwyd

  127,767

  139,458

  Dyfed

  105,438

  102,867

  Gwent

  166,990

  155,979

  Gwynedd

  69,789

  76,955

  Mid Glamorgan

  186,192

  164,989

  Powys

  29,708

  40,638

  South Glamorgan

  168,689

  179,009

  West Glamorgan

  160,762

  126,778

  Source: NOMIS, Employment Department.

  1 Using approximations to county areas defined as the best-fit of jobcentre areas to each county.

  1984 Job Centre TTWAs1

  1978

  1989

  Cardiff

  176,317

  180,312

  Swansea

  103,327

  90,814

  Carmarthen

  16,959

  17,364

  Llanelli

  34,767

  27,309

  Newport

  78,591

  76,397

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  24,195

  24,545

  Wrexham

  44,637

  48,646

  Source NOMIS, Employment Department.

  1 These areas are used for both years and are defined as the best-fit of jobcentre areas into 1984 travel-to-work areas.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of household waste is currently recycled by each district council in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally although work is in hand nationally to establish
  323
  better data. Data on recycling will also be available from the plans district councils are preparing under section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Road Accident Victims
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish an estimated figure for the total number of working years lost in Wales as a result of road accident fatalities in each of last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information allowing such an estimate to be made is not collected centrally.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning toxic shock syndrome; and what initiatives he proposes concerning toxic shock syndrome.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Toxic shock syndrome (TSS) is a rare but very unpleasant condition which is believed to be caused by toxin-producing strains of the bacterium Staphylococcus Aureus. About 50 per cent. of all cases occur in women during menstruation, but non-menstrual cases occur in association with abscesses, osteomyelitis, wound infections and pneumonia—i.e. any severe infections. It can therefore also affect men, children and non-menstruating women. Management of the condition is a matter for clinical judgment.

  Information received from the public health laboratory service suggests that in recent years there have been, on average, one or two deaths a year from TSS associated with tampon use in the United Kingdom. Government action has been focused on cases relating to tampon usage as the prime identifiable cause of TSS.

  In 1984 the Department of Trade and Industry and the sanitary protection industry set up a voluntary prior notification scheme for menstrual tampons. This scheme applies to the entire manufactured product, including the instructions for use. Under the scheme, manufacturers submit to the Government any new tampon to which there have been significant changes in the design or materials, and toxicologists from the Department of Health scrutinise them to decide whether they pose a health hazard. The manufacturers' own code of practice also covers manufacturing standard quality assurance.

  For the past decade, the instruction leaflet—included in every pack by tampon manufacturers—has contained information on TSS, advice on using the lowest level of absorbency required and on changing tampons frequently. It is likely that these simple precautions minimise the risk of TSS.

  At the end of 1990 the industry, in agreement with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Health, made some improvements to the labelling of tampon packages and the instruction leaflets. The principal modifications to pack statements were to add instructions to users to read and retain the leaflet, and clearer advice on absorbency selection. Fuller information on TSS, including what to do if symptoms occur, was also put into the leaflet.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it is his intention to choose a boundary for the new unitary authority based on Cardiff which to the west and north west follows or falls within the current South Glamorgan boundary.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 6 July 1992.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give an estimate of the total cost of damage to agriculture in Wales due to flooding since I March; if he has any plans to improve facilities to prevent similar flooding in future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not held centrally. Measures to improve flood protection in Wales are continually being undertaken where it is economic and technically appropriate to do so.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares in Wales are designated as environmentally sensitive areas; what is the number of farmers under this scheme and the total expenditure in 1991 under the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  ESA

  Designated area (ha)

  Number of current management agreements

  Expenditure 1991–92 (£)

  Lleyn peninsula

  39,700

  411

  351,907

  Cambrian mountains (includingextension)

  153,000

  422

  1,106,936

  Total

  192,700

  833

  1,458,843

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to extend further the environmentally sensitive areas scheme in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made on 22 June 1992 and decisions about any further expansion of the ESA scheme in Wales will be taken in the light of available resources.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of sites in Wales designated as sites of special scientific interest currently and for the previous two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of sites of special scientific interest

  1990–769 (as at 31 March)

  1991–816 (as at 31 March)

  1992–841 (as at 31 May)

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares in Wales are designated as sites
  325
  of special scientific interest; what is that figure as a percentage of (a) farm land in Wales and (b) Wales as a whole; what is the percentage change in the number of sites of special scientific interest in hectares from 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:

  1982

  1992

  Area of Wales covered by SSSI's (hectares)

  167,518

  200,896

  Area of Wales coverd by SSSI's as a percentage of farm land

  9·9

  11·8

  Area of Wales coverd by SSSI's as a percentage of total area

  7·9

  9·5

  The increase in the number of hectares of Wales notified as sites of special scientific interest from 1982 to 1992 is therefore 19·9 per cent.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to increase the number of sites in Wales designated as sites of special scientific interest.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for notifying sites of special scientific interest in the Principality rests with the Countryside Council for Wales. However, I understand that it has plans to designate more sites.

  Miscarriages
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miscarriages occurred in 1991 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales attributable to smoking during pregnancies; what were the comparable figures for the previous two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Power Failures
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contingency plans exist to deal with the provision of electricity in Wales following power failures during violent storms; what plans he has to revise these; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National Grid Company has contingency plans to restore supplies as quickly as practicable in the event of their loss during violent storms. these plans are regularly tested and reviewed.

  In addition, both South Wales Electricity and Manweb are party to a national code of practice which provides for mutual assistance from other regional electricity companies during network problems ca used by storms and other emergencies. The code is reviewed on an ongoing basis.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated impact of the separate classification of tertiary referrals in hospitals as episodes of treatment on the total number of hospital in-patient treatments enumerated in national health service statistics in Wales;326
  on what date tertiary referrals were first separately counted for statistical purposes; and what public announcement was made of the change.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Aggregate information on in-patient treatments in NHS hospitals in Wales continues to be collected as deaths and discharges from hospitals as in previous years.

  A letter to district general managers DGM(90)123, announced that from 1 April 1991, data relating to individual patient episodes would record tertiary referrals and cross-specialty referrals separately. These data will be used to supply detailed disaggregated analyses of patients' episodes of care in hospitals relating to specific types of treatment, characteristics of patients, and categories of illness.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with fund-holding general practitioners concerning the introduction of separate accounting for tertiary referrals during hospital treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance was issued in January 1991 on the handling of tertiary referrals. No indications have been received that further guidance is necessary. Fundholding general practitioners should specify in their contracts the arrangements for tertiary referrals to ensure that these are only made with their agreement. Where a referral is made without this agreement they are not liable for payment.

  Health Authorities (Public Relations)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning its public relations contract with Harrison Cowley; what level of expenditure is planned under this contract; which other health authorities in Wales have such contracts, with which public relations agencies and for what value; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have discussed the public relations arrangements in place in South Glamorgan health authority with its chairman, though he has been congratulated on the professionalism with which his authority presented its waiting times policy to local people.

  Responsibility for locally based public relations in the NHS rests firmly with individual district health authorities and family health services authorities. Details of the kind sought are therefore best obtained directly from the authorities themselves.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the discretionary limit for capital expenditure by the Cardiff Bay development corporation without reference to his Department; if he will list each of the projects above that limit submitted for evaluation to his Department in each year since 1987; and if he will give a summary of each evaluation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Details of the various financial delegation thresholds for Cardiff Bay development corporation are set out in the following table. I will write
  327
  to the hon. Gentleman, shortly, with a list of projects that exceed those thresholds. Details of the evaluation given to each project cannot be summarised without incurring disproportionate cost. A copy of my reply to the hon. Gentleman will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Schedule of delegations to Cardiff Bar Development Corporation

  £

  Projects (including land acquisition)

  Full delegation threshold

  250,000

  Partial delegation threshold

  3,000,000

  Consultancies

  De minimis level (competitive tender not required)

  3,000

  Single tender level for urgent studies

  15,000

  Full consultancy delegation threshold

  100,000

  Administrative expenditure ("Project" items)

  Delegation levels for administrative 'projects' before full project level ar introduced:

  Initial administrative delegation level (prior to approval of full budget)

  20,000

  Interim administrative delegation level (after approval of full budget)

  50,000

  Computing or information technology expenditure

  (i) Purchase of computer hardware (capital cost)

  50,000

  (ii) Bureau services (per annum)

  10,000

  (iii) Consultancies (per annum)

  10,000

  Proposals to incur computing expenditure above these levels have to be referred to the Department with full supporting information, including an appraisal of the strategic consideration.

  Works contracts

  De minimis level (competitive tender not required)

  3,000

  Single tender level for specialist of fixed price purchase

  15,000

  Value above which contracts must be advertised in the Official Journal (1 million ecu)

  710,000

  Write-offs and gifts

  Following may be written off/given without prior reference to the Department

  All cash losses, other than overpayments

  Other losses not exceeding

  1,000

  Gifts not exceeding

  500

  —up to a total value in any one year of

  10,000

  Land disposal

  Disposal on terms set out in the Notes for Guidance may be effected without prior reference to the Department providing the area involved does not exceed

  5 ha

  Employment Action
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to reduce the waiting time for the unemployed interested in applying for employment action programmes; and what special priority schemes approved for employment action he will allocate where length of unemployment qualification periods are shorter than the standard six months.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There are no proposals to change the general requirement that applicants for employment action should have been unemployed and in receipt of benefit for 26 weeks or more.

  Type

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  19911

  (a) Sets of:

  (i) Twins

  298

  305

  306

  263

  304

  272

  281

  322

  287

  281

  267

  315

  (ii) Triplets

  4

  3

  2

  4

  3

  3

  2

  7

  1

  2

  5

  6

  (iti) Quadruplets

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  (iv) Quintuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (v) Sextuplets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School Maintenance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statistics he has on the total school maintenance backlog for all the counties in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for the repair and maintenance of school buildings rests with local education authorities and statistics on the maintenance backlog are not collected centrally.

  Cadw
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets he has set for Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Cadw has been set the following key targets for 1992–93:

  (i) To complete 90 per cent. of the approved conservation maintenance programme.

  (ii) To promote the preservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments by completing 12 re-survey lists and 60 scheduling entries.

  (iii) To resolve 75 per cent. of statutory cases within the target periods (28 days for listed building consent cases, 90 days for scheduled monument consent cases and 120 days for ad hoc listings).

  (iv) To resolve 80 per cent. of grant applications within the target periods (18 weeks for Historic Buildings Council cases, six weeks for ancient monument cases and 12 weeks for civic initiatives (heritage) grant scheme cases); and to pay 90 per cent. of certified claims within six weeks of receipt.

  (v) To raise Cadw's market share of the number of visitors to the top twenty heritage sites in Wales from 63–7 per cent. in 1991 to 65 per cent. in 1992.

  (vi) To increase the average spend per visitor from 163 pence in 1991–92 to 175 pence in 1992–93.

  (vii) To operate within allocated programme and running cost budgets.

  (viii) To achieve an efficiency saving of 1·5 per cent. on gross running costs.

  Full details of Cadw's performance against its targets for 1991–92 are contained in the agency's annual report, which will be published shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the total numbers of(a) sets of (i) twins, (ii) triplets, (iii) guadruplets, (iv) quintuplets and (v) sextuplets born in Northern Ireland in each year from 1980 to 1991, (b) maternities in Northern Ireland in each year and (c) multiple births of each type in each year which were conceived as a result of (1) in vitro fertilisation, (2) gamete intra-fallopian transfer and (3) other forms of assisted conception.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:
  329

  Type

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  19911

  (b) Maternitie

  28,542

  27,229

  26,905

  27,188

  27,547

  27,529

  27,989

  27,694

  27,614

  25,928

  25,338

  26,058

  (c)2 IVF (i) Twins3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  7

  5

  12

  N/K

  (ii) Triplets3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  1

  2

  N/K

  GIFT4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  N/K =Not Known.

  1 Provisional.

  2Figures are not collated centrally on infertility treatment other than IVF and GIFT.

  3These figures are the results of IVF by year of conception with IVF having been available in Northern Ireland only since 1987.

  4GIFT was available in Northern Ireland in only 1986 and 1987.

  Ards Hospital
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total expenditure at Ards hospital in each of the past five years; and how much in each year was for capital projects.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Capital works £

  Total £

  1986–87

  118,753

  7,521,157

  1987–88

  619,148

  8,712,289

  1988–89

  359,464

  9,155,789

  1989–90

  399,852

  9,894,402

  1990–91

  665,474

  11,044,410

  Hospital Services
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated population within each of the district councils in the areas for which the Eastern Health and Social Services area board provides hospital services; and what were the corresponding figures five years ago.

  Mr. Hanley
  The most recent information, contained in the mid-year estimates of population, relates to 1990 and is as follows:

  District council area

  1987

  1990

  Ards

  63,600

  65,400

  Belfast

  303,800

  295,100

  Castlereagh

  57,900

  58,100

  Down

  56,400

  57,700

  Lisburn

  92,900

  98,700

  North Down

  70,700

  72,600

  Figures for 1991 will be based on data obtained from the 1991 census and will not be available until after publication of the census summary report in the autumn. I shall write to the right hon. Member when the figures are available and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Terrorist Funding
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the amount of money raised by terrorist sympathisers in north America and received in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  Although for obvious reasons I cannot be precise, we understand that somewhere between $½ million and $1 million is sent to Northern Ireland each year.

  Airport Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statutory protection exists for constables of the Northern Ireland Airports Authority from unfair dismissal; what statutory police federation exists to represent them; and what statutory restrictions exist on their entitlement to join a trade union.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: Persons employed in police service, or in any other capacity by virtue of which they have the powers or privileges of a constable are excluded from the unfair dismissal legislation. Accordingly, constables of the Northern Ireland Airports Authority have no statutory protection from unfair dismissal. There are no statutory restrictions on their entitlement to join a trade union and they are represented by the Belfast Airport Police Association rather than a statutory police federation.

HEALTH

  Hospitals (Infections)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients are known to have contracted post-operative infections in(a) national health service hospitals and (b) private hospitals in each of the last five years; and if she will express those cases as a percentage of the total of patients treated;

  (2) what estimates she has of the cost of treating people who have contracted post-operative infections in (a) national health service hospitals and (b) private hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information on numbers of patients contracting post-operative infections is based on hospital discharge summaries. The 1989–90 estimates show 17,600 patients in national health service hospitals diagnosed as suffering from post-operative infection. The corresponding number in 1985 was 15,540. In both years, this number represented 0·2 per cent. of patients treated in hospital, but information from research studies indicates that this is an underestimate of the total incidence. Data for the intervening years are not available and corresponding information is not held in respect of private hospitals.

  Information is not held centrally about the cost of treating patients with post-operative infection.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are known to have died in each of the past five years due to infections contracted while in hospital;
  331
  (2) what measures she intends to take to reduce the number of people who contract infections during their stay in hospital;

  (3) if she will list the types of infections which are most frequently contracted during a patient's stay in hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not held centrally on the prevalence and type of hospital-acquired infections. A study in 1980 indicated that urinary infections, wound infections, lower respiratory infections and skin infections were those most frequently acquired.

  The information available on deaths relates to those known to be due to post operative infection and is given in the table.

  We are very much aware of the importance of preventing hospital-acquired infection to the fullest: extent possible. In 1988 we issued to health authorities the guidance produced by the joint Department of Health/ Public Health Laboratory Service hospital infection working group. Authorities were asked to ensure that the recommended arrangements for infection control were in place in all acute hospitals. The Department is updating and expanding this advice. The guidance assists both purchasing authorities and provider units in carrying out their respective responsibilities of ensuring that the proper preventive measures are in place and of determining the quality measures to be specified in contracts. Part of the role of the newly appointed consultants in communicable disease control is to advise their health authorities on these quality measures.

  Adequate surveillance is an important aspect of the control of hospital-acquired infection and guidance on methods of surveillance has recently been issued to the national health service.

  The Department also welcomes the development by the professions of clinical standards in hospital infection control. The clinical standards advisory group has been undertaking preliminary work with a view to proposing further studies in this area. We are also considering a proposal for research in to the financial costs and other burdens resulting from hospital acquired infection.

  Deaths from post operative infections

  1England and Wales, 1987–91

  Year

  Deaths

  1987

  11

  1988

  15

  1989

  12

  1990

  7

  1991

  8

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, code 998.5 source OPCS death registrations.

  Pay Bargaining
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list her Department's discussion documents on the subject of pay bargaining in the private health sector; and if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on pay bargaining in the private health sector.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for the independent sector to set its own pay bargaining procedures.

  National Health Service Staff (Transfers)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she proposes to make regulations under section 49 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 for transfer of staff from health service to local authority employment;

  (2) what discussions she has had with staff and staff representatives facing transfer from national health service employment to local government employment in accordance with section 49 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is proposed to make regulations under section 49 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 at the same time as the commencement order bringing part III of the 1990 Act into force is made. Staff representatives will be consulted about the regulations in the normal way.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the Government have made of the effect of introducing a prior approval limit on treatment of £200; what percentage of dental treatment would require prior approval at 1992 prices with an immediate introduction of the £200 limit; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is good management to put cost monitoring mechanisms in place for the most expensive treatments. Prior approval does not limit the range of treatments available. At £200, it will only apply to rather less than 3 per cent. of all courses of treatment.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the Government have made of the loss in net income to dentists from a 7 per cent. reduction in dental treatment fees.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Overall, we anticipate that these changes will not only deliver the 8·5 per cent. increase in dentists' target average net income which the review body recommended, but that dentists will on average receive some £5,000 more than this target.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what complaints in each of the last three years she has received about the London ambulance service allegedly being inadequate or at fault in individual cases where it has been called out; and in how many of those cases loss of life was involved.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service—LAS —is responsible for dealing with complaints about the service. It has a formal complaints procedure that ensures that complaints are dealt with in line with the patients charter. A number of complaints have been made about the LAS both to Ministers and direct to the LAS. I can assure the hon. Member that each complaint has been thoroughly investigated. Information on the number of cases that involve loss of life is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will review the level of emergency ambulance cover for(a) Leyton and (b) London; and if she will make a statement.
  333
  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service is managed as a pan-London service. Resources available in individual geographic regions of the service are shared with other regions, as necessary. The LAS is currently reviewing manning levels and shift rosters covering the whole of London. Management information derived from the recently introduced computer-aided dispatch will further improve the ability of managers to match available resources to demands on the service.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason a ceiling budget has been placed on the accident and emergency service of the London ambulance service; and if she will make this particular service demand led.

  Mr. Sackville
  Like all other ambulance services, the London ambulance service contracts to provide a full 24-hour accident and emergency service. All such services are expected to match income to expenditure, taking account of the demands placed upon them. The level of expenditure for 1992–93 has been agreed, and this includes real growth of £1 million.

  Regional Health Authority Chairmen
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will announce the appointment of regional health authority chairmen.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am pleased to announce that I have made two new appointments to chair regional health authorities, as follows:South West Thames RHA, Professor Marian Hicks
  South Western RHA, Ms. Rennie Fritchie
  In addition, the chairmen of the following three regional health authorities have been reappointed from I August 1992:
  North East Thames RHA, Mr. Tim Chessells
  Northern RHA, Mr. Peter Carr
  Oxford RHA, Dr. Stuart Burgess

  I would like to express my appreciation of the contribution to the national health service made by Mr. Charles Stuart at South Western RHA. For personal reasons, Mr. Stuart is relinquishing the regional chairmanship, and I have invited him to become the chairman-designate of the proposed Plymouth hospitals unit which has made a formal application to become an NHS trust operational from 1 April 1993.

  Hospices
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money has been made available(a) nationally in respect of hospice support and (b) to the Chelmsford hospice in each of the last three available years.

  Waiting lists England

  All patients waiting

  Waiting under 3 months

  Waiting under 6 months

  Waiting under 12 months

  Waiting under 24 months

  Waiting over 24 months

  31 March 1991

  All cases

  General surgery

  206,622

  86,220

  128,219

  169,553

  195,645

  10,977

  Urology

  58,541

  24,495

  36,241

  47,135

  54,483

  4,058

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  170,648

  56,512

  95,079

  135,992

  161,305

  9,343

  ENT

  121,837

  50,670

  77,413

  104,092

  118,046

  3,791

  Ophthalmology

  95,210

  34,567

  58,125

  82,579

  93,673

  1,537

  Oral Surgery

  62,176

  20,852

  34,424

  49,371

  58,743

  3,433

  Neurosurgery

  3,913

  1,651

  2,439

  3,202

  3,724

  189

  Plastic surgery

  53,485

  11,424

  18,837

  28,793

  39,907

  13,578

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  9,236

  3,664

  5,904

  7,996

  8,937

  299

  334
  Mr. Sackville
  In each of the last three years the Government have allocated funds to regional health authorities to enable them to increase the support they give to hospices and similar organisations providing care and support for dying people and their families. In each of the last two years, funds have also been allocated to enable hospices to obtain supplies of drugs free of charge. The allocations are shown in the table:

  Hospices (£ million)

  Drugs (£ million)

  1990–91

  8·00

  —

  1991–92

  16·96

  3·20

  1992–93

  31·70

  5·50

  The allocation of funds to individual projects is a matter for local discussion and agreement. The Chelmsford hospice received £54,000 in 1990–91 and £108,000 in 1991–92 from North East Thames regional health authority. The allocation for 1992–93 has yet to be approved by the RHA.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of days' wait for disabled people needing(a) artificial limbs and (b) wheelchairs from the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been on hospital waiting lists in England in total, and in each specialty, on 1 April 1991 and on 1 April 1992 for(a) three months or less, (b) six months or less, (c) 12 months or less, (d) 24 months or less and (e) over 24 months.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information as at 31 March 1991 is given in the table. Figures for 31 March 1992 by specialty are not yet available centrally. For the provisional overall picture at 31 March 1992, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 12 May at columns 489–92. These show that between 31 March 1991 and 31 March 1992 the number waiting over two years fell by 97 per cent. and the total number waiting dropped by 3·5 per cent. or 33,131.
  335

  Waiting lists England

  All patients waiting

  Waiting under 3 months

  Waiting under 6 months

  Waiting under 12 months

  Waiting under 24 months

  Waiting over 24 months

  Paediatric surgery

  6,202

  2,872

  4,313

  5,616

  6,109

  93

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  118,235

  58,986

  84,190

  105,578

  115,724

  2,511

  General medicine

  9,832

  7,454

  8,428

  9,111

  9,515

  317

  Cardiology

  10,954

  5,418

  7,750

  10,003

  10,715

  239

  Dermatology

  1,557

  1,100

  1,313

  1,418

  1,514

  43

  Thoracic medicine

  589

  348

  438

  536

  576

  13

  Medical oncology

  199

  176

  180

  185

  193

  6

  Neurology

  2,709

  1,697

  2,166

  2,443

  2,578

  131

  Rheumatology

  2,426

  1,484

  1,921

  2,231

  2,352

  74

  Geriatric medicine

  461

  369

  413

  434

  449

  12

  Mental illness

  830

  357

  513

  647

  705

  125

  Radiotherapy

  652

  636

  645

  649

  652

  0

  General practice

  742

  427

  555

  657

  740

  2

  Other

  11,187

  7,468

  9,196

  10,261

  10,905

  282

  Total

  948,243

  378,847

  578,702

  778,482

  897,190

  51,053

  Dentists' Pay
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the fundamental review of the dental remuneration system will be carried forward.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am pleased to announce that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield has accepted an invitation from the United Kingdom Health Ministers to review the system of dental remuneration.

  The text of my invitation to Sir Kenneth is set out as follows:
  "I am writing on behalf of the UK Health Ministers to confirm my invitation to you to review the system of dental remuneration, and if possible to report before the end of the year.

  The terms of reference are:
  ""To conduct a fundamental review of the existing system of remuneration of general dental practitioners and to identify options for change""

  There are a number of important points which you will need to bear in mind.
  First, the review should consider the system of remuneration. The level of remuneration for general dental practitioners are a matter for recommendation by the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' remuneration.Second, the aim of the review should be to identify options for remunerating general dental practitioners which would provide a proper framework of financial control; would be fair to dentists and the public and as simple as practicable; and would therefore contribute positively to the development of the NHS dental service.Third, I am looking to you to identify a number of options for change, rather than a single recommendation, though I would be happy for you to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.You will of course need to consult a number of interests in the course of the review. To assist you in this, I suggest that we establish a panel of advisers, drawn from the Government departments concerned, the NHS and the dental profession.The Government attaches great importance to your review and looks forward to receiving your advice in due course."

  NHS Statistics
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what date tertiary and cross-specialty referrals in hospitals were recorded as separate episodes of treatment in national health service statistics on out-patient and in-patient hospital activity; what the estimated impact of such a change has been on time-series comparisons of hospital activity prior to and since the change in recording methods; and if she will make a statement.
  336
  Mr. Sackville
  Hospital activity has been measured in terms of finished consultant episodes since April 1987. The move to this sytem from the previous system, which recorded discharges and deaths, was designed to monitor more accurately the volume of work carried out by each consultant in each specialty. Data continued to be collected on the old basis of discharges and deaths until 1988–89. Comparisons of in-patient cases over time should not be affected as figures for 1988–89 are available on both basis. The change had no effect on the number of out-patient consultations.

  HIV
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the reasons for the divergences between her Department's forecasts of the numbers estimated to be infected by the HIV-1 virus and the actual numbers so infected; and for what reasons she has decided to allocate financial resources on the basis of estimated rather than actual numbers.

  Mr. Sackville
  Overall the forecasts contained in the 1990 Day report "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in England and Wales to end 1993" have not proved significantly different from the actual numbers diagnosed to date, after these have been adjusted for reporting delays.

  Financial allocations made each year to the national health service for the treatment and care of people with HIV/AIDS are based on the numbers actually reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre for each regional health authority and not on the basis of estimates. Other non-treatment allocations including funds for prevention initiatives are made on a population basis, using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys data.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the different degrees of threat from the HIV virus to(a) heterosexuals and (b) homosexuals.

  Mr. Sackville
  HIV, the virus which causes AIDS, is primarily a sexually transmitted disease. In the United Kingdom, homosexual and bisexual men still account for the greatest number of reports of both HIV and AIDS. The number of reports of those infected heterosexually is much smaller, but reported cases are growing faster in this group than in any other.
  337
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will show from her departmental statistics, the incidence of HIV-1 virus among(a) homosexuals and (b) heterosexuals.

  Mr. Sackville
  Up to March 1992, 16,013 HIV infected adults, whose sexual orientation is known, had been reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre and the communicable disease (Scotland) unit. Of these, 10,569 —66 per cent.—are recorded as homosexual or bisexual men and 5,444—34 per cent.—as heterosexual men and women.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy in respect of weighting the transfer of social security funding to local authorities with effect from next April, to take account of the concentration of private care and nursing homes in certain geographical areas.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are currently discussing with the local authority associations a number of options for the distribution of community care finance from next April.

  OPCS, Birkdale
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will enter into negotiations to rent car parking space from Birkdale cricket club for the staff of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys at Birkdale, Southport.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys at Southport have already met representatives of Birkdale cricket club and members of Sefton council and are in correspondence with the council. They are currently considering whether renting 50 car parking spaces from the club would be a cost-effective way of alleviating the problem of on-street parking.

  Consultants
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now make it her policy to publish the names of national health consultants who receive distinction awards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of award holders remain confidential and there are no plans for national publication. Since 1980 any consultant eligible for an award has had access to the regional list of current award holders which is held by the regional director of public health, and since 1990 this list has also been held by district directors of public health.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to announce an extension of the multi-fibre arrangment on its existing terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The terms of the interim agreement to bridge the gap between the expiry of the multi-fibre 338
  arrangment on 31 December 1992 and the implementation of a replacement GATT agreement are due to be negotiated between importing and exporting countries later this year.

  Recycling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the report by his Department's business and environmental group about creating markets for recycled products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Under commission from the environment unit in my Department, Warren Spring Laboratory undertook a study "Market Barriers to Materials Reclamation and Recycling". Warren Spring Laboratory published this report in September 1991.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the representations of the hon. Member for Macclesfield about the activities and operations of Club Riviera Sales Ltd., Club Riviera Management (U.K.) Ltd., and Club Riviera plc., companies involved in timeshare properties.

  Mr. Leigh
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms has recently responded. Moreover, the Director General of Fair Trading has stated that he is minded to revoke the consumer credit licences of Club Riviera Sales Ltd.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of insolvencies and liquidations in the first quarter of 1992.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Information on insolvencies is regularly published by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. in "Business Briefing". Insolvency figures for the first quarter of 1992 were published on 8 May 1992.

  EC Industry Council
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions which took place in the EC Industry Council On 17 June.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I attended the Industry Council meeting on 17 June. The Council reached political agreement on aid to be provided by Germany to the east German shipbuilding industry. The Council also adopted resolutions on the textiles and clothing and vehicles industries and on small and medium sized enterprises and agreed conclusions on the aircraft industry. The Commission gave presentations on industry and the environment, maritime industries, the mining industry and future financing of the European Coal and Steel Community. The Council held a first discussion on a Commission proposal to allow a derogation for the Dutch and Danish steel industries from national carbon taxes.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what rules have been laid down for current employees of British Coal and British Rail to engage in discussions with third parties with a view to management buy-outs in the course of the privatisations of British Coal and British Rail.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal and British Rail.

  Abu Dhabi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the amount by value of imports and exports to and from Abu Dhabi for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Needham
  Details of trade with Abu Dhabi are regularly published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the financial consequences to the British economy of United Nations sanctions against Libya.

  Mr. Needham
  The adoption of the UN arms embargo under Security Council resolution 748 had no financial consequences for exports of military goods to Libya as trade in military goods to Libya has been subject to an EC embargo since 1986.

  It is too early to put a figure on the losses that have arisen due to the embargo on the export of aircraft and aircraft components to Libya. The United Kingdom's total exports to Libya were worth £255·7 million in 1991 —10·7 per cent. of total Libyan imports. Only a small proportion—£16·3 million, or approximately 6 per cent. —fall within the scope of current sanctions.

  Credit Facilities
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that customers for credit facilities are no longer blacklisted solely because they share the same address as someone else, unconnected with them, who has a bad debt record.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 29 June 1992]: No, this was a matter recently considered by the Data Protection Tribunal. The tribunal ruled that from 31 July 1993, credit reference agencies, which provide details of individuals' credit status to lenders, should no longer provide information on people other than the credit applicant except people who are reasonably believed to have been living as members of the same family as the applicant in a single household. Where agencies are aware that individuals sharing the same address have no financial connection with the applicant, they may not provide information about those individuals.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation(a) to make it a requirement that the promoter of a pyramid
  340
  scheme is clearly stated in any advertisement for the scheme and (b) to ensure that estimates of earnings from legal pyramid schemes are verified independently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: The Pyramid Selling Schemes Regulations 1989 already ensure that potential participants are given full information about a scheme before they make any commitment. The required information includes the name and address of the promoter.

  The regulations also require a promoter to have evidence if he refers to a specified financial benefit or a financial benefit being greater than or not less than a specified sum. It would be for the courts to decide whether the evidence was acceptable.

  I have no plans for further legislation.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regulations exist whereby participants in companies licensed as legal pyramid selling schemes have their incomes restricted by the number of people recruited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: No such regulations exist. Pyramid selling and similar trading schemes are not licensed.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are the criteria whereby firms are licensed under the term "legal pyramid selling scheme"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the number of companies in the United Kingdom licensed under the term "legal pyramid selling schemes"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: There are no licensing arrangements for pyramid selling or similar trading schemes.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation that would require promoters of legal pyramid selling schemes not to take payment from participants in such a scheme unless they hold an appropriate insurance policy indemnifying them against the possibility that members or participants in the scheme choose to exercise their rights of resignation or refund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 July 19921: I have no such plans.

  Ms. Joan Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of companies failing to comply with current legislation relating to pyramid selling regulations under the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Mr. Leigh
  Each case receives individual consideration. There have, as yet, been no prosecutions under the Pyramid Selling Schemes Regulations (1989), but in view of public concern the effectiveness and appropriateness of the regulations are kept under review.

  "No Credit?"
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of the booklet "No Credit?" have been published since March 1991 and at what cost; how many copies have been distributed and through which avenues;
  341
  and what contributions towards the costs of publication and distribution have been obtained from the four credit agencies listed on its centre pages.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: A total of 550,000 copies of the booklet "No Credit?" have been printed at a cost of £21,708. A total of 397,000 copies have been distributed through local authority trading standards offices, main libraries and citizens advice bureaux. A total of 20,000 and 3,500 copies respectively have been distributed free of charge by the credit reference agencies CCN Systems Ltd. and Credit Data and Marketing Services. There has been no contribution to costs of publication by the four main credit reference agencies.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: As at 30 June 1992 there were eight civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension Rights
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons it was decided not to allow females who retired prior to 1988 to confer pension rights on their spouses in the event of their death; and if he will now introduce provisions to provide pension rights for widows whose spouses retired pre-1988.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no statutory prohibition on occupational pension schemes providing in their rules for survivor's benefits to widows or widowers irrespective of their date of death or age at date of death. On 6 April 1988 it became a condition for a scheme to be used for contracting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme that it provided guaranteed minimum pensions to widowers in circumstances analogous to those required for widow's pensions.

  Leeds Benefit Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has yet received a report from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, into his fact-finding tour of Leeds benefit offices; if a copy of the report will be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We do not receive formal reports of the field visits made by Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. Mr. Bichard will write to the hon. Member about his recent visit to Leeds and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates and in which parts of Banff and Buchan the cold weather payments section was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payment on each occasion;
  342
  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in Banff and Buchan; and what was the period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not collected in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the Library.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in Banff and Buchan have qualified, or do qualify, for payments under the cold weather payments scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the extra cost in 1992–93 of extending payments to working income support claimants by way of mortgage interest outgoings to those working between 16 and 24 qualifying hours.

  Mr. Burt
  The cost of continuing to pay income support to people working between 16 and 24 hours a week when the remunerative work rule changed from April 1992 has been estimated to be £30 million in the first year. It is not possible to estimate with any degree of confidence how much income support in respect of mortgage interest is included in that figure.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 483, how many single people aged 18 to 24 years were receiving income support at the 18 to 24 years rate in May 1990; and what is the estimated number who were then living away from home, as defined in his answer.

  Mr. Burt
  In May 1990 the number of single people aged 18 to 24 receiving income support at the 18 to 24-year-old rate was 423,0001. There is no comparable figure for the number of these who were living away from home. However, as I stated in my reply of 2 June at column 483, it is estimated that in 1992–93 180,0002 18 to 24-year-olds, who receive the 18 to 24 income support personal allowance, are living away from home.

  Note: "Living away from home" includes people classified by the FES as the head of the household, plus all those living in the household of a person who is a non-relative.

  Source: 1 Income Support Annual Statistical Inquiry, May 1990.

  2 Modelled using data from the 1987–89 Family Expenditure Survey.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to require the trustee boards of occupational pension schemes to contain at least 50 per cent. employee and pensioner representatives chosen by the employees and pensioners themselves.

  Miss Widecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 June that he had set up an independent committee to review the framework of law
  343
  and regulation within which occupational pension schemes operate under the chairmansip of Professor Goode of Oxford university. As the terms of reference include a consideration of the accountability and roles of trustees, it would be premature for the Government to consider any changes until the recommendations of the review committee have been assessed.

  Patients' Benefits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to simplify the method by which patients are able to claim benefits whilst receiving respite and rotational care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so. People receiving respite care are entitled to claim the higher income support limit appropriate to those in residential care or nursing homes.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in each regional and islands authority area in Scotland are in receipt of payments from the independent living fund; and what is the total amount paid from the fund in each of the said areas.

  Mr. Scott
  The information as at 8 May 1992, the last date for which it is available, is in the table.

  Area

  Number of clients

  Total amount of weekly payments £

  Highland Grampian

  37

  3,092

  Grampian

  73

  8,281

  Tayside Fife

  56

  4,288

  Fife

  93

  7,946

  Lothian

  252

  27,577

  Central

  52

  4,607

  Borders

  25

  2,403

  Strathclyde

  1,655

  153,518

  Dumfries and Galloway

  23

  2,600

  Orkneys

  2

  137

  Shetlands

  4

  567

  Western Isles

  38

  2,264

  TOTALS

  2,310

  217,280

  Social Fund
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many grants and awards have been refused to applicants as a result of the £4,000 underpayment of social fund moneys to the North Tees district social fund which was a product of a computer error; and if he will instruct social fund officers to reconsider these refusals in the light of these budget errors.

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

  Mortgage Payments
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the interest on accrued mortage interest arrears over the first 16 weeks of an income support claim will continue to be met by his Department after 25 May.

  Mr. Burt
  Yes. Help with the interest on arrears of interest accrued as a result of the 50 per cent. restriction on income support mortgage interest payments during the first 16 weeks of claims from people under age 60 has been available since the restriction was introduced. We have no plans to change this.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the transaction costs payable by building societies to his Department as a consequence of the new regulations introduced to allow direct payment of income support mortgage interest costs from his Department to the building mortgage interest costs from his Department to the building societies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on 8 July.

  Household Incomes
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he plans to publish the results of the households below average income analysis for 1989 before 16 July.

  Mr. Burt
  Yes.

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

Lord Tebbit
The Right Honourable Norman Beresford Tebbit, CH, having been created Baron Tebbit, of Chingford in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Joseph and the Baroness Seccombe.

Lord Howell
The Right Honourable Denis Herbert Howell, having been created Baron Howell, of Aston Manor in the City of Birmingham, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Fisher of Rednal and the Lord Murray of Epping Forest.
Noble Lords Noble Lords—Took the Oath.

Net Book Agreement
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the Net Book Agreement is in the best interests of the consumer.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the operation of the Net Book Agreement is essentially a commercial matter between publishers and booksellers. The agreement falls within the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and as such is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading and, if appropriate, the Restrictive Practices Court to consider.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is curious that the Government should be encouraging a restrictive practice of this nature to continue? Furthermore, is he aware that this morning the European Court appears to have ruled that the fixing of book prices is wholly illegal?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in their manifesto the Government signalled their intention to tackle anti-competitive and restrictive practices and to introduce new legislation giving stronger powers to deal with cartels. However, as yet time has not been found for such a Bill. The agreement is essentially a commercial matter but I am aware of the decision that was handed down today by the court of first instance in Europe. I have seen in summary a report of its judgment, which is erroneous. It appears to indicate that the Net Book Agreement is illegal within the
1264
United Kingdom. In fact, all that it has indicated is that in so far as the Net Book Agreement affects trade between member states it contravenes Article 25.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the Net Book Agreement were abolished it would be difficult for small booksellers to continue trading and that would not, therefore, be in the best interests of consumers, particularly in small towns and outlying areas?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that this is the fourth or fifth time that we have rattled around this particular track dealing with the Net Book Agreement. As the noble Lord will be aware from previous discussions, there are sharply conflicting views about the effect on smaller booksellers outwith the major cities if the Net Book Agreement were to be abolished.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I declare a double interest as a writer and a reader of books. Is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is right and that the current situation is the best possible situation for us as readers and writers? Is the Minister further aware that the absence of a Net Book Agreement in the United States is one of the reasons why that once great country is sinking into an intellectual desert?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am reassured that my prediction that there would be sharply conflicting views in this House has quickly come about.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the time has come to shift the burden of proof under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act? Does he further agree that any industry which seeks to maintain a price-fixing agreement—that is, in the end, what the Net Book Agreement is—should have the burden of proof placed upon it to show that an anti-competitive measure is not against the public interest?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have already pointed to the signalling of an intention in the manifesto. I am sure that the noble Lord recollects that when in 1989 the Government published their White Paper entitled "Home Markets" the indication was that the changes which might be introduced would bring about a reversal of the presumption along the lines mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Net Book Agreement has the support of the Publishers Association and the great majority of booksellers in this country? Is he aware that the attack on it is entirely inspired by one large wholesaler of books which sees possible advantage to itself if the small booksellers disappear?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am aware of both the points which the noble Lord makes; namely, that there is support for the agreement but that one company takes an opposite view. As I have indicated previously, there are sharply conflicting views on the value to the reading public and in regard to the distribution to bookshops around the country if the

1265
agreement were to be abolished. It is not for government to resolve that matter but there may be an opportunity to look at what test must be applied in determining whether such an agreement is a restrictive practice.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that price riggers the world over invariably claim that their price rigging is in the public interest?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is so. However, if one looks to the experience of other countries, yet again one sees sharply conflicting views on the worth of an agreement. For example, France abolished such an agreement and then reintroduced it some three years later.
Earl Russell: My Lords, while not disagreeing with what my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham said about competition, I ask the Minister to consider that the consumer is not a single animal but an extremely multifarious animal. Will he further consider an area in which I declare an interest? The academic consumer is not always in the same position as other consumers. That is a small market and, in the case of students, inevitably to a degree it is a captive one. Will the Government consider as a separate question the effect of any abolition on academic publishing?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Government's view is that it would be wrong, because this is essentially a commercial matter, to deal specifically with the Net Book Agreement. However, a more appropriate way to approach the matter may be along the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Holme; that is, the test that should apply, where such restrictive practices are in place, is whether to have the presumption reversed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was rather puzzled by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Academic standards in the United States of America far exceed those currently achieved in universities in this country. I believe that the first book published net was Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics, but will the noble Lord tell the House what there is about books that makes it appropriate for them to be published net whereas, for example, classical records and tapes are not subject to the same constraints? Other than a suggestion of a conspiracy against the public, what enables them to be singled out in that way?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is such an agreement. I believe that the noble Lord will appreciate that in 1962 the Net Book Agreement was considered by the restrictive practices court and at that time considered that it was not against the public interest. At a later stage, in 1989, the Director General of Fair Trading carried out an extensive investigation into the book trade. He concluded that there was an insufficiently strong basis to justify making an application to the court to review its earlier decision. It is a matter for consideration by the courts and, as I have indicated previously, it is not for the Government to intervene in that one commercial area.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that price rigging is hardly a fair account of what happens under the Net Book Agreement? It is entirely a matter for the individual publisher as to whether or not he publishes a book net?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, indeed it is an agreement between both publishers and booksellers. Of course, publishers have a considerable leeway in determining whether or not to take advantage of what is provided for under the agreement.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, may I suggest to the Minister that what makes books unique is authors? That agreement is much in the interests of authors. A round robin survey would show that authors almost universally support the agreement.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am certainly aware that authors, in common with the majority of publishers, believe that the agreement should be maintained. As the noble Lord will gather from the exchanges during the course of our discussions, extremely strong views are held on both sides of the debate.

Air Traffic Control: Flight Delays
3.40 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to avoid or reduce delays, and the inconvenience caused to passengers, in flights to and from the United Kingdom during the remaining peak periods of 1992.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the National Air Traffic Services is taking a number of measures to reduce delays this summer, including the opening of new routes, additional air traffic control services and greater flexibility in the management of air traffic.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that the nub of the problem lies with ground control, which is currently inefficient and devoid of contact with other ground controls in other airports? Would it not be better to improve ground control both here and elsewhere?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is exactly what is happening.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one particularly common problem is that of poor industrial relations in certain other European countries? Is that not a good reason for pursuing our policy of harmonisation and integration of air traffic control systems rather than opting for a unified system, which some people propose?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Harmonisation and integration is a far better method than trying to utilise one unified system. When one looks at the list of countries where industrial relations have led to air traffic delays one

1267
sees Italy, Bulgaria, France, Spain, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Norway, Greece and various others.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether he agrees with or dissents from the proposition made by the International Air Transport Association which predicted that the situation in Europe—not excluding this country—will be worse than in previous years? Does he not feel that the need for co-operation in that area needs to be maximised far more than is happening at the present time in order to eliminate as rapidly as possible the disparate and often conflicting systems that affect air traffic control in Europe?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is probably true to say that as far as we can forecast air traffic delays will be worse this summer. That is why we are pressing forward not only with the modernisation of our own system in this country, but also endeavouring to persuade other European countries to harmonise, integrate and update their systems.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend make sure that the French Government are aware of the considerable loss and dislocation which the failures of their air traffic control systems impose particularly on British airlines?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be wrong to single out one specific country. There are problems throughout Europe, not least in Yugoslavia.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that ground traffic control is rather lacking in France as well?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am told that recently there has been a dramatic improvement.

Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
3.43 p.m
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will extend their policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament from surface ships to all remaining nuclear weapons under their control.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, for as long as nuclear weapons remain essential to our security the Government will maintain their policy of deploying adequate and effective nuclear forces.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that at one time it was thought that to provide all surface ships with nuclear weapons was essential to our security? His right honourable friend the Secretary of State is the first Defence Minister to carry out the important step of unilateral nuclear disarmament. I warmly congratulate him.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be pleased to hear that.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that on these Benches we have always maintained that so long as other countries possess nuclear weapons, so should we? Will he confirm the indication in yesterday's defence White Paper that the Government followed the advice given from these Benches and abandoned their proposals for a new surface-to-air nuclear missile system?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, reads the White Paper to which he referred, he will find that no such commitment has been made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it was suggested that the decision to withdraw the Royal Navy's nuclear depth charges and free-fall bombs from Royal Navy planes derives not only from an awareness of a change in the national situation, but also from suspicions and anxieties in regard to the safety of those weapons? Can the noble Viscount confirm or deny those rumours?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I cannot do either. I have no knowledge of such a proposal.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I am proposing to send his right honourable friend, Malcolm Rifkind, a CND badge as a mark of my appreciation for the action he has taken? Will the Minister commend the policy to Her Majesty's Opposition?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government are not unilateralist. The unilateralists argued, when NATO was faced with a strong, cohesive and ideological Warsaw Pact, that we should give up our nuclear weapons. The Government's policy has always been to maintain the minimum deterrent required for our security needs. With the demise of the Warsaw Pact we have reduced our sub-strategic stockpile by more than 50 per cent., but nuclear forces will remain essential for our security.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is it not correct to remember that although we all abhor these terrible weapons they have been forced upon us? At all times we should remember the great speech of Ernest Bevin when he created the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the interests of freedom and safety, and in an endeavour to guarantee that freedom and safety to all those who may be threatened.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments.

Nuclear Weapons: Policy
3.46 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are proposing to increase Britain's strategic and sub-strategic nuclear capability.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government remain committed to retain the minimum nuclear capability necessary for credible and effective deterrence.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the defence White Paper plainly indicates that in the mid-1990s the Government are planning to have an overall nuclear fire power system well in excess of anything previously possessed? Is he aware also of the warnings in the White Paper in regard to the dangers of nuclear proliferation? How ale those two points to be reconciled? What events in the world have caused a considerable increase in our planned nuclear fire power?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is well aware that technical advances in anti-ballistic missile systems require us substantially to update the Polaris system through its replacement by Trident. If the noble Lord reads into the figures an increase in nuclear capacity, that increase is to fulfil that requirement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend remind those who seek to disarm this country that it was only the strength and resolution of this country a few years ago that produced the free Europe we see today?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend is correct.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that those of us who took part in the proceedings a few years ago, do not believe in yesterday? Is it not the case that today no technological increase has been made in ABM systems? Against whose ABM system is our increased technology directed? Is it directed at the Soviet Union our fellow members of NATO? Why do we need vastly increased expenditure in that regard when there is no effective enemy against whom to direct such capacity?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Trident system will need to be in operation for 30 years. We must plan ahead in these matters.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that nuclear proliferation in the long term is almost completely unavoidable? We must therefore be prepared to defend ourselves against possible attack from any direction.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend is totally correct in his observations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in relation to the independence of the nuclear weapons we possess, how far is it possible for Britain to target and re-target them without the assistance of United States technology and, more importantly, its satellites?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, that question falls into two parts. First, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to comment on targeting. Secondly, the status of Trident is that of a treaty which is lodged with the United Nations. I am sure that this House would not like to give any impression that we call into question the integrity of the United States Government in carrying out treaty obligations.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our nuclear deterrent should be credible, comprehensive and cohesive and that the current plans are therefore vital?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend is totally correct. That is the policy being pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in answer to his noble friend the Minister implied that he agreed that nuclear proliferation is inevitable. In that case can the Minister say why the Government support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend was referring to the fact that with the break-up of the Soviet Union large quantities of arms could well fall into the hands of what may in future be far from stable regimes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether his answer to me implies that Britain would never use its nuclear weapons without the United States being in favour of their use?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the use of nuclear weapons is a matter for determination by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is a hint in the defence White Paper that Trident might be used in future in a sub-strategic rather than a strategic role? Can he say what implication that has for the tactical air-to-surface missile? Will the noble Viscount let the House know when the Government are going to carry out the pledge given by the former Secretary of State for Defence to publish an unclassified version of the nuclear weapons' safety report?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as yet I cannot give an answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question. I shall see what information I can gather on the matter. Will the noble Lord be good enough to repeat the first part of the question?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Viscount may recall that the first part of my question was about the sub-strategic role of Trident. Hitherto, we have been told that Trident is a strategic nuclear deterrent. My understanding from the defence White Paper is that the Government now envisage the possibility of Trident being used in a sub-strategic role. What effect would that have on the tactical air-to-surface missile?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the whole matter of our sub-strategic nuclear requirement is at present under consideration. I do not believe that it would be proper for me to make any observations until the results of the investigations are known.

Business of the House: Debates, 15th July
3.52 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel set down for 15th July shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Judd set down for the same day to two hours. —(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Procedure Committee Report
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient for your Lordships if I say a word about how the proceedings on the Procedure Committee report might be conducted. After the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee has been agreed to, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, should perhaps rise and briefly introduce the report. I suggest that immediately after he has spoken the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Williams of Elvel should be taken. Those noble Lords wishing to make general points about the Procedure Committee's report should perhaps speak after the amendments have been disposed of on a Motion that the report, as amended, be reported to the House and before the report, as amended, is agreed to. I hope that that is a convenient suggestion.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, with the amendments tabled thereto, be considered this day in Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.54 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the first report.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ampthill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Following is the report referred to:
COMMITTEE WORK OF THE HOUSE
1. The report of the Committee on the Committee Work of the House was made on 10th February 1992 and debated on 3rd June 1992. The Committee has considered those aspects of the report which are its responsibility. The report's recommendations appear in italics.
Liaison Committee
We see no role for Lords' committees in duplicating the work of select committees in the Commons, and we believe there would he advantage in greater coordination of committee work between the two Houses, whether informally at official level or by occasional discussions between the Commons' Liaison Committee and a Lords' Steering Committee.
We see the need for a continuing oversight of the committee structure, for greater flexibility in that structure and for decisions about priorities to be taken by a committee of the House. We accordingly recommend the appointment of a Steering Committee.
The Committee should allocate resources between select committees; monitor the select committee work of the House; consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; ensure effective coordination between committees in the two Houses; and consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees.
2. The Committee accepts the case for a committee to co-ordinate the House's committee work. It should not be the task of such a committee to monitor the work of the various House committees. But it should continue the process of review initiated by the Committee on the Committee Work of the House, and should make recommendations about how the available resources should be distributed within a basic structure of committee activity. It should not interfere in matters which should properly be left to the committees themselves. The name "Steering Committeee" would therefore give a misleading impression of the committee's function. The Committee recommends that the committee should be called the "Liaison Committee".
3. Its terms of reference should be as follows:
"to allocate resources between select committees; to review the select committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective coordination between the the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees."
4. The Committee invites the Committee of Selection to nominate a committee of eight Lords, with the three Leaders and the Convenor of the crossbenchers or their representatives as members. The other four members of the committee should be backbenchers. The Leader should act as Chairman. The Chairman of Committees and the Chairmen of the main sessional and ad hoc committees should be entitled to attend the meetings of the committee and to receive its papers.
Public Bill Committees
We do not recommend an experiment in the comprehensive structure of policy committees put

1273
forward by the Practice and Procedure Committee in 1977. Nonetheless, we recognise that the House faces an ever increasing workload. Much could be achieved by greater self-restraint, the need for which has become apparent, but the time has come for the House to consider a limited amount of legislation off the floor to improve the quality of legislation and save some time on the floor.
It is too early to give a definitive view on the success or otherwise of the Public Bill Committee on the Charities Bill. We recommend that one or two suitable bills should be referred to such committees each session.
5. The Government response to the report of the Committee on the Committee Work of the House agreed that it was desirable to consider a limited number of bills off the floor of the House, provided that suitable bills could be found and that the committees were composed of a balanced selection of peers. The Committee endorses the experimental use of public bill committees when suitable bills are available. The decision on which bills are chosen should remain a matter for the usual channels.
Special Standing Committees
We recommend the experimental use of special standing committee procedure—whereby committees off the floor would be able to take a limited amount of evidence on a bill from interested parties over a specified period before considering it clause by clause. Such committees would initially consider only bills introduced in the Lords, largely devoid of party-political controversy.
This procedure would be well suited to the proposals put forward by the Lord Chancellor to facilitate the introduction of certain legal and technical bills, for example certain bills proposed by the two Law Commissions or those concerning company law, which might not otherwise find a place in the legislative programme.
6. The Committee endorses the proposal for an experiment with special standing committees. Such committees would take written and oral evidence within a period of 28 days after second reading. The committees would be free to organise their own programme within that limit. When the period was completed, the committee would become a public bill committee and would consider the bill clause by clause.
7. The Committee of Selection is invited to ensure that the Government is given a majority over the other political parties, but with the crossbenchers holding the balance.
8. In the Government response to the report, it was suggested that two or three bills might be considered in this way over the next two sessions, with the Committee assessing the results of the experiment after that time. The Committee considers that this would make a very worthwhile experiment.
Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee
We recommend, on an experimental basis, the appointment of a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to give closer and more systematic scrutiny to the delegated powers sought in bills. This would be well suited to the revising function of the House, and we believe it could have great potential value.
9. The Committee endorses the establishment of a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee on an experimental basis. The Committee should consider whether the delegation of powers proposed in a bill is appropriate; and if the delegation is appropriate, whether it should be subject to affirmative resolution, negative resolution, or not be subject to parliamentary proceedings. It would then report, and the House would of course be free to accept or reject its recommendations. The proposed terms of reference of the Committee are as follows:
"to report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power; or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny."
However, the first task of the Committee should be to take evidence with a view to establishing criteria for helping it judge the appropriateness of delegated powers and the degree of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee should then report to the House before its terms of reference are confirmed. The Committee should not begin to report on legislation until its terms of reference are confirmed in this way.
10. If the proposed terms of reference are confirmed, the Committee should consider bills in the week following their introduction, and should normally seek only a written reply from the Government. This should allow the reports to be available before the committee stage. If for whatever reason the report of the Committee is not ready for the committee stage, the House will be under no obligation to delay proceedings. The Committee should not itself draft amendments. The composition of the Committee is a matter for the Committee of Selection.
11. The experiment should be assessed at the end of this session.
Government Responses
The Committee welcomes the Government's agreement to respond in writing to all reports of the European Communities Committee and to do so within two months of publication. Government responses to the reports of other committees should be made within six months of publication.
12. The Committee welcomes the Government's undertaking to respond to reports of the European Communities Committee, if possible within two months of their publication, and in general to respond to the report of other committees within six months of publication.
Debates on committee reports
We make the following detailed recommendations:-

(i) Debates on major reports should not be held on days when the House meets in the morning.

(ii) Two Wednesdays should be allocated to debates on committee reports at the later stages in a session.

(iii) The usual channels should take greater account of committee reports when selecting subjects for their own debates.

13. The Committee sympathises with the concern of the Committee on the Committee Work of the House that business managers sometimes give insufficient

1275
priority to debates on select committee reports. The rules above should normally be followed, but there will inevitably be circumstances in which it will be in the interests of all to pursue a flexible approach. The Committee agrees with the suggestion that debates on select committee reports could be time limited in certain circumstances. Good committee reports do not always require long debates, and indeed committees should exercise restraint when deciding whether reports require a debate.
14. The Committee supports the linking of debates on committee reports with other debates when appropriate. If such debates are time-limited, the mover of the second motion should be allocated 15 minutes in a debate where the mover has 20 minutes, and at least 10 minutes in debates where the mover has 15 minutes.
Rotation Rule
We recommend that the rotation rule for the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee be reduced from five sessions to three; and that the rule should be strictly applied.
15. The Committee recommends that the rotation rule should be reduced to four years. This seems to provide the best balance between allowing members to settle in and a proper circulation of members. The rule should be applied strictly. It should therefore apply to all Lords, whether full members or co-opted members, and Lords who are not members should not receive committee papers on a regular basis. Lords will still be free to return to committees and sub-committees after an absence of one session, and to move immediately to another committee or sub-committee. There should be no change to the convention that the rotation rule is waived for Chairmen of sub-committees for up to three years.
Size of Sub-committees
We recommend that the membership of sub-committees should not exceed 12 in number; if members of committees do not attend with some regularity, they should not be re-appointed.
16. There is a danger that large sub-committees can take up a disproportionate amount of the available resources. The Committee endorses a maximum of 12 as the norm for sub-committees, but recognises that this may have to be extended in exceptional circumstances. In particular, there is a case for allowing an extension in the case of members co-opted for a single enquiry. To ensure that the maximum is applied in practice, Lords who are not members of the sub-committee should not receive the papers on a regular basis. Reasonably regular attendance should be regarded as a prerequisite for membership for both full and co-opted members of sub-committees.

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DIVISIONS
17. The Committee considered a suggestion from the Administration and Works Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee that the time allowed for divisions might have to be extended once Lords occupied the new offices at 7 Millbank. It was decided to defer consideration of the matter until the Autumn.
REFERENCES TO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
18. In the Committee's 2nd report, 1991–92, the use of the phrases "Right Honourable" and "Honourable" was discouraged. However, the use of the phrases "my Right Honourable Friend" and "Honourable Friend" is a useful form of shorthand when referring to a ministerial or party colleague in the House of Commons, and is to be welcomed.
The Chairman of Committees: I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
The Committee will be aware that the report is the latest stage in a long line of deliberation on the House's committee work. It is now well over a year since the House established the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The committee's detailed consideration of evidence led to its report last February, which was debated by the House last month. The debate gave an opportunity to the House to consider issues in depth, and the Procedure Committee was able to deliberate with a thorough summary of the debate before it. The Committee will wish to record once again its gratitude to my noble friend and his committee for their work. In particular, I am sure that the Committee would not wish this debate to pass without a tribute to Lord Kearton, who died last week. Not only was Lord Kearton a distinguished member of the Jellicoe Committee, but none of those who have served on the European Communities Committee or the Science and Technology Committee will forget the verve, intelligence and wit he brought to numerous committees as member and as chairman. He will be sorely missed, but warmly remembered.
The Procedure Committee report was restricted to those recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee which fell within its remit. Other recommendations will be considered by the proposed Liaison Committee, by the sub-committee of the Offices Committee and by the Committee of Selection. The Procedure Committee did not therefore consider the recommendations concerning the number of subcommittees of the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. Once the Liaison Committee has deliberated, it will report to the House with recommendations concerning the future structure of the committee system in this House. The Committee will be aware that the Committee of Selection recommended that last Session's membership of the two main sessional committees should be extended until 2nd November this year and that this was approved by the House. The possible extension of that date is on the agenda of the Committee of Selection next week, and it may well be that, now that the length of the Summer Recess is known, it would be appropriate to extend the date beyond 2nd November.
The Committee will by now be familiar with the issues raised by the noble Earl and his Committee, and I do not propose to go over the ground again in detail. It will be clear from the report that the Procedure Committee endorsed the great majority of the

1277
recommendations within its remit. The committee decided to stress that the Liaison Committee should not interfere in the running of the various committees, by changing its name and by recommending that it should "review", not "monitor", committee work. The committee also decided to recommend a larger Back Bench representation on the Liaison Committee. In general, however, the committee was happy to follow the strong consensus in the debate that some form of committee should be established to keep the House's committee structure under review.
Over the past few years, the House has experimented in the use of Public Bill Committees on a number of occasions, and the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure are now well known. But the committee was happy to endorse further experimentation if suitable Bills are available. In fact, it is probable that over the next two Sessions, most of the Public Bill Committee activity off the Floor will be linked to the use of special Standing Committees, again on an experimental basis. The Committee will have an opportunity to discuss the use of special Standing Committees without Public Bill Committees when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, moves his second amendment. In any event, the Procedure Committee looked forward to the use of this procedure, which should allow some of the strengths of Select Committee consideration to be brought to bear on the House's consideration of legislation, with a potential saving of time on the Floor of the House as well.
The final experiment recommended by the Procedure Committee is the establishment of a delegated powers scrutiny committee. This proposal received a warm welcome in the debate. The Procedure Committee recommended that the scrutiny committee should be set up very much on the lines outlined by the noble Earl's committee, although we do suggest that the committee should begin by taking evidence with a view to establishing the criteria to help it judge the appropriateness of delegated powers. If the committee is successful, it should bring an important new dimension to the scrutiny role of this House and take some of the discussions on these matters off the Floor of the House. Another advantage of the committee as laid out in the Jellicoe report is that it will not cause any delay to the legislative programme.
The remainder of the Procedure Committee report deals with government responses, debates on committee reports, the rotation rule and the size of sub-committees. The committee will be discussing some of these issues in the context of the amendments. The aim of the Procedure Committee in these paragraphs was to balance the needs of the committees with the needs of the House as a whole, and we followed in general the lead provided by the debate last month. I commend the Motion to the Committee.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be now considered.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4 p.m.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 1:
Paragraph 3, line 2, after ("to") insert ("advise the House on the resources required for select committee work and to").
The noble Lord said: At the outset, perhaps I may echo the tribute that the Chairman of Committees paid to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, whose death this week we all very much regret. In every respect, he was a noble man and he was a very faithful and diligent servant of this House.
When we had the debate on the report of the Jellicoe Committee, some strong criticisms were made of, in the main, the detail of the report. However, there was broad and warm support for the general thrust of the report and for the development of new committee structures in this House. It seems to me that we have come a long way since that debate. I should like to pay a particular tribute to the Government for their written response. I thought that it bore the hallmark—if I may use that word—of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House. It was conciliatory and understanding about the general spirit of the debate. The Procedure Committee has also taken particular note of what was said in the debate. Apart from one or two matters of detail, I hope that the House will give its warm support to the report.
I should like first to say a few words about paragraph 2. I think that the words that the noble Lord referred to will ensure the integrity and the independence of the committees, about which there was some doubt—perhaps mistakenly—in the Jellicoe Report. Paragraph 4 deals with the enlargement of the Liaison Committee, with the number of Back Benchers increasing from two to four. I hope that, when the Select Committee considers who those four should be, it will ensure that they represent the broad church of this House. They should feel free to put forward their own views within the Liaison Committee—perhaps to balance the special interests of the usual channels. They are much maligned, but there is always suspicion that their interests sometimes come through rather prominently.
I particularly support the recommendation that the noble Lord the Leader of the House should become the chairman of the committee. I assume that the Liaison Committee will report to the House and that notice will be given about the proposed meetings so that, if they wish to make representations to the committee, perhaps in terms of subjects that are suitable for ad hoc inquiries, Members will have had notice and can make their submissions at the right time.
During our consideration of the Jellicoe Report, the main anxiety was the apparent acceptance of the view that, in order to fund the new committees, it would be necessary to restrict the budget of the European Communities Committee. It was suggested in the report that the committees should be reduced in size and that they should be fewer in number. There was a general feeling that sacrifices were to be made there in order that the new enterprise could take place. From my own experience, I would say that the resources of the present committee are fully stretched. It is inconceivable that the present workload can be

1279
carried out in its present form and with its present thoroughness with any reduction in the scale of resources or Members' contributions.
It is difficult to see what developments will take place in the future. We hear a great deal about subsidiarity, to which the Government attach great importance. It may well be that Parliament—the two Houses—will need to have a watching brief over the way in which subsidiarity is applied, not only in this country but throughout the Community. The role of this committee is not to oversee the United Kingdom; it has been established in an effort to oversee the development in, and the acceptance by, other countries of the regulations and enactments of the Community. It therefore has a wide responsibility. My personal view is that there can be no diminution in its workload or reduction in its resources.
Paragraph 2 of the First Report of the Procedure Committee states:
"should make recommendations about how the available resources should be distributed within a basic structure of committee activity".
However, when one looks at the terms of reference, one sees that there is no mention of resources in the case of information to be provided to the House. At some stage, the committee will have to come to the House for approval for its recommendations and, unless one has the information about what resources are required for the committees to be able to perform their duties and can compare that with the resources that have been made available, it will be difficult to make a judgment about whether one should proceed further in other committees until more resources have been made available.
I feel strongly that the resources of the European Communities Committee should be retained. I hope that at some stage the noble Lord the Leader of the House can give us some indication of his thinking in this respect, because I believe that this is still a great anxiety in the committees and throughout the House. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the Leader of the House responds, perhaps I may support my noble friend's concerns, which were echoed in the debate on the Jellicoe Report and found resonance in the Procedure Committee. Although I emphasise that this is not a party matter but a matter for the House, the difficulty is that a number of my noble friends are worried that there may be a diminution of resources for the Select Committee work of the House or, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, that extra Select Committee work in the House may be undertaken at the expense of other committee work. It is in that spirit that my noble friend moved his amendment. We look forward to the response of the Leader of the House.
Lord Wakeham: It may be helpful if I say a word or two at this stage. I certainly recognise the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in moving the amendment. Both in my speech in the debate on the report of the Jellicoe Committee and in the Government's response, we have taken pains to emphasise that the reforms which the Procedure Committee is recommending will not be frustrated for lack of resources. As I see it, it will be one of the prime
1280
functions of the Liaison Committee to determine what resources might be required to enable the wishes of the House to be met. This may well involve an increase in the current level of resources allocated to committee work in the House. Indeed it is my expectation that the budget for committee work will need to increase as a result of the Jellicoe reforms, but I hope not too alarmingly or too quickly.
As I said in my speech in the debate on the Jellicoe Report, the main limiting factor to the expansion of committee work in the House will not be resources in terms of money or staff but the availability of Members of your Lordships' House willing to serve on committees. This is a matter which the Liaison Committee will need to consider most carefully. While it would clearly be right for the Liaison Committee to bear in mind the financial and other resource implications of new demands for committee activity, it is therefore certainly not the case that the committee will be able to use the non-availability of Clerks or other resources as a reason for denying the House its wishes. I am therefore quite happy to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
The Chairman of Committees: As the Lord Privy Seal has said, there is no great objection to this proposal. I am not entirely convinced of the necessity of the amendment but I have no objection to its substance.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I very much support the ideas put forward by my noble friends Lord Shepherd and Lord Williams of Elvel. I speak particularly of the European Communities Committee. The work of the European Communities Committee will inevitably increase as the months and years pass. We have experience already of an almost unending cascade of proposals of one kind or another or of draft regulations emanating from the Commission and from the Council which require some urgent review and some urgent examination before the Government themselves may be advised by Parliament as to what action may be recommended to them.
It is not always safe, particularly under current circumstances, that an undue burden should be placed on the Government to arrive at decisions unaided in these matters. Most Ministers of the Crown have considerable departmental responsibilities which occupy most of their time. They must place heavy reliance on their civil servants to be advised as to what action they might think fit to take. Indeed it is common knowledge—I speak, I think, within the recollection of most of us—that Ministers on ministerial Councils such as ECOFIN—I can name many more—are very often completely unaware of the decisions that they are required to make until they are on the aeroplane on the way to the Council meeting and are provided with the papers. Many of them have not had an adequate examination of the papers before they are invited to make decisions. Indeed most of them—if my information is correct: I have no reason to assume otherwise—are made by COREPER in collaboration with the Commission itself.

1281
I make no complaint about that, but the role of Parliament, and in particular of this House, in making its views known after due examination of the facts and in making its own views known to the Government is of crucial importance to the successful functioning of the United Kingdom within the European Community and, in the case of this House, to the fulfilment of its traditional role of revising and very carefully examining legislation that comes before it.
I am glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House appeared to give some support to the idea that the committee's resources might even be increased in years to come. I most certainly welcome that. There is of course always the necessity for conserving public expenditure and reducing it to all proper limits. But in order to give an example perhaps I may say this. If a Select Committee of this House or even of another place cares to examine the preliminary draft budget of the Community for the year 1993, it could find economies there in wholly unnecessary and extravagant expenditure which if taken up by the Government at Community level would result in far greater savings to the Exchequer than any increased costs by reason of any extra expenditure on the activities of the European Communities Committee.
Therefore I hope that the Government will take note of this point. The fact that the new Steering Committee will contain a number of Back Benchers —possibly an increased number—will enable the Steering Committee to keep its finger on the pulse and will enable it to inform the House. I sincerely hope that the Committee will accept the amendment put forward by my noble friend.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may make a brief intervention to support the important suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The noble Lord suggested that some system might be devised by which a list of proposals to set up Select Committees could be published and made open to comment by noble Lords before the decision was taken as to which committees were set up. In the past all this has been wrapped in the esoteric mists of—
Lord Renton: The usual channels.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank my noble friend very much. I need say no more.
Lord Flowers: Perhaps I may—
Lord Shepherd: I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House—
Lord Flowers: Perhaps I may briefly thank the Procedure Committee for going so far towards meeting the criticisms I have of some of the details of the otherwise excellent Jellicoe Report. What now remains is something which in general I am happy to support. So far as concerns the amendment, however, perhaps I may remind the Committee that I was not in favour of a Steering Committee. That proposal has now been changed and we are to have a Liaison Committee with somewhat weaker powers. I am not
1282
very much in favour of that but I certainly do not intend to oppose it. But if we have it, it is essential that it should look at the total resources required for committee work. Someone has to do that. If there is to be a Liaison Committee, surely that must do it. Therefore I shall support the amendment.
Lord Shepherd: I apologise to the noble Lord. Not only do we have to keep our eyes open for the usual channels but we have also to look for the Chairman at the Table.
I should like to say a word of thanks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the way in which he has responded to the amendment. It will lift a considerable cloud of uncertainty. I accept all that he has said in the spirit in which he said it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 2:
Paragraph 6, line 4, after first ("would") insert ("usually") and leave out ("and would") and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: I warmly supported the recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee for setting up a special Standing Committee if only, in the first instance, in an experimental form. It had very much the indications that we had when we considered the 1977 report on practice and procedure. At that time, this Chamber was not very happy about it. However, now, with the passing of time, we have changed our minds. I think that 28 days is quite satisfactory. However, I presume that the setting up of the committees and the invitations for evidence could be arranged prior to the Second Reading; in other words, we could get the maximum use of the 28 days between Second Reading and the Committee stage.
My anxiety in regard to the report relates to the inflexibility. Here we have the recommendation that a Standing Committee, having taken evidence, should inflexibly become a Public Bill Committee. It could be that in the taking of evidence it becomes clear that the Bill is not quite what it was thought to be. Therefore, there may then be a need for the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. As drafted, the report has that lack of flexibility, which I should like to see improved.
Moreover, the Government may well introduce a Bill which is of such importance that it would automatically be for consideration on the Floor of the House. However, it may be a Bill of such a nature whereby evidence might be of advantage to the House in Committee. Therefore, as now drafted, without that flexibility, we can do neither of those two things. I believe that there are advantages in having some flexibility in the matter. I hope that my proposal will be considered. I beg to move.
Lord Wakeham: I fully understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that during this experimental phase the way in which a special Standing Committee might operate should be left with some degree of flexibility. I am grateful to him for what he said about my response to the previous amendment. This time I shall try a different response, but I hope that the noble Lord will also think that it is helpful. Nevertheless, it is not the same response.
It appears to me that the noble Lord's amendment is not really necessary. I can certainly give Members of

1283
the Committee an assurance that, if it appeared after the evidence-taking process had been completed that a Bill which had been committed to a special Standing Committee would be dealt with more appropriately in a Committee of the Whole House rather than upstairs in a Public Bill Committee, the Government would certainly negotiate through the usual channels as to the best way to proceed. In such circumstances—which I have to say I do not actually envisage occurring—the Government would no doubt put down a Motion discharging the Order of Commitment of the Bill to a special Standing Committee and recommitting the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House.
If noble Lords opposite feel that a Bill is inappropriate for the Public Bill procedure I have no doubt that similar arrangements would be made. In general, I believe that such issues are best left to the usual channels rather than to the discretion of the special Standing Committee itself. I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lord. I recognise the fact that we need flexibility and I give him those assurances. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am bound to say that I am startled by the response just given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It seems to me that the report of the Procedure Committee says the opposite of what he has just said. It states quite clearly that, when the Bill is completed, the Committee will become a Public Bill Committee and consider the Bill clause by clause. The noble Lord has now said something quite different.
I suppose it was inevitable that the bulk of the consideration in the Chamber of the Jellicoe Report would have been about the Select Committee procedures, because so many noble Lords give distinguished service on those committees. But, personally, I feel much more strongly about the need to improve the consideration of public legislation by this House on the Floor of the House. For that reason, when the debate took place, I emphasised my support for the special Standing Committee procedure and for a delegated powers scrutiny committee. It seemed to me that both of those innovations would improve the possibility of the House as a whole considering legislation in Committee and on Report in an intelligent and well-informed way, without unnecessary delay and without in any way deliberately slowing down the process of legislation.
When I read the Procedure Committee's report it seemed to me that the suggestion that a special Standing Committee would in due course become a Public Bill Committee was merely a mistake in drafting, because the two issues are separate. When we are considering Public Bill Committees—yes, by all means we must take account of the success of the Charities Bill—we should continue to seek Bills which are not controversial and yet which may be complex enough to go into Public Bill Committees.
But that is not the purpose in any way of the special Standing Committees. As I understand them, the special Standing Committees are intended to ensure that the House, through a special committee, has an
1284
opportunity to invite witnesses and to give consideration before going into the formal and sometimes adversarial proceedings of Committee, Report and Third Reading. I cannot for the life of me see how the two are connected. Moreover, I cannot for the life of me see how my noble friend Lord Shepherd is wrong to suggest that the connection should, at the very least, be weakened. I should have thought that it should be taken away altogether.
I do not know what my noble friend intends to do. I know that he will pay great attention to the assurances sincerely given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. However, I do not think that the noble Lord was adequately reflecting what the report of the Procedure Committee actually says. I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: I should have thought that we could quite well try to get the best of both worlds on this matter. There are some Bills which would need to go to a special Standing Committee so that evidence can be taken. But surely we need not be narrow minded and assume that all such Bills should then be considered further by the special Standing Committee. Of course, some of them should continue to be considered by that committee, but there are other Bills of such wide interest and public importance that they should, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, be brought to the Floor of the House.
Of course, we are now approving and amending a report of a Select Committee. If I may say so, it is a very good report and, in passing, I should like to congratulate the Chairman of Committees on having presided for the first time over the Procedure Committee with such excellent results. But surely the Rules of the House will eventually have to be amended in order to comply with what we decide today should be the ultimate terms of that Select Committee. When the Rules of the House are amended, could we not achieve the flexibility mentioned by my noble friend the Leader of the House and make it possible, as I said, for us to have the best of both worlds?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The objection of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not readily understood against the assurance given by my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is an assurance as to the implementation of a report. Surely that is good enough. Be it so, if later it be embodied in the Rules of the House. We are the masters of our own procedure. Surely an assurance from my noble friend the Leader of the House is totally satisfactory.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway: the House is master of its procedures. I listened with care and interest to the Leader of the House. I understand the point he makes. My only anxiety is whether the usual channels are a sufficient mechanism for picking up opinions in all quarters of the House. If we were to adopt the proposals of the Leader of the House, we might need to improve the procedures for input into the usual channels from the Cross Benches.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I support the report's recommendations as they stand. I am strongly in favour of using Standing Committees to deal with complex matters which are not controversial in a party sense but which involve a great deal of intricate detail which is more suitable to discussion rather than debate. It is discussion we want where a Bill affects different people differently. We get that in a Standing Committee but not on the Floor of the House. When a Committee stage is on the Floor of the House the attendance is often no better than in a Standing Committee. Also we are yards and yards apart and often inaudible to one another when we are trying to solve an intricate problem. It is better done in a Standing Committee.
The proposal is a novelty in two senses. In my time there have been only two Standing Committees dealing with Bills. I served on one of them. I was greatly impressed by the zealous attendance, application to the task in hand and willingness to reach a settlement on difficult matters. The one thing we did not have, which is mentioned in the report, was the opportunity to consider evidence from interested parties—in writing or orally—before we embarked upon deciding, as a Public Bill Committee, what shape the Bill should take.
I wish the other place had done that years and years ago. Standing Committees in another place are deprived of the opportunity of going deeper into the Bill. They are fully exposed to the mischief of lobbies. When a Standing Committee starts in the other place there are a great many lobbies. Representations are made. The public accommodation is crowded. There are queues outside. Everyone is trying to get in to listen to what the Standing Committee is doing. But it is evidence, not pressure, that we want. There is far too much pressure. Here we have an opportunity to listen to evidence.
I am in favour of having a time limit on that procedure. This place is a self-indulgent Chamber. There is no doubt about that. We have no constituents to drive us but, by God, the demon of our congenital make-up drives us on. I am as big a culprit as anyone in the House. It is a good idea to have some discipline on the hearing of evidence, and 28 days is long enough. After all, as my noble friend said, the Bill has already been through this place on Second Reading. Taking evidence will enable us to get a little closer to some of the difficulties of the Bill. I am all in favour of that.
If the Standing Committee gets into difficulties and wants to hear a great deal more evidence, it has only to come back to this place to ask for it and it will obtain it. I do not like the word "usually" because there is no "usually" about it. Each case can be looked at on its merits. However we want unrestricted time to operate as a Public Bill Committee. We do not want too much time but, on the other hand, we do not want to be tied down.
I commend the report in that respect. I ask the Committee to bear in mind as a matter of pride that we went into the Charities Bill Committee with the product of four years' study of the complexities of charity law. We produced a Bill that not only passed
1286
through this place with little difficulty in the end but one which when it went to the other place passed through without debate. Has that ever been heard of —a Charities Bill which took four years to gestate but which went through the other place without debate? The other place knew very well that it could not make a better job of it than we had. We did that in Standing Committee in less than three weeks. I should like to see more Bills go to Standing Committee. There is great pleasure to be obtained from tackling the different problems contained in Bills in an atmosphere of discussion and application. That is the most rewarding part of the work in this place, and I support the Procedure Committee's recommendations. It has done a jolly good job. When this issue has been back to it and it has reconsidered it and put forward its final recommendations, we should accept what it says.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise for speaking again, but we are all on the same side in regard to the substantive issues. We are all in favour of Special Standing Committees. We are all in favour of Public Bill Committees on certain occasions; and yet I believe that we are all in favour of major legislation coming through this place being taken on the Floor of the House. Our difficulty is that the wording of the report is unambiguous. It says that it would become a Public Bill Committee. The assurances given by the Leader of the House are in direct contradiction to what the report says. That is the difficulty. It will have to be resolved somehow—either by the Leader of the House or by the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: What the Leader of the House has said is entirely reasonable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The Leader of the House has given us every undertaking necessary. There must be general agreement before a Bill goes through the proposed procedure in any event. If there is widespread opposition to the procedure being used, the Bill will not go to the Special Standing Committee. In short, we have received every undertaking we could reasonably ask for.
The Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his kind remarks about the report. There is a possibility that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have misunderstood what a Special Standing Committee is. It is not a Select Committee. It is a hybrid of a Select Committee and a Public Bill Committee. The Leader of the House has dealt with the matter on the basis upon which the recommendation was made by the Jellicoe Committee and discussed by the Procedure Committee. It is therefore possible that the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord McIntosh, have somewhat moved the goalposts. In the light of what the Leader of the House has said, and bearing in mind that this is an experiment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will feel inclined to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shepherd: I am in some difficulty. I accept the assurances given by the Leader of the House. I also take the view that the contribution of the noble Lord,

1287
Lord Renton, was helpful because in the end the report is a report. It must be translated into the Rules of the House. There are others of my noble friends who feel strongly. In the light of the assurances, and taking into account the flexibility that has been shown over recent weeks, especially by the Leader of the House—there has been a good deal of activity in the various Corridors—if we were to leave the recommendation as it is something good might be achieved through taking that course. If we still have anxieties when the Rules come to the House, that might be the moment to test the will of the House. That is me going back to the days when I sat on the Front Bench opposite doing the same job as the Leader of the House: trying to find a way through a difficulty.
It is also clear that when I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, it is entirely up to the Committee to disagree. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 3:
Paragraph 12, line 3, at end insert ("Debates should not normally take place before the Government response is published, unless the committee which made the report wishes otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: The Jellicoe Committee took on board the anxieties that had been expressed about how departments had responded to reports and correspondence. I remember making a rather severe speech in the House 18 months ago. I have been assured in every quarter that since then there has been a most welcome and marked improvement in the way in which departments respond to reports and correspondence. We also have the assurance of the noble Lord the Leader of the House through the government response.
The purpose of my amendment is to suggest that debates on reports of our committees should at best be taken after a reply has been received from the Government. Most of our experience where we have had a debate with no response is that it has not been a good debate. However, when there has been a response, we have had a good debate which has been useful to all sides of the House.
Therefore, I suggest that usually the debate should not take place until a reply has been received from the Government. That would be helpful and would still permit, if matters were urgent, the committee to proceed without a reply. This is a small technical amendment and I do not believe that it raises any controversy. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wonder about this. It is easier for the Back Benches to debate a matter before the Government have made their response. Speaking for myself, I have found on more than one occasion that it is easier to have an objective debate before one knows the Government's response. So, with the greatest respect, as one member of the Back Benches I oppose the amendment.
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. It seems to me that once a government report is published, the Government's position is likely to be maintained. They are reluctant to change their minds.
Lord Flowers: All that I intended to say has been said. The requirements of the European committees, for example, may be one matter; the requirements of the Science and Technology Committee are perhaps another. It is very much our view that when we have produced a report, we should present it to the House, have it debated and see whether it has substantial support. If it has, that will naturally influence the Government whenever they come to their formal response.
It could be argued that in those circumstances the Government's immediate response to the debate is rather wishy-washy because they have not yet thought about it very much. But at least we have started the procedure of getting them to consider their response. Thus, we believe that the balance of advantage lies in debate as early as possible. For that reason I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Wakeham: I am on the side of flexibility. I therefore commend the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to the Committee. I am sure that it would be generally for the convenience of the House not to debate Select Committee reports until the Government's response is available in writing, unless, for whatever reason, the committee considers otherwise. Then the debate could precede the response. It seems to me that we have the best of both worlds: I suggest to the Committee that we should grab it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out paragraph 15 and insert:
("15. The Committee recommends that the rotation rule should be reduced to four sessions. This seems to provide the best balance between allowing members to settle in and a proper circulation of members. The rule applies only to membership of a particular committee or sub-committee. Thus Lords rotated off a committee or sub-committee may move immediately to another committee or sub-committee. They may also return to the same committee or sub-committee after an absence of one session. However, within these limits, the rule should be applied strictly. It should apply to all Lords, including those who have switched between being co-opted members and full members. Lords who are not members should not receive committee papers on a regular basis. The only exception to the rule that no Lord should serve on any one committee or sub-committee for more than four sessions should be that chairmen of sub-committees should still be allowed exemption from the rotation rule for up to three sessions.")
The noble Lord said: The origin of this rather lengthy amendment is paragraph 15 of the Procedure Committee's report. When my noble friends and I met to discuss the paragraph, it did not seem to any of us easily comprehensible. I was therefore asked what I thought it meant and others of my noble friends gave their version. As a result, I took advice on an appropriate amendment to make paragraph 15 comprehensible to everyone without changing its substance. I hope very much that the amendment I put before the Committee achieves that task.
I emphasise again that the amendment does not attempt to change any of the conclusions of the Procedure Committee. As a member of that committee I feel that it would be improper to try to

1289
move any change of substance on the Floor of the House. This is purely a drafting proposal to make matters more comprehensible. I hope that the Committee will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
Line 1, leave out ("be reduced to four") and insert ("remain at five").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. I apologise for detaining the Committee but the vexed question of rotation is an important issue. The Jellicoe Committee recommended a three-year period. I believe that all those who have had any experience of the committees came to the conclusion that three years was too short a time. Some people, like myself, would have stood by the present level of five years, but if there is a consensus on four years, then I would quite happily agree to it.
However, I say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the rotation rule needs to have regard to the effect on representation, particularly in subcommittees. We need representation on them from the political parties, the Cross-Benches and the broad church of the House. If the rotation period is too short, it is possible that we may not be able to achieve that degree of cover.
Will four years prove satisfactory? I have a feeling—and advice has been given to me in a number of quarters—that four years will create difficulty in some committees to some parties or to the independents. At the moment, it is not clear how the proposal will work from one committee to another. I believe that the rotation rule must have regard to how proper representation can be achieved on committees.
If the Committee reaches a consensus on four years, I ask the Leader of the House whether a study can be undertaken by the Liaison Committee on how it will apply to all committees of your Lordships' House. By that I mean also sub-committees. If there are difficulties or problems with representation, then, as we said earlier in regard to the report, whether or not there is the means, it must still be implemented. If there are difficulties, then perhaps a liaison committee could find a way of extending the period for some members beyond the rotation period, if only to provide proper representation in the committee.
My last point arises from the rotation problem and its effect upon the European Communities Committee. The Leader of the House will know that when we came back after the election to the debate on the Jellicoe Report, it was decided that the European Communities Committee should have its life extended until about the beginning of November. If the Liaison Committee is set up, it has to consider the matter and submit a report to the Chamber. That report then has to be considered and committees have to be appointed and installed with a new workload. Therefore it seems to me unlikely that these committees will be operating much before the middle of November at best. They may not have reached their maximum efficiency until December.
I am advocating that the European Communities
1290
Select Committee should continue in its present form, as it was appointed in the previous Session and as it was extended until November, until the end of December. This country, through the Government, is the president of the Community. It is a period of great interest for those in Parliament and the people of our country. It would seem strange to have committees in a degree of limbo, unable to get to grips with what is being proposed by the Commission or with what may be emanating from the Council of Ministers.
Ministers have treated us extraordinarily well. They have recognised the worth of reports that have been produced. Ministers have undertaken not to proceed to a Council meeting unless the proposal of the Commission that is to be considered that day has been cleared, or a report has been provided. These committees need to be operating fully and efficiently during this time. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to consider the extension—I believe the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was hinting at that, although I do not think he intended to go as far as I would wish—until the end of the year. The new committees, when they are restructured by the Liaison Committee, could start on 1st January. I believe that to be the right date in the circumstances. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to regard Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as though they were grouped.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I hope I may say a few brief words in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on rotation. I do not wish to take further the discussion on party representation, but I wish to consider the pragmatic approach, particularly in connection with the European Communities Select Committee. It has proved sometimes to be somewhat difficult to man some of the sub-committees, particularly when a requirement arises to form an ad hoc committee. Usually the ad hoc committee has to deal with a matter of a fairly serious and non-routine nature. It then becomes difficult to find people to sit on the sub-committee as they may be otherwise committed.
As regards the other committees, it has been my personal experience that it takes a year or so to get into the work of a committee. It has also been my experience that some of the more important matters are of a recurring nature. It would be prudent therefore to ensure some continuity in the case of a matter that may return to a sub-committee by virtue of a further direction or draft from the Commission. That may occur in the fourth or fifth year after the matter was first discussed. I believe that there is a good deal of merit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wish to follow the comments of my noble friend Lord Shepherd and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I agree with what I would call the four-year compromise. Indeed, that is stated in my amendment. Nevertheless, there is the problem of how that compromise is to be implemented. What are the practicalities? If there is a guillotine at a certain

1291
point and all new committees are suddenly placed on a four-year rotation as opposed to a five-year rotation period, I believe that my party may be at a certain disadvantage as regards representation. That is the only party point I wish to make. If, on the other hand, there is to be a pragmatic way of phasing the measure in, I do not think we would have any serious worries.
Lord Wakeham: I shall try to deal with Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that his amendment would clarify the situation. It is an extremely long amendment. Years of experience have taught me to treat with some suspicion a long and complicated amendment which is supposed to clarify the situation. However, I agree with the noble Lord in that I believe the amendment clarifies the situation. It does not alter the sense of the report of the Procedure Committee but it clarifies the matter of how the rotation rule will work in practice. I am sure that the Committee will consider it a sensible and helpful amendment. I commend it to the Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has explained that Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 maintain the status quo as regards the operation of the rotation rule. The Committee will recall that the Jellicoe Committee recommended that the rotation rule should be reduced from five Sessions to three. In the debate on the Jellicoe Committee report the consensus became clear—several Members of the Committee have remarked on it—that a reduction in the rotation rule to four years was appropriate. I believe the thrust of the Jellicoe Committee's argument still holds good. The committee thought that a reduction in the rotation rule would bring new blood into the committees and sub-committees and would enable the work of the committees to become better integrated with that of the Chamber as a whole.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, makes clear that the rotation rule is in itself not a rigorous rule. It does not preclude a Member who is rotated off one committee or sub-committee from joining another committee or sub-committee. Moreover, after one Session in purdah, a member is free to rejoin a committee or sub-committee of his or her choice should a vacancy become available. In the circumstances I wonder whether the Committee would be wise to accept the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
I understand the concern being expressed by some about how the introduction of a new rotation rule, and indeed the implementation of the Jellicoe reforms themselves, might affect the existing work and membership of the Science and Technology Committee and the European Communities Committee. In respect of the latter, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, there is an obvious sensitivity as regards interrupting the committee's work during the British presidency of the Community.
The questions of how the new rotation rule should be introduced, and when the new committee structure should be implemented, are interlinked. In appointing new committees —I believe that it cannot now happen at the beginning of November, as at one time we
1292
thought, but will have to be deferred, perhaps until the end of November—the Committee of Selection will wish to preserve continuity amid change. I have no doubt that the importance of the need to avoid dislocation of the work of the Select Committees of this Chamber should be at the forefront—indeed it will be at the forefront—of the deliberations of the Committee of Selection. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this is a matter that the Liaison Committee may well wish to consider to ensure that it is working satisfactorily, is a good one. I certainly agree with that suggestion.
That is how I would proceed. I believe there is a concern, which the noble Lord highlighted and brought to our attention in his amendments, but I think we can deal with the matter without changing the report in the way he suggests.
5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I may briefly speak again to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and, of course, the consequential Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 4 provides a redraft of existing paragraph 15 to explain a little more clearly the detailed working of the rotation rule. The important point to bear in mind is that the rule relates only to a particular sub-committee. The clock starts as soon as a noble Lord joins a sub-committee or committee but membership of any other committee has no bearing on how it works. Thus a member of European Sub-Committee A, who has served for the requisite number of sessions, can immediately move to Sub-Committee B; or if the noble Lord is a diehard supporter of Sub-Committee A the Select Committee would be free to invite him back on Sub-Committee A after one session's absence, if he so wished. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, lays this out in rather greater detail than the original draft and I am perfectly happy to accept it.
As to Amendment No. 5, some of the details of the rotation rule are difficult to understand and the Committee, I think, will agree that the rule, as contained in the report is quite a generous one. It would allow a noble Lord to serve on the different sub-committees of the European Communities Committee for life, without interruption, if so invited. He might serve on the same sub-committee for eight years out of nine. In view of that I thought the modest change suggested by the Procedure Committee was reasonable. The Jellicoe Committee, having received various representations on the subject, supported a figure of three years.
Having assessed the debate, the Procedure Committee concluded that four years, strictly applied, provided the right balance. I still believe that a reasonable turnover of Lords is in the best interest of the committees and of the House as a whole, and I therefore urge that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, should be rejected.
Lord Shepherd: It may be suggested that I should withdraw the amendment rather than invite its rejection. I said at the beginning that we have come a long way: I believe that we have now reached a point

1293
of consensus. It would be wrong therefore to react to the challenge of the Chairman of Committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Question is, That I do report the First Report from the Procedure Committee to the House with amendments.
Lord Renton: I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time but I should be grateful for an assurance from my noble friend the Leader of the House that there will not be delay in the appointment of the Scrutiny Committee for examining delegated powers. I simply remind your Lordships that the Jellicoe Committee, all who spoke in the debate on the matter, and members of the Procedure Committee are all in favour of the appointment of the Scrutiny Committee. It really is most necessary because of the greatly increased insertion of those powers in Bills in recent years. I hope that we shall have that confirmed.
Lord Thurlow: I should like to say a brief word in relation to the delegated powers scrutiny committee. First, may I express warm appreciation of the very positive attitude taken by the Leader of the House and also by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Originally, there were certain natural reservations on the part of departments. Your Lordships will recall that I visited Australia on behalf of your Lordships to see how a scrutiny committee worked. It took four years for the Government to be persuaded to withdraw their reservations; so I think we owe a debt to the Government for their positive attitude.
As regards the proposal that initially evidence should be taken to establish the criteria which may guide the committee, it will be necessary to work very much on a pragmatic basis. However, it can do nothing but assist the committee to be given evidence on criteria. I hope and believe that any criteria, any formulation, will be fixed in very general terms.
I should like to say a brief word on the appointment of a legal adviser. In the Australian experience, the calibre and the extremely hard work of the legal adviser are regarded on all sides as having played a key part in the influence of its scrutiny committee. I hope very much that every possible effort will be made to find someone with both the qualifications and the commitment—a commitment which will have to be exercised often against a considerable time deadline. I hope it will be possible to find the right kind of person and that your Lordships will not expect too much from the Scrutiny Committee in its early days. There are vast numbers of regulations every year. It would be very much better to have scrutiny in depth of some of the more difficult cases rather than shallow scrutiny over a very wide field.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Regarding paragraph 4 of the committee's report, I should like to echo what was
1294
said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in moving his first amendment. He talked of a special committee of eight Lords and the necessity of having four Back Benchers of the widest possible representation of your Lordships. Those four people, broadly representing all parties, I imagine, would have to take account of the views of what is on an average sitting day some 270 to 280 Members. That is going to be a fairly responsible task for those four people. We should perhaps invite the Committee of Selection to bear that in mind.
Perhaps the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees can advise me on a further point. I quote from line 5 of paragraph 16:
"Lords who are not members of the sub-committee should not receive the papers on a regular basis."
Most of your Lordships are very responsible people and are not usually very happy collecting paper for paper's sake. Enough of it comes in the ordinary course of events. It seemed perhaps a little unnecessary for the Procedure Committee to draw the attention of noble Lords to this collection of papers. At the same time it may dissuade some noble Lords, who may have a particular interest in, and perhaps a special contribution to make to, the work being done to keep abreast of the developments which are going on in a particular committee, even though he or she may not be a member.
Earl Russell: I too welcome paragraph 9 and the delegated powers scrutiny committee. The Procedure Committee has handled the matter extremely well. It has incorporated the reservations suggested by the Government on 3rd June, which were sensible ones. It has dealt with the problem that we discussed on 3rd June as to whether we should attempt to reach a consensus before setting up the committee or set up the committee and then reach for a consensus. The Procedure Committee's way of squaring the circle on the matter has been very practical: I admire it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I hope that the consensus that is looked for will be expressed in general terms. This is an area in which one needs to be able to have a degree of growth in response to cases as they come up. It is an area in which no two cases are quite on all fours with each other. I hope that the consensus which we shall look for and to which I hope to contribute on general principles will allow evolution as we go along in response to cases as they arise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We want the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the delegated powers scrutiny committee as well. At least some of us do. However, I do not think it would be proper to let this moment pass without thanking all the members of the Procedure Committee and in particular the noble Lords the Chairman of Committees and the Leader of the House for the way in which they reacted to the report of the Jellicoe Committee.
It seems to me that we have combined protection of resources for the Select Committees of the House—not an open-ended protection; I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord the Leader about that—with an expansion of committee work. We have taken a

1295
step, perhaps only a very small one, toward the improvement of the ability of the Chamber to consider legislation on the Floor of the House. For that we must thank all those who have taken part in the deliberations.
The Chairman of Committees: I am deeply grateful to the whole Committee for the excellent way in which these discussions have been conducted. I am particularly grateful, as noble Lords would expect, and I am sure that I speak also on behalf of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, for the kind words which have been said about the work of the Procedure Committee and of the contribution which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has made.
We have had a useful discussion. I hope that all noble Lords are as content as they sound with the conclusions reached. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the somewhat abrupt word which I used in connection with his Amendment No. 5. I hope that he will accept that apology from me.
The Committee of Selection meets on Monday next. We shall certainly give consideration to all the points that have been raised which are specifically for that committee. I repeat my thanks to the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed: First Report from the Procedure Committee reported with amendments.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Procedure Committee, as amended, be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Systematic Biology Research: Select Committee Report
5.14 p.m.
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Systematic Biology Research (1st Report, 1991–92, H.L. Paper 22) and of the contribution of this research to the preservation of biological diversity and to medicine.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there was a moment, when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was moving his Amendment No. 3 to the proposals of the committee of Lord Jellicoe, when I thought that I might be the last chairman of a Select Committee to introduce a debate before the Government had made their response to the report itself. To that extent I should, as it were, have been the last surviving member of a species about to become extinct. That leads me naturally to the subject of the report, which I want to present to you now.
I suppose that it would not be surprising if there were many like myself in your Lordships' Horse for whom the words "systematic biology" had little significance. Yet many of us can recollect those few
1296
school and college contemporaries who liked nothing better than to collect and mount wild flowers or insects (especially it seemed to me beetles, butterflies and moths) and then proceed to name them according to a binomial system indicating their genus and species. A little later we may have learned how enterprising British mariners, colonial administrators, explorers and others who were curious about natural history gathered living plants and animals and the fossilised remains of extinct species from places near and far from this country, and then lodged the specimens in zoos, botanic gardens or museums, which were sometimes private but more often public. So were created some of the finest and largest collections in the world in places like Kew, Edinburgh and the Natural History Museum at South Kensington.
The intellectual and practical impact of this work has been enormous. The lively imaginations of eminent Victorians such as Darwin, Wallace and Mendel, who attempted to establish relationships involving parentage, form, function and habitat of members of the plant and animal kingdoms, led to the notions of evolution, natural selection and genetic inheritance. Those ideas transformed the way in which humans see themselves in the world and have constituted a major and lasting intellectual and cultural revolution.
Moreover, by providing a basis for the sciences of plant and animal breeding, genetics has transformed agriculture throughout the world and with it raised the standards of living of billions of human beings. It has also enabled the identification of species which carry plant and animal (including human) disease and thereby made possible the control of epidemics as well as the development of disease-resistant strains, or of other remedies to pests.
In the past 40 years there have been two further giant steps forward, in both of which British scientists have played major roles far in excess of what would be expected from such a numerically small population. The first step relates to the identification that advances in molecular biology have provided of the nature and ordering of the chemical components in genetic material, which are later expressed in the form and function of the adult animal or plant. That too is a field pregnant with beneficial possibilities, including the creation of new industries, such as biotechnology, based on genetically engineered organisms in medicine and agriculture. It has even affected, through DNA profiling, our socio-legal system.
There are literally tens of millions of living distinct species, each of which can be uniquely placed in an unambiguous system of biological classification. Given enough time and effort, each individual species and its properties could ultimately be related to a particular kind of genetic material. That mass of information invites the creation of a universal computerised catalogue of living and extinct organisms which could be interrogated by anyone who understands the system. Again—this is my second point—Britain's record in computer software development is significant and could be built upon were that procedure to be followed.
Systematic biology is a crucial part of biology which is poised now for major development through interaction with molecular biology and computer science. The present is a time of great scientific opportunity and systematic biology research, which already has some practical applications, will undoubtedly lead to many more. I must also explain that it is just the time in the world's history when that information is desperately needed.
The facts are that only a small proportion of the world's organisms have been identified. The larger, unidentified residue undoubtedly contains a vast amount of valuable genetic material which humankind will need to draw upon in the future. As the present Governor of Hong Kong eloquently told us in his Natural Environment Research Council annual lecture in 1990, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, the world's existing biodiversity must be recorded and preserved. That is required just when the economic activities of the burgeoning human population constitute the greatest threat to its existence. The Prime Minister's participation with many other heads of state in the Rio de Janeiro Conference last month gives even greater emphasis to that point. I therefore hope that I have convinced your Lordships that research in systematic biology is not only intellectually exciting but is urgently needed. The opportunity for more rapid advance by bringing the classificatory, the molecular biological and the information technological techniques simultaneously to bear has never been greater. Furthermore, Britain's vast specimen collections themselves constitute a very important asset in that enterprise.
The sub-committee whose report we are debating today was set up because the main Select Committee on Science and Technology became aware of some signs that Britain had not played, and is not playing, the part that she ought to play in this great international enterprise which will assuredly bring great benefits to our country and to the rest of the world. Much anecdotal testimony to that effect was brought to our notice. However, we wanted harder evidence. We therefore conducted a detailed quantitative survey of the performers of research in this field. We had a magnificent response from which many conclusions could be drawn. I have time only to highlight a few.
First, we found that in the 10 years of the 1980s the amount of money spent on systematic biological research had diminished during that period, even though government spending on basic research generally had increased in real terms by 28 per cent. Secondly, Britain was not producing researchers in the number and quality she needed so that, to take but one example, the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew has had to recruit staff from overseas. Thirdly, in that 10 year period the proportion of time which on average is devoted to teaching undergraduates systematic biology has halved. Fourthly, the age distribution of the present staff of the universities, compared with 10 years ago, shows that little, if any, new blood has entered the academic systematic biology community. That does not augur well for either intellectual vigour
1298
in research or stimulating teaching. Fifthly, and finally, the great collections which are so vital to progress, many of which are in this country, have not been maintained and exploited to the extent that the times require.
The causes of those and related phenomena are varied. I cannot list them all. Some are structural. Thus, because there are many funding bodies in the field, including several research councils and government departments, it seems to be no one's business to make a regular appraisal of a subject which can so easily fall between the cracks of so many organisations. Moreover, the Department of National Heritage (formerly the Office of Arts and Libraries) has by its own admission no capability for assessing the need or the capacity of its sole institutional pensioner in the field, the Natural History Museum, for work in that field because the main business of the Department of National Heritage lies elsewhere in funding national museums, mainly in the arts and humanities, libraries and galleries. Other quasi-structural causes simply reflect the way in which universities are allocated money from the public purse and then distribute internally their own core funds to activities, taking every care to reflect the way in which those activities can earn external funds from grant and contract-awarding bodies. Systematic biology research is at risk because it is intrinsically a relatively rather cheap subject and does not need much external funding. Therefore, it tends to be accorded a rather low priority with universities in securing support from a university's core funding.
Other causes are what I might call perceptual. Thus, systematic biological research which, as I have explained, ought to exist in a symbiotic relationship with the more glamourous branches of biology such as molecular biology, is in fact in competition for funds with subjects such as behavioural and molecular biology. It loses out because it is rather patronisingly perceived as "comparatively unoriginal". To that extent the biologists' own peer review systems are culpable in not taking a longer and wiser view.
When all is said and done, one thing is certain. Matters cannot be allowed to continue as they are. That way lies disaster and Britain will earn the contempt of those in other nations who know of the contribution that the United Kingdom could make to the resolution of a major world problem of how sustainable world development is to be achieved without irreversible damage to the environment. That is particularly the case when those countries also know that we are not making the contribution which we could make.
In the view of the committee, great progress could be made to remedy the situation at very low cost. We make recommendations in three main areas. First, for research, we recommend the injection of an extra £1 million a year for systematic biology research over a period of five years. It is heartening to see that the Natural Environment Research Council has already proposed important fields of study in which that money could be spent were it to become available. That information is now published in the Krebs Report.
Secondly, for the maintenance of the collections at our great systematics institutions like Kew and the Natural History Museum, we recommend that their core funding should be maintained at current levels in real terms. To assist those collections with research potential outside the grant-in-aided institutions, of which there are quite a number, the Department of National Heritage (the old Office of Arts and Libraries) should set up a rolling programme of £0.5 million a year to which applications for grants might be made. Those of us who visited the United States saw a comparable scheme operating very successfully in that country.
Thirdly, to preserve the subject at the universities and to guarantee an adequate supply of trained British systematists, we recommend that the advisory board for the research councils assesses the demand for qualified systematists and funds MSc courses and quota studentships on those courses accordingly and any other measures which it considers appropriate.
In association with those principal recommendations, we make a number of other suggestions which we hope will be pursued. We thought that to make the best use of our collections and of the expertise currently available, a new forum should be established by the major systematics institutions, whether or not grant-in-aided, to generate some national curatorial policy through discussions on rationalisation of holdings, staff appointments and areas of specialisation. We thought that the National Heritage Department should have access to scientific advice so as better to appraise the funding needs of the Natural History Museum as one of the world's leading institutions in the field of systematics research.
We thought that the Overseas Development Administration, which is a major customer for systematics, could do more to fund United Kingdom research projects. We were very concerned—I repeat, very concerned—that the World Bank's Global Environment Facility, which we visited, to which our Government have contributed hugely and which could be a source of some research funding, may not take appropriate scientific advice before making disbursements for biodiversity projects. Your Lordships will have noticed that in addition to the £40 million already contributed by the United Kingdom to the World Bank for that purpose the Prime Minister's speech at Rio implied a willingness to add a further £60 million to an enlarged facility. In your Lordships' House on 23rd June (col. 432 of Hansard) the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker—said that the new money (I underline her explicit reference to new money) would be about £100 million. Whichever is the Government's intention, those are large sums. It is clear that the Government regard the global environment facility as the major instrument in this field. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that another look will be taken at the bank's arrangements for the facility, especially as regards its programme for its scientific content.
As a general theme, we thought that systematics had been so marginalised by the research councils as to warrant the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (now part of the new Office of Public Service
1300
and Science) becoming more pro-active in its defence. We hope that it will be a feature of the new office that this baton, and others like it, will in future be picked up.
I am sure that the other members of the committee will take up some of those themes in greater detail and I also look forward to hearing the views of other Members of the House. After all, if Select Committees fail to inform the House and to stimulate comment and feedback from the House as a whole, they are not doing their job properly.
In summary, therefore, I simply say that in the 1980s Britain's effort in systematic biological research slipped almost unnoticed into a position where it was not pursuing that subject to the extent that it could; and certainly not sufficiently to get the most benefit either for this country or towards meeting the international need for conserving global biodiversity. That is a need which many of us now regard as so stark. But this is a situation which can be rescued reasonably quickly and at low cost. I hope that your Lordships will give the sub-committee's recommendations your warm support.
I shall end on a more personal note. Our report was published on 28th January this year. It has attracted favourable comment and not just in this country. In mid-May I gave an invited lecture to the International Symposium and World Congress on the Preservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections which was held in Madrid. I was struck by the fact that the delegates not only accepted the analysis and conclusions, which I have put before the House in shortened form and which I had just presented to them, but also by the way in which they looked to the United Kingdom to resume its leadership role in research and systematic biology.
Since then there has been the Rio de Janeiro meeting at which, on 12th June, the Prime Minister announced the Darwin Initiative. He amplified that in another place on 15th June. I must tell your Lordships that in my view our recommendations constitute necessary practical steps which are not expensive—indeed, quite the contrary—towards realising the aims of that initiative. Therefore, I hope that they will be implemented without delay.
I wish to thank publicly the members of the sub-committee, its able clerk Dr. Rhodri Walters, the specialist advisers Professor Chaloner and Professor Claridge, and all those who gave evidence. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Systematic Biology Research (1st Report, 1991–92, H.L. Paper 22) and of the contribution of this research to the preservation of biological diversity and to medicine.—(Lord Dainton.)
5.35 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I am a chartered biologist. During the course of my professional career I have practised taxonomy. I have described and named new species of animals and I have even received the accolade of colleagues in having taxa—your Lordships will have to become used to hearing such

1301
technical terms—named after me. One was a small blood-sucking mite and the other was a subgenus of fleas. I have also served as a trustee of the Natural History Museum and as a council member of the Natural Environment Research Council and I am a life member of the Linnaean Society.
The purpose of that apologia is to explain why I was extremely pleased to be co-opted as a member of the sub-committee which was so dexterously and incisively chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, whose introductory speech has so ably set the scene. Following his invitation I intend to pick up three points from the Select Committee's report. The first is the key issue of biodiversity research; the second the importance of curation; and the third a short comment on sources of funding.
I shall first deal with biodiversity. The strength of concern for the conservation of biological species was amply demonstrated by the evidence which was received by the sub-committee. So too was the urgency and immensity of the research task needed merely to discover, identify and catalogue the global biodiversity resource. That is laid out in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.5. Table 2.1 of the report illustrates the extent of achievements during the two-and-a-half centuries since Linnaeus. It also emphasises, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, the hugeness of the task yet to be done. So far some 1.4 million organisms have been identified and named. However, there are reasonable grounds for believing that at least eight times as many more species remain undescribed by the systematist.
Throughout the period during and succeeding this inquiry national and international concern for biodiversity conservation and for the systematics research needed to progress the global inventory has been heightened by the cycle of preparations leading to the United Nations Conservation on Environment and Development at Rio. I have been told that 155 nations signed the convention on biological diversity. I understand that it will come into force 90 days after deposit of the ratification instrument of the 30th contracting party. I ask my noble friend to comment on the progress of ratification by the United Kingdom and on the progress towards the coming into force of the biodiversity convention.
That convention contains some striking points. Article 6 requires that:
"Each contracting party shall… develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity".
Other articles develop that theme, especially Article 7. It requires that:
"Each contracting party shall… identify components of biological diversity important for its conservation and sustainable use".
Those are listed. Article 20 requires that:
"Each contracting party shall undertake to provide… financial support and incentives in respect of those national activities which are intended to achieve the objectives of the Convention".
In the mood of Article 20, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, the Prime Minister on 12th June simultaneously announced that £100 million will be available in British aid for environmental measures through the Global
1302
Environment Facility and his Darwin Initiative for the survival of species. I too have seen some elaboration on the Darwin Initiative not only by the Prime Minister but also by the Secretary of State for the Environment in a speech which he made at the Natural History Museum on 24th June, when he said:
"The purpose of the Darwin Initiative is to support the implementation of the Biodiversity Convention by deploying the strengths of the United Kingdom".
He continued in that vein.
He mentioned the highly developed legislative and regulatory framework driven by powerful institutions such as nature conservancy bodies. He mentioned a long tradition in exploration and identification of natural species and habitats in many parts of the world. He said:
"The Darwin Initiative will build on these strengths … It will seek to clarify the goals of further scientific, economic and legal research … It will assist in the further development of inventories of the most important species, habitats and ecosystems".
He added:
"In the near future we will be putting together a small action team".
I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us something about that action team.
The evidence received by the Select Committee shows that this country is well equipped, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, emphasised, to carry forward that initiative in terms of historic collections of worldwide origin and international importance, trained and dedicated performers and appropriate institutions for systematic biological research. It seems to me, as it did to the noble Lord, that the commitments made at Rio sharpen the thrust of our Select Committee's conclusions. Implicit in the Prime Minister's initiative is an acknowledgment that this nation has an obligation to safeguard our inherited systematic collections and to make use of our human and material resources on behalf of the global community.
So far I have spoken about international conventions and overseas issues. However, we must recognise that there is an enormous need for research into the systematics of our own national fauna and flora within the Kingdom. We may know all the species of birds, butterflies or dragonflies—conspicuous animals—that are likely to be found within our shores, but for smaller organisms—for beetles, let alone free-living nematodes or bacteria—there are undoubtedly many to be discovered, named and classified. That work is important if we are to fulfil our obligations towards the conservation of species and habitats under existing national and EC law, let alone the agreements signed at Rio. We still need vigorously to research and understand the scope of the national biodiversity resource, even as we take on the new and wider responsibilities that arise from the Biodiversity Convention. I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench for assurance that funds will be forthcoming to support those tasks.
I said that I would speak briefly about curation. The evidence presented to the Select Committee is at chapter 6 of the report. The sub-committee's views on

1303
the importance of curation are clear and are laid out in paragraphs 6.49 to 6.42, and the corresponding recommendations are at paragraphs 9.18 to 9.24.
I am sympathetic to the new strategy at the Natural History Museum which is summarised in the opening paragraph of the museum's Annual Report for Science 1991 which states:
"The management and maintenance of collections should be undertaken by dedicated teams of staff".
The curatorial sections set up in each science department at that museum emphasise the significance of the task as a professional discipline in its own right.
Curation-based skills are needed in all museums and are a vital part of professional training for a museum-oriented career. Trained curators can move across disciplines and thus bring a breadth of insight to their jobs and enlarge the scope of their own career opportunities. A curator's broad-based expertise can guide and lead a department in a large museum.
Our recommendation at paragraph 9.23 is important. A good curator must understand the systematics of the organism he curates in order to preserve in his specimens the characters important in each taxonomic group. For that a curator needs time in his job to conduct taxonomic research.
The role of the curator will be vital if the United Kingdom is to meet the expectations raised by the announcement of the Darwin Initiative. On the Select Committee's visit to the Natural History Museum our attention was drawn to the backlog of curatorial tasks in that one museum as touched on in paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9. We saw many trays of entomological specimens in urgent need of repinning. We were made aware of a large accumulated stock of unincorporated collections; for example, about 0.25 million flowering plant specimens.
The committee was concerned also about the state of curation in other non-grant-in-aid museums in the country. That is reflected in our recommendation at paragraph 9.21 which calls for a rolling biological collections fund of £0.5 million per year.
In order to back up the Darwin Initiative museums must be encouraged to publish registers and to prepare checklists and keys to identification. A major national thrust is called for, and curators will play a vital role.
I turn now to funding. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned the principal recommendations of the Select Committee. I believe that we shall need to look further for more funds. The committee was adamant that there is no viable alternative to government core funding of systematic biology research, as we say at paragraph 5.47. Other options examined by the committee included the EC, research councils and the ODA, all of which have a subsidiary role to play. I wish to touch on one further source which was not seriously examined by the Select Committee; that is, private or commercial funding. I am indebted to Mr. Nigel Winser for some of the more imaginative slants in what follows.
The systematic nomenclature of organisms is governed by sets of rules which differ between animals, plants and micro-organisms. Those rules include standards of a grammatical nature covering
1304
such matters as the latinisation of vernacular and personal names and gender terminations, but it has never been sought to regulate the sources of names.
Linnaean binomials may be descriptive or geographical. Some have been deliberate nonsense. As I have already mentioned, many are named after people. Systematists have named many new taxa after persons, including their superiors or collaborators, the heroes and heroines of fact and mythology, mothers, wives or girlfriends, and I remember an embarrassing case of a student of mine who used the name of an ex-girlfriend. To do that has been intended as an honour. In the 19th century when private patronage was not unusual, neither party—the patron or the systematist—was abashed to commemorate a patron's identity in a new taxonomic name.
It seems natural to extend that tradition in modern times to commercial or personal sponsorship. Mr. Winser's proposals involve a formalised clearing-house whereby systematists and sponsors may be put in touch with one another and a scale of values may be drawn up in which a beautiful bird or an orchid may rate highest, while a less appealing organism can be named for a pittance. I understand that the Systematics Association has not responded with enthusiasm. However, I see no moral problem and I hope that the Treasury will encourage such a scheme by confirming that sponsorship of that nature will be tax-deductible.
I conclude. During the course of the subcommittee's inquiry, a symposium mounted by the Linnaean Society carried out a parallel appraisal of taxonomic research in the 1990s which was published in 1991. In his foreword Professor Claridge drew attention to the paradox that at a time when it is widely agreed that much more taxonomic research is urgently needed, research and training are at a low level and funding is inadequate.
In May of this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned, the Natural Environment Research Council published the report of the Krebs Committee entitled The New Taxonomy which produced 13 recommendations for new research areas. Also in May the ODA published details of aid related to the environment—aid for biodiversity conservation and forestry.
With those reports I hope that the Select Committee's conclusion will bring about a revitalisation in this field of fundamental biological study. The research must be targeted and co-ordinated. In paragraphs 6.45 and 6.55 the sub-committee called for a new body—a "forum" the noble Lord called it—with its own terms of reference and an independent chairman to draw on the systematic expertise which is dispersed among our national institutes.
I hope that my noble friend will endorse that recommendation which will enable us to plan research to support a national biodiversity strategy and will also tie in with the additional thrust that I expect to arise from the Prime Minister's Darwin Initiative.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Earl is always a hard act to follow. On this occasion I do not know what to say about his suggested options for names. Perhaps we should approach Lloyd's; those names may find it a better proposition than the one they recently enjoyed.
Before I turn to the subject of the debate I should like to add my thanks to the chairman of the committee for his hard work and the fact that he managed to remain courteous throughout. I should like also to thank Dr. Walters. We were absolutely inundated with evidence. His ability to classify what came in immediately marked him as a potential taxonomist. We are grateful to him for the work that he did.
There seems to be general agreement on the importance of systematic biology or taxonomy. Even at the end of this long investigation there still appears to be some doubt in regard to which name one should use. There are fine distinctions but for the purposes of the debate we can perhaps agree that the terms are interchangeable.
Questions arise in regard to the financial priority that the subject should enjoy and how new generations of students can be persuaded to enter the profession. Some witnesses were invited to try to explain why taxonomy had become unfashionable. Professor Prance, the director of Kew, giving evidence on 14th May, suggested that students had been lured away by more glamorous molecular work, which has also attracted more funding.
It is possible that systematists have been so absorbed in their own scene that they have ignored what may be called the politics of their science. But the alarm bells are sounding and the world of biological sciences is at last focusing on the health of this, its most basic tool. As others have said, systematic biology underpins the whole of our efforts to protect the biodiversity of the planet.
The Natural Environment Research Council recently published a report called The New Taxonomy. It clearly illustrates the essential role of taxonomy and proves the dependence of the biological sciences on a continuing and improving database. The report begins with a quotation from S.J. Gould's Wonderful Life, a part of which reads as follows,
"taxonomy is a fundamental and dynamic science, dedicated to exploring the causes of relationships and similarities among organisms. Classifications are theories about the basis of natural order, not dull catalogues compiled only to avoid chaos".
It is difficult to understand why students are not attracted in greater numbers to that fascinating study. Indeed, Professor Prance appeared confident that, given a more positive approach by the universities, backed by adequate funding, enough students would be forthcoming.
As others have said, the United Kingdom is a world leader in taxonomy. It is one of the residual benefits of the Old Empire that we have collections of millions of species from all over the world—as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned. Many are unique; all are valuable. But with that inheritance we inherit also a responsibility to maintain the collections and, when
1306
required, to make them available to other countries, especially those of the Commonwealth. The ABRC recognised that in a recent report when it stated,
"it is a fact that many countries cannot pursue the taxonomy of their indigenous flora and fauna to completion because much material collected from there is housed in British institutes".
That proves that we must continue to make our collections available.
Our report describes the enormous tasks undertaken by the curators—the noble Earl described in greater detail the work that they do—and the difficulties they presently face due to lack of funding and for want of a computerised database. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, the sums involved are minute in comparison with the budgets of some of the large science projects. Yet the work that they could do would be invaluable
The cost of not funding this vital work could be disastrous. The collections are essential to the work of identifying and classifying the many species as yet undiscovered. The loss of certain species is part of evolution and normally it happens at a rate which allows other species to adapt. The interference of mankind brings change at a rate to which ecological systems cannot adjust. It is vital that we study and identify as many species as possible before it is too late. If that work is not done the loss of social and economic benefits could be enormous.
At Volume II, page 43 of our report it will be seen that the Overseas Development Agency gave evidence in which it stated that the ODA aimed to support sustainable economic and social development and reduce poverty and suffering in underdeveloped countries. Maintenance of biodiversity is described as a "key ingredient" in its programme. Since taxonomy in turn is a key ingredient in the maintenance of biodiversity, I find it surprising that the ODA is not involved in some support of the core funding, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether or not there has been any change in the policy of the ODA towards core funding. It undertakes funding of specific projects but that will not help if our whole system of taxonomy collapses.
I should like to give a few examples of why it is important to pursue the subject scientifically. Professor Prance of Kew tells of the Brazil nut tree which is fertilised by the orchid bee. The bee relies for its mating ritual on a specific orchid. To extinguish the orchid would be to extinguish the bee and therefore the Brazil nut. But the story does not end there. The nut itself relies on the attentions of the agouti, a small mammal the sole possessor of teeth strong enough to gnaw the Brazil nut shell. The creature buries supplies of the Brazil nut and so the continuation of the tree is assured. Any break in that chain could have disastrous economic results.
In committee Professor Prance told us of a species of tree in Mauritius now few in number because it relied for propagation on its seeds passing through the gizzard of the dodo. We do not doubt that the dodo is dead; we use its demise to emphasise our view that something has passed beyond recall. When the last of the unfortunate trees has disappeared I wonder

1307
whether there will be yet another echo from that last fatal gunshot. Who knows how many consequences of our present carelessness may yet emerge? Without a precautionary scientific approach we could, at worst, blunder into ecological disasters with far-reaching consequences for all; on a different scale we could lose plants with potential for curing many of our modern ills. For example, in a briefing which I am sure other Members of the House have read the Linnaean Society draws attention to an interesting example of the discovery in an Australian tree of an alkaloid—castanospermine—with strong anti-HIV activity.
The systematic botanists were asked to name a close relative of this tree. It turned out to be a tree from South America which also contains castanospermine—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly —and in greater amounts. That could not have been accomplished without a specialist knowledge of systematic biology.
There was a pop song in the charts a few years ago with the refrain,
"Don't it always seem to go
You don't know what you've got till its gone".
It would be tragic to allow that to apply to our present rich diversity of plants and animals. We may not know quite what we have got, but we know enough to see the danger of losing it. It would be folly to allow the potential to be lost for want of a change of emphasis now. I hope that the Government will take the recommendations in our report very seriously, especially those about the need for a change of emphasis in funding.
6 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I rise as a reverent layman in the subject who has listened enthralled to the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. However, I was most fortunate to serve in a very humble capacity in connection with the first penicillin plant. I was well aware that this medical miracle owed its existence to the recognition by Fleming of the tiny speck of mould which he observed killing off the bacteria on a culture plate.
I begin by adding my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for his expertise in chairmanship of the committee. The noble Lord combined a mastery of the subject with a very deft touch with witnesses and the Members of the committee. He was successful in extracting the maximum of evidence with the minimum of pain. If he ever feels like taking up another profession he would do well to consider dentistry.
As we have heard, systematic biology has given rise to some of the world's greatest discoveries. But these great discoveries never seem to be all gain; they usually have a spectrum of difficulty attached to them as well. Evolution was largely brought about by the study of systematic biology. We have heard of the effects of Darwin and his predecessor Lamarck. They sent shock waves not only through biology, but through theology, philosophy and politics. Indeed, from the work of Lamarck and Darwin one can trace
1308
their effects through to Hegel and his successor, Karl Marx. In fact, the foundation of the Soviet Union was to some extent due to systematic biology.
We have also heard of the genetics resulting from systematic biology. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, pointed out, crop yields have been massively increased. Billions of people eat today because of the results of the systematists. But it is not all gain. The increase in the crops has given rise to billions of extra people in the world. We now face danger from the population bomb and the great danger to the global environment by pollution from a greatly overpopulated world. They are problems which we have to face and we cannot face without continuing our work in systematic biology.
Biodiversity is now accepted as an urgent property by all governments. The recording and preservation of the gene pool is a universal target. However, that will be impossible without a great stimulus to the present work on systematic biology. Otherwise it will be like trying to sail a ship around the world simply using a medieval map which shows large areas as terra incognita.
The decline of systematic biology in this country has been a source of the greatest regret. We were so prominent in this field. It is just dreadful to see it lacking. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has spelled out the causes of the decline and suggested some very practical remedies. I shall not detain the House by repeating what he said. I simply say that I agree completely with his analysis and suggested remedies.
There are a couple of points which have been brought to my attention in the past week which may help a little. The university appraisal system could give an extra kick to systematic biology. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the normal system in universities to have a biennial appraisal of the teaching staff. That appraisal is of the greatest importance to the staff and other individuals concerned because it has a great effect on their future prospects. If the biology faculties of the universities made it clear that in future years they would pay extra attention to the quality of teaching of systematics by their staffs, I am sure that that would have a considerable effect on changing the problem which we have as regards the perspective of the subject.
Another possible source of useful pressure is from the professional bodies which are the ultimate users of the results of this work. I am thinking of bodies such as the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians and their colleagues in the veterinary profession. These bodies keep a close eye on the work of the universities in all aspects of biology. There is of course the University Audit, which is based on Birmingham. It safeguards the standards of the work of the universities and not the content, and that is perfectly right. On the other hand, the professional bodies are very concerned with the professional capability of the people who will be coming into membership in future years. They certainly have the right and duty to keep an eye on the content as well as the level of the work of the biology faculties in the universities. If the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons and similar

1309
bodies take note of the concern which is being expressed by your Lordships today, I believe that it is highly likely that their opinions will rub off on the universities and will have a considerable effect.
I now turn to the Natural History Museum about which so much concern has been expressed. The attitude of the Office of Arts and Libraries came as something of a shock. I was put in mind of the story of Professor Lindemann visiting Oxford. In a conversation the wife of the warden of one of the colleges said to Professor Lindemann, "My husband tells me that anyone with a First in Mods and Greats (Classics) can pick up science in a fortnight". To that Professor Lindemann replied, "What a pity that your husband never had a fortnight to spare".
There is still something of that condescending attitude to be found in too many parts of the Government's administration. Therefore, I was encouraged to note a statement in another place when the Parliamentary Secretary of the Office of Public Service and Science said on behalf of the Government:
"the system by which we operate in Britain … is that decisions about scientific priorities are made by scientists".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/92; col. 542.]
That is a wonderful principle which I strongly support. However, I wonder whether it has always been applied in the Office of Arts and Libraries and whether in future it will be applied in the Department of National Heritage. Let us hope that it will. The Government will have our strongest support if they make sure that it is.
I trust that the report that we are debating, together with your Lordships' deliberations, will persuade Her Majesty's Government to accept the recommendations that have been made and to implement our proposals. Rarely are the Government given the opportunity to make such a major contribution to science at so little cost. I hope and trust that I shall be present for the rest of the debate but because we started rather later than we had anticipated it may be necessary for me to leave before its conclusion. I hope not, but if that is the case, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, as the first participant in this debate who is not a member of the committee, at the outset I should like to express my deep appreciation—and I am sure your Lordships' appreciation in general—for the meticulous work that has been carried out by the committee and for the obvious way in which it set about trying to determine all the necessary facts before reaching the conclusions that are set out so admirably—indeed, so admirably that I hope that the Government will have no difficulty whatever in accepting them.
The precision and firmness of the report are unusual. They are unusual because the subject is unusual. Systematic biology, which is taxonomy—whatever anybody else may call it—or biodiversity, has, I am afraid, become a Cinderella among the biological sciences. I was interested to read in the report that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to thermo-dynamics as being something of the same
1310
kind. In the medical world, topographical anatomy comes into the same category as systematic biology, with the view taken, "It is a bore, leave it alone, and get on with the interesting stuff".
I was interested in paragraph 7.13, which is headed "What went wrong?". Reference is made to the fact that biologists themselves have deserted the subject. There is a reference to fashion, and fashion certainly plays an enormous part in what goes on in science. After Crick and Watson did their work on DNA, molecular biology swallowed almost everything else. It did not take very long.
Perhaps I may suggest another reason why subjects suddenly become Cinderellas. It is because they become too difficult. Hypotheses are not fully tested and as soon as a new fashion comes in people move on, leaving unsolved many questions that have been properly formulated. The history of biology is absolutely littered with unanswered questions. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Adrian, who was a member of the committee, is not in his place because we recently discussed the matter with reference to his father's work in neurology. Any number of the questions which the noble Lord's famous father had investigated were there to be picked up and pursued but there were not the people to follow them up.
The arguments about the loss of status of systematic biology seem to me to deserve a similar explanation. There is a major philosophical basis to taxonomy, starting with Aristotle. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to Linnaeus. Linnaeus had his arguments with Buffon. I am afraid that modern teachers of biology and zoology do not read the old literature. I have been told that PhD students are sometimes advised not to waste their time reading any scientific paper that is more than five years old. But that would mean that some of the works which I had to read—and which I read with pleasure—on systematic biology are not now read at all. I remember a few names of some of this country's recent systematic philosophers—Robson and Crow. One of the committee's witnesses was Professor Cain. I wonder how many departments outside his own read his work. There was also Lancelot Hogben, one of the most stimulating zoologists of all time, even though it was a little perilous to deal with him as a colleague. I am sure that most of these works are not read today. The reason that they are not read is that the teachers have not read them. They are not read by the students; they are simply part of the archives of zoology.
Taxonomy was described in paragraph 2.12 as a "mundane activity" which did not constitute an "intellectual challenge". It was not researched because it was not experimental. Any branch of biology can become mundane, even molecular biology. When a subject becomes dominated by technique, it ceases to have the intellectual force that makes the young student really interested and stimulated. There is more intellectual challenge in true taxonomy than in a great deal of the fieldwork zoology which I now read. There is more intellectual challenge in the philosophy of taxonomy than in, let us say, the application of radio-immuno assay techniques of which technicians now have to be masters, even though the two people

1311
who introduced the subject were awarded Nobel Prizes—I am referring to Martin and Synge. Five years after they had been awarded Nobel Prizes for their paper chromatographic work technicians had to be proficient in all that they had done.
There is a reference to the use of modern methods, and of course molecular biology has been singled out. Early this century serum relationships were shown to be a valuable study in taxonomy by Professor Nuttall, who was the first Professor of Biology at Cambridge and the founder of the Moltino Institute. After his famous book, published in 1904, I do not recall many papers until I did a piece of work on this subject in about 1930. Later I published a book in which I used all manner of physiological and behavioural data to add to the morphological knowledge there was about the taxonomy and relationships of monkeys, apes and man.
The Zoological Society of London was asked to provide evidence. Its evidence is included in Volume III. It relates entirely to the work that is done in the two laboratories which I was partly instrumental in setting up and refers only to molecular biology. From its foundation in the early part of the 19th century the Zoological Society realised that taxonomy was all important to the language of biology. In 1864 the society played a major part in launching a publication called the Zoological Record which was a listing of all new scientific papers dealing with every one of the branches of zoology. In paragraph 3.23 there is reference to the fact that the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew had to abandon one or two of its ambitious projects in listing. I am proud to say that the Zoological Society—it had a little help from the Royal Society for one period in the latter part of the 19th century—then took on the job by itself and is still responsible for the International Zoological Record. We do not pay the costs of its publication—we had to enter into a partnership with an American organisation called Biosis—but we edit it. The recorders and the people using new techniques of information technology work in York where I believe they are helped by the Natural History Museum, which has a section in York, and the British Museum. The Zoological Society also publishes the international list of new genera. That was also started in the 19th century but it was given a new lease of life in 1913 when all new genera were listed. The first volume of the new series came out in 1939. Volume 8 will appear this year.
Finally, I once again congratulate the committee on having done such an excellent job and I speak—even though most of my work has been in experimental biology—as a systematist. Systematic biology research is a strict science. It was a science before it became invested with a political flavour through the Rio conference. It did not need that conference to turn it into a science. Very little money is called for to help to maintain our position in the field of systematic biology. The sum of around £1 million is spoken about. Systematic biology will come into its own when people who are in biological departments realise that from the point of view of the philosophy of science it
1312
can be a much more challenging and stimulating subject than the routine application of new experimental techniques.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, first, I must thank my noble friend Lord Dainton for chairing the sub-committee which produced the report we are debating today. It was extremely stimulating to work with him. Like other noble Lords, I thank him again for introducing the debate in the precise fashion that is so peculiarly his own. I first met my noble friend in a wartime laboratory in Montreal. He was walking down a corridor carrying a test tube, the contents of which he invited me to sniff. I have never smelled a brew so foul, and ever since I have had the greatest respect for my noble friend.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, read out the quotation from Stephen Gould of Harvard with which the report entitled The New Taxonomy, just published by the National Environment Research Council, begins. It admirably encapsulates the conflicting attitudes that have arisen since the introduction of molecular concepts into biology some decades ago. Those attitudes were fully discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in a characteristic and fascinating speech, which, in spite of my name, I am certainly not competent to follow.
The NERC report largely substantiates our own report to your Lordships, to part of which it is a welcome response. In particular, it agrees that a small additional sum of about £1 million a year for five years should be devoted to systematic biology research, and it gives a useful breakdown showing in some detail how that money might be spent, something we were hardly equipped to do.
The NERC is understandably silent about the source of the proposed addition. Much as I would personally congratulate the Government if they felt moved to provide it, I am bound to say that the problem arises from a growing imbalance within the allocation for existing biology, spread almost without control among four of the research councils. It should therefore be possible to find the increase by tilting the balance in favour of systematic biology, not least in order to facilitate the vigorous introduction of molecular methods into taxonomy itself. I shall be very disappointed if the ABRC is not asked by government to bring that about.
The combination of molecular biology with information technology now required by systematists is a powerful tool for understanding how species interact, both spatially and over time. It is an essential adjunct to ecology and to many other branches of science, and to the biological technologies.
Both reports speak of the applications of systematic biology, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to several of them. I shall draw attention only to the use of living organisms to test for water quality. Instead of chemical sampling, the water industry nowadays provides a continuous biological record of quality by identifying fresh water invertebrates. A crude indication of how sensitive biological indicators

1313
can be is provided by the fact that variations of sea water temperature of less than one degree can change the dominant fish population of the English Channel from herring to pilchard to mackerel and back again, a matter of some interest to those concerned with global warming as well as those in the fishing industry.
The new taxonomy is likely to attract a new breed of biologist, and there is no doubt that any extra money can be well spent. But it is only as good as the classical taxonomy on which it is based. There is not much point in being able to say, "This is a hair of a dog" unless you know what a dog is. Similarly, there is not much point in genetically sequencing a micro-organism unless its identity is already known.
What matters, therefore, is that the research councils should give their additional grants—as I hope they will—only to individuals and institutions where there will be guaranteed collaboration between molecular and classical taxonomists. That will help to produce a better-balanced cohort of taxonomists for the future. I do not think that either report makes that point sufficiently clearly.
As my noble friend Lord Dainton explained, the output of the new taxonomy is a database of organisms, on which can be hung all their other properties: their chemistry, their pharmaceutical properties, their importance for agriculture, forestry, conservation, and so on. Let me emphasise: the purpose of taxonomy is not to amuse taxonomists in their wakeful hours, or even to be a tool primarily for biologists; it is for everyone who wants to use, or avoid using, or even to eliminate, organisms for the benefit of mankind and the environment.
Therefore, the database has to be designed for the common man, or, at any rate, for the common technologist. It has to be used all over the world. The mycologist and former Principal of the University of Edinburgh, Sir John Burnett, who was kind enough to write to me, finds the development of such databases a "nightmare"—to use his word. They must be international and user-oriented, but must rely on a basic contribution from taxonomists, most of whom have little interest in applications. Industry may be expected to pay for the use of such a database, but who is to pay for its development? According to Sir John, neither research councils nor government departments acknowledge any responsibility. It seems to me to be a matter that requires further thought.
There are some differences between the two reports —that is, the NERC report and ours. The chief one is about how taxonomy should be taught in future. The NERC report would have it done by intensive vacation courses at the major curatorial institutions, with students visiting for short periods. We would prefer it done in universities as an integral part of the undergraduate course, helped by joint appointments with the institutions if necessary. To propose otherwise seems to give quite the wrong message to the student about priorities in biology. Apart from that, the degree of unanimity between the two reports is very considerable. It gives me encouragement that there is at last a will to take action on the part of those most directly responsible.
1314
The great collections of the Natural History Museum, Kew and elsewhere are also in need of some additional resources, or at the very least stable core funding in real terms—although a greater problem seemed to us to be the lack of access to adequate scientific advice of those responsible in government for grant-aiding those collections, and the lack of access of the institutions themselves, except for the Natural History Museum, to the research councils for research grants. We recommended accordingly. We should not forget that those great collections are part of our national heritage, garnered from all over the world, from which much has been and can still be learnt about the world. We have a responsibility to the world for maintaining, researching and developing them properly.
Nevertheless, as we heard from the noble Earl, both collections represent a tiny fraction of the species available in nature. Plants and fungi of potentially immense commercial value, about which we know practically nothing because they have neither been collected nor identified and studied, are being lost every day. Many of them are to be found in the developing countries, and ODA tries to do something to train its personnel. The time must soon come, surely, when those countries should be responsible for their own collections. If so, a much bigger training effort will be necessary, and a much increased international commitment to their funding. The matter is becoming urgent, as Rio made clear.
I should like to conclude with what I perceive to be a serious policy issue. The matter has already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Zuckerman. In our report, we explore and attempt to explain how the lack of balance in the funding of biology, of which I also have spoken, has come about and has resulted in a serious neglect of systematic biology—the research itself, the curation of the collections and its position at the universities—to the extent that taxonomists have themselves, as the joke goes, become an endangered species. The same has happened in other countries; it is not a peculiarly British failing. It has come about because other aspects of biology, fast moving and interdisciplinary, have become more glamorous and have driven out taxonomy, not by deliberate policy decision so much as by myriad research grant adjudications—death by a thousand cuts—all based perfectly fairly on our cherished system of peer review.
I know of no better system than peer review for taking decisions about individual research grant applications. But it is notoriously inadequate for judging the relative merits of work in different disciplines—say, physics and chemistry. In the recent history of systematic biology we now have evidence that the peer review system cannot judge adequately even between the various subdivisions of a single subject. Systematic biology is not the first such subdivision to have suffered in that way. With hindsight, I now see more clearly, than once I did, how the rapid development immediately after the war of my own subject of nuclear physics—glamorous then because of its importance to atomic energy—led to less than adequate treatment of other branches of the

1315
subject, such as solid state physics, developments of which, ironically enough, were absolutely necessary to the furtherance of the nuclear power programme. Let no one think that science, any more than Wimbledon, is unaffected by fashion. I suspect that other branches of science, intrinsically important, are also suffering today for seeming unglamorous. The present tight funding of basic research makes that all the more likely, because it brings out atavistic tendencies in those who conduct peer reviews.
If you allow the seamless robe of science to wear thin in places, the fabric is more likely to get torn. Somehow we have to learn how to take better care of the fabric as a whole. If, as I hope, the Select Committee on Science and Technology decides later this year to undertake a study of the criteria for the funding of basic research, not least in the context of the new Office of Public Service and Science under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the integrity of the seamless robe is likely to come under close scrutiny, and some of the matters raised in the report that we are debating today will arise again in a wider context.
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I consider myself very fortunate to have been a lay member of the committee. I am certainly not someone who is able to bring a great deal of expertise to the subject. In fact, I was especially lucky to be part of a subset which visited America. Those noble Lords who have read the Chairman's Appendix 5 will recognise that, if I was 50 per cent. of the Committee, then the other 50 per cent. did all the work. That will seen in the very full report of the visit to Washington.
I must admit that I joined the committee with some caution as to the Government's attitude towards systematics and national collections. I have been involved for over a year in protracted discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as to what should happen to the National Fruit Collection at Brogdale. That was on the site of an experimental horticultural farm which, for good reasons, has been declared no longer required. The proposal, which seemed to me to be manifestly absurd for a perennial crop, was that it should be moved eight miles down the road to Wye College. There seemed to be a better way of arranging matters. Of course, if one is going to move a collection of apples down the road one will have to run the collection in parallel for at least eight years before it can be established that one has lost or saved part of the gene bank.
Our proposal was to form a trust, buy the land and run the National Fruit Collection, which was still to be funded by the Ministry, for it. That was thought to be an excellent idea. We saved the taxpayer £350,000. When I said, "Well, let's split the difference. You can endow our charity with your part", the answer, I am afraid, was the answer one always receives from the Treasury. Hence my jaundiced feeling about the Government's attitude to collections and, by extension, to systematics.
Like all who joined the committee—the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to this—we were
1316
inundated with evidence from taxonomists and interested parties drawing attention to a narrow range of preoccupations. The first, which struck me most forcefully as a layman, was the feeling of mild persecution by the scientific fraternity itself—a feeling that there was a lack of recognition by scientists of the underpinning role that taxonomy affords, always has afforded and, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, always will afford. There was of course anxiety about the lack of funding, and one might say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" But again, when one reads the report, one sees that the sums of money which have been asked for are not dramatic. They are certainly not dramatic in the face of the Biodiversity Convention in Rio. I thought that on balance the case was a fair one.
A third aspect which came out time and again was the lack of co-ordination of systematics; in other words, there was work going on around the world referring to national and international collections but there is not yet the technology available to enable that work of identification and classification to be undertaken in a way which would be desirable.
Against the anxiety that taxonomy was something of a Cinderella science, there was the paradox, which again has been referred to, that biological diversity has become a global issue; so we have more and more people worrying about the loss of biological diversity, and fewer and fewer people able to identify what is being lost. If one wanted to sum up the lack of recognition and how it is perceived I would quote Professor Bridgewater, director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service whose evidence is in the second volume. He said:
"Good systematics is a blend of science, art and technique which does not sit well with the leading edge science of the late 20th century".
In other words, as with so much in this world, a slight element of snobbery creeps in. Yet we all recognise, and the report demonstrates time and time again, that every aspect of biological science has, in one form or another, to depend upon systematics. The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, pointed out the successes in crop production which derive from genetics and taxonomy. One could reverse the argument and point out that there are unacceptable losses of crops in store. Some FAO figures that I have seen recently put that loss at 20 per cent. once the crops are harvested and in store. I suspect that much of that is because of an inability to identify adequately the pest or to know how to control it once identified.
If one takes, by extension, the loss in the field, which, clearly, is much higher, then one realises to what extent that branch of industrial effort depends upon taxonomy to enable it to deliver what will be required. Then, co-ordination is lacking: there is a mismatch of resources available in taxonomy and resources required. As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, pointed out, so much of the biological diversity is in the tropical world—Latin America, South America and the Sub-Sahara—and yet, of course, much of the effort tends to he in North America and Europe. There was an article in the March 1992 edition of Nature by Mr. Gaston of the Natural History Museum and Professor May of Oxford which points out that 80 per

1317
cent. of practising ecological researchers—I take a wider remit here than just taxonomy—are based in North America and Europe, and probably 4 per cent. only in Latin America and the Sub-Sahara. While it is true that much work is being done in Europe—for example, on tropical groups—the effort is woefully inadequate. I read of a calculation made by Dr. Prance, the Director of Kew, which shows that at the current rate it will take 350 years to complete the flora neotropica and 950 years to complete the inventory of fungi for the same region.
The unfashionable areas of taxonomy—invertebrates, fungi and soil micro-organisms—are where the greatest gaps in our knowledge exist. If any impact is to be made on the appalling problem of trying to come to grips with so much diversity there is a need to develop global information systems to underpin taxonomic research.
All credit must be given to British scientists for providing just such leadership. For example, I could point out the Species Plantarum project currently being developed in a globally collaborative way at Kew, or the evidence we received from CAB International which told us of an initiative to form an international biosystematics network. I felt that that evidence took us quite a long way towards determining how modern technology might be developed to allow relatively unskilled taxonomists in the developing world, without scholarly credentials, to make what could be important contributions in the very area of the world where there is that mismatch between resources and effort required. I do not know whether one could coin the word "parataxonomist", but I think that demonstrates that what is required is people with a rudimentary knowledge but an ability to be able to enter data into what would probably be sophisticated databases with basic equipment. So much of the work is identification, which is a time-consuming and sometimes difficult art, as those of us who went to America saw, for example, in the Department of Agriculture's laboratories.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who pointed out that there is a danger that funding for those databases could fall between stools. The universities and the research councils recognise that such databases and access to them could have an enormous impact on resolving the great number-crunching game; and yet no one appears to be prepared to look at the funding. Funding is an issue which should be put at the top of the list of priorities.
I welcome the committee's emphasis on putting more effort into undergraduate time devoted to systematics. As there appear to be a number of people who will be taking part in the debate who are better qualified to speak for universities than I am, I make a plea that the impact could be made also in the secondary school system through the national curriculum. The subject used to be called natural history. I suspect that it is often now called ecology. I do not mind what it is called, but I believe that those of your Lordships who confess to having an interest in observing wildlife will admit that that was engendered at an early age, probably by an excellent natural
1318
history tutor, or ecology tutor depending upon one's age, and surely that is something that we should be delighted to see encouraged in the curriculum. If it requires a little adjustment to the national curriculum content, I for one would support it.
I should like to be totally parochial for a moment —"parochial" in the most literal sense. I think we all accept that Linnaeus must be described as the father of taxonomy. Perhaps I may put in a thoroughly prejudiced claim that Gilbert White, who wrote Natural History of Selborne, was the father of ecology. I quote him as an example of someone who has inspired generation after generation of children or adults to take an interest in what is going on around and observe for themselves and not just take the word of some laboratory analysis. In other words, he would not have understood what the word "ecology" meant, but he certainly was an ecologist. He demonstrated the interdependence of one species and another in precisely the way illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
As Chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, I, together with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who is Chairman of English Nature, have a small responsibility for the collation of much information which is collected by amateurs in this country. Without the enormous amount of work done by amateurs in a wide range of disciplines, there would be little chance that we could plan conservation policies sensibly.
We recognise that, even in this country, where there is a tradition of more than 200 years of amateur observation, there are enormous gaps in knowledge of micro-organisms, fungi and nematodes. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to this. If we are to plug these gaps, as surely we must, if only to fulfil our obligations under the Biodiversity Convention, we must increase at all levels an interest in systematics, starting at school and continuing in higher education and throughout the rest of our lives. Only then will we resolve the paradox that the funding and practice of taxonomy has been declining in the face of global concern about the loss of biological diversity.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, two years ago, as President of the Royal Society. I received more than 800 letters from all over the world; somewhat orchestrated perhaps, but all expressing concern that the great collections of the Natural History Museum and the research associated with them were in danger of neglect or even extinction through lack of support.
I was therefore relieved when I learnt that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology had undertaken the task of examining not only the problems of the Natural History Museum but the whole question of systematic biology research in the United Kingdom. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for the work that he has done so effectively as chairman of that committee and for his lucid presentation to us today of its report.
The subject of systematic biology has caused little excitement in most academic circles since the great days of the last century and the Darwinian

1319
revolutions. Indeed, earlier this century the physicist, Lord Rutherford, pronounced his well-known opinion of the subject as stamp collecting. It was associated more with nature study than with a rigorous academic discipline; nor did it seem to have any important applications. As the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, it was a Cinderella.
Then came the great scientific revolution for which the second half of the 20th century will be best remembered, in which biology, allied to chemistry and physics, created the new science of molecular biology. Strangely enough, this made matters worse for the old systematic biologists. The subject became even less fashionable and had great difficulty in attracting young scientists or money from the more fashionable new science. The new biologists did not, in general, need systematics. One of them told me that for his work a diversity of species was not necessary—one was enough so long as it was E. coli.
Even more recently the world has come to realise that man's accelerating intrusion on nature every day causes species to become extinct, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, emphasised. The course of evolution is no longer the fair, if bloody, game described by Darwin. It is now a game for which homo sapiens makes the rules.
We are no longer pawns in that game, we are the players. The future of evolution is now in our hands. With the possible exception, for the time being, of some microbial parasites it is within our power to eliminate almost any living species from the face of the earth. It is also in our power to cause other species, including ourselves, to proliferate.
Man has appointed himself manager of the earth. We must take the job seriously because our property is fast disappearing, and without better management we may lose most of it altogether. The first need of a good manager is to know what he has to manage. He needs an inventory of the property of which he becomes the husbandman. That, of course, is the purpose of those who collect and classify the species.
There is a more immediate, practical purpose. These are early days in the history of genetic engineering and we know little about the multifarious genes available to us today which may not be available much longer. We would be wise to preserve the gene pool until we know what treasures it contains. It is, of course, an international responsibility but, as always, that means that it is principally a task for the more responsible nations—the developed nations; those who can do something about it. Furthermore, as has already been said, Britain is in a special position because of the collections which came to us as a result of our colonial history.
The matter is urgent and therefore the Select Committee's principal recommendations, given in paragraphs 9.7 and 9.15 of the report, are that the ABRC, or perhaps now the Office of Science and Technology—and in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, that gives us a little hope that changes might be more facile—whoever is responsible, should establish a special fund for systematic biology research of, as we have heard, £1 million a year for five years. The recommendations are also that the
1320
systematics collections outside grant-aided institutions should be allotted a further £0.5 million per year by the new Department of National Heritage.
Recommendations for increased funding are not novel, nor are they always popular with Ministers. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, suggested, the ABRC does not need to have new money to advise that £1 million of the £928 million that is available this year to the research councils should be allocated to this important branch of research.
All areas of research have their lobbies, and the battles fought between them when they are starved of funds—as today they all believe they are—are fierce indeed. The problem of choosing between them has no rational solution. The scientists make a poor job of it and politicians usually do even worse. On this battleground of the giants (many of them with strong political or industrial support) a few curators, cataloguers and researchers of biological specimens have little chance of getting near the pot of gold. And why should they? What argument can they put forward, compared to the other sciences, which justifies making them a special case at the present time? There are in my view quite compelling arguments for systematic biology over its big spending predators such as astronomy and particle physics. I shall present just one argument.
The stars and the fundamental particles will still be with us, little changed, thousands of years hence, but most of the biological species will not. According to a recent report of the Natural Environment Research Council as many as a half of the world's animal and plant species are likely to be extinct in another 60 years. I know of no preferential case for other areas of science which carries as much force as that, whatever might be the relative long-term importance of those sciences. On the matter of intellectual merit, it is not obvious to me that the documentation and study of the stars—stamp collecting if you like—has any more intellectual content than the documentation and study of biodiversity and evolution.
Members of Select Committees have sometimes been accused of lobbying which presumably means supporting their own interest, friends or profession. I am not a systematic biologist (I am not systematic at anything) and nor were most other Members of the Select Committee with the notable exception, as we heard, of the noble Earl who has generously lent his name to a humble flea. Indeed, many Members of the committee have strong interests in other branches of science and are fully aware of their competing needs. Therefore, their recommendations for systematic biology cannot be regarded as special pleading.
I hope that Ministers and all who are responsible for the funding of scientific research in the United Kingdom will agree with the committee that the need for adequate funding for systematic biology is a special and urgent matter. We must seek out and learn about our neighbours on this planet before half of them live with us no longer.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, for me, as a physician, it was a fascinating experience to serve on the sub-committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and so splendidly served by our specialist advisers, by Dr. Walters and by our other staff. I have no hesitation in supporting the points so lucidly and cogently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in his opening speech. I wish warmly to support his conclusions and recommendations. I hope I may simply complement some of his comments, drawing upon our report.
As we made clear, systematic biology is not only of central importance to evolutionary theory; it also provides an essential framework for most other branches of applied biological science and produces major consequential benefits to mankind, both in human and in economic terms. The quality of our collections in the United Kingdom and the expertise of the many scientists who work in this field in this country—despite the fact that their average age, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, pointed out, is becoming unacceptably high—stand comparison with any in the world.
The very nature of systematic biology is such that it is unlikely to attract substantial funding from private sources; hence the public purse must bear the brunt of expenditure. As core funding of major institutions has declined, the quality of research has inevitably suffered. Sadly, too, as several noble Lords have mentioned, the criteria of originality, reasonably applied by the research councils in awarding grants, has meant that applications seeking support for traditional systematic research have usually gone unfunded. The loss of expertise and the decline in research funding for this topic have placed systematic biology at increasing risk. In the view of our sub-committee the position reflects poorly upon the traditional peer review mechanism which works so well in many fields and which is generally used for the funding of science today.
I can only therefore support warmly the proposals set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, to the effect that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils or the Office of Science and Technology should be invited to establish a special fund, as he recommended, for the support of systematic biology research and that the Department of National Heritage should establish a rolling programme of expenditure to assist systematic collections outside the grant aided institutions. We certainly need a new forum representing systematic institutions in order to rationalise holdings and expertise. As the noble Lord indicated, we also need specially designated and funded MSc courses in our universities for the training of young scientists in this discipline.
It follows in my view that no important collections should be left without regular attention from a research scientific officer who is contracted to attend to them. While highly trained technical staff of good quality can and do play a major role in their conservation, such collections also provide a rich resource for continuing research. Hence it is crucial in my opinion that those appointed as curators should
1322
have the scientific expertise and the ability to develop research programmes through the use of the material which they conserve.
Another point of fundamental importance referred to by several noble Lords is that both teaching and research in systematic biology have contracted in many British universities to such an extent that the subject could be in serious danger of extinction as a sustainable discipline. It is true that in the past some courses in taxonomy proved to be dull and uninspiring, being described by some student recipients as little more than prosaic stamp collecting, the Rutherford obiter dicta mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Porter. These courses often required the massive acquisition, and subsequent regurgitation for examination purposes, of large chunks of at times indigestible facts. However, this is no longer so as developments in molecular biology and information technology have added genuine excitement to the discipline and can now supplement rather than supplant traditional taxonomic teaching. However, to use an important medical analogy, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, investigation of structure and function at the molecular level can lead the investigator seriously astray if the first step of classification based upon gross anatomy is inaccurate.
These points have been stressed again and again in our report but have also been highlighted—this has been pointed out—in the report of the committee of the Natural Environment Research Council entitled Evolution and Biodiversity—the New Taxonomy. I refer to the Krebs Committee. That report calls for a special initiative in taxonomy, first because molecular biology has opened new horizons and, secondly, because there is a greater urgency than ever for the documentation of world biodiversity in the face of the high rate of extinction of species, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and others. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said at the outset of this debate, this country has a global responsibility which it cannot demit in view of the quality and extent of its national, university and local collections in museums, herbaria and botanical gardens which are among the greatest in the world.
It came as a great surprise to me to learn that, as set out in Table 2.1 of our report, current evidence suggests that all 4,000 mammalian species in the world have been known and described along with 90 per cent. of fish, 99 per cent. of birds and probably some 81 per cent. of flowering plants and ferns. However, there is evidence to suggest—it was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—that only about 10 per cent. of bacteria and other pathogenic organisms have yet been recognised and classified. The specification of microbes causing disease, including bacteria, viruses, protozoa and fungi, is a fundamental requirement of medical practice and of veterinary pathology. The accurate identification of disease organisms is essential in drug resistance work as the price of getting it wrong in this field can be fatality or serious disability.
I had the privilege about 18 months ago of visiting the Public Health Laboratory Service reference laboratory at Colindale. I saw there the splendid work that is being done on the classification and

1323
identification of many pathogenic organisms. Similar work in this country is going on in the virological field. But these are reference laboratories and although they carry out some research they are dependent for the basic research involved in the identification of new species of viruses, bacteria and parasites upon university departments of microbiology, virology and parasitology in which much of the basic work is being done. Similarly, if toxic biological material, of whatever source, is accidentally ingested by human subjects, rapid identification of the causal agent and of any antidote, if known, is essential for appropriate treatment. Yet again, the correct identification of plants, animals and insects, and increasingly of fungi, often used as the source of drugs, can be a life or death matter. In the medical journal, the Lancet, last week there was a report of a carefully designed controlled trial of treatment using ancient Chinese herbal remedies for the treatment of eczema—a trial which clearly demonstrated very substantial benefit.
The Chinese herbal remedies were presented to the individuals in an appallingly foul concoction and the placebo in the control group had to be similarly foul to avoid any scientific bias. Nevertheless, there was a very substantial benefit. Of course the question now being asked is: what is the active ingredient, or what are the active ingredients? As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pointed out, Kew told us how the predictive use of systematics enabled them to track down a suitable source of the hydroxyalkalide castanospermine, currently showing potential value as a treatment for AIDS. The source in question was a South American tree of the genus Alexa.
I could refer to many other matters of fundamental importance in the field of systematic biology to the practice of medicine. The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, referred to the interest of the Royal Colleges in this field. Not unnaturally, as so many drugs now used in the practice of medicine are of herbal origin and many others come from a variety of biological sources, the pharmaceutical industry is interested in this particular field. But, as happens so often in British research, the pharmaceutical industry is absolutely brilliant at the exploitation of the discovery of a species which is likely to have an important biological or medical effect, but the actual classification, the taxonomic research upon which the discovery of such organisms depends, is in my view fundamentally related to the core funding to which many have referred during the debate. And of course we have seen in the biological field the enormous developments resulting from biotechnology, the production of huge quantities of single-cell proteins by bacteria and the genetic engineering of human insulin, using E. coli. Even more recently and still in the experimental stage, we have seen the prospective use of harmless viruses to which gene transcripts can be spliced in order to carry the missing protein products responsible for certain inherited diseases into human cells. All these depend upon taxonomic research and identification of the appropriate organisms which can be used in this way.
Posterity would not, I am sure, forgive us if we neglect this important subject which, as I hope I have been able to show, is not just concerned with scientific
1324
curiosity and extension of the span of human knowledge, although that alone would justify a rescue programme. The topic is one which is vital to the future of mankind. I therefore support warmly the conclusions and recommendations of the report so lucidly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
In concluding, I offer my apologies to the noble Lord and to the Minister for the fact that because this debate started so much later than had been expected, regrettably I may have to leave before the end because of a long standing prior engagement.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and to his committee for their report on systematic biology and for the opportunity to debate the issues that it raises. The importance, breadth and timeliness of this subject have been underlined by other noble Lords with considerable authority. I am not a scientist but I have experience of the practical application of the knowledge that arises from systematic biology, of the benefits that can result from studying the nature, function, behaviour and attributes of organisms and in particular of its potential for providing simple, cost-effective solutions to complex and expensive problems.
To illustrate what can be achieved I shall briefly describe two very successful applications—one in the United Kingdom and one in West Africa—and also one potential application recently identified in the United States of America. The British example involves the controlled reintroduction of constructed wetlands for the treatment of industrial, infrastructural and domestic waste waters. In most developed countries irrigating wastes on to nearby land ceased early this century in favour of engineered solutions such as the activated sludge process. These techniques, however, are no longer completely effective: nor are they popular. Their ability to cope with current waste requirements, some of which are laid down legal standards, is variable. Where they fail, as they often do, significant pollution results to the rivers and coasts which receive their inadequately treated effluents.
As an alternative means of effective and sensitive waste water treatment, the attention now being paid to wetland systems, and most especially reed-beds, represents a backwards leap in terms of technology. It has been made possible in this stringent age, however, because of a forwards leap in understanding the organisms involved. The exact nature, function and inter-relationship of the aerobic bacteria around the root zones, the anaerobic bacteria in the surrounding sediment and the reeds themselves represent a biological matrix which can break down and stabilise organic wastes, nutrients and a variety of chemical compounds. This process can also render many toxic metals and toxic chemicals less harmful. Furthermore, the reeds themselves can take up a proportion of the waste, including metals, and aquatic plants are being used to extract and recover precious metals from waste waters.
To those unfamiliar with traditional wetlands treatments, reed-beds may appear to he limited in

1325
their capacity and application. This is not necessarily the case. ICI's Chemical and Polymers Division at Billingham was using the nearby River Tees to an unacceptable level to dispose of poorly treated phenolic wastes. In order to tackle the substantial damage being done to the river, ICI established just five hectares of reed-beds—and this despite ICI's huge commitment to state-of-the-art technology. Other important established applications include the domestic waste of rural communities, the treatment of landfill leachates, the run-off from intensive livestock operations on farms and the run-off from road surfaces.
This application of systematic biology research offers not only a solution to a water pollution problem but also, through the provision of managed wetland habitats, a separate and very real contribution to the conservation and enhancement of local flora and fauna. Bio-diversity in many parts of the world is severely threatened by the loss of wetland habitats. This happy coincidence can be deliberately incorporated into the design and management of reed-beds because—and I stress this—maximum conservation, habitat creation and landscaping can be achieved without compromising treatment potential.
The reintroduction of reed-beds illustrates how in an environmentally sensitive world advances in the knowledge that is prompted by systematic biology can enable a cheap, reliable and robust solution to be applied with complete confidence to an awkward problem.
The second example also involves water but is otherwise in complete contrast. Many of Africa's most pressing human and environmental problems revolve around water. It is a vital resource for sustaining populations and their agriculture but it is also associated with some well-known and widespread diseases.
In Cameroon in West Africa the irrigation system that followed the construction of a large dam tempted a wave of new settlers from drier and more crowded areas. It also led to significant increases in mosquitoes and amphibious snails and in the incidence of malaria, bilharzia and other water-related vector-borne diseases. At the same time the dam and subsequent irrigation upset the traditional fish farming on which many communities rely.
A lot of international aid, advanced technology and money might have been thrown at this problem. However, an inspired application of the knowledge that arises from systematic biology research has provided an extraordinarily successful solution. A combined fish culture and water management project was devised. Its objective was to prove that the inter-relationship and the behavioural attributes of fish, vegetation and insects could be exploited to reduce dramatically the malaria and bilharzia while simultaneously providing food and jobs for the local population. That was achieved: Fish farming was introduced to the water systems; the habitat and vegetation management required for fish culture reduced the breeding conditions for mosquitoes; those fish that feed off mosquito larvae and snails were
1326
deliberately selected; and, as anticipated, the project was popular at a community level as it combined an effective control of a health hazard with jobs and food for the local villagers.
As with the reed-bed programme, the application of specialised knowledge has enabled a simple solution; it has been cheap to implement and cheap to run. The benefits have been diverse and the local commitment impressive. One further important parallel is that its potential application elsewhere is considerable.
The third example, over which I shall be extremely brief, concerns nuclear waste. In the USA a government scientist studying the behaviour of the Jimson plant, which is one of their indigenous weeds, has recently discovered that among its unsavoury habits is the ability to digest plutonium. The plutonium is taken up in a protein compound and carried in the plant's cells without ill effect to itself. The potential of that knowledge, according to the US energy department, is that the plants can then be ground down into a paste, enabling nuclear waste to be stored more compactly and more easily and therefore at a fraction of the present cost.
I do not want to dwell on the detail. Further research is needed before the Jimson's case is proven. But the principle behind the discovery deserves emphasis. As with water pollution and water-related diseases, there is a problem of substantial proportions where the fundamental investigation, analysis and knowledge of organisms have thrown up the possibility of a simple solution.
Maintaining systematic biology research is an investment that can ultimately save money, quite apart from the life-saving and environmental benefits that will also accrue. The two proven applications that I have described relate to problems which might otherwise cost millions of pounds in the absence of sufficient scientific knowledge. Furthermore, where costs are huge, many countries cannot meet them unaided. So directly or indirectly it is the developed nations such as ourselves which have to carry much of the bill.
But the two solutions to which I referred can cost just thousands for their implementation and hundreds in their operation. If one multiplies the saving by the number of sites to which the same solutions would apply and takes into account that the much reduced costs can often be met without recourse to national or international funds, then suddenly systematic biology research is a very wise and prudent investment for any government to make.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was flattered to be asked by my noble friend Lord Dainton to take part in this debate. I was not a member of the sub-committee which conducted this inquiry and I am not a scientist. Indeed, as a layman I am somewhat nervous in such very distinguished scientific company. But I have had a lifelong interest in natural history and more recently I have been much concerned with conservation and the environment, not least as chairman of Wildlife Link.

1327
By chance, not long ago I visited the Natural History Museum at the invitation of the director, Dr. Chalmers, and saw something of the work of the museum in the field under discussion. I have read the report and a good deal of the evidence. I find the report clear, lucid and wholly persuasive. We must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his colleagues. The report reflects what seems to be a striking unanimity in the views of large numbers of witnesses from this country and elsewhere. I support its recommendations, which seem to me modest and sensible.
The picture is clear. Everyone agrees that systematic research is fundamental to biological science. Professor Bradshaw put it with admirable clarity when he said:
"The utility of systematic research arises simply from the fact that work on living organisms cannot proceed without knowledge of what they are and to what group they belong. So it is imperative that the relevant knowledge and expertise are always available and up to date and the collections on which this knowledge is based are available and well cared for. Biology without these is unthinkable".
However, the report shows clearly that this indispensable subject has been allowed to decline at our universities, to the point at which far too few qualified people are coming forward. The Natural History Museum and Kew have therefore to recruit research staff from America and elsewhere. The universities and perhaps the Natural Environment Research Council are, I believe, much to blame for that state of affairs. It seems to me that they have allowed the vagaries of fashion to extinguish a vital discipline. That is wrong. For example, CAB International points out that with small exceptions:
"formal systematic training in botany and mycology has virtually disappeared from United Kingdom universities … United Kingdom teaching of insect biosystematics is generally inadequate".
It further points out that teaching:
"is at the mercy of the shifting whims of successive heads of university departments".
The Natural History Museum says that:
"There are few, if any, genuinely exciting courses in systematic biology in universities or polytechnics in the United Kingdom".
Dr. Colin Patterson says that systematics has declined almost to the point of extinction in United Kingdom universities because of competing biological disciplines. It seems obvious that steps must be taken urgently to restore the subject to its rightful place in our education system. Nowadays, with DNA studies, molecular biological tools, computers and information technology, it is evidently by no means a dry as dust subject.
Apart from its essential underpinning of all biology, as the evidence makes clear, systematics has many and varied practical applications—for example, in the assessment of water quality, as Professor Anderson of Imperial College pointed out; in identifying remaining bird fragments after collision with aircraft to understand which bird species constitute the principal hazard to aircraft, as the British Ornithologist's Union told the sub-committee; or even (so I read) in forensic entomology by determining the time of death of a corpse by accurately identifying and ageing the maggots in it.
1328
We are fortunate in possessing in this country as part of the legacy of the Empire unique reference collections—above all, those at the Natural History Museum and Kew. Those are perhaps the finest in the world and of enormous importance internationally. We have a clear duty to look after them properly. But, mainly because the Government have cut down funding in real terms—by 8 per cent. over the past 10 years in the case of the Natural History Museum—we do not look after them adequately. Professor Cain says:
"I have been asked abroad embarrassing questions about what the British think they are doing to their national collections".
The British Ornithologists' Union says that the bird collection at the Natural History Museum is:
"already seriously deteriorating … many specimens arc brittle or impregnated with damaging grease and have detached heads, wings, legs and even labels … the incorporation of new bird material is minimal".
That state of affairs clearly ought to be remedied.
The Natural History Museum was described by one witness as the largest and most representative collection of zoological specimens in the world. It also has a unique library. Cuts in government funding led to some research departments being placed on a care and maintenance basis, which in turn led to a worldwide outcry against what Professor Dr. Werner Greuter of the Berlin Botanic Garden described as almost catastrophic cuts in staff and funds. The scientific staff at the museum has declined by one-third since the mid 1960s. Professor Bryan Clarke points out that:
"The collections are being curated but capacity for expanding them and studying them is severely limited".
The museum has clearly not given in to despair. It has made a valiant and praiseworthy effort to concentrate and develop its scientific work, which is of real practical importance. One example in which the museum is involved is the study of marine diversity. It is working with 17 other European organisations and studying fish, their parasites and the organisms found in the deposits on the sea beds. Much of that work is being carried out in deep sea areas which are very poorly known. It is relevant to the sustainable management of fisheries and in relation to policies on the dumping of waste materials into the seas.
When I visited the museum I was shown the very interesting "Worldmap" computer program for identifying priority areas for biodiversity conservation. That is work which has immediate relevance to the agreement reached at Rio on biodiversity. The museum has also initiated the European Museum Network and functions as its secretariat. It is studying the mineral status of African soils in wildlife management and establishing biosystematic collaboration to defeat insect-borne tropical diseases because, as it points out, targeted eradication programmes have minimal impact on local biodiversity but depend on taxonomic accuracy.
It seems to me that the Natural History Museum and Kew—two world class institutions—must from now on be adequately funded to enable them to do properly the nationally and internationally important scientific work which they are uniquely equipped to do. Kew has said that it has at present 75 per cent. of

1329
its needs. It should have the other 25 per cent. The Natural History Museum needs a firm platform of core funding which must keep pace with inflation—a steady base rather than, as hitherto, steady attrition. I understand that in its corporate plan the museum has made a supplementary bid for running costs of £2.2 million over the next two years. It seems to me essential that it should receive that and thereafter be able to rely on being kept properly supplied with the basic funds on a steady, reliable basis while encouraged to continue, as now, to raise money itself from other sources as it has been doing with marked success.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I participate in this debate with some diffidence. I am not a biologist, nor even a scientist. My only claim is that I am a member of the Natural Environment Research Council, which has spent a good deal of time in recent months discussing systematic biology and taxonomic research. I shall have some practical comments on our conclusions in a moment.
As a layman I find it curious, not to say paradoxical, that although we all believe in biodiversity we allow our research capability to decline. We all sign up to the Rio convention. We believe—do we not?—in the,
"ethical imperative of stewardship",
and in having,
"a moral duty to look after our planet and hand it on in good order".
I use phrases from the White Paper, This Common Inheritance. On the other hand, the underpinning research for all that, that it is fundamental to rational planning for biological conservation—to use a phrase of Professor Robert May—has been allowed to collapse. Chapter 7 of the admirable and, more importantly, timely report that we are discussing is entitled just that: Collapse of Systematic Research at the Universities. Those are blunt words.
We see, for example, from the histograms in the report how few people in the higher education institutes sector teach systematic biology. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to that. The most striking factor was the decline in numbers in the under-35 age group. If the figures are to be believed, in 1990 there were less than 20 people in that age group in the whole of the UK. Without good teaching how can we expect good research because there will not be the people to do it?
I cannot begin to match the eloquence or real knowledge of the distinguished scientists who have already spoken. I had written down some rather naive remarks, but I shall move on since the hour is getting late.
The principal recommendation of the report is that the ABRC should set aside £5 million over five years for taxonomy research. Reference has been made to that by numerous speakers. That was in January. In May the NERC announced its intention to mount an initiative from within its own baseline funding to help reinvigorate taxonomic research and training in the UK. The scope of the initiative and the funding
1330
available were agreed at the council's meeting this morning. That initiative by NERC addresses one of the critical areas of deficiency identified in the Select Committee report—the recruitment of younger, talented people into taxonomic research. That area was also highlighted in the other report to which much reference has been made today; namely, the report of the committee set up by NERC under Professor John Krebs. It recommended inter alia roughly the same level of funding. Its objectives have been referred to today; that is, to identify new scientific opportunities in taxonomy. As has already been said, it complements the Select Committee's report. I do not need to go more into that because much has been said already about the relationship of that report to the Select Committee report.
However, I wish to say a few words about the NERC initiative. It comprises packages of measures aimed at stimulating undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training and research, both through the appointment of research fellows and through research grants. An Announcement of Opportunity will be published in September 1992 inviting bids from higher education institutions for three of those packages, each for five years' duration.
The essence of the package will be two NERC fellowships in taxonomy which we intend to be viewed as prestigious appointments with the hack-up that goes with them: two research grants and a small contribution—an important point—to enable postgraduate students to attend short technical courses; for example, at the Natural History Museum or the European course in Amsterdam. That is a positive contribution.
NERC support for that initiative will total about £2.2 million in total over the five-year period. That is a little under half the figure that was recommended in the Select Committee report. However, there are some important strings attached to the offer. They are important because apart from anything else they are novel. Provision of the support will be dependent on the HEIs providing evidence of their commitment to teaching taxonomy at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and of their partnership with the great taxonomic collections which are relevant to their teaching and research. I believe that those provisos are novel. They go beyond the normal research grant-giving system. They call for a commitment to teaching. That I believe is a highly relevant consideration.
That is what we in NERC propose to do. I should emphasise that that is additional to the £2 million a year that we already spend in this field. It goes a long way towards the committee's target of £5 million over five years. One must hope that others will follow that lead. It is only a first step in addressing one of the most critical problems and it is necessarily money taken from other baseline funding which is already tight. We had a fairly agonising discussion this morning about where we would find the money. Needless to say, some recommended that it be taken from one pocket and others suggested that it should be from another. But we will find the money. However, it indicates that we in NERC take the issue seriously. One hopes too that

1331
the Government will react in a similar vein. Reference has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that this could be a useful objective of the Darwin Initiative announced recently by the Prime Minister at Rio.
The injection of funds by NERC is aimed specifically at stimulating the environmental applications of taxonomic research. We hope that it will lead to a number of high quality young taxonomists working in this area who will be able to win future support through the usual competitive routes and who, by example, will also bring more high quality postgraduates to view taxonomy as an exciting research topic.
It is clearly not a total answer to the Select Committee's report and should not be seen as such. However, it provides a possible model for those concerned with other aspects of taxonomic research to consider. It should also help to enhance the links between the collections and the HEIs. We recognise the importance of the support of the collections. There has been much reference to that support today.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am a trustee of the Natural History Museum, as I believe other speakers in the debate have been in the past. Perhaps I should also declare an interest as Master of Birkbeck College at which we undertake some work in systematics.
I very much welcome the Select Committee report. I believe that it focuses on an important area of scientific research. We have had a useful and interesting debate on the topic, with contributors who have very much more expertise in the area than I do. Above all, the debate has been marked by support for the Select Committee's recommendations and by the unanimity of support for improved funding for research in systematic biology.
As the Select Committee rightly states, research in this field must be supported largely by public funds. It is fundamental research which, although it has many spin-offs for other branches of science, is unlikely to attract a great deal of private-sector support. I say that in spite of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, about sponsorship of named species. I like the idea but I suspect that it will not produce the kind of sums that are needed.
Research in this area has been hit by a failure to provide adequate resources in three main areas. First, the research councils have insufficient funds to support many alpha-rated proposals in what are currently more fashionable specialisms than systematic biology. In the circumstances it is hardly surprising that those carrying out research in this area have difficulty in obtaining research council funds. However, I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said about the intentions of the NERC.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has explained so clearly, individual university departments of biology are no exception with regard to the diminishing funds available to universities to support research. It is increasingly necessary for the heads of institutions to tell their staff that they must go outside
1332
the institution to acquire funds to pay for their research facilities and for their research staff. Facilities for research in systematics are now considerably more expensive.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, was fair in criticising the universities for failing to support the work. Clearly fashions change and this particular area of work has become less glamorous. However, it is difficult for universities to provide adequate facilities for even the most fashionable areas of research, let alone for areas such as systematic biology.
Thirdly, the major collections at our national institutions have suffered from declining funding in real terms. That has undoubtedly affected the curation work of the museums as well as damaging their research output. The Government's agreement to accept the Select Committee's recommendations would go a long way towards rescuing this important field of research from what otherwise appears bound to be a continuing decline leaving systematists on the brink of extinction. In present circumstances it is unlikely to attract many talented young scientists because research conditions are too limited to provide the necessary encouragement. My noble friend Lady Nicol regretted that students no longer find the work attractive, but it is clear why they do not.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, the committee's recommendations are modest. The sums involved are tiny in public expenditure terms and therefore I hope that we shall have a positive reply from the Minister. If the scientists concerned receive another rebuff that would be most galling.
As my colleagues who are systematists have reminded me, there is for an interested taxonomist a sense of déjà vu about the report. Its principal recommendations are similar to those made in the late 1970s by a review group on taxonomy acting for the ABRC. They were published as long ago as 1979. Both reports recommend that financial support for major institutions should be maintained; that taxonomic research should be specifically supported by the science budget; and that postgraduate training should be expanded. I am afraid to say that the necessity for the present report stems largely from the failure to implement the recommendations of the earlier report. How many more reports must be written before we see some action to preserve this work?
I turn briefly to the reason why systematics is important. I have heard it said that the work is now largely unnecessary because so much of it has been done and most species have been described and defined. The Select Committee has rightly refuted that view. We are nowhere near encompassing the diversity of tropical plant and insect life. For example, every year some 20,000 newly-recognised species of insect are described in some 8,000 scientific publications. Secondly, the expanding science of molecular biology is generating many new insights into the diversity and relationships of plants and animals. Thirdly, every generation needs trained systematists for the simple task of putting the available information to good use.
Systematics provides a necessary framework for various areas of applied biology. That includes

1333
important fields outside the academic world; for example, in medicine and veterinary science. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, talked eloquently about the importance of the work in areas such as the identification of pathogens, parasites, carriers and so forth. It is also of great value in the area of pharmaceuticals. Drugs were once entirely derived from plants and, although many are now synthetic, the plants of the world are still a vast reservoir for complex compounds with useful biomedical properties.
As regards agriculture, the identification of fungal, weed and insect pests is most important. The work is also important in fisheries because the exact effects of fishing and over-fishing can be assessed only if local fish populations can be identified and monitored. The effects of industrial pollution of land, rivers and sea can be understood only by comparing the diversity and types of animals of polluted and unpolluted areas. As regards fossil fuels, important work is done by systematists in geology and biology. Concentrations of fossil fuels are located not by lucky-dip drilling but by a proper and systematic analysis of sedimentary basins. A major component of that analysis is the precise identification of fossils within drill cores in order to match geographically separate drill cores with each other and with surface exposures. In all those activities those involved must use the work of biologists trained in the identification of organisms.
Systematists are also important in the preservation of the environment. There is now a growing concern about the conservation of biodiversity. A number of speakers have referred to that. I was glad that the Prime Minister signed the Convention on Biodiversity at the recent Rio conference. However, some of us would like to know a little more about how much the Government are prepared to do to demonstrate their commitment to the convention, in particular through projects which would be valuable to the developing countries.
It is essential that third world countries have an up-to-date inventory of their own biodiversity and biological natural resources. For example, the reversal of desertification in North Africa depends on understanding the vegetation. The destruction of tropical rainforests is happening on a piecemeal and somewhat anarchic basis. We should be a little naive to think that it could be stopped altogether. However, it is possible that it could be directed, with some areas given priority for conservation while others are either harvested on a renewable basis or destroyed. Systematists have already shown that tropical rainforests are not all equal in content. Some are very old and have rich fauna and others more recent in origin have less extensive flora and fauna. Clearly we need more work in that area.
Developing countries must be given both help and support. The Government should perhaps look at the possibility of sponsoring biodiversity courses in the UK with ODA funds. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is being considered. The Government may also consider promoting a
1334
European Community systematic biology programme. There is a case for providing consultancies for UK staff to travel abroad to give courses and run workshops in developing countries to help to build up local expertise and infrastructure.
No doubt in her reply the Minister will refer to the Government's commitment to the Darwin Initiative. I know that the Natural History Museum, Kew and Edinburgh are willing to support it. However, so far no financial commitment has been mentioned. Without that, it is difficult to see how the initiative differs much from the status quo. Assessment of biological diversity of, for example, rainforests could only be undertaken by teams of biologists trained in the study of the range of rainforest plants and animals. Such teams do not exist at present; they would have to be created and funded. When the Minister replies, perhaps she will be able to say something about the level of funding which the Government will make available to that initiative.
More generally on the question of resources, the NERC report on the new taxonomy has, like the Select Committee, calculated that about £1 million per annum is now needed for taxonomic research and training over the next five years. As the Select Committee made clear—and a number of noble Lords have referred to this—we must get more new blood into the discipline. When staff have retired they have not been replaced and the age structure of people in that sphere is now badly skewed. Training courses and research opportunities proposed by the NERC will help, but again the funding must be available. There are many other competing claims, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said.
More is also needed to improve the core funding of the major collections. At the Natural History Museum there has been an 8 per cent. decline in government grant-in-aid over the past 10 years. In smaller museums around the country the position is even worse. We cannot allow the irreplaceable collections in our national museums to deteriorate further. They really must be properly maintained. To fail to do that and to allow those collections of global importance to deteriorate would, in my view, be highly irresponsible.
Academics in higher education institutions and the museums have been struggling to keep that important work going. I congratulate the Select Committee on drawing those problems to our attention. I hope that on this occasion we shall receive a positive response from the Minister and the report will not suffer the same fate as the earlier report in the 1970s on the same subject.
7.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, although daunted by the task of replying to the debate—it is not a subject with which I am familiar or in which I have any expertise —I wish to say what a privilege it has been to listen to a most interesting discussion.
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for initiating the debate. I am grateful to him and to the other members of the Select Committee who contributed to the production of the report. The work

1335
of the Select Committee is widely valued and the committee is to be congratulated on producing a comprehensive report on an important subject.
My noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lord Selborne and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, introduced themselves as lay people. I hope that those with greater expertise in these matters, who have listened to the debate, will agree with me that they made a good job of fooling us that they are lay people. They made impressive speeches.
The Government welcome the contribution that the committee makes to the consideration of scientific and technological issues, and look forward to a continuing and constructive dialogue with the committee. The report considers the subject of systematic biology in depth and makes a number of recommendations. The Government are considering those recommendations most carefully and plan to make a written response later in the year.
I listened to the debate with interest. I am sure that the departments which have an interest in systematic biology—and there are several—will read Hansard carefully. A number of important points have been made; I intend to cover some of those later. I should first like to touch upon some of the initiatives that have happened since the publication of the report earlier this year. Most will be known to your Lordships since they have already been discussed and debated in recent weeks in this House. However, I beg your Lordships' indulgence in bringing them together under the umbrella of today's Motion since I feel they have a bearing on our consideration of the report today.
Most importantly, from a global perspective we have had the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development. Although, to some, the outcome of the conference may not have met early expectations, your Lordships will know of, and have welcomed, the various positive initiatives that impinge on the subject we are debating today. The Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, provides a framework for international co-operation to protect the world's species and their habitats. It paves the way for the conservation and sustainable development of natural resources worldwide and facilitates the sharing of the benefits of valuable biological resources through partnerships forged between north and south.
We are following up the biodiversity convention through the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of the Species which the Prime Minister also announced in his speech at Rio. The Darwin Initiative reflects the United Kingdom's position as a world leader in conservation and in the sustainable use of the world's resources of biodiversity and natural habitat. It will place at the disposal of other countries the skills and experience of our leading institutions.
A number of noble Lords asked about funding. The precise funding requirements for the initiative have yet to be finalised but I assure the House that that valuable initiative will not be allowed to founder for lack of resources.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also announced at Rio the substantial commitment of new
1336
funds which this Government will be contributing to the 2 billion to 3 billion-dollar replenishment of the Global Environment Facility. The Government have made that commitment of up to £100 million because of the value they place on the projects which the facility undertakes for the benefit of the global environment and they look to other countries to join in making financial commitments. At the same time we shall want to be sure that the money is spent wisely on projects of good scientific value. We shall therefore be pushing for proper assessment and evaluation of projects funded by the Global Environment Facility, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
The environmental and ethical reasons for seeking to conserve biological diversity are compelling. But there are also some economic considerations, particularly in relation to the exploitation of useful genes for agricultural and industrial purposes. To ensure that genetic diversity is available for future development—so that, for example, we can respond to future challenges and changes in climate, pests and diseases—the Government fund a number of arboreta, botanic gardens and plant gene banks. In recognition of the role which ex-situ conservation of plant genetic resources can play within the wider field of biodiversity conservation, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, working with the Scottish Office agriculture and fisheries department, recently concluded a review of the subject and is in the process of implementing its recommendations. Those can be expected to result in better co-ordination, better value for money and better utilisation of the United Kingdom's important collections.
Another significant event—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—has been the publication of a review by the Natural Environment Research Council, under a committee chaired by Professor John Krebs. That review—Evolution and Biodiversity: The New Taxonomy—complements the report we are debating today. It concentrates on the new scientific opportunities in the field of taxonomy and its related disciplines, and demonstrates the positive commitment that NERC is making to taxonomy. The report coincided with the launching of a new initiative by the NERC aimed at taxonomic research and training in the United Kingdom. Under that initiative, higher education institutions will be offered the opportunity to bid for five-year packages of funding which the council intends should act as a pump priming, encouraging the higher education institutions to commit a greater share of their own resources to taxonomy. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is a member of the NERC, for the further details of the initiative that he supplied today. I understand that there was a meeting today.
Those are just some of the ways in which this Government and their institutions are giving positive support to systematic biology. Together they present a more prosperous and productive future for systematic biology in the United Kingdom than is presented in the report we are debating today. That does not mean that the problems which the report identifies do not exist: there are undoubtedly areas

1337
where matters could be improved. But in many areas of science, the picture changes continually, priorities change, and it is important to look forward to new opportunities and new goals.
A number of points were raised during the debate, some of which I shall respond to; otherwise I shall write to noble Lords. On the matter of the recommendations concerning funding raised in the first instance by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, I am afraid that I am not in a position to respond with details today. I hope that he and others will understand that they must await a written response. However, I can assure your Lordships that the Government will be considering the recommendations concerning funding most carefully to see whether further money can be added to the substantial sums already spent each year on systematic biology. Your Lordships will know that resources are finite and that there are many demands on the public purse. The Government's job is to balance priorities and resources, and the report and the debate today will help to inform that process.
Mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of the age distribution of university systematists. While the lack of new blood is a matter for concern, the NERC report, Evolution and Biodiversity: The New Taxonomy, showed that the problem is not unique to systematic biology and it is important that we look to new opportunities. That is exactly what the initiative announced by the NERC in May sets out to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, highlighted the recommendation that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils should assess the need for MSc courses and allocate funding. I must remind your Lordships that the ABRC has an advisory rather than executive role in the allocation of research expenditure. The Government cannot answer for the ABRC today. However I can give the House the view of the Government, which is that the scientific community should get together with the Funding and Research Councils to determine the need for trained systematists and tackle any areas where shortage of supply is constraining the development of science and its application. The NERC initiative is a creditable first step in improving training opportunities in higher education.
The noble Lords, Lord Dainton and Lord Whaddon, also mentioned the recommendation that the Department of National Heritage should have access to scientific advice. That is a new department; its organisation is still being developed. The recommendation is something which I am sure it will be considering carefully. However, I would not like your Lordships to think that that fine institution, the Natural History Museum, takes decisions in blissful ignorance of science. The board of trustees for the museum of which the noble Baroness is a member, has on it several eminent scientists who provide the necessary scientific advice.
The Government are sympathetic to the recommendation mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that a
1338
forum should be established to develop a national curatorial policy. The Government are considering how best to set up such a forum, which could also build links with overseas institutions to develop an international framework for systematics.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook posed the direct question in regard to the progress that had been made on the Darwin project. Perhaps I can add to what I said. We have already taken part in preliminary discussions with some of the organisations and institutions which we hope will be involved in the initiative. We invited all public and private organisations with an interest to contact us. The action team will be formed from representatives of institutions, NGOs, industry and government officials. The hope is that the whole debate will be furthered and that we shall have more to report in a short time.
In response to my noble friend's wonderful suggestion that we should name species after contemporary fellows, I was reminded by my noble friend on the Front Bench that there exists a giraffe known as the Thornicroft Giraffe, found in Zambia. I understand that the proper name is Giraffa Camelopardalis Thornicroftii. Whether that has any relationship to our noble colleague in this House, I am not sure.
My noble friend also asked for progress and ratification. Ratification will depend on satisfactory understandings and arrangements that take full account of the concerns of the United Kingdom in regard to financial commitments and potential liabilities.
My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to science in the national curriculum. I am delighted to say that for the first time ever there is now a requirement that all children shall be taught science from the age of five through to 16. As someone who frequently visits schools as part of my job, I can only say that there are exciting things happening in science in our schools today. That certainly bodes well for the future and for a growing number of scientifically aware young people.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke of the ICI reed beds. I am aware of the success of the reed beds planted by ICI in the Middlesbrough area. It is an impressive project, and we take note of my noble friend's comments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to core funding by the ODA of taxonomic institutes overseas. The ODA's overall task is to support development in poor developing countries. That is achieved by funding projects and programmes that directly support development. Some of the activities currently supported are indeed in institutions carrying out taxonomic research including, among others, the Goeldi Institute in Brazil and the International Bureau for Plant Genetic Resources. In those cases the specific projects involved have direct developmental benefits and project budgets which may include an element to meet that part of the institute's core costs related to the projects.
The noble Baroness will understand that it would not be appropriate to use those specific funds to

1339
provide core support to those or other bodies except through projects that can be shown directly to support development. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to curation of collections. The Government agree that valuable collections should be properly maintained and accessible. It is important also to maintain living collections such as seeds, growing plant material and microbial culture collections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned that it has been said that systematic biology is no longer relevant because all the identification and recording have been done. I can give her an absolute assurance that that is not a view to which the Government subscribe. The Government fully understand the importance of systematic biology as a fundamental research tool with applications in environmental, agricultural, industrial and medical fields, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. We shall continue to support systematic biology research and collections at a level necessary to maintain the United Kingdom's strong position in that field.
In summing up, I should like to reiterate my thanks to the Select Committee for the report. Its reports encourage constructive debate on science and technology issues and keep the Government on their toes.
The Government have recently given science and technology a higher profile with the establishment of the Office of Science and Technology under my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, supported by Professor William Stewart, the Government's chief scientific adviser. One of its functions is to promote areas of science which span several departments such as biodiversity and systematic biology and to ensure that important issues do not fall between the cracks.
Noble Lords will know that the Government have announced their intention to publish a White Paper on science and technology early in 1993. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is consulting widely. I am sure that he will welcome contributions from this House. Our debate will certainly be a valuable additional comment. The creation of the Office of Science and Technology has been widely welcomed by scientists, industrialists, the media and across parties. I am particularly pleased that several of your Lordships have welcomed its creation. I trust that the Science and Technology Committee had a fruitful exchange of views yesterday with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
The Government look forward to a continuing dialogue with the Committee and will of course give most careful consideration to all the points that have been raised in the report and by noble Lords today. Again, I extend our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for bringing this debate to the House.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, this has been an interesting and informative debate. It has been so informative that in some ways I am tempted to substitute the word "seminar" for "debate". We have ranged over a very wide field from fundamental
1340
problems to practical issues of great importance. I am immensely indebted to all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion and from whose comments I have learned much. There seems to have been a general feeling today among those who spoke that the United Kingdom has let systematic biological research decline just when it is needed to play a full part in some of these great international attacks which we have to make on the problem of conserving global biodiversity and when the subject is also poised for a major advance.
That we have got into this situation is unfortunate, but I would repeat that the sub-committee is convinced that it can be rectified very cheaply. The noble Baroness has told us that some action has already been taken. I wish to emphasise, as my noble friend Lord Porter has stated, that, apart from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, those of us who formed the sub-committee lacked any biological knowledge of any significance. I believe that we were regarded as a very hard-nosed lot of physical scientists, if we were scientists at all, and difficult people to convince. We were in fact very firmly convinced by the evidence that came in front of us.
It is in that context that I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said in her reply. Obviously, I cannot deal with all the points tonight, not least because I am very conscious of the Order Paper, which I have just been glancing at. There is a queue of Motions for approval after this, among which the Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning Order sounds rather threatening. Perhaps it should be the subject of some systematic biological research.
Nevertheless, there are one or two points on which I feel I must comment. The first among them is the opening statement in the noble Baroness's remarks that the Government look forward to a constructive debate with the committee. Perhaps I may say how very much we welcome that. We shall be very willing to respond in a positive way and put what knowledge and evidence we have before the Government. We are also grateful to learn of initiatives which the noble Baroness described and which the Government have taken since the publication of the report, though I do not believe that we would be so bold as to claim that issuing the report triggered those decisions. However, I hope that it helped in that respect.
I am concerned about the global environment facility. It is very well known—the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and I having seen it. I hope that very careful scrutiny will be made of the proposals which the World Bank wants to engage in under that heading. I hope that the Government can reserve their position until they are satisfied that there is to be a degree of accountability for that money which is at least as rigorous as the accountability of our own research councils and spending bodies to us. That is of absolutely vital importance. If it is not I can give warning now that I shall return to this particular issue and demand a mere 1 per cent. of the money which is promised for the global environment facility: it will solve all the problems here.
I was particularly interested in the ideas for better co-ordination which were mentioned. I should love to

1341
hear a great deal more about that. I believe the noble Baroness has promised that we shall. I hope that happens before there is a fait accompli, so that we can contribute some ideas on the subject. Those ideas have been, as it were, tossed around in committee. The NERC surprise, if I can call it that, from my noble friend Lord Chorley was wholly delightful, although the Minister herself was privy to it.
Before I came to the debate this evening I was jotting down a few notes as to what I was going to say if in fact nothing was happening at all. I was going to say that I hoped that by now, some five months after publication of the report, some research council, perhaps more than one, would have come up with an imaginative, practical scheme which it could incorporate in its bid to the ABRC. That would then be a good opportunity for the ABRC to respond positively, if necessary using the new executive powers which were conferred on it, I may say, with historical irony, largely in response to a committee set up under Dr. Morris to study the problems of biological funding by multiple research councils. I take this very welcome initiative of the Natural Environment Research Council as the forerunner of other initiatives in what the French used to call action concertée (concerted action) by many funding bodies to resolve this problem in the most sensible way. I regard the NERC proposal, as my noble friend Lord Chorley described it, as embodying many of the essential ingredients for success. I congratulate the council on going forward. I hope that the initiative will be rewarded in the only possible manner that research councils can recognise; namely, money.
There are many other issues which I could touch on. The noble Baroness said that the age structure was not unique and skewed in this way. That is perfectly true. There are other aspects in other subjects within universities which display a skewed age distribution and which are a reflection of the history of the past two decades. But there comes a point when, in a particular subject which is especially important, the problem becomes serious. That was why we chose this subject and examined it in such detail. The other issues which arise as a result of the age structure in other subjects lie outside the remit of my sub-committee.
I was a little disappointed when the noble Baroness said that the National Heritage Department does not need advice on funding the Natural History Museum. As a trustee of that museum for some 10 years, and having been a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission, I believe that there is a need there. I hope that that particular problem will be thought about a little more. I hesitate to say that I hope it will be thought about a little more deeply, but it struck me as a rather quick reaction because what one wants to see is that the National Heritage Department, when it is weighing up the claims of the British Library, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the British Museum, the Tate Gallery and so on, in relation to the Natural History Museum, has some kind of guidance on that which it cannot easily get and does not possess among its own officers. One obvious source of information on
1342
that would be the Museums and Galleries Commission. I speak with inside knowledge having been a commissioner for some years, as I say.
The forum for curatorial policy is very welcome. I believe that that might have come about anyway, but the fact that the Government are prepared to give it a little push will help enormously. If that little push can be accompanied by a little of the fluid which oils the wheels—again we are talking about the slight cost which may be incurred—that too will help.
The science curriculum and the determination to keep the subject in, as it were, need some rather detailed attention. One of the things that really horrified us was to learn the advice that was given to parents in a well-known school that, because of the options which were available in the general certificate of education at advanced level, it was perfectly possible to get any grade from E to A without touching systematic biology. Parents were, therefore, advised that their children need not study it. Obviously, that points to a lacuna in the system which needs to be closed in some effective way. There are problems in that respect.
Generally, however, I am delighted. The Minister referred to the new Office of Public Service and Science, headed by Mr. Waldegrave. Yesterday we had the privilege of seeing him appear, with Mr. Robert Jackson, before the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He is enjoying the advantage of a dinner at the Royal Society from which the length of this debate has excluded me, I am sorry to say. However, when I next see him—as I will—I shall thank him for this. On behalf of the committee, I shall also encourage his office to look at some of these difficult problems which arise from time to time in all subjects because the social dynamics of a particular group of people lead the system into a downward spiral and it is then that special action has to be taken. This is a case that has been staring us in the face for many years and action should have been taken earlier.
While I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, very warmly for the spirit of the Government's reply and while I look forward eagerly to the constructive dialogue to which she referred at the beginning of her speech, all I would plead for in conclusion is that one should be prepared to have some body that can look across the whole field of science—I hope that the new Office of Science and Technology will fulfil this role —and which can identify where there are problems of this kind before things get too difficult. There may be problems because subjects fall between the cracks or because they appear not to be important in the light of existing fashions. We then need to take the earlier and cheapest of all possible remedies, which is the only remedy.
Perhaps I may conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken for their participation in this debate, which, from my point of view, has been very rewarding. Perhaps I may also commit the sub-committee—for as long as it exists—to engaging in the dialogue which noble Lords agree is necessary. We might have something to offer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1992
8.22 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 15th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour and having regard to the further business in your Lordships' House later this evening, perhaps it would be convenient if I moved the order standing in my name formally. Therefore, if your Lordships agree, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 1 5th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Validation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
8.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, though brief, is highly important to the licensed trade in Northern Ireland. As the essence is in Article 3, I shall confine my comments to that. This article validates liquor licences in which the title, through no fault of the holder, has become flawed. In effect it does three things. First, it validates protection orders where two or more have been granted to the same person. Secondly, it validates subsequent actions on the licence such as renewal or transfer. Thirdly, if the licence is one where a previous holder had died or become bankrupt, it too is validated by the provisions.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the background. The Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which consolidated previous licensing law, allows anyone acquiring a liquor retail business to apply to the court for a protection order. This allows him to trade until he is able to apply to the court for transfer of the licence. A protection order lasts for six months but often this has proved insufficient to complete the necessary formalities. In those circumstances, applicants have applied to the courts for further protection orders. Invariably since 1971 the courts have granted these.
However, in December 1989, the Court of Appeal held that, apart from one exempt category, the law did not permit two or more protection orders to be granted to the same person. In that case, which concerned bankruptcy, the licence was declared void. As a result of that decision and a more recent one in which bankruptcy was not involved, there are about 500 licences at similar risk through no fault of the holders themselves.
Your Lordships will appreciate the serious threat this poses to businesses and jobs province-wide. It is hardly surprising that those in the licensed trade now seek urgent remedy. In this they are supported by the legal profession, who through the Law Society of Northern Ireland have made formal representations in the matter. The Government do not propose any substantive change to the existing law since the legal profession and the trade consider that by making some adjustments to past practice problems can be avoided in future.
I hope and trust that I have sufficiently explained the reasons why the order is so essential. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for explaining the technical nature of this order and the fact that it does not involve a point of principle.
I assume that the 500 or so licensees involved have not suffered any financial loss as a result of the error on the part of the licensing justices in granting two or more protection orders successively to the same person in respect of the same premises. I also assume that the department is satisfied that the clerks to the licensing justices fully appreciate that the practice of issuing two or more protection orders successively must henceforth cease. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that both assumptions are well founded.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to raise a limited point in connection with licensing, of which I have given notice to the noble Earl. We all know that there has been a considerable tightening up of licensing legislation which was extremely necessary in view of the number of shebeens, speak-easies and clubs dominated by paramilitary organisations that used to exist in former years. By and large, this process has worked through quite smoothly.
However, it seems that it bears rather harshly particularly on the voluntary community associations which have their own premises and which need the occasional licence to sell drinks in order to accommodate such events as wedding receptions, 21st birthday parties and other local community celebrations. As I understand it, if they wish to have an occasional licence for a day, an evening or any other short period, they have to appear before the magistrate and they probably have to be represented by a solicitor. That is a costly and cumbersome procedure. What I am asking the Government is whether means can be found to simplify that procedure for these extremely bona fide organisations. I am sure that the noble Earl and his advisers will be able to think of methods by which such a simplification and cost reduction could be achieved.
My experience of these matters stems from quite a number of years' association with and knowledge of the Ainsworth Community Association which is located on the interface between the Springfield Road and the Shankhill Road in West Belfast. It has done an extremely good job over a long period of years in

1345
keeping the peace, holding the community together and promoting everything that is constructive and worth while. I hope that the noble Earl will give this matter his favourable consideration.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given to the order during this short debate. In the Government's view it satisfactorily addresses the protection order difficulty and ensures a speedy reinstatement of title on the affected licences.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked for confirmation that when the order takes effect people will not be applying for two protection orders again. I can confirm that, apart from one exempt category which deals with illness or infirmity of the licensee, this will indeed be the case. I can also confirm that there has been no financial loss to the 500 licensees.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about a simpler procedure for voluntary organisations seeking to obtain occasional licences. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to problems that organisations are facing and for his suggested solution. I shall see to it that this aspect of the law is examined and I shall advise him of the outcome of this matter as soon as I can.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1992
8.31 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved [1st Report frotn the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. In presenting the draft order to the House I wish to give a brief account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the past year, including some explanation of how we have taken forward the task of seeking to promote alternative and durable structures of government for Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships had the opportunity recently to discuss the security situation in Northern Ireland and will be aware that over the past year the campaign of violence by terrorists on both sides of the community has continued in all its malignancy and futility. Since last July 106 people have died and many more have been injured. Homes and livelihoods have been destroyed by bombs and incendiaries.
Our first priority is to bring this terrorism to a permanent end; the people of this country deserve no less. But this must be done within the rule of law. That principle cannot be set aside. So the Government will continue to support the vigorous and impartial actions of the police and the Army as they operate with seasoned professionalism.
On the economic front, during the course of the 1980s the Northern Ireland rate of economic growth
1346
broadly matched that achieved at national level. From then on, the local economy has been adversely affected by the national recession. Nevertheless, the Province's economic performance has proved to be remarkably resilient in the circumstances. Unemployment has risen by 5,600 over the year and now stands at 105,000, or 14.4 per cent. of the workforce. This rate of increase has, however, moderated in recent months and is substantially below that for the United Kingdom as a whole. Similarly, while output and employment levels in Northern Ireland are down by around 2 per cent. over the year, this compares with United Kingdom decreases of about 3.5 per cent. Moreover, recent business surveys point to an increase in business confidence in Northern Ireland and to a welcome revival in export performance. Taken overall, the past year has provided encouraging evidence of Northern Ireland's economic capabilities.
This trend has also been seen much closer to home in the growing interest of industry and commerce in exploiting the opportunities that exist for trade with the Republic of Ireland. The IDB has been working very effectively with the Irish Trade Board to develop exhibitions and roadshows, through which companies north or south can demonstrate their products and their capabilities to each other. We are seeking also to open up the public purchasing market in Northern Ireland and the Republic to small firms from all over the island. Good communications are obviously a vital factor in facilitating trade, and the recent decision on the upgrading of the Belfast-Dublin rail link is therefore particularly welcome. Work on that will start later this year.
The year 1991 was another encouraging one for the tourism industry, with Northern Ireland recording its highest ever number of visitors—1.19 million. Within the figure there was an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year in the number of holiday visitors, which stood at more than a quarter of a million.
On the agricultural front, the major development has been the CAP reform agreement. This will remove the uncertainty over production levels and support and enable farmers to plan ahead on the basis of agreed production levels. A rural development initiative, assisted with funds from Europe, has also been established to tackle the social and economic problems of the Province's most deprived rural areas and, because we all recognise the need to ensure that agriculture is developed in an environmentally friendly way, a scheme of environmentally sensitive areas is being set up around the Province.
In health we have continued to make good progress towards implementation of our reforms which will enable our health and personal social services to meet the growing demand for treatment and care in the Province. Contracting out of services came into operation in April and one health and social services trust has been established—the Royal Group. Other applications are being considered. Significant numbers of general practitioners have also expressed interest in joining the GP fundholding scheme.
In education the Government are proceeding with the implementation of the programmes of study in the compulsory subjects of the school curriculum; by

1347
September this year 10 subjects will have been introduced into secondary schools and six into primary schools. The Government have also approved a common core syllabus in religious education for use in all grant-aided schools, and this will be phased in to primary and secondary schools from September 1993. Open enrolment has been introduced into both primary and secondary sectors and better and more timely information for parents about schools is being produced.
On the community relations front the Government remain firmly committed to the promotion of equality of opportunity and the elimination of all forms of unlawful discrimination in employment. Since the beginning of 1992 the registration and monitoring requirements on employers have been extended to include those with 11 to 25 employees, and the number of firms registered with the Fair Employment Commission has as a result increased from 1,900 to just over 4,000. The commission is currently investigating 47 firms where monitoring returns have indicated that there is a substantial under-representation of either Protestants or Roman Catholics in the workforce.
In general, however, the Fair Employment Commission has been most encouraged by the response of the vast majority of employers to the new duties placed upon them by the 1989 Act. The Government are committed to carrying out a formal review of the effectiveness of the Fair Employment Act after five years, and it is our intention to publish a detailed paper on the workings of the legislation later in the year.
I should now like to turn to the political talks. As your Lordships will be aware, a round of discussions took place last year under the previous Secretary of State and new talks were launched this year on 9th March. They resumed after the general election on 29th April. It will, I am sure, have given your Lordships very great satisfaction last week when the participants—the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the British and Irish Governments—agreed to move the discussions forward to the second and third strands. Up to that moment the talks had remained in the first strand, addressing the question of relationships within the community in Northern Ireland, including between any new institutions which might be created there and the Westminster Parliament. As a result of last week's agreement to move into strands II and III, when the Irish Government become directly involved, the talks are now concentrating on relationships throughout the island of Ireland and in due course between the two governments.
I am sure that all your Lordships will join me in wishing the participants well in this vital enterprise. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should also like to acknowledge the important part being played by Sir Ninian Stephen, the former Governor general of Australia. As the previous Secretary of State made clear before the talks began last year, the participants are,
"setting out to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands".
The Government's objective is clear. They wish to return greater power, authority and responsibility to Northern Ireland's locally elected representatives, within a framework of new political agreements which would attract widespread support and would take account of Northern Ireland's wider relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
I cannot go into the detail of the discussions. As your Lordships will know, they are confidential. It will be clear to all of your Lordships, however, that although the continuing progress of the talks gives cause for optimism there are many difficult and sensitive issues yet to be addressed. I can assure the House that, for their part, Her Majesty's Government will continue to do everything possible to ensure that the talks realise their full potential. I am sure that that is what the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and the Republic would wish to see.
In conclusion, the Government will remain committed to striving, through action on the security front, the economic and social front and the political front, to promote a more just, prosperous and peaceful society in Northern Ireland and one in which its elected representatives can take their rightful share of responsibility for the direction and administration of the affairs of its people. However, until it proves possible to put in place workable and durable structures to that end, direct rule must continue. In those circumstances, I commend the present order to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved [1st Report of the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran).
8.40 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the broad review of the industrial and social developments in Northern Ireland during the past 12 months. But, of course, that does not compensate for the loss of democratic control which is implied in direct rule. In fairness to the Minister, he did not make that suggestion. Indeed, it is a remarkable fact, and a sad one, that the House is being invited for the 18th successive year to renew the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I find it hard to believe that that was foreseeable in 1974.
Although we give our consent again this year to the renewal, we should never grow weary of repeating that the 1974 Act which imposed direct rule on Northern Ireland is an affront to a democratic society. That is not just my description; it is a description which has been used by the Secretary of State himself. He was quoted in last Saturday's Financial Times as saying:
"My job is to relieve the people of Northern Ireland of the indignity of having their local affairs governed for them by Westminster ministers. It is an indignity, it is an affront and I also think it is an absurdity".
Part of our task, but in a very modest way, is to assist the Secretary of State in his job. Direct rule involves a huge and unhealthy concentration of power in the Northern Ireland Office, in its Ministers—with all respect to the noble Earl, Lord Arran—and in its appointed agencies which are unaccountable to the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, in theory the

1349
Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, but in practice that accountability is plainly inadequate. Direct rule denies to the people of Northern Ireland control over the way in which government policies are determined, control over the legislation, such as the housing order that is enacted and control over the way that the services are run. We shall be dealing with those subjects later.
As we all know, Northern Ireland is a very small country with a small population of about 1.5 million. There is probably no other part of the United Kingdom where the sense of identity with a community and territory is as strong as it is in Northern Ireland. Yet, there is no other part of the UK where democratic government has been so effectively undermined at every level. Even at district level the elected council is a feeble creature, whereas at county level there is no means whereby the citizen can enjoin representative government.
Therefore, as one reflects upon that landscape and also recalls the grim and persistent campaign of violence and the pain and suffering of the past 18 years, it is easy to take a sombre view of the prospects. Yet, at long last, there are now hopeful signs that the climate is slowly improving. Throughout the country there is evidence of an overwhelming desire for peace. Men and women of different religious and political persuasions, and those of none, are co-operating in their own communities, and throughout Northern Ireland, to tackle and resolve issues of immediate concern to people. The evidence for that is to be found in the reports of the voluntary organisations; such as, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Bryson House, Corporation North, Shelter Northern Ireland and the Protestant and Catholic Encounter, to name but a few notable examples.
That activity involves the collating of proposals and then the resolution of different views for the greater good of the community, or in the interest of all potential beneficiaries, whether they be Protestant or Catholic, Unionist or Republican. All that involves a just regard for the views of others. I believe that to be a new factor which is emerging. By now there is also, in full measure, a desire that leaders of the constitutional parties should make a success of the present negotiations to which the Minister referred. I think that we all read with a sense of relief and anticipation the announcement early last week by the Secretary of State and the reports of the progress which appears to have been made. We very much welcome what the Minister told us this evening.
Of course, our hopes must not be exaggerated. Indeed, ever mindful of the gloom of Irish history, we are not under any illusion about the difficulties that lie ahead. As the representatives are getting away from generalities and getting down to detail and specifics, formidable difficulties have been identified and other formidable problems have yet to surface—of that we can be sure.
On the other hand, there is every incentive for the political leaders and the two governments to go the extra mile under the guidance of Sir Ninian Stephens
1350
to steer a successful course around the rocks and the shoals. If the political parties and the two governments could summon up the will to do just that then, for the first time since 1974, we could begin to anticipate the coming of the day when the Northern Ireland Act 1974 will no longer have to be renewed. It is on that note, which I hope is justified, that we give our consent to the passage of the renewal order.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, if an illustration were needed of the manner in which Northern Ireland is governed and how remote and inappropriate it is, it would be the Licensing (Validation) (Northern Ireland) Order which we discussed a short time ago. That is not the sort of matter which should be discussed in Parliament; it should be discussed and resolved in Northern Ireland itself. The phrase, the "indignity" of direct rule, used by the Secretary of State and quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is extremely appropriate. Indeed, in his cogent introduction of the order, the noble Earl made the point himself.
When the order was debated in another place, Mr. John Hume pointed out that it was very disappointing that the only people in the Chamber were Northern Ireland representatives. If one looks around this Chamber tonight, one sees a handful of us present, all very engaged with the subject. It must be apparent to the people of Northern Ireland that such matters, which mean so very much to them, are on the margin of Parliament's attention. That cannot be right. It is better that Northern Ireland be governed more directly by Northern Irish men and women.
It is for that reason that we on these Benches welcome the tentative steps which the Leader of the other place, Mr. Newton, has taken towards a reconsideration of the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. Liberal Democrats have long called for the proper scrutiny of Northern Ireland legislation. In the light of the agreement reached a fortnight ago to reinstate the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, it seems appropriate that there should be proper parliamentary monitoring of Northern Ireland Office business. Will the Minister give an assurance that the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is given priority in government business in the coming months?
As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, there are some grounds for hope. We are discussing Northern Ireland affairs in a more promising atmosphere than has been possible for a long time. There is more cross-community action. There is a greater awareness of public opinion. I found it notable that in the recent general election at least the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland felt obliged to fight the election as men of peace and reconciliation. They felt obliged to respond to Northern Ireland public opinion. The fact that the talks have been reconvened has, I believe, something to do with the realisation that public opinion in Northern Ireland now wishes Northern Ireland politicians to get on with the process.

1351
That is not in itself a reason for assuming that the talks will be successful. There are some in the Chamber with much more experience of the difficulties of reaching agreement in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Minister is right when he says that the fact that the talks are going well should not lead one to assume that they will reach a satisfactory conclusion. We cannot assume that. I, for one, should like to see a firmer Strand I before the leap is made to Strands II and III. Those of your Lordships who attempted to juggle with oranges when you were young will remember that you can just about do so with two, but that to juggle with three becomes rather difficult. I fear that in the desire to make progress a firm enough base—to change my metaphor—may not have been established at base camp one before the talks move on up the mountain. It would be ungracious of those outside the process to carp. We should congratulate Sir Patrick Mayhew and his predecessor most warmly on the progress they have made; Sir Ninian Stephens on his wise chairmanship; and all the participants on the fact that they seem to have managed—in a remarkable way for Northern Ireland politics—to maintain confidentiality. It is extraordinary that so little has come out. We must not tempt them too much in tonight's debate.
One of the reasons why it is so important for the talks to succeed is that success could harness so much frustrated energy within Northern Ireland society. At the moment we deny many good people real participation in the management of their own affairs. That in itself is a cause for sourness: even local government representatives have little left to them beyond emptying bins. That has created a political vacuum which the extremists and terrorists have been able to fill.
On these Benches we hope that there is a happy ending to the story. We hope that it takes the form of a devolved, power-sharing government in Northern Ireland. It is clear that the Government of the Republic of Ireland are willing to go a great deal further than they have been before, at least in contemporary times, to advance the process. Every advantage must be taken of that. But there is one thing that the British Government could contribute. I was most encouraged to see that the Secretary of State referred to this point the other day. It is the introduction of a Bill of Rights. From these Benches I would say that that should be for the whole of the United Kingdom. But if we cannot have it for the whole of the United Kingdom, then let us have it for Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware that that is something which is supported by all the parties in Northern Ireland. A Bill of Rights could be a vital underpinning of any constitutional settlement. The Minister will recall that the excellent report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, for 1991–92, which was laid before us last week, called for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law as a whole, but especially in respect of Northern Ireland.
I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to say that Liberal Democrats endorse the conclusions on the use of emergency legislation in the terms of chapter 5 of the Standing Advisory Commission
1352
report. That is a subject to which I have referred previously in the House. It is disappointing that the Government have chosen not to implement the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission and of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, not to mention Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch, to introduce video tape recording of interviews held wholly in detention centres. I hope that at some point the Government will respond positively on that issue. I should be interested to hear the Minster's observations tonight.
Finally—and this is something to which I hope to return this evening—one of the great advantages of a successful conclusion to the talks would be the prospect of greater North-South co-operation in terms of economic development. It is preposterous that only 5 per cent. of Northern Ireland's trade is with the South and that an even lower percentage of the Republic of Ireland's trade is with the North. That makes no economic sense. The economic bonus that is potentially available from a peaceful settlement, which is so badly needed in terms of jobs, employment and inward investment, and of a greater infrastructural connection between the north and south of the island must be apparent to everyone.
As European borders come down and as the trade and money flows grow within Europe, and as the Channel Tunnel connects the British mainland to Europe, the danger is that the island of Ireland will be on the periphery. The transport links are not good enough. We on these Benches have been encouraged by the Government's recent announcement, and that of the Republic of Ireland, that the Belfast-Dublin rail link will be upgraded. I hope that that can be followed up constructively by the improvement of other lines and road connections. There should be better co-operation and telecommunications. I wonder whether there could not be better synergy between the two parts of the island; for example, by tapping the Dublin-Scotland interconnector. It would be nice to hope that with the lowering of tension the North-South gas link could also be reopened. All those questions of the North-South connection to which the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary Conference has also been devoting itself are important. If the Government are wise, they will continue to treat those economic matters and constitutional and human rights in parallel, because it is only by acting on both that the prospects for a peaceful and prosperous life for the people of Northern Ireland will he improved.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I support the adoption of the order for the extension of the period until 16th July 1993. This may seen a little belated, but this is the first opportunity since the Minister was appointed to his position in the Northern Ireland Office—some three months ago, although it sounds much shorter when one says three months rather than 13 weeks —that I have had to congratulate him. We have met in the corridor and exchanged the normal salutations and greetings but I should like to have my congratulations on the record. I join with my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and other noble Lords who have

1353
expressed their warm congratulations to the Minister on his appointment. I also offer him my goodwill and co-operation in those matters which are important to Northern Ireland.
I know that the noble Earl occupies an onerous and difficult position, sharing duties not only in his department but having to come to the House to deal with other matters. I hope that he will not think that the kid glove I offer him when I sit down has a horseshoe in it. I note that he seems to be enjoying his period of office in Northern Ireland, he appears on television, his photograph is in the press and he always seems to be in a joyous mood, with a smiling face, getting around to see people in Northern Ireland. In this House and on these Benches, we share a respect for his work in meeting the people of Northern Ireland.
I welcomed the remarks of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who dealt thoroughly with various points, as did my noble friend Lord Holme. Both paid great attention to legislative and other matters in Northern Ireland.
I remind the House that, since the introduction of direct rule in 1972, there have been 10 Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland; 53 Ministers, Labour and Conservative, have held office during the past 20 years. There have been many attempts and honest efforts by both Labour and Conservative administrations to obtain agreement to what were considered to be more democratic, accountable, equitable or durable alternative procedures. However, these all failed to obtain a consensus.
Meanwhile, among other tragic features of death and destruction, sectarianism, hatred and bitterness are destroying the heart of the Northern Ireland community. The outlook for our children is being seriously impaired, their minds are being poisoned and their future blighted. I hope that an interest in the talks is very much a feature in the minds of those taking part. However, I am sure that all noble Lords can readily understand that those directly concerned in the current political talks, especially the elected representatives, are under considerable party political and other forms of extreme pressure.
While the issues being debated are largely taken up with historical, constitutional and practical administrative matters, I hope that the agenda will also include some of the vital matters which we shall shortly consider in the Appropriation Order. The Minister has already mentioned some of these in his opening remarks.
The scale of the United Kingdom subvention, the urgent need for an upturn in the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland and the full commitment of all people in positions of leadership and influence to ensuring equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all must surely he enshrined in any agreed political accommodation. I feel sure that those who are in Strands I, II and III of the talks have their minds concentrated on the need of the people of Northern Ireland for social and economic uplift. It will certainly condition their minds as regards the kind
1354
of framework required to be established. However, that is a matter for them and I am sure that they will give it consideration.
I close in sharing with the noble Earl, as I am sure do all noble Lords, the wish for political success in the outcome of the talks in the interests of future community peace, prosperity and justice in all Ireland. I also hope that the renewal of the order may not be necessary in 1993. I support the order.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, every year we have the ritual of passing this order and others. This one is by far the most important of all the yearly reviews that take place because without it there would be no need for an appropriation order. There would be no mechanism for the massive subventions which are given by the Government to the Northern Ireland economy. So this is by far the most important order.
I take the view that direct rule as now applied in Northern Ireland is cumbersome, undemocratic and certainly not the best political institution by which to govern the country. However, unlike most people in the House, I do not blame the Government, nor do I blame their predecessor, the Labour Government. In 1974, it was a Labour Government who, faced with the circumstances that existed in Northern Ireland, had to bring this legislation to the statute book. The reason is that the Northern Ireland Unionist Party had governed the country since 1920, since the setting up of the state. The party governed it in such a way as to create bitterness and resentment among the minority population until eventually in the late 1960s and early 1970s they withdrew their consent to be governed in the one-party state by the Unionist Government. Thus, the country was ungovernable.
Faced with that situation, in 1972 the Conservative Government abolished Stormont. It was obvious to the world that the minority population had withdrawn their consent to be governed. In 1973, the political parties held discussions at Sunningdale in which I took part. On 1st January 1974 we formed the Executive. At that time we thought that we were acting with majority consent to form an Executive in Northern Ireland to govern all the people. Then the Unionist majority withdrew its consent to be governed by the Executive. So again the responsibility went back to the British Government because the minority and the majority communities in Northern Ireland, for the same reason but at different times, withdrew their consent to be governed.
In 1975 a convention was set up by the then Secretary of State, who is now a Member of this House. I was a part of that convention and we could not find agreement in Northern Ireland to set up institutions by which we could govern ourselves. Then we had to keep renewing the legislation. As I stand here in 1992, I feel it is difficult to find something new to say. I spoke in 1974, 1975 and 1976. People have forgotten what I said then and it may be as well to take the opportunity to remind them of it. The noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Blease, have referred to it.

1355
When I was a young boy in Northern Ireland I read nationalist political mythology. One of the good sayings I came across in my reading was, "The graveyards of English politicians have been dug in Ireland". I believe that saying means that English politicians had no political success in Northern Ireland and their political futures were therefore damned. But I am not too sure how true it really is because the nine Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland who have been appointed since 1972 are now all in your Lordships' House. I am not sure whether this House can be regarded as a political graveyard, but I do not see many skeletons sitting on either side of the House.
In 1982 the newly appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, decided to establish rolling devolution. He set up an assembly, the members of which were to be elected through democratic elections under proportional representation. When the elections were over the nationalist population did what it had done in 1972, with less reason. The nationalist population decided it would not attend that assembly. Sinn Fein expressed exactly the same view. I am not sure whether Sinn Fein expressed that view first followed by the SDLP. However, I think it happened in that order. At that time an opportunity was given to the people of Northern Ireland and they refused to accept it. They refused to form a government for themselves. Incidentally the assembly staggered on under the Unionist community in Northern Ireland until it eventually fell apart because of course it did not obtain the co-operation of the nationalist minority. We reverted back to the terms of the 1974 Act.
I do not think there is any politician that I know in this country who wants to maintain direct rule for one minute longer than is absolutely necessary. Members of any political party and none all hope desperately that some agreement will be found as a result of the talks that are now taking place. If good wishes were to bring success in this matter, that success would be gained tomorrow morning in Lancaster House. The good wishes not only of the elected representatives but of all the people in the United Kingdom are given wholeheartedly to the people of Northern Ireland.
But let us not jump too quickly on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made a point that should be drawn to the attention of the House. We were first told that the talks would comprise three strands, Strands I, II and III. Strand I was supposed to concern an internal solution to the Northern Ireland problem. The aim of that strand of talks was to try to find agreement between the Northern Ireland political parties in respect of governing Northern Ireland. I believe that that aim should have been taken much further down the road and a much greater degree of agreement should have been found before Strand II of the talks was embarked upon.
That situation takes me back to the Sunningdale Agreement. Under the chairmanship of the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, we agreed on an executive in Stormont, in Northern Ireland. When we discussed the matter at Sunningdale, the Republic of Ireland
1356
became involved. It was that tangent of the Sunningdale Agreement which eventually led to the downfall of the Sunningdale executive.
I am not party to the present talks but I still have a close involvement with many individuals in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government and the SDLP—we can take it that those bodies are acting in conjunction throughout the talks—have progressed 80 per cent. of the way down the road of the Strand I talks. Then they said to the Unionist majority, "We are not going to discuss that other 20 per cent. to find agreement because if we find agreement on 100 per cent. of the talks, you may not proceed to Strand II of the talks. We are not going to agree to the final 20 per cent. of the talks unless you get into Strand II". Strand II of the talks concerns the nationalists' position. The nationalists want to involve the Irish Government. The Unionists, however, do not want to involve the Irish Government. It was that situation that brought about the downfall of the Sunningdale executive.
It is alleged that Strand II of the talks will be concerned with Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution which lay claim to the territory of Northern Ireland. The Irish Government have also put up for discussion the 1920 Government of Ireland Act under which the Northern Ireland state came into being. Even the most moderate of the Unionists in Northern Ireland view Articles 2 and 3 and the discussion of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as an attack on their territory. They see that two-pronged attack as an attack on the territorial integrity of Northern Ireland.
I switch on my television set and see what is happening in Northern Ireland and in many parts of Europe where the same motivation drives people to kill each other. I see that happening in Bosnia and in other parts of Europe where the nationalist genie has been let out of the bottle. That must be an awful hill to climb; it must be an awful obstacle in these talks which are taking place now in the week running up to 12th July.
Can agreement be found? Will the SDLP and the Irish Government insist on saying, "We must have an input into Northern Ireland or you do not get Strand I agreed to"? That is not agreement but an ultimatum, or at least that is the way that the people of Northern Ireland will see it. I am not sure what the answer is. I think that Strand II is by far the most important part of these talks.
Again, as we shall see in our appropriation debate later this evening, Northern Ireland exists by means of massive subventions from this House and, although one is not supposed to say it out loud if one is an Irishman—and sometimes I come under severe criticism for saying it—we saw what happened in the recent referendum in the Republic. The Republic's whole economic base would collapse were it not for massive subventions from the European Community. At the present time in the European Community the people who put the money in are Britain and Germany. It is Britain and Germany who are the sole creditors and who put the money in. Later this year, incidentally, France may begin to contribute just a little, but at the moment she is contributing nothing.

1357
So we have Northern Ireland living on massive subventions from this House and we have the Republic of Ireland also living on subventions. During one Question Time this week my noble friend Lord Stoddart asked whether the Minister was aware that the Republic of Ireland received £1,800 million in subventions last year from the European Community. Therefore, it must be quite obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of affairs in Northern Ireland that financially, were it not for the subventions from this House and from the European Community to the Republic of Ireland, there would be very severe economic distress all over Ireland. In the next order we are to debate the sum involved will be £5,000 million —from this House billions—for the yearly Estimates in connection with Northern Ireland.
I do not believe that any British Government want to maintain domination over Northern Ireland in these circumstances. The Minister must be aware of that because even in the short space of time he has been in Northern Ireland he must have met people who would say things to him quietly, although they may not say them out loud. For example, the Catholics may say, "We do not like direct rule but we would rather have it than be dominated by a Unionist Assembly or a Unionist political institution in Northern Ireland. As it is, we can expect to get some form of fair treatment from the British Government, whereas if there were a Unionist-dominated Assembly we may revert to the old circumstances, and what guarantee would there be that the whole thing would not revert 1969 and 1970?" While direct rule is full of imperfections, there are many people in Northern Ireland who are prepared to put up with that and are not going to lose any sleep if there is not a dominant Unionist Party returned to Stormont.
Looking at the talks as they stand at present I should like to be optimistic but, knowing Northern Ireland and the bitterness, resentment, fear and suspicion that have been created there over many centuries, I think there is a very high hill to climb. I know that the Government and also the Opposition on this side of the House will do everything they can to ensure the success of the talks; but let us not be too optimistic. There is really very little ground at present for such optimism to be expressed in relation to these talks.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, we are discussing these important matters in a thin House and at a late hour of the night. I regret that. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to speak on this order and at a time when there is a certain amount of good news in the air from Ireland generally. I should like particularly to welcome the recent speech by the President of Ireland when addressing both Houses of Parliament in Dublin. I am sure that she spoke for many millions of people on both sides of the sea and indeed on the Continent of Europe when she mentioned the deep commitment to dialogue and friendship. That is something that we can all support.
1358
I should like to welcome the fact that political negotiations are continuing. That they are doing so is due in considerable measure to the mixture of patience and determination shown not only by the present Secretary of State but also by his immediate predecessor. The fact that we are still negotiating may also have something to do with the power of prayer. We all know that there is a religious dimension to the conflicts of Northern Ireland. That has its divisive side, but it also has a better and more positive side. I believe that the prayers of many express the hopes of the majority that a political settlement will precede an end to violence and terrorism.
I know that there is no guarantee that the talks will succeed. Indeed, Strand I remains controversial. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to examine fall-back positions that would still improve on direct rule as we know it. For example, why not create two city regions for local administration and democratic accountability? They could be based on the cities of Belfast and Derry and would correspond to many of the known facts of economic and social reality.
I welcome also the talks that have been going on in recent months between the clergy of various persuasions and members of paramilitary organisations and their political stalking horses. In my opinion these talks are necessary at a time when government may be inhibited from having such conversations. They are necessary as something going on parallel with the political discussions and negotiations.
I should like to welcome very warmly indeed something that is known as Initiative 92. It may not be well known yet to your Lordships. It is a voluntary move to try to discover what political and other institutions the people of Northern Ireland in fact want at the present time. The process may also show —I hope it will—what kind of political settlement would be approved by the people. I believe that this work is essential because it has been shown over the years that political opinion on particular issues is often in advance of the stated positions in the constitutional political parties.
In a sense this piece of work is something like a private Royal Commission. I am glad that independent commissioners have been appointed and adequate funds secured so that evidence can be taken in a thorough and comprehensive way. I look forward to the findings and trust that they will be a positive help to an overall settlement.
I also applaud that degree of power sharing which now occurs on district councils. For example, I visited Dungannon in May this year. That is an outstanding example of what can be done in an elected body which is divided almost exactly 50/50. Derry City also has a system for rotation of the office of mayor, together with a most effective police and public liaison committee. I should like to salute the courage of Mr. Raymond Ferguson in resigning the leadership of the Official Unionists on Fermanagh District Council when his own party refused to accept the rotation of chairmanship.
I come now to the European dimension to Northern Ireland. We know that it is largely concerned with funds, but not exclusively so. It is now

1359
highly probable that much larger European Community funds will he available in the future for Ireland as a whole. Will Her Majesty's Government ensure that Northern Ireland receives its fair share of whatever funding is available? The chances of that occurring will be considerably improved if we can bring ourselves wholeheartedly to practise additionality. In this audience there is no need for me to spell out the meaning of that term of art.
As well as the European Community, the European dimension includes the Council of Europe and the overarching body, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Both institutions are concerned with minority rights and with human rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned earlier, all political parties in Northern Ireland want a Bill of Rights. Why should they not have it? Most of them want an ever-improving application of the European Convention on Human Rights. Will the Government give ever-increasing priority to human rights in Northern Ireland? Perhaps they will consider using as a checklist a book published in 1988 entitled Human Rights and Responsibilities in Great Britain and Ireland, edited by Mr. Sidney Bailey, published by Macmillan. The Minister may know my concern over a long period with the handling and interrogation of suspects. On 10th June his right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that an independent commissioner would be appointed for the RUC holding centres. Has that appointment yet been made? If not, when will it become effective? Will the Minister say whether improvements have yet been started to the building of the Castlereagh holding centre?
As regards police complaints, the total rose by 25 per cent. in 1991. This may well be a tribute to the efforts and the greater independence of the Police Complaints Commission. It is significant that on 14th May the chief constable of the RUC said that he would not resist an entirely independent investigating body for police complaints. I believe that such a newly created body would transform the effectiveness of the commission and public confidence in it. There is bound to be scepticism when police officers investigate each other and especially so in Northern Ireland. What view do Her Majesty's Government take of that idea? Can they offer any timetable for action?
Prison policy is another difficult area in which I am interested personally and as president of NIACRO. The prime consideration has to be the safety of both prisoners and prison staff. I trust that there will always be available within the prison system a choice for paramilitary prisoners between integrated and segregated conditions, just as sex offenders can choose between association or segregation.
Fine defaulters constitute a high proportion of total prison admissions. It is highly desirable that they should be dealt with non-custodially. Both the Prison Service and the Probation Service favour that move. Will the Government give the green light to it? Will they press ahead with the experiment now under way on unit fines?
Will the Government also initiate a review of criminal justice in Northern Ireland comparable to
1360
that now being conducted in England and Wales by the Royal Commission? I ask that question because I know of some cases of miscarriage of justice. Constant vigilance and improvement are needed to avoid them. Meanwhile, I trust that the Government will study with the utmost care the report from the Committee on the Administration of Justice on the Casement Park trials. My belief is that the doctrine of common purpose was stretched to the utmost limit and probably beyond.
As regards security and intelligence, will the Government examine all the implications of the recent Brian Nelson trial? Will they insure that intelligence is effectively co-ordinated between the various security services and that the security forces act in as accountable a fashion as is humanly possible?
In conclusion, I welcome and express appreciation for the long, hard and patient work of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. In particular, I urge the Government to accept its recommendation to abolish the 15 per cent. capital contribution which is still required on new or improved Roman Catholic schools. That is particularly inequitable in view of the need to improve the teaching of science in that sector. I congratulate the Government on the progress that has taken place in recent years as regards integrated schools and education for mutual understanding.
9.31 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, your Lordships have understandably shown special interest in the political talks which this week have entered a new and important phase. I was glad to hear the expressions of support that were forthcoming from all sides of the House. In particular, I was grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Blease. It is certainly a most challenging job; one that I intend to carry out to the best of my ability and with dedication to all my responsibilities in Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships have displayed a clear understanding of the important opportunity now presented by the talks. In a joint statement read out to the opening session of this week's talks my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach spoke of:
"an historic opportunity to make lasting political progress".
They went on to state that the two Governments and the four Northern Ireland parties have:
"together set out to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the people of these islands".
It is a task of monumental proportions. Clearly, the way ahead will be difficult. At times the speed of progress appeared to be frustratingly slow. However, the participants are to be commended for the way in which they have stuck to their task and retained their commitment to the process. We are certain that they have been encouraged by the overwhelming sense of support which has been forthcoming in Northern Ireland, from each side of the community, in the Republic of Ireland and further afield. The support within your Lordships' House this evening is a further encouragement.
We all remain conscious of the fragility of the process. A great deal has been achieved since the first

1361
talks took place last year. But even more remains to be done. It is far too soon to start thinking about possible outcomes. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, warned us of those particular matters. However, if your Lordships are looking for encouragement it can be found in the way in which Northern Ireland parties have shown remarkable resolution and dedication to the process. Whatever happens from now on the parties and the two Governments have sent a clear signal to the community in Northern Ireland. That signal is that the way forward for Northern Ireland is through political dialogue and constitutional politics.
The participants have been prepared to put aside their differences and to sit around the same table in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure that we all hope and pray that the full potential of the talks will be realised. That was an extremely clear point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I assure your Lordships that, for their part, Her Majesty's Government will continue to do everything possible to ensure that maximum progress is made.
On the subject of direct rule, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, in quoting the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that direct rule is recognised as being far from ideal. As I explained in my opening remarks, the Government wish to return greater authority and responsibility to Northern Ireland's own political representatives. The present political talks have a vital role to play in that context. As I have said, the Government will do everything possible to ensure that the talks reach the best possible conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said that he wished that there could be a firmer base for Strand I. I take note of his view. However, as I said in my opening remarks, I shall resist the temptation to be drawn into the detail of the discussions. Those are very much matters for judgment of the participants but I am sure that, like Her Majesty's Government, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is encouraged by the fact that the parties agreed to move on to the remaining strands.
The approach and speech of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, were extremely realistic. He asked about the possibility of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland. As the Government's response to the Procedure Committee's report on the working of the Select Committee system made clear, we see a need for further consideration of the desirability and practicability of a territorial Select Committee. We are keeping the matter under review. We believe that arrangements for the scrutiny of matters within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are best taken forward in the context of political talks.
The noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Hylton, asked about the possibility of a Bill of Rights. That possibility, or other forms of entrenched human rights provision for Northern Ireland, is to be considered in the talks which are currently proceeding. It would be premature, and against the basis of confidentiality on which the talks are being held, if I were to comment further on that matter this evening.
1362
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the subject of cross-border co-operation. As I said, a number of initiatives are being taken to improve cross-border trade. The upgrading of the Belfast-Dublin railway line is an example of that. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about the other ideas he put forward this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave us an erudite and interesting exposition of political initiatives over 20 years. I read the article by the noble Lord in the press earlier this week which covered some of the ground that he covered again this evening. He suggested that Strand I should have been taken further. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, made the same observation. Obviously I shall not comment on those issues which must be for the participants of the talks; and certainly we wish them well.
On political talks, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked the Government to examine fall-backs, perhaps based on two city regions. I believe that the noble Lord has advanced that idea before. He referred also to Initiative '92. The Government are very much aware of its activities, which are well intentioned. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand if I reply to both of his points by saying that the Government's main focus of attention at present is and must remain on political talks.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about future EC resources. The future financing for EC programmes overall has yet to he agreed following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. Allocations for specific areas can only be decided once overall financing is resolved. The United Kingdom Government made clear that one of their aims is to retain Objective I status for Northern Ireland. On that basis the Government will be pressing for a maximum share for Northern Ireland of available allocations.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the topic of additionality of EC receipts. The Government fully accept the additionality requirement contained in the EC regulations and all receipts, including those of Northern Ireland, are handled in a way which fully satisfies that requirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put forward a number of additional points. Perhaps he will allow me to write to him on those further points as there are a lot to answer this evening. I thank your Lordships for the support given on all sides of the House, particularly for the talks and your Lordships wish for them to progress in the future. On that basis I commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
9.40 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, laid before the House on 2nd June, be approved.
This is one in a series of financial orders for Northern Ireland which come before the House each year. The draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £2,874 million for Northern Ireland departments in the current financial year. That is additional to the sums voted on account in March and brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £5,014 million.
I should like to set the estimates in the context of the recent performance of the Northern Ireland economy. The region's economic fortunes are, of course, closely bound up with those of the UK as a whole. It is not therefore surprising that Northern Ireland has been affected by the recent recession. However, the local economy has been remarkably resilient over the past year or so. While unemployment at 14.4 per cent. of the workforce is higher than any of us would wish, it is well below the peak of 17.7 per cent. in 1986. The increase in unemployment has moderated in recent months and is substantially below that set for the UK as a whole. Similarly, output levels and employment have held up better in Northern Ireland than in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
Recent business surveys also point to an increase in business confidence in Northern Ireland and to a welcome revival in export performance. Taken together, that is encouraging evidence of Northern Ireland's economic capabilities and should leave it well placed to take advantage of the economic upturn.
With your Lordships' permission, I now turn to the main items in the order, starting with the Department of Agriculture. Net provision in the two agricultural Votes amounts to some £152 million, an increase of £8 million over 1991–92. In Vote 1, £33 million is for various market support schemes which operate throughout the United Kingdom. That includes £19 million to support farming in the less favoured areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
In Vote 2, £53 million is for a wide range of professional and technical services to the industry, including scientific and veterinary services. That reflects the importance of maintaining the highest possible quality of Northern Ireland Agricultural products. A further £27 million is sought for arterial drainage, fisheries and forestry.
The Department of Economic Development's Vote 1 seeks provision of £168 million for the Industrial Development Board. The board's main aim is the introduction and development of internationally competitive companies, as that will provide the basis for growth in durable employment. Existing companies are being encouraged and assisted to improve their competitiveness in order to meet the opportunities and challenges offered by the single market.
In Vote 2, £44 million is sought for the Local Enterprise Development Unit which is also placing greater emphasis on improving the competitiveness of small companies; £9 million is sought for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, which was launched in March to assist companies with research and innovation.
Finally in Vote 2, £11 million is for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, to assist the further
1364
development of the tourist industry. That is nearly £4 million more than last year and will help the tourist sector generate additional jobs and benefit the economy throughout Northern Ireland.
The Department of Economic Development's Vote 3 seeks £189 million for the Training and Employment Agency. That includes some £46 million for the youth training programme, £51 million for the "Action for Community Employment" programme and £18 million for the job training programme. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that 90 per cent. of apprentices on training centre courses provided by the agency enter permanent employment on completion of their training.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment, where £169 million is sought in Vote 1 for roads, transport and ports. That includes £142 million to finance the operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's well-developed road system and for new construction and improvement works.
Vote 2 covers the important area of housing, where £187 million is sought to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing by the housing executive, rental income and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing this year will be about £531 million. This will enable further progress to be made in improving housing conditions.
In Vote 3 gross expenditure on water and sewerage services in 1992–93 is estimated at £152 million; of which £98 million is required mainly for normal operation and maintenance and £54 million for capital expenditure, including schemes to improve further the quality of drinking water in line with the standards laid down in European Community directives.
In Vote 4, £132 million is sought for a wide range of environmental services. This is some £5 million more than in 1991–92, and includes additional resources for pollution control measures.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,213 million, an increase of 6 per cent. over last year. Vote 1 includes £743 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £54 million over 1991-92. This includes £389 million for school teachers' salaries and £237 million for other expenditure on schools and further education services. For libraries, youth, transport and administration £117 million is provided and £50 million is for boards' capital projects, including the provision of new laboratories and technology workshops. Voluntary schools have £123 million and there is £6 million for integrated schools. I know that your Lordships continue to take a keen interest in the development of integrated education in Northern Ireland and will therefore be pleased to learn that there are now 14 integrated schools in operation, with a total of 2,581 pupils in attendance.
In Vote 2, £266 million is sought, including £89 million for universities and £126 million for student support. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including £3 million for community relations activities funded by the department.
For the Department of Health and Social Services, total net provision of £1,243 million is sought for health and personal social services. This is an increase of £74 million over 1991–92 and will help to ensure that the already high standard of these services in Northern Ireland is maintained and developed. Included is £252 million for family health services, £887 million for the health and social services boards and £46 million for a substantial capital development programme.
In Vote 4 a total of £1,022 million is sought for the range of benefits administered by the Social Security Agency. That includes £187 million for disability benefits, £567 million for income support and £268 million for family and other benefits.
Finally, I draw attention to the Department of Finance and Personnel Vote 3, where £4 million is sought for the community relations programme. This brings total spending on this programme to £7 million this year. The Government will continue to support and facilitate developments which lead to increased contacts and understanding between the two communities. Much useful work is being carried out in this area and it is encouraging, for example, that some 500 schools and 300 youth organisations are now involved in cross-community contact programmes. This offers great hope for the future.
I hope that your Lordships have found this summary of the main components of this order to be of help. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
9.49 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his summary of the main provisions of the order. The importance to Northern Ireland of the National Health Service and social security stands out very clearly in the estimates. Added together, the expenditure on those two services accounts for almost one-half of the total current annual expenditure of the Northern Ireland departments, excluding security and law and order. Having regard to the magnitude of that expenditure and also to the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is the Minister who has special responsibility for both programmes, I thought that it would be appropriate for me this evening to concentrate on these two services to the exclusion of the other services, although I do not underestimate their importance for one moment.
Although the two programmes are extremely important for people in Northern Ireland, they have not been discussed at length in your Lordships' House for some considerable time. As I have said, however, we have the advantage and the pleasure this evening of having with us the Minister in charge. I have to refer to criticisms that I hear about the planning of the health service capital programme in the Province, but let me say at once that I would not wish to be thought blind to the fine achievements of the dedicated men and women who serve the patients in Northern Ireland or to the magnificent contribution that is made by the service.
1366
The debate on this order in another place on 18th June, together with complaints from at least two deputations which came to Westminster last year, suggest that all may not be well within the planning structure of the National Health Service in Northern Ireland. I put it no higher than that. It would appear that those who have had dealings with the planning departments of the four Health and Social Service Boards would prefer to try almost any other form of planning which the wit of man could design. An inference that the Government might fairly draw from this is that it has something to do with the failure of the boards to undertake their planning tasks in a way that retains the confidence of the local communities. Another inference would be that the boards have failed to appreciate the historical role of the hospital service in relation to its community. They simply treat such hospitals as if they have outlived their era.
I would be the first to concede that the reorganisation of hospitals is inherently difficult. It is difficult because a community will be wedded to its local hospital. Historically, that hospital will have been dependent on local donations, public-spiritedness and involvement. However, the public of 1992 have not been convinced by the department or the four boards that their own community hospital can have an extended role in the future. I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of that criticism, but he may be unaware that there is also a widespread conviction that the leaders of the local communities feel they are impotent in their efforts to influence the health boards and to shape the National Health Service.
The criticism that we hear is not confined to the nature of the planning of the capital programme; it also touches the composition of the health boards. I accept that board members are anxious to do a good job of work, but I have to say to the Minister that the membership of the boards and their role is something of a mystery to many people who have had a lifetime of experience in public life—
Lord Fitt: Hear, hear!
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I hear the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, supporting me.
It is widely rumoured that too many of the members are ex-civil servants—the innuendo being that they are there to represent the interests and the prejudices of the Civil Service and to ensure that the board becomes an instrument of the Civil Service. Although I would be cautious about accepting that innuendo, I am sure that the charge cannot be ignored or lightly brushed aside.
I should be glad to hear from the Minister how the Government propose to answer that criticism. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could tell the House what is the test for membership of the area health boards. Can the Minister place in the Library a list of the names of the present members together with a description of their occupations, or former occupations if retired?
As well as being a department of central government, the DHSS in Northern Ireland, over which the Minister presides, also fulfils the same role

1367
as an English regional health authority. How well does the department perform its regional health authority functions?
Among the official documents published this year perhaps one of the most revealing of all in this respect is the authoritative report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland which was published in February. I regret to say that the report brings to light a sad picture of the department's inadequate and sloppy control and monitoring procedure in respect of the purchase of X-ray equipment by the four area boards during the past four or five years. The report gives an impressive list of omissions and deficiencies by the department, which owing to the lateness of the hour, I shall not repeat now. While the responsibility for the state of affairs revealed by the report must in part be that of the boards and their officers, it is also certain that there has been a lack of drive and sophistication in the relevant section within the department. That is a severe criticism but I am satisfied that it is properly based on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Another worrying point is that the Department of Health performs other regional functions. I appreciate that the Minister has been in his present post for only three months but I should like to urge him to satisfy himself that similar deficiencies are not affecting those functions as well and that the department is using the powers which it undoubtedly possesses to supervise more effectively the work of the health boards. I anticipate that its task of supervision may become even more important as the health trusts take over the provision of health care and the service becomes more fragmented in the future.
The Comptroller and Auditor General also reported that, since the resignation of the department's advisory committee on radiology in December 1989, it no longer has available to it the advice of an independent group of radiologists drawn from throughout Northern Ireland. He concluded that this was a loss to the service and he recommended specifically that this specialist committee be reconvened. I hope that the department has not been unsympathetic to that advice.
I am aware that there is a body of opinion in Northern Ireland which favours the setting up of an independent Northern Ireland health advisory board to give advice on the formulation and application of health policies. Such a body should have among its membership well-informed and articulate lay people who could bring some pressure from the outside world to bear upon a bureaucracy which is perceived to be set in its ways. I wonder whether the department is sympathetic to that suggestion.
I should now like to make one or two comments on the social security service. I should point out that, since July last year, the service has been administered by the department's agent, the Social Security Agency, which employs about 5,500 people. That is something like 20 per cent. of the whole of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Moreover, two-thirds of the population of Northern Ireland, inclusive of old-age state pensioners, is in receipt of social security benefits.
1368
Those few facts show the heavy extent of Northern Ireland's dependency on benefits. It follows that the day-to-day well-being of two-thirds of its population cannot be separated from the smooth, effective and efficient running of the Social Security Agency.
The foregoing implies that there should be fair and prompt adjudication of applications for benefits and that there should be speedy procedures of appeal whenever there is a dispute. It also implies that the adjudication officers in the district offices should possess a sound and up-to-date grasp of the complex legislation so that an applicant can receive her or his just entitlement.
I accept the fact that these are early days in the history of the agency. Fortunately, the chief adjudication officer's latest annual report covers the period ending last June. Therefore, it includes the first three months of the agency's programme. I am glad to say that it appears to me that the chief adjudication officer is not living in a world of his own; he is living in the real world. His report gives the impression of being realistic in its approach to the difficulties. It does not hesitate to point out that much work remains to be done in respect of some benefits in order to bring first-time adjudication to a satisfactory standard.
Nevertheless, it is very disturbing to read that many district offices do not have up-to-date particulars of the detailed legislation relating to unemployment benefits, income support benefits and the Social Fund. That puzzles me. How can a claimant receive his or her proper entitlement unless that basic information is immediately available to the staff who handle the claim? I suggest to the Minister that that is a deficiency which must urgently be put right. Understandably, there have been some problems of redeployment and retraining and selection of people for new posts; but can we be assured that such problems—which, as I say, are inevitable—will he sorted out by next April?
I very much hope that the Minister will encourage the agency to pay the maximum attention to the authoritative report that I mentioned. Will the Minister also confirm that the agency will study the lessons that are spelt out in the DSS-sponsored research study evaluating the Social Fund? That study was undertaken by the Social Policy Research Unit of York University. Its report was published yesterday. Indeed, I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Hollis for alerting me to the publication of that valuable report and to some of its disturbing conclusions. However, if the Minister can confirm that the agency will pay immediate maximum attention to the findings of that study group, I shall be content.
The Department of Health and Social Security, over which the Minister presides, has full control of those two major areas of policy and expenditure. It is not dependent on any external factors. As the people of Northern Ireland are heavily dependent on both programmes, they can benefit substantially by effective and efficient running of the National Health Service and administration of the Social Security Agency. That is why I have taken the liberty this evening of concentrating at some length upon those

1369
services, knowing that other speakers will do justice to many of the other equally important subjects covered by the order.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has eloquently made his own this evening the subject of health in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may presume for a moment upon the very topic that he has been addressing—I must apologise to the Minister for not having given notice of the question I am about to ask—because there is a considerable problem of which the Minister is no doubt aware. It relates to the Throne Hospital in the Royal group of hospitals of the Eastern Health Board. As I understand it, to acquire trust status in 1993, the Royal group has to find savings of £3 million. It intends to save £1 million by closing the Throne Hospital, which, as the Minister will be aware, specialises in the care of old people.
Given the widespread disquiet that the proposal has caused, not merely among the political parties but among local residents, the old people themselves, and the medical profession, is it the Government's intention, when pursuing trust status for hospitals, to have a good and much-needed community facility for old people closed in that way? Was that the intended consequence? Is there even now any prospect of seeing that decision rescinded?
My main subject is the state of the Northern Ireland economy. In his interesting and comprehensive introduction to the order, the Minister used the phrase that the Northern Ireland economy was well placed to take advantage of an economic upturn. He may be interested to know that a few days ago the Financial Times said that that phrase was always used by company chairmen whose companies were in trouble. We must hope that what the Minister said is true, but I am afraid that the Northern Ireland economy is not in good shape, despite the massive subventions which the British taxpayer makes, on the whole, I believe, willingly, towards Northern Ireland's prosperity. Indeed, the Minister will be aware that the April report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council was one of the gloomiest since the recession of the 1980s.
Despite the fact that 40 per cent. of the jobs in Northern Ireland are public-sector funded, unemployment is consistently 4 per cent. higher than that of the UK and is currently running, as the Minister said, at 14 per cent. of the population—one in seven of the workforce. The numbers of unemployed people have risen from 99,400 in January 1991 to 105,000 in January 1992. That is an increase of over 5,000 in one year in a country of only 1.5 million people. There are a further 5,000 people on training schemes who will soon leave them. They will then be on the dole.
Although the Minister was right when he said that unemployment in Northern Ireland has been worse in the past, there are of course wide regional variations. Some areas such as Strabane, Newry, Mourne, Londonderry and Cookstown have rates of between 19.5 per cent. and 24 per cent. One in five people is out
1370
of work. Emigration continues. Nearly 7,000 people leave Northern Ireland every year to look for work. What do the Government feel that they should do about that grave problem when the some of the youngest, best and brightest people are leaving the Province? There is not merely the problem of emigration and unemployment; currently, inward investment is falling. The IDB has been unable to report more hopeful statistics. Sadly, 1991 was one of the worst years on record for job promotion, with only 80 jobs being created by inward investment. Even including the 350 jobs attracted from the UK during the year, this falls well short of the IDB's own target of 1,800.
Does the noble Earl feel there is any longer a case for the IDB and the LEDU being separate organisations? I notice that they cost £10 million and £7 million respectively. Their areas of operation seem to overlap; indeed, they are currently carrying out a joint project on SMEs. I wonder whether there is scope for rationalisation and, in the course of that more focused promotion on their part.
To finish the chronicle of gloom in which I take no pleasure —it is something that must worry us all—the PA consultancy survey in March 1992 shows that all four forward economic indicators are down for the first time in 30 years. Investment intentions are down 4 per cent. for the coming 12 months; projected employment is down 2 per cent.; and manufacturing output is down 1 per cent. Orders are down 1 per cent. I know what a blow this must be to the noble Earl's honourable friend Mr. Needham who predicted 2 per cent. of real growth for the Northern Ireland economy earlier this year.
The proponents of economic despondency—among whom today I am unhappy to find myself—are bound to try to ask what more could be done. I know that this exercises the Government continually. Where are the green shoots of growth in the Northern Ireland economy? What more could be done to try to get a greater degree of economic self-reliance in the Province and a growing prosperity that does not depend on the drip-feed of subvention?
I return to a point I raised in the earlier debate. There is an enormous potential bonus available from treating the island of Ireland increasingly as one economic area within the European Community. No doubt the noble Earl is aware that Coopers & Lybrand, commenting on a recent CBI/CII survey, said that they thought that an increase in intra-island trade would be a great advantage. The CBI/CII survey thought that an extra £3 billion in increased trade and an extra 75,000 additional jobs were potentially available if the two parts of the island could be in the closest possible economic links. We understand very well the fact that they are not and we all know that for reasons of history and of political tension they have not naturally looked to each other but have both looked across the water. But does this not demand from the Government of the Republic of Ireland and from ourselves in Northern Ireland the greatest possible effort to get the economic borders down? There should be co-operation rather than competition between the two parts of the island.

1371
It is unique within the Community that both sides of the border qualify for objective one status under the EC structural fund. This could be exploited for their mutual advantage. They are peripheral. Both have small home markets; both have important agricultural sectors and large public sectors.
Perhaps I may suggest one or two other areas of co-operation. Both parts of the island—and this means the British Government and the Irish Government—could concentrate on getting state aids in centrally located regions of the EC de-emphasised while emphasising more strongly the peripheral regions to help in the cohesion plans which have been published for EMU. There could be more joint recession development, given the relative similarity of trade. Both parts of the island could co-operate to get European Community funds for research and development.
I referred earlier to the prospect for improved joint energy programmes. It is welcome that the interconnector between the Scottish grid and Northern Ireland has been agreed. It is also welcome that the EC has agreed to help finance the project. That is certainly more likely to create a realistic market in the newly privatised industry than would otherwise have been possible. But would not the interests of the Northern Ireland consumer be better served, and incidentally would there not be greater spinning reserve made available to ensure continual electricity supply and fewer power cuts if the interconnector could be re-established with the South?
I am well aware that the terrorist action of 1975 is the reason why the interconnector has not been re-established. But that is another good reason for the talks to work. We must hope that this kind of co-operation on energy matters will become possible. The noble Earl was kind enough to say earlier that he would write to me on the matter. There is scope to create a key junction in the Scotland/Dublin gas pipeline which could feed Northern Ireland too. On the question of economic development there is greater scope than has so far been put into practice to get the two halves of the island working together—that is what all my comments have been leading to—and in that context to make sure that the British taxpayer gets better value for the money we spend, albeit willingly, on Northern Ireland.
Finally, there is the question of transport, particularly freight. When the Channel Tunnel is completed, the island of Ireland will be the only part of the European Community which is not, as it were, land linked with continental Europe. That will throw together Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland through necessity, or, if one likes, adversity, to concentrate on transport infrastructure both within the island and with Great Britain and Europe.
Once the Channel Tunnel is completed, the land bridge may become more attractive than the direct route to Northern Ireland and the Irish ports. However, the tunnel will only benefit trade on the island of Ireland to the extent that improvements are made in the road and rail infrastructure linking the Channel Tunnel and the west British ports that serve the two parts of the island. As my noble friend Lord
1372
Russell pointed out during the March debate, the Government are aware that at least 10 to 15 per cent. of Northern Ireland freight originates outside the UK, and hence Northern Ireland is critically dependent on GB infrastructure for that trade.
While it is welcome that the Government are willing to discuss the requirements of upgrading the Holyhead/Crewe rail link, that does not directly benefit Northern Ireland which is dependent on links to Stranraer. What are the Government's plans to improve the links with Stranraer? I fear that the proposals, such as we understand them, to improve the road links to these ports, extremely welcome as they are, may be too little too late. We have a projected 3 per cent. increase in road use within the decade and it could be that current planned improvements will be outstripped by demand.
The burden of my theme is that we support the order and believe that the British taxpayer is right to continue heavy levels of subsidy to Northern Ireland. Those subsidies are needed but we must reflect whether there are not ways in which the governments of the Republic and this country working together could do more to improve the common infrastructure and thus the prosperity of the island.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am conscious that the time factor is pressing severely on the business of this House. The points I wish to make will be directed principally to the order before us and will not be argued in detail. Members on these Benches have contributed to searching and constructive debate on these orders. I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to reply to the points made by noble Lords on this side of the House.
To help clarify points in my own mind I shall refer to the Northern Ireland Estimates for 1992 to 1993. The first matter I wish to raise is the DED, Vote 1 on page 48 of the Estimates referred to in the order. It relates to selective assistance and other services to industry. I have heard concern expressed about what appears to be a cut in the provision under this heading of some £37 million. It is readily accepted that there is a need to improve the effectiveness of the methods applied by the selective assistance and other services to produce effective productive development. But I would suggest that any proposed changes in the industrial development grants should be realistically directed to the development of indigenous businesses. There is a greater need than ever to encourage entrepreneurial skills and enterprise in Northern Ireland. That has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
This would not exclude suitable support for overseas and inward investment on new product development. Indeed I was delighted to hear the Northern Ireland Minister for Industry, Mr. Robert Atkins, announce the Fruit of the Loom expansion at Derry involving some 650 new jobs. But I believe that overseas investment is more readily attracted if potential investors find industrial productive development in Northern Ireland rather than the drip-feed and lame cluck connotations that we have heard

1373
mentioned tonight. In this connection I would join the CBI in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland trade unions and the Belfast Unemployed Centre in welcoming the establishment of the new Research and Technological Unit. It is to be hoped that this unit's new board will effectively encourage closer links between both sides of industry which comprise the board. Indeed there is a great need for co-ordinated action at all levels of the industrial partnership to generate employment. There is a very close-knit management-labour relationship—a small span of command—that can effectively deal with problems and new methods of production in an earnest and quick manner, so it is unfortunate that there should be this cut of £37 million in the provision as listed. I would ask: is there a figure for the provision of a new RTU?
I should like to refer to DED, Vote 2 on page 51 of the Estimates dealing with the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland and also with health and employment protection. Both these are small financial provisions. Why is there a cut of some £18 million in regard to these very important safety services? It is particularly unfortunate in this year, the European Year of Hygiene, Health and Safety at Work. I should have thought there would be some special provisions to indicate that Northern Ireland was in line with what was happening in the rest of the United Kingdom and in Europe.
I now come to the item on page 54, Vote 2, on mineral exploration and miscellaneous services. I was surprised to see the extent of the cut, £278,000, in connection with expenditure on the search for minerals and petroleum and on the monitoring of current exploration developments in the Province. I understand from people at university level who are competent to assess these research and mineral explorations that optimistic results have been obtained about possible commercial prospects from shale oil deposits on the Antrim plateau and other commercially viable mineral deposits in the Province. I ask the Minister whether we have given up hope of profitable exploration in Northern Ireland? Why has this huge cut taken place this year.
With regard to the General Consumer Council—DED, Vote 2 on page 54—the Minister will be aware of the work of that organisation. It is extremely active and effective in the discharge of its statutory remit. It has responded very positively in a supportive manner to the principles of raising the standard of high quality public services and giving more power to the citizen, as announced in the Northern Ireland Citizen's Charter. Indeed, the chairman of the council, Lady McCullum, has been appointed a member of the Secretary of State's advisory panel on the charter.
I ask the Minister whether he will tell us the reason for that severe cut. Why has a provision of the General Consumer Council been cut by £25,000 even when it was proven that its very limited budget for last year had been extended to the limits? I understand that the council's budgetary estimates for the programme of
1374
work for the year were duly submitted to the department but no explanation was received about the work or the finance involved.
With regard to DED, Vote 3 on page 58, the Youth Training Programme (YTP) and Action for Community Employment (ACE), from experience I know that both those programmes have been very tightly financed, monitored and controlled. I very much regret to see cuts of some £6 million in those essential and vital services. Indeed, I had hoped to have seen substantial additional funds for that vastly increasing problem in Northern Ireland.
One has only to read the editorial and report in today's London Times to understand the problems in Great Britain arising from unemployment among young people. Many of them have left school without qualifications and have little or no work experience. Employment schemes are vital to the future and general good of young people and the community at large. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to draw this matter to the attention of his ministerial colleague to have it urgently examined.
In the matter of the employment services, I should at least like to present a bouquet on Vote 3 (page 60 of the Estimates). There is a very welcome provision of £170,000 for employment schemes and facilities at the Training and Employment Agency offices throughout the Province—those are jobcentres—which are found in every town throughout Northern Ireland. I mention specially the offices at Gloucester House, Belfast, and in the North and West of Belfast, for the type of help given. I have had feedback from a number of people with whom I have been associated in going to those offices. They have praised at great length the highly advanced and specialised equipment that is made available to them there. I understand that it is the best in the United Kingdom.
The unemployed and job seekers are helped personally in every possible way to be placed in the employment that is most suitable to their aptitudes, skills and abilities. They are able to be put in touch with vacancies and prospective employers not only throughout Northern Ireland at any time but also throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand that measures are soon to be adopted to extend that type of information to all the jobcentres in Europe. In that respect, Northern Ireland is well ahead of Great Britain. I should like to give credit to the people who are manning those particular jobcentres which I know and have experienced.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to electricity. Reference has been made to the DED Vote on pages 61 to 64 for the OFFER in Northern Ireland. There are no comparable figures available. It is a new venture to meet the needs of the 600,000 electricity consumers in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to go into the details about the quotation and other matters. However, there is considerable anxiety among consumers and industrialists in Northern Ireland about the future in that connection. Such concern does not arise from rumour or lack of understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. It arises from the situation that already exists in Great Britain.
In its brief the Northern Ireland CBI states:

1375
"Large users are at severe disadvantage in Northern Ireland. During 1991 CBI research highlighted that these users were paying 15–25% more for electricity in NI compared to GB, costing approximately £10 million … and even more compared to many other EC countries.
Since April 1992, 21 companies (representing 10% of the manufacturing employment) have been facing significant increases—even though Minister Needham said that tariff levels would not increase in real terms until 1996/7. DED has imposed 6 month freeze (till 30 September) on price increases as they try to resolve [the] problem. Additional cost being threatened [is] estimated at £3 m".
Naturally the CBI sees a need for some form of competitor in that new venture on electricity. It supports the electricity of the interconnector already referred to and the gas pipeline with Scotland.
There is considerable information in a new publication available on the magazine rack in the Library of the House of Lords. It is a publication from Northern Ireland entitled Northern Ireland Business Review and is published monthly. It will be of great value to people in Northern Ireland and those interested in business affairs in Northern Ireland. Its information is positive, informative and reliable.
Those are the points that I wish to raise. I have given the Minister notice of some of them.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the heavy force has just arrived on the Government Front Bench; and I suppose that we should be intimidated and not keep the House up at this late hour. However, it is necessary to speak on this Appropriation Order. That is what the House is for. When we were invited to take our seats in this Chamber we were invited to express our opinions on legislation that affects our constituencies.
The people of Northern Ireland should be very grateful that we have the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in this House. He is the only Member of your Lordships' House who both regularly attends the debates and continues to live in Northern Ireland. With his industrial background in the trade union movement, he still after many years remains concerned with the industrial position in Northern Ireland. I believe that all the people in Northern Ireland should be grateful to him for his continuing interest.
I have taken the same view as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies in relation to the debate. I do not live in Northern Ireland. Although there is no substitute for living there, I try to keep in touch with people in Northern Ireland by telephone, by meetings, and by reading the debates of another place. I intend to concentrate on that aspect briefly tonight.
During my political life I have found few occasions to agree with the honourable Member for North Antrim in another place, Dr. Paisley, particularly in respect of constitutional issues. However, I have always recognised him as being a valiant constituency worker. He has shown a great deal of interest in the welfare of his constituents and in other people throughout Northern Ireland. On reading his contribution to the appropriation debate in another place I was astounded at some of the revelations which he made. Although there may not be too many Members in your Lordships' House this evening I know that many Members read the Official Report of
1376
our debates. I believe that something should be read into the records of the Official Report to show the extent of what I regard to be a serious problem in Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies drew attention to what he considers to be great discontent within the health service as regards the boards which have been set up—the "quangos" as they are referred to in Northern Ireland. All political parties in Northern Ireland have voiced concern about the composition of the boards. They consider that the people who have been placed on them are there to voice the opinions of the Northern Ireland Office. That is a bad way to run a health service. Referring to an earlier debate, I hope that, if there is a conclusion to the political talks which are now taking place, the responsibility for heath and social services will revert to a Northern Ireland institution. Those people will then have the responsibility either for the continuing existence of the quangos or, if they want to abolish them, for the setting up of a new structure which will more ably represent the views of the people.
I want to read a paragraph of what was said in another place by the honourable Member for North Antrim. He said:
"Last week, the Eastern health and social services board announced that it would close six hospitals. Some 750 beds in the area will close and up to 8,000 nursing staff will eventually lose their jobs. The Government propose to close Newtownards, Bangor, Belvoir Park, Down, Foster Green and Musgrave Park. What a list of hospitals to be closed!" —[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/92; col. 1131.]
He then went on to point out that those hospitals have specialist agencies within them to deal with infectious diseases.
On the face of it the Eastern health and social services board has decided to close six hospitals and to make 8,000 staff redundant. Therefore, there must have been gross mismanagement in those hospitals, considering the number of staff involved, the hospitals which will close and the facilities which are to be transferred to other places. I am certain that if the board were run by Northern Ireland people that would not have taken place.
I am perhaps the more concerned for personal reasons and I have been in touch with the Minister's office to ask him about the matter. I receive daily telephone calls and letters from people in Northern Ireland complaining about the length of time that people there must wait for by-pass and heart operations. It is well known that Northern Ireland is the worst region in Europe for heart complaints. No one knows why, but that has been the case for a number of years. The honourable Member for North Antrim stated that he knows of people who have had to wait four years for heart surgery and that it is a matter of life and death. He quoted from the Register General Quarterly Returns for Northern Ireland for 1990, showing that:
"the number of heart disease deaths in the Greater Belfast area was: Ards, 165; Belfast, 922; Castlereagh. 188; Down, 215; Lisburn, 218; and North Down, 200—making a total of 1,908".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/92; col. 1133.]
He added that the figures for other heart-related disease deaths were Ards, 22; Belfast, 178; Castlereagh. 25; Down, 21; Lisburn, 28; and North

1377
Down, 22. That makes a total of 296. The grand total of deaths from heart disease in Northern Ireland was 2,204.
I find those figures absolutely devastating. As I say, we do not know why heart disease is so prevalent in Northern Ireland but surely the Government should be able to throw more facilities into the tight to try to combat heart disease. I have asked the Minister—and I hope he will be able to reply this evening—how many by-pass operations were carried out last year in Northern Ireland and how many people are on the waiting lists. Is he satisfied as regards the number of specialists that there are in Northern Ireland to carry out heart surgery? If the facilities for heart by-pass operations or other operations related to heart disease are not available, could not patients be transferred to other parts of England, Scotland or Wales so that they would not have to wait for such a long period of time for an operation? It is extremely important for the Government to look at and take seriously the remarks that were made by the honourable Member for North Antrim, because it would appear that he has carried out a searching inquiry into the number of people affected by heart disease. The people of Northern Ireland deserve all the support that we can give them.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned the Throne Hospital issue. That hospital is situated in the Antrim Road, which is in what was formerly my North Belfast constituency for many years. That has provided a good service to people of all religions and of all political views over many years. It has always been regarded as an institution which could enlist the support of the whole community in that particular area, as it has done on this occasion. Every political party in Northern Ireland has supported the retention of the Throne Hospital. Although it appears that there will be savings of fl million, I am certain that that £1 million should be devoted to refurbishing that hospital. The building, the structure, is sound. The whole area is amenable to what the Throne Hospital is trying to do.
In relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned, I still believe that there is no great anxiety in Northern Ireland over the privatisation of the electricity authorities or the water or sewerage services.
Two days ago I ran into a demonstration taking place outside the House. Immediately I was recognised by the fishermen from Kilkeel. I am sure that the Minister must have received forceful representations in relation to the ongoing dispute which is now taking place. The fishermen told me that many of them will be forced out of the fishing industry. They have been told by the Government that they must stop fishing for 136 days per year while fishermen from other EC member states will be able to fish in the waters in which our fishermen would normally be fishing. That directive from the EC acts greatly to the disadvantage of our own fishermen. Before the Government take any final steps, I ask them to look to the old adage that charity begins at
1378
home. They should look after the interests of our own fishermen rather than kowtow to the European Commission on the question of conservation.
Many representations have been made to me over the past two days about an investment company known as the International Investment Company Limited, which is based in Gibraltar. It has placed many advertisements in newspapers in the United Kingdom and in particular in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in the Republic. Many people have invested their life savings or redundancy payments with those people in answer to the advertisements. There are now rumours circulating that Northern Ireland may be about to experience its own BCCI scandal. I was wondering whether any representations had been made to the Government in that connection. The Minister may not possess that information for me tonight, but perhaps he will write to me. There is deep concern in connection with this matter.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may say straightaway that in the interests of time it is probably best that I do not answer all the questions this evening. I shall do my best to answer as many as I can, but I shall certainly write to noble Lords in connection with any that I cannot answer.
Several noble Lords showed a keen interest this evening in the development of health and personal social services. The health and social services boards will have £887 million available from net current expenditure in 1992–93. That is an increase of £55 million over 1991–92 and is to improve the services for patients and clients.
It is a matter for boards to plan the development of their services in the light of the additional resources being made available, and with sufficient flexibility to enable them to cope with emerging pressures. However, I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, regarding planning by the boards, and I shall write to him in that regard.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other noble Lords, I understand that local communities may be extremely concerned when a health and social services board proposes the closure or change of use of facilities or services. But I hope they will agree that if boards are to continue to provide the highest quality of services, changes are inevitable. I know that boards take seriously their responsibility to consult their local communities when changes are contemplated. Decisions to close or to change the use of facilities will not be taken lightly. The views of local communities and their public representatives will always be given the most careful consideration. I give the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other noble Lords my complete assurance on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned the question of the closure of the Throne Hospital. The Eastern Health and Social Services accepted proposals for the closure of the Throne Hospital. The board proposals are in line with the department's policy for the care of elderly people as set out in the regional strategy for health and personal social services for 1992–97. The aim is to build up services in the

1379
community so that a greater proportion of people aged 75 and over can be cared for in their own homes rather than in institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was kind and courteous enough to give me advance notice of the points that he wished to raise this evening. He referred to the membership of the health and social services boards, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Membership of the boards consists of people drawn from a wide range of backgrounds who have an interest in health and social care. Individuals are appointed as non-executive directors of boards on the basis of the skills and experience that they can bring to the board's business. The appointment of chairmen and non-executive board directors was publicly announced on 28th March last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested, I am arranging for a list of members to be placed in the Library. But it is not normal practice to disclose personal information about individual appointees.
The noble Lord asked also about the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the purchase of X-ray equipment, and the suggestions that the department's advisory committee on radiology should be reconstituted. The Public Accounts Committee recently took advice on that matter and it would he inappropriate for me to comment at this stage. When the committee's report is published, its conclusions and recommendations will be carefully considered and the Government will respond fully through the normal medium of a memorandum of reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked also about the prospect of setting up an independent health advisory board. My department receives advice from a wide range of professional advisory committees, but I shall certainly consider the noble Lord's suggestion in that regard.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the Chief Adjudication Officer's report on adjudication standards. The social security agent has given an extremely positive response to the report and is taking action to effect improvements in the areas highlighted. I can assure the noble Lord that the agency is determined to attain the highest possible level of performance in adjudication work.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke about the report in Great Britain by the Social Policy Research Unit at York. Although the report covers only Great Britain it will be studied extremely carefully to see whether it contains material which would be of relevance to Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, suggested that the I DB and the LEDU might amalgamate. There are no plans at this time to do so, but a harmonious and effective working relationship exists between the two organisations. That is being continually developed and built on. A review of structures within the Department of Economic Development and its agencies undertaken last year recommended that IDB and LEDU should remain separate, but that action should be taken to strengthen coherence of policy and eliminate any areas of overlap. The review's recommendations are being implemented.
1380
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, also asked about North-South economic co-operation. Certainly, we welcome any constructive contribution to the discussion on cross-border economic co-operation which has of course increased significantly in recent years. The Government are ready to provide assistance with, for example, the development of infrastructure in those cases where it can be shown to be of mutual benefit. However, it must be recognised that there are also many areas where the natural North-South relationship is one of competition to serve the same markets. It is for individual firms both North and South to determine where their own interests lie and to pursue those relationships which they believe will enhance their competitive position in world markets.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised several points. I shall respond to a few of them. He asked why the level of selective financial assistance to industry this year is about £20 million less than for 1991–92. The answer is that the reduction mainly affects industrial development grants where a lower number of projects have been grant-aided in recent years, reflecting the more difficult economic situation and a reduction in the level of grants available towards total investment costs. Grants may be spread over a number of years and there will inevitably be fluctuations in the estimates from year to year. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the change in provision does not reflect any reduction in the Government's commitment to industrial development. That remains the Government's second public expenditure priority in Northern Ireland after law and order.
The noble Lord also pointed out that the current provision for the Health and Safety Agency and for health and employment protection shows a marginal reduction over last year. This allocation is considered adequate for both the agency and the Health and Safety Inspectorate's needs, including any activities associated with the European Year of Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work.
As regards funding for the General Consumer Council, the Government believe that the sums provided in the estimates should enable the council to carry out its functions including any relating to the Citizen's Charter.
Perhaps I may take one point of the many which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, brought up. I hope that I have covered some already. As regards the Kilkeel fisherman, I understand the points that he has made about the anxiety expressed by the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, including those fishermen based at Kilkeel. However, we consider that the package announced by my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, which also included a decommissioning scheme, will make a definite contribution to the conservation of fish stocks through reduced fishing effort. We consider that the package represents a good balance between the use of public funds, further controls on fishermen and the opportunity for the industry to play a greater role in securing its future.
I conclude my remarks by thanking noble Lords for participating in this debate and displaying their

1381
customary interest and concern for the people of Northern Ireland. I commend this order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
10.55 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order is long and complex but I am relieved to say largely non-contentious. The order has been subject to wide ranging consultation with interested bodies in Northern Ireland. In total, comments were received from 36 organisations, including the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland Housing Council, 10 district councils and other professional and representative groups. A number of amendments were made to the detail of the order as a result of this process but I am pleased to say that overall most respondents felt that the provisions were a sensible and logical development of Northern Ireland housing legislation.
Part II restates with amendments the legislation governing registered housing associations. The amendments are broadly similar to those contained in Part II of the Housing Act 1988. They centre on the decontrol of rents on new lettings and a more flexible framework for the payment and recovery of grants. They will give housing associations more control over their own affairs and provide greater incentives for efficient management. They will also enable housing associations to raise private loan finance and thereby achieve a higher programme output for a given level of resources.
Another important provision of the order is the replacement of the existing complex right-to-buy legislation with a simple requirement for the housing executive to operate a house sales scheme. The scheme, which will require the Department of the Environment's approval, will be similar to the executive's current highly successful voluntary sales scheme which to date has facilitated the sale of over 51,000 homes to tenants. Housing executive tenants will therefore continue to be able to purchase their homes on terms which are at least as favourable as those provided in the right-to-buy legislation in England and Wales and any future changes to the legislation can easily be incorporated in the scheme with the minimum of delay.
There is little doubt that to many people the most eagerly awaited provisions of the order are set out in Part III and relate to the replacement of existing grants legislation with a new regime along the lines of
1382
that contained in the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act, suitably tailored to suit Northern Ireland's circumstances.
Under these provisions, renovation grants will be mandatory in the case of unfit owner-occupied houses and they will also be available to landlords primarily on a discretionary basis to bring single dwellings and houses in multiple occupation into a fit condition. Except in the case of minor works grant and repairs grant, a test of resources will be applied to determine the amount of grant that can be paid. This will target grant towards applicants who do not have the resources to carry out work without assistance more effectively than under the current scheme. The particular and very real concern of fire hazard in houses in multiple occupation has also been addressed with the introduction of grant aid for fire precautions as well as a means of escape.
The order contains a number of more minor amendments, but I hope that I have been able to explain the main provisions of the legislation. Excellent progress has been made in recent years in improving housing conditions in Northern Ireland and in meeting urgent housing need. The provisions in the order should help us to maintain that progress. I therefore commend the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
10.58 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again the House is grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly the scope of a complex order, consisting as it does of 108 articles and nine schedules. It appears to me that it changes significantly the legislation affecting housing in Northern Ireland. The Minister explained that many of the provisions mirror developments in housing legislation in England and Wales, but there is no way in which we can test their relevance in the Northern Ireland context nor is there any way in which we can change any of its provisions.
Although I have no expertise in housing legislation, I should like to touch briefly on seven points. I have given the Minister notice of the contents of my questions.
First, does the order indicate a possible shift in the role of the housing executive? Is it anticipated that some of the resources currently allotted to the housing executive are likely to be transferred to the housing associations, and if so, how radical a shift will that be? Secondly, particularly in the light of Article 16, does the department intend to set up a body to be representative of the housing associations? If so, will a housing association be obliged to affiliate to such a body? Thirdly, I am concerned that under Article 26(1)(b), after an inquiry under Article 23 and without evidence of any misconduct or mismanagement on the part of the association, or without evidence that it was failing to carry out its objects, the department can direct that its land be transferred to another association if the department considers that its management would be improved thereby. As I understand the order, there is no means whereby that direction can be challenged. My fear is that the

1383
procedure can be put in train in order to reduce the number of housing associations if the department considers that the reduction is desirable or convenient. If that is so, I feel that the department is going too far in reserving such a power to itself.
Fourthly, what role are the housing associations expected to play in the provision of hostels? We are particularly concerned about hostels for the homeless. Is it envisaged that they will play a leading role in the provision of hostels for the homeless? Fifthly, looking at the position from the consumer's standpoint, will the tenants of those housing associations whose membership is not confined to their tenants have by law a majority representation on their management committees? I find it difficult to believe that their voice should not be heard, and heard effectively.
Sixthly, the principal purpose of a housing association is to provide housing for its members and not to trade at a profit. Accordingly, in what circumstances under Article 15(4) is it envisaged that an association can lawfully acquire commercial premises or a business and set up shop; and for how long can it hold such premises or carry on such business without forfeiting its tax relief advantages?
Seventhly, Article 18(4) provides that the registrar is to give notice of cancellation or suspension of a registered housing association to the department. The power of cancellation is to be found in Article 17, but nowhere in the order have I seen the power to suspend. Where is it, please? I note that Article 17 provides an appeal procedure against cancellation, but within what period of time must the appeal be lodged in the High Court?
I could continue because housing is one of the biggest influences on how people live. I hope, however, that I have said enough late on a Thursday evening to make the point that this important legislation deserves a Bill which could have been properly examined in Committee. I make the further point that direct rule, about which we have spoken so often today, is not even second-best government.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this rather lengthy piece of legislation. The order consists of 108 articles and nine schedules and is contained in some 126 pages. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that this is not a suitable or adequate way to discuss an order of such magnitude.
The order makes some major legislative amendments to existing law in Northern Ireland relating to private rented accommodation, housing associations, owner occupied accommodation and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, I should like to add that there has been some criticism and disquiet over the failure to have reasonable consultations concerning the draft order. Not only are we faced with the dilemma of debating the matter in the Chamber after 11 o'clock at night, but also, when the order was sent out for consultation, suitable attention was not paid to the opinion of other organisations. Not only was consultation seriously limited because the six-week period stipulated included Christmas and the New Year holidays, but, in addition, there appears to have been a restricted list for the distribution of the
1384
draft proposals. Some major voluntary housing organisations were excluded and did not have adequate time in which to consider the order. The Council of the Homeless in Northern Ireland was one of the bodies which had to make a special request for a copy.
It appears to me that the mandatory grants scheme is clearly targeted at unfit housing. The scheme is to be commended, yet it may well pose serious budgetary problems for the housing executive. Means testing is likely to deter applications. If tackling fitness is a goal, such a filtering mechanism may well prove counterproductive. It also seems inequitable to means test tenants, owner occupiers and charitable organisations who provide accommodation while actively encouraging private or commercial landlords to maximise grant aid for the creation of future private profit. Overall, the order has significant potential. However, if the provisions are not accompanied by resources to enable effective implementation, it will have limited impact.
One point is, I believe, relevant not only to discussions on this order but also to discussions which took place earlier this evening. The chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Mr. John McEvoy, stated on a television programme that over the next three years the shortfall in the housing executive's financing would be in the region of £55 million. That is required to meet the needs of the present legislation and includes modest housing accommodation, the build and repair programme and the homeless legislation. But that amount is outside the legislation now being enacted. The sad feature of the situation - which, in my opinion, is not contrary to Mr. McEvoy's television broadcast—is that the present high level of unemployment in the construction industry is costing almost the equivalent of the housing executive's financial cuts. By re-directing the finances to the Northern Ireland Office, the Government could reduce unemployment, provide housing, remove much human suffering, illness and distress and create hope and happiness—a re-direction in other words of unemployment benefit to the positive construction of housing to meet the needs of Northern Ireland. With those remarks, I welcome the order in its intention and hope that the finance will be available to implement its proposals.
11.9 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have one brief question: will the noble Earl use all his influence with his colleague at the DoE to try to speed up to the maximum possible extent the current demolition work and building of new houses on the sites of the Divis flats and the Unity flats? To do so would be a major confidence-building step in the centre of Belfast.
11.10 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who were good enough to notify me of their questions. At this time of night that helps to speed up progress in your Lordships' House, especially when an Unstarred Question follows with some two hours yet to come.

1385
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a number of points relating to housing associations. While housing associations in Great Britain have become the main providers of new social housing, I can confirm that in Northern Ireland the Housing Executive will continue as the main provider of public sector housing. It is unlikely that there will be much change in the number—currently standing at 46—of housing associations registered with the department over the next few years. All those associations are affiliated to the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations which has received financial support from the Department of the Environment since it was incorporated in 1977.
The noble Lord also asked about the composition of management committees. Housing associations are of course voluntary bodies and their membership is not confined to tenants. In most associations tenants do not have a majority representation on the management committee.
The noble Lord asked also about the role housing associations can play in providing hostels. The position is that associations can provide housing accommodation in a hostel if that is appropriate for their client groups. That has been done, for example, for people with a mental handicap, women at risk of domestic violence and the single homeless.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the tax position of association. Those wishing to acquire and develop mixed residential and commercial property would, where appropriate, have to consider carefully with the Inland Revenue the consequences for their charitable status. Grants in relief of tax incurred on such activities would not be available from the department.
Finally, the noble Lord inquired about the suspension of associations. The department does not have the power to suspend a registered housing association and references to suspension in the order relate to the powers of the Registrar of Friendly Societies to suspend the registration of a body under the industrial and provident society legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, said that in his opinion the consultation period had been too short. First, the standard consultation period for orders is six weeks; secondly, the consultation period for the housing order was six weeks and one day; and, thirdly, to meet some anxieties expressed at the time we took on board responses received up to three weeks after the original closing date. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that work is proceeding on the Divis and Unity flats but it must be in stages.
I thank your Lordships for your indulgence and patience over the past three hours during which we have dealt with important Northern Ireland orders, and I commend this order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CAP Agreement: Impact on Rural Economy
11.12 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what impact the recent CAP agreement will have on the rural economy; and whether they consider that the bond scheme proposed by Professor Marsh and Professor Tangermann would be a good way of helping the agricultural industry to adjust.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate for their support at this hour. I thank especially my noble friend Lord Hamilton for choosing this occasion to make his maiden speech which we all look forward to hearing. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister who has agreed to reply to the debate.
The reform of the CAP will result in a reduction of some 16 per cent. in farm incomes over the next four years. By the third year of the reform, 14 per cent. of land in the United Kingdom now used for cereals will be entered into set-aside. The purpose of the reform is to reduce production, and yet the UK is already a net importer of food, and so will become more heavily dependent upon imported food, which will create extra cost.
The reform will not reduce the cost of the CAP, which is still expected to rise in the short term. While the reform seeks to reduce the level of production on the one hand, on the other it seeks to make direct payments to farmers for perceived benefits which bear no relation to the known market demand.
There is no acknowledgement in the proposals of the fact that the CAP in itself has done enormous harm to the rural economy by creating high prices for food, followed by high prices for land and other farming costs, and has placed an enormous burden on the European taxpayer through the cost of the bureaucracy and controls of the CAP, but it has not put any money into the farmers' hands
There is no acknowledgement of the fact that the problem is not overproduction but production at too high a price. The proper solution to the crisis in European agriculture brought about by the central planning and restrictive practices of the CAP is a return to the free market, utilising and encouraging the use of the great resources the UK has in land, skills, livestock, cereals, with the new varieties, and technology, all supported by the most efficient and up-to-date food industry in the world to produce the safest and finest foodstuffs at the lowest possible prices.
Aiming for world market prices for agricultural products over a period of time—say 10 years—rather than trying to maintain a high priced regime in Europe would, in my view, bring far-reaching benefits to all consumers and ultimately all producers. Such a change would also have an impact, of course, on the rural economy as the agricultural production adapted to a free market regime and a very competitive environment.
The right way to deal with those changes would be to allow a much greater flexibility of opportunity in

1387
the rural areas so that the entrepreneurial spirit among farmers and landowners is encouraged and a proper balance obtained between the use of land for agricultural production, for business in rural areas, for leisure, for the commercial encouragement of sites of special scientific interest or special ecological importance, for national parks, for forestry and for access to and enjoyment of the countryside by the population.
It is only by allowing the marketplace to create the right balance between all these factors and appreciating the costs and returns for each that we shall offer a proper way forward for the rural areas of Europe for the future. It is the planning and controls that create the tensions, with one pressure group demanding what the other pressure group refuses and expecting the Government and the EC to find a compromise, which is disliked by everyone. On a visit to Skipton only this week I heard of a rural village in a national park where the villagers are strongly resisting the park planning rules which are working against the interests and the requirements of the local people. They have no way of changing the rules.
The proposals for the reform of CAP take a very important and positive step by reducing intervention prices and introducing direct payments. That is a policy which I applaud. The principle, if taken forward correctly, could be the precursor of the changes in the industry that are necessary. But rather than being direct and simple in their application, by bringing in the concept of taking land out of production into set-aside and actually paying farmers for not producing, the reform has been turned into a nonsense.
The various attempts to force farmers into uneconomic use of land resources is fundamentally against the interests of every person who lives in our country. It will turn out to be a policy which will be looked back upon with ridicule and derision.
An alternative view is to take a positive free market line which everyone, and particularly our own Government, must realise is the only sensible approach. However, it has to be accepted that the present high level of food prices in EC countries was imposed by politicians for their own political purposes and never because it was in the public's and producers' interest.
If, for political reasons, it is now necessary to reform CAP and bring EC food prices more in line with world prices, then there will be a cost of managing that change, just as there have been massive costs of change in the European coal and steel industries and no doubt there will soon be in the rail transport industry.
The way to deal with that cost of change would be to pay for it in the form of a bond to each farmer in Europe which would represent the payment of an annual sum of money over, say, 10 years, which would compensate producers for the loss of income and capital value over that period of time. By the end of the 10 years, farm prices would be assumed to be at world levels.
That is the essence of the bond scheme proposed by Professor Tangermann and Professor Marsh. The
1388
scheme encourages efficiency and the maximum use of our resources, which is surely one of the tenets of Conservative thinking. The bond scheme would encourage innovative ideas of food production and land use: the present proposals for the reform of CAP discourage such initiatives. The bond scheme would encourage the production of food in Europe for those areas of the world that need it at a price they could afford: the reform proposals discourage it. The bond scheme would encourage a fairer balance between all uses of land which would bring rewards to everyone. The reform proposals establish the need for more controls and bureaucracy and offer less choice for consumers.
CAP reforms as now proposed will result in further stresses and imbalances in our rural economy with continuing problems of a lack of job opportunities, declining standards of living, growing frustration with government and a constant fight between those who want to do something and those who want to stop them. It will hinder the completion of GATT which is so important for economic development in the world and it will make Great Britain a poorer place. I look forward to hearing the reply from my noble friend the Minister.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, once again your Lordships' House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for bringing this all-important subject of agriculture to your Lordships' attention. But how tragic it is to discuss this before such an empty House and so late at night.
The noble Lord has, as always, pinpointed many vital issues and I naturally look forward as well to the Minister's reply, especially as to the bond situation, although I personally think for the moment that is purely academic. Every time I have spoken in your Lordships' House on the subject of agriculture, I have been prone to hark back as to why we are in this situation. With the greatest possible respect to civil servants, low and high ranking Eurocrats and politicians, we are in one hell of a mess. It is vitally important that we examine why. Twelve years ago we were told that more food was required. We were told, "Drain the wetlands and here is a grant to do so. Oh, and by the way, your bank manager will lend you the shortfall". Now today we are told, "Stop. Set it all aside".
Travelling as I do up and down the east coast railway line twice weekly, the effects of set-aside are, for the lack of a better word, revolting. I dread to think what the countryside will look like in five years' time when there will be so much more land set aside. How ironic the lines of "Jerusalem" will sound in England's green and pleasant land. I wonder how many of your Lordships have been watching recently on television the effects of the famine in Africa. There was a school of thought that we must teach the Africans how to farm and not just dump our surpluses on them. For some time I subscribed to that school of thought but how, for example, can one grow anything in Zambia when one has had no water for years?

1389
I am aware that I am slightly straying from the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, but I find it difficult to balance the equation with Europe sitting on mountains of unwanted food. At the end of May the European Community had in stock 211,000 tonnes of butter, 284,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder, 627,000 tonnes of beef and an unbelievably outrageous 20,358,000 tonnes of cereals. Then one thinks that yesterday 36,000 children died; 36,000 will die today and 36,000 more will die tomorrow. It does not take a genius to work out that that is more than thirteen and a quarter million children a year—over 13 million—and here we are discussing how to produce less.
For anyone to die of starvation in the late twentieth century is an international scandal, and one which we ought to be bitterly ashamed of. At this point I should like to add my congratulations on the way the United Kingdom's negotiating team were able to return, perhaps not exactly in triumph, but certainly holding their heads high, after the latest talks on the reform of the CAP. However, I still do not understand how, in realistic terms, bureaucrats, well cushioned in Brussels, can dream up sets of rules that are to apply to the Greek islands and at the same time to the Outer Hebrides. Surely that simply is not practical. We have recently seen the Soviet republics break their union and now we are proffering a union with the rest of Europe while French trawlermen cut our fishing nets. However, we must all eagerly await the implementing texts, especially as many of us have been longing to finalise our cropping plans for next year and, indeed, order seed. In the 14 years since I have been trying to farm, I have never not had everything ordered and finalised by the middle of June, and living in Scotland of course, our season is a good deal later, especially bearing in mind that the combines are rolling already in southern England.
I am sure that the noble Earl, being a farmer himself, realises how very great is our sense of urgency. All the information currently available in the arable sector is worthless unless we know the make-up of regions in the UK, responsibility for which Brussels has delegated to individual governments, and indeed to learn what the base years are going to be. I have seen at first hand parts of the huge Brussels bureaucratic machinery and how it works when I represented Scotland on the European Landowning Organisation—and, yes, I have seen attractive dolly birds straight out of Madrid university, drafting in pencil ideas, for example, to stop farmers shooting crows. How can this make realistic sense?
There has, and rightly so, been much talk of diversification into non-farming activities as a result of the reform of the CAP, but there is a limit to the number of golf courses that can be built. In East Lothian, for example, one of the richest agricultural areas, there are already 16 golf courses and plans for a further six.
At this stage it is extremely difficult to know what the effects are going to be, especially as there is so much uncertainty around. This in itself has a major effect and is a constant source of worry to all those in
1390
the farming industry. I use those words most carefully, as at the end of June 1991 there were still some 79,000 holdings in the UK engaged in cereal farming. If one adds all the ancillary trades such as machinery suppliers, fertiliser manufacturers, advisers, etc., there are many hundreds of thousands of people involved in this all-important industry and I fear that there will be heavy redundancies in all these fields as a result of this CAP reform.
When I made biscuits, we knew how much we could sell a packet for. But today, even with the harvest under way, no farmer has any idea what his income is likely to be. I do, however, believe that there must be a glimmer of light, and I see that light in the form of bio-fuels. I feel certain that, long term and with careful genetic engineering, arable crops will be able to help with the world's fuel crisis; and here I would urge the Government to allocate funds to help research into the future of bio-fuels. I think too that we ought to pay tribute to the farming community for behaving in such a responsible manner, particularly if one looks across the Channel.
Survival is the name of the game. And it does seem ironic that farmers are the victims of their own success. However, I suppose we must take heart from the green aspect of the reforms and let us hope that, with sufficient funding from the Treasury, the colour green does not turn a sickly yellow when in six months' time there is no money. What firm assurance can the Minister give that there will be funds available for new environmentally friendly farming systems starting later this year?
11.29 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for calling this debate and giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech, although I did not think it was going to be an after-dinner speech. When I was contemplating making it, for some reason or other the thought came to me of what was voiced on Founder's Day at Eton, when we used to praise famous men and our fathers that begat us. At a time when so many noble Lords have joined this House on their own merits, it suddenly came home to me what those words meant. I certainly praise my father, in whose shoes I stand and whose wish it was that one day I should perform in your Lordships' House.
I farm a substantial acreage and have a number of tenant farmers. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. One's tenant farmers are the yeomen of England. They have coped marvellously well with the problems that they have encountered over the past years and have behaved amazingly well compared with their fellows in France.
The failure of the common agricultural policy is a failure of over-production. I agree with the instincts of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in wishing for a freer market. But I see the political problems. It would be easy enough to reverse the increases in production caused by too high prices over so many years by a return to a free market. But I also understand that that

1391
is likely to be politically impossible to achieve. The result is that we are left with a situation in which we have to rely upon set-aside.
If set-aside at 16 per cent were going to restore the balance of the market in the same way that too high prices caused an increase in production, a balanced market itself ought to produce higher prices. I should have thought that were one to argue that, as a result of the latest measures, prices would continue to bump along on their support levels, the answer would be that set-aside and the whole basis on which the revisions in the common agricultural policy are based must have failed.
That brings me to the matter of the bond. The bond must involve some element of price. It would be very interesting to hear the Minister's view on how to price a bond over 10 years. It would involve the Government taking the view that prices would either remain on their support levels or would not. It is interesting to note that two years ago the price of wheat in May and at the end of the selling season rose to some £140 a tonne for feed wheat and higher for miller's wheat—levels which were way above the intervention prices. It is clearly possible, in a market that is balanced, for prices to go up and down. It would therefore be interesting to hear the Minister's view on how a bond, if it were to be launched, should be priced.
One might have two other reservations about the bond. I understand that it is likely to provide a lower rate for large farmers than for smaller ones. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will return to Europe to argue the case that that should not be so, as he has clone with such success in other cases. The second thing that would unnerve one would be that with tenant farmers it would conceivably be possible for the tenant to sell his bond and quit the land, leaving the landowner with no subsidy for any future tenant who might come in. Those two points ought to be looked into if this bond comes into existence.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I too had planned a little diversion, because the noble Lord, Lord Forester, and I have a share in a farm in Zimbabwe. The whole thing has now been devastated by the fearful drought which they are experiencing. The Government there is under a certain amount of criticism. They abolished the two years' supply of food, which used to be held in the country against such emergencies, and lowered the price given for maize to a level at which the minimum was produced. We tend to despair about third world governments and how they get on. We shrug our shoulders and say, "There it is". I should like to ask the Minister whether he can tell me what is the difference of principle between the policies of Mr Mugabe and Mr MacSharry.
11.34 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, it is my duty and pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, on a splendid maiden speech, which he delivered with great clarity and common sense. I think that it was also non-controversial - a
1392
tradition of this House which seems to be broken more frequently than it is followed—but it was not lacking in interest.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for introducing this important Question on what impact the CAP agreement will have on the rural economy and whether the Marsh/Tangermann bond scheme may help. One must consider the CAP agreement and its importance. The CAP is immensely important to this country, to Europe and to the world. It has been argued about for a long time. It has become evident that, rightly or wrongly, the GATT Round depends upon some sensible resolution. I am therefore surprised that such a debate should begin after 11 o'clock at night at a time when one could describe the parliamentary programme in your Lordships' House as slow to dull.
We should consider the CAP agreement as it now stands. I cannot remember the precise date when Mr. Gummer returned from Brussels and said that we could stand tall in the company of the world because we were going to please them, the GATT Round would go forward and so on. I would call the package that he brought back skeletal because it has not been fleshed out in any way. Masses of details are missing. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made perfectly clear, for an industry which should plan in years rather than in months to be reduced to planning in weeks, or even days so far as I can see, for major decisions is an almost impossible situation and can only lead to inefficiency.
We also have the compulsory set-asides. To me that is bad news. I shall return to the broader aspects of the rural economy, but restrictions such as set-asides and limiting headage payments on sheep, suckler cows and so on must mean less labour. Therefore a problem is created.
On the other hand, the Minister returned with a reasonable package of money for the farmers. He also did well in that he got rid of much of the discrimination against this country. But he did not bring back any concept of the whole of Europe, or indeed this country, becoming more efficient so that one day in the future we can compete in world markets. Surely we do not expect to continue for ever bolstering up farmers in Europe. In 20 years surely we should be able to compete even with the low wages in South America and the rolling plains of milling wheat in Saskatchewan and so on.
Furthermore, the CAP arrangement is now complicated to a degree. It will be difficult for farmers and the people in MAFF to understand. The arrangement will need a tremendous amount of resourcing. When MAFF has the resources to compete in a situation that is already obviously behind schedule, I suspect that it will have considerable difficulty in getting the right people together in the right places to undertake the multifarious tasks to ensure that people are not cheating. We know that the European Court of Auditors disliked the system immensely because of the possibilities for fraud.
That is where we stand at present. We have a rather unsatisfactory situation with regard to the farmers, although the money may be right. On the world stage

1393
there remains an unsatisfactory situation as regards the GATT Round. I do not believe that the Americans will consider it good enough to allow that situation to go forward, which is most important.
I appreciate the difficulties with tenanted land, although I do not concede that they are impossible to overcome. However, the bond scheme is completely straightforward. It depends on certain difficult political decisions. There must be a reference from which the loss of profit to the farmer is made up. It must be decided whether to penalise the large farmer. The length of the bond must also be decided upon. The scheme will not be as expensive as the present arrangement, nor will it be so open to abuse. There is a feeling that what is to be arranged—or what is two-thirds arranged at the moment—is so complicated that it probably will be unworkable. It is also felt that if the arrangement comes to fruition its life will not be that long. If that situation arises—and I think that it well might—the bond scheme should be put forward as a practical answer.
As regards the rural economy, no one has as yet followed up the fact that there will be a great many unemployed farm workers. In that respect I wish to make two points. I am aware that through some memorandum the Government have exhorted the planners to view kindly change-of-user provisions on barns and so forth. Will my noble friend ensure that that is followed up and is seen to work? If 15 per cent. of the land comes out of cereal production it will not merely be a matter of old Victorian barns being converted for ironwork and basketwork businesses. There will be perfectly good asbestos and steel factory units for some clean industry or other scattered throughout the countryside. I regret to say that I heard of one district council which shall be nameless which was pleased that the barns would be empty. It considered that they were a blot on the landscape and wanted them pulled down. Surely planning must be fixed to provide as much employment as possible in these circumstances.
My second and final point is that the Rural Development Commission should be used in a stronger way. It is a powerful agency because it is extremely well run and does a good job. Its duties should be extended beyond the advice that it now gives and its powers to purchase factories and small workshops and to lend money to people who are trying to set up in business. Those powers should be extended to retraining. The commission should be funded in a more robust way.
11.44 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, it is unconventional for those who speak after the one who follows a maiden speaker also to offer their congratulations. Nevertheless, I do so wholeheartedly, remembering the great affection and respect in which I held the father of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, when we served together. I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wade for providing an opportunity to take a quick look at the recent CAP agreement. However, a
1394
rapid glance is all that is appropriate at a time when a close examination of the scheme is not possible while the details have still to be worked out.
Having presented the Select Committee's report on CAP reform to your Lordships last October, the temptation to speak in depth about the reform scheme is extremely great. However, even at a more civilised hour it would be better to leave to a later date a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the scheme, how it differs from earlier proposals and how far it falls short of the kind of reforms that we felt were needed —and fall short it does.
Other noble Lords have referred to the many questions which must be answered on how the scheme will work out in practice. Obviously the Ministry of Agriculture is now under considerable pressure to present farmers with the rules of the game in a matter of days rather than weeks.
I turn to the first part of my noble friend's Question in which, again, I have an interest, having presented the Select Committee's 1990 report on the future of rural society. I do not know how the Minister, when he replies, will assess the impact of CAP reform on the rural economy. Perhaps his reply may be that the compensatory measures contained in the reform package will soften the impact on farmers of reduced price support and that they are intending to allow farmers to carry on making the necessary adjustments to their businesses to ensure efficient production and a reasonable standard of living in the future. He may say that if a healthy rural economy depends largely on a viable agricultural industry, then the impact of CAP reform should, at any rate in the short term, be neutral.
However, in our rural society report we concluded:
"Agricultural policies alone can no longer be assured to provide widespread benefits to the rural economy and society as a whole".
We said that because there are deep-seated problems for the rural areas and they will remain to be resolved, whatever the impact of CAP reform: problems arising from the changing social balance in the countryside; a lack of job opportunities; a relatively poor infrastructure and bad access to basic services; severe unemployment in the fringe areas; and, above all, lack of affordable rural housing.
If the effect of the reform package is malign so that farming continues its present slide into depression, those problems in the rural areas will become worse. If the effect of CAP reform is benign so that farmers can carry on in business without too much hardship, all those problems will still remain to be tackled. In either case, CAP reform must result in structural change in agriculture leading to an increase in the size of farm units and fewer farmers and farm workers being required. That effect in itself will exacerbate existing housing and employment problems in rural areas.
In the second part of my noble friend's Question, he asks whether the bond scheme will help the agricultural industry to adjust. Without going into details, the Select Committee looked at that scheme very carefully when considering CAP reform. We said:

1395
"The Commission and the Member States should evaluate more fully the mechanics of providing all compensatory payments to farmers by means of such a Bond".
As some noble Lords have said, the new arrangement provides for a very different and expensive system of compensatory payments which seem to exclude any place for the kind of fixed redeemable bond as proposed by Professor Tangermann.
We do not know how long the new compensatory payments are to continue. With my noble friend Lord Radnor I take the view that the scheme's durability is extremely limited. It seems to have a short shelf-life built into it. Whereas expenditure on the elaborate structure of intervention prices, threshold prices, export refunds, green money and the whole complex and convoluted CAP machinery was notoriously difficult to control, nothing can be simpler than to cut compensatory payments. If politics demand it, cut they will be.
The tax-paying public are unlikely to see much reduction in food prices after CAP reform, but they will see acres of brambles and thistles in the countryside which they must pay for. The time must come—some people think it will come quite quickly —when under economic and political pressure not merely the level of the compensatory payments to farmers but the whole reform package will come to be reviewed. That is when a scheme such as that of Professor Tangermann may well provide an acceptable alternative solution should one be needed.
Any alternative scheme for compensation should be transitional; it should be acceptable under GATT and de-coupled from production support. It should be fixed and not renegotiable. Those criteria would be satisfied by the professor's bond scheme. However, it presents some difficulty of a practical nature; hence the need to begin working on it as soon as the new CAP reform arrangements are finalised.
It is for that reason I believe the Question of my noble friend Lord Wade is extremely relevant. It will soon be time to start evaluating a different form of adjustment aid to that in the CAP package.
11.52 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the rather natural gloom that we may all have felt in debating this useful subject introduced by my noble friend Lord Wade at such an untimely hour was enlivened by the pleasure we had in hearing my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell make a fascinating maiden speech. It made all those present realise how much we shall look forward to hearing him frequently in the future.
The CAP has always been the Achilles heel of Europe. First, it has been a bottomless pit for the taxpayer; secondly, it has kept agriculture in Europe in a form more suited to the Middle Ages than the 20th century; and, thirdly, as the Marxists would say, it has been full of internal contradictions in the sense that even where there has been prosperity it has been profoundly destabilising. I need only refer to the way in which the prosperity of certain parts of England led to absurd price levels for land, which lured institutional investors to buy farms. They installed managers to obtain a totally unreal return and they massacred the landscape in so doing. Incidentally,
1396
many smaller farmers became extremely unsoundly borrowed during a period when there was far too much money being offered by too many money lenders.
No Brussels policy has been more widely criticised by both governments and voters alike. It has probably done more than anything else to alienate people from the Europe envisaged by the founding fathers which was to be one in which prosperity and economic growth were to come from free trade.
For many months Mr. MacSharry has been attempting to reform the system. But his whole framework for reform has been largely on the basis of perpetuating some of these iniquities. That is illustrated by his blatant attempt to discriminate against some of the most efficient farmers in the Community—the British. Mr. MacSharry lost that particular battle and we should all salute my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture for his part in preventing that specific discrimination.
That is my last bouquet of the evening. I want to say a word about three of the criticisms already referred to by others.
First, timing and administration; secondly, the economic effect; and thirdly, the environmental impact. As regards timing and administration, it is completely unacceptable that business people, which is what farmers are, should have fundamental changes imposed on them, not at short notice, not at no notice, but in effect, retrospectively. We have a scheme which came into force on 1st July—a week ago—yet we still have none of the detailed, crucial regulations under which it is to be administered. Farmers went through all this 10 years ago when milk quotas were introduced. But the Bourbons of Brussels learned nothing from that experience.
So here is a scheme with no regulations to implement it. We have heard about the nonsense over feed wheat. We have heard something about the process by which the system is to be under a series of inspectors. This could mean agriculture being administered by bureaucrats as intensively as soviet agriculture was in the worst periods of collectivisation. There are many crucial questions to be decided: for example, what is an agricultural holding? Nobody yet knows.
May I say a word about the economy? Until the recent recession much of the countryside had in recent years prospered. Ten years ago the Rural Development Commission, to which my noble friend Lord Radnor made a kind reference, designated 27 areas which were the least favoured in England and Wales as rural development areas. The employment in those areas has become very healthy. Indeed, as recently as January of this year only five of them had unemployment above England's average. But the picture may now have changed. There is some reason to believe that over the next few years, there could be as many as 100,000 jobs lost from agriculture out of a total of about 640,000, and half as many jobs again upstream and downstream.
There could also be a serious impact on the rural economy from the rundown of the forces, and particularly from closure of the American bases in

1397
East Anglia. As we all know, Britain's population has been remarkably stable over the past decade but the rural population has increased rapidly. That is largely because people want to live and work in the countryside. There are very real problems of housing which are being gradually dealt with by housing associations. I am afraid that the situation was accentuated by the sale of council houses.
There have been many problems connected with supplying sufficient workspace. David Keeble, the Cambridge geographer, has drawn attention to the way economic development in the countryside is being held back by a lack of workspace. We therefore welcome the way in which the Government are now taking a more sensible attitude towards development in the countryside. The DoE PPG 7 directive does give a better chance for factories and workspace to be provided.
The environmental impact of the MacSharry proposals is very disappointing. Compulsory annual set-aside will do little for the countryside. It will damage and erode the big advances which have been made recently by the Countryside Premium Scheme and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. As far as we know at the moment these are not going to count against the 15 per cent. set-aside. That is quite wrong. There is a danger that about half of the 17,000 acres which has been carefully nurtured as premium land may be lost to the new annual set-aside scheme. It is unclear what financial help will be provided for the environmental advantage which is referred to. There are no details and, as I understand it, there will be no details for a year after the scheme comes into force, as to how these environment measures will work. How can one possibly operate in that kind of situation?
In a couple of minutes perhaps I may say what would have been the right way to reform the CAP. Clearly, I believe that the downward pressure on prices was the right way to do it. It is only when one gets supply and demand in balance through the price mechanism that one has a sensible level of production. My noble friend Lord Hamilton referred to the bogus nature of some of these world price concepts. The so-called world price, we are always told, is too high. In the case of wheat it is the price at which small surpluses are traded in Chicago. If those small surpluses are turned into deficits there would be very different prices. I am quite certain of that. We must also remember that, for all their pious statements and their criticisms under GATT, the Americans are and have always been extremely clever at subsidising their own agriculture in various ways.
I believe that the most useful thing that we could do is to take a lesson from what happened with milk quotas. They only worked because they were freely tradeable from the beginning. So it would be desirable for set-aside to be traded between farmers. That would make the best use of market forces for the allocation of set-aside. Of course, the 15 per cent. would have to be increased, but it will almost certainly have to be increased any way. The European surplus of cereals is said to be some 35 million tonnes which is about 19 per cent. of the 180 million tonnes of cereals that are
1398
produced in Europe. To get a balance, I would guess that with the set-aside of worst land it would probably have to be much closer to 30 per cent.
I do not believe that the scheme which has emerged will achieve its objectives either of removing surpluses or of saving taxpayers' money. I do not believe that it will be administrable or enforceable - and unenforceable law is bad law and corrupts. Furthermore, the environmental results of the package will outrage those who love the countryside. Fortunately, for all those reasons, I believe that the life of Mr. MacSharry's baby will be shorter than its period of gestation.
12.1 a.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, while I, in common with 99 per cent. of working farmers and my noble friend Lord Marlesford, was amazed—I think that that is the word—by the success of my right honourable friend Mr. Gummer in ensuring that the efficient farmer was not sacrificed on the altar of the inefficient peasant, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that the details of the CAP reforms will work. They are a bureaucratic nightmare which will be abused and exploited either legally or illegally. Moreover, even if it was possible to adjust them to make them work, they would not reduce the surpluses which I in my naivety thought was one of their objectives.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will accept these flaws in the CAP reforms and admit that, as my noble friend Lord Middleton mentioned, they cannot possibly last. We need now to start thinking about how we will make them work and this Unstarred Question poses exactly that question and suggests a way forward. Like the farming industry, I am greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton for posing that question this evening and for explaining it so carefully to your Lordships. I very much hope that he will get a positive and constructive reply because, as I have said, we shall. I know, be in great trouble in a year or two if we do not have a plan to put forward.
As far as the first part of my noble friend's Question is concerned, I follow a similar but slightly different line from my noble friend Lord Radnor. I would ask my noble friend Lord Howe what impact set-aside (at 15 per cent. to start with, and, as I explained the other day to your Lordships, it will have to increase) will have on the landscape, so alienating the urban public that it will inevitably cause further rural impoverishment. I would also ask my noble friend whether he can say what this loss of production will be and what effect it will have on our balance of payments. I hope that he can assure me that the farming industry will not be criticised yet again as a result of this enforced cut for allowing foreign imports of food to take over what we could easily and economically produce at home.
Bearing in mind these problems, I would also ask my noble friend to look very carefully at the bond system suggested by my noble friend Lord Wade. Does he agree that it would require far less bureaucracy? It would be no more expensive, it would reduce uneconomic surpluses, it would result in

1399
efficient, unsubsidised production, removing, as has already been mentioned, one of the main GATT stumbling blocks, and of course it would eliminate that most horrible of all things, set-aside.
Given that the bond scheme would cause a reduction in land prices and rents, which I as a farmer would welcome, and provided that the larger British farm received a bond that did not penalise it—a point made very forcefully in the most eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, which to me, wearing a tenant's hat, was not quite as non-controversial as he liked to make out, which I am delighted to note—I am sure that the best British farmers would flourish.
12.6 a.m.
Lord Forester: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and neighbour Lord Hamilton of Dalzell on his excellent maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear from him frequently in your Lordships' House.
Like other noble Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Wade for introducing this important subject at such a relevant moment. In view of the hour, I am not sure that that is any longer right, and I shall therefore be as brief as possible.
It is quite clear that changes in the common agricultural policy are already and will increasingly have a serious impact on employment opportunities, particularly in lowland livestock producing areas such as my county of Shropshire, through reducing prices, reducing quotas, extensification and the aim of reduced output.
I wish to make three points. The first concerns structural funds. I was fortunate enough to meet Philip Lowe, of DG VI of the European Commission, earlier this year. He told me that, in parallel to the proposed changes in the CAP, the Commission is examining how support to rural development may need to be adapted to reflect agricultural changes and to help to create a wider, more solid base for the rural economy. That is splendid. But there is a catch, obscurely known in Eurospeak as the "Fontainebleau mechanism" which creates monstrous anomalies for rural areas.
The original treaty of accession to the EC placed unfair burdens on the United Kingdom in terms of the amount we contributed to expenditure elsewhere in the Community. To limit this the UK negotiated a new arrangement which shielded us from having to contribute so much to spending in other member states. The price we paid was in effect a downward adjustment to the amount of any EC contributions coming to the United Kingdom rural areas. Farming prices come under the guarantee fund and additionality is forced on the Treasury. But it is a very different case with the guidance fund, the main source of grants for structural policies and the rural economy. Fontainebleau meant that, while other member states received from Europe 25 per cent. of the cost of guidance grant, the United Kingdom received in practice only 7 per cent. Only this week, I am told, DG VI is crying out for people to take up money for agro-environmental schemes. It is time we put right these serious anomalies and started to receive equal structural funds with our partners.
1400
Secondly, I come to forestry. New woodland planting in Britain is at its lowest level for 20 years. Ten per cent. of Britain is afforested compared to the European average of 25 per cent. Almost 90 per cent. of Britain's forest products are imported at a current cost of some £7 billion. We have 15 per cent. less woodland than the European average--equivalent to our total set-aside requirement. Yet, we are not allowed to plant trees on our set-aside. It is unbelievable.
The reduction in planting was originally due to the 1988 Finance Act. But I was intending to do some planting last winter—until I discovered that the Farm Woodland Grant Scheme was being replaced by the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme which was much better. Therefore, I cancelled all my planting and thought that I would do it this year. However, I now find that I cannot use this year's planting for set-aside so 1 have postponed it all again until next year when, as I understand the rules, I probably can use it as set-aside. Forestry is a vital part of our rural economy —but by our stupidity we have lost two years' planting. I hope that we can put that right as soon as possible.
Thirdly—and my noble friend Lord Marlesford has already briefly covered this ground—we must be told the rules of the common agricultural policy in time to plan our businesses. We must be told the set-aside rules in detail; we must be told about environmental set-aside; and we must be told about hedgerow grants. We must also know if British feed wheat is acceptable into intervention. I asked my noble friend the Minister that Question on June 24th. He said:
"We have made it very clear that feed wheat must continue to be eligible for intervention".—[Official Report, 24/6/92; col. 440.]
I was delighted to hear that. But on 3rd July I read in the Farming News that,
"Ray MacSharry has given a major hint that feed wheat will be excluded from intervention".
I am now told that a decision was made on 30th June; but it was only a decision that a decision would be made in the future by Ministers as to the quality standards for wheat. I am led to understand that it will probably be October before we learn of the ruling. I am dumbfounded because most of our wheat will be planted by then.
In summary, we need policies which pursue sustainable development, which will encourage agriculture to provide energy from renewable resources and other products for industry and leisure —rather than 15 per cent. of land wasted. We must encourage planning attitudes which look to the future and encourage rather than constrain initiatives. PPG7 is fine if all planning officers translate it in the same way, but they do not.
We must attract more youth back into the countryside. We have to broaden the economic base of our rural areas using every European and United Kingdom government initiative available. We must have a level playing field. To achieve that we must reorganise our structural funds. We must also have a realistic forestry policy. Finally, we must have up-to-date information. If we can get those points

1401
right—and if we cannot achieve that during our presidency we never will—I feel that there are enormous opportunities for the rural economy.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, perhaps I may first tell the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, that the best compliment I can pay him is to say that I did not think his speech sounded at all like a maiden speech. We look forward to hearing him many times in your Lordships' House.
We on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, for asking this Question, although the addition of bond schemes complicates the answer. However, I hope to say a brief word later about Professor Tangermann. As we see it, there are three basics in answering the Question. First, Commissioner MacSharry's original proposal; secondly, the Select Committee report on the future of the CAP (No. 16 in the 1990–91 Session); and, thirdly, the settlement by the Agricultural Council on Commissioner MacSharry's proposals, detailed in the MAFF press notice of 22nd May.
Settlement was a success for Britain. The Minister is entitled to credit for what he achieved, although it is necessary to say that a number of deals had to be done in order to achieve that settlement. He was helped by majority voting. The settlement gives United Kingdom farmers a better deal than the one Commissioner MacSharry proposed originally. It is radical, but whether radical enough to form the basis of a GATT settlement, we do not yet know. Indeed, it seems to us that there is a danger that, having shown our hand in this matter, the United States and the Cairns Group of countries will ask for even more from the European Community.
We are now all worried—the speeches tonight have indicated noble Lords' worries—about the detailed implementation of the scheme which goes to the heart of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. A Written Answer in House of Lords Hansard of 6th July gives some idea of the problems, even before we have the Commission's tables implementing regulations for adoption. For cereals, the time factor for the 1992–93 season is serious. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, commented upon that matter. Sowing and set-aside areas cannot easily be decided in advance of regulations. What to sow is equally vital. For example, which quality of wheat will be eligible for intervention —milling or feed wheat? The NFU naturally says feed wheat, but millers are saying milling wheat. When will that decision be made known?
The general effect of the settlement is not the saving of money overall, but a change from direct payments to farmers to a combination of direct and indirect payments. Consumers should, in consequence, pay less for food; but taxpayers will pay more. Is the consumer/taxpayer distinction here not more apparent than real, especially where food is concerned? There are few taxpayers who do not eat; and there are few consumers who do not pay tax. How much, for example, will the change reduce, say, the cost of a standard loaf of bread?
1402
Millers and bakers in Britain are now largely one and the same, with certain companies having a large share of the flour and bread trades. The new Director General of Fair Trading has been reported in the press recently as seeing his role as one of a bloodhound rather than a watchdog. He may care to keep watch on those commodity prices which should be lower, however slightly, between 1993 and 1995 as a result of the CAP settlement and the restructuring flowing from it.
A 15 per cent. set-aside of cereal-growing land, whether permanent or rotational, will change the appearance of cereal farms. Quota sales of ewe and beef premia, when added to those of milk, could also mean farming changes. As has been pointed out, the environmental impact of the consequential changes could be significant. The numbers employed in agriculture seem likely to continue to fall, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. Early retirement is hardly an option for many farm workers, whose pensions are likely to be state-derived and so inflexible. Farm work is not well paid and, as the Health and Safety Executive's reports show, it can also be dangerous. It seems unfair that, in comparison with many other workers, the farm labour force is not well off and is likely to lose jobs under CAP changes.
A contracting farm industry also means a need for even greater diversification. Many noble Lords have made that point this evening. We have seen some diversification in recent years, but more will undoubtedly be necessary. That of course places a considerable onus on planning authorities, as has been said. The Minister of Agriculture's awareness of that need was made clear in a speech he made on 24th June at a conference on the countryside and the rural economy. Planning policy guidance note No. 7, published in January last, which has been referred to, is germane to all this. The Rural Development Commission faces an even greater challenge as a result of the CAP restructuring. We believe that it needs to be closer to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. During legislative changes in the House, we endeavoured to bring about that change. We had little encouragement from the Government's then spokesman on agriculture. Nevertheless, we feel that the need is still there. I wonder whether in replying tonight the noble Earl can tell us how close the Rural Development Commission still is to the Ministry of Agriculture.
Farmers must be relieved to see the changes to Commissioner MacSharry's original ideas. Nevertheless, they must now live with the new common agriculture policy regime, even if only for a few years. Until the GATT negotiations on agriculture are resolved, however, the full nature of the change and its effect on the economics of running a farm business cannot be established. The trend to larger farms in Britain seems likely to continue. High interest rates do not help farmers. Cheaper agricultural credit ought to figure more largely in National Farmers Union, Country Landowners' Association and tenant farmers' submissions to government. Projections

1403
about the impact of the settlement on the incomes of British farmers cannot be divorced from the cost of borrowing, except perhaps for an affluent few.
The Select Committee report on the future of the common agricultural policy was not unsympathetic to the concept of bond schemes as the medium for buying out the guarantee payments system. The notion of a bond which farmers can cash annually or for a lump sum, with costs being met out of annual savings on CAP payments, would operate better if each member state had power to devise its own scheme. As things are, bonds, apart from being used to compensate for future cuts in milk quotas, have been overtaken for now by what has been agreed by way of restructuring the CAP. Even the proponents of bond schemes acknowledge that bond values would have to take account of GATT negotiations. Sharing bond values, including tapers for larger farms, between landlord and tenant, seems to me to present major problems, despite experience with selling dairy quotas. Nevertheless Professor Tangermann's thinking is still with us. 1 agree with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton: I do not believe that it will go away.
The answer therefore to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, must be that it is too soon to assess the rural impact, but that we are grateful to him for the interim report which I feel sure the noble Earl will give us.
12.22 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and as usual when we discuss the common agricultural policy there has been no shortage of views for the Minister to consider. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, but I should particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Wade for giving us the opportunity to discuss these important and topical subjects. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell on his most stimulating and well argued maiden speech. It was well worth while staying up until this late hour to hear him.
I must confess at the outset that it is not possible for me to answer all the questions that have been asked or to give a full assessment of the effects that these CAP reforms will have. At the Agriculture Council last week agreement was reached on the regulations giving legal force to the agreement reached in principle in May. Your Lordships may like to know that a brief in question and answer form, together with a more detailed leaflet on the new arrangements for the arable sector, have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office.
However, there are a good many details which have yet to be settled. This will be done in further implementing regulations. Those regulations will be discussed by representatives of the member states in the various commodity management committees and the ministry will of course consult interested parties about them. As your Lordships will appreciate, until all the detailed regulations are in place it will not be
1404
possible to give comprehensive information about the new regimes or to make a complete assessment of their implications.
There is a further difficulty in assessing the impact that CAP reform will have on the rural economy. Not only do we not yet have precise details of the new arrangements. We do not know how farmers will change their production practices and patterns in response to them. It is undeniable that, if the basis of current production patterns and practices were maintained, the reform package would cause producer revenues to be lower than they would otherwise have been, although by significantly less than under the Commission's original discriminatory proposals. But even on these unrealistic assumptions the effects of CAP reform would not be uniformly felt: indeed, some farmers would be better off.
In reality farmers are resourceful and will adjust to the reforms, changing the way they farm and manage their businesses. Such adjustments will have favourable effects on incomes. Overall, I would not be surprised if by the end of the reform period the effect of the reforms on aggregate farm income was broadly neutral. But again the aggregate figure would disguise larger variations as regards individuals.
An important element in the reformed CAP, and one that will help farmers to adjust to lower price levels, is the introduction of direct payments. My noble friend Lord Wade has suggested that these should take the form of income bonds. I agree with my noble friend that the concept of income bonds, as proposed by Professors Marsh and Tangermann, has a good deal to commend it, although implementing a bond scheme would pose some practical problems. How, for example,—this question was raised by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell—could bonds be apportioned between landlord and tenant? We see advantages in the bond scheme. Many of those advantages were mentioned by noble Lords tonight. However, the Agriculture Council has agreed a different scheme. Indeed the features that commend income bonds to us in this country are the very ones that deterred those member states seeking, for example, permanent and full compensation for all price cuts. The final compromise is not perfect, but it provides for a workable scheme, with levels of compensatory aid fixed over three years. In the longer term it remains our view—as it is of my noble friend Lord Radnor—that these compensatory payments should be phased out.
Under the reformed CAP farming will continue to play a key role in the rural economy. That goes without saying. An essential feature of the new CAP is that the role of price support and of intervention is reduced and farmers will need to rely more on returns from the market. By providing the framework for an efficient and competitive agriculture, geared more to the demands of the market and less reliant on artificial support mechanisms, the agreement creates the right conditions for farming to go forward into the next century. Of course farming will not return to the dominant position it held in the rural economy 40 years ago. The number of full-time farmers will continue to decline. These changes are, I fear,

1405
inevitable. As your Lordships' European Communities Select Committee pointed out in its report last autumn on the original Commission proposals, the declining economic importance of agriculture, and, indeed, of all primary industries, is a feature of all developed economies. This is not something that can be changed through agricultural subsidies. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Wade that the attempts by the European Community over the past 30 years to deal with deep rooted economic and social problems via agricultural support policies lie at the heart of the failure of the CAP in its current form.
The decline in the economic significance of agricultural production has been coupled in recent years with increasing recognition of the importance of agriculture for the maintenance of the countryside and the environment. This is acknowledged in the CAP reform package, which includes, as some noble Lords have mentioned, an agri-environmental action plan. This builds on the success of schemes such as the UK inspired environmentally sensitive areas scheme and requires all member states to introduce suitable schemes to encourage environmentally friendly farming practices. These schemes will reward farmers who take positive steps to conserve the countryside; at our insistence, management of land for public access and recreation is one of the activities eligible for aid.
There is no doubt that agricultural change will continue to have an impact on many rural areas. How are local communities and governments to respond? As the Select Committee in its report two years ago on the future of rural society showed, there is no single answer. But one thing is clear; farmers themselves have an important role to play. They can and must exploit new market opportunities. A recent survey by one of the major banks has shown that over 50 per cent. of farmers already have some form of farm based non-agricultural activity. But there is scope for more. Farmers have to consider all the business opportunities which they can exploit and most importantly they must learn to market their products and services. In that regard they are no different from any other businessmen. The Government recognise that effective marketing structures are a necessary component of a more market oriented agricultural and horticultural sector. We are actively promoting the creation of large, professionally-managed groups through the group marketing grant, which came on stream in April. We are also keen to bring about an environment where those active at the various stages of the food production, processing and distribution chain talk to one another about their requirements and how to meet them.
Throughout the Community, tourist authorities see rural tourism as one of the major growth areas in the next 10 years. In the United Kingdom we are already helping farmers to diversify their enterprises and exploit opportunities in this and other areas, such as food processing, through the provision of free advice from our technical agencies and through grants to help with capital and consultancy costs. We have helped farmers to collaborate to set up the Farm
1406
Holiday Bureau which markets over 1,000 separate farm businesses offering accommodation on farms. know that there are moves afoot to set up a similar body for farm attractions.
In all of this the Ministry, of course, co-operates with the other rural development agencies and authorities. We are anxious to ensure, for example, that due attention is paid to the need for economic development in planning policies. The recent Planning Policy Guidance note 7 on the "Countryside and the Rural Economy" reminds planning authorities of the need to take a balanced approach to rural development and conservation. It makes it clear that the countryside can accommodate many forms of development without detriment if the location and design are handled sensitively. We must defeat the insidious idea that economic development is the enemy of the countryside. Nowadays, many commercial and light manufacturing activities can be carried on in rural areas without causing unacceptable disturbance. In reality, maintaining a healthy rural economy is one of the best ways of protecting and improving the countryside that we all know and love. My noble friend Lord Radnor mentioned the Rural Development Commission. The RDC is the Government's main agent for diversifying the rural economy. The commission provides workspace, directly or in partnership with local authorities, grants for the conversion of redundant buildings and technical and financial advice to small rural business. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will be pleased to hear that we have been working closely with the commission and others in programmes such as the two European Community LEADER programmes in Devon and Cornwall.
We have also worked with the commission on its new countryside employment programme, which aims to help those rural areas which are particularly vulnerable to the structural changes in agriculture. The scheme, covering parts of Lincolnshire, the English/Welsh border and the Cotswolds, will establish partnerships with local organisations and introduce a programme of action to encourage new types of business and new jobs.
These programmes recognise the fact that the future of the rural economy cannot be based solely on agriculture and its associated industries. If rural areas are to thrive they will have to look for economic development in other sectors as well. Resources freed from agricultural production need to be channelled into other economic activities in the countryside.
One such activity—rightly stressed by my noble friend Lord Forester—could be forestry. Forestry has an important place in the rural economy and the Government wish to see more trees planted, on farmland in particular. As well as offering a productive alternative use for agricultural land, farm woodlands provide significant environmental benefits. The experimental farm woodland scheme was introduced in 1988 and resulted in applications to plant over 14,000 hectares. Although that was less than we hoped for, that area does represent well over

1407
20 million trees. We regarded that as an encouraging start, given that growing trees represents a significant new departure for many farmers.
Last year we conducted a thorough review of that scheme and we have now introduced a successor scheme—the farm woodland premium scheme. The main changes are that it offers improved financial incentives to farmers and is a much easier scheme to understand and administer. A great deal of interest has been shown in the new scheme and I hope very much that it will prompt many farmers to give serious consideration to planting and managing woodland as part of their farm business. My own view is that once farmers have been persuaded to overcome their initial hesitation about planting trees they may well go on to plant more trees in the future.
Most diversification measures will be of benefit not just to farmers but to the general public as a whole. In order to encourage the creation of new woodlands close to towns and cities which will be of value for public recreation, the Forestry Commission now pays a community woodland supplement under its Woodland Grant Scheme. One of the conditions of this supplement is that there should be free access to the public. I hope that that will create opportunities for public appreciation of the countryside as well as contributing to the rural economy.
I shall attempt to answer one or two of the further questions that have been raised in this debate, although, as I explained earlier, my answers may unavoidably he incomplete. To those noble Lords whose questions I do not have time to answer I apologise in advance.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Forester, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, were understandably worried about intervention standards for wheat and asked when an announcement would be made. The UK is pressing very hard indeed for an urgent resolution of the present uncertainty. I repeat my assurance of the other day that we fully agree that feed wheat should be eligible for intervention. We are making that view known at every opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned bio-fuels. Bio-fuels may have useful environmental characteristics in terms of emissions and MAFF has considerable expertise on the subject. Without wishing to dismiss the concept of bio-fuels, I would say that unsubsidised bio-fuel production is not economically viable. It costs approximately two and a half times as much as mineral diesel to produce. Perhaps more fundamentally the energy derivable from a litre of bio-fuel is roughly equivalent to the energy required to produce it. So one has to think very hard before going into bio-fuels at this stage in a major way.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked for an assurance that the agri-environmental programme would be adequately funded. I cannot give any details of the level of funding at this stage. Member states have a year to draw up appropriate schemes. But member states are required to introduce such schemes and to ensure that they are properly funded.
My noble friend Lord Radnor asked whether MAFF has sufficient resources to implement the new
1408
schemes. Clearly the new schemes will require additional resources; and equally clearly MAFF does not currently have substantial spare capacity. However, I can assure your Lordships that the new schemes will be properly administered. Once implementing regulations are adopted in Brussels, we intend to move rapidly to finalise the details of the schemes in the UK.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned the decline in agricultural employment. It is well known that agricultural employment has declined in recent years and that trend is likely to continue. In the light of my earlier remarks, it is impossible at this stage to say how the CAP reform package will affect agricultural employment trends. It is similarly too early to assess what the employment consequences will be on a sectoral basis.
A number of noble Lords expressed dismay at the renewed arrival of set aside. I can do no better than to quote the words of my right honourable friend Mr Gummer. In a speech that he made in the CAP reform debate on 12th June, he said:
"I know that there are many in the House who dislike set aside on principle. I acknowledge that it does have many disadvantages. Given time, there are much better ways of bringing supply and demand into better balance. But time is what we do not have. With the current level of Community production and the prospect of surpluses of perhaps 30 million tonnes after this year's harvest, only an effective European-wide set aside programme can tackle overproduction rapidly enough".
My noble friend Lord Middleton mentioned low cost rural housing. The Government recognise that provision of affordable housing is a serious issue in rural areas and are determined to meet that challenge. We have made clear in planning policy guidance note 3 on housing that the need for affordable housing is a material planning consideration. Where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing, local planning authorities may seek to negotiate with developers for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing in new development both on sites allocated to housing in development plans and on other sites.
My noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Stanley of Alderley were worried about the bureaucracy that might arise from the CAP settlement. CAP reform measures are to be accompanied by an integrated administrative and control system which is still under discussion. The measure will seek to ensure that the reform measures are implemented evenly and effectively across all member states and that mechanisms are in place to deter fraudulent practices. The new control system and the various CAP sectoral schemes will inevitably involve form filling by farmers. However, the Government are determined to keep that to the minimum necessary for proper operation of the scheme. We are consulting the NFU and other interested bodies to that end.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford asked about the future of the countryside premium scheme. It appears that the agri-environmental programme provides for

1409
something similar to the countryside premium scheme. That is one of the options that we shall consider. We shall consult widely about it.
My noble friend Lord Forester referred to the Fontainebleau Agreement. I cannot agree with the slant that he put on that agreement. The UK's overall contribution to the budget is reduced by the abatement, and reduced by a very substantial sum of money—£2.366 billion in 1991/92. That sum cannot realistically be allocated to any particular part of the budget such as grant funding.
Again, I thank all noble Lords for the considered views which they have expressed this evening. The
1410
rural economy is a topic to which I have no doubt we shall return on many occasions in the future. It is my hope and belief that the challenge to the agricultural sector will be energetically met and that the opportunities which are there to be seized will over the next few years generate the prosperity in our rural communities which all of us wish to see maintained.

Cattewater Reclamation Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before one o'clock.

  "ANTARES": LOSS
  "ANTARES": LOSS
  IRAQI ASSETS HELD BY UK BANKS
  IRAQI ASSETS HELD BY UK BANKS
  IRAQI ASSETS AND UK CREDITORS
  IRAQI ASSETS AND UK CREDITORS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYMENT CRITERIA
  LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYMENT CRITERIA
  PRESS SELF-REGULATION
  PRESS SELF-REGULATION
  COAL MINING: JOB LOSSES AND OPPORTUNITIES
  COAL MINING: JOB LOSSES AND OPPORTUNITIES