Sitting of 8 June 1992

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

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time for processing a disabled living allowance claim; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Information is not collected in that form, but claims to disability living allowance are now being processed at the rate of nearly 9,000 a week in total, and the figure is steadily rising as staff gain experience with the new system.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Can he confirm that disability living allowance ensures that help goes to those who really need it, especially to the severely disabled? Can he confirm that it is the Government's intention to commit more resources to help the disabled?
    Mr. Scott: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. We are determined to ensure that disability living allowance goes to the maximum number of people entitled to it. I am particularly pleased that we have received
    2
    153,000 claims for top-up benefits from people who were receiving mobility allowance or attendance allowance under the old system and who are claiming for the other component under DLA.
    Mr. Rooney: Is the Minister aware that, as a consequence of the admirable introduction of disability living allowance, claimants of the old mobility and attendance allowances face delays of up to nine months—I can quote instances since the Minister shakes his head —while their claims are processed, and delays of five months for adjustments such as a change from a day rate to a 24-hour rate of attendance allowance, because of the work load? Is he taking steps to increase the number of staff to process the applications, as far too many are outstanding?
    Mr. Scott: All those under the age of 65 who are entitled to attendance allowance or mobility allowance will have been automatically transferred to disability living allowance under the new system. As hundreds of thousands of claims are being processed, I should be surprised if there were not an occasional hiccup or delay. If the hon. Gentleman cares to let me have details of any cases, I shall pass them to the Benefits Agency for urgent attention.
    Mr. Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have an excellent record of spending on the long-term sick and disabled? Since 1979, such spending has increased by 168 per cent. in real terms, or £8.7 billion in cash terms.
    Mr. Scott: I can certainly confirm that. We are spending nearly £9 billion a year more than was spent under the last Labour Government and we also have a better target system for benefits for disabled people.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Benefits Agency has told me that targets for delivering attendance allowance were not met either in February or in January? Is not failure to deliver benefits on time to the terminally ill a very serious matter and deeply disturbing? What good is financial help that arrives

    3
    posthumously? Can he assure the House that the 2,426 claims that he told me about on 1 May have all now been resolved within the Government's targets?
    Mr. Scott: I hope so. Obviously we are anxious that claims for the terminally ill, under the special rules, are met urgently. We were not helped by a surge of claims under that rule—90 per cent. of the people who applied were not entitled to the allowance. In practice, that meant that the claims of some of the people who were entitled to it were delayed.

    Community Care
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has concerning the consistency of payment of community care grants and loans between his Department's offices.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Social fund officers are provided with a framework of directions and guidance which allows them to meet highest priority needs wherever they occur. No two people's circumstances are precisely the same. That is why exact comparisons are rarely possible and why social fund officers have to use discretion in determining priorities.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is not there something ridiculous and outrageous about a local office refusing one of my constituents a grant that he needs to provide furniture to move into ground-floor accommodation because, following a number of heart bypass operations, his health would be put at risk if he were to continue living in upstairs accommodation? Will the Secretary of State make it clear that he totally disapproves of my constituent's life being threatened because the Department's officers will not provide a grant?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman would have been frank with the House had he informed it that the inspector in that case overturned the decision and made the award that the hon. Gentleman wanted. That shows that our system for reviewing such cases works. The hon. Gentleman would have far more cause to complain if inspectors invariably upheld original decisions rather than put them right—as in this case.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous single payment system led to massive abuse and the grossly inequitable distribution of resources? Will he confirm the social fund budget for the current financial year?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. The previous single payment system was unsustainable and unfair. Eighty per cent. of the payment made under it went to 17 per cent. of the recipients, and there were gross variations in different parts of the country. Under the social fund budget, we have been able to make £300 million available in the current year—a 32 per cent. increase on the previous year.

    Compensation Recovery Unit
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to reform the compensation recovery unit.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The compensation recovery unit was set up in 1990. To date it has recovered more than £32 million from negligent employers and other compensators. We have no plans to reform the unit or the scheme as a whole.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister aware that the unit is failing to recover the amount projected and that its cost seems by far to outweigh the benefits? Is the Minister further aware that as claimants settle for less than the £2,000 compensation limit, insurance companies are enjoying windfalls because they are not compensating claims at the proper level?
    Mr. Burt: The scheme was based on well-established Beveridge principles to which successive Governments have subscribed—such as that there should he no double compensation in accident cases—and on the Public Accounts Committee recommendations, which in 1987 criticised previous arrangements. It is the intention not that moneys should be recovered from individual claimants but that compensators' insurance companies live up to their liabilities. I dispute the hon. Gentleman's remarks concerning the unit's cost-effectiveness. By the end of 1991, its running costs were £3.5 million and its receipts were £15.6 million. Receipts will continue to increase, which will benefit taxpayers as a whole, and individual victims of accidents will not be left any worse off.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that the scheme's clawback operation is hitting some people unacceptably hard? When compensation of between £10,000 and £15,000 is granted after a long run in the courts before settlement is reached, the net benefit to the individual may be only £3,000 or £4,000. Surely that was not the Government's intention when they introduced the rules. Can the Minister arrange for them to be reviewed in the light of experience?
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it was not the intention that the scheme should work in the way that he describes. He and other right hon. and hon. Members do a service in bringing the scheme and its basis to the attention of all involved in personal injury litigation. It is the intention not to recover money from the individual claimant who was the accident victim but to recover it from the insurance company or negligent employer. It is possible for every settlement to take into account the benefits that must be recovered to the state. That is what should occur and if it happens in each and every case, there should be no loss to the individual.

    State Pensions
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners were receiving state pension in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991.
    Mr. Lilley: Nearly 10 million people received a basic state pension in 1991, as against 8.75 million in 1979. That represents a 14 per cent. increase.
    Mr. Field: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position. He has been a great friend, whether in his response to Customs and Excise cutters or Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries. This afternoon, I

    5
    invite my right hon. Friend to be a friend to the pensioners who receive a 25p increase on reaching their 80th birthday. Will he ordered a review, because surely the £26 million that that costs would be better spent on pensioners who are truly in need, rather than on the clapped-out doctrine of universality? Such a ministerial review would be just as welcome as the money that is to be paid into the Maxwell pension funds that were plundered by that socialist brigand.
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I am afraid that, on this occasion, I have nothing to offer him as good as launching a cutter. Although the 25p increase has been a longstanding arrangement, we have been able to improve the lot of the poorer pensioner by increasing the premiums of income support. In the past three years that has had the effect of increasing by £700 million the amount of money going to less well-off pensioners. I think that that is the way to go.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree with the principle that men and women should receive the same pension and that they should qualify for it at the same age, as is the European Community's objective?
    Mr. Lilley: We accept the objective of equalising the pension age. We have put out a discussion document and that discussion period is due to end at the end of the month. I approach with an open mind all the different options as to how this can be achieved. I should also make it clear, as a number of people imagine that agreement on a particular age will be achieved rapidly and that it will be implemented immediately, that every other movement to an equal age or an equal pivotal age, has taken a very long time to introduce. People of 59 years of age need not think that a change will influence them next year, and the same applies to those who are 64.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest threats to pensioners and their incomes is inflation, which is an indiscriminate and cruel tax? During the last year of the previous Labour Government, inflation ate into almost a quarter of pensioners' real incomes.
    Mr. Lilley: That is correct. In fact, in one year, it was more than a quarter, as 27 per cent. of savings were wiped out by inflation. There can be no more cruel or unjust tax than that. By contrast, our record has been exemplary, as we have increased the living standards of pensioners overall. During our period in government, living standards have risen by 34 per cent. in real terms, which is five times as rapid as the rate of increase under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Allen: May I welcome the Secretary of State to his first Question Time? He has an opportunity that falls to very few men—to make millions of women happy. Will he tell the House, and the millions of female pensioners who are approaching pension age and those who are already drawing their pensions, what his plans are for the pension age for women? Earlier, he said that he had an open mind on that, so will he say whether that open mind includes a pension age for women of 63 or of 65? Many millions of women are anxious to hear his answer and I invite the Secretary of State to reassure them.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman offers something even more enticing than launching cutters. I assure him that I
    6
    have an open mind which embraces all the options, more than are included in our discussion document. We have outlined a number of options for equalisation at the ages of 60, 63 and 65, and for the periods of retirement at which people would either retire early with a lower rate of pension or later with a higher rate of pension. All the options are being considered. Because we have asked people to tell us their ideas during the discussion period, it would be foolish of me to pre-empt that discussion and the benefits that we will obtain from people's contributions to it by making a premature decision.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the present working of the social fund; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount made available by his Department in the current financial year for (a) social fund loan payments and (b) community care grants; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to meet the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the social fund.
    Mr. Scott: In 1989, we commissioned a major study from the university of York's social policy research unit into the social fund. When considering its report, which will be published shortly, we shall also take into account the recent report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the views of other bodies, including the Child Poverty Action Group, which is due to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 7 July. We all welcome him to the Dispatch Box today.
    We routinely monitor the fund. We have made a number of improvements and have injected significant additional resources. This year, we have substantially increased the discretionary budget. We have provided £211 million for loans and £91 million for community care grants. The total discretionary budget of £302 million is almost £75 million higher than the April 1991 figure.
    Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware of the comments that have already been made by the Campaign for the Homeless and Roofless—CHAR—to which many hon. Members belong? It has said that the present funding and the way in which the scheme works are totally inadequate for people coming out of institutional care or bed-and-breakfast accommodation and trying to build a new life in suitable accommodation. The fund as it now works does not meet their needs. Will the Minister assure the House that those views will be taken into account?
    Mr. Scott: Indeed, there is little doubt that they will be taken into account, as I was a founder member of the parliamentary panel for CHAR and last week attended an important seminar close to the House, where the campaign's views were expressed vehemently. Of course I shall take its views into account, but the more dispassionate views of the social policy research unit will also play a part in our thinking.
    Mrs. Ewing: In announcing the increase in the discretionary element of that budget, what estimate has the Minister made of the reduction in the number of people who are refused a loan? For example, last year 19,000 people were refused a loan because they were too poor to repay the debt. If we want to target money to the poorest sections of society, we should ensure that those who are most in need are guaranteed some form of assistance. In addition to the reports that the Minister has already mentioned, will he take account of the effective reports by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorites?
    Mr. Scott: Of course I shall take account of that. The number of people who are refused because of inability to pay is a mere fraction of the overall number refused. The majority are refused because they do not meet the basic criteria for the fund.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister encourage his hon. Friend to take the Secretary of State with him when he meets the Child Poverty Action Group? When he meets it, he will hear that the number of rejections for loans has doubled since 1988 and that the number of rejected community care applications—which are important—now exceeds 70 per cent. Precisely how do the Government intend to respond to the various reports, including that of their advisory committee? In particular, how can the Government justify any social security system that excludes the right of appeal?
    Mr. Scott: First, there is a review system within the scheme, which is a speedier and more effective way of handling first-level requests for reconsidering cases. In the longer run, there is the social fund inspectorate. The Social Security Advisory Committee paid tribute to the independence of the social fund inspectorate in its consideration of appeals. We have responded to the increased demands on the social fund by providing the extra resources that I announced earlier. The hon. Gentleman will know that the fund for his local office was increased by nearly 16 per cent. for the current year, so we are responding to pressures on the fund. However, in response to a variety of reports that either have been or will be produced, we shall look again at its future.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an element of lottery and luck in whether an application is accepted? If there are pressures on the local social security budget, it depends at what time of year an application is made, and that can vary from one area to another. Will he look at that problem and ensure that it is levelled out between social security areas?
    Mr. Scott: In any scheme that depends on discretion there are bound to be differences between offices about apparently similar cases. They may not always be exactly the same. Obviously we are anxious to ensure that pressures on local budgets are dealt with, sometimes within the year, but, more generally, as we deal with the balance between demand and need in our year-on-year allocations.
    Mr. Pickles: Given the sort of claims made on the social fund, it is extremely important that decisions are made quickly. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the present arrangements whereby most decisions are made within a few days will continue? Will he ensure that
    8
    the position is monitored and that decisions are normally made within a few days, particularly those related to reviews?
    Mr. Scott: We are conscious that the social fund meets exceptional needs and circumstances outwith the normal provisions of the social security system. Therefore, we want speedy decisions—those on crisis loans are normally made within 24 hours.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that the York university study provides a valuable opportunity to have a fundamental review of how the social fund works? From what he said earlier, am I to understand that that report will be produced before the summer recess and that the Government will give their response to it within that time? Will he consider the recent work done by the Policy Studies Institute that clearly shows that when the social fund was orginally introduced in 1985–86, about 2 million families were dependent on long-term benefits over a substantial period, whereas the most recent figures for 1988 show 4.5 million families in that position?
    Mr. Scott: As the hon. Gentleman says, there have been and will be a number of reports and representations on the future of the social fund and the Government want to consider all those once they have been produced. Yes, I would expect the York university report to be available before the summer recess.
    Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister be more positive today? I am sure that he is aware that the vast numbers of applications to the social fund are from young and homeless people seeking to set up their first homes and are for household items. Many of those people cannot afford to repay the cost of such items from the meagre income support that the Government give them. Does he support the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee to change the scheme to ensure that non-repayable start-up grants are given to such people? They could then buy essential items such as beds and cookers and would not have to stay in inadequate accommodation. They could set up their first home without the burden of debt that they would incur if they had to use their benefit to buy such items.
    Mr. Scott: At the risk of repeating myself, we want to look at all the reports and the various recommendations that they contain. In 44,000 cases people who applied for loans were given community care grants instead.

    Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the Christmas bonus for pensioners.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): We have no plans to change the basis for payment of the Christmas bonus for pensioners.
    Mr. Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the situation experienced under the last Labour Government, the Christmans bonus will be paid this year? Does she accept that, as the bonus has remained at the same value for so long, it has become increasingly difficult to justify it in cost-effective terms? Therefore, will she seek

    9
    to review the value of the bonus with a view either to substantially increasing it or, as I favour, to merge it with a substantially increased state retirement pension?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have great pleasure in confirming that the Christmas bonus will be paid this year. The reason that it will be paid is that the Conservative Government made it a statutory entitlement rather than a discretionary payment, thus avoiding for ever the situation that occurred in 1975 and 1976 when, despite the grand promises of the Labour party about what it would do for pensioners, the Labour party did not manage to pay any Christmas bonus for those two years. I well understand what my hon. Friend says about the value of the bonus having declined, but to restore it to its original level would cost £720 million. My hon. Friend should reflect that that equates well with the £700 million per year that the Government have targeted towards poorer pensioners—a better use of resources than the universal uprating of benefit.
    Mr. F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that pensioners have made a magnificent contribution to this country and should be sharing in any increase in prosperity? As the Government have broken the link between pensions and earnings, how are pensioners to enjoy any of the extra prosperity? Is this not a good opportunity for the Government to restore the value of the Christmas bonus?
    Miss Widdecombe: Pensioners have enjoyed the benefit of the increased prosperity to such an extent that the value of their total incomes has risen by 34 per cent. under the present Government. Under the last Labour Government, it rose by a mere 3 per cent. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in the best position to lecture us about helping pensioners to share in prosperity. More pensioners than ever before now own their own homes, have savings in addition to their pensions and have occupational pensions. They are sharing in prosperity—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time—and answer time.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are expected to gain from the recent reduction in the number of hours that must be worked in order to qualify for family credit.
    Mr. Burt: We expect a substantial number of families to gain from the change to family credit introduced in April. So far, around 35,000 families have claimed it as a result of the Government's reducing the minimum number of hours required to 16 per week.
    Mr. Hague: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there have been some 2.5 million successful claims for family credit since its introduction in 1988? Is that not an encouraging statistic? The further improvement will be welcomed, because it opens up the benefit to more families on low incomes, while still not creating a disincentive to work.
    Mr. Burt: Yes, the change will be widely welcomed, particularly by lone parents. Many lone parents want to work and the change will make it more worth their while to do so. My hon. Friend is also correct in regard to the
    10
    number of claims, which has increased from some 243,000—for the equivalent family income supplement—to some 350,000.
    Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that the take-up rate for the benefit is only about 50 per cent., although when the benefit was introduced Ministers boasted about a projected 90 per cent. take-up rate? When will the Government improve the rate, or are they content with such an abysmally low figure?
    Mr. Burt: In terms of expenditure, the take-up is about 65 per cent. What the Government can boast of is the fact that the amount provided in family credit is about double the amount that was provided in family income supplement. That is all taking place in the context of a social security budget which has increased by 52 per cent. in real terms. That is the extent to which we have improved on anything that the last Labour Government was able to do for people.
    Mr. Willetts: Will my hon. Friend confirm that four times more families now receive family credit than received family income supplement in 1979? Does that not represent considerable progress in the reduction of disincentives to work?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes the point very effectively. Those who receive family credit are paid, on average, about £35 per week, whereas the equivalent family income supplement was about £15 per week. We have a great commitment to low-income working families and family credit is the best-known benefit with which we assist them; the success of the scheme over the years shows how important it is to many families.
    Mr. Meacher: The recent change involves a huge disincentive to work, because the loss of income support passported benefit—particularly mortgage interest cover—far outweighs any gain in family credit. Does the Minister really consider this an advance? As a result of the change, 80,000 claimants in need will lose free school meals and access to the social fund, and those without children will receive nothing. Is this not yet another own goal by the Government? Short-sighted cuts in public expenditure will serve only to deepen the dependency culture that the Government are supposed to be against.
    Mr. Burt: The own goal has been scored by the hon. Gentleman, who has reminded the House of the success of family credit and the fact that more people have been transferred from income support to family credit as a result of the change. Those who previously gained through income support have not lost, because their position has been protected, and the increase in the number who have come on to family credit over the years—far more people receive it than received support through the Labour Government's schemes—shows how popular and effective our scheme has been.

    Pensioners (Mortgages)
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are owner-occupiers and have paid off their mortgage.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that nearly half of all pensioners own their own homes. Ninety-four per cent. of home-owning pensioners have no outstanding mortgage at all.
    Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm that nearly all pensioners who own their homes have no mortgages, and therefore possess a valuable asset which gives them extra security in their old age? Would she care to compare provision in this country with that in the rest of Europe? Most British pensioners receive a flat rate, regardless of income, whereas in other European countries low earnings ultimately mean much lower pensions.
    Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her question and can indeed confirm that 94 per cent. of pensioners who own their homes have no mortgage. My hon. Friend raises a very important point with regard to the rest of Europe. Despite what is often said by Opposition Members about how good European pensions are, the fact remains that in France and Germany the pension is earnings related, so somebody who has been a low earner will get a low pension. Perhaps even more important, we alone give a woman a pension in her own right.

    Maxwell Pensions
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the additional cost to date to his Department in connection with the collapse of the Maxwell pension funds.
    Mr. Lilley: My Department stands to meet the costs of guaranteed minimum pensions for the 240 Headington plan pensioners who have not been paid their May or June pensions. The amounts payable are currently being assessed.
    Mr. Eastham: Does the Minister appreciate the sheer misery of the 32,000 people who have been treated so shabbily? Is it not about time that the Government faced up to their responsibilities? I refer to the behaviour of the Department of Trade and Industry and some of the banks. Is the Minister aware that other companies that have been buying and selling pension schemes ought to be brought to book?
    Mr. Lilley: I do indeed recognise the plight of the Maxwell pensioners and will be making a statement after Question Time, if I catch your eye, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the numbers involved. As I said in my "Dear colleagues" letter, 35,000 people have pensions or are members of pension funds within the Maxwell group. About 15,000 of those people are guaranteed their pensions by Mirror Group Newspapers. Of the other 20,000, some 9,000 are retired and 11,000 are future pensioners. I mention those figures to give an idea of the scale of the problem.
    Mr. Rathbone: What are the Government doing to recoup some of the costs from the Maxwell family and other companies? My constituents and many others are fed up with the way the Maxwell family seems able to go on living some sort of high life elsewhere in the world.
    Mr. Lilley: I am certain that my hon. Friend's point will be echoed throughout the House. It is up to the liquidators to trace the assets that have been dissipated, and they will naturally be looking in that quarter as well as others.
    Mr. Cryer: In view of the extra cost to the Secretary of State's Department, would it not be prudent for the Department to draw up legislation to stop the stealing of pension funds and their removal from these shores to offshore areas such as Liechtenstein? The Secretary of State may recall that the trend was started many years ago by Duncan Sandys, who shifted money from this country to the Cayman islands—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go into too much detail, thus anticipating a statement that is to be made later. I should like a direct question from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
    Mr. Cryer: I started, Madam Speaker, by asking the Secretary of State whether his Department would produce legislation to stop the illegal removal of funds from this country to offshore islands.
    Mr. Lilley: Stealing pension funds has always been against the law.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Governments of Switzerland and Liechtenstein, where much of the pensioners' money has been salted away, that if they want good relations with this country they had better make it clear to their financial institutions, which have profited from dealings with the Maxwell family, that they must meet their legal and moral obligations to the pensioners?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is a most interesting question, but it is totally out of order. Would the Secretary of State like to make some comment?
    Mr. Lilley: I am not sure that I can keep my answer in order, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's excellent point will be brought to the attention of the relevant powers. I will ensure that it is.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the things about which the Maxwell pensioners action group, which is lobbying today, is deeply aggrieved is that it is having to spend more than £1 million per month on legal and administrative fees to recover the stolen assets? That money cannot be used to pay pensions because, legally, advisers' bills must be settled before any benefit can be distributed. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those bills include 17.5 per cent. VAT, so the Government are getting their cut from the pensions as well? Will he therefore accept the proposal—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this question relates to additional costs to the Minister's Department. It is very narrow and I ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to relate his question to the narrow point of additional costs to the Department.
    Mr. Meacher: Does the Secretary of State accept the suggestion that the pension rights should be assigned to him and that he should pay the pensions and then recover the costs by pursuing the banks? If that was right for Barlow Clowes, is it not right for the Maxwell pensioners, who are far more deserving?
    Mr. Lilley: I am sure that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to put that question—in order—in response to my statement later this afternoon.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Security
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what advice is currently being offered by the Commissioners on the matter of security in churches.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): None—the Commissioners are primarily responsible for the financial support of the clergy while responsibility for parish churches rests with the parochial church council and church wardens. However, I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the General Synod's Council for the Care of Churches offers advice on security and has published a booklet entitled "Church Security—A Simple Guide", a copy of which I shall send him.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I find it peculiarly nasty that people should steal from unattended churches, especially as a number of the stolen artefacts are going abroad. It is a pity that the good Lord cannot look after his own gear a little better—the odd thunderbolt from on high might bring the villains to book. Is it not possible to draw the Commissioners' attention to the need for co-ordinated action across the Church and, indeed, internationally as a number of the artefacts being stolen go abroad?
    Mr. Alison: Yes, it is worth investigating whether we can do more to safeguard churches. Local churches could consider an equivalent to the neighbourhood watch scheme. The problem—it is a subtle problem—is that the best way of keeping burglars out of churches might be to get them into churches.

    Clergymen
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergymen are (a) owners of the parson's freehold and (b) licensed priests in charge; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Alison: As at 31 December 1991, there were some 6,500 rectors and vicars with freehold office and nearly 1,300 priests in charge and team vicars.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the gradual reduction in the number of parsons who own their freehold, and does he agree that the authorities probably intend that that should be so? Does he further agree that we do not want a bunch of vicars who are all yes-men, which we shall have if the freehold is abolished as it appears that it will be?
    Mr. Alison: I sympathise with much of my hon. Friend's suggestion about the clause relating to parsons' freehold, although he will understand that the General Synod is considering the terms and conditions of the incumbent's basis of work. Part of the difficulty is that frequent requests have been made by hon. Members on
    14
    both sides of the House for some way of estimating the productivity of parsons, which can be done only if the freehold is abolished.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church of England clergy who are not yet retired (a) hold the living of their parish with no required retirement age, (b) hold the living of their parish, with a required retirement age, (c) are not instituted to any benefice, but only to a limited contractual term of office and (d) minister by virtue of other arrangements.
    Mr. Michael Alison: In the parochial stipendiary ministry, of the the approximate 6,500 vicars and rectors with freehold office, nearly 6,000 must retire no later than age 70, although the pensionable age is 65, whereas the remainder have no required retirment age. There are about 1,200 team rectors and vicars with leasehold office and 2,800 priests in charge, assistant curators and parish deacons.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that this is a rather technical matter. Would I be right in suggesting that, contrary to the view suggested by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), it would be cheaper and would offer better value for money—not for individual priests, but the Church of England as a whole—to move to a system whereby everyone has a contractually fixed period, as opposed to the traditional system whereby people are inducted for life and cannot be moved? If so, is that not the right way for the Church of England to proceed so as to avoid unnecessary expenditure based on historical arrangements?
    Mr. Alison: I do not honestly think that there would be measurable financial advantage in changing the basis of the freehold purely in terms of the cost of pensions, partly because the flexibility which already exists between the ages of 65 and 70 gives a continuing option to a number of clergy to do what they want and partly because if there were no freeholds the determination of their retirement age would fall entirely into the hands of the bishops who had licensed the clergy. Also, each case for retirement will be determined on its merits, probably with a good deal of flexibility.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Judicial Delays
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what efforts his Department is making to reduce court waiting hours.
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he proposes to reduce delay in civil litigation.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Government are currently implementing a programme of reforms in the civil courts designed to meet representations by the civil justice review for reducing delays and costs, promoting simplicity and accessibility, and updating procedures. A number of initiatives are also being taken, aimed at reducing delays and waiting times in the Crown court and the magistrates courts.
    Mr. Arnold: I welcome my hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, especially as I understand that this is the first question answered in the House by the Lord Chancellor's Department and I wish him well in his programme of reforms to which he referred. What progress is being made on the situation in the courts in northern Kent?
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, which are much appreciated. I will answer his supplementary question in the terms in which it was asked. Cases in the county courts in north Kent—at Dartford, Sittingbourne and Gravesend—are currently heard within 50 working days of being ready for trial at the Medway county court trial centre. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as an assiduous constituency Member, will be keeping an eye on that performance.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Why does the Parliamentary Secretary ignore the repeated representations of the Law Society about the chronic delays in the county courts in London and the south-east? Is not the problem the fact that the Government failed properly to fund and resource the county courts following their increased jurisdiction as a result of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990? Is not the problem further aggravated by the fact that the Government have orchestrated a recession which has caused an enormous growth in debt collection and repossessions through the county courts, in turn leading to a great choking of the system?
    Mr. Taylor: No, the answer and the remedy lie elsewhere, in following the recommendations of the civil justice review body. The key to the better dispatch of civil justice lies in matching the nature and weight of the case to the authority of the court to deal with it. There has been a great deal of decanting of court cases from the High Court to the county court and, in particular, to county court centres. The number of trials disposed of in county courts has risen from 9,000 in 1988 to more than 25,000 in 1991 while waiting times have been maintained at an average of 45 days.
    Mr. Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that improving the administration of both civil and criminal justice is not just a question of increasing resources, which has taken place in the past 12 years with a huge increase in the number of circuit judges and so forth, but a question of setting performance targets for courts so that the public can know which courts are most successful?
    Mr. Taylor: Certainly I agree with that. In the Crown court, it is necessary to improve the pre-trial dispatch of business to prevent, wherever possible, cracked trials. The future in the magistrates courts lies in best practice, in the Government's White Paper and in block listing so that everyone does not turn up at 10 am, which means that some people wait until the end of the day.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that if one does not provide litigants with legal aid as speedily and appropriately as possible, one builds up a backlog? Does he agree with the Lord Chancellor's circular that the way in which cases are banked up has delayed matters, just as the failure to grant expert witnesses and the failure to grant civil legal aid to most people have done? In all, there is no justice in this country because the Conservative party has sought to destroy the whole litigation system.
    Mr. Taylor: That is a fairly sour mouthful to ask me to accept, and I do not accept it. I will say a little more about the circular later.

    Criminal Legal Aid
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when it is proposed to introduce fixed fees for criminal legal aid.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Standard fees have been in operation for some criminal legal aid cases in the Crown court since October 1986. It is proposed to introduce a standard fee system later this year for most criminal legal aid cases heard in the magistrates court. An independent survey is to be conducted to give guidance, not least on the evaluation of standard fees.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department's decision to introduce fixed fees was arrived at before the recent cases of miscarriage of justice came to light? Will he give an assurance to the House that any recommendation by the royal commissioners against the decision will be immediately honoured?
    Mr. Taylor: The proposals for standard fees—I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I correct him—were first mooted in 1987 and the Lord Chancellor has said that they will be cost neutral to the profession when they are introduced. I personally share the view that standard fees reward those who can do the work proficiently and with dispatch. The present system of payment by the hour or by the item can fall down by rewarding the slow and inefficient and penalising those who operate concisely, effectively and well. That cannot be in the public interest and it cannot be in the interest of taxpayers. We must remember that in every case, although the taxpayer does not appear as a party on the face of the action, sure enough, the taxpayer is involved.
    Mr. Morgan: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his appearance at the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that one of the ways in which to defray any additional costs which may arise from the change in the system of reward for criminal investigations could be to reform the green form system of paying legal aid as well, as the present system is wide open to the defrauding of the taxpayer by a small minority of bent solicitors? Does he also agree—this is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility—that the slowness of the investigations branch of the Legal Aid Board and the antiquated nature of the computer is holding up all the fraud squad investigations into the small minority of solicitors who have been exploiting the system in the past few years?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I was studying his written question on this very subject this morning. There are some 27 cases of fraud on green form and, clearly, that is totally unacceptable. On the other hand, I gather than the hon. Gentleman's complaint related to computer delays may not be found to be substantiated. Certainly, there are cases of fraud and that is quite unacceptable—as, indeed, is the total amount that we are paying on legal aid at the moment. I should like the House to know that gross expenditure on all legal aid was £1.15 billion in 1991–92—a third more than in the previous year and more than twice the gross expenditure four years ago, in 1987 –88.

    Calder Valley Courthouses
    Sir Donald Thompson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to keep two old courthouses in Calder Valley.
    Mr. John M. Taylor rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I apologise for keeping the House waiting.
    The Lord Chancellor has received an appeal from Calderdale borough council against the Calderdale magistrates courts committee determination to close two courthouses. No decision has yet been reached.
    Sir Donald Thompson: I have invited my hon. Friend to come to Calder Valley with me to look at what is happening there. Does he agree that, although what goes on in a courthouse from day to day has nothing to do with the Member of Parliament concerned, where a courthouse is situated, and who attends it, has everything to do with that Member of Parliament, who is right to use every means available to ensure that that courthouse remains?
    Mr. Taylor: I concede the general point and, in particular, I concede that my hon. Friend is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I should tell him and the whole House that magistrates courts can be closed only on a local recommendation of the local magistrates courts committee, and that that decision can be officially opposed only by the local paying authority. Only at that point does the Lord Chancellor have any locus or status in these matters; until then, he does not. The initiation of a closure is local.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will withdraw the recent circular sent to justices' clerks concerning the proofs of wages paid or benefits received which are required from claimants before their applications can be considered.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The circular was issued in response to concern expressed by the Public Accounts Committee and other bodies to the effect that the regulations governing the grant of criminal legal aid were not always being properly followed. The circular was not intended to represent any change of policy. The Lord Chancellor and I have already agreed that consideration should be given to altering the regulations. In all the circumstances, and in the light of the widespread concern that has been expressed about paragraph 10 of the circular, the Lord Chancellor and I have decided that paragraph 10 should be withdrawn. A notice to that effect will be issued as soon as possible.
    Mr. Byers: I welcome that most constructive reply. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the House a guarantee that when he considers issuing new guidelines, he will consult all interested parties? We share a common view that we need to achieve value for money, but we also believe that those seeking legal representation should have appropriate legal representation immediately so that they can face the courts. Will the Parliamentary Secretary advise the House today what he would say to a defendant remanded in custody? How would that defendant have access to the 13 weeks pay slips necessary to qualify for legal aid?
    Mr. Taylor: What I have just said about the withdrawal of paragraph 10 should have met the critical question with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his inquiry. The whole House should know that, early in April, the Lord Chancellor's Department could not look lightly on the fact that the audit of the Department for last year had been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that the Department had been heavily criticised by the Public Accounts Committee. To do nothing to try to tighten up the system would have been a neglect of duty.
    Mr. Fraser: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his unique appointment and remind him—I am sure he will follow me—that he owes his first duty to justice and principle, above the interests of party and, incidentally, the Treasury. By withdrawing paragraph 10 of the circular on legal aid, the Minister has made a good start because that paragraph could have caused many injustices, and we are glad that he has withdrawn it. I hope that he will look in a similar light at fixed fees in magistrates courts and perhaps refer that issue to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks. I shall, of course, take fully into account the fact that my duty is to the administration of justice. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about paragraph 10 and I will bear in mind what he said about standard fees. However, in the spirit of candour that is appropriate in this House, I am bound to say that I am rather attracted by a regime of standard fees.

    Industrial Tribunals (Legal Aid)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will make legal aid available for claimants in industrial tribunals.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: No, Madam Speaker. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that green form advice is available in preparation for tribunals and lay representation is, of course, available in various forms.
    Mr. Janner: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Before he settles too deeply into the Establishment, will he reconsider the issue? However complex, crucial or important a case is to a claimant, surely it is wrong that he or she has no right to legal aid? Will it not get worse when the Government—absolutely rightly—increase the jurisdiction of the tribunals by transferring to them many cases involving contracts of employment and disputes which are at present, wrongly, dealt with by courts?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman has a well-merited reputation in industrial law. I remember many years ago listening to instructional tapes recorded by him in an earlier stage of industrial law. However, he would acknowledge that the whole intention of tribunals was to achieve a greater degree of informality than the courts. It is common for both applicants and respondents to present their own cases in those proceedings and there is certainly no requirement for the parties to be legally represented. I remain conscious of the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman argued. However, we must all accept that the public purse is not bottomless and it is unrealistic to think in terms of the legal aid budget growing even faster than it is already.

Pensions Review
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the framework of law and regulation of occupational pension schemes and about the plight of Maxwell pensioners. Rarely in the catalogue of crime has there been a fraud as callous and despicable as the pillaging of pension funds by Robert Maxwell. It raises two questions. First, how can we minimise the loss and anguish faced by the pensioners? Secondly, how can we ensure that such a crime never recurs?
The whole House will share a deep concern for the distress Maxwell pensioners face as a result of this appalling crime. Unfortunately, it is still not possible to be certain of its full impact on pensioners. At present there is a gap of some £350 million between the assets which remain secure in the various Maxwell pension schemes and common fund and their liabilities to present and future pensioners.
The assets siphoned off through the Maxwell private companies seem to be largely beyond recovery, but over £200 million of assets were given to banks and others as security against loans. It is not yet clear how much of this will eventually be recoverable by the trustees.
Mirror Group Newspapers has agreed to meet the liabilities to its 15,000 pensioners and employee members. Pensioners of Maxwell private companies now in administration have no such security. Most schemes are continuing to pay pension from available assets, but the Headington Pension Plan has not yet been able to pay its 240 pensioners their pensions for May and June. Moreover, the Maxwell Communication Works Scheme has said that from 1 July it will be able to pay some 4,000 of its pensioners only 30 per cent. of their entitlement.
Over the longer term, the priority must be to identify, locate and establish ownership of the stolen assets and secure their return. The liquidators are actively pursuing all legal avenues for the recovery of stolen assets. That will no doubt include appropriate legal action against any members of the Maxwell family or others involved in transactions which may be found to be unlawful.
However, this is not simply a legal issue. Over the years, many financial institutions had dealings with Maxwell companies from which they profited handsomely. Such transactions were perfectly honourable. However, the institutions involved may well feel some moral obligation to assist the pensioners who have so cruelly lost at Maxwell's hands.
Moreover, other financial institutions, too, may recognise the value to them of maintaining faith in the integrity of occupational pension funds. I want to make it possible for them to make some tangible contribution to helping the pensioners defrauded by Robert Maxwell.
Expediting the return of assets and securing contributions from the private sector will be a complex and lengthy process. The Government may be able to give it an impetus. I am therefore immediately setting up a special unit in my Department to take that forward.
The unit will work alongside the trustees and others seeking to secure the return of assets and their equitable distribution between schemes. The unit will do all that it can to speed up the return of assets. The Bank of England
20
supports the foundation of the unit. The unit will also help to set up a trust into which voluntary contributions from the private sector will be paid.
Those steps will help to minimise the shortfall in the long term. But there is a particularly acute problem in the short term. That is not just because the process of identifying, establishing ownership and securing return of assets is an immensely complex and lengthy one. But, of the £230 million of secure assets, some £100 million are locked in the common investment fund since, unfortunately, it has not been settled how they should be allocated between the nine different Maxwell schemes. The trustees and liquidators have now agreed to accept the court ruling on the allocation of assets. But it will take some months before that ruling is given. Meanwhile, those assets are frozen.
No Government could accept a duty to make good losses resulting from fraud or theft of savings. But I do think it right to help to ease the unique short-term pressures that pensioners face while frozen assets are being released and progress is made in restoring and obtaining other funds.
I therefore propose to provide temporary, emergency funding to help Maxwell schemes which are unable to maintain pension payments over the next few months.
The funding that I am making available will amount to £2.5 million in the form of repayable grants. The intention is that the grants should be repaid eventually, provided that the assets of the pension funds are sufficient to permit that without detriment to their members.
There is one final measure which may be of marginal benefit to some Maxwell pension schemes, and that is to bring in regulations to implement the provision of the Social Security Act 1990 which will make any deficiency of pension funds that have to be wound up a debt on the employer company. I shall do that at an early date. It will therefore apply to pension funds of the Maxwell companies. I would not wish to raise the hopes of Maxwell scheme members that they will stand to gain greatly from any pay-out to ordinary creditors of their former Maxwell employer companies which are now in administration. Nevertheless, we are committed to implement that provision and I feel it right to do so now.
The Maxwell fraud is shocking because it is so exceptional. Most private pension schemes have served their members well. They have expanded considerably over the past decade. This Government are committed to reinforce their role. They provide substantial additional benefits to those in retirement, and have contributed significantly to the growth in pensioners' incomes which we have seen over the past decade. More than half of all employees are members of such schemes. We are determined to ensure that their standing is maintained and enhanced, and the security of their members protected.
The Maxwell affair has focused attention on the whole framework of pension scheme law. It has raised questions about issues, many of which may have played no part in that crime, but which none the less need answering. I therefore agree with the Select Committee on Social Security that there should be a thorough review of this area.
I propose accordingly to implement our manifesto pledge by establishing an independent committee with the following terms of reference:
to review the framework of law and regulation within which occupational pension schemes operate, taking into account

21
the rights and interests of scheme members, pensioners and employers; to consider in particular the status and ownership of occupational pension funds and the accountability and roles of trustees, fund managers, auditors, and pension scheme advisers; and to make recommendations.
I believe that those terms of reference will enable the Committee to consider all the issues raised by the Select Committee in its valuable report. I am pleased that Professor Roy Goode QC, Professor of English Law at Oxford University, has agreed to chair the review. I shall announce the names of members of his committee shortly.
The committee will invite evidence from all interested parties and hold a number of public hearings. I have asked Professor Goode to report within 12 months or earlier if possible. If the committee finds changes which should be initiated urgently I have asked it to report them to me before it concludes its work.
I should emphasise that the committee will not be asked to carry out an investigation of the Maxwell affair. That involves crime and fraud and is rightly being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I have initiated a wide-ranging, open and independent review of pension law. I have taken exceptional steps to ease the acute short-term pressures on some pension schemes and their pensioners. I have established a unit to mobilise support for the pensioners from those in the City who recognise an interest or obligation towards them. I believe these measures are imaginative and responsible. I commend them to the House.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome the fact that today's lobby by the Maxwell pensioners and tomorrow's Opposition day debate and vote to highlight their plight have finally jolted the Department of Social Security out of its six-month long stupor? This is the first positive action by the Government since the Maxwell scandal broke nine months ago and the Opposition welcome it—as far as it goes.
In essence, the statement tells us few details except that the rescue package of £2.5 million amounts to a derisory 0.5 per cent. of the stolen assets. Why will the package cover fewer than half of the pensioners at risk? Why will not every one of the 12,500 pensioners who have already or are due soon to lose all or a substantial part of their
pension receive compensation? Why will not every pensioner who retires in the coming months also be covered? Will the compensation payment top up the pensions of those covered to 100 per cent.? If not, how much will pensioners receive?
What does a few months mean? Does it mean to October, to December, or what? Why is the right hon. Gentleman imposing such a short and arbitrary deadline when the recovery of the assets and any litigation that may ensue may take far longer than that? Is it not clear that the Secretary of State's temporary relief will leave pensioners cruelly exposed long before a final settlement is in place?
Is it not clear that the Government's commitment of some £2.5 million falls far short of the extent of their liability since the Department of Trade and Industry issued a licence under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 to a private Maxwell company which Robert Maxwell then used as a channel to steal the pensioners' money? Is not the £2.5 million offered in the statement to pensioners insultingly meagre when compared with the £160 million offered to Barlow Clowes
22
shareholders who chose to risk offshore investment in search of speculative profit? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this finger-in-the-dyke exercise will not do as it bears no relation to the full extent and depth of the Government's moral and legal responsibility in the matter?
We welcome the belated announcement that section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990 will finally, after a delay of two years, be implemented. But will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that will merely make the pensioners unsecured creditors while other preferential creditors will remain ahead of them in the queue?
On the establishment of a commission to review pension fund law, is he aware that the Opposition have repeatedly asserted that such law should be reformed, and that we regard a year's delay as excessive? Is not there already sufficient understanding of the law's deficiencies, and a consensus as to the remedies, to allow some emergency measures to provide protection this year to every member of an occupational pension fund?
Is the Secretary of State aware of the almost universal support for the establishment of an adequate compensation fund, as already exists in every other major western country?
Following the Barber judgment, which established that pension contributions are deferred pay and are therefore the property of their members, will he accept that European law requires that at least 50 per cent. of trustee places should go to scheme members, employees and pensioners?
Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that there is no need to wait for a year, and risk another pension scandal, to implement the important protections of a compensation fund and a reconstitution of trustee boards? They could and should he done now.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for his welcome, albeit grudging, of the scheme. He describes the package as derisory. He does not seem to realise that it deals with art acute short-term pressure, unique to this case. It so happens that funds, which have already been discovered in the hands of the central fund, are frozen. We need time for the money to be released and the measure will create time for that and for progress to be made on securing additional funds, which were previously stolen, and contributions from the City.
I am advised that the amount is sufficient to deal with that period when we have acute short-term pressure. The amount will be handled by the unit, probably in negotiation with the most badly affected schemes. It will be up to them to decide how much they top up pensions in the interim, with our help.
Mr. Meacher: What if it takes longer?
Mr. Lilley: I believe that the court will take a matter of months to rule and there is no reason to suppose that the case will take longer. It would be foolish to base our judgment on hypotheses rather than the facts before us.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West is always willing to make lavish promises and has elsewhere promised to bail out all those affected. It is widely recognised that no Government can accept a liability to reimburse all victims of fraud and theft, nor is there any question of Government accepting responsibility.

23
I am glad that the hon. Member for Oldham, West recognises and welcomes our implementation of section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990. I confirm that his interpretation is correct and that, as Parliament decreed in passing that Act, it will make pension funds ordinary creditors of the schemes. That is why I made it clear that one should not place excessive expectations on that.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the 12-month duration of the review as too long. I made it clear that that is the maximum and I have asked the Committee to report in a shorter time if it can and, if it comes across issues on which we should take immediate action, to report while carrying out its inquiry.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West concluded by saying that we should introduce a scheme immediately to provide 50 per cent. employee representation on pension funds. In all of the Maxwell pension funds, 50 per cent. of their trustees were employees. That did not prevent the crisis. None the less, we shall be open to suggestions from Professor Goode's review on anything that should be done in the short term to overcome any problems that he identifies.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, the House will have seen for itself the number of right hon. and hon. Members rising to question the statement. No way can I call them all, so many will be disappointed. I remind the House that we are not having a debate but questioning a statement. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to put one precise question for the Secretary of State to answer precisely. Then we can get through the questions efficiently and properly.
Mr. Richard Page: In contrast to the carping comments by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."], I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which is almost exactly that for which I and other right hon. and hon. Members have been asking for the past few weeks—especially the short-term relief to pensioners. Does my right hon. Friend agree that his remarks and actions today will allow pressure to be kept on the banks especially to find out exactly where the money has gone? A decision on the final compensation to Maxwell pensioners can then be made on the basis of fact, not emotion, and with proper regard to who is responsible—rather than just relying on taxpayers' money.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I pay tribute to him for the part that he played in pressing the case of Maxwell pensioners. My hon. Friend has undoubtedly helped considerably in bringing about the measures that I was able to announce today.
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that there is an acute short-term problem, and it is that which the Government have sought to help ease in the first place. He is right also to recognise that the focus is on the financial institutions. It would be wrong for anyone to suggest that the focus should be taken away from them.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance this
24
afternoon that, following his announcement, all Maxwell pensioners will, at least over the next six months, have 100 per cent. of that to which they are entitled?
Mr. Lilley: I very much hope that the fund, in agreement with the trustees of the pension schemes—who have the ultimate responsibility—will be able to make it possible for all the pension schemes to maintain the payment of pensions. But that must be for discussion between them and those who will be arranging the distribution of the grants.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the whole House on implementing the all-party recommendations of the Select Committee on Social Security so speedily and efficiently after he entered the Government? Will he confirm that he will take up with the financial institutions the fact that many institutions that go round selling themselves as the smartest banks and financial institutions in the world are suddenly declaring that they were incompetent when it came to assessing whether Mr. Maxwell was honest or otherwise? Will he also confirm—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions on my count.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) also played a valuable part in investigating the affair. I agree with him that the onus is on those who had dealings with Maxwell in the past to examine their consciences and to see whether they should share the profits that they made in the past with those who suffered a great loss at the hands of Maxwell.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that the House welcomes many of his recommendations today, but is perhaps somewhat surprised at the sum of the compensation—if that is the term—that he is offering at this stage? Can he tell us more about how he arrived at that sum? How was it calculated? Does he believe that it will be adequate to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)? Will he give the House an undertaking that, if the trustees report to him that there are not adequate funds, he will come back to the House before the fund is terminated?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks and for his earlier ones. I should explain that the money is not compensation. It is designed to ease the acute short-term pressures facing some of the funds and their pensioners. I am advised that the sum should be enough to enable all pension funds to maintain payment of pensions during the months in which we are waiting for the court to make its ruling on the allocation of the frozen funds. During that time, we also hope to make progress on securing the return of stolen assets and on securing contributions from the City. What we cannot do is suggest that the Government offers an open-ended guarantee that would remove pressure on other quarters to contribute. That is an important aspect.
Sir Peter Hordern: What is the position of the banks? If the banks advanced money to Maxwell on the security of the assets in the pension funds which were not his to pledge, should they not have the responsibility of returning those assets to the pension funds?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is a legal question about the ownership of such assets, but there is also a moral question, which we invite the banks and other financial institutions to answer. I am sure that many will be willing to answer positively.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that while the Maxwell clan is still living on the fat of the land, many of the thousands of people that I have met on the Maxwell lobby do not have two ha'pennies to rub together? I have some advice for the Secretary of State regarding the banks. Will he institute the legislation that was used against the miners' funds in 1984, when that money was hunted down in Swiss, Luxembourg and Irish banks? If it was good enough for the National Union of Mineworkers, it should be good enough for Maxwell. The Secretary of State should get the money from the banks and put it into the pockets of the Maxwell pensioners.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should not think that he is the only person who has sympathy for the Maxwell pensioners. It is precisely because the whole House recognises the acute pressures under which they have been placed that I made my statement today. An array of legal methods is available to the liquidators and they will use those methods vigorously, with the help of the unit that I have established today, to achieve the rapid return of the stolen assets where that is possible.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the Secretary of State accept that, while he has advisers to help him, the role of hon. Members is to stand, especially, at the side of those who never worked for Maxwell, but whose pensions went into his hands and out of those of their trustees when they retired? We shall not rest until we know that those pensioners will continue to receive the money on which they retired and on which they expected to live in the same way as other pensioners.
Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those pensioners evoke peculiar and extreme sympathy. We wish to see them benefit from the measures that I have undertaken today.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is deeply offensive to the victims of these events to see the continuing millionaire life style of the Maxwell family? Would we be right to come to the conclusion that all those held responsible for plundering the pension funds—it was not Maxwell alone—will be brought to justice?
Mr. Lilley: For almost the first time in my life, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Bearing in mind the crucial role that the banks can play and the positive contribution that they can make, will my right hon. Friend summon the chairmen of the clearing banks and other suitable financial institutions to tell them that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that they should honour their moral obligations?
Mr. Lilley: I have no doubt that they will be paying close attention to proceedings in the House, but should it be necessary to act as my hon. Friend suggests, I shall, of course, do so. However, I hope that the unit that I have established today will make progress, establish a trust fund and secure contributions.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as far back as the late 1960s, the Board of Trade produced clear evidence on whether Mr. Maxwell was fit to be in charge of a company? The banks should be told that, as they ignored that evidence, they should return immediately all the assets that they hold, which are not theirs morally or, I suspect, legally.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is quite correct. The Department of Trade and Industry published a report saying that Maxwell was not fit to be in charge of a public company. At that stage, we had no power to disqualify people from being directors as a result of such findings and it was only subsequently that the House took those powers without retrospective effect. None the less, the warning was made in public for all to see and those who dealt with Maxwell did so potentially knowingly.
Mrs. Marion Roe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon, with particular reference to the proposed review of pension law. Has a time limit been imposed on the repayable grant that he outlined?
Mr. Lilley: No, we expect that money to be repaid only if the pension funds found themselves in a position to do so without detriment to their pensioners—in other words, if they were successful in securing the return of stolen assets, in which case the money should be returned to the public purse.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Secretary of State met any of the pensioners who are now lobbying the House? If not, will he arrange to do so? Is he aware that they will be deeply disappointed that he has not gone much further today and that they want a lifebelt which is adequate for its task and will be available until rescue is secured?
Mr. Lilley: Of course I have met Maxwell pensioners and have a considerable number in my constituency. By and large, they will welcome the measures that I have taken today. Naturally, many would like an immediate and overall guarantee, but they recognise that, realistically, no Government could be expected to underwrite all losses made through fraud and theft from savings. They will therefore recognise that the measures that I have outlined offer the best way forward in their difficult plight.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the consequence of what he has announced today is that the Arnold pensioners in Leeds, whose payments have already been stopped, and the Petty pensioners who are threatened with massive reductions in their payments, will now have those made up, pending the resolution of the issues that he has described?
Mr. Lilley: Yes. Our intention is that those funds should be able to resume payment to their pensioners.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Further to the Secretary of State's last response, there is no guarantee that that money will be forthcoming for the Arnold and Petty pensioners because the Secretary of State has already said so in answer to an earlier question. Will he confirm that again? Moreover, will he acknowledge that his statement is a great disappointment to those pensioners who lost their pensions in May this year because of the fraudulent actions of another person? Will he also

27
acknowledge that his statement has increased their insecurity because they have no guarantee that they will have any rights in the future? The Secretary of State is playing for time with other people's investments and futures.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is trying to attach a dark cloud to a silver lining. It is clear that the measure is intended to enable the pension funds to resume and maintain their pensions, but we do not offer an unlimited guarantee into the indefinite future. I have made that clear.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend has told the House that a unit will look at the institutions in the City but will he go further, in line with what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was saying, and have that unit examine matters such as buying political influence from the Labour party, buying football clubs and things of that nature? Will the unit be able to look at such fraudulent conversion and try to get money back from those who have it in their bank accounts?
Mr. Lilley: All those who had close dealings with Mr. Maxwell will doubtless be examining their bank accounts.
Mr. Alan Williams: Is it the Minister's intention that returned stolen assets or contributions to his new trust fund will be tax deductible?
Mr. Lilley: I hope that the trust fund will have charitable status and that no question of taxation would therefore arise.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on the future of pension fund trusteeships? Can he reassure the House that the steps that he is now putting in hand will ensure, to the best of the Government's ability, that such a thing can never happen again?
Mr. Lilley: One can never be absolutely certain that one has created a system that is 100 per cent. foolproof against crime. However, we can certainly ensure that such a crime never recurs, and that we have a system of pension fund law and regulation that is up to date, efficient and deals with some of the issues that have been highlighted as the spotlight has played across the spectrum of law and regulation in this sphere, so that people have greater security than in the past. We should not forget that occupational pension funds have been of great benefit to the bulk of their members over the years. We want such pension funds to be of even greater benefit in future.
Mr. Robert Hughes: While much of the Secretary of State's statement requires digestion, will he now answer one specific question? What is the definition of a Maxwell pensioner? Does it mean someone of normal retirement age or does it refer to the age at which people become eligible for the benefits from the pension scheme? Will he go further than hope that pensioners receive a 100 per cent. payment, and guarantee that they will get a 100 per cent. payment?
Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman is dealing with complexities of people with the right to early retirement, that must be a matter for discussion with representatives of the individual pension schemes. That is why an across-the-board, 100 per cent. guarantee cannot be given.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Maxwell pensioners have today expressed great anger at the sight of the Maxwell family continuing to enjoy high living standards, and being involved in the running and setting up of businesses, when many pensioners have been denied the financial security for which they have worked? Is it not time to take action against the Maxwell family to prevent its members continuing their dastardly deeds?
Mr. Lilley: There are deep feelings about that issue among all hon. Members, and a desire to see the appropriate action taken against anyone—whether members of the Maxwell family or others—who have acquired assets illegally and have an obligation to return them to those who have suffered as a result of the depredations on the Maxwell pension fund.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State assure the Floform pensioners in my constituency that the £2.5 million grant that he so generously announced this afternoon will be increased if the short-term pressures prove greater than he expects? Does the Secretary of State expect those who have not received pensions for the past two months to start receiving them now?
Mr. Lilley: Certainly, it is our clear intention that those who have not been receiving pension payments should now start doing so, and that those threatened with having them cut off should continue to receive them. I am advised that the £2.5 million is adequate to ensure that we can ease the problems of this unusual short-term period, when hundreds of millions of pounds of assets are frozen and unavailable to the funds. Let us get the matter in perspective: £100 million of frozen funds will be released when the court rules on how that money is to be distributed among the various schemes, and there is no reason to suppose that the court will not rule.
Mr. David Madel: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Maxwell Communication Works pension fund and the potential difficulties that may be faced after 1 July. Having given his welcome statement on temporary help, can he confirm that those pensions will be paid in full from 1 July and that it is the Government's intention that full payments should continue through the autumn? I am thinking particularly of the Maxwell Communication Works pension fund, which has brought problems to Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.
Mr. Lilley: It is certainly our intention that those who are not being paid pensions and those threatened with a cut in pensions should receive and maintain pension fund payments. There will have to be discussions between the trustees of those funds and the unit distributing the money to decide how best to operate the scheme and the precise amount to be paid out in the light of the trustees' long-term position.
Mr. Tony Banks: What advice is the Governor of the Bank of England offering to the banks that are effectively in possession of stolen property? Will the Secretary of State support the Select Committee in efforts to reinvestigate the affair and recall those two crooks the Maxwell brothers to answer questions, so that

29
if the brothers do not do so, they can be brought to the Bar of the House and, if necessary, put behind bars where they belong?
Mr. Lilley: The Governor of the Bank of England fully supports the unit that I have established today. A Select Committee would have to be re-established before it could consider who to interview or reinterview, which would be a matter for it, not me.
Mr. Michael Bates: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if a regulatory failure has occurred, substantially more responsibility must be placed on the pensions industry as a whole? Given that the industry has assets of some £300 billion, and that many of the participating funds are in surplus, a swift contribution to the trust fund is surely in its own best interests.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has made a good point. There are many precedents for members of an industry—in their own interests—to take action to ensure that that industry ranks high in the faith of the public, and maintains a good public reputation. I am sure that the pension fund industry will want its reputation to remain as good as it always has been, and should be. One way to secure that reputation is to ensure that the plight of the Maxwell pensioners is considerably eased, and I very much hope that the industry will be able to contribute to the fund.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Secretary of State has made it clear that whether 100 per cent. of the pensions that Maxwell pensioners currently expect is paid to those pensioners will be up to individual pension funds and their trustees. Will he make it clear to those trustees that the Government intend pensioners to receive 100 per cent.? If the funds that he has announced today are not sufficient to enable that to happen, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that sufficient funds are made available for pensions to be maintained at the level expected by these innocent people before they learnt of Maxwell's crime?
Mr. Lilley: I have made it clear that the Government cannot underwrite 100 per cent. pension payments indefinitely. We have made available a fund that will enable the restoration and maintenance of pensions that have been cut during the period concerned, or cuts which have been threatened. It will, however, be up to the trustees and those who handle the money that I have made available to decide how it should best be allocated during a period in which we are subject to acute pressures and are waiting for a much larger sum to be released. I hope that much more money will come from the City, and from the return of stolen assets.
That is the long-term solution. People should not expect the action that I have announced—action to deal with the short-term pressures—to resolve the long-term problem; that will be done through the return of stolen assets, and the securing of contributions to the trust fund from those who feel obliged and willing to contribute.
Mr. David Sumberg: Does not my right hon. Friend's statement constitute the first public recognition that the Government have a role to play in these matters? That is very welcome.
30
Does not the onus now lie on the banks? This is not their money, or Maxwell's money; it is the pensioners' money, and honour and justice dictate that the banks should do something about it.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that that is where attention will now be focused, and rightly so. I hope that we shall succeed in mobilising resources as a result of the establishment of the unit and the trust, and that those resources will be channelled to mitigate the long-term pain and anguish of the Maxwell pensioners.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that the legal framework, and lack of regulation, allowed this robbery to take place? Does he accept that 12 months is far too long to wait for the report, before which no legislation can be introduced? We need far more urgent legislation which can make the pensioners and the contributors the sole controllers of pension funds—rather than putting them in the control of crooked millionaires who seek to invest in their own companies for their own benefit.
Mr. Lilley: The basic cause of crime is criminals, and in this case we happen to know who the principal criminal was—Robert Maxwell. We want to ensure that the legal and regulatory framework make it as difficult as possible for criminals to commit crimes in the future, and, if that is to be achieved, a review must be undertaken and must examine all the questions thoroughly. That was advised unanimously by those on the Select Committee, of which I thought the hon. Gentleman was a member. I have taken the Committee's advice, and I consider it wise and sensible to adopt that approach rather than to introduce immediate, off-the-cuff legislation without proper preparation.
Mr. Douglas French: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement, and particularly on ensuring that the pensions law review will consider not only the current defects in the law, but instances in which the existing law is satisfactory but is not being properly administered and enforced. That seems to me to be an essential part of the work of the review. Can my right hon. Friend also confirm that the review will take into account the ownership of surpluses, where those exist?
Mr. Lilley: Yes, I can confirm the latter point. The review will be able to consider the ownership of surpluses and assets of the fund. I thought it right that the terms of reference should be wide rather than narrow and permit the review to investigate all the issues that have been raised in recent months, as people have considered what is or is not satisfactory in the law and regulation of pension funds. The terms of reference are not artificially restrictive; they enable the review to go about its business without being artificially hampered.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State not accept that one of the worst problems for pensioners is the anxiety that they have had to endure for the last seven months about what is happening? Can he say how soon he expects the money to be returned by the banks and others and how soon he can give all pensioners in the schemes a guarantee that they will get 100 per cent. of their pension?
Mr. Lilley: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the problem is made far worse by the uncertainty which is inherent in the problems that Maxwell left behind him, but unfortunately the business of securing the return of assets and of other contributions is a process. It is not something that will suddenly be over at a point in time. The only step in that direction will be the release of the £100 million of frozen assets, once the court has ruled how that money should be distributed among the schemes. That I expect in a comparatively few months, but it is up to the court to determine how long it should take in making that ruling.

Foreign Affairs Council
4.16 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Oslo on 4 June which I attended to discuss the outcome of the Danish referendum on the treaty of Maastricht.
At the meeting, the Foreign Minister of Denmark, Mr. Ellemann-Jensen, explained that the Danish Government needed time to consider their response to the referendum. The Danish Government wished to keep all options open, with the aim of agreeing a way forward acceptable to all Twelve member states. He was not seeking a renegotiation of the treaty of Maastricht, because he did not believe that this would be agreed by other member states. In this, as the discussion showed, he was right.
I made it clear that the Government respected the outcome of the referendum as the democratically expressed view of the Danish people, as provided for in the Danish constitution. I added that the concerns of the Danish people against centralisation were reflected in this country, too, and that we would not be prepared to join any attempt to coerce the Danes. There were lessons for us all to consider. The Maastricht treaty had, however, been signed by all member states. Like other Community Governments, we believed it right, as the Prime Minister said to the House on 3 June, to continue with the process of ratification. It was agreed that the door should be left open for Denmark.
After discussion the Council agreed a short statement of conclusions, which has been placed in the Library of the House. The House will have an opportunity to debate the implications before proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, the varied work of the Community will continue—with Denmark, of course, as a full member.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: After listening to the Foreign Secretary, the House will be no clearer about the situation following the Danish referendum. It is all very well for the European Community Foreign Ministers to say that they wish to proceed with ratification of the present text of the Maastricht treaty, but will the Foreign Secretary explain the point of that when the treaty cannot be operative unless all the Twelve ratify it and when the Danish people have just voted not to ratify it? It does not seem to me that either the European Community Ministers or the Government here have come to grips with the real situation which faces the Community and the House.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that there are lessons for us all in the referendum, but the question is whether the Government have learnt those lessons. The British Government showed the Danes the way by opting out of major provisions of the Maastricht treaty. The Danes have simply followed that approach to its logical conclusion by deciding to opt out of the whole treaty. Labour would want to see the whole treaty enacted.
The Government should take this opportunity to remedy their damaging precedent by reconsidering the treaty. The United Kingdom should opt back into the social chapter and press for suitable convergence conditions for economic and monetary union, including anti-unemployment policies, strong regional policies and

33
constructive industrial restructuring policies. That is the sensible and constructive way forward, if only the Government had the good sense to grasp it.
Meanwhile, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House the Government's intentions for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? It is only right to tell him the Labour party's intentions. At 7.30 am last Wednesday, the right hon. Gentleman told radio listeners that the Government intended to proceed that day with the Bill's Committee stage. A few hours later, the Government changed their mind and abandoned the Committee stage. Let me make it clear that we would regard it as improper for the House to be asked to debate and approve legislation enacting into United Kingdom law a treaty that is inherently faulty as a result of the Danish referendum.
We ask, as soon as possible, for the report to the House, for which we asked last week, and for the debate on that report, which the right hon. Gentleman promised. If the report shows a clear way ahead which would allow the House to consider the Bill sensibly, well and good. If the Government are not able to offer that clear way ahead, the Labour party will oppose any further consideration of the Bill and will vote accordingly.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman did his best, but the intellectual confusion on which he rested his case was apparent. He clambered about trying to decide which intellectual fence to sit on.
The right hon. Gentleman is also getting very inaccurate in his old age. He will not find that I said anything in my radio broadcast last Wednesday about proceeding with the Bill. He will not find any way in which he can distinguish what I said in the morning from what the Prime Minister said in the afternoon. There is a very good reason for that: we are in the habit of concerting our pronouncements pretty closely, and we did so on this occasion. Both of us said that we would proceed, as the Prime Minister said again, but neither of us gave a date on which we would do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a more serious question about ratification—an entirely worthwhile question. [Interruption.] I have to pick them out, Madam Speaker. The 12 member states signed the treaty of Maastricht and then went their ways, according to their separate procedures, to seek ratification. One member state has had the reverse, in the Danish referendum, in doing that. The Danes came to us on Thursday and asked for time, making it clear that, from their point of view, all options were open. They are clearly entitled to time. I am very much against any effort to slam the door against them. They are entitled to time as members and in accordance with the treaty. Equally, other countries are entitled to continue with their ratification procedures. It is clear that this treaty cannot come into effect until all 12 members have ratified it.
The right hon. Gentleman finally asked about procedures in the House. They are not essentially a matter for me, but, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition on Wednesday, the Prime Minister made it clear that we were inclined to accept—and did accept—the case for having a general debate on the implications of the Danish referendum before we discussed the Bill in Committee. We stand by that, but the timing of the debate needs to be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. David Howell: Whether the Maastricht treaty is eventually renegotiated or unbundled, or merely stays the same, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital in the coming months to reinterpret the treaty in a way that gives maximum emphasis to the aims expressed by the excellent determination of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it should be a treaty to reverse the move towards centralisation in the affairs of the Community? Does he accept that some items in and aspects of the treaty do that, although there are also aspects which do not? In the coming months, will he undertake, with his colleagues and with our support, to give maximum intellectual vigour to the drive to reinterpret the way forward for Europe towards decentralisation rather than centralisation?
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend has, not for the first time, got the analysis exactly right. Long before the Danish referendum we said that Britain wanted a Europe wider in membership and more decentralising in operation than at the moment. There is no happy status quo in the present stage, as anyone can judge who considers the present controversies over the Single European Act. We are clear in our minds that we are more likely to get that wider and more decentralised Europe on the basis of the treaty of Maastricht than in the confusion which would follow if it were destroyed. That is a matter of judgment for the House and elsewhere, but we believe that, in the confusion which might follow the collapse of the treaty, we might find it impossible to get any agreement on enlargement, which is one of the main objectives of this country, or on decentralisation.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Liberal Democrats have always favoured a federal, decentralised, democratic European Community? To put matters in proportion, at the previous general election we won nearly 2 million more votes than the population of Denmark. Does he agree that we are entitled to be heard—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does he agree—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I need to hear the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Russell Johnston: Millions of people outside the House and many hon. Members want a coherent, effective, democratic European Community and are appalled by the rise of dead-end nationalism.
Mr. Hurd: There appears to be some difficulty about the geographical place that the hon. Gentleman is now occupying with regard to the House's attention, but that is not his fault. I think that he will agree that the voters in Denmark have given politicians a kick in the pants. People always enjoy that because our profession is not especially popular, but once that has happened, politicians must get on with their job, remembering why they were kicked in the pants. We must proceed, and that is what we intend to do.
Mr. John Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very conscious that he had a distinguished role outside politics as a novelist and as a

35
one-time career diplomat which has enabled him to understand both English and Euro-speak? That ability is not given to us all.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary apparently made encouraging noises in Oslo to the Danes about the virtues of decentralisation in the developing Community. Is he aware that it was reported in The Times today that Chancellor Kohl has said that, once the Danish hiccup is out of the way, there will be an acceleration of European integration? May we have an assessment of the situation in plain-speak?
Mr. Hurd: I have tried to give such an assessment. It is not only in Oslo that we have argued against the centralising tendency of the Community. My right hon. Friend knows well that we have done so—that I have done so—for many months now. As my right hon. Friend said, that is our purpose. The question before the House in the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and before Europe more generally is whether that purpose is best served with or without the treaty of Maastricht.
On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend put to the Prime Minister—he had a good deal of support in the House for doing so—a proposition about renegotiation. He said that now, after the Danish result, was the time to seek to renegotiate the treaty so that we should end up with fewer powers for the Commission and the court and with, basically, a free-trade area with the single market. However, the very statement attributed to the Federal Chancellor shows the difficulty of that path, as the Prime Minister said in reply.
If one seeks to reopen in renegotiation the whole treaty of Maastricht, one does not achieve, I assure my right hon. Friend, an agreement on a free-trade area, a single market and some intergovernmental co-operation. One achieves immediately the putting forward again of all the centralising arguments which we successfully pushed out of the way at Maastricht. That is what would happen. The discussions I had at Oslo clearly confirmed that from a number of quarters, as does the report to which my right hon. Friend referred. That is the difficulty of proceeding as he wants.
Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), is it not clear that the part of the Maastricht treaty which amends the European Communities Act 1972 cannot proceed until and unless the Danish people change their minds? On that point, therefore, it is right to say that it is dead. On the other part of Maastricht—on the so-called "pillars" and on the intergovernmental treaties dealing with foreign policy and home affairs—no such restraint exists. It does not require the unanimous agreement of the Twelve.
Given the Government's view about economic and monetary union—they have not, of course opted in because they have grave doubts about that—and given their enthusiasm for intergovernmental arrangements, is it not obvious that the Government should now accept with equanimity the failure to enact the part of the treaty which amends the European Communities Act and that they should go ahead as far as they can with the other parts of the treaty which require no such procedure?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has not got it exactly right. The economic and monetary union proposals in the treaty of Maastricht do not involve, as I understand it, an amendment to the treaty of Rome. They are treaty proposals, but they do not involve an amendment to the treaty of Rome. That is one reason, although not the only reason, why I am a bit reluctant to see the unbundling of the treaty of Maastricht, which is what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. It is being discussed, as the right hon. Gentleman has discussed it, but I do not think that it would be an easy task on which to reach agreement. Nor is it what the Danish Government have asked for.
The Danish Government's request was not for renegotiation, as I said in my statement, nor for taking apart the treaty of union to look at which bits they could accept without a further referendum and which bits they could not. Their proposition was simply that they should have time while they considered all the options open to them. It was reasonable, therefore, at Oslo to say that, as that was their request, that is what should be accorded.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although technically there are ways of proceeding towards ratification without Denmark, they will be rejected by Her Majesty's Government, as will any moves to pressurise the Danes to reverse their position? Surely what we now have is a breathing space in which we can consolidate the position won by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at Maastricht as the best way forward for the enlargement of the Community. What we do not now want is a fresh start to the negotiations.
Mr. Hurd: We should be very reluctant to go along with any answer to the problem of the Danish referendum that lost the prospect of enlargement; I made that point clear in an earlier answer. My hon. Friend is entirely right. What the Danes asked for seemed to be, in the circumstances, the right request and they were granted that request. They were entirely entitled to that, and that enables us to think the question through and produce an answer which I hope can be agreed to by all 12 countries.
Mr. John Home Robertson: No one in Scotland would recognise the present Government as a Government wholly committed to decentralisation, but is the Secretary of State aware that, although many of us understand the suspicions that led the Danes to do what they did, we fear that they may have done terrible damage to the interests of small nations? Will the Government therefore continue to press for a fairer and more democratic Europe, and will the Conservatives resist the temptation to revert to type as the party of little Englanders?
Mr. Hurd: I am certainly against any effort in Europe to say that, because Denmark is a small country, it is of no account. The Danes have their rights, they have exercised their rights and, for my part, a lot of the discussion in Oslo on Friday was designed to ensure that we did not appear to neglect that fact.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best parts of Maastricht are those that require no modification to the treaty at all—agreement on intergovernmental co-operation on justice and internal matters, foreign affairs and defence? May I

37
express the hope that the Government proceed with that on the basis of agreement between Governments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rest of the Maastricht treaty was very much on the basis of a Community of 12, and not of 11 plus one, and, if he has difficulties with the word "renegotiation", will he accept that there would have to be substantial changes and modifications to the treaty before the House could give its approval?
Mr. Hurd: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) answered that question skilfully. People in Denmark and in this House are concerned not so much about what is in the treaty of Maastricht as about how that treaty would in practice operate, in the light of our experience of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. We need to find a way of dealing not just with the treaty of Maastricht but with all the texts on the basis of which we operate, to improve matters and to make it clear to our constituents and others in the Community that matters will improve. That is the process that my right hon. Friend and I were discussing, and we must consider how best to push it forward.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the lessons to be learnt from this episode are that the centre cannot steamroller naturally small communities, be they the Danes or anyone else; that long-term political stability and unity can be built only when the diversity of cultures and aspirations within Europe is recognised; that that principle is just as valid for countries such as Wales, Scotland and other national communities within Europe as it is for the Danes; and that no long-term future for Europe can be achieved if there is a cobbling together of aspirations by the 50 million club at the expense of communities of 5 million?
Mr. Hurd: At the moment we are a Community of 12 democratic states each operating under its own rule of law, and that means that changes do not take place smoothly. On many occasions in the past the Community has come to a halt—a temporary stop—while difficulties of this kind have been dealt with. The Single European Act was held up for many months because of a difficulty in the Irish courts. That happens, and it is part of the nature and diversity of the Community. It is a Community of democracies. They have to follow their own procedures and we have to respect them.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the Government's policy when we assume the presidency next month? Would it not be wise to concentrate on matters that would allow us to enlarge the Community to include the EFTA countries and eastern European countries in due course and establish our policy accordingly? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing distaste for what many people see as the federalising influence of Mr. Delors and the European Commission which should be denied?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our objectives in the presidency have been spelt out to the House. They are the completion of the single market and carrying forward from the present presidency the discussion about financial arrangements, something which will clearly continue to be necessary. They also include setting the pace for enlargement. That may well be more difficult as a result of the Danish referendum. However, we will have to press ahead with that as far, and as fast, as we can. I agree
38
with that. I also agree that it is very important that the Commission should follow up what its President has said, and whose words I quoted to the House, about the great importance not just of having an article about subsidiarity in the new treaty, but of ensuring that the practice of the Commission and the other Community institutions follows that course.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Has the Secretary of State seen the suggestion that the 11 countries could abrogate their responsibilities in the treaty of Rome, incorporate the provisions of that treaty into the Maastricht treaty and then, as 11, ratify the Maastricht treaty? Does he agree that such a stratagem contains distant echoes of those European countries with written constitutions which tend to tear them up when those constitutions are inconvenient and replace them with new and more malleable constitutions? Will he assure the House that the Government would not be part of such a stratagem?
Mr. Hurd: I find that option very unattractive. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to a possible unrolling of the treaty and taking parts out which could be dealt with intergovernmentally. Obviously, that is an option, but it is perhaps more difficult than the right hon. Gentleman described. However, the idea of turning the whole treaty by way of lawyers' changes into a treaty which only 11 could sign, and going ahead on that basis, is not something that we could accept.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend may recall that I was the first Conservative Member to congratulate him on his tremendous work in negotiating the Maastricht treaty. I am sorry that by signing early-day motion 174 it appears that I may have given him a kick up the pants. There are as many interpretations of our intentions in signing that early-day motion as there are of the treaty itself. The Danish referendum has shown that in this country—
Madam Speaker: Order. What I said about the previous statement applies to this statement: there should be one question to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people are concerned that the Danish have spoken out with great concern about the interpretation of the treaty? Many of us will find it very difficult to support the continuing ratification process without a much clearer explanation of what the treaty actually means.
Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and he put it in an extremely useful way. We will do our best to meet it, and the undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition does that in part.
I was wrong to say earlier that EMU is entirely freestanding of the treaty of Rome. It could be isolated from amendment of the treaty of Rome, but that would be a difficult job.
Mr. John D. Taylor: As the Maastricht agreement is, at present, effectively null and void in that it no longer attracts the support of all the 12 Community nations, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not proceed with the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill until there is a new accord between Denmark and the other 11 nations?
Mr. Hurd: No. I think that my undertaking and that of the Prime Minister are clear enough. The Maastricht treaty has never been anything except null and void: it has not yet come into effect. We are talking about the procedures which each nation state is taking to achieve ratification. The Danes have asked for time about that for reasons which are clear enough to everyone. We will have to judge carefully how precisely and with what timing that relates to proceedings in this House.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many advantages for Britain from Maastricht that Britain would want to keep? Would we not have a better chance of keeping them if Brussels was to give a slightly better demonstration of the working of subsidiarity? That means appearing slightly less to interfere and perhaps considering the return of some powers to sovereign Governments.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend said. In general terms, statements from Brussels are clear enough. In particular terms, they sometimes contradict the general statements.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the Ministers he met in Oslo are an increasingly unrepresentative elite who want to go further and faster in a direction that most people do not want to go? What Europe needs now is a large dose of democracy and people power. The people of Denmark have spoken. Should not the British people have the same opportunity?
Mr. Hurd: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on that point last week.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If the Maastricht treaty is not ratified by 12 member states, is it not lifeless and dead? If it is dead, what on earth is the point of going through a ratification process with the other 11 member states if that is only to pretend that it has life? Is there not a better case for renegotiating the treaty to lose its federalism and centralising element so that it can have the support of all member states and then be properly ratified?
Mr. Hurd: I tried to answer that point earlier. That is not what would happen. If we simply said that we intend to call for the renegotiation of the treaty, all the centralising proposals that we batted away and got rid of with great difficulty during the autumn and winter would return. Instead of negotiating an agreement on the kind of Europe that my hon. and learned Friend would like, we would be back in the maelstrom. I do not think that that is in the interests of this country.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We now move to the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

  Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 10229/91, relating to the Common Fisheries Policy, 5088/92, relating to a quality policy for fishery products, 5210/92, relating to monitoring implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, 5337/92, relating to discarding of fish in Community Fisheries and 5351/92 + ADD 1, relating to the common organisation of the market in fishery products.]
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Minister of State to move the Second Reading, I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
  4.47 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  There are two big issues in fisheries policy. The first is the conservation of fish stocks; the second is the structure and capacity of the fleet. They are, of course, linked, but they are not interchangeable.
  The need for conservation is addressed by technical measures such as mesh size, the kind of gear used and how it is rigged. However, technical conservation poses real problems of surveillance. There is cheating and far too much discarding. There is therefore a need to deal not just with the size of fish taken out of the seas, but to limit the number of fish removed. Quotas control only what is landed. The overwhelming need is to reduce total fish mortality. Hence the necessary complement of technical conservation is effort control. That is what the Bill is about.
  The second problem is fleet structure. That problem is tackled by decommissioning and measures to tax the aggregation of capacity. It is also tackled by measures to permit more economic operation of the industry by introducing a greater element of market forces—notably by means of the trade in licences.
  Underpinning both aspects of policy is the licensing of vessels. There is no point in curbing fishing activity by over-10 m boats if the under-10 m fleet can simply expand without real check. That is why, despite the heavy administrative and manpower costs involved, I have accepted the argument of the fishing organisations that licensing should extend to the entire fleet. That will give us a valuable new instrument of management, which is essential if we are to make effort control and decommissioning work for the benefit of the industry.
  There is a parallel approach, which is tackling the effort and the capacity. That parallel approach is at the heart of the Government's policy. It translates into five related groups of actions. They depend both on Community and unilateral decision making, so it is entirely right that this debate should cover wider Community fishing policy as well as the specific and limited question concerned with the Second Reading.
  Those five elements are decommissioning, improving the operation of market forces, the extension of licensing, technical conservation, and effort control. Many details,

  41
  notably the details involved in decommissioning and in effort control, are subject to consultation. That consultation remains entirely valid, because all that the Bill does is to empower fisheries Ministers to attach a condition to a licence. The details of that are still subject to consultation, which is an extremely valuable exercise for fisheries departments. Indeed, I extended the period so that the organisations had time to call their members together to give a considered response.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Minister suggests that he is merely empowering, but it is a major power being put into the hands of the Executive. If the Bill is passed, what arrangements will be made to allow the House properly to consider any condition that the Minister would wish to attach to a licence before the conditions became current?
  Mr. Curry: I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that the conditions currently attached to licences, which are fixed from time to time, are not debated in the House. He will also be aware that 3,800 vessels will have licence conditions attached to them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to debate the fate of 3,800 vessels. However, he may remain confident that the consultation exercise with the industry is of great importance and is essential to the effective working of the measure.
  Mr. David Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no follow-up by way of detailed regulations—that he may use that power by imposing conditions on licences, but that it will not be like the normal procedures of the House whereby an enabling Bill is followed by detailed regulations to implement a power?
  Mr. Curry: The power that the Bill would confer would enable fisheries Ministers to attach further conditions to a licence. My hon. Friend will know from his experience in the fisheries sector and from his constituency interest that a licence already bears a significant weight of conditions to it. Indeed, that is one of the principal instruments of control. The European Community is looking to provide some overall framework on a Community level so that we can have more discipline relating to licences. My hon. Friend is correct in his surmise that that power would enable me to make conditions which would be issued to each vessel in the over-10 m fleet and would then condition the days at sea on which it operated.
  Mr. John D. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Curry: I will give way, but the House wishes me to make progress.
  Mr. Taylor: On giving such powers to the Minister and how they will be implemented in practice, what role will the House have in approving new regulations? For example, with the limit on the days of fishing, at what stage will the House have a say if that limit is introduced?
  Mr. Curry: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the whole fisheries sector, limits are imposed by means of regulations which come from Brussels or from the House. The purpose of bringing the measure to the House is that, although one could look to Brussels to provide the power to make such an attachment, I would
  42
  prefer to have the powers directly from the House so that Ministers may be responsible for the decisions that they take. That seems entirely reasonable.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister clarify what he means by licence conditions? He almost gave the impression—I assume that he did not mean to do so—that there would be different days-at-sea regulations or limits for each vessel. Presumably he was saying that they would apply to all vessels, not boat by boat.
  Mr. Curry: I shall refer to the details in a while, but it is certainly not our intention to apply a flat rate condition which is identical for every boat. One of the reasons is that we may face the possibility of segmented multi-annual guidance programme targets from the European Community which would vary according to the type of fishery. We therefore have to maintain flexibility to be able to relate the days at sea in a subsequent phase to the actual fisheries in which we find ourselves involved.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: I will give way once more on this point and then I must make progress. We have not yet discussed the details of effort control.
  Mr. Foulkes: I agree with the Minister on flexibility. Will he give an assurance that such flexibility will include taking account of the fact that Clyde fishermen already do not fish at the weekend and that conservation is therefore being practised by Clyde fishermen?
  Mr. Curry: I should make it absolutely clear that our intention is to apply the possibilities with maximum flexibility. The 135-day limit already applies to about 450 boats, unless they have the gear option. We shall be looking to be more flexible in the way the limit is applied. I would not wish to take into account merely what the hon. Gentleman has said. Certain fishing communities— because of religious conviction, for example—refrain from fishing on certain occasions. I wish to be able to take that point into consideration by introducing maximum flexibility. I recognise the particular character of the fishing industry and it is not our intention to cut across it.
  I shall now deal with the vessel decommissioning scheme because it is part of the twin policies and we should look at matters in the round. As the House will know, fisheries Ministers are prepared to make up to £25 million available for a cash-limited decommissioning scheme to help the industry to bring effort and capacity more into balance with fish stocks. The scheme will aim to target fishing effort, which is defined as days at sea in 1991 multiplied by vessel capacity units, to get the best value for public money. Only seaworthy vessels over 10 m holding valid fishing licences will be eligible to apply. The licences will be permanently extinguished before any grant is paid. Given the criticisms of decommissioning which have been levelled in the past, it is important to make it absolutely clear that when a boat is decommissioned that boat ceases to be part of the licensed fleet. There can be no equivocation about that. To stop idle vessels being reintroduced for the sake of decommissioning grant, we have suggested that only vessels which fished for 100 days in 1991 and in subsequent years should be eligible. The grant may not be paid on vessels which have changed ownership after 1 January 1992.

  43
  Community regulations currently require decommissioning grant at a standard rate per tonne. We are pressing the Commission to propose an amendment to the Council regulation which would give us more flexibility to get better value for money. Departments are also considering whether the rate of grant should be determined by tender. That would be one way of getting more value for money. No decommissioning money will be paid until effort control and reduction arrangements are in place. Subject to those arrangements, payments will run over two financial years: 1993–94 and 1994–95.
  The second leg of the policy is to improve the operation of market forces. We are keen to allow the industry greater flexibility to manage quotas and to use market forces to rationalise its operations. For instance, we are aware of concern about restrictions placed on quota swaps by producer organisations and we propose to lift those restrictions. The greater flexibility should enable the industry to maximise quota uptake and make annual end of year reallocations of quotas unnecessary. As the House will know, towards the end of autumn every year fisheries departments usually redistribute unused quota between the producer organisations. A mechanism will be provided whereby the organisations can redistribute the quotas, so the market and not the Ministry will deal with the problem.
  We also propose to introduce further flexibility by changing the method of calculating quota allocations to allow producer organisations to buy out the track records of member vessels. This will allow producer organisation members to benefit from the removal of old, inefficient vessels.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: I will give way after the next two paragraphs.
  The industry also needs to be able to transfer and aggregate licences. The existing rules already allow that, but they have introduced new penalties—20 per cent. for aggregation and transfers. We have consulted the industry and in the light of its comments we shall be prepared to make adjustments. 1 hope that the industry will fully exploit that liberalisation. The more we can get from liberalisation and decommissioning, the less dependent we shall be on effort control, so I hope that the industry will look to the market force element as well as to decommissioning to obtain the maximum from the policy. It obviously makes sense to do so.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister explain why he made the decommissioning scheme—which has general support in the House although there is disappointment at the level of
  funding—contingent on acceptance of his pet project of transferable quotas, which is extremely controversial in the fishing industry? Why was not decommissioning of capacity allowed to stand in its own right?
  Mr. Curry: The proposal before the House is not for individual transferable quotas in the sense in which they operate in places such as Iceland and New Zealand. It is a limited introduction of transferability and market forces. It is not ITQs as they operate in some other fisheries. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that producer
  44
  organisations have said that they would like greater flexibility. I appreciate that it depends which producer organisation one consults. In Scotland the producer organisations play a particularly important role in the industry.
  Transferable quotas are not my pet project. However, it is clear that market forces should play a greater role in the industry. My proposal is something which the industry has said that it wants in order to make the system more efficient.
  Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North): I wish to pursue this point. I find the Minister's terminology a little disturbing when he talks about old, clapped-out vessels. If the effect of market forces is essentially to close down a fishing industry in one community and allow the quota to disappear into one where fishing is more powerful and capital intensive, is that an acceptable price to pay?
  Mr. Curry: If I were introducing absolutely freely tradeable quotas so that, for instance, quotas from the north-east coast of Scotland could be bought by Humberside or vice versa, I might appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. But we are talking about trading within the producer organisations. No one will be obliged to sell. No one will compel people to sell. We are introducing what the producer organisations have asked for.
  I will try to get through another chunk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and move to the third leg of the policy, which is the extension of restrictive licensing to vessels under 10 metres. The whole House will welcome it because the fishing industry asked for it. I was initially reluctant because of some of the administrative and manpower effort that would be involved, but I was convinced that it was the right policy. Therefore, we intend to implement licensing of, in effect, the whole fleet.
  The 10 m and under-10 m fleet has expanded. We have seen the development of so-called "rule beaters"—vessels constructed by the building yards within 1 mm of whatever set of rules happens to apply. It is important that the benefits of effort control and decommissioning are not undermined by further expansion in the sector. The extension of restrictive licensing will therefore apply to all vessels fishing for profit from 1 January 1993. That will be done by means of a statutory instrument which will of, course, be placed before the House.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend and thank him for his courtesy in giving way. His responses are most helpful in this type of debate. Will he make the position clear on the under-10 m vessels? Is he saying by implication that the days-at-sea regulations will apply to under-10 m vessels—the inshore fleet—or does the Bill provide that the regulations can so apply at some time in the future? His answer is important.
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend asked three questions and I shall be precise in my reply. The Bill gives me the power to extend days at sea to the under-10 m fleet, but I do not intend to do so unless it proves necessary because we must build up the information about the behaviour of the under-10 m fleet.
  There are two reasons for licensing. The first is to put a ring fence round the industry. That will prevent the effort expanding and people bumping out of the over-10 m fleet

  45
  into the under-10 m fleet. The second reason is to enable us to build up information. I make it clear that at present we do not intend to apply either decommissioning or effort control to the under-10 m fleet.
  Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to expand on that? Will licensing be extended to pot fishing for lobster and crab? As he knows, on occasions I have brought delegations of people worried about the amateur nature of such fishing and the unmarked buoys for pots around the south coast which lead to an enormous number of yachts getting ropes around their propellers as well as great antagonism among professional fishermen.
  Mr. Curry: The possibility of applying the rules to all vessels licensed within the fleet will exist, but it would be physically impossible, even if I wished to do so, to extend the provisions to a further 7,000 vessels in addition to the 3,800 vessels to which the rules will already apply. The smaller vessels can therefore rest certain that we have neither the means nor the inclination to extend the effort control provisions to vessels below 10 m. Virtually everyone demanded that we should extend licensing to create an effective licensing system which applied to the whole fleet. That part of the package has been widely welcomed.
  I must also make it clear that the licence for vessels under 10 m will be a simple permit to fish. We do not intend that such licences will have the complexity of licences for the more powerful fishing vessels, which differentiate between stocks and so on. Of course, the licences will be subject to prohibition orders. We intend to monitor fishing activity data through a sampling regime and may introduce additional controls if they are justified.
  To allow market forces to operate more effectively, the new licences will be tradeable between vessels but only within the under-10 m category. The aim is to include all genuine fishermen, but not to give potentially valuable licences to non-fishermen, so we shall ask for evidence of fishing for profit in 1991. We shall give careful consideration to difficult cases such as people who have entered into a financial commitment to buy a vessel—the so-called pipeline cases—or people with replacement vessels. Where there is an obvious wrinkle, we shall be flexible and sensible so as not to exclude people who find themselves in genuine difficulty.
  The technical conservation measures, as the House will know, are rules on the type of gear that fishermen can use. They are essential especially to ensure that juvenile fish can escape capture and survive to maturity and reasonable, marketable size. I pay tribute to the pioneering work that the United Kingdom industry has done to popularise some technical conservation measures and, for example, its work on trialling, which has been an extremely useful collaboration. There is certainly a long way still to go on technical conservation. We have a significant agenda which we should like to see accepted at European level. We shall continue to work closely with the industry.
  We have agreed significant new Community measures, which came into force on 1 June. They include an increase in the minimum mesh size in the North sea and west of Scotland to 100 mm, with the option to use a square mesh panel of 90 mm. That represents the first Community recognition of the importance of square mesh panels on a Community-wide basis. We have also increased the
  46
  minimum mesh size to 80 mm in the Irish sea, as the industry wanted, and introduced a uniform mesh size of 40 mm for pelagic species.
  The measures also include a restriction on the use of grading machines to reduce waste of fish by discarding and restrictions on the length of drift nets to 2.5 km in most cases for European Community vessels, wherever they fish, to prevent the development of practices which have done so much harm in the south Pacific and elsewhere.
  For practical reasons, a decision was taken last month to defer bringing a few of the new rules into force until January 1993 so as to allow fishermen time to acquire new gear not immediately available on the market. Some United Kingdom fishermen will be helped by that sensible adjustment of the plans.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has received representations from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to delay the one-net rule until January next year. I understand that when members of the federation met officials they were told that there could not be a delay and they want to meet with the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Has the Minister agreed to that meeting and what consideration is he giving to their representations?
  Mr. Curry: I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is sitting beside me, has met Scottish fishermen to discuss the issue and I know that he intends to cover the matter in his reply to the debate.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose —
  Mr. Salmond: Would it be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. To which hon. Gentleman is the Minister giving way? It is not clear.
  Mr. Curry: Perhaps I should give the other one a chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for the Minister's felicitous reference to me as "the other one". The one-net rule is of particular significance in those ports which have concentrated on prawn fishing. In my constituency, fishermen are concerned that the one-net rule may have significant consequences for the future of the fishing industry in East Neuk in Fife. There is anxiety that the imposition of the one-net rule may drive those who concentrate on prawn fishing to seek white fish as an alternative, which appears to run contrary to the type of conservation measures to which the Minister has referred.
  Mr. Curry: I know that the industry was anxious to have a one-net rule and we would like one to be more generalised throughout the European Community. The problem in Scotland is that the fishing industry was concerned about discards in the nephrops fisheries. I know that the industry has made representations to my hon. Friend and he has heard what they have had to say. The Community rule can be altered only by Community agreement, but my hon. Friend intends to deal with that subject when he winds up. I shall allow one more intervention; then I must get on.
  Mr. Salmond: In fairness to fishing organisations, can the Minister confirm that support for the one-net rule has been contingent on by-catch changes to allow it to operate effectively? Given that it is being imposed as a unilateral measure, does he accept that there is nothing to stop the

  47
  Government attempting to get an agreement to the by-catch changes throughout Europe before the one-net rule is imposed on 1 January next year?
  Mr. Curry: We have to be careful that the changes in the rules do not undermine the essential conservation purpose of the measure. In answer to the last three interventions, I said that the measure has been mentioned by Scottish fishermen to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland He has been listening to what they have said and he will answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he concludes the debate.
  I was about to tackle the unilateral measures. Following consultation with the industry, we introduced further national measures. They include restoring the minimum landing size for whiting to 27 cms because the Community had reduced it to 23 cms. I was delighted to be able to announce that the Irish Government had simultaneously introduced the 27 cm minimum landing size for whiting in their fishery. I had discussions with the Irish Minister on Friday about how we could co-operate further in the Irish sea, as it is a vunerable stretch of water and it would make a great deal of sense if we could introduce maximum co-operation in the way in which it is managed.
  We have introduced a one-net rule for all licensed vessels. We also introduced compulsory square mesh panels in the Irish sea and south-west of Scotland, where the minimum mesh size is 80 mm. We imposed the square mesh panel on all United Kingdom nephrops fisheries and the package includes anti-ballooning provisions. We have also introduced a ban on twin and multi-rig trawls in all nephrops fisheries except the Fladen ground. There has been a significant advance in technical conservation measures, which form an essential piece of the panoply of fisheries measures.
  We regard effort control as essential if we are to tackle the fundamental problem of fishing mortality. We need to take new direct measures to control and reduce fishing effort. That is the only part of the package which requires primary legislation. We have the power to do everything else, which is why other measures do not feature in the Bill. It is an essential part because there will be no decoupling between it and the decommissioning scheme.
  We plan to freeze fishing effort for all vessels of more than 10 m at the 1991 level in 1993, with the option of reducing it in the years after that. The size of reduction will depend on the sort of multi-annual guidance programme targets and how they are defined in Brussels, on the final outcome of those negotiations and on the impact of other measures in the package. We believe that the only practical way to control fishing effort is to control the time that vessels spend at sea. The existing licensing provisions in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 already allow us to limit time spent fishing, but it is simply not possible to monitor how much fishing takes place during each trip. Clause 1(2) and 1(3) of the Bill will enable Ministers to restrict the time that licensed vessels spend at sea by imposing a new condition in sea fishing licences. It will also enable them to determine, by way of licence conditions, what time at sea will mean. Our intention is to restrict days at sea and the licence conditions will set down how they will be defined, notified and controlled.
  48
  The Bill also contains a number of other measures which will ensure that the new time-at-sea restrictions can be properly enforced and that the penalties for not observing licence limitations and conditions act as real deterrents to would-be offenders. It will give us broader powers to require information from fishermen by enabling us to require the provision of non-statistical information. For the first time, it enables us to say in what form we require the information and does the same in relation to trans-shipment licences. The provision will enable us to ensure that we have all the information necessary to enforce the new time-at-sea restrictions.
  The Bill also allows Ministers to revoke or to suspend licences when licence limitations and conditions, including time-at-sea restrictions, are breached. Clause 2(3) does the same in relation to trans-shipment licences. The provision will for the first time enable Ministers to withdraw or suspend licences as a penalty. We shall no longer be dependent on long-drawn-out court proceedings and inadequate fines to stop or deter over-fishing. We shall be able to take action once a breach has taken place and consider revoking as well as suspending licences. We need severe penalties when fish conservation is at stake.
  When I visit fishing communities I am frequently asked when I shall be able to impose some real penalties. Far too often, fishermen seem to get off extremely lightly when convicted of a fishing offence, and the fine is a fraction of the profit gained from the infringement.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Curry: I have one more clause to deal with and then I shall give way.
  The Bill increases the maximum penalty on summary conviction for breach of a licence condition from £5,000 to £50,000. That will bring the maximum penalty for breaching a time-at-sea restriction into line with the maximum penalty for fishing without a licence or exceeding quota limits.
  The Bill will come into force one month after Royal Assent. It applies in Northern Ireland and may be applied in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by Order in Council.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Curry: I shall give way to those hon. Members who wish to intervene.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help enormously if the Minister would say which hon. Gentleman he is giving way to because four seem to wish to intervene.
  Mr. Curry: I intended to continue my generosity by giving way to all of them, but I will start with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
  Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister. He is being generous and it is helpful to the debate if we may clarify matters. He said that the Bill will provide definitions as to what constitutes a day at sea. The Minister must be aware of the concern that vessels are counted as spending days at sea if they are returning to a home port having discharged their fish or travelling to a port for repairs. Is he minded to make special provision to cover those situations? The proposed restrictions have given rise to much ill feeling in the industry.
  Mr. Curry: We have to accommodate a whole series of conditions. We must decide how to deal with the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is one purpose of the consultation. We must deal also with vessels which have already been affected by a tie-up in 1991, or which have taken the gear option. How are we to accommodate those circumstances in the days-at-sea rule? We must take into account also vessels which opt to tie up at an overseas port, because under Community rules we cannot oblige them to tie up in a British port. We must establish a track record for vessels in certain classes which are fishing for non-TAC stocks. It is not part of my purpose to gloss over the difficulties of the exercise, but we have consulted and we are collecting information to work out the most sensible way of overcoming some of the difficulties that we shall encounter.
  I repeat that it is not our purpose to apply the rules unreasonably, or in a way that is more restrictive than necessary. It is not our purpose either to deprive fishermen of legitimate days at sea, but to establish a genuine track record when they are involved in fishing. We will go to great lengths to get that right.
  Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend indicated the need for effort control in this country. Can he say why our Community partners do not feel that the same need exists in their countries?
  Mr. Curry: It is by no means clear that our Community partners will not feel that way. We all face multi-annual guidance programme targets, and we do not yet know what they will be. We have not received any official notification of the latest proposed targets. The Dutch operate effort controls covering virtually the whole of their fleet. That measure was recommended by the Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. If TACs and quotas do not work, there must be some limitation on effort.
  The body which governs New England fisheries is also examining the possibility of introducing effort control. On Friday, I was speaking to my French opposite number, who said that if France is confronted by a MAGP target of a certain size it will have to consider effort control. We are introducing it because we believe that it will provide us with the flexibility to apply targets that are best suited to British fisheries. It is certainly possible that other Community members will want to go down the same route. The Dutch have already led the way in respect of virtually the whole of their fishery.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the hostility of fishermen in the north of England, particularly in relation to the days-at-sea provision? They say that if a proper decommissioning scheme had been introduced and adequately funded, the new provisions would not be necessary. The fishermen argue, "Why should a farmer have set-aside money for setting aside his land when a fisherman is not given set-aside money for decommissioning his boat?" What is the reason for the Government's inconsistency?
  Mr. Curry: There is a great difference between the two. A farmer who is told to set aside land—the Community now has what is in practice a compulsory set-aside scheme— is being told that he may not use the land that is his own asset to produce that which we know he could have
  50
  produced had he used that land. The fisherman is not being told that he may not catch his quota: the purpose of the measure is not to prevent him doing so out of a common resource. That is the difference between the two.
  How many hundreds of millions of pounds would the hon. Gentleman have us spend on a decommissioning scheme? The French Government have just spent £15 million—somewhat less than we plan to spend on a decommissioning scheme. They say that there is no possibility of yet another decommissioning scheme, and that other methods would have to be used. Decommissioning is a necessary element in the programme, but it will not by itself deliver.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: I want to press my hon. Friend on the important question of the equivalent action which may or may not be taken by our Community partners. I represent a constituency in the south-west which is vulnerable to the fishing activities of certain of our Community partners. We are worried that Britain could be taking what could prove, in certain circumstances, very restrictive action, but that no comparable action will be taken by our partners. What tangible evidence can I offer my fishermen in Looe or Polperro that we are not alone in taking action to introduce a package of conservation measures throughout the Community?
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend can tell them two things. He can say that we are doing this because the United Kingdom has the biggest investment of all the Community fishing countries in the health of the stock, and to protect the futures of British fishermen catching British stocks. We have 89 per cent. of the haddock, and 46 per cent. of the cod. It is our stocks that are at risk, so it is essential that we preserve them.
  My hon. Friend can tell his fishermen also that other countries will have to decide how to meet their MAGP targets. We want ours defined in terms of fishing effort because we think that that will give us greater flexibility. I believe that other countries will find themselves moving in the same direction. A number of Ministers told me that decommissioning can only go some of the way. If the Community's proposed targets are eventually agreed, I can think of no country that could meet them by decommissioning alone. I am sure that that will be understood by our fishermen.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Minister indicated that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. Has he entered into full and proper consultation with fish producers in Northern Ireland? If so, how did they react? They are totally opposed to the broad concept of the Bill.
  Every time the Minister is pressed to answer a question, he does so with a latitude that is not contained in the Bill. We must deal with the legislation that is before us. For example, 1991 will serve as the base year for the days-at-sea rule. Will the Minister clearly indicate what latitude he will give in variations from the norm in respect of any particular vessel? I understood the Minister to say that the rule will be applied on a vessel-to-vessel basis. Will he give a firm undertaking that variations from the 1991 norm will be taken into account?
  Mr. Curry: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. We chose 1991 as the base because that is the year for the next phase of the MAGP targets. However, I made it clear that

  51
  if, for example, a fisherman was affected by circumstances beyond his control in 1991—such as breakdowns—we would take them into consideration. It is not our intention that 1991 should be treated in every single respect with absolute biblical certainty in respect of days at sea. Where a case is shown for flexibility, we will allow it.
  Perhaps I should make it clear that it is our intention to establish an appeals procedure so that fishermen can explain the reasons for an unusually low track record in 1991, where this was due to circumstances beyond their control. The appeals tribunal will be independent of MAFF officials and will be able to advise Ministers that they should make an adjustment to the recommended days at sea.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I pick up the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) in contrasting the situation in this country with that in the rest of the Community. The Minister's contention is that other countries—he quoted France—will have to consider effort control along those lines. He said that in France, for example, only a £15 million decommissioning scheme had been proposed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is being entirely fair. Several other countries in the European Community are relying much more heavily on decommissioning schemes than either France or ourselves.
  Mr. Curry: Let me be clear. I thought that the House was anxious to pursue the principles of subsidiarity, by which I mean that we should be able to implement, by methods that are most appropriate to our conditions, general rules laid down by Brussels. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible that we should apply measures that are most appropriate to our fisheries and conserve our stocks for our fishermen. It is our stocks and our industry which are at risk, and the essential purpose is to conserve them.
  Everyone will receive a MAGP target and nobody will be able to escape it. They will all have to meet it. Some countries have already had a decommissioning scheme. The French scheme has finished—it took about 75,000 kilowatts out of the French fleet, and that is reckoned to be equivalent to about 7.5 per cent. We aim that our decommissioning scheme will take upwards of 5 per cent. out of our fleet, depending on whether we can apply it with the type of flexibility that we want.
  It will be for other member states to decide how they meet the target. We have decided that the best interests of conservation are served by meeting the target through a mixture of decommissioning, technical conservation and this Bill.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Curry: I shall give way just one more time because I am in danger of beating the record of giving way in the course of a debate. I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but I have tried to be generous.
  Mr. Mitchell: The Minister should go for the record. I wish to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about compensation. My hon. Friend referred to decommissioning, but why will there be no compensation if, in future, the number of days at sea is limited as a result of Government policy? If farmland is set aside, the farmer receives
  52
  compensation. If the time during which a fisherman can go to sea, and therefore the time during which he is able to produce is limited, why should he not receive compensation in the same way? The crew is paid on a share-fishing basis, so they need the revenue. The whole economics of a fisherman's enterprise are affected by such a limitation, but the Minister says that the intention is to reduce his catches because that time limitation is a conservation measure.
  Why is the fisherman not compensated in the same way as the farmer? I do not see any provision for that in the Bill, although there is a provision to allocate £4 million to administer the scheme, which is only half the £8 million that the Government will contribute to the decommissioning scheme. The administration is fairly expensive, but there is no provision for compensation to fishermen.
  Mr. Curry: First, let me correct the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is one of the great canards that the Government will contribute only 8 million to the scheme. Let me make it absolutely clear. Because of the way in which the Fontainebleau mechanism works, at least £20 million of British taxpayers' money will go to the £25 million scheme. The French scheme received £3 million of French taxpayers' money. Our scheme will be bigger and better than that operated in France because we shall allocate £20 million to it. I wish to put that on the record because it is frequently said that that is not the case. I can supply the hon. Gentleman with all the algebra to prove that that is so.
  On compensation, it is not our intention that a fisherman should fall short of his legitimate quota because of the restrictions. We want to stop the discard and to control fish mortality. If it came to the point where it appeared that the quota could not be fulfilled, we would obviously wish to discuss with Brussels the possibility of relaxing the quota to enable it to be fulfilled. Tackling the problem of fish mortality is at the heart of the Bill.
  I have been on my feet for a long time, so I should press on and cover the elements of the Bill which deal with scrutiny and the mid-term review. We operate within the framework of Community legislation, so I shall consider the main issues covered by that.
  The Community is currently in the process of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. A copy of the Commission report forming the basis for the review is before the House. Subject to the European Court of Justice confirming the view of its Advocate General, we expect relative stability, which guarantees our fishermen a fixed share of fishing opportunities, to be maintained. We also expect the restrictions on access in the 0 to 12-mile zones and in the Shetland box, which are specifically subject to review, to be confirmed for the next 10 years. It seems likely, therefore, that no major changes of principle or to the framwork of the CFP will be made.
  We are working for improvements in its implementation. Effort controls, such as we are introducing in the United Kingdom and which I have described earlier, will be an important element. We expect to see better enforcement and I have discussed enforcement with my French and Irish colleagues. It will be a theme of our presidency to try to ensure that we have better and more uniform enforcement, and further conservation measures will be introduced to reduce discards. Later this year, the

  53
  Commission will, we expect, make proposals for specific new legislation on this and other topics. Those proposals will be subject to scrutiny by the House in the usual way.
  The measures are designed to preserve stocks for British fishermen. They are designed to recognise the importance of fisheries in the United Kingdom for national needs. We shall have to meet our targets—as other countries will have to meet theirs—and we want to have policies in place to meet to them in a way that best guarantees the future of our fishing communities and the jobs which depend upon them.
  Fishing is not an industry that one should condemn to long-term decline. We are committed to taking those necessarily tough decisions which will give it a secure base for reconstruction and modernisation. However, it all begins with conservation. No fish equals no future. Without the natural resource, there is nothing—but with a properly managed resource there is a future that is as individualistic and challenging as that of any trade in the world. It is our duty and intention to safeguard that future. The Bill is part of that endeavour and I commend it to the House.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: There is no doubt that everyone in the House accepts the need for sensible and effective conservation measures to deal with the problems that our fisheries have faced for some years. The tragedy of the Bill is that it does not cover adequately the problem of conservation: in fact, it should be entitled the sea fish crisis management Bill. That is the Government's approach to a problem that is largely of their own making.
  I find it incredible that the Minister talks of a market approach when he refers to a policy that will dictate the number of days that an individual fisherman can spend at sea. It is just like telling a large supermarket that it can open on two days a week only as part of a management policy. The Bill approaches the problem of overcapacity in our fleet not from the point of view of the market, but from a bureaucratic and strict management viewpoint.
  The Bill fails to deal with overcapacity. The real problem with our fishing fleet is that there are too many boats chasing too few fish. We have discussed that for many years and hon. Members from both sides have recognised that problem and consistently argued for a sensible decommissioning scheme as the basis for dealing with it. After many years of debate, the Government have finally introduced a decommissioning scheme. What a scheme it is. It is a minnow, a real tiddler of a scheme when compared with the size of the problem. Only £25 million will be provided, and on the figures that I have seen, the capacity of the fleet will be reduced not by 5 per cent.£not a great amount itself—but by about 3 per cent. With such a small amount being provided, the sums available to individual fishermen may be so small that the scheme will have a low take-up and it will fail to attract those people who need reasonable compensation for them to leave the industry. In many cases, they were encouraged to invest in that industry by enlarging their vessels or building new vessels. They now find that they are being restricted in terms of the number of days fishing needed to be viable.
  The Bill imposes tie-up conditions on our fleet, while fishermen in other member states, which have used proper decommissioning schemes, will be free to fish when our
  54
  fishermen are discriminated against. That is neither fair nor reasonable. Although I have listened carefully to the Minister, the fact remains that many other member states have reached their targets through other methods, which means that they do not have to suffer the restrictions to be imposed on our fishing fleets.
  The Bill threatens the financial viability of some of our most energetic and efficient fleets and contains no choices. Under decommissioning schemes, people can choose whether to opt in or opt out. This measure will apply to every fisherman, whether he wants to put in a great deal of time or invest large sums in his boats.
  There is no guarantee that the Bill is a genuine conservation measure. It may restrict fishermen to remaining in port at certain times of the year, but they might put even more effort into fishing on the days when they can fish, for example, by increasing their crews on those days.
  The Bill also has safety implications. We have debated in the past the problem of fishermen being held up in port because of engine breakdowns through no fault of their own. They may run out of days allocated for fishing and may therefore be tempted to go to sea in unsuitable weather to keep up their track records. Those issues must be considered carefully.
  Mr. Curry: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, first, that we shall apply the measure flexibly. In the event of bad weather or similar circumstances, as with the eight-day tie-up and the 135-day tie-up, we shall not penalise fishermen. Secondly, I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the event of extraordinarily bad weather over a sustained period so that a fisherman cannot fish during his full allocation of days at sea, that amount will not be deducted from his following year's allocation.
  Mr. Morley: I am grateful for that categorical assurance, which will be well received by those concerned.
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Does my hon. Friend share my doubts about the Minister's commitment? For example, the two 10-m boats at Redcar have to push off from the beach because we have no harbour pier. Is the Minister really saying that, in the event of bad weather at Redcar, he will give my two fishermen that assurance? Will the Department be that flexible?
  Mr. Morley: That assurance has been given and is now on the official record. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) is a doughty fighter for her fishing constituents—[Interruption.] Two are as important as any other number. She will ensure that that point is brought to their attention, and I am sure that other hon. Members from fishing ports will take note of the Minister's assurance.
  The administration of the scheme is incredibly bureaucratic and its implementation will involve much extra expenditure. The Bill entails an extra expenditure of £4.4 million. I presume that that is for extra staffing, inspectors and administration. I wonder whether that sum could be better used by adding it to the 30 per cent. contribution that the Government must make to find a meaningful decommissioning scheme.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly press the Minister about how localised a storm must be? It seems that there will be total chaos.
  Mr. Morley: For those who fish for a living, long periods of bad weather mean that they cannot get out to sea to pursue their legitimate activity. For them, the matter is fairly straightforward. We are aware of the problems that can be caused by bad weather, which is experienced by all fishermen from time to time. But there can be prolonged periods of bad weather. I am glad that the Minister has recognised that there can be such exceptionally bad circumstances and that he has assured us that fishermen will not be penalised because of them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke about financial assistance. When we debate the fishing industry and the agricultural sector, it is always the agricultural sector that receives financial support. The answer to over-capacity within the common agricultural policy is set-aside and support payments for farmers. The solution for over-capacity in the fishing industry is compulsory tie-up with no compensation whatever, but only restrictions on fishermen's rights to work. The Secretary of State returned from Brussels with an agreement on the CAP, which he hailed as a great success and which has involved much extra taxpayers' money. If the Minister considers it a great success to negotiate extra contributions from taxpayers for agricultural support, why cannot we have a similar success for the fishing industry? It would not involve an excessive amount of taxpayers' money but would ensure a stable and sustainable fishing industry.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference is that the set-aside system helps farmers and leaves them in a viable position, but the Government's proposals will make many fishing fleets financially non-viable and knock them out of business altogether?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I agree. If one wants to be totally ruthless in dealing with over-capacity, one way is to make those concerned bankrupt. That solution is not being applied to farmers through support payments—I do not argue that it should be—but it is certainly being applied to fishermen as a form of control.
  The Bill leaves many technical questions unanswered. In all fairness, the Minister conceded that some difficulties needed to be looked at. I understand that the number of days at sea are based on 1991 levels. But what about those vessels that are currently less than 17 m and have a non-pressure stock licence and no record of the number of days that they have spent at sea? How will the number of days at sea be allocated to them?
  The Minister mentioned flagships. There has been a large increase in the number of flagships operating from foreign ports, particularly Dutch beamers, and we all know of the Spanish problem. How can flagships that operate from foreign ports be affected? How can the regulations be enforced when those flagships have a fishing licence, in the same way as boats from Grimsby, Maryport or Tynemouth, while operating from Spain or France? Will the Minister have an inspector in every European port to ensure that they comply with the regulations? How will the rules be applied in those circumstances?
  Compulsory tie-up in ports is a desperate solution to a desperate problem. It is an indictment of the Government that, after so many years, they have reached a stage where their only answer to the problem is compulsory tie-up. Their policy is also a form of back-door decommissioning,
  56
  allied with tradeable days at sea. It risks concentrating the amount of effort in the hands of a few companies. Moreover, further foreign fleets may operate under the British flag and buy up entitlement of days at sea. Those issues need to be considered carefully before we consider the Bill.
  The Government cannot bring a Bill before the House in this way and expect our support. As part of the package we want a properly financed and effective decommissioning scheme for a permanent solution, not one with controls on a year-to-year basis. We want boats to be exported properly out of the EC zone. It depresses me that one of the solutions is seen as the scrapping of fishing boats because there is scope for exporting boats released from the fleet through decommissioning as part of an aid programme to developing countries. Not only would that permanently remove those boats from the European fleet, but it could become part of a meaningful and constructive aid package.
  A proper package of conservation measures is needed, and we have supported some of the Minister's proposals—indeed, we have argued for them for a long time. We believe that there should be full consultation with the fishermen's organisations, so that we obtain their support, understanding and backing. We have long argued for an end to industrial fishing. The position is now so critical that our fishermen are being forced to tie up their boats in port compulsorily, and there is no longer a role for industrial fishing.
  We must reinforce the concept of relative stability, particularly during the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy, and I welcome the Minister's comments on that. We must ensure that the preferential access to the 12-mile zone continues. I welcome the Minister's comments on that.
  We must recognise the regional needs of fisheries around the coast. It is about time that we had a comprehensive coastal zone policy to meet the needs of our commercial fisheries when faced with competition and other coastal developments.
  There must be proper enforcement procedures and we must ensure that other member states meet our standards. The Minister mentioned other countries. There are other, more constructive ways of reducing effort than making boats tie up in port. Has the Minister considered arguing in the European Community for fishermen who use large mesh to receive a special payment? That would reduce the catch of those fishermen, who would then receive compensation. In turn, that would result in larger fish being caught and there would be no discards. Fish stocks would slowly recover while the policy was implemented. The scheme would be costly, but if we can direct millions and millions of pounds towards the agricultural sector for agricultural restructuring, why cannot we afford modest payments for our fishing fleets around the coasts to ensure sustainable fisheries for the communities who rely on them? I have not heard the Minister advance that argument.
  There is an argument for opposing the Bill outright, rather than amending it or pussyfooting around. In its present form, the Bill is unacceptable. Its proposals do not go far enough to deal with the fishing industry's problems. As the Minister rightly said, the fishing industry has been consulted on a series of measures and changes, some of which need careful consideration. The proposals include tradeability in terms of the days-at-sea limitations and

  57
  producer organisations. However, the deadline for consultation is not until 12 June, so the industry is still in a consultation period. But we are being asked, on 8 June, to pass a Bill that will give the Minister—no matter what he says—an open cheque to impose conditions on the fishing industry before the end of the consultation period. That is absolutely incredible—there should be more consideration of fishermen's views.
  Ultimately, difficult and unpopular decisions about conservation may have to be made. The Minister acknowledged that fishermen have put forward proposals for a series of effective conservation measures, including square mesh, one-net rules, variations on by-catch, shellfish licensing and bans on twin and triple-rig prawn trawls. They deserve recognition for their proposals and should be given a guarantee that there will be full consultation until the deadline. We should not rush through the Bill before consultation is complete.
  Mr. Curry: That is the most bogus of all the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Bill is an enabling Bill to confer the relevant powers. I should have thought that the House would be pleased that the Government attach such a high priority to fisheries that they have brought forward this measure as one of the first of the new Session. It does not cut across the details of implementation. We have made it absolutely clear that the link between decommissioning, effort control and all the other measures is not negotiatable. We have made it equally clear that the details of how we apply that policy are open to the fullest discussion, which remains our position.
  Mr. Morley: I cannot accept that argument. The Bill gives the Minister enormous powers of intervention. While we may agree with some aspects of the Bill, such as increased fines for fishermen who break the regulations, if, as the Minister said, there are to be links between decommissioning and effort control, it is all the more reason to have meaningful discussions with the fishermen about how to apply the policy. There is no excuse for presenting a Bill with such powers before the completion of the consultation period. 1 have drawn to the Minister's attention the fact that the Bill contains major problems which have yet to be resolved. Time should have been spent resolving those problems before the Bill was brought to the House.
  The Bill is not part of a proper, rational or effective conservation scheme, but a panic measure. It is an insult to the industry and the House. It is essential for the Government to withdraw the Bill and to bring forward a measure containing the elements of which we have spoken to ensure a stable, sustainable industry in a form that will command all-party support. The Bill fails to do that. It is ill-thought-out and draconian, and the industry has not been given time to respond. Fishermen have not been properly consulted to ensure that the measure is effective, and works well for the good of the industry.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call other hon. Members, I advise the House that, although Madam Speaker did not impose a 10-minute limit on speeches, I hope that hon. Members will show a degree of self discipline so that as many speakers as possible may be called.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. David Harris: No one in the House has greater admiration for my hon. Friend the Minister of State than 1 have. I served with him in the European Parliament and believe that he is a good fisheries Minister and a good friend of the fishing industry. My view is backed by the actions that he has taken in the interests of fishermen, not just in my constituency, but throughout the country. However, 1 have the greatest reservations about the Bill and cannot support it in the Lobby tonight. There are many reasons for that, some of which have been rehearsed by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). The Bill's defects have also been highlighted in the barrage of interventions to which my hon. Friend the Minister was subjected during his speech.
  The measure will result in an administrative nightmare. I cannot see how, even with an increase of 60 man years, such a system can be enforced and policed around the coasts. There is no chance of implementing this measure in respect of the wretched boats that are on our register but are Spanish or Dutch-controlled, or flag-of-convenience vessels of other countries. There is no way in which they will be subjected to a days-at-sea limitation. For that reason alone, I believe that there is ground for not supporting the Bill.
  It goes further than that, however. My hon. Friend the Minister made a point of saying that the Bill was merely an enabling measure. I was glad when the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pounced on him; if he had not done so, 1 would have. Under cross-examination, my hon. Friend admitted that he, or his successors—he, of course, is a reasonable man, but his successors may be less reasonable—could impose any restriction that he or they pleased on days at sea without the matter returning to the House. I cannot agree with such a proposal: it is wrong and unrealistic. Moreover, action is to be taken unilaterally. Our fishermen will be subject to restrictions, whereas fishermen in most European countries probably will not.
  It is not good enough for my hon. Friend the Minister to say, as he did earlier, that the aim is to protect our own interests and our own fish stocks. It is true that, in some areas and some species, we have the overwhelming bulk of the quotas, but I am told that, in area 7—the south-west of England—our quotas amount to just 10 per cent. of total allowable catches. I believe that fishermen from other countries will continue to fish while our boats are tied up, and politically that is not on: there will be uproar among our fishermen if it happens. I would not mind so much if this were a European measure, imposed in uniform terms and enforced across the Community. I do not believe, however, that it is right to impose such a measure when other fishermen are not subject to the same restrictions.
  I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's assurance that he would implement the measure flexibly, taking account of all the difficulties encountered by fishermen; but, with respect, I do not feel that he is in a position to give such a pledge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) pointed out, bad weather can be very localised. For example, there is a world of difference between the weather on the north coast of Cornwall and the weather on the south coast. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of my hon. Friend, and his administrators in the Ministry, to take account of such factors in implementing the restrictions.

  59
  Many hon. Members will remember the difficulties that we all encountered when milk quotas were introduced—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). Those quotas were fixed according to a baseline. Farmer after farmer came to tell us, "That baseline caused me particular disadvantage, because of such-and-such a set of circumstances." If we fix the 1991 baseline in this enabling legislation and the measures that flow from it, exactly the same will happen: fisherman after fisherman will come to us and say, "During 1991 my boat had to be laid up, and I could not go to sea for such-and-such a reason."
  I was reassured to learn that an appeal system would be introduced, but I fear that that will add enormously to the administrative difficulties. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has considered what he is embarking on.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Is it not an extraordinary move to establish an appeal system that has no statutory basis? No such system is included in the Bill.
  Mr. Harris: That may be true, but I have great respect for my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he will set up such a system; indeed, he has given the House a pledge to that effect. I am merely saying that I expect the hearing and handling of such appeals to present enormous difficulties. After all, there will be a good many of them.
  We all realise that conservation measures must be painful. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in that regard, and I do not entirely accept the view of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—from which we have all received representations—that the legislation will sound the death knell of our fishing fleet. I do believe, however, that it will cause difficulties for many fishermen—certain types of fisherman. We should also remember that some of the fishermen on whom my hon. Friend intends to impose restrictions—I am not quite sure how, but they may be imposed on a geographical basis and involve a large number of boats—will probably not be fishing against quota in respect of some species. I wonder about the logic of that.
  What really frightened me, however, was my hon. Friend's statement that the powers in the Bill would enable him—or, rather, his successors; he said that he would not use them—to extend the restrictions to all types of fishing boat, however small. Is that really sensible? Is it defensible? Is my hon. Friend really saying that small boats operating from coves such as Penberth, in my constituency, should be affected? The sea is practically flat there, and any little swell means that the fishermen cannot put to sea. Are they to face even the possibility of restrictions when they have to pick their fishing days with such care? It simply is not on. I beg my hon. Friend to reconsider.
  I accept that measures must be introduced and that, if they are to work, they must be painful. I also believe, however, especially in the present climate of distrust and difficulty among our fishermen, that such measures must be seen to be as fair as possible. There must be equity between different types of fisherman, and, especially, between our fishermen and those of other countries.
  I do not believe that the industry will wear this, and I think that it is right not to wear it. The Bill is already anathema to our fishermen, and—as I said earlier—it will not receive my support.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes:: I believe that all of us, except hon. Members who are new to debates such as this, are experiencing a sense of déjà vu. Here we are again, trying to marry conservation issues with stability in the fishing industry. I have sad news for new Members: in 12 months' time, we shall be back again, examining the whole package and trying to find out where we are. Yet all of us want stability.
  New Members will note another recurring theme. The processing side of the industry will constantly say that its needs are never considered. I appreciate that view; all too often in our debates, the really important people neglected turn out to be the consumers—and the consumers can secure a decent deal for a wholesome and healthy food only if there are fish to be caught. It is a circular argument.
  I make no apology for saying that we can never solve the problems, however we view them, unless we can bring about stability on the catching side. That is the side on which I wish to concentrate. On 2 June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—sent me a letter which was probably sent to every Scottish Member. The letter was intended to be helpful; it set out the various aspects of Government policy, and the various other issues pertaining to the industry allied to the Bill. I am sorry to have to say to the Minister that the last two sentences of the letter show breathtaking complacency. He said:
  "These measures will give the United Kingdom the most comprehensive fisheries conservation and management policy in the European Community. They are based on the central recognition that conservation, capacity and effort controls have to he dealt with as complementary measures."
  No one would quarrel with the last sentence but, as is so often the case, alas, the rhetoric does not match up to the reality of the proposals.
  The Government resisted, week in and week out in the House during the last Parliament, calls for a decent decommissioning scheme. Finally, in the pre-election scramble for votes the Government decided that they had better do something, so they brought forward proposals for discussion.
  Mr. Salmond: Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the letter is that included among those who in the past had called for an adequately-funded decommissioning scheme was the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
  Mr. Hughes: I do not cast that in the Minister's face. Any Back Bencher who has become a Minister must have said something in the past which is then thrown in his face. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) should not therefore be too hard on the Minister. Nevertheless, it is a good debating point, just like the Minister's final defence of acting unilaterally by invoking the well-liked principle of subsidiarity when it came to the European Commission.
  Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Hughes: I am anxious not to give way too much, bearing in mind the strictures of the Chair about taking too long, since there is no 10-minute rule. This will be the last intervention that I shall allow.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that what the Minister was saying about subsidiarity was that we reserve the right to punish ourselves when nobody else is punishing themselves.
  Mr. Hughes: I had better not be tempted to discuss self-flagellation, otherwise we shall all be confused.
  We all agree that the industry's problems have got to be solved on a comprehensive basis, but—and it is a very big "but"—the trouble is that each constituent part of the package has to be viable and effective in its own right. It is a very old story: that the strength of the chain depends upon the strength of its weakest link. If all the links do not carry the same strength, the chain falls apart.
  The Government's decommissioning proposals are inadequate in two respects. By almost common agreement the decommissioning scheme is insufficient in its scope and does not seriously address the reduction in fishing effort. The Government's scheme still fails totally to take any account of the fishermen whose jobs will disappear as a result of the decommissioning of fishing vessels. It is obvious—I do not know why we have to keep on driving the point home—that if a vessel can no longer fish the crew can no longer go to sea. They no longer have a vocation and they no longer have a livelihood. It remains essential, therefore, in my view, that compensation, either directly from the Government or through the European social fund—it makes no difference where the money comes from—should be made available to the fishermen. We shall continue to press that point upon Ministers for as long as it takes.
  If we look just at the Government's proposals without regard to other matters, the decommissioning scheme will not work. The Government concede implicitly that the scheme will not work by itself. Therefore, they have brought into play another part of the package, which is that the fish producer organisations should be provided with the power to buy up the fishing track records of those who wish to leave the industry. That sounds all right, but it is clear that vessel owners will have to choose either to decommission their vessels under the decommissioning scheme or to sell their track record. They cannot do both. The trouble is that selling the track records does not bring about a reduction in fishing effort. It certainly brings about a reduction in the number of boats, but that is not the same thing. The bought-in capacity would be reallocated again—presumably sold—to the vessels that want to continue to fish.
  What effect would that have on the skippers and crews that want to continue to fish? Would it lead to increased financial pressures on skippers, especially since the Bill is intended to reduce the number of days during which vessels can go to sea? How would that be determined? In my naivety—I apologise for not having understood previous briefings—I had understood that this would be applied sector by sector. It never occurred to me for one moment that fishing effort at sea would be determined boat by boat.
  When I had to stand at the Dispatch Box I had a recurrent nightmare of trying to make some sense of the milk quota scheme. I said at that time that if a Labour Government had introduced the kind of bureaucratic nonsense to which the milk quota scheme led, Conservative Members would have been baying for the blood of Labour Ministers. I suspect that if positions had been reversed and the Labour party had been in
  62
  government and had introduced this Bill, the Conservatives would have roared their heads off about creeping socialism and bureaucratic red tape and would have said how impossible it was to introduce such a scheme boat by boat. It just cannot be done.
  The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to the bad weather that can be encountered in north and south Cornwall. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will say that fishermen will argue, "The weather may be uniformly bad between the ports of Macduff, Banff, Portsoy, Whitehills and Buckie, but the harbours are different and it's safer to sail from one port in the same weather or to come back to that port in the same weather than to do so at the port next door." How is anyone going to monitor the scheme boat by boat? That is utter nonsense. The Minister will have to think this out clearly. I suspect that what lies behind all this is that the Government have always believed in decommissioning and in the reduction of fishing effort by bankruptcy.
  As for the purchase of track records by the fish producer organisations, can the Minister tell us whether there will be any guidelines on the criteria for purchase? The Minister said that there would be no question of, for example, Humberside buying up Scottish quotas, or vice versa, and that it would be a mistake to think that that will happen. However, the Minister said that track records would be brought within the FPOs. That does not resolve the central problem that concerns fishermen—that wealthy sectors of the industry would be able to buy out the poorer sectors where fishing is part of real community life. Unless we are careful, the rich sectors will buy out the poor ones and communities will be destroyed.
  The package is full of imponderables. I was grateful to the Minister for giving way so often during his speech until I realised what might have been his intention. Perhaps I am ascribing too Machiavellian an approach to him, but he may have thought that if he gave way often enough we should all be so confused that we would go away not having understood the Bill and other measures and given him an easy time, whereas in fact he is getting a fairly rough ride. The industry is obviously unhappy. The Minister will say that it always has been and that it always will find fault. That is true. The industry will always find something wrong with whatever is offered, but careful consideration shows that, more often than not, it has been right, and that must be taken into account.
  The Scottish Fishermen's Federation met today, I understand, to try to arrive at a cohesive and consensual response. It is unhappy about the one-net rule. The rule's advantage is that it avoids cheating, but a blanket approach can have deleterious effects. The Minister knows only too well of the prawn fleet's legitimate concerns.
  Whatever the final basket of measures proposed, the Government will find that it will work only if it has the co-operation and assent of the industry. Ministers have frequently said, and they said so today, how much they value consultation with the industry. Why, therefore, are they introducing the Bill when the consultation process has not been completed?
  I was surprised that the Minister did not have a ready answer to that. The ready answer that he could have offered is that this is a Second Reading and that in Committee there will be plenty of time to amend the Bill in the light of recommendations. The fact that he did not use that argument suggests that his mind is made up, that

  63
  the consultation process is not worth the paper that it is written on and that by taking these enabling powers—this blank cheque—the House will be cut out of consultation. I do not object to the Minister consulting the industry, but he must also consult hon. Members and the people who represent fishermen.
  I want to ask two questions that have not been asked thus far. First, what is happening about the extraordinary case that occurred in Stornoway in the past couple of weeks? It appears that if a foreign vessel comes in United Kingdom waters with the intention of fishing it is not breaching the law. That is curious. I am sure that the Minister will answer that point when replying to the debate.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I should like to clear that up now. The hon. Member, who is experienced in fishing matters, will remember the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The procurator fiscal charged a boat for particular reasons. We are not appealing against the decision on that charge. We feel that other aspects of the Act can cover anything that is likely to happen again, and if foreign boats enter British waters we shall deal with them.
  Mr. Hughes: That point will have to be considered in Committee, and I hope that we shall be able to table an amendment to probe it. The Minister cannot rest on what he appears to be saying—that the procurator fiscal brought the wrong charge. We need a firmer basis of law than that.
  Secondly, what about fisheries protection? We hear a marvellous story in the press—I do not always believe what I read in the press—that MAFF will privatise its fishery protection service, which I believe it purchased from the Navy. What is meant by that, and will the Minister assure us that the protection of Scottish fisheries will not be privatised? It seems crazy to spoil the ship for a hap'orth of tar by privatising the industry when a Government-sponsored fishery protection fleet already exists.
  I hope that I will not have to make a final plea again, but I fear that I will have to do so: may we, for goodness sake, achieve a system that provides stability so that the industry can plan and so that processors can have an adequate supply? Above all, unless we deal with this properly a wholesome healthy food will disappear from the housewife's budget. If that happens, we can forget about conservation because no one will buy fish and there will be no point in fishermen going to sea.
  6.24 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my first speech in the House. It gives me particular pleasure that you are in the Chair. I should like to record the number of my constituents who have said, "It is wonderful to see our Janet in the Chair."
  It is a nice convention of the House that I pay tribute to my predecessor, Ken Warren. Hon. Members who spent time with him on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry were never bored. Those who were kind enough or lucky enough to benefit from his many years as the hon. Member for Hastings, and latterly for Hastings and Rye,
  64
  will be aware of his tremendous record in serving his constituents and how much they respected and admired him for it.
  I should like to take this opportunity briefly to mention Ken Warren's predecessor in Rye‑it was only after the boundary changes that he became the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye—Sir Bryant Godman Irvine, who recently died. It was with great sadness that I learned that news, but it was of great pleasure that he offered to help me in the election campaign.
  Hastings and Rye is an historic constituency. My job was once done by six Members of Parliament, because at one time Rye, Winchelsea and Hastings had two Members of Parliament each. I am sure that they did not receive the amount of post that I receive every morning.
  The Cinque Ports Confederation was set up because of our direct link with the fishing industry; Hastings, Winchelsea and Rye were members from an early age. My constituency is littered with remnants of defence mechanisms against hordes from across the water. Camber castle was set up by Henry VIII to repel the French. The Royal Military canal and the Martello towers were built to repel the French and pill boxes were built to repel the Germans. I hope that we shall never have to build such defences again.
  However, because of those defences we have a marvellous tourist industry. It is ironic that the battle of Hastings is known throughout the world. The landing took place at Pevensey and the battle took place at Battle, not at Hastings. People come to see our Norman castle and all the other associated facets.
  We therefore have a thriving industry of language schools, and I am glad to say that about 25 per cent. of our tourists come to language schools. It is nice to think that we are contributing to exporting the English language not only to west Europeans but to an increasing number of east Europeans, who recognise the need for fluent English.
  My constituency is not only a tourist constituency. On Friday, I had the delightful opportunity of visiting one of the few hand-made brick factories in the country. It introduced me to the smile on the face of the hand-made brick. It produces bricks for the National Trust and makes the mathematical tile. For hon. Members who are not architects, the mathematical tile is used in building in Rye and Lewes.
  At the other end of the industrial spectrum, we have a company called Computing Devices. In the Gulf war, its reconnaissance system was used on the Tornado aircraft and it is arguable that the war would not have proceeded as it did if it had not been for the company. However, that company is adjusting to other problems and it is ironic that one of its biggest contracts is for the European fighter aircraft. It is also chasing a contract for the Jubilee line, so the computing industry is living dangerously.
  Although the constituency is successful, it suffers from poverty. We have a very high level of unemployment and our average pay is not only less than the national average wage but less than the south-east wage. We also have the problems associated with that—high levels of single-parent families, of homelessness and drug abuse. It may seem strange to say that many of those problems could be solved if the Government were to invest in the A21 and the A259. In his maiden speech about 20 years ago, my predecessor made the same point. I hope that it will not be

  65
  another 20 years before I can stop talking about the A21 and the A259, but I promise to bore the House as long as necessary.
  One of the constituency's significant industries is the fishing industry. As I said, the Cinque Ports Confederation came about because of the industry, and that has not changed. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that, in a year's time, new hon. Members would be suffering from déjà vu. When my godmother, the redoubtable Hon. Pat Hornsby-Smith, introduced me to the Chamber for the first time, I witnessed a debate on the then White Fish Authority, so I am already suffering from déjà vu.
  Unlike some hon. Members, I shall support the Bill, although the two fishing fleets in Hastings and Rye have significant worries. They are inshore fishing fleets, and the Hastings fleet consists entirely of boats of less than 10 m. It welcomes the extension of the licence, but, like every other fishing fleet, it is worried about the potential extension of the licence to cover days at sea. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that there will be flexibility in how days at sea are recorded and, as the fleet of under-10 m boats have no days logged, it will know from now on how closely it must log its days at sea to get the best possible deal should there ever be an extension to under-10 m boats.
  Another worry is decommissioning which, under the present system, does not apply to the fleet, but should it ever do so it may face the difficulty of reducing its size. The fleet says that if its size is reduced too often, it will have to put to sea in coracles, which is not what any of us would wish. Rye has a 1O-to-17-m fishing fleet, which is specially caught by the days-at-sea extension. It is keen to ensure that we cover the issue of flexibility—and I agree with every point made about weather and conditions in 1991—but, as I understand it, the fleet does not have to log its catch if it has not caught precious stocks. Therefore, there will be an automatic under-logging of its days at sea, and I should be grateful for an assurance that that will be taken into account.
  It is interesting that Rye Harbour is the only harbour owned by the National Rivers Authority. The NRA is trying to move our historic fishing fleet from one part of the harbour to another which is, of course, causing the fishermen enormous problems. I hope that the fact that the NRA owns one harbour may change very soon so that it is no longer involved in a business in which it should not have been involved in the first place.
  Finally, may I mention the problem of a boat-builder in my constituency who was caught when the first decommissioning system was introduced and he had two 30-m boats on his stocks. He had orders for four 10-m boats, all of which have been cancelled. The bank has withdrawn financing and that withdrawal has not only made it impossible for him to carry on boat-building but has made it exceedingly difficult for him to get financing for any other business. Therefore, he was caught, to use an election phrase, in a double whammy.
  It would be nice to have an assurance from the Minister that that case will be considered seriously so that the boat-builder involved can continue in business as, historically, the fishing fleet, the fishermen and everyone involved in the industry in Hastings and Rye have been entrepreneurial and self-sufficient. I should hate to think of that tradition coming to an end.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) on her eloquent maiden speech. She paid tribute to her predecessor who was Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and it was recognised by hon. Members of all parties that neither he nor his Committee shirked tackling controversial issues. The House owes him a great debt for the way in which he dealt with issues such as the Iraqi super-gun and, from a Scottish perspective, the future of the steel industry in Scotland.
  The hon. Lady gave us an insight into the issues with which she has to grapple in her constituency. As fisheries spokesman for my party, I went to Hastings about 15 months ago and met representatives of the industry there. I know that she will be very well briefed on fishing issues as the industry there is well able to articulate its case, and I look forward to hearing contributions from the hon. Lady in future fishing debates and, indeed, in other debates.
  The Bill is short but, nevertheless, important for the industry. I think that it is common ground among hon. Members that conservation is acknowledged to be of supreme importance if the industry is to have a future. The Minister rightly acknowledges that many of the organisations that represent the fishing industry have in recent years acted constructively by suggesting specific measures and, above all, by arguing for a decommissioning scheme which at long last, in the immediate run-up to an election, the Government were prepared to allow but only—as I shall show later—in a very limited way.
  We believe that the amount of money put on the table for decommissioning is insufficient and the fact that it has strings attached—as the Bill shows—is unsatisfactory. The Minister took the opportunity to claim that, far from there being only £7.5 million put into decommissioning from United Kingdom resources, the figure was nearer £20 million because of the Fontainebleau agreement. Although it has been raised on many occasions when decommissioning has been debated, one question has never been answered: how much will the Inland Revenue receive from fishermen who opt for decommissioning? We need that information if we are to make a proper analysis of how much it will cost the Government.
  Even allowing for the Minister's qualification, there is a perception in the industry that the measure is far too small to have a worthwhile effect on reducing the capacity of the fleet to bring it more into line with the fishing opportunities. The fact that there is a need for the Bill to enable the Government to take powers to restrict days at sea is an admission that what they are doing in decommissioning is insufficient to meet the multi-annual guidance programme targets, which is why they are having to link decommissioning to the restriction of days at sea.
  An important point which has already been mentioned and which is also covered in the reasoned amendment to be moved in due course by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that there has been inadequate consultation on the Bill and the measures announced by the Government on 27 February. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, the responses to the consultation period are due in on 13 June and here we are debating the Second Reading on 8 June.

  67
  The Minister sought to give an answer similar to that given by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in a letter on 2 June to Scottish Members, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). He says in the letter:
  "The industry is being consulted on the detailed application of these policies. The Fisheries Bill is an enabling measure which would give Ministers powers to restrict the number of days fishermen may spend at sea."
  Not only the Opposition but Conservative Members, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) acknowledged, should be concerned about giving Ministers enabling powers. It is not a light matter. One of our functions as parliamentarians, whether on fisheries matters or on any other subject, is continually to hold the Executive to account. That means being very careful before we, as the House of Commons, give them powers that they can then operate in a way for which, as the Minister suggested, they will not have to answer to the House. The Minister will not have to answer to the House before he makes detailed conditions attaching to any licence about days at sea.
  When the Minister said that there were more than 3,400 individual licences, I had the impression that we were talking about the potential for different conditions to attach to each licence as opposed to there being conditions that would attach to certain classes or to certain areas. That opens up the prospect of an appalling bureaucratic and administrative nightmare. It is estimated in the Bill that an additional £4.4 million will be spent on enforcement. I do not believe that that is the end of it because the Bill does not refer to the appeals mechanism which the Minister announced. I am not sure whether an appeals mechanism requires statute; we may be able to probe that matter in Committee.
  The hon. Member for St. Ives pointed out that, when milk quotas were introduced, almost everyone had individual circumstances which made them different. I am sure that the question will also arise with fishermen. Some hon. Members have mentioned the weather and there will no doubt be fishermen somewhere who had to tie up for three or four extra days in 1991 because they had to return to port to attend a funeral or for some other reason.
  Mr. Salmond: The compulsory tie-up.
  Mr. Wallace: Indeed; the compulsory tie-up is another reason.
  All hon. Members who have constituencies involving the fishing industry must have discovered that it is already almost a nightmare for anyone to work out exactly what the various conditions are. They depend on what percentage catches fishermen had in 1990 if they come into certain categories. There have been certain derogations according to gear options. The conditions differ according to species.
  When the milk quota regulations were introduced, I recall saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that our late hon. Friend, David Penhaligon, said that a farmer probably needed a Queen's counsel before he went out to milk the cows. I suspect that fishermen will be in dire need of having in-house or on—board legal advice before they put to sea. We are creating a bureaucratic nightmare in the Bill which
  68
  could be avoided if the Government were prepared to grasp the nettle and to put adequate resources into a decommissioning scheme.
  The Minister said that the Government would consult and that those consultations would be taken into account in the detail. One assumes that the Bill will go into Committee next Tuesday. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House later if the Government have any other thoughts. Next Tuesday is not long after this Friday, and there will not be much time to give proper consideration to any detailed submissions.
  Even though the Government, with good intent, have said that they are prepared to consult, there is a problem. An illustration of this is the implementation of the one-net rule, which has especially been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). The one-net rule has been mentioned in many of the industry's submissions on conservation measures, and there will always be many important qualifications attached to it.
  The qualifications relate especially to the by-catch arrangements which go with the use of a 70 mm net for the nephrops fisheries. The industry has said that there must be changes in the by-catch arrangements before the one-net rule is acceptable. Instead of that, the Government have gone ahead unilaterally and have introduced the one-net rule. They have not taken sufficient account of the qualifications that the industry always said should go along with the one-net rule. I know that the reason given is that the United Kingdom Government cannot change the by-catch rules on their own and that such a change requires Community endorsement.
  I hope that the Minister will state clearly that the Government intend to press for such changes in the European forum, not least when they have the opportunity to do so during Britain's presidency in the next six months. To hear that the Government intend to press for such changes would be of considerable benefit and reassurance to the industry, especially to fishermen who would be caught by the one-net rule. They hope that the Government will postpone to 1 January 1993 the introduction of the measure.
  I turn now to the issue of days at sea. I have already said that we believe that it is wrong that the issue should be the strings attached to the decommissioning proposal. Hon. Members have also asked whether the European Community will accept such a measure as a means of fulfilling MAGP targets. Have the Government any assurance on that? The hon. Member for St. Ives has made the point strongly that our industry will take it badly if it is subject to increasing tie-ups while industries from other Community countries are free to fish in the same waters without such restrictions.
  The point has also been raised about whether any other industry could be expected to accept the sterilisation of its assets without adequte compensation. Contrasts have been made with the position in agriculture, where those who have now been effectively compelled to set aside land have been compensated for doing so. That is a question of surplus capacity in land; here we have a question of surplus catching capacity.
  The Minister gave an interesting answer. He sought to make a distinction by saying that there is a quota in the fishing industry and that the fisherman would catch his quota anyway. That raises even more fundamental questions about why we are to have tie-up days at all if the

  69
  quotas will be caught anyway. We need a proper explanation of what the Minister meant because there seems to be a denial of economic efficiency. It appears that the Government are adopting the easy option when it would be worth while to try other measures, such as an adequate decommissioning scheme.
  Various reasons have been given to explain why the days-at-sea restrictions are not wholly satisfactory. Safety considerations have been aired in a number of debates. I pointed out to the Minister, when he was so willing to take interventions, that proper consideration should be given to a boat that had to steam back to its home port or put into port for repairs.
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North that hon. Members may say things when they are on the Back Benches and then have them cast up when they become Ministers. The hon. Member for Dumfries is now able to do something about the matter. 1 am not trying to catch him out; I hope that he will now use his good offices. I remind him of what he said on 5 March 1991—
  Sir Hector Monro: It was very good stuff.
  Mr. Wallace: Indeed, it was very good stuff and I am sure that the Minister will enjoy my repeating it. He said:
  "We all know that we cannot amend the instrument; we can only reject or accept it. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the interpretation of the regulations and be flexible. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider the sea time between the port where the fish have been landed and the journey to the home port. A vessel may land fish in Peterhead while its home port may be Lossiemouth or Burghead. The journey back to home port is a dead sea time during which no fishing takes place, but that time must count towards the eight days."—[Official Report, 5 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 241.]
  The Minister was spot on. I remember the speech well, and I am sure that, now that he is in a position to encourage such flexibility, we can rely on him to do so.
  I think that it is widely accepted that vessels of less than 10 m in length should now come within the licensing regime, although, again, we must remember that we enter dangerous ground if we give the Government open-ended powers. The Minister said that he did not at present intend to extend the days-at-sea restrictions to vessels of less than 10 m in length. The trouble is that a much more unreasonable Minister may follow in the hon. Gentleman's shoes, in which case that assurance would be worthless. That is why it is important that we should be careful about granting Ministers such open-ended powers.
  On the question of quota trading, it has been clear that the idea of individual tradeable quotas is something about which many hon. Members have great reservations because of the possibility of their being concentrated in relatively few hands. The Minister sought to reassure us, but we should like to know more about what he has in mind with regard to producer organisations taking in track record. Does he envisage the producer organisations holding on to their share and distributing it annually among their members? Will the share be held within a community for future generations of fishermen? If the idea is to try to maintain fishing activity within a particular community, do the Government have any idea of the way forward for communities such as those in Orkney, in my constituency, where there is no particular producer organisation linked to the community and where vessels belong to a variety of producer organisations?
  70
  With regard to the mid-term review, there is widespread agreement on the need for relative stability. Will the Under-Secretary amplify the statement that the Minister made in his opening remarks that provisions regarding the Shetland box would be confirmed? Did he mean that they would be confirmed as they are at present? What is the Government's response to the suggestion, which I support, that the box should be geographically extended and that there should be greater restrictions on the number of vessels that may enter and operate in it than has been the case for the past 10 years?
  Finally, may I propose that a suitable and pragmatic way forward would be to refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee? That would allow the industry and others to make representations and give evidence, which members of the Committee could then consider. Given the sweeping powers available to Ministers under the Bill and the lack of time for adequate consultation, it would be a sign of good will and good faith on the part of the Government—a sign that they mean what they say about taking into account the detailed representations of the industry—if they accepted that suggestion. The Bill would be well suited to the Special Standing Committee procedure, and I hope that, in the spirit of co-operation and of consultation, in the true meaning of the word, that course will commend itself to the Government.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: It is a particular pleasure to be the first Conservative Member to speak following the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). She and I have met before and I have no doubt that she will bring to our deliberations the same wit, good humour and ability that Ken Warren always displayed. It is a particular pleasure to see hers among old and familiar faces here today.
  It is less of a pleasure to take part in a debate with the Bill as its subject. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made a powerful speech outlining the concerns that are widely felt about the measure before us. We must, of course, be serious about the need for conservation. Anyone with any sense and with any knowledge of the industry accepts that, but there must be proper management, and I welcome the fact that the Government have produced a package.
  I also welcome the fact that we are at last to have a decommissioning scheme. My own view was that such a scheme was inevitable and that it was simply a question of how soon it came into being. There remains the question of its adequacy or otherwise. I had intended to ask the Under-Secretary of State the extent to which he saw that decommissioning scheme leading to a reduction in capacity. In answer to earlier cross-questioning, he gave a figure of only 5 per cent. That seems to me to be a very small reduction, given the figures that are bandied around in connection with the possible extent of overcapacity in the industry. The figures that I have seen range from 12 per cent. through 20 and 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. I should have thought that 40 per cent. was on the high side, but 5 per cent.—if that is, indeed, the reduction that will result from decommissioning—seems very modest, and seems to leave far too much overcapacity to be dealt with by other technical measures.
  One of the sad facts about today's debate is that the Bill is regarded as having been introduced with improper

  71
  haste. I realise that it is an enabling Bill and that it has the whole of its parliamentary proceedings ahead of it. In my view, however, it would have been much more sensible to wait until the consultation period ended on 12 June. There will, of course, be time for views to be taken into account during the Bill's later stages, but in view of the difficulties facing the industry it was perhaps insensitive to introduce the Bill at this point.
  I remain uncertain as to the effects that the Bill will have. On the one hand, we hear that it will put a large number of fishermen out of business; on the other, we are told that there will be more intensive effort and therefore no reduction in the total catch. I am therefore somewhat confused about the likely outcome. The Minister said that if the Bill resulted in too intensive an effort he might have to go back to Brussels. I could not quite understand how Brussels entered into the consideration of the Bill. As I understand it, it is a national move not reflected elsewhere in the Community. That point has been strongly made by Members on both sides of the House. It is essential that there should be fair competition between our industry and others in Europe.
  That brings me to the question of enforcement and the future of the Royal Navy fishery protection squadron. I understand that in Scotland the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries operates some vessels of its own, proving that it is possible for civilian vessels to fulfil the role. We are all aware that the squadron is held in extremely high regard by the industry and we would certainly not want the standard of enforcement to fall. We need to ensure that those from abroad who compete against our industry do so in accordance with the rules. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will refer in his winding-up speech to the suggestion that there is to be a phasing out of the Royal Navy's excellent capability and tell us a little more about the Government's proposals.
  I think that the word "draconian" was correctly used to describe the powers which can be taken under the Bill. I do not believe that they will be used in a draconian way, but there is a danger that they could. I seek an assurance that such powers would never be used without a debate in the House, on each occasion on which their exercise is sought. That is a perfectly reasonable request and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it positively.
  This is a Bill of great significance for the industry, which is facing a difficult time, as it has throughout my time in the House. We now have the mid-term review hanging over us, and that is probably the most important issue facing the industry. I believe that the powers under the Bill will be sensibly and fairly applied by the Ministers now responsible, but there is a danger that at some future stage they may not be. We need to know a great deal more about the details of the Government's view of the implementation of the powers that they propose to take.
  I am concerned that fishermen will have to give 12 hours notice if they wish to register themselves as being in port. That will mean that they cannot take advantage of the weather in choosing the days on which their vessels will be laid up. I am sure that all of us will want to ensure that there is no compulsion to go to sea in dangerous conditions simply to comply with what is regarded as a negative rule.
  72
  I welcome the proposal on decommissioning. All those active in the industry and I have been campaigning for that for a very long time, but we should spare a thought for the crews of the vessels concerned. The owners will obtain compensation, but what about the crews? Those crews might need retraining. To make a local point, we have an excellent training school in North Shields which is not replicated over a great distance north and south. Places like the North Shields training school should be encouraged to expand their traditional training of fishermen to retraining those who may give up their time at sea as a result of the introduction of the decommissioning scheme.
  The Bill is necessary as part of an overall package. However, I share the doubts expressed so admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives about the extent, in theory, of the power being taken in the Bill. I hope that during the passage of the Bill there will be assurances which will enable it to be seen as positive rather than negative as is feared by the industry at present.
  7 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, whilst acknowledging the need for conservation measures, fails to make provision for any compensation for effort limitation in terms of the days at sea restrictions; deeply regrets that the Government have chosen, unnecessarily, to make sea days limitation a prerequisite for a full decommissioning scheme
  for the fishing fleet; expresses concern that the Government is proceeding with this legislation during a consultation period; and calls on the Government to postpone the legislation until such time as it has been able to take stock of any contributions made to the consultation process."
  I noted with some interest the slightly different attitude displayed by the Minister of State when he opened today's debate. He is normally noted for some degree of truculence. I found his contribution today to be positively mild in comparison. I can conclude only that he was almost begging for support, given the weakness of the Bill.
  I welcome three things, the first of which is the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). She said that she would have to do the work of six Members of Parliament in her constituency. If she represents the fishing industry diligently, that ratio will certainly continue with regard to her work in Parliament. More seriously, she referred to low pay in her constituency. That reference was refreshing and welcome because low pay has not always been the highest priority of Conservative Members. If the hon. Lady continues to represent the low paid in her constituency, and particularly the low-paid workers in the fish processing sector, she will make some welcome contributions to our debates on the fishing industry.
  Secondly, I welcome the fact that as a by-product of the Bill we are having a full day's debate on the fishing industry. The debate will be well supported. However, it is a source of some regret that the usual channels managed to synchronise this debate with a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, which has put so many Scottish Members with constituency fishing interests—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—in the difficult position of trying to be in two places at the same

  73
  time. The needs and requirements of Scottish Members should be borne in mind when such arrangements are made.
  Thirdly, I welcome to the Government Front Bench the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is responsible for fisheries in Scotland. His record in the fishing industry has already been mentioned and I hope that I am not damning him with faint praise when I say that hon. Members from fishing constituencies in Scotland hope for a rather more responsive attitude to our comments in the Chamber than perhaps we received from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who was the hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Commons fisheries spokesman.
  Even at this early stage, there are danger signs that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in the process of changing from poacher to gamekeeper. We all remember his vigorous speeches from the Opposition Benches in defence of the fisheries industry. The letter that I received from the Under-Secretary of State on 2 June, to which two hon. Members have already referred, was a sign of an intellect in transition in respect of the hon. Gentleman's stance on the fishing industry.
  The hon. Gentleman's previous remarks about the industry have been trenchant and robust, but in contrast the letter of 2 June casts a view of the industry which seems to suggest that everything in the past wee while has been a record of sweetness and light. The letter suggested that there is now an elegant inter-relationship in the industry between technical conservation, capacity constraints and effort control, and that we have the best fisheries policy in the best of all worlds. Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State drafts his own letters and takes a more forceful role as a Minister, I am sure that he will cast his mind back to his own recollection—a memory that 1 share—of the real history of fishing policy over the past four years.
  I remember that four years ago the Scottish Fishermen's Federation produced a raft of conservation measures and appealed for support for some excellent suggestions, but the Government's response was not, as the Under-Secretary of State suggested in his letter, one of constructive appraisal. At first, the Government pretended that the proposals did not exist. There was a full year's hiatus while the Government demanded that the industry put some conservation proposals on the table when the industry had already released a very extensive conservation document.
  The Government then went through a secondary phase of blaming Brussels for the mistakes in terms of fisheries policy. [Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has joined us. The epitome of that strategy occurred during the compulsory continuous tie-up scheme when Brussels was blamed for the eight-day tie-up, despite the fact that the Secretary of State had described it in this House as another sensible proposal.
  The Government also decided to pick and choose which conservation measures to take from the industry's proposals. A good example of that from today's debate is the one-net rule. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation did not propose a one-net rule without the attendant change in the by-catch arrangements which would make that acceptable to the industry. The Government's current approach is not so much a carrot and stick approach as a stick and then the carrot approach. We have primary
  74
  legislation before us on effort limitation but there is a consultation period in respect of the decommissioning proposals.
  The track record in the past four years has not, as the Under-Secretary of State was perhaps forced to suggest in his letter to Scottish Members, been one of sweetness and light and accord in the industry. The track record has been one of exceptionally shabby treatment of one of Scotland's great natural resource industries.
  I have agreed with the Minister of State on very few things in fisheries debates over the past three years or so in which he has been a fisheries Minister. I cannot think of a single measure or occasion when we have been anything but almost diametrically opposed in respect of his proposals for the industry, with the sole exception of the 80 mm square mesh panel. For a few brief weeks the Minister of State promoted that very hard. However, after mumblings about it at one Fisheries Council meeting, it was abandoned as a compulsory feature of policy. It now seems to be even disappearing from the industry's research projects.
  I do not believe that the Government's track record in the industry accords with the new view of the Under-Secretary of State. At best, the measures on fishing policy have been perverse, often having exactly the opposite effect to that which was originally intended. They have certainly all been confusing.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked questions about the maze of regulations which now afflict the white fish fleet. Perhaps I can help him by explaining the no fewer than five different standings under which boats in the white fish fleet can currently sail. For example, a white fish boat could sail with a minimum mesh size of 100 mm and a square mesh optional panel of 90 mm. Alternatively, in the directed whiting fishery, the mesh would be 90 mm. If, on the other hand, the boat fished west of Scotland, it might sail with a minimum mesh size of 80 mm with a square mesh panel of 80 mm. As an alternative to the 135-day tie-up scheme, a vessel could sail with a minimum mesh size of 110 mm and an optional square mesh panel of 100 mm and 67 tie-up-days or a minimum mesh size of 120 mm and an optional square mesh panel of 110 mm and no tie-up days. There are no fewer than five different standards for boats within the white fish fleet in relation to technical conservation.
  Therefore, a boat could sail with 100 mm nets, 90 mm nets, or 80 mm nets depending on which area of the fishing grounds it is pursuing. On a cod end, a boat could have a limit of 100 meshes or no limitation at all, depending on the geographical area in which it is fishing. With regard to square mesh panels, depending on the geographical area, a boat could have a 90 mm optional square mesh panel, an 80 mm mandatory square mesh panel, or no requirement at all. In terms of strengthening bags with top-side chafers, there are no restrictions or no overlapping panel, once again depending on the area in which a boat is fishing.
  All those regulations affect the white fish fleet at present. It is little wonder that many people in the industry believe that they are being snowed under by regulations which make a sensible framework of policy virtually impossible. It is only surprising that the enforcement proposals will involve additional expenditure of only —4 million. It is equally unsurprising that it is proving impossible to police present regulations and measures when there is such enormous complexity.

  75
  With such a track record, the Government should start to display just a little humility in their approach to the industry. The argument that the timing of this Bill does not really matter, that we are proceeding with primary legislation during a consultation period because this is just an enabling measure on which we shall get the details later, is one of the weakest arguments that we have heard even from the present Government. Unless we know the policy framework under which the Minister is to pursue his enabling measure, how on earth can we judge whether it is right and proper to give him the powers for which he is asking?
  At the very least, the measure should be delayed until after the consultation period. The idea of a consultative period sits very uneasily with the decision to go forward with the unilateral imposition of the one-net rule. As has already been noted, it is having the most perverse effect of setting off a stampede into the white fishery.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that he will respond to our concerns. I hope that before he sums up the debate he will reflect on how ironic it is to propose legislation on effort limitation while simultaneously, as a by-product of that unilateral imposition, actually increasing effort in the very sector in which he is trying to limit it. The Government are enforcing a unilateral measure in respect of the one-net rule. There is no excuse, pretext, alibi or claim that the measure must go to a Fisheries Council meeting. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to say, "We shall think again about the one-net rule to see whether we can get through the by-catch changes which have been proposed for so long by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and see whether the proposal can be implemented properly rather than causing the chaos, confusion and the undesirable, perverse effects currently occurring around the coast of Scotland."
  As the House will note from our amendment, we also deeply resent the linkage element within the Government's fisheries policy. If, in the teeth of opposition by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it is now accepted that decommissioning is a legitimate and sensible measure to be part of the overall fisheries policy, surely that measure should be accepted and promoted in its own right as a stand-alone measure and should not depend on the industry swallowing the unacceptable pills in the Bill and in the introduction of transferable quotas.
  I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that certain aspects of the decommissioning scheme need to be looked at. Overall funding levels do not compare with what was available to other European fleets. The Minister of State said that the scheme that he is working to introduce is more powerful in financial provision than that which had been available to the French fleet. He did not mention the £130 million structural assistance which has gone to other Community fleets in the past three years but which has not been available to United Kingdom fishermen because of the Government's obduracy in refusing to introduce a proper decommissioning scheme. There must be a provision to compensate the crews of fishing vessels.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I do not always agree on every aspect of fisheries policy, but I have been very happy to support his
  76
  campaign for justice for crews in the previous decommissioning scheme about eight years ago. It would be absolute folly, in pursuing a new decommissioning scheme, once again to make no provision for the crews of fishing vessels.
  It is deeply resented in the industry that a sensible proposal which has been agreed on the Floor of the House and by most of the fishing industry can be introduced only if and when the industry is prepared to accept the unacceptable, as contained in the measure and in the proposal to move to transferable quotas.
  The Minister of State claimed that the transferable quota proposal was not his "pet project", but rather an attempt to introduce market mechanisms into the fishing industry. Hon. Members who have followed the fortunes of the fishing industry in the past few years know all too well that the proposal in the consultation document is an uneasy compromise between the Scottish Office, which has wanted decommissioning for some years but has been resisting transferable quotas, and MAFF in London, which has wanted transferable quotas and market mechanisms but has been resisting decommissioning. The agreement between the two Departments has been to give the industry both. Unless the industry has both, the uneasy compromise between the two Departments will fall apart. I do not see why the industry should be made the victim of the fact that the various fisheries Ministers in their respective Departments cannot agree on fisheries policy and therefore have to browbeat the industry into accepting the unacceptable for the carrot of a decommissioning scheme.
  The Minister of State says that transferable quotas are acceptable because it is not really a free market and the measure will be restricted to producer organisations. It is strange to argue for the introduction of market mechanisms in the fishing industry and then to defend that introduction on the basis that it is not really a free market after all. Hon. Members who represent fishing communities are extremely concerned that this will be merely the thin end of the wedge in terms of the final introduction of individual transferable quotas. Eventually, it will lead us—as it has led elsewhere in the world fishing community, for example, in the Bay of Fundy herring fishery in Canada —to a concentration of all quotas in a few hands, rather like the pelagic fleet at present; the white fish fleet will move down the same road, leading to possible destruction of the community-based, share fishing industry of Scotland.
  I hope that the Government have noted the opposition on both sides of the House and will take the opportunity to think again about their attitude to the fishing industry. I was struck by the vigorous criticism of the Government's proposals by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). It took my mind back to his speech on the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1988, when he made an extremely effective and equally vigorous denunciation of part of the Government's proposals. I remember being rather disappointed, however, that when it came to a vote the hon. Gentleman did not fully follow through the logic of his remarks. Conservative Members who, as a result of lobbying by their respective community fisheries, have serious doubts about the impact and timing of the legislation have available to them an amendment which would send the Government "homeward to think again."
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie:
  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to make this, my first House of Commons speech. Thank you also for accepting that I have been in and out of the Chamber attending the Scottish Grand Committee which was organised as an extension at fairly short notice at popular request. I might point out that it finished well over an hour ago.
  I shall comply with the traditions of the maiden speech, particularly by referring to the pleasurable news which came out at the weekend about my predecessor George Younger, now Lord Younger. It is particularly pleasing to know that his experience will be retained in another place. The valued knowledge that he has gained will be put to good use in our country in the years ahead, I feel sure. His honour is well earned. He was Member of Parliament for Ayr for 28 years. My contact with the electorate on the doorsteps showed a great deal of admiration and respect for George Younger.
  There are special thanks for George Younger in my constituency for many things, perhaps none more important than our new hospital, the Ayr hospital, which was opened by the Prime Minister just last week. It is an excellent facility, built to time and built to cost. It is an excellent example of great Scottish civil engineering. Scotland is reputed for many aspects of excellence in engineering. The hospital was planned when George Younger was Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The existence of the Craigie teacher training college in my constituency is also thanks to George Younger. It had been threatened with closure by Governments of opposing colours but has been retained thanks to the efforts of George Younger. British Aerospace, too, has been under threat at times, but it is now building Jetstream 31 and Jetstream 41, the only aircraft designed and constructed in Scotland for many years.
  British Aerospace was also persuaded to stay in Prestwick by none other than George Younger. Prestwick airport is its base. It is often the only airport in Scotland— and probably in England—to remain open when skies are cloudy and the fog rolls over. The open skies policy presents new opportunities for Prestwick airport, particularly now that a new local company has been established to run it. Who is the chairman? None other than Lord Younger.
  Ailsa Perth shipbuilders, which is very much involved in the fishing industry, was at one time threatened by closure under the dead hand of nationalised industry but was saved through a workers co-operative supported by George Younger. It is now prospering, and I suggest that it will do well in the years ahead.
  Not only George Younger's constituents have reason to be grateful to him. As a junior Scottish Office Minister and as Secretary of State for Scotland he served the country well. He was recognised as a strong, determined Secretary of State and an achiever. Not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom we owe him a debt, for as Secretary of State for Defence he proved equal to the task. Perhaps one point to remember is his background in the Army and his experience in saving the Argylls. That is a point for our present Secretary of State for Defence, another former excellent Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). Perhaps he should
  78
  take on board some of George Younger's thoughts in respect of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers.
  My constituency of Ayr has 15 miles of golden beaches. It has two harbours—Ayr fishing and trading harbour, and Troon, where a safe haven provides good mooring for our fishing fleet. Fifteen miles inland good quality farmland embraces the towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon and the villages of Loans, Symington, Dundonald, Craigie, Monkton and Tarbolton. It is, to say the least, the heart of Burns country. Robert Burns, the United Kingdom's most celebrated poet, described Ayr people as, "Honest men and bonnie lasses". He was right. Burns was many things but never a fisherman. He was an excise man. Perhaps if he had to take on board today's Bill, he might have been one of the monitors that we seek.
  The people of Ayr have a wide range of skills and interests—from city commuters to foundry workers, and from aircraft designers to fishermen. Recently, European Monitors were established in Prestwick freeport. Their reason for settling there, apart from the infrastructure—which is good but could be better, especially if the A70 was turned into a trunk road to benefit our industries as well as fishing—was the excellence of our people. European Monitors are welcome in Ayr.
  I also welcome the conservation intentions in the Bill. Many of the measures relate principally to activities in the North sea, but their effects and requirements are of vital importance to the west coast fishermen and especially those on the Clyde. Prawn fishing in those areas runs the risk of over-exploitation. There is a real problem and a risk, not from the traditional fishermen of the area but from fishermen from other other locations. Prawn fishing is key to the activities at Ayr harbour. Loadings are important, but the export aspect is also of great import. There is also an impact on our tourist industry, on which Ayrshire depends. The harbour is a key attraction for tourists throughout the year.
  As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, the Clyde fishermen have already taken their own conservation measures. They have imposed a voluntary weekend ban on fishing. Fishermen from the rest of Scotland comply with that ban but, sadly, not all fishermen do so. Some foreign interests still do not observe the ban. I welcome the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that this voluntary ban would be taken into consideration in future.
  It is hard to understand the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party condemning the efforts at conservation, particularly in view of the history of discussions in Europe in which it was suggested that tie-up was the thing. British Ministers opposed that vigorously and we now have achieved a flexible solution.
  I draw the attention of the House to the single-rig-multi-rig option. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) suggested that there was confusion in ministerial ranks on the issue, but when I talk to the fishermen, certainly in the Clyde, I find a certain degree of confusion among them. There is a 50:50 split on whether to go for single-rig or multi-rig. I believe that dual rigs have certain advantages. Bearing in mind environmental issues and quotas, dual rigs would cut down fishing time at sea to obtain similar volume catches. I believe that there

  79
  are savings to be found in using diesel. The dual rig system would bring important financial savings to fishermen. I wonder about the wisdom of the single-rig philosophy.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) might well consider a change of date for the imposition of single-rig. I am sure that all hon. Members would welcome that today.
  I am also concerned at the unilateral nature of the Bill and about the fact that United Kingdom fishermen will be obliged to comply but others will not. Once again, I am encouraged by the words of my hon. Friend the Minister, who said that discussions were under way with the southern Irish about the management of stocks in the Irish sea and on the west coast. I am sure that that will be welcome.
  I do not turn my back on the £25 million in cash which will be available for decommissioning—I welcome it. Scottish Members have been asking for just such a programme for years, and it would seem churlish to criticise today. However, having said that I welcome decommissioning, it has another side. There is a feeling in the fishing industry on the west coast that some support for family boats could have been sustained. I recognise the impracticalities of that. Probably I am impractical in believing that some advantage could be gained by decommissioning boats on the east coast and allowing transfer with subsequent west coast stand down.
  I suggest that decommissioning and conservation measures can never be popular, especially in the fishing industry, but the long-term interests of the industry are at stake, and I support the Government's intentions in the Bill.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on a forceful and vigorous speech, which was all the more effective for its strong defence of local interests. Fishing does not have enough advocates and defenders in the House. It needs the vigour with which he effectively defended the industry today. It is always possible for hon. Members to pursue the defence of those interests in the Lobby after the debate, and I am sure that the Government Whips will extend some indulgence to a new Member who is vigorously defending the interests of his fishermen.
  The hon. Member for Ayr made a powerful contribution to the debate, and we concur with his praise for his predecessor, who was a nephew of one of my predecessors, Kenneth Younger, who made an important contribution to the House. I also welcome the hon. Member's praise of Robbie Burns, not because I have much knowledge of his poetry—my knowledge is limited to third degree Burns—but because he was a socialist and preached socialism in much of his poetry. It is good to know that the hon. Member is an enthusiast of Burns.
  We all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr, unlike the Bill that we are debating, which is not merely retrograde but disastrous. If we pass it, we shall give Ministers a blank cheque—an authorisation slowly to strangle the fishing industry, which is important to us all.
  I am sorry that the Minister of State is associated with the Bill. I congratulate him, in his absence, on his promotion. He has been an effective Minister with
  80
  responsibility for fishing, whose interest in the industry we have all welcomed. He has been one of the best Ministers for fishing and has certainly taken a closer interest in the industry than many of his predecessors. It is a shame that he is marring that record with the Bill, because it puts him completely at variance with the industry, which was not consulted about the measure. It is no good saying that the industry will be consulted now. Retrospective consultation, while we are debating the measure, is no more than a request for a blank cheque.
  The fishing industry is extremely angry and has united against the measure in a way which we have never known before. In long years of dealing with the industry it has always been disunited, as the hon. Member for Ayr said, and it has had a series of discordant voices urging different things, but it is totally united in opposition to the measure.
  The Bill is disastrous because it goes down the wrong path. It pursues the dead-end street of control, regulation and bureaucratisation. The Minister might call it socialism, but I would call it the Delorisation of the fishing industry. It is the opposite of socialism, which sets people free. It is bureaucracy, control and restriction of the industry, based on the simple-minded equation that the way to cut catches is to remedy the Government's failure to cut the fleet through a proper decommissioning scheme, which should have been introduced several years ago. That is why we have to deal with this Bill—it is ministerial failure. The Government are trying to cut catches by cutting the amount of time that vessels can spend at sea, and that is a daft way to go about it.
  The Bill will not be effective and it will put the British industry—including the Grimsby industry, with which I am concerned—at a serious disadvantage compared with that of our European competitors. We are asking the industry to compete with a ball and chain around its leg. While it is shackled because of the number of days that vessels can spend at sea, our European competitors will be competing for the same catches on the same grounds. However, their catches are not as closely monitored and controlled. Judging by evidence of arrests and prosecutions in Grimsby, many of our competitors do not keep proper log books and a proper account of their catches. They are not controlled, but our vessels' days at sea will be limited. The Bill will help our competitors, and fishing is a competitive industry.
  The Bill will not affect stocks because our competitors will catch the stocks that our vessels are not catching. It will be particularly helpful to those flagships—the quota hoppers which are now registered as British—which fish from European ports but catch the British quota. How will their performance, in terms of days at sea, be controlled by the measure? When the Under-Secretary sums up, I hope that he will tell us how the quota hoppers will be policed and how their days at sea will be monitored.
  Dutch quota hoppers have caught substantial amounts of plaice, and as a result the catches of Grimsby vessels, which catch plaice in season and in due proportion, have had to be limited because of over-catching by beamers. Quota hoppers will have to be limited, but as they land their catches overseas and are hardly accountable in this country, I do not understand how they can be effectively controlled.
  The Bill merely shackles the fishing industry and interferes with its economics. It will be totally disruptive. If, as we are told, the aim is a 30 per cent. cut in effort, how will it affect the economics for each fisherman and fishing

  81
  company, especially the larger, commercially-competitive companies on which we depend for catches in distant waters? The Bill will be as disruptive for them as for the smaller Grimsby vessels, which are barely profitable. Their catches are down and their receipts in the market have not proportionately increased. The smaller fishermen are staggering along. They are keeping going, but they will be held back when the limit on days at sea is introduced.
  If one translates the 30 per cent. cut into the economics of income per vessel, the economics of a company and the viability of the industry, the effect will be disastrous. The result will he restructuring by bankruptcy and by liquidation. In compensation for the Government's failure to produce a proper decommissioning system and a managed restructuring of the industry, haphazard bankruptcies will be enforced because of the limits imposed by the Bill.
  There has been no study of the Bill's effect on the economics and viability of the industry. Why not? Why cannot Ministers tell us how the Bill will affect vessels and the industry? Because they have not studied it. It is a leap in the dark, and the Minister is asking us to sanction it because he has wanted for so long to save money on decommissioning.
  The Bill will have dangerous results. Vessels will put to sea in worse condition. Worst of all, it will not help conservation. When vessels are allowed to go to sea they will go fiat out to catch the maximum numbers, and it will not matter what species they catch. They will not target fish or go to specific areas to get them. They will go where they can to catch sufficient numbers, whether they be small or large fish. Vessels will have to make the maximum catch in the shortest possible time to use their gear to the maximum. By using larger crews or more intensive gear, it is possible to increase the catch. Nets could be in the water more destructively, and for longer, despite the days-at-sea limitation.
  The Bill is not an effective conservation measure but will penalise conservation-conscious ports such as Grimsby whose fishermen have always used a bigger mesh net. Grimsby vessels use up to a 125 mm mesh because they practise selective catching—they want the largest, best, and most marketable fish. In future, they will be forced to catch as much fish as possible in the time that they have at sea, just to fill up.
  Worst of all, the Bill will stop the search for other, more effective conservation-conscious solutions. Quotas are in themselves a bad way of controlling catches. They lead to discards and to political manipulation. In the past, we insisted on quotas, and now we seek a limit on the number of days at sea. We have not considered technical measures that could be far more effective in achieving proper conservation.
  The fishing effort is more directly related to the type of gear, the way that it is used, and the size of the mesh, than it is to the number, horsepower, or tonnage of the vessels involved. The Bill is a national measure, so it should justify the search for national conservation measures. Why not consider even bigger mesh sizes?
  Why not insist on the square panel? Why has square mesh research been left so late, and why has so much of it been left to the industry? Why not go ahead with square mesh panels, which John Ashworth's research indicates are an effective way of improving conservation, by allowing smaller fish to escape? Why not ban any gear that stops the escape of small fish?
  82
  Clearly, industrial fishing must be phased out. Fishing for human consumption must take priority. Why not ban industrial fishing altogether rather than seek conservation by a measure such as the Bill, with its disastrous effects on the British industry? Why not restrict beam trawling, with its destructive effects on the sea bed? Other measures could include the closure of specific grounds, and the observance of specific trawling bans in spawning seasons.
  The industry is anxious to consult and is desperate to be heard. It has proposed solutions and conservation measures, and has itself financed a good deal of the research that should have been undertaken by the Government. Why has all that been left to the industry? Why has it not been consulted about effective conservation measures? Instead, it has had imposed on it blanket legislation. Why is the industry being asked to make the sacrifices that it is, and to risk bankruptcies and liquidations, because the Minister has not been successful in getting money for a decommissioning scheme from the Treasury all these years?
  I speak almost obsessively of the Bill's effect on Grimsby, because during my time as its Member of Parliament I have witnessed the decimation of its fishing industry by the loss of distant waters opportunities. That of Iceland occurred before I was elected, but the consequences are still being felt. I watched the industry fight back, and reconstruct and reorganise itself as a nearer-water, small-vessel industry. Its prospect grew better until the late 1980s, when it faced a slow run-down, a reduction in catches, and a return that has not been enough to keep the vessels viable. The industry is now threatened.
  We need a fishing industry concentrated in places such as Grimsby, which serve as centres of fishing excellence offering the right training and facilities. They support the market and offer a concentration of fishing that is now threatened. The industry needs the support of local communities to recruit fishermen.
  The consequences of the Bill will fall particularly on share fishermen—on the badly paid crews who make a return for part of the year, but who often arrive home in debt. I receive letters from fishermen's wives asking, "Why is it that my husband can be sent to sea and come back owing the company large sums of money?" When a vessel has made little money, the crews earn hardly anything from the option of share fishing. Their catches will be cut by the Bill, and that will be disastrous for Grimsby.
  The Bill will benefit quota hoppers, Dutch beamers, and Spanish vessels. They have the commercial power and the financial strength to buy up licences as British fishing vessels are driven into liquidation. It is appalling that Ministers are not examining ways of controlling quota hoppers through the tax regime and by regulating landings in this country. It is particularly appalling at a time when the Government are imposing the death by a thousand cuts that the Bill represents.
  As Members of Parliament who represent ports and a fishing industry that is under-represented in the politics of this country, it is our responsibility to protect, nurture, defend, and sustain those ports through this difficult period so that they can be kept going as part of a viable, competitive industry, to inherit better catches in the better times that must lie ahead if we can get the conservation aspect straight. The Bill will not get it straight. It is a garotte that will be drawn tighter and tighter year by year. Ministers will find new ways of making surreptitious cuts

  83
  by tightening that garotte around the neck of the fishing industry to the point of total strangulation. It is not our job to give Ministers a blanket authorisation to garotte the fishing industry that we are here to defend.
  7.47 Pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on his excellent maiden speech. I was particularly interested in his remarks about the aircraft industry, of which I have some knowledge. He is right to say that the two aircraft that are built at Prestwick have a huge future ahead of them—particularly in the American export market. I am certain that many jobs will be created by the success of the Jetstream 41 in particular. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) on her very good maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more from both of them in the coming weeks and months.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have aired their views and worries about the Bill. Before I do so, I wish to make a couple of general points. Whenever we debate the fishing industry, we run up against the fact that it is in many ways hopelessly over-regulated, and whenever we attempt to even the balance, we end up producing even more measures which make it even harder for many fishermen to earn a living.
  We are now up against the problem of making things fair for fishermen in this country. We have no means of controlling the way in which foreign fishermen, or fishermen in other European Community countries, fish our own quota. I thought that the Minister's use of the word "subsidiarity" in this case was slightly misplaced. I am a great believer in the operation of the principle of subsidiarity throughout the European Community, but I think that the fishing industry is an exception. I would much prefer to see more uniformity in that industry across the Community so that we do not allow for the genuinely justified suspicion that, while we abide by the rules on quotas and the various methods of protecting our stocks, other nations have a slightly different view of how the regulations should be interpreted and applied. Across the board in the Community, from fishery protection duties to the number of people onshore checking the quotas and the amount of the catch that passes through a port, one sees considerable variations in the way in which regulations are applied. It will be difficult to ensure the uniform application of the days-at-sea proposal. If such uniform application is not obtained, it is likely that our fishermen will raise grievances because they will be forced to apply the rules others do not.
  In my port of Fleetwood, we have, from the start, always been keen on measures to conserve stocks and in that respect we have a good record. The fact remains that the long-term viability of our industry depends on increased stability and consistency in the future. It is difficult enough to make a living out of fishing these days, but it has become much harder when the rules and the goalposts are changing almost by the month. If that happens, it is difficult to encourage new blood into the industry and ensure that the people who have invested in it already have the opportunity to obtain a fair return on that investment.
  84
  In that respect, I was pleased to note that the Government have finally come round to the view that we should have a decommissioning scheme. I know many people say that the scheme is too small and too late, and in some ways that view is justified. It is absolutely right that if the scheme had been introduced earlier we would not now be faced with other measures to reduce effort and preserve stocks. Nevertheless, I welcome the scheme and sincerely hope that it will be an effective method of reducing the size of the fleet while—at the same time—making it possible for the remaining vessels and fishermen to become more viable and thus able to take advantage of any new openings which may occur. From that point of view, I am convinced that it is a good idea.
  I also urge the Minister to consider the cash limit if, in the future, it is shown that we can reduce effort and bring the amount of fishing more into line with the fish available by pushing a little more cash into the decommissioning scheme. That is a more effective way of producing a long-term and viable fishing industry than some of the other measures that have been mentioned. I hope that the Government will at least leave that door slightly open, bearing in mind the comments made by a number of hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), on the cost to the Treasury of the scheme. We have heard all sorts of figures, but I do not think that they will be quite so large as some of the figures that we have heard from the Government today.
  I welcome the introduction of a scheme for licensing vessels of less than 10 m. Clearly, that will get rid of the loophole which for the past few years has allowed some vessels to take easy advantage, whereby a new class of vessels of less than 10 m was introduced to get round the old system of licences for vessels of more than 10 m. Provided that that measure is used sensibly, it should have an effect on the amount of effort and the amount of fish caught in certain fisheries, particularly my own in the Irish sea.
  The technical measures on the size of nets are welcome, as are the thoughts on grading machines, which I hope will result in fewer discards than has been the case recently. It is frustrating for fishermen to have to cast back into the sea large numbers of dead fish which simply float on the surface but cannot be fished because they are too small. It has been suggested that the grading machine rules should be revised, which is a good idea.
  The most controversial and important part of the Bill is the days-at-sea and tie-up arrangements. My main worry on that method of reducing effort is the arbitrary way in which it is likely to achieve its purpose, if it does so at all. It will be almost impossible for the regulatory system to provide fairness and for that method of reducing effort to work properly. One of the key problems has already been mentioned. Fishermen, when they are allowed to fish, will have the perverse incentive to catch anything that they can, which will counteract some of the other measures designed to preserve stock. More of certain species will be caught than would otherwise be the case, because fishermen will rightly want to make the maximum attempt to fish wherever they can when they are allowed to do so.
  The other problem is that in some parts of the country it is possible, because of the larger vessels in some ports, to counter-balance and make allowance for the effects of the tie-up regulations. Many of those ports will not be affected so much as others. I am particularly conscious of that in relation to my port of Fleetwood, which has a relatively

  85
  old and small fleet. I am worried that its fishermen will put out to sea in conditions in which they would not normally do so simply in order to make ends meet. The tie-up may have a serious effect on safety and it will operate arbitrarily. I do not think that, ultimately, it will have a huge effect on the amount of fishing effort that takes place.
  I acknowledge that the Government have taken the view that the Bill must form part of a much larger package to reduce effort and to preserve stocks, but I have yet to be convinced that it will work in the way the Government suggest. I urge the Minister to consider the way in which the enabling power will apply and to try to ensure that there will be at least a degree of fairness so that there will not be bankruptcy for some fishermen, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), while others remain unaffected. That must be avoided at all costs. If we are to have effective means of preserving stocks, we must have a system which applies the agony evenly across the country and between ports.
  I welcome the Government's conversion to the idea of decommissioning, as it is something that many Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members have advocated for some time. The Government are going in the right direction and I also welcome the other aspects of the Bill, such as the technical and licensing measures. However, I have still to be convinced that the measures on tie-up and days at sea will be effective. I hope that we shall have more scientific evidence to prove that they will be effective before they are put into practice.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Those of us who read the Bill and then listened carefully to the Minister's response under cross-examination wondered whether we were discussing the same measure. It would probably be more fruitful for our debate if we could adjourn, read the Minister's response to the questions put to him, and then have a meaningful debate, not on what the Bill says but on the Minister's intentions. The cause and effect of the Bill will be determined not by the content or the written word but by that which does not appear: the regulations and the interpretations that the Minister will place on them. Indeed, in response to my question he gratuitously introduced an important measure. He undertook to set up an appeals procedure which would, I presume, be used to obviate the greatest injustices that will be created by the Bill.
  The fishing industry in Northern Ireland has no doubt that the Bill will have far-reaching consequences. Some members of the Northern Ireland fisheries producers organisation have told me that it represents the most dramatic change since the Magna Carta. I stood back in amazement and thought that that was a gross exaggeration, but then I thought about it. The right to fish in the Irish sea from the ports of South Down, Kilkeel and Ardglass have existed since long before the Magna Carta and, for the first time in their lives, fishermen will be proscribed by law from obtaining their livelihoods from the sea, as they have done for centuries.
  It is sad that the Bill has been introduced without the Government having fulfilled proper consultation with the various regional fish producers organisations, which we would normally expect when such dramatic measures are taken. Much has been made of the fact that the Bill is unilateral and would not apply to other EC countries. I see
  86
  the irony of that more than other hon. Members because my constituency of South Down has a water border with the Republic of Ireland. It is five miles from the major fishing port of Kilkeel, so that five miles away boats will put out to sea without that restriction. I did not catch all of the Minister's remarks about his consultation with the Government of the Irish Republic and the subject matters that were covered, but it was clear that they covered that very subject. If they were not, that would be a gross anomaly, with the fishing fleets from Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel putting out to fish with a grave disadvantage compared with those that leave from a port five miles down the coast.
  Equally important to me, because of the type of industry that pertains in Northern Ireland, is the fact that the communities there that devote their time to fishing depend almost entirely on fishing and processing the products of the sea for the economic infrastructure of their towns. Severe damage will be done not just to the industry but to the communities that the industry has served so well and so faithfully over many centuries.
  All of us subscribe to the need for conservation measures. Indeed, all the fishermen to whom I have spoken subscribe to that need. We are arguing about the most effective and fair way to accomplish those measures. The lack of decommissioning schemes has been one of the major contributing factors to the need to introduce such a draconian scheme. It is based on the fact that the fish producers organisations and many hon. Members including myself have, over the years, repeatedly asked the Government to introduce a meaningful decommissioning scheme in consultation with the industry and those who subscribe, as the fish would, to conservation.
  As for the Bill's practicality, one of the most reasonable steps for the Government to have taken before introducing such a strong measure would have been to make a scientiffic assessment of the scheme's effect. It would be scientific in the sense of its effect on conservation, and scientific-economic in the sense of its effect on the industry and the communities that depend on it. It is ludicrous that the Bill should be introduced without that basic information being available to the Government.
  The Bill is open-ended in terms of the ministerial power that it bestows. I shall read avidly the Minister's responses under cross-examination when he opened the debate because there is much more in what he promised than there is in the Bill. It would have been logical and proper for the Bill to have contained the most important of the undertakings that have been given verbally tonight. It is probably ironic that, at this moment in another place, the Law Lords are debating the validity of statements by Ministers outside the consideration of Bills. I look forward to hearing their decision.
  The Bill's viability must be questioned. Will it achieve what it sets out to achieve? One of the first steps that the Government could have taken was to take out of circulation those parts of the industry that wished to go voluntarily. Having accomplished that, they could then have seen what the shortfall was before deciding how to legislate for it. People who are now being pressed to the wall economically because of the quota systems would be willing—nay, anxious—to get out of the fishing industry had the Government given them an even handshake as they would in any other industry by way of compensation, support or set-aside.

  87
  A direct consequence of the Bill is that the most effective fishermen will not necessarily survive. There will be redundancies and fall-out in terms of people employed in the industry and those will not necessarily involve the most effective side of the industry. Those who will survive best will be those who are not totally committed to it. That will have a counter effect on an industry in competition with foreign fishing fleets, and the double jeopardy is that foreign fishing fleets will not be restricted by the Bill.
  Some hon. Members have mentioned safety. I have no doubt that, once the Bill is enacted, skippers and crews who depend on the sea for their livelihood will increase the risk that they already take and either stay at sea longer in unsuitable and unsafe conditions, or will put out from port in conditions that they would otherwise not risk, to try to achieve the maximum catch to make themselves a viable economic unit. The fishing industry is like any other—if it is not a viable economic unit, it goes to the wall financially.
  Another aspect of the Bill that weighs heavily with most of the fishermen to whom I speak is that of the bureaucracy that will be created. In the notes attached to the Bill there is a small comment about the number of jobs required and the cost of them. If the measure is to be effective, properly policed and adhered to, we should multiply that number by any figure from three to five. If it is not, there will be grave injustice.
  The Bill is grossly unfair to the industry as a whole. Any other industry faced with the need to cut its production and act in the interests of others—including conservationists, environmentalists and ourselves—would be entitled to ask for reasonable compensation. Many other industries in this country are presently polluting the environment, and the reason they give for not introducing anti-pollution measures is that they would not be cost effective. If it is not cost effective for Sellafield, for example, to introduce maximum environmental protection mechanisms, the same could he argued for the fishing industry. Indeed, I would go further and say that the maximum cost should be met by the Government.
  The Bill is not capable of being properly amended. As the Minister made clear in his opening remarks, the Bill contains many regulations and he has had to give many undertakings to the House to ensure that the Bill is sensible and practical. Therefore, I believe that the honest and proper thing to do would be to tear up the Bill and start again after full consultation with the fishing industry. That will not be done, but I believe that it is the right thing to do.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. John Sykes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in tonight's debate. As the new Member of Parliament representing Scarborough and Whitby, I am following in the footsteps of Sir Michael Shaw, who was our Member of Parliament for 26 years. He is universally popular and has exerted great influence over the constituency. From speaking to many people in Parliament. I know that Sir Michael is held in high esteem, both as an individual and as a parliamentarian. He was a long-standing member of the Chairmen's Panel and a member of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select
  88
  Committee on Selection. When I was a new candidate, Sir Michael was helpful, and I know that I shall be able to call on his advice in years to come.
  As well as their craggy, 45-mile coastline, Scarborough and Whitby also boast some of England's most magnificent countryside: the wild, rugged north Yorkshire moors, valleys forged millions of years ago by glaciers, and rolling wolds which are efficiently tended by hard-working farmers, whose forebears have tended the land for 1,500 years. In all, the district is an excellent touring base for holidaymakers.
  Scarborough and Whitby have also played an important role in shaping our nation's history. Captain Cook, who discovered New Zealand, had connections with Whitby. I take it as a tribute to the ancient fishing town and its people that the American space shuttle, Endeavour, was named in honour of Captain Cook and his ship, which was built in the boatyards of Whitby all those years ago. As the shuttle travelled the heavens recently, it carried within its space-age hold the rudder from the original ship, Endeavour.
  It is said that Whitby was once England's sixth largest port, and that it was also the first town in the country to benefit from street lighting, due to the plentiful supply of whaling oil. Travelling even further back in time, in 665 the synod of Whitby marked a turning point in the development of the Church of England. Its decision to follow Roman usages rather than Celtic usages brought the English church into much closer contact with the continent—perhaps that was an early version of "ever-closer union". That policy backfired when the English jettisoned the idea of ever-closer union during the reign of Henry VIII and the Reformation. That is a good reason for the European Community to hold its next summit in Whitby. Caedmon—pronounced Cadman—who lived in Whitby until he died in 680, is acknowledged by many to be England's first poet.
  Whitby is bounded by the sea on one side and the north Yorkshire moors on the other. Most of the region comes under the control of the national park, about whose activities I receive more complaints in my postbag than anything else. The town has retained all its charm and escaped the excesses of 1960s and 1970s architecture. If one sails out of Whitby harbour and looks back, there will be little in one's view of the town that one's 19th century counterpart would not have seen had he or she undertaken a similar voyage.
  Travelling further down the coast, passing the beautiful village of Robin Hood's Bay, one arrives in Scarborough. The headland was first used by the Romans as a warning station. I am glad to say that we make our visitors from Glasgow far more welcome these days. The Vikings prevailed in the end and Scarborough became a 10th century fishing village, taking its name from the Nordic chief who settled there, Skarthi. In the 12th century a Norman keep was built near the present castle.
  An interesting factor about Scarborough and Whitby, which form one of Yorkshire's most beautiful constituencies, is that a slice of it is owned by the Duke of Lancaster. That was because Henry III's son Edmund received from his father the honour of Pickering and the manor of Scalby in 1267, at much the same time as he was granted the earldom of Lancaster, the land of which now comprises the Duchy. Therefore, I hasten to assure my hon. Friends

  89
  from Lancashire that what I have told them is merely the result of historical continuity, not some great Lancastrian feat of arms during the Wars of the Roses.
  Richard III, Lord of Scarborough, visited us in 1484 to review his fleet and subsequently granted us our town charter, the motto of which is "Loyalty Binds Me" —a fact that the Whips have already brought to my attention. Northstead manor in Peasholm was held by Richard III. As with the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, a Member of Parliament who wishes to resign may apply for the stewardship of the Manor of Northstead—another fact that has been brought to my attention by the Whips.
  In 1626 the spa was developed, so we can claim to be England's first resort. The town has many fine buildings due to Edward VII's patronage. It is a town with a proud royal heritage.
  Another heritage of which we in Scarborough and Whitby are justly proud is that of the fishing industry—a heritage that spans 1,000 years. I call the fishermen in my constituency my floating voters, but not in the democratic sense. I have had experience of the fishing industry and of what the fishermen go through so that we may enjoy fish on our tables. I went to sea with Bob Walker, the skipper of the Jan Denise, on a rough night. It was a distinctly queasy experience.
  The fishermen of Scarborough and Whitby are also feeling uneasy about the exact operation of the days-at-sea regulations that the Bill will allow the Minister to impose on them. I urge the Minister to take account of the fact that, if the days-at-sea regulations are to he based on 1991 figures, many fishermen in my constituency will he doubly disadvantaged as they were already under the days-at-sea restrictions in that year. Therefore, they could be facing restrictions on restrictions. Will the Minister consider the case of a fisherman in Scarborough who was said to have taken his boat out in order to assist a colleague whose boat was in trouble, only to find on his return that his mercy mission would be counted by officials as one of his days at sea?
  It must also be remembered that, for safety reasons, smaller boats of less than 10 m are unable to set out in the adverse weather conditions that the larger vessels may risk. Will the Minister bear that in mind if he sets restrictions for smaller boats? All of us in Scarborough accept the need for conservation measures. but we also feel that we should press for measures to curb industrial fishing. Some of the factory ships trawl with nets which have mouths large enough to accommodate 12 jumbo jets merely to obtain fishmeal to produce animal feed. I hope that the EC—if there is to be one after last week—can get to grips with this conservation problem. In the meantime, we are proud of our fishermen in Scarborough and Whitby. They are extremely hard-working, and they deserve to be able to plan for a better and more certain future.
  I have spoken of the living heritage derived from the fishermen and the livelihood. Let me also say something about the economic and cultural aspects of life in the area, and about the correlation between the two sectors. Although 25 per cent. of the population are enjoying their retirement in my constituency, it is also a place of opportunity for the young and for families. We have a thriving and innovative business community: technology and goods are exported from our towns to all four corners of the earth.
  Pindar Graphics. based in Scarborough. prints many of the women's magazines that are currently available—and
  90
  the Yellow Pages! McCains sells its oven chips, and other products, all over the world, using locally grown stock. Plaxtons leads Europe in the technology and innovation involved in coach building. I could mention many other companies.
  We all hope for an early start to the A64 road improvement scheme, which will ease the flow of goods out and the flow of visitors in. I mention visitors because tourism is a vital part of our life. My constituency is a great holiday and conference centre. It enjoys some of the cleanest beaches in Europe, and it also has a longer summer season than any other holiday town. The Black and White Minstrels first performed in Scarborough, and Benny Hill was a regular visitor in his early days—before his blue period.
  The north Yorkshire moors steam railway attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, and the television series "Heartbeat" is filmed in the nearby village of Goathland. Bram Stoker's chilling tale of Dracula was set in Whitby, and even as we speak the famous and ancient Scarborough Fayre is taking place. I look forward to a return visit to Scarborough by the Prime Minister; perhaps he will attend our excellent Scarborough cricket festival, a major event in the cricketing calendar, and while he is there he may possibly visit the Stephen Joseph theatre in the round. Alan Ayckbourn premieres all his plays there, and it is where that great playwright does so much to encourage new talent and to bring the arts to ordinary people.
  In the short time available, I have tried to convey an impression of the quality of life in my constituency—of the beauty, excitement and tradition that exist there. I hope that many right hon. and hon. Members will take the opportunity to visit us, and to see the constituency for themselves. They will be most welcome; but, just as important, they will discover the unique sense of identity of which all of us in Yorkshire are justly proud.
  That is why I hope that, one day soon, our Government will abolish Cleveland and Humberside, so that my county and its ridings can be restored and Yorkshire can again stretch from the Humber to the Tees, as it once did for a thousand years.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) on a fluent, entertaining and informative speech about his constituency, which also contained a sting in the tail for the Government in regard to the Bill. I have had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he comes from a manufacturing family background. I am sure that that will enable him to make a valuable contribution to future debates.
  Before I deal with the Bill, let me raise a specific issue that threatens to dig a large hole in it. I refer to fisheries conservation. Last week, a judgment was made in Stornoway sheriff court that seemed to suggest that the Fishery Limits Act 1976 did not provide the protection that it had been thought to provide—protection, that is, against foreign vessels entering United Kingdom waters. It was decided that, when such vessels entered our territorial waters with the intention of fishing, they were not breaching the legislation.
  Apparently, that loophole was exposed as long ago as 1983, and it comes as something of a shock to find that the

  91
  Government have taken no action to close it. A Spanish vessel registered in Panama, for instance, can fish our waters without hindrance. I hope that the Scottish Office Minister who winds up the debate will explain why nothing was done about that earlier, and that he will tell us what the Government now intend to do.
  No one has yet mentioned the increasing pressure that is being placed on lobster and crab stocks in United Kingdom waters. A working party was set up recently by the Sea Fish Industry Authority, including not only representatives of the industry but Government scientists. It produced an excellent report, which mentioned the increasing pressure to which I have referred. I particularly admired the report's approach to the need to tackle and reduce that pressure: it recommended a combination of national guidelines and regional implementation, by means of regional fishery committees.
  The report pointed out that such arrangements did not yet exist in Scotland. I believe that such a system—national guidelines, along with the exercise of effort limitation on a regional basis—is appropriate, not just for the crab and lobster fishery but for United Kingdom fisheries in general. I hope that the Government will adopt the report's recommendations about the shell fishery, and that those that are seen to work well are subsequently extended to other areas. I also hope that the Minister will discuss the recommendations when he winds up, and will tell us when the Government hope to respond to them. In fishery debates, I have constantly stressed the need for a policy that is sensitive to the regional differences around the United Kingdom coastline—around the Scottish coastline, indeed—and I am delighted that the working party has taken up the issue.
  It is important to distinguish not only between regional features of the United Kingdom, but between different kinds of fleet and different kinds of fishing. There is, for instance, an important distinction to be drawn between inshore and offshore fleets. I do not consider it fair to impose uniform effort limitation regulations across the industry; a distinction must be made between those two fleets. I wish to illustrate the difference by referring to two aspects of the Bill and the regulations that the Government have recently produced: the one-net rule, and the days-at-sea restriction.
  A number of objections have been made to the one-net rule across the board, but it is clearly much more damaging to the smaller inshore fleet than it is to other parts of the United Kingdom fleet. The fishermen in my constituency are seriously concerned about the effect of the one-net rule, unless there is an adjustment to the by-catch restrictions. Without such an adjustment, the Western Isles fishery will be destroyed.
  If I may explain why they have that fear—which is genuine, not exaggerated—the Western Isles prawn fishery depends upon a certain amount of white fish by-catch. Fishermen in the Western Isles fish for prawns during the day and switch to fishing for white fish during the hours of darkness. That policy can be pursued fairly well during the summer months, but I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that during the winter months the hours of daylight in the Western Isles are very short. Therefore,
  92
  fishing for white fish becomes all-important for the local fleet during the winter months, between October and March.
  At the moment, local fishermen enjoy the privilege of having valuable prawn grounds in close proximity to good white fish grounds. They are between four and eight miles apart. As the hours of darkness begin, the fleet can easily switch from one fishery to the other. If, however, the one-net rule is introduced without any flexibility, the boats will be required to steam all the way back to harbour where their nets will have to be changed before they can return and fish for white fish. The steaming time is between six and eight hours. It would be impossible for boats of under 400 hp to do that. Local inshore fleet boats are usually under 400 hp. A serious threat, therefore, faces the Western Isles fishing fleet.
  It is important to distinguish between inshore and offshore fleets. Apart from the effect that this rule would have on the inshore fleet, one has to remember that inshore fleets have hardly any impact upon the overfishing of white fish. For example, the Western Isles fleet accounts for less than 1 per cent. of the total allowable catch of white fish off the west coast. The whole of that catch is taken during the winter months. The fleet is then absolutely dependent upon its white fish catch for survival. In no way can the Western Isles fleet be considered to be causing a problem in the white fish category, yet its dependence upon that category in the winter months is critical. To remove the fleet's capacity to go after white fish might destroy the fleet. Local fishermen have expressed their serious concern about that to me. I do not believe that their concern is exaggerated.
  There are ways to get round the problem. One way would be to grant a by-catch restriction exemption for smaller boats. Boats of under 400 hp could be exempted from the by-catch restriction. Alternatively, separated trawls could be made exempt from the by-catch restriction. I am told that the use of separated trawls has led to exemption from the European Community by-catch restriction in the Bay of Biscay, so that could be done without changing the EC by-catch rules.
  An argument can also be made for trying to use the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council to change some of the by-catch rules, in particular the by-catch rule that affects non-protected species such as dogfish and skate. It makes no sense to include those categories within the by-catch restriction.
  I understand that other hon. Members want to speak, so I intend to confine my final remarks to the days-at-sea restriction. Uniform imposition of the days-at-sea restriction across the whole of the fishery makes no sense when one takes into account the differences between the offshore and inshore sectors. In particular, simply to freeze everything at 1991 levels is unfair to those fleets that are not seven day a week, 24 hour a day, double crew fleets but that already pursue a much more moderate, conservationist style of fishing. Account ought to be taken of that fact.
  To return to a suggestion that I have made frequently in the House, the Government ought to implement the weekend ban on prawn fishing on the west coast. The prawn fishermen are themselves calling for such a ban. It would cost the Government nothing, it would be easy to enforce, and it would reduce fishing time by 30 per cent. —much more than the days-at-sea restriction called for by the Government.

  93
  Although there are many other points that I wish to raise, I am sure that I shall have the opportunity to do so in Committee.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may help hon. Members if I announce that the wind-up speeches will start at 9.20. Short speeches will therefore ensure that more hon. Members can make a contribution.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. David Porter: I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have urged hon. Members to make short speeches. I am grateful to have this opportunity before the end of the debate to make the only speech on behalf of an entire region—East Anglia.
  Three of my hon. Friends have made excellent maiden speeches. The presence of new Members of Parliament in the first fisheries debate of this new Parliament is very welcome. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, the same Members of Parliament tend to discuss all offshore matters—coastal protection, health and safety, sea pollution and anything to do with the oceans—including, even, Maxwell's helicopters. Quite often, we find agreement across the Chamber. Occasionally, we find that whoever is sitting on the Treasury Bench agrees with us. I fear, however, that tonight there will be no such agreement.
  Following last week's excitements when the supertanker of the European state took a hole very near the water line, it is tempting, feeling as I do against any deepening of Europe beyond a free-trading entity, to rock the boat a little more tonight and get some more water through that hole. Assuredly enough, the Bill is a very small link in the European chain that anchors a once proud and mighty British industry to that insensitive tanker.
  As Fishing News of 29 May said:
  "To limit the days a fisherman is allowed to spend at sea is to restrict his ability to make a return on the capital he has invested … Where is the compensation in all this for those who can't live on their ration of days at sea?"
  That is just one of several questions to which we have had no answers tonight.
  To turn to the question of why the Bill is being rushed into Parliament. I am surprised that nobody has yet pointed out that tomorrow there is to be a Council of Ministers meeting. The Government want the Bill to be given a Second Reading tonight so as to strengthen Ministers' hands at that meeting. I do not accept that. Why is it that these far-reaching, deep-seated and drastic steps and changes to our way of life have to be accepted instantly and when the Government tell us it is good for us? We are told that, somehow, we shall miss a cruise on this great Eurotanker and that if we do not jump for it right now we shall miss the boat. The Government do not allow for the fact that it is not now and for ever. We may get another that we like better later on, or we may not even get on board this particular cruise at all.
  In the last Parliament I spoke a number of times on fisheries matters, each time in a way that was critical of policy or, as the jargon of my Whip has it, in a way "unhelpful to the Government". I recognise that the Government have an impossible job in getting fisheries policy right. It cannot be done. Reading this Bill and the industry's reaction to it means that those who thought that the Government would conclude that less regulation might
  94
  work where more has failed are going to be disappointed. Much stress has been placed on the message that the Bill is part of a package. It is free standing, but it must be seen in the context of a raft of measures designed, we are told, to conserve fish and to keep the industry viable. The raft gets heavier each year as new rules, regulations and restrictions are piled on it. Why is that? Because the common fisheries policy has failed and cannot deliver conservation or viability in anything but an ideal world.
  The reality of the sea fish industry—whether it be catching, selling, coping with more regulation than the British nuclear industry or competing with the EC—is that the difficulties are hard enough, so why on earth pile on more regulations?
  That leads to the question that we as a nation need to address. Do we want a British fishing industry? Pause while we all mentally answer yes, but I should like that reassurance from the Minister.
  Only Ministers want the Bill. No Member with a fishing interest in his or her constituency has praised the Bill. None of our constituents seem to want it or think that it will work. I do not want to do Ministers, or their advisers, an injustice, but none of them—certainly neither the Minister nor I—has tried to earn a living on a boat for which we have mortgaged our houses and family lifestyles for 365 days a year, when we cannot work as many days as we need to, when we see other Europeans fishing the same waters laughing at us because they do not have the same restrictions and when we are bobbing about in the North sea risking life and limb puking over the side. How can I tell them that this medicine is what they must take when they tell me, because they know, that they do not want it? Do I know better than them? Does my hon. Friend the Minister and his advisers know better? I plead with my hon. Friend to address that point today.
  All hon. Members regard parts of their constituencies as a touchstone, a yardstick. After the hothouse atmosphere of this place, anywhere in Waveney acts as such for me, but in particular the Lowestoft fishing market does. If an idea is sellable, it will sell there. If it is not, fishermen will not touch it. It was there that I recognised that the community charge must go. I went to the wall on that because I believed in it, against advice from outside, but despite what I thought personally I could not say that I knew best and that it must continue. The same applies to this Bill.
  The big question that we must answer before 10 pm is how do we tell a struggling industry that we shall hold its head under water for a while and that if it drowns, never mind, the Dutch, French and Spanish will put fish on British tables?
  The industry is fragmented and divided, not just country to country or port to port but section to section within a port. I understand the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Minister for a package that this year, like last year, appears in theory to be the great white hope. He must be exasperated by the industry and perhaps by me and other hon. Members who clamoured for a decommissioning scheme and who, when offered one, are still not happy. I wish that we were. The irony is that, three years ago, such a scheme might have done the job and might have reduced the fleet size and the effort. As other hon. Members have said, £25 million now does not touch it. It will make it possible for more efficient boats and more countries to catch more fish and to increase their effort.

  95
  The decommissioning scheme is still not for the whole industry. It still will not reach all the fishermen who will be put out of work and it will still leave the British taxpayer paying more into our competitors' schemes than our fishermen could get out.
  Although this part of the decommissioning package may not be a great hit, it may allow my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to tell the House in future that it has not worked and that he was against decommissioning all along, which, of course, he was. He will also say, as has been said, "The Bill is just an enabling measure", but once it is on the statute book it can and will be invoked.
  The issue of consultation has been raised again and again tonight. Only today, I received a copy of a response to the consultation from the Lowestoft Fishing Vessel Owners Association, dated 4 June. That has not been digested. Was any consultation digested before the introduction of the Bill? The Minister cannot consult every fish merchant, lumper, seaman, skipper, boat owner or harbour master in the country on every issue, but he can open the quota-setting processes as widely as possible within the United Kingdom. Such people have the voices of experience. Why does not the Minister listen and consider those voices with the siren voices that sometimes come from Whitehall as he is navigating the policy ship?
  The review of the CFP is an opportunity for Ministers properly to take stock. If they take the line that if we did not have a common fisheries policy we would have to invent it, fair enough, but let them look afresh at every idea, old and new. As the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) hinted, every part of the United Kingdom is different. What may be right for Scotland may not be right for East Anglia. Although proper compensation schemes for redundancy and scrapping will apply universally, they will have different implications and different impacts on local communities. Let the Minister remember that as he tinkers with the common fisheries policy.
  What has upset the industry is the draconian nature of the Bill, and if the Minister reduces the fleet by bankruptcy he will go down in history as the most successful British fishing Minister.
  The other part of the package is total allowable catches and quotas, the so-called bedrock of the CFP. We now hear that scientific evidence will not determine TACs in the future. As hon. Members will know, as well as representing fishermen and merchants I have the MAFF fisheries department at Lowestoft in my constituency. I know how important scientific evidence is and how much weight successive Ministers attach to it. Politicians and officials will take other factors into account. Hopefully, that will mean the survival of the British industry. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has long argued for more emphasis on technical conservation measures, but it recognises, as we all must, the interconnection of species so that the development of multi-annual TACs will help longer-term planning, which the industry has not had for a long time. Without relative stability we might as well turn every port into a museum and go home tomorrow. I hope that the Government will stick by their resolve on that.
  96
  The NFFO and others support the continuing preference for fishermen within the 12-mile zone. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that in opening, and I congratulate him on doing so. I imagine that Ministers will have that in mind as they join in the mid-term review of the CFP in Europe. Determination to hold the line around the table with 11 other Governments is absolutely right, but to show that the Government are prepared to sacrifice even part of an industry is not the right way forward.
  I finish, as I have in other fisheries debates, with some questions. I hope to hear some answers, if not now at least before the Committee finishes. In addition to my heart-felt plea for some real justification for the Bill that I can explain to my constituents who face the dole, is not the days-at-sea restriction totally alien to the British natural conservation policy? What is happening to other EC fleets? Do such restrictions apply to them? If so, why do we not have a list of them? Does my hon. Friend recognise the sense of injustice that prevails not only about the unfair enforcement policy but about our competitors having the edge over us all the time? What research has been conducted? Which ports and which boats will be affected? What is the impact on regional economies, particularly on East Anglia? What is the impact on the fishing effort, which, after all, is what we are supposed to be considering? I sit down in the hope that we can get some answers, but I bear in mind that we may not and that we must face the fact that part of the fishing industry is doomed.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I congratulate hon. Members who have made maiden speeches.
  I refer the House to clause 5, a simple clause which states:
  "This Act extends to Northern Ireland."
  As the fisheries spokesman for the fourth largest party in Parliament, I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In 1972, a Conservative Government abolished devolution in Northern Ireland and instigated, as a temporary measure, a system of direct rule whereby legislation for Northern Ireland would be introduced by Orders in Council. Right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland would not have the right to amend Northern Ireland legislation. That temporary measure is becoming more like taxation, which was also introduced as a temporary measure.
  The Bill is a simple example of how that offensive system of maladministration of Northern Ireland can be changed. One line in the Bill makes it clear that the Act extends to Northern Ireland and that, on this rare occasion, we are debating a United Kingdom measure. On behalf of my colleagues in Northern Ireland, I express our appreciation to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other members of his ministerial team for introducing a United Kingdom Bill. It is significant that the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is among its supporters.
  As I listened to the Minister's introductory speech, I was afraid that we were going through a nightmare and that we were again going to run into great bureaucratic problems in the fishing industry. The measure will curtail fishing, not long after the European Economic Community—as it was then called—was giving grants for more and more fishing boats. The same happened in the milk industry—the Community gave grants for more and

  97
  more cows and more and more dairies but, all of a sudden, quotas were introduced to reverse what the EEC had been doing, and we are now in the same situation in the fishing industry.
  As other hon. Members have said, fishermen themselves accept the fact that there must be conservation of the fishing grounds. We in Northern Ireland appreciate the decision taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ban the twin rate. It is especially welcomed by the nephrop fishermen in South Down, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, and in my constituency of Strangford. However, we cannot understand why there should be an exclusion clause for the Fladen Ground in the North sea. At some stage, I hope that the Minister will be able to explain more precisely why that particular ground was excluded.
  The Minister said that the Bill will merely empower Ministers and that it is an enabling Bill. That is all right as far as it goes, but we must be told what role right hon. and hon. Members will have in discussing the details which follow the Bill. Unless we receive an assurance in that regard, I would hesitate to support the Bill.
  The Minister said that we were in a period of consultation, and we must place on record our congratulations to him on the consultation paper that he sent to various organisations in the fishing industry. The very full consultative document contains 14 pages and should receive a positive response from all involved in the industry. However, I notice that on the back page, among the 26 organisations which were consulted in England, Scotland and Wales and even the Isle of Man, no reference is made to consultation with the industry in Northern Ireland. I do not know why consultation was omitted there when the Bill states that it applies to Northern Ireland.
  I deal now with the licensing of vessels of under 10 ft. I accept the Minister's suggestion that it was a necessary measure. If we curtail vessels of more than 10 ft, it is clear that we shall undermine what is trying to be achieved if we give total freedom to those under 10 ft. [HON. MEMBERS: "Metres."] Vessels of under 10 metres—I was brought up with imperial measures. I heard someone referring to Mr. Deputy Speaker as Madam Deputy Speaker some time ago, so we all make mistakes.
  Clause 3 increases fines to a maximum of £50,000. That is a very harsh fine, but it has not been mentioned so far. Will the Minister tell us what the present fine is? What is the increase if there is to be one?
  We must also deal with effort control, the limiting of the days at sea, and the compulsory tie-up in port. Many hon. Members said that there would be arguments about the 1991 base. We have been told that a committee or panel will consider various applications. 1991 was a bad period for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. Those interested in the fishing industry there will remember that for the first three months of 1991 there was a prolonged period of very bad weather when the fleet was tied in. That is why taking a particular year as a base is a very dangerous way to proceed when deciding how the limit on days should be applied.
  The Minister was good enough to mention the problem of Sundays, and it is a major problem in Northern Ireland. The Sabbath is generally observed there and in the fishing village of Portavogie which has almost 100 boats of 10 metres, not one boat goes out on the Sabbath—they go out one minute after midnight. That applies not only in
  98
  Portavogie but elsewhere in Northern Ireland and, I suspect, in Scotland—perhaps there is also some religion left in England where it might apply.
  When considering which days to curtail the fleet, may I ask the Minister to ensure that if it is to be one day in the week, it should be Sunday. If it is not Sunday, it will discriminate against all the fishermen in my constituency. If it is to be two days in the week, one of the days should also be Sunday. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that there should be a curtailment of weekend fishing which would satisfy us in Northern Ireland and the people in the western part of Scotland.
  The restrictions on the British fishing fleet are a worry if they are not to apply to foreign fishing boats in our own waters. Some examples have already been mentioned but, as the hon. Member for South Down said, our main concern in Northern Ireland would be the southern Irish boats. Unless the same measures apply to them in our area, there would be a great problem because the Northern Ireland fishing fleet would be tied up but southern Irish boats could come into our waters. Clearly, that would create a problem in Ireland, where we perhaps have enough problems already without creating another.
  We experienced another example of the complication caused by different legislation in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland only a few week ago when a boat from my constituency was seized by the southern Irish fishing authorities outside Kingstown because it had no ladder to enable the fisheries inspector to board the boat to inspect it. That is not a requirement in the United Kingdom, but it is the law of the Republic of Ireland. When British boats, whether from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, go into southern Irish waters, they will be brought before the courts as that skipper was and charged with not having a ladder. That shows that having different fishing laws for each nation causes great confusion and that it is better to have a common fisheries policy in such instances. That is why I follow the line of the hon. Member for St. Ives. (Mr. Harris) that we should have restrictions common to the whole Community, not ones which apply only to British boats and not to foreign boats in British waters.
  I want further explanation from the Minister as to why we shall not get compensation for the days on which boats are tied up. Perhaps the Minister does not have the money. If that is the reason, he should say so. If there are other reasons, he should explain them more fully.
  The fishing industry says that not enough finance is being made available to make the decommissioning scheme effective. There has not been a proper response to that allegation by the fishing lobby. I should like the Minister to tell us what impact he thinks that his present decommissioning proposals will have on the future size of the British fishing fleet. Let us hear him spell out the results that he expects from the present decommissioning proposals.
  I ask the Minister to reconsider the date of implementation of the decommissioning scheme. The Minister says that it will apply to ownership of boats prior to 1 January 1992. Boats have changed hands since 1 January 1992, and as his statement announcing the new policy was made on 27 February 1992 the scheme should extend to cover ownership of boats up to the date of the statement.

  99
  Clearly, there are many criticisms of the Bill. I shall vote against the Scottish National party's reasoned amendment, but the general thrust of the Bill raises many problems which require more effective replies. In Committee, the Ulster Unionist party will oppose some of the clauses.
  9 pm
  Mr. George Kynoch: I will try to be brief because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. My constituency fishing interests are mainly the smaller vessels—the 50-footers. My predecessor, the late Alick Buchanan-Smith, was a great champion of the fishing industry. Having visited the ports in the constituency, I can understand why.
  The fishing port of Gourdon is a relevant example. Some 10 years ago, there were 18 50-footers in the port; now there are only three, which support six fish-processing companies and fish merchants. That port and its fishermen depend greatly on conservation and they believe vehemently in conservation.
  The fishing boats, which go out only for two days rather than for longer periods as the larger fishing boats do, provide a steady stream of fresh fish to the fish processors and consumers in the area. It is vital that the fishing port should survive, and it can do so only through conservation. At present, the fishing boats struggle to catch their quota not because of restricted days, but because of the lack of fish.
  It is interesting that no one claims credit for supporting the Bill. I believe that the Bill must go through. It is an enabling measure and a first step to ensuring that we get decommissioning, which all of us in Scotland have sought for so long.
  I know that many people complain that the amount of decommissioning is insufficient, but surely if we apply decommissioning at the suggested level and couple it with the restricted days we can ensure that the boats that remain in the fleet do not make up for those which are taken out of it.
  It is vital that the details behind the licensed days are worked out carefully. I was pleased to hear the Minister stress flexibility because flexibility is desperately needed, not just on licensed days, but in the definition of days at sea. There have been references to maintenance. In the port of Stonehaven, there is a fisherman who used to give the use of his boat to the local education authority to take school children on educational trips round oil rigs. That counts as a day at sea fishing; such days must be taken out of the definition of a day of fishing and, therefore, not counted.
  It is important for everyone that conservation is made to work. It is important that the Bill is passed so that we can get decommissioning and conservation. We can then get a controlled and balanced supply of fish. We must ensure that the Minister looks after the small ports and the smaller boats, and that the licensed days are not applied in such a way that we end up with just the larger boats at the expense of the smaller ports. Whole communities are at stake in the smaller ports, which have a long history and tradition. Whatever assistance is given to those ports in the event of closure, it will not replace an industry which provides an exceedingly valuable service to the nation.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: Last July, the Milford Haven middle-distance fleet effectively collapsed. Having pleaded with the Government for almost two years to introduce a decommissioning scheme under which they could rationalise, restructure and reduce the size of the fleet, the fishermen found market forces taking over, and seven trawlers owned by three separate companies had to cease operations.
  The effect on the port of Milford Haven was significant. Scores of people who worked both ashore and afloat were made redundant. The people of Milford Haven were staggered by the Government's announcement in February that they had performed a U-turn and were to introduce a decommissioning scheme after all. I hope that the Minister will explain in detail to the people of Milford Haven, who are unemployed as a result of the Government's refusal in 1990 and 1991 to introduce a decommissioning scheme, why they have decided to do so now.
  The bitterness felt by the people of Milford Haven is added to by the fact that the pressure stock licences attached to those vessels were recently bought by Irish interests. The vessels were sold back to the receiver for a nominal sum and the licences were re-sold to beam trawlers in the North sea. That means that we not only have no fleet, but we have no locally controlled pressure stock licences with which to regenerate our fishing industry in Pembrokeshire. I hope that the Minister will explain why this significant change of view, welcome though it is, has taken place so late.
  Many hon. Members have referred to flags of convenience—ships supposedly owned by British companies but in fact exclusively controlled by Spanish interests. Milford Haven has certainly been experiencing Spanish influence in the past year or two. It may interest hon. Members to know that Spanish interests plan to establish a producer organisation known as the Wales and south-west fish producers organisation, which will effectively be controlled from Corunna, Gijon and elsewhere. The organisation will have 42 vessels, and the idea is basically to secure and control the British quota available in the Irish sea. I hope that the Minister will address himself to the question of how those 42 vessels' operations can effectively be policed. Under the current legislation, they need only call at a British port four times every six months. How will the Minister administer the rules governing the number of days on which they put to sea and fish if they are operating from Spanish ports?
  If we are to have conservation, it is vital that there should be a level playing field. It is ludicrous that British seamen should go out and risk their lives playing to a strict set of rules with increased policing—the 60 or 64 man-years in the consultative document and the Bill—while Spanish, French, Belgian and Dutch fleets, and even flag-of-convenience vessels from Panama, fish in our waters but fail to operate under those rules. That is totally unfair and I do not see how the Minister can justify his argument for a unilateral position and rules which the EC as a whole will not enforce.
  Before the war, and for the first two decades thereafter, the Milford Haven fishing industry was renowned. We need regulations that people can understand and stability to regenerate our fishing industry. Frankly, the Bill goes nowhere near to achieving that.
  9.9 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: The Castle Point fishermen are an independent and resourceful people. We have a fleet of about 18 boats. With respect, our fishermen understand as well as anyone in this place that, unless fish stocks are properly conserved, there will be no fish left for them or their children to harvest. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on his driving vision to protect the fisheries, but not on the consultation process, which has been too short. My hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot take unlimited powers to stop my constituents from working.
  We have about nine boats in the 7-to-10 m range and nine boats in the 10-to-12 m range. Let me give a typical example of a Canvey Island fisherman called Mr. Davis. He is a British registered sole fisherman and an independent owner-skipper with a small boat working in the Thames estuary. He is now allowed to catch only 0.25 tonnes of sole a month. A year ago he had no quota and he caught on average about 0.5 tonnes a month.
  Mr. Davis is not a member of a producer organisation and nor does he want to be a member of one even if that is inconvenient for the Ministry. I applaud his independent, self-reliant stand. Why should he be forced to join the club? That would be a restrictive trade practice and, as a Conservative, I have been fighting such practices for many years.
  Whenever a boat stops fishing and is decommissioned, the producer organisation can buy that boat's days at sea and quota. That could lead to five factory boats owning 75 per cent. of the United Kingdom sole quota. That would be anti-competitive and it would damage the interests of my independent fishermen.
  Mr. Davis fishes for sole and a few eels in summer and for cod when they come up the Thames to spawn in autumn. He fishes for sprats at Christmas. He is basically laid up in February, March and April.
  That background is important to understanding the safety point that I raise on behalf of the Holehaven Fishermen's Association. Let me explain why the days-at-sea fishing restrictions would dramatically denigrate their safety, especially on top of the current weight quota. The weather of course is already a severe restriction, particularly for smaller boats such as those of the Castle Point fleet. There is almost a total lack of local harbour facilities, and there are the most severe tidal restrictions around Benfleet creek. In addition, as I explained earlier, the fish are available only on a short seasonal basis and there are no fish at all in some months.
  Clearly, there would be pressure on the owner-skippers to go to sea in worse weather conditions than they would attempt without the day restrictions and for them to stay at sea for the full 24-hour allowance on the allotted day. There may be pressure on them to load their boats a little more, and to stay at sea longer and in worse weather than they might choose now.
  Our small boats have just one man aboard. What happens if he feels tired? His house is on the line, he has mouths to feed and a mortgage to pay, but his catch is still too small. He may not be allowed to go out again for some days because of the allocation, but by that time the season may have ended and the fish will have gone with it. His living will then also have gone. That is indeed stress.
  Our Castle Point small boats are threatened by the Minister's day allocation proposal. That cannot be right or
  102
  fair. The increased danger would be intolerable. Castle Point fishermen already risk their lives to feed this nation in one of the most dangerous occupations in this country. I am sure that the Minister will want to find ways to alleviate the problems and to compensate small boat owners properly and perhaps even those below the 10 m threshold.
  I should be delighted if the Minister would visit Castle Point and would meet some of our professional independent owner-skippers. They would be the first to applaud his aims to conserve fish and to welcome his appeals system. However, they seek fair play, continued fishing, and proper compensation if they cannot fish. After all, as hon. Members know, it was not my small fleet that stripped the seas of fish; it was the factory ships. Yet the Minister's plans would attack my small independent fleet the most.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: The debate has shown that there is deep concern about the Bill. Certainly there has been deep concern about the lack of consultation before the Bill was produced, and about the amount of money allocated for decommissioning purposes. The feeling in the industry is that, as a result, many small fishing companies will go to the wall because they are operating on limited profit margins. The limited time at sea could also have serious implications for safety, especially on small vessels. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to explain how, with limited time at sea, one will be able to do quota management. Clearly that will create problems. Also, how will quota management work in practice?
  I represent the port of Hull, which, until about 12 years ago, was the biggest fishing port not only in Britain but in Europe, with a massive distant water fleet. Of course, with the introduction of the Icelandic 200-mile fishing limit and the common fisheries policy in 1983, the fleet side of the industry collapsed with the loss of about 8,000 jobs. Although there were some decommissioning grants, the men received absolutley nothing. With this enabling Bill, which will create many administrative powers, will there be compensation for the men as well as the owners? That did not happen with the collapse of the distant water fleets in Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood. The men got nothing at all.
  We have employment legislation which enables the Government to provide compensation and redundancy payments, but, over the years, the Government have refused to provide compensation or redundancy payments to fishermen because they regard them as casual workers. That must be absurd. People have worked for the same company for 35 years, but the Government regard them as casual. They have contributed to the same pension schemes, but the Government regard them as casual. One of my constituents was presented with a gold watch for being with the same company for 25 years, yet he is regarded as casual.
  The Government have introduced time bars. The Department of Employment misled men and told them, "Do not apply for redundancy; you do not qualify because you are casual." We have established that that was wrong and the Government have accepted it. Men have been paying for their national insurance stamps. They also have a system of signing on and off, which again has created great difficulties for them. We have massive injustice.

  103
  People want their cases to be heard, and have been trying to get them heard since 1983, but the Government are putting hurdles in their way. Let us have those cases heard.
  It is a serious matter. These men are not greedy; they are fighting on a point of principle. They have worked in a most hazardous industry around the banks, Iceland and Norway, in temperatures of minus 30 deg for about 350 days a year, and have made great contributions not only to the food supply but to military intelligence during wars. They are forgotten heroes. The Government have been saying that the only way to deal with those cases is by a series of tribunals. There have been tribunals, but the Government still have not drawn up any guidelines to assess all outstanding cases. We are getting delay, delay and more delay. The system of dispensing justice to the distant water fishermen is failing. The Government are not being fair to these people.
  I have no time properly to make my case, but I ask the Under-Secretary to talk to his colleague in the Department of Employment, which is the lead Department in the matter, to see whether there is some way in which under the legislation, which will create several administrative procedures, a linkage can be found to ensure that the fishermen's cases are properly considered. It is wrong that they should be treated in this dreadful way. It would not set any precedents to compensate them. It would not be costly. We are talking about a small number of people.
  It is time for action from the Government. I ask the Under-Secretary to have discussions with his counterpart in the Department of Employment on whether some arrangement can be drawn up.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: We have had a long debate by fishing standards and a full and representative one. One of the pleasures of this season of Parliament is that we have a fair old geographical tour of Britain in the form of maiden speeches. Tonight has been no exception. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), who made their maiden speeches this evening.
  I checked the background of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, who has a Scottish pedigree in her political experience. I noticed from one of the profiles in the Library that normally, according to the Sunday Express, she
  "fairly bubbles with enthusiasm for Tory achievements".
  I thought that it was perhaps a comment on the legislation before us that we did not see that to the full extent today. However, we heard an enjoyable and informative speech. In fairness to the hon. Lady, I should say that the whole House already owes her a considerable debt. I read from the same profile that she
  "was selected for Hastings and Rye, defeating Peter Bruinvels April '91."
  The hon. Member for Ayr is from my neck of the woods. I know him from when he was active in my constituency. He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, George Younger. I am not sure whether George Younger is in a state of metamorphosis or whether he has already become Lord Younger. We enjoyed the
  104
  maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ayr. I am sure that he will make a strong contribution not only to Scottish debates but on the wider issues in which he is involved.
  The hon. Member for Scarborough gave an extremely entertaining account of his constituency. I am almost tempted to go there, but also to come back. I became slightly worried when he had been going for 10 minutes and had reached only 1267 but the pace of events accelerated after that. I am sure that many hon. Members who participate in fishing debates will remember with affection his predecessor, Sir Michael Shaw, who made succinct contributions to fishing debates but always spoke well on behalf of his fishing interests.
  I remember Sir Michael Shaw particularly because the first major parliamentary activity in which I was involved after being elected in 1987 was the English poll tax legislation. Sir Michael Shaw presided over the Standing Committee. It was a good parliamentary Committee in which to cut one's teeth and he presided over it in a fair and good-humoured way. I am sure that everyone here sends him, Lord Younger and Kenneth Warren best wishes for their respective retirements.
  I have been surprised at the strength of opposition to the Bill from all quarters of the House today. As I said, we had a representative mixture of speeches. Every part of England has been represented. We heard the authentic voice of South Down and we heard from Scottish interests. Frankly, no one has said—
  Mr. Morley: And Wales.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sorry. We have also heard speeches from Welsh Opposition Members. However, we have not heard from anyone who was terrifically keen on the legislation. Perhaps that should not have been such a surprise—
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Under-Secretary of State is keen.
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, I am told that he is terrifically keen, but that has yet to manifest itself. We wait with interest.
  Perhaps we should not have been surprised because the editorial in Fishing News on 29 May summed up the feeling of the fishing industry around our coast, saying:
  "Not only is the principle of imposing limits on the days a boat can spend at sea without compensation highly questionable, but so too is the practice. Once these powers are in place"—
  referring to the Bill—
  "the government will have a management tool which it will be able to enforce at will … Fishermen's abilities to make their boats pay are already severely compromised by the quota system. Many, rather than go out of business, bend the rules."
  A somewhat rare admission in that industry.
  "Now on top of a quota system which is openly admitted to be a conservation and management failure, fishermen are to have a new constraint which will be 'unbendable'—on top of all the other technical and licensing restrictions."
  Those are strong words indeed from Fishing News.
  Mr. Curry: Perhaps I may quote a different part of the same editorial:
  "There are fishermen who are sympathetic to days at sea limitations provided they are applied in a way which is acceptable. They would help to share out the action between more boats, and would be effective as a conservation tool; perhaps the only truly effective one."
  Mr. Wilson: I always work on the assumption that no one reads the same editorials that I do, but I am grateful to the Minister for putting a balanced view.
  There was genuine surprise in the Chamber as we realised that not only is there to be a limit on days at sea, and all that that principle entails, but it is apparently to be applied on a boat-by-boat basis. From having a word with the Minister outside the Chamber, I know that the system seems to be a hybrid. I do not mean to misrepresent it, but some categories of boat will be taken together and some will be taken separately.
  The concerns that have been expressed from all quarters about the sheer bureaucratic entanglements that the Bill will lead to, and the idea of each boat being subject to a separate regime with separate appeals, are fairly frightening.
  The explanatory and financial memorandum, in the "Effect of the Bill on Public Sector Manpower", states:
  "Restricting days at sea for some 3,800 vessels over 10 metres in length will require a significant increase in enforcement posts."
  They can say that again.
  I was in the Committee of a major Scottish Bill, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, today. To their great credit, the Conservatives are nationalising the bankruptcy process in Scotland and creating 400 extra civil service jobs. That is very commendable. The Government seem determined to increase the public sector. I am tempted to combine the two measures. As we understand it, the sheer difficulties of enforcement involved in the Bill are worrying and they will have to be debated and explained further.
  No one likes the idea of attaching a days-at-sea stipulation to a decommissioning scheme and making it a trade-off of one against the other, but if it is to exist and to command respect there must be minimum criteria of comprehensibility, non-bureaucracy, so far as that is possible, and even-handedness. From what we have heard today, it is far from clear whether any of those criteria will apply.
  I am strongly attracted to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who called into question the effectiveness of the quota and tie-up regime. None of the artificial measures, which seem constantly to be piled one upon another, come up with a solution, the problem being that there is too much catching power in the industry. We shall not have time tonight, but we ought to examine the issue in a more fundamental way.
  Ms. Mowlam: My hon. Friend will realise that the enforcement of the days-at-sea rule is of particular concern to ports such as that in my constituency—[Interruption.] The Minister of State may giggle, but the boats in Redcar are as important as those in bigger ports—and people depend on them for work. There is concern about how the appeal procedure will work in the case of just a few boats affected by particular weather and beach-launching conditions. Will my hon. Friend urge the Minister to examine that aspect?
  Mr. Wilson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's point, which is germane to my next argument. My slight knowledge of the industry centres far more on the smaller and weaker ports than on the great capital-intensive centres. That is the reason for my concern about the proposal that producers' organisations should engage in the purchase of TAC records. That is disturbingly similar
  106
  to the proposals for individual transferable quotas, which the industry largely opposes—as did the Government, previously.
  Quotas will be sold only within the producer organisations and can then be added to the existing quotas of other vessels. If they are lost to a port because fishermen are looking for a financial escape hatch out of the industry, that will be to the disadvantage of smaller fishing communities. Fishing effort would not, however, be reduced—because such quotas would be transferred to larger and stronger ports. Many owners are only too willing to enhance their quotas by purchasing additions through their producer organisation.
  That happened before, when pressure stock licences from the weaker ports ended up in the larger ports. Some fishing communities may have 20 or 30 vessels working out of them. If, by some device, two or three of those rights to fish are lost, that means a loss of 10 per cent. of that local industry and its jobs, and of the viability of the on-shore jobs which depend on them. I deplore any system based on financial incentives to transfer parts of the existing industry from small fishing communities to the largest and most powerful communities.
  The one-net rule is another adjunct of the Bill. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the need to have a Queen's counsel on board to enable fishermen to keep abreast of the remarkably complex laws that they must observe. Perhaps that is a job for the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who could don his wellies on his day off and charge his usual fees.
  One must consider also the effect of the one-net rule on by-catches, and the breakdown into target species, quota species, and non-quota species. There will be a percentage of each fixed, and a vessel would not be permitted to catch too much of one species or too little of another. It might help to have a mathematician on board as well as a QC.
  It is impossible for any industry to operate under such detailed conditions. When the Scottish Fishermen's Federation responded to the one-net proposal, it made it clear to the Government that the only basis on which its membership would comtemplate acceptance was as the forerunner to the introduction of a Community-wide one-net rule promoted by the British Government. What are the Government doing in that regard?
  The federation also argued that the by-catch rules governing the use of a 70 mm net in prawn fisheries, which currently allow 60 per cent. of the total catch to be taken as protected species, should be relaxed, so that haddock and whiting would be counted against that limit, and all other protected species excluded.
  In that context, we have heard of the problems of the Western Isles fishermen, which also apply to other similar fishing communities. Those fishermen are in a special position. In order to carry on their traditional livelihood, their boats have worked for prawns and white fish. For 30 years, prawns have been the mainstay of the Scottish west coast fisheries, but the white fish fishery has also been important. The fishermen go to sea in boats carrying nets for both types of fishing and they prosecute both fisheries. They cannot return to port and exchange those nets at the drop of a hat as the Bill would compel them to do. They operate a conservation-conscious fishery, so why, in heaven's name, is the might of the Government and the European Commission directed against that type of operation? That is beyond my wit, and I have enough

  107
  respect for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to believe that it is beyond his comprehension as well.
  I noticed that when my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was speaking the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was in his place and I think that he was taking some notes on possible derogations. A sledgehammer must not be used to crack a nut in order to enforce the generality of the Bill. It is ridiculous that people who are doing no harm whatever in conservation terms should also be caught up by the Bill.
  In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the Bill as being a form of subsidiarity. I believe in real subsidiarity. As I understand it, the point of it is to take decision-making down to the lowest convenient level. That is a great idea. Why do the Government not go for regional management of fishing stocks? As we have heard from Conservative Members, we have many different fisheries round the coasts of Britain. There is no such thing as a British or Scottish fishing industry—these are generic terms. Different areas have different interests and different types of fishery. There is a need for fisheries to be managed at a local level and for sensible exemptions and sensible measures to be introduced, including, for example the sensible protection of the fisheries in the south-west against incursions from outside fleets. Let us have a system of regional fishery management because we would then have a more sensitive and intelligent approach to the management of fisheries.
  I want to raise two specific points. The first has already been raised, but I must press the Minister for a more straightforward account of what transpired at Stornoway sheriff court last week. If no appeal is intended, the matter cannot be sub judice. Will the Minister recognise that it is a matter of widespread interest? Will he put aside the slight coyness that he revealed earlier and tell us in non-recriminatory and simple terms whether something went wrong and what the implications will be? It has been pointed out that there was a similar judgment to last week's in 1983, so it is reasonable to ask whether anything has been done since 1983 or whether the 1983 judgment was also wrong and irrelevant. I hope that the Minister will help the House, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles, on that.
  The second point refers to the well-known fact that the Panamanian registered and unlicensed Spanish-crewed vessel which was caught off Rockall with 60 tonnes of monkfish on board was carrying monofilament nets. Obviously, that vessel found a profitable fishery and thought it worth while to be there along with several other Panamanian registered, Spanish-owned vessels. The absurdity is that if a small fishing boat sets out from a Scottish port—or, I assume, a port in England—with a monofilament net on board, the carriage of such a net would in itself be an offence. Everyone on the west coast recognises that there is a promising fishery for monkfish, but it cannot be prosecuted by our own fishermen. The matter is taken to the point of absurdity because, while those vast vessels are fishing for monkfish off Rockall with monofilament nets and are apparently within the law, a fisherman in the port of Mallaig, Nigel Johnston, is being deprived of a livelihood because he was carrying relatively small monofilament nets to prosecute the cray fishery,
  108
  which is a much smaller but also perfectly reasonable way for people to earn a living. He is caught up in that mass of red tape.
  Will the Minister clarify the Panamanian-Spanish case last week and, given the absurdity that I have highlighted, look again at the question of monofilament nets? It is nonsense and is caught up in the Scottish Office's paranoia that anyone carrying monofilament nets must be fishing for salmon.
  Both sides of the House have expressed a high degree of dissatisfaction with the Bill. We do not believe that tabling milk-and-water amendments is the way to deal with it. We shall vote against it tonight, and we invite other parties and all dissenters in the Conservative party to vote with us.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) intends, in effect, to vote against conservation. That is a sad thing to do tonight.
  May I join many other hon. Members on both sides of the House in warmly congratulating the three maiden speakers: my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye seems to have most of the important battlefields of England in her constituency and I hope that she does not intend to translate that into the world of fishing. It was delightful to hear what she had to say about her lovely constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough made as racey a speech as we would have expected from his predecessor. We are glad to have him participating in debates on fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr had one of the most remarkable victories of the general election. I warmly support his great efforts in retaining the seat that was so ably represented by George Younger for many years. I cross friendly swords with him over his monopoly of Robert Burns, because my constituency of Dumfries looks after at least the better half. It was good to have him joining in a fishing debate so early in his parliamentary life, particularly because he was constructive over the prawn fishing issue, which is the first of the many points to which I wish to respond.
  Prawn fishing is important because prawn conservation, or nephrops conservation, is as important as the conservation of white fish. That is why I have asked the Sea Fish Industry Authority to convene another nephrops forum to decide the right way forward. As hon. Members know, we considered banning nephrops fishing at weekends, but that might have had a catastrophic impact on the processing industry, and I wanted to be clear that we were going in the right direction before imposing such a ban.
  Mr. Salmond: I note the enthusiasm with which the Minister greets this first intervention.
  The House will probably agree that such a nephrops forum is a good idea and I am sure that the Minister is about to tell us that, pending the decision of such a forum, there will at least be a suspension of unilateral action on the one-net rule. Surely the Minister would not act before listening to the interesting and informative discussion at that forum.
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman anticipates much good stuff to follow. I will wait until the one-net rule is in place before saying what is happening.
  I was talking about the prawn issue, which was raised by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). I wish to reply to the points raised both by him and by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North about the recent court case—a subject on which I intervened briefly earlier. I wish to make it absolutely clear that there is no loophole in the legislation. The case failed on technical grounds which is why we are not appealing against the judgment. We are perfectly confident that, were there to be a further breach by a Panamanian or other foreign vessel, we would have sufficient powers to take action. I hope that if we have to do so and there is sufficient evidence, we shall win the court case.
  Mr. Macdonald: I am not entirely clear on what the Minister said about the case having failed on technicalities. If the same technical reasons caused the case to fail in 1983, why was that not made clear so that another case of the same sort was not instigated?
  Sir Hector Monro: One has to accept that there was a lack of continuity of information. I am sorry that the case proceeded as it did, and I am now stating clearly that in future we shall have the necessary powers. Fishermen in Western Isles and elsewhere can be confident that we will be successful in any future prosecutions.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Hector Monro: I have only 14 minutes left and I have made it absolutely clear, even to a Queen's counsel, what the position is—
  Mr. Campbell: Even on a legal point?
  Sir Hector Monro: That is the worst sort.
  I was flattered to hear so many quotes from my previous speeches. An important theme in the speeches of those disinclined to support conservation measures was to ask why the United Kingdom should be hit when the rest of the Community was not. We must accept that we have by far the largest share of fishing effort in the Community, so we must be in the forefront of conservation. Our partners are active; many of them are carrying out the same measures as we are and some are a great deal nearer their multi-annual guidance programme targets than we are. I know that that subject will be discussed in Luxembourg tomorrow.
  The Community has given all its members clear advice that they must have tough conservation measures in the coming three or four years and monitor how they develop. We must have a combination of measures, and we are pressing all our partners to be as strict as we are—Commissioner Marin is currently being forceful on that issue. It is right that we should take those measures seriously, and employ observers. That is why so many aircraft and ships are carrying out surveillance. That is the only way that we can fully implement the policies that we have outlined.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) knows, the aircraft of both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland are run by
  110
  commercial companies. However, we are considering all alternative methods of running our ships and no decision has been taken—I can give that firm commitment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) was very concerned about discrimination against United Kingdom fishermen. Effort reduction will be a major contribution to meeting the MAGP target, which we must negotiate with the Commission later this year. All other member states will also have to meet their targets by taking action, but they may opt for different measures.
  Mr. Morley: Was not the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) making a point made by many other hon. Members who have spoken today? Many ports, such as Whitehaven and Maryport, have fleets that are being tied up in port. They are already stretched to the limit, because other member states have met their targets by means of proper decommissioning and, although we have the same opportunity, the Government refuse to take advantage of the 70 per cent. finance offered by the EC.
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Comparatively few fleets are tied up at any one time. The 135-day limit, which was set only after the most careful consultations with our scientists, is for conservation reasons.
  I wish that all hon. Members would accept that the Government do not want the regulations and bureaucracy that some have described. I know that my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, would confirm that our wish and duty is to help the fishing industry in every possible way. We want the industry to be profitable, so that the housewife can benefit from the best possible service. We certainly do not want to persecute the fishing industry, as some hon. Members seem to believe.
  Mr. Moate: It is reassuring to hear my hon. Friend repeat that the Government have no wish to pursue unnecessary regulation. Does he accept, however, that a slight contradiction is involved? The Bill gives the Government power to impose the days-at-sea regulations on the under-10 m fleet, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier that they did not intend to do so. Meanwhile, Ministry officials are giving the impression that it is inevitable for such controls to apply to the under-10 m fleet. Will my hon. Friend at least give us an assurance that he will be open-minded in Committee about amendments clarifying the matter? I gladly volunteer to serve on the Standing Committee.
  Sir Hector Monro: That is duty.
  I agree that we must be clear about the under-10 m fleet. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), seem to have been misinformed. There is no restriction on those ships; the only difference between them and the rest of the fleet is the fact that they are not eligible for decommissioning. They can go to sea when they like, regardless of the weather.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed great concern about bad weather and the 135-day restriction. When we deal with that, and with licensing, we shall consider carefully track records and days at sea, including the days that ships have spent steaming from market ports to home ports in 1991. If they have been

  111
  caught out a number of times, or have been carrying out repairs, that will be taken into account. We are being as flexible as we can be.
  The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) raised the issue of the one-net rule. That demonstrates the advantages of consultation. We shall consider carefully all the issues that have been raised by those fishermen who will be affected by the one-net rule and see what steps can be taken to remove their concern. At the beginning of the debate my hon. Friend the Minister said that we shall have to bear in mind that that is a European Community regulation.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North asked when we were going to deal with the issue. The answer is, tomorrow. We shall consider many of these issues tomorrow in Luxembourg.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me about the Shetland box. Bearing in mind the difficulties that we previously encountered over obtaining the Shetland box, we are anxious to retain the present position. We do not intend to allow any change to the box to be made during our European Community consultations.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister has apparently made a concession on the one-net rule, but will he confirm that while a change in the by-catch arrangement is a matter for the Community, the unilateral imposition of the one-net rule, which has already happened, is purely a matter for him? The Minister ought to announce a delay in the imposition of the one-net rule this evening.
  Sir Hector Monro: I have not made any concession. What I said was that I am considering the matter, bearing in mind the very great discussions that we have had during the last week or two with the fishermen and the fact that we shall be in Luxembourg tomorrow when there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter further.
  I want to make it quite clear to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we feel that the Shetland issue is very important and that it is important to meet the Shetlanders to discuss their fishing industry with them.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) asked about the increase in maximum fines in clause 3. The increase is from £5,000 to £50,000. Perhaps that is small beer to him, but it is very important to us.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked a number of questions, in particular why we are not introducing more technical measures. We have already made it clear that nearly all the measures that will be taken as a result of the Bill, as well as all the announcements that we have made this year, are technical measures. That is why it is difficult to understand what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We have gone beyond the Community package, as announced on 12 May, by introducing additional measures on a national basis. They are all intended to help to conserve fish stocks. Until stocks of white fish increase, we need to continue with what seems to be a very tough line. However, it is in the interests of fishermen. These measures will help them in the long run.
  112
  There is an urgent need to tackle the pressing problems that threaten the fishing industry. To reduce fishing effort is crucial to the long-term interests of our fishermen, as well as to fish stocks. Decisive and early action is required. That is what we are delivering. Our package is a careful combination of payments to the industry and encouragement to voluntary action and regulation. The Government are making a very substantial and clear commitment. That is highlighted by the decommissioning scheme, about which I have not had sufficient time to talk this evening. [Interruption.] It is a very important issue. The fact that the sum of £25 million is derided by the Opposition shows that they do not live in the real world when it comes to finance. The industry is being asked to play its part. Together with the implementation of this package, I believe that we have the means to secure real conservation benefits in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 218.

  Division No. 22]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  McGrady, Eddie

  Beith, A. J.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Salmond, Alex

  Cryer, Bob

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Harvey, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Wallace, James

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Amess, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cran, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Day, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Deva, Niranjan

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dover, Den

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Bob

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Eggar, Tim

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Elletson, Harold

  Burns, Simon

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Butler, Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Butterfill, John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Faber, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Cash, William

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Forth, Eric

  Clappison, James

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  113

  Freeman, Roger

  Page, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Paice, James

  Fry, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gallie, Philip

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gorst, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Richards, Rod

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hague, William

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Harris, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Heald, Oliver

  Shersby, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Sims, Roger

  Hendry, Charles

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Speed, Keith

  Horam, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Spring, Richard

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Sproat, Iain

  Hunter, Andrew

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Stephen, Michael

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

  Stewart, Allan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Streeter, Gary

  Kilfedder, James

  Sumberg, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sweeney, Walter

  Knapman, Roger

  Sykes, John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Thomason, Roy

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Thurnham, Peter

  Legg, Barry

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Trend, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Trimble, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Trotter, Neville

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Luff, Peter

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Walden, George

  Malone, Gerald

  Waller, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Watts, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Merchant, Piers

  Whittingdale, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Willetts, David

  Moate, Roger

  Wilshire, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on second or third reading:—
  The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 187.

  Division No. 23]

  [10.12 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Freeman, Roger

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  French, Douglas

  Amess, David

  Fry, Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gorst, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hague, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Booth, Hartley

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Boswell, Tim

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bowis, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hayes, Jerry

  Brazier, Julian

  Heald, Oliver

  Bright, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Butler, Peter

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Cash, William

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

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Kilfedder, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clappison, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Colvin, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Congdon, David

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Legg, Barry

  Couchman, James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Cran, James

  Lidington, David

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Lightbown, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Luff, Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Malone, Gerald

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mans, Keith

  Dover, Den

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Duncan, Alan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Dunn, Bob

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Merchant, Piers

  Eggar, Tim

  Milligan, Stephen

  Elletson, Harold

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Faber, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Norris, Steve

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Page, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Paice, James

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Patnick, Irvine

  115

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sumberg, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pickles, Eric

  Sykes, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Richards, Rod

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark(Somerton)

  Trend, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trotter, Neville

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walden, George

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shersby, Michael

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Speed, Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sproat, Iain

  Yeo Tim

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Young Sir George (Acton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stephen, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Allan

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. David Davies.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ainger, Nicholas

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ashton, Joe

  Denham, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnes, Harry

  Dixon, Don

  Battle, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dowd, Jim

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Beith, A. J.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Eastham, Ken

  Benton, Joe

  Enright, Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Etherington, William

  Berry, Roger

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Betts, Clive

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Blunkett, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Flynn, Paul

  Boyes, Roland

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Bradley, Keith

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fraser, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  George, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cann, James

  Grocott, Bruce

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gunnell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Home Robertson, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cox, Tom

  Hoon, Geoff

  Cryer, Bob

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  116

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hutton, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Ingram, Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prescott, John

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan

  Randall, Stuart

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Redmond, Martin

  Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

  Reid, Dr John

  Khabra, Piara

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rogers, Allan

  Leighton, Ron

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Salmond, Alex

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McKelvey, William

  Stevenson, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McLeish, Henry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Madden, Max

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mahon, Alice

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mandelson, Peter

  Turner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Tyler, Paul

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wallace, James

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N

  Maxton, John

  Watson, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wilson, Brian

  Milburn, Alan

  Winnick, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wise, Audrey

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Morley, Elliot

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Mudie, George

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Wallace.]
  The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 208.

  Division Number 24]

  [10.255 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainger, Nicholas

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Battle, John

  Cann, James

  Bayley, Hugh

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Beith, A. J.

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Blunkett, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Boateng, Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Connarty, Michael

  Boyes, Roland

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Cox, Tom

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cryer, Bob

  117

  Darling, Alistair

  Mahon, Alice

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Marek, Dr John

  Dewar, Donald

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dixon, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Dowd, Jim

  Maxton, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Eastham, Ken

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Enright, Derek

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Morley, Elliot

  Foulkes, George

  Mudie, George

  Fyfe, Maria

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  George, Bruce

  O'Hara, Edward

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Patchett, Terry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Pendry, Tom

  Gunnell, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hardy, Peter

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Harvey, Nick

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hepple, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Prescott, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Purchase, Ken

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Salmond, Alex

  Hume, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hutton, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Illsley, Eric

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Jamieson, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Tipping, paddy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Turner, Dennis

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Tyler, Paul

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Khabra, Piara

  Watson, Mike

  Leighton, Ron

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lewis, Terry

  Wilson, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wise, Audrey

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  McCartney, Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  MacDonald, Calum

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Mr. James Wallace

  McMaster, Gordon

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butler, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cartiss, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clappison, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coe, Sebastian

  Booth, Hartley

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Congdon, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowis, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Couchman, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Cran, James

  Bright, Graham

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Day, Stephen

  Burns, Simon

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Burt, Alistair

  Devlin, Tim

  118

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Merchant, Piers

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Milligan, Stephen

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dover, Den

  Moate, Roger

  Duncan, Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Dunn, Bob

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dykes, Hugh

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Elletson, Harold

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Norris, Steve

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Page, Richard

  Faber, David

  Paice, James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Pickles, Eric

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Forth, Eric

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Richards, Rod

  Freeman, Roger

  Riddick, Graham

  French, Douglas

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Fry, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gallie, Philip

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Gorst, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hague, William

  Shersby, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Sims, Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Speed, Keith

  Harris, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hawksley, Warren

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Sproat, Iain

  Heald, Oliver

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Stewart, Allan

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Sumberg, David

  Horam, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Sykes, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Thomason, Roy

  Jessel, Toby

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

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

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Kilfedder, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Knapman, Roger

  Trend, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Trotter, Neville

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Viggers, Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Walden, George

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Waller, Gary

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Watts, John

  Legg, Barry

  Wells, Bowen

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Lightbown, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Willetts, David

  Luff, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Yeo, Tim

  Malone, Gerald

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mans, Keith

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill

    SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown under any other enactment.—[Mr. MacKay.]

    Statutory Instruments, &c
    10.35 pm
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Motions on two statutory instruments—items No. 3 and 4 on the Order Paper—are to be taken forthwith. I draw your attention to item No. 4 in respect of which it is said:
    "The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments."
    The Committee was not formed, by resolution of the House, until last Friday. As the Committee meets tomorrow for the first time this Session, it is wrong that an order should be passed by the House without the necessary consideration. There can be no justification for the Government moving the order tonight because it does not come into force until 1 July—I have a copy here.
    Therefore, the Government should not move item No. 4 so that the Committee may have time to consider the order and to draw to the attention of the House, under the terms of the Standing Order, any defects in the instrument. If the order is moved tonight, the Government will be deliberately flouting the wishes of the House by appointing people to a Committee but preventing them from carrying out the job that the House has given to them. I hope that the Government will not move item No. 4.
    Madam Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, but the instruments are in good order. The Government are prepared to move them, and so I have to put the Question on them.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    That the draft Anatomy (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Mackay.]

    BUILDING SOCIETIES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Building Societies (Member States) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.—[Mr. Mackay.]

  PETITION

    Aung San Suu Kyi
    10.36 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: I wish to present a petition, signed by 600 people, calling for the release from house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been held in virtual isolation for the past three years at her home in Rangoon. The petition reads:
    That human rights continue to be violated in Burma (Union of Myanmar) as evidenced by the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and the detention of other prisoners of conscience.
    Wherefore your humble petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Government to continue the international pressure to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other Burmese prisoners of conscience.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Trafford Park
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The bulk of the Trafford park estate is in my constituency, and for those of us who grew up in Manchester, it was once a symbol of the north-west's manufacturing strength. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) spent much of his working life with the company formerly known as Metrovic, later GEC—and that industrial upbringing was a valuable part of the area's economic and cultural strength. Many of those who have passed through the doors of the House served part of their industrial and political time in Trafford park.
  It is a considerable tragedy to have witnessed the steady erosion of the area's employment, skills, and industrial base. Matters looked particularly bad up to the time when I first entered the House. I remember having several exchanges with Ministers at that time about the needs of the Trafford park area. That led ultimately to the creation of the urban development corporation. As I urged that upon Ministers, it would have been churlish to do anything other than support the Government's creation of that particular corporation.
  Together with many other people in the area, I have done what I can to support the corporation's efforts to bring jobs and industry to Trafford park. That said, although it may have seemed, when the corporation first came into being, that Trafford had turned the industrial corner, the recession of the past few years has seen a haemorrhaging of jobs. Today's debate has largely been prompted by the almost simultaneous loss of 1,000 jobs by four major employers—Texaco, Massey-Ferguson, the Co-op, and GEC.
  Every one of those job losses is a tragedy, but I will dwell on GEC—formerly Metrovic—because it was once the biggest employer in the Trafford park area. As a training ground for young apprentices, it was reckoned to be among the finest in the world. For GEC to announce virtually the end of turbine manufacture there is viewed by many—myself included—as a betrayal of GEC's background and of the community which put so much into that company. I hope that those words reach the company, and that it appreciates the strength of feeling about the way it has treated the area.
  Trafford park and the Manchester travel-to-work area have seen 7,703 redundancies in the 12 months from 1 June 1991 to 31 May this year, while Greater Manchester has suffered job losses totalling well over 13,000—an increase over the previous year. Far from the recession coming to an end in Greater Manchester, it is deepening.
  The jobs being lost are largely those which contribute to my constituency and to those of other hon. Members the skills network which is so vital to a modern economy. We have seen massive job losses in electrical and mechanical engineering, and in the manufacture of transport equipment. Those are all industries vital to the industrial strength and future not only of the north-west but of the whole country.
  In the years since the economy started turning against the manufacturing sector, we have had a Government who are hostile, or at least indifferent, to its plight. The pound has ridden at ridiculously high levels on the international
  122
  currency exchanges, making exports of our manufactures unrealistic. Interest rates have reached record levels, which again makes it extremely difficult to invest. The rate of investment in industry and manufacturing bears that out, and investment in manufacturing in the north-west has fallen greatly.
  The net consequence of that lack of investment has been a loss of jobs and an erosion of the skills base. The level of unemployment in my constituency has almost returned to that reached in the first recession under the Conservative Government of the early 1980s. It is no surprise that the increase has been marked by a similar massive increase in crime. Crime is often part of the black economy into which our young people are siphoned off due to lack of training opportunities or adequate jobs. My constituency is home to the centre of the drugs trade in the north-west. That is a source of great regret to me and I would far sooner see my young people employed at Trafford park.
  Last week I received a letter from a constituent—it is typical of many—who wrote:
  "Yet another letter about the recession 1 am afraid. I am only 51 and find it very hard to find work and have been out of work apart from some casual work for 18 months due to redundancy and I feel that in some cases this is an act of discrimination due to my age etc. as I am a young and active chap. I feel hitter at times"
  My constituent, in common with many people, wants secure employment. Such people once had the economic security which meant that they and their families had a future. Because of redundancy, the recession and mass unemployment, those people are now not only out of work but without hope and living in despair.
  Mr. Ken Eastham: This is almost a debate about despair. The Trafford park industrial estate served all Manchester, including Bury and Bolton. GEC was the traditional centre of great skills. We are told that there is a national shortage of skilled people, but they have been dissipated. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the amalgamation between GEC and Alsthom, which is causing great concern? It is feared that, because of that amalgamation, jobs will go to France. It is possibly because of the management —
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but his intervention is far too long, especially in a short Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Eastham: I apologise. This is an important debate about an issue of great concern. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to underline my—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has touched upon an issue with which I have considerable sympathy.
  It is significant that Texaco and Massey-Ferguson have decided to retrench their activities in different parts of the country. As my hon. Friend said, GEC is now an Anglo-French company. There is a strong suspicion that the order book for France is full, while that for Britain is relatively empty. I accept that a limited number of jobs will be retained in Britain for a few years, but the effective closure of the turbine manufacturing plant in Trafford park is, in part, due to the internationalisation of GEC and the fact that the French always make sure that they protect

  123
  their domestic industry. The French have an active policy of supporting investment and have a product purchasing policy which favours the home industrial base. GEC saw virtually no new orders of turbines from the previously state-owned Central Electricity Generating Board or its successor company after privatisation.
  The same applies to a company in my constituency. Another part of GEC is responsible for the manufacture of traction—railway engines and so on. Once again, the lack of home demand over the years has meant that GEC Traction has suffered unfair competition relative to other international producers. Nowadays large-scale engineering is increasingly carried out on an international basis by major international consortia such as GEC Alsthom in Manchester, Siemens and Braun Bovary. Those are all large international producers and, except for the British companies, all have support from their Governments and home economies, so they at least have an opportunity to invest in research and development knowing that their home base will generate the demand which justifies such investment. In Britain, almost uniquely, such investment does not take place because the Department of Trade and Industry does not sponsor our domestic producers. That is a matter of considerable regret, not just to Opposition Members but to many people throughout our manufacturing sector. We need the Government to take a different view of the manufacturing sector.
  I appreciate why the Under-Secretary of State for Employment is here tonight. Industry debates could be answered by Ministers from many different Departments. We want the Government to take a co-ordinated approach to the manufacturing sector. It is not enough simply to invest in a development corporation which, although it will do what it can, can do nothing about the recession which is still laying sway to industry throughout the land. Indeed, confronted with recent job losses, the development corporation said that it was trying to take various steps. It claimed, for instance, that it was trying to create 1,600 jobs on the Massey-Ferguson site. Those jobs may come to fruition in the future, but jobs have disappeared here and now. The development corporation made it clear that the recession was having a detrimental effect on its efforts in the area. Sponsored by the Department of the Environment, the development corporation is not enough of itself.
  I hope that the presence of a former Secretary of State for the Environment in the Board of Trade means that we shall begin to have a co-ordinated approach between the different Government Departments. We need a clear message from the Minister today, not just to Trafford park but to the whole of the manufacturing sector, that the days are over when the former Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, said that manufacturing was all about the sunset industries and that Britain was looking to a brave new future of services. The Minister must assure us that such political rhetoric and economic nonsense is a thing of the past and that the Government will target the manfacturing sector as the most important part of Britain's economic future. Unless the Government work in that spirit, the problems that I have outlined in Manchester will continue and many of the productive centres of Britain will continue to see devastation and waste.
  124
  Beyond a commitment to the manfacturing sector, we need a commitment to policies which will give manufacturing a chance. For instance, we need a Government who support exports. There are certain problems with export credit guarantees. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on those tonight, but I hope that he will take the matter on board and convey the problems to colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry who can deal with it. Our exporters certainly feel hobbled by the problems that they face with the Export Credits Guarantee Department when they compare their position to that of exporters in similar industrialised countries.
  We need a Government who will place emphasis on investment in manufacturing. Manufacturing in my area has been cut back dramatically. The Government must make such investment worth while. Until interest rates come down, it is unrealistic to believe that manufacturing investment will race forward, but the Government must sponsor those who are prepared to invest in the manufacturing sector and ensure that that investment leads to the creation of new, highly skilled jobs.
  The tragedy of what has happened in Trafford park in recent years is that highly skilled, high value jobs which used to be at the heart of the region have been replaced with relatively semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. I do not complain about any job that is created, but we must begin to retrain all our people, not merely those in selective parts of the country, if we are to give them the dignity that they deserve. We must begin to turn the corner. At present, many of our young people have no hope of employment or, even if they have, they believe that there is no long-term Government commitment to it. Without any commitment to invest in training our young people, the future for districts such as mine is bleak.
  I hope that the Minister can give some words of comfort tonight. I hope that I have not spoken in a partisan manner, although I obviously had some criticisms to make. I hope that, in turn, the Minister will respond by making it clear that the Government are committed to the Trafford park district, to manufacturing industry and to a future for my constituents which will bring them long-term jobs and rewards.
  11.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on securing tonight's debate. I notice that he is supported by the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan). I fully understand the concerns and needs of the constituents of the hon. Member for Stretford, and his commitment to them.
  The Government accept that job losses have occurred in Trafford park and that the unemployment rate in the Manchester travel-to-work district is higher than any of us would wish it to be. However, without wishing to minimise the problems—no Government Member wants to do that —I note that the rise in unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency during the past two years has been less than in the north-west region as a whole, where the rise has been less than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  125
  There is no doubt that unemployment is not just a matter for local or even national concern: it is an international problem. More than 15.75 million people are currently unemployed in the 12 countries of the European Community. In the latest three-month period, unemployment has risen in all EC countries except Germany. In France it has reached its highest level ever, and it is also a problem outside the Community—the United States of America has its highest unemployment rate for five years.
  However, although as in those other countries the United Kingdom's unemployment level is increasing, there are clear signs that the rate at which it is rising is diminishing. The average increase in the three months to April was the lowest since the three months to September 1990.
  There are also grounds for cautious optimism in the wider economy. Surveys conducted over recent weeks show increasing confidence among consumers and businesses. The prices of goods leaving the factory gates are at their lowest for four years.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for a co-ordinated approach. There is a co-ordinated approach throughout the Government. It is important not only to create the right climate, but to ensure that interest rates are reduced. Since we joined the exchange rate mechanism in 1990 there has been a 5 per cent. decrease in interest rates. There is a co-ordinated approach, not just from the Department of Employment or the Department of Trade and Industry, but from Treasury.
  I fully realise that the job cuts announced by Massey-Ferguson, GEC and the other companies mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will be a loss to the Trafford park district. As in almost all cases where workers stand to lose their jobs, I am sure that there are arguments, some more valid than others, that can be mounted against the cuts. Ultimately, such decisions are for the commercial judgment of the companies involved. It would be counterproductive for the Government to interfere. It is relevant that neither set of job losses is to take place immediately, and the companies have offered considerable help to their employees, including the chance to move to other parts of the country—although I realise that that option does not suit everyone. I understand that the local employment service is in touch with the companies and with Texaco, and is offering help—although I stress that the majority of the job losses have not yet occurred.
  It would be wrong, however, to allow the impression to gain ground that all is doom and gloom. Far from it. The job losses are by no means the full picture. There is a brighter side. New investment is being attracted to the area, and jobs are being created. In particular, I wish to highlight the work of the Trafford Park development corporation, one of the 10 urban development corporations in England and Wales that aim to encourage investment and bring derelict land and buildings into effective use. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Stretford pay tribute to the vast amount of work that the corporation has done, and I hope that co-operation spreads across all parties in the Manchester area.
  A survey commissioned by the Trafford Park development corporation has shown that, in its five years of operation, 460 new companies have located their business in Trafford park, and that in the same period an additional 9,500 jobs have been created—an increase of nearly 40 per cent. on the 1987 figure. That is particularly
  126
  encouraging, as is the fact that the highest level of employment in Trafford park is in the engineering sector and 48 per cent. of all employees are in manufacturing.
  I readily accept what has been said about the importance of manufacturing; I also accept that there is a need to ensure that skills and training play a vital part in industry. That, however, is part of a wider debate, and we do not have time to discuss it fully tonight. Perhaps we shall be able to do so tomorrow.
  Two noteworthy investments in Trafford park should be recorded—no doubt the hon. Member for Stretford and his hon. Friends are familiar with them. I refer to Proctor and Gamble's multi-million pound development, which will create 250 new jobs, and British Rail's choice of Trafford park for its £11 million channel tunnel freight terminal, which could create up to 4,000 jobs in the area. Those are substantial investments, which are important to the future of the Manchester area.
  I also note that the development corporation has recently announced a package of planning permissions and investment decisions, which should create 1,600 jobs, as well as possible construction jobs. Moreover, although they are not in his constituency, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome some of the other major developments in the Manchester area. They include the new metro supertram system, which is now operational and has created over 100 jobs—and which was funded by the Government; the airport's second international terminal, which will double its capacity; and the attractive leisure and office developments at Salford quays.
  I am sure that we all welcome the decision to provide £55 million to support Manchester's bid for the Olympic games in the year 2000. It will be used to provide an Olympic arena and other sports facilities. If, as we all hope, Manchester's bid is successful, there will be a wealth of opportunities for new employment.
  Despite those successes in creating jobs in the area, there are—and will continue to be—unemployed people who need help. The Government are now providing a wide and versatile range of help for such people, much of which is channelled through the employment services and the training and enterprise councils—or TECs, as they are more familiarly known. Our overall aim is to provide help which is tailored to the individual and meets his or her needs, and which enables such people to find the most suitable employment—including self-employment—as quickly as possible.
  All newly unemployed people are offered positive help on the road back to employment by the employment service's new client advisers. Such help includes news of the availability of vacancies, alternative employment, training opportunities and employment service initiatives. The adviser also helps such people to draw up a back-to-work plan that charts the best course of action to enable that person to get back to work.
  Those who have not found work within 13 weeks are offered further interviews and help. In the year ending March 1992, in the Manchester central employment service area—which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Stretford—nearly 64,000 such interviews with claimant advisers took place. Those interviews have helped over 8,300 people to find jobs or other positive outcomes, such as training or job clubs. I think it important to address training and retraining, and to provide opportunities for people to take advantage of those facilities.
  Mr. Eastham: We are grateful for any innovations, but certain established industries in Trafford park, such as traction, are not being used. The Minister referred to the success of Metrolink, but some of the work was done in Milan and one wonders why it was not possible to do it in this country.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go further than I wish to go now. He ought to address that question to the people who were responsible for constructing the supertram. He should ask them why they did not feel that it was either possible or right to buy British products. I accept that it is a relevant question, but I cannot answer it this evening.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd rose—
  Mr. McLoughlin: I do not wish to be diverted down this path, but I shall obviously give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lloyd: The traction for Metrolink was made in Trafford park. I should hate the public to be under any illusions about that.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is why I do not want to go down that path now. There are wider questions, to which the hon. Member for Blackley referred.
  As for the services that are in place to try to help people to find jobs and to help those who are unemployed, we have job clubs, job interview guarantees, job review workshops, job search seminars and other employment service initiatives to help the unemployed to identify employment and training opportunities. They are all available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to people elsewhere in the Manchester area.
  The full range of the Government's training and enterprise programmes are also available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, including the youth training scheme for 16 and 17-year-olds, employment training and employment action for unemployed adults, and help in some cases with business start-ups.
  The training and enterprise measures are delivered through the Manchester training and enterprise council, one of the 82 training and enterprise councils now fully
  128
  operational in England and Wales. The successful completion of the network means that we now have in place an unprecedented partnership of Government, business and individuals, with over 1,200 front rank business leaders across the country serving on their local TECs. All that is backed by more than £2 billion of Government funding. We believe that this partnership is the best way to skill Britain for the 1990s and beyond.
  We are taking the provision of skill training and the encouragement of skills very seriously. However, the sole purpose of the TECs should not be thought to be the delivery of Government programmes, important though that is; they have a much wider role. For example, as part of its objectives concerning training for the adult unemployed, Manchester TEC has a number of local, specially tailored initiatives. Skillplan is a guidance, assessment and referral service for unemployed people. Skillplan operates through 12 main sites and on an outreach basis through selected jobcentres.
  Manchester TEC is also collaborating in a project in Trafford park aimed at improving employment and training prospects for ethnic minority women. This initiative stems from the fact that there is very low take-up of adult training provision among Asian women. The idea of providing a series of courses prior to taking up employment training or prior to a job itself was the idea of a member of the Asian community.
  Another idea that Manchester TEC is pursuing is Manchester TEC/1000. This is another locally grown initiative, aimed at improving the training and employment prospects of 1,000 disadvantaged people, many of them living in areas of social and economic deprivation. There are two promoters for Manchester TEC/1000 in Old Trafford and one in Partington. They have already arranged training, employment, or referrals for 40 of the 124 individuals who have approached them for help in the last six months. I am sure that people welcome these initiatives, because they are important.
  In conclusion—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half and hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Disabled Voters
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many grants were(a) received and (b) approved in the last financial year for portable ramps to enable church and other authorities to adapt polling stations to meet the needs of disabled voters.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Grants towards the purchase of temporary ramps to provide access to polling stations for disabled voters are paid to returning officers. About 25 grants for the purchase of temporary ramps were paid in the financial year 1991–92. No applications for grants were refused. In addition, a few applications which were received in the last financial year will be paid during the current year.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to allow grant aid for church and other authorities providing polling stations for local and national elections to meet the needs of disabled voters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Councils are required, so far as is reasonable and practicable, to designate as polling places only places which are accessible to the disabled. Where this is not possible, grants are available to returning officers towards the purchase of temporary ramps. Permanent adaptations to improve access for disabled people to buildings used by the public are the responsibility of the owners of the buildings. Returning officers' fees are not a suitable means of providing assistance towards such adaptations.

  Homosexual Offences
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many men were sent to prison in each of the last five years for convictions involving consenting sex with men aged over 16 years and under 21 years; and how many such convicted prisoners there are at present;

  (2) how many prosecutions have taken place in each of the last five years for offences involving consenting sex with men aged over 16 years but under 21 years; and how many convictions there were.

  Mr. Jack
  The table gives information on consensual acts of buggery or attempted buggery of a male of, or over 21, with another male under the age of 21, with consent—Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 12 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967, section 3(1).

  Information on the numbers currently serving a custodial sentence in a prison service establishment in England and Wales for these offences, is not presently available centrally.
  2

  Number of persons prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to immediate custody for consensual sexual offences,1 1986–90

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Sentences of immediate custody

  1986

  24

  21

  12

  1987

  21

  13

  7

  1988

  19

  24

  11

  1989

  8

  17

  10

  1990

  10

  9

  8

  1 Buggery or attempted buggery of a male of, or over 21 with another male under the age of 21 with consent.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if specific guidelines exist for prioritising education bids for section 11 funding.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No specific guidelines have been issued about how local authorities should exercise their own judgment in prioritising their applications for section 11 funding, either within or between education and other service areas.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate total spending by his Department for section 11 grants, at current prices, for each year since 1987, and projected allocation for section 11 funding in 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total amount of section 11 grant paid in each financial year since 1987–88 at current prices was as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  123.0

  1988–89

  109.5

  1989–90

  132.8

  1990–91

  144.9

  1991–92

  113.0

  Current expenditure plans are as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  129.7

  1993–94

  136.0

  1994–95

  139.0

  Expenditure plans for 1995–96 will be included in the autumn statement.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate for each year since 1987, in both net figures at current prices and as a proportion of total section 11 funding, the amount of section 11 money allocated to non-education bids.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under arrangements operating until 31 March 1992, precise figures for the amount of grant paid for non-education expenditure are not available. It is estimated, however, that non-education provision has accounted for approximately 20 per cent. of total grant in the past.

  For new projects starting in 1992–93, the provisional allocation in respect of the potential grant cost of non-education projects in 1992–93 is some £11.5 million representing some 11 per cent. of the total grant.
  3
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for 1991–92, what proportion of section 11 bids which were given high priority by local authorities were not approved by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As a result of the consideration of bids submitted in 1991 for funding under the new arrangements for section 11 grant to take effect from 1 April 1992, 17 per cent. of project bids listed in the top 20 per cent. of local authorities' priority lists were not approved.

  Immigration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans Her Majesty's Government have to ratify the convention determining the states responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the member states of the European Community signed in Dublin on 15 June 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We plan to ratify the Dublin convention shortly.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many husbands have applied from Pakistan for settlement visas to join their wives in Britain in each of the last three years; how many have been granted; and how many have been refused.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Applications for entry clearance made by husbands in Pakistan

  Number of persons

  Newly received

  Granted initially

  Granted on appeal

  Granted (total)

  Refused initially

  1989

  1,760

  630

  100

  730

  1,430

  1990

  1,950

  600

  400

  1,000

  1,550

  1991

  2,270

  960

  540

  1,500

  1,610

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many wives have applied from Pakistan for settlement visas to join their husbands in Britain in each of the last three years; how many have been granted; and how many have been refused.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Applications for entry clearance made by wives in Pakistan

  Number of persons

  Newly received

  Granted initially

  Granted on appeal

  Granted (total)

  Refused initially

  1989

  3,060

  2,760

  80

  2,840

  140

  1990

  2,800

  2,750

  200

  2,950

  340

  1991

  2,900

  2,900

  110

  3,010

  360

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the adjudicators' decision was received by his Department in the case of NB, date of birth 1 June 1966, and fiance of ABH, date of birth 8 October 1968; and if he will give reasons for the delay in issuing entry clearance;

  (2) if he will seek to improve the length of time it takes to issue entry clearance after a decision by the adjudicator;
  4
  (3) what is his target for the length of time between the adjudicators' decision to grant entry clearance and entry clearance being issued.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Convictions (Safety)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Essex constabulary into the safety of the convictions of Sam Kulasingham and Prem Siuchasinghan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Essex police are actively proceeding with their inquiries into this case, but the extent of their remaining inquiries make it difficult, at this stage, to give a precise timing for its conclusions.

  Public Assemblies
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will conduct an urgent review of the powers available to the police to prevent assemblies such as that at Castlemorton common taking place where they are a threat to public order, safety and health and consider bringing forward measures, similar to those affecting marches, to enable chief constables to ban such events if unauthorised.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have called for a full report from the chief constable of West Mercia on the policing of the event at Castlemorton. Senior officials will very shortly be considering with chief constables the powers available to the police service, the intelligence and liaison arrangements between forces and their tactics for handling such large gatherings.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed in C3 division of the Home Office.

  Mr. Jack
  On 1 June 1992, a total of 55 staff were employed in C3 division.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the hours of opening for each of the royal parks; and what are the hours for their lighting.

  Mr. Key
  The information is as follows:

  Hours of opening and closing

  Park

  Opening

  Closing

  Hyde Park

  05.00 am

  Midnight

  Kensington Gardens

  05.00 am

  Dusk

  St. James's Park

  Open always

  Green Park

  Open always

  Regents Park (except Queen Mary Gardens)

  05.00 am

  Dusk

  5

  Park

  Opening

  Closing

  Queen Mary Gardens

  07.00 am

  Dusk

  Primrose Hill

  Open always

  Greenwich Park Pedestrian Gates

  05.00 am

  18.00 pm or Dusk, whichever is later

  Traffic Gates

  05.45 am

  18.00 pm or Dusk, whichever is later

  Bushy Park Pedestrian Gates

  Open always

  Traffic Gates

  06.00 am

  Midnight

  Richmond Park Pedestrian Gates

  Open always

  Traffic Gates

  November-February 07.30 am

  Dusk

  March-October 07.00 am

  Dusk

  Lighting up hours

  Park

  Period

  Times

  Hyde Park

  Kensington Gardens

  Summer

  20.45pm-Midnight

  St. James's Park

  Summer

  20.45pm-Midnight

  Green Park

  Winter

  Standard lighting up times

  Regent's Park including Primrose Hill

  Greenwich Park

  Richmond Park

  No lighting in parks

  Bushy Park

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total cost of providing street and path lighting in royal parks for each of the last five years; and how many employees are engaged in providing and maintaining this service.

  Mr. Key
  The total cost for the provision of street and path lighting was £221,000 in 1990–91 and £271,000 in 1991–92. Separate records of expenditure on these services were not kept for previous years.

  The royal parks do not directly employ any staff to carry out these services.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set out the cost of maintaining the railings around the royal parks for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Key
  The total cost of maintaining and repairing the railings and gates around the royal parks was £86,000 in 1990–91 and £252,000 in 1991–92. Separate records of expenditure on these items were not kept for previous years.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the progress of contracting ground maintenance in the royal parks and the royal parks police force and the effects on cost and efficiency.
  6
  Mr. Key
  Contracts for the gardening and landscape maintenance work and for urgent tree work have all been let and came into operation on 1 March 1992. The nursery contract will come into effect on 4 July. An additional contract for tree maintenance will be awarded shortly. None of the new arrangements affect the royal parks constabulary.

  The primary objective of contracting out was to maintain and improve standards both in the royal parks and in the industry and I am confident that this will be achieved. Current projections are for an actual cost saving through contracting out of £200,000 in 1992–93.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many commercially sponsored litter bins and park benches there are in the royal parks; and what is his estimate of the consequent cost saving.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the direct labour departments by number of employees for each royal park and depot and list their functions.

  Mr. Key
  The details are as follows:

  Park

  Number Employed

  Function

  Central Parks1

  14

  Plant production in the Hyde Park nursery2

  Regents Park

  4

  Plant production in the nursery2

  Greenwich Park

  6

  Plant production in the nursery2

  Richmond Park

  2

  Gamekeeping duties

  Bushy Park

  1

  Gamekeeping duties

  1 Central Parks comprise—Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, St. James's Park and the Green Park.

  2 Until 3 July 1992 when redundancy notices take effect. Plants will subsequently be purchased from a contractor.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for reforestation of royal parks.

  Mr. Key
  The royal parks tree replanting programme is based on the traditional tree planting patterns in each park.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total cost for each of the last five years of providing(a) refuse and litter bins and (b) park benches and their maintenance in royal parks.

  Mr. Key
  The details are as follows:

  Year

  Bins

  Benches

  £

  £

  1987–88

  51,000

  Nil

  1988–89

  138,900

  Nil

  1989–90

  46,900

  Nil

  1990–91

  85,000

  16,500

  1991–92

  81,300

  3,900

  Records of park bench maintenance costs have not been kept separately.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total income earned in royal parks for each of the last five years by(a) ice cream refreshment concessions, (b) deck chair concessions and (c) boating lake concessions.
  7
  Mr. Key
  The figures are:

  Concession

  Year ending 31 March 1988

  Year ending 31 March 1989

  Year ending 31 March 1990

  Year ending 31 March 1991

  Year ending 31 March 1992

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Catering1

  238.9

  273.1

  361.7

  473.2

  412.81

  Boating

  31.0

  34.3

  41.5

  37.5

  75.00

  Deck chairs

  20.6

  24.6

  7.3

  23.5

  23.30

  1 Total catering concession income. Separate records of income relating to ice cream sales are not kept.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when management consultants last looked at the royal parks management structure.

  Mr. Key
  1985.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many park keepers in royal parks are provided by private contractors.

  Mr. Key
  This is a matter for the contractors. The numbers fluctuate with the amount of work required.

  Departmental Library
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on arrangements made to establish a new library for his Department.

  Mr. Key
  My Department is actively working towards setting up the full range of services necessary to a department of state. Divisions are currently using the library facilities provided by their former parent Departments, but it is likely to be the case that we will be instituting our own library services in due course. Full consideration will be given to the provision of these services and it may be that there will be scope for contracting them out.

TRANSPORT

  VAT
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the imposition of value added tax on passenger transport; and what would be the increase in(a) fares or (b) public sector grant in a full year to recover the net cost of value added tax charged at a rate of (i) 15 per cent. and (ii) 17.5 per cent.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have made no detailed assessment of the effects of the imposition of value added tax on passenger transport. Agreement reached by Finance Ministers enables us to retain our existing zero rates.

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

  Mr. Norris
  The report of the chief inspector of marine accidents into the collision between the fishing vessel Antares and HMS Trenchant is expected to be published by HMSO on 9 July 1992.

  British Rail (Finance)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of Government financial support for British Rail provided in(a) million pounds, (b) the amount needed to equal the 1979 allocation in real terms and (c) the percentage excess or shortfall compared to the 1979 allocation in real terms; and if he will provide a breakdown by the following (i) public sector obligation, (ii) external financing limit and (iii) external financing requirement for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's external financing limit—EFL—for 1992–93 has been set at £2,096 million. British Rail's external financing requirement—EFR—for 1979 was £1,735 million in 1992–93 prices. British Rail's EFL for 1992–93 therefore shows an increase of 21 per cent. over the figure for 1979 in real terms.

  The annual breakdown by public service obligation, EFL and EFR is shown in the table.

  Government financial support for British Rail 1979 to 1992–93

  £ million in 1992–93 prices

  Public service obligation grant

  External finance limit

  External finance requirement

  1979

  1,176

  1,735

  1,737

  1980

  1,180

  1,620

  1,620

  1981

  1,398

  1,720

  1,795

  1982

  1,425

  1,611

  1,481

  1983

  1,422

  1,590

  1,352

  1 1984–85

  1,692

  1,477

  1,660

  1985–86

  1,233

  1,382

  1,370

  1986–87

  1,004

  1,141

  1,131

  1987–88

  1,051

  1,038

  816

  1988–89

  688

  971

  482

  1989–90

  603

  768

  814

  1990–91

  669

  781

  1,134

  1991–92

  941

  1,591

  1,511

  2 1992–93

  1,040

  2,096

  n/a

  1 1984–85 was a 15-month year.

  2 The figure for public service obligation grant for 1992–93 is a ceiling.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the level of freight carried by rail expressed(a) in million tonnes and (b) as a percentage of total freight for (i) each of the EC member states, (ii) Sweden and (iii) Norway and Finland for each year since 1979;

  (2) what is the total amount of freight carried by British Rail expressed in million tonnes; and if he will provide a breakdown by (a) coal and coke, (b) iron and steel, (c) oil and chemicals, (d) building and construction, (e) freightliner and (f) other traffic for each of the years since 1979;

  (3) what is the proportion of railway operating costs which are met from (a) passenger and (b) freight revenue

  9
  expressed in (i) cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of total operating costs for each of the EC member states, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

  Mr. Freeman
  : Such data as are available are contained in the following publications:
  Transport Statistics Great Britain (TSGB) 1991: Table 6.9;
  Transport Statistics Report. International Comparisons of Transport Statistics 1970–1988 Part 1: Intermodal—Annex, Table B;
  TSGB 1979–1989 and TSGB 1991—Table 3.4;
  International Railway Statistics 1990: Table 72.
  All these publications are available in the Library.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of(a) rail routes and (b) running tracks are electrified in the following (i) Scotland, (ii) England, (iii) Wales, (iv) Northern Ireland, (v) each of the EC member states, (vi) Sweden, (vii) Norway and (viii) Finland.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information regarding the electrification of running tracks is not available. The percentage of rail routes electrified appears in the table:

  Percentage of rail routes electrified—1989

  Per cent.

  Scotland

  23

  England

  33

  Wales

  0

  Northern Ireland

  0

  Belgium

  65

  Denmark

  10

  France

  36

  Germany

  38

  Greece

  0

  Italy

  59

  Luxembourg

  72

  Netherlands

  69

  Portugal

  15

  Republic of Ireland

  2

  Spain

  51

  Sweden

  63

  Norway

  60

  Finland

  28

  Sources:

  British Rail.

  Northern Ireland Railways Co. Ltd.

  Transport Statistics Great Britain.

  UIC Statistics 1989.

  Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the 10th anniversary of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Norris
  I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State supported this application and has agreed to open the exhibition on Monday 29 June.

  Light Rail Schemes
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the funding of future light rail schemes.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the funding of future light rail schemes.
  10
  Mr. MacGregor
  Light rail schemes are assessed for grant in accordance with the procedures and criteria set out in circular 3/89. Credit approvals are provided if required for the balance of resources, taking account of any contribution from the private sector. The fact that a scheme has qualified for funding does not however mean that the resources will be available. The Government are determined to keep tight control over public expenditure. We have funded the £135 million Manchester Metro, and are currently funding the £230 million South Yorkshire Supertram but it will not be possible to provide funds for construction of line one of the Midland Metro in the current spending round. However, we intend to continue supporting measures taken by local authorities to improve bus services, including traffic management measures. Such measures involve less call for capital expenditure and do have an immediate benefit for public transport. We have invited local authorities to submit further schemes for resource allocation next year.

  Helicopter Sale
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department authorised the sale of British Airways helicopters to Robert Maxwell; and what conditions were applied.

  Mr. Norris
  The sale did not require the Secretary of State's approval or authorisation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the special advisers appointed to Government Ministers in this Parliament and their previous occupations.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The names and pre-election occupations of special advisers appointed in this Parliament are as follows:

  Name

  Previous occupation

  K. Adams

  Special Adviser

  J. S. Bercow

  Sallingbury Casey

  E. Bickham

  Special Adviser

  T. Burke

  Special Adviser

  J. Caine

  Special Adviser

  D. W. D. Cameron

  Conservation Central Office

  Dr. E. Cottrell

  Conservation Central Office

  Sir P. Cradock

  Special Adviser

  Mr. Fraser

  Special Adviser

  Sir C. Foster

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

  C. M. Grantham

  Special Adviser

  D. Green

  Television Presenter

  M. S. Hole

  Special Adviser

  Mrs. S. Hogg

  Special Adviser

  C. Hopson

  Communications Consultant

  A. Kemp

  Special Adviser

  Mrs. T. Keswick

  Special Adviser

  Mrs. E. Laing

  Special Adviser

  G. Mackay

  Special Adviser

  R. Marsh

  Special Adviser

  J. Mayhew

  Special Adviser

  M. McManus

  Conservative Central Office

  P. J. E. Miller

  Special Adviser

  D. Poole

  James Capel

  Mrs. K. Ramsay

  Special Adviser

  Dr. W. Robinson

  Special Adviser

  P. Rock

  Conservative Central Office

  A. Rosling

  Special Adviser

  D. Ruffley

  Special Adviser

  11

  Name

  Previous occupation

  I. Stewart

  Special Adviser

  Lady Strathnaver

  Special Adviser

  N. True

  Special Adviser

  I. R. Wilton

  Special Adviser

  A. Young

  Special Adviser

  Honours List
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on the confidentiality of proposed recommendations by him for honours until they are formally announced; what steps are taken when such confidence is breached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister treats such recommendations in strict confidence until they are announced and asks others to treat them similarly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Drift Net Fishing
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions his Department has had with the National Rivers Authority concerning the phasing out of the north-east drift net fishery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Following the report to Parliament on 17 October prepared by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the National Rivers Authority was asked how the regulation of this fishery could be changed, inter alia, to phase out the drift net fisheries. Officials have remained in close touch with the NRA. We expect to receive the NRA's response in the summer.

  Whaling
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to instigate a permanent ban on commercial whaling.

  Mr. Curry
  A moratorium on commercial whaling has been agreed by the International Whaling Commission and has operated since 1985. The United Kingdom strongly supports the moratorium. Its future will be a key issue for discussion at the commission's 44th annual meeting in Glasgow this month.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to promote at the International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow in June(a) a total and permanent ban on commercial whaling and (b) the declaration of Antartic waters as a whale sanctuary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  A moratorium on commercial whaling, promoted by the IWC, has operated since 1985. The moratorium has been supported by the United Kingdom which has banned whaling within British fishery limits since 1976. A proposal to establish a whale sanctuary in the southern hemisphere, south of 40°S, has been put forward by the French Government for discussion at the 12
  next IWC meeting. Details of this proposal have only just been received and will require careful study. The proposals address a number of questions to the International Whaling Commission's scientific committee whose advice we shall also need to evaluate.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to press the European Commission to draw up proposals for a permanent ban on whaling in EC waters.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 4 June,Official Report, column 642.

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to respond to the milk marketing board's proposals to turn itself into a single voluntary co-operative with pooled prices.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have welcomed the board's proposals which represent a major step forward, and is currently considering them, together with equivalent proposals from the other four United Kingdom boards. We intend to introduce legislation this season to facilitate the conversion of the boards into non-statutory organisations.

  Industrial Fishing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for phasing out industrial fishing; and whether he will make it his policy for decomissioning grants to be concentrated on this area to reduce effort.

  Mr. Curry
  There is as yet insufficient evidence to win an argument in the Council of Ministers that industrial fishing harms human consumption fisheries and should be phased out. In the United Kingdom industrial fishery the Shetland sandeel fishery was closed in 1990 and remains shut. Access to the west coast of Scotland sandeel fishery is restricted by licence. The bycatch of human consumption species in industrial fisheries is considerably smaller than the discards of juvenile fish from the white fish fisheries. Very few United Kingdom vessels are involved in industrial fishing. Decommissioning funds will be used to target effort in order to maximise the value for money of the public funds available. All applications for decommissioning grants will be evaluated using the same criteria. Decommissioning funds will be used to target effort in order to maximise the value for money of the public funds available. All applications for decommissioning grants will be evaluated using the same criteria.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now in a position to make an announcement about the future of sheep scab controls.

  Mr. Soames
  Sheep scab is a disease which can be readily controlled at the individual farm level and sheep farmers are well aware of the preventative measures and procedures needed to deal with the disease in their flocks. Compulsory national dipping arrangements required all
  13
  flocks to be dipped, whether or not infected or at risk of infection. In 1991 the disease was recorded by the State Veterinary Service in 116 flocks out of 105,000 sheep holdings in Great Britain.

  The Government decided that responsibility for action to deal with sheep scab should rest with farmers. The dipping of sheep will no longer be compulsory and shortly legislation will he put before Parliament proposing that the disease will cease to be notifiable or subject to statutory control measures when it is discovered.

  Legislation is already in place to protect the welfare of animals. We shall not hesitate to press for the prosecution of those who do not deal promptly and satisfactorily with outbreaks of sheep scab in their flocks. Field staff of the State Veterinary Service will, as in other cases where the welfare of animals may be at risk, look for evidence of sheep scab during their visits to markets and farms and will investigate all cases reported to them, where there is a potential welfare problem. Every sheep farmer will be contacted, in writing, to remind farmers of their responsibilities for controlling sheep scab and of the procedures they should follow should their flocks become infected.

  Relocation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when an announcement will be made on the choice of the site in York to which 600 headquarters posts from his Department will be relocating in 1994.

  Mr. Gummer
  I hope to make an announcement in due course.

  CAP Reform
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect he expects the recent agreement on CAP reform to have on the price, over the next three years, of(a) 1 lb of bacon, (b) a standard loaf and (c) ½lb of butter.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to give precise estimates. The reform process will be spread over a number of years, and during this period retail food prices will be affected by a number of factors. However, at the end of the reform period the retail food price index could be some 2 per cent. lower on average than it would otherwise have been.

  Mail Order Foods
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has made to the Mail Order Fine Food Association's "Proposals for Improving Safety Standards in Mail Order Foods", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have recently written to the Mail Order Fine Foods Association outlining my response to that organisation's paper entitled "Proposals for Improving Safety Standards in Mail Order Foods". I welcome the formation of the association and applaud its primary objective of introducing and maintaining improved standards of food quality and hygiene throughout the mail order trade. Moreover, the association's initiative in drawing up a code of good hygiene practice for the mail order food industry is to be commended. Given the importance of temperature control and of scrupulous 14
  attention to hygiene at the production and packing stages of all foods, I shall be interested to follow the progress of this code and the extent to which, though voluntary, it commands general acceptance in the mail order sector.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, columns 322-23, if he will list the locations of incinerators approved by his Ministry for the disposal of BSE cows; and what is the weekly capacity for each one.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Ministry uses eight incineration plants in England and Wales for the incineration of suspect BSE carcases. They are located in Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Somerset, Nottinghamshire, Avon, Cornwall, Dyfed and Clywd. One of these is at a Ministry veterinary investigation centre located in Sutton Bonington, Nottinghamshire and has the capacity to incinerate 22 carcases per week. The others are privately owned and operate on a commercial basis. The Ministry cannot therefore disclose details, such as individual capacity, for these plants.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will convene a working party of independent scientists to produce an updated report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I did so in 1990 and this committee, chaired by Dr. Tyrrell, has produced advice to Ministers on a number of occasions. In each case the recommendations have been made public and implemented in full.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will show the number of confirmed cases of BSE in each county of England and Wales from May.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of cases confirmed for England and Wales from I May 1992 to 29 May 1992 is as follows. These cases will have a date of clinical onset of disease, and indeed date of report, before 1 May.

  County

  Confirmed cases

  England

  Avon

  46

  Bedfordshire

  8

  Berkshire

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  Cheshire

  176

  Cleveland

  4

  Cornwall

  258

  Cumbria

  103

  Derbyshire

  109

  Devon

  343

  Dorset

  164

  Durham

  19

  Essex

  6

  Gloucestershire

  49

  Hampshire

  42

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  56

  Hertfordshire

  5

  Humberside

  15

  Isle of Wight

  11

  Kent

  38

  Lancashire

  103

  Leicestershire

  58

  15

  County

  Confirmed cases

  Lincolnshire

  11

  London

  3

  Manchester

  0

  Merseyside

  2

  Norfolk

  75

  Northamptonshire

  24

  Northumberland

  34

  Nottinghamshire

  24

  Oxfordshire

  42

  Shropshire

  81

  Somerset

  209

  Staffordshire

  95

  Suffolk

  27

  Surrey

  22

  Susex, East

  24

  Sussex, West

  52

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  Warwickshire

  30

  West Midlands

  3

  Wiltshire

  104

  Yorks, North

  152

  Yorks, South

  6

  Yorks, West

  24

  Wales

  Clwyd

  52

  Dyfed

  199

  Glamorgan, North

  2

  Glamorgan, South

  11

  Glamorgan, West

  2

  Gwent

  21

  Gwynedd

  14

  Powys

  59

  Myxomatosis Vaccine
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when stocks of myxomatosis vaccine for pet rabbits will be exhausted; what assessment he has made of the likely consequences for domestic pets; how this situation has arisen; and if he will take steps to secure immediate production of this vaccine.

  Mr. Soames
  Discussions between licence holders and the licensing authority are confidential matters on which I am unable to comment under the terms of section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968. 1 can confirm however that a licence for myxomatosis vaccine was recently surrendered by the licence holder. Information on the stocks available is not held centrally but there will be no further supplies once those currently held by veterinarians have been exhausted.

  Informal discussions have taken place with representatives of the veterinary pharmaceutical industry about the possibility that other companies might wish to make applications for a licence but so far no applications have been forthcoming. This is a commercial decision for the companies concerned and will clearly be influenced by the perceived level of demand for such a product.

  Any application would need to be considered against the scientific criteria of safety, quality and efficacy as required by the Medicines Act and would be assessed as speedily as possible.

  Food (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken on the recommendation by the Agriculture Committee that his 16
  Department should develop a monitoring system at key food outlets to give an indication of day-to-day levels of radiocativity in major foodstuffs.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry's priority remains the monitoring of sheep at the point of production to ensure that contaminated animals or produce are identified and prevented from entering the food chain.

  To supplement these live monitoring arrangements, the Department operates a programme of monitoring at a number of slaughterhouses which take sheep from the Cumbria restricted area. In addition, our terrestrial radioactivity monitoring programme involves the monitoring of milk at dairies covering 27 counties in England and Wales. The results of this monitoring are published regularly and copies are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Also, monitoring programmes for radioactivity in food operated by various bodies have been published in a compendium "Programmes to Monitor Radioactivity in Food: Food Surveillance Paper No. 28, HMSO, 1990". This report gives an indication of the further extensive monitoring of food that currently takes place.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the rate of suckler cow premium for the 1992 scheme year.

  Mr. Gummer
  At its meeting on 18 to 21 May, the Council of Agriculture Ministers agreed that the Community-funded element of the suckler cow premium for the 1992 scheme year should be 50 ecu—£39.77—per head. There will continue to be provision for an optional national top-up to the Community-funded premium. I expect the Commission to produce a draft implementing regulation shortly. An announcement on the rate of premium to apply in the United Kingdom for the 1992 scheme will be made in due course. In the meantime, I have laid an amendment to the relevant statutory instrument—SI 1992/1210, the Suckler Cow Premium (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1992—to make it clear that the rates currently set out apply only to applications in respect of the 1991 scheme year.

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now concluded the review of meat inspection charges which he announced on 9 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am today making available in the Library of the House copies of summary statistics collected by the review team, and of recommendations by the agriculture departments to interested local authorities and members of the meat industry. These are directed at clarifying the basis on which charges are calculated, and enabling co-operation between plant operators and local authorities to facilitate consistent and cost-effective inspection throughout Great Britain. I hope that they will help local authorities discharge their statutory responsibilities efficiently, in the period of transition until the new national meat hygiene service takes over these responsibilities. We wish to thank those local authorities and members of the industry who provided information to the review team.
  17
  The Government remain concerned that the EC legislation under which meat inspection charges are required to be levied should be efficient, cost effective and applied on a uniform basis throughout the Community. In the light of the detailed findings of the review, we will be pressing the European Commission to bring forward satisfactory proposals for the revision of these EC arrangements for discussion by the Council of Ministers. This issue has important implications for fair competition in the single market, and we will press for it to be resolved in the forthcoming UK presidency.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Brewing
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the impact of excise duty on smaller brewers.

  Sir John Cope
  The position of smaller brewers was considered during the pre-Budget review of indirect taxation, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to make no change. However, small brewers should benefit from the forthcoming change in the method of taxing beer. The present wastage allowance, which often does not cover all their production losses, will be abolished, and they will pay duty only on the beer they actually despatch for sale. The Government have no present plans for a further review.

  Sterling's percentage deviation from its central rates against the other ERM currencies

  Deutschmark

  Dutch Guilder

  Belgian/Luxembourg Franc

  Danish Krone

  Irish Punt

  October 1990

  0.74

  0.78

  0.54

  0.77

  0.64

  November

  -1.07

  -0.96

  -1.04

  -0.58

  -0.99

  December

  -2.40

  -2.26

  -2.06

  -1.38

  -1.77

  January 1991

  -1.10

  -1.04

  -1.19

  -0.16

  -0.70

  February

  -1.40

  -1.38

  -1.59

  -0.54

  -0.84

  March

  -0.65

  -0.61

  -0.77

  -0.02

  -0.12

  April

  1.02

  1.01

  0.46

  1.38

  1.17

  May

  0.47

  0.46

  -0.21

  0.79

  0.55

  June

  -0.36

  -0.36

  -0.47

  0.64

  -0.20

  July

  -0.12

  -0.14

  -0.32

  1.24

  0.03

  August

  -0.48

  -0.46

  -0.67

  0.88

  -0.29

  September

  -0.79

  -0.78

  -0.92

  0.41

  -0.58

  October

  -1.33

  -1.32

  -1.50

  -0.09

  -1.15

  November

  -2.19

  -2.17

  -2.31

  -0.42

  -1.88

  December

  -3.13

  -3.11

  -3.24

  -1.17

  -2.58

  January 1992

  -3.19

  -3.23

  -3.34

  -1.50

  -2.58

  February

  -2.47

  -2.58

  -2.68

  -0.89

  -2.10

  March

  -2.90

  -2.99

  -3.12

  -1.24

  -2.49

  April

  -1.85

  -1.94

  -2.09

  -0.24

  -1.36

  May

  -0.50

  -0.59

  -0.71

  0.74

  -0.22

  Sterling's percentage deviation from its central rates against the other ERM currencies

  Spanish Peseta

  Portuguese Escudo

  Italian Lire

  French Franc

  1990

  October

  -2.74

  —

  0.85

  0.59

  November

  -3.67

  —

  -0.58

  -0.67

  December

  -4.08

  —

  -1.64

  -1.16

  1991

  January

  -4.04

  —

  -0.62

  0.18

  Home Care Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the subject of VAT charges on home care services; and if he will place the text of such representations and his reply to them in the Library.

  Sir John Cope
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations about VAT on the provision of domiciliary care. I have arranged for the text of a typical reply to such representations to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product manufacturing investment, including leased assets, represented in 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates of manufacturing investment and gross domestic product may be obtained from the CSO database accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out for each month the variation of the pound sterling inside or outside the 2½ per cent. and 6 per cent. bands since its entry into the European exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Nelson
  Sterling does not participate in the narrow band of the ERM. The table lists the average monthly percentage variation of sterling from its central rates against other ERM currencies since joining the exchange rate mechanism.
  19

  Spanish Peseta

  Portuguese Escudo

  Italian Lire

  French Franc

  February

  -5.11

  —

  -1.08

  0.07

  March

  -4.95

  —

  -0.97

  0.82

  April

  -4.07

  —

  0.04

  1.79

  May

  -4.33

  —

  -0.34

  1.55

  June

  -4.40

  —

  -0.99

  0.78

  July

  -3.75

  —

  -0.59

  1.07

  August

  -4.38

  —

  -0.57

  0.84

  September

  -4.24

  —

  -0.85

  0.68

  October

  -4.28

  —

  -1.39

  0.30

  November

  -4.83

  —

  -1.53

  -0.35

  December

  -4.88

  —

  -2.10

  -1.30

  1992

  January

  -5.63

  —

  -2.47

  -1.54

  February

  -5.74

  —

  -2.06

  -1.02

  March

  -5.74

  —

  -2.48

  -1.71

  April

  -4.91

  -3.52

  -1.22

  -1.03

  May

  -4.30

  -4.72

  0.10

  -0.26

  Note:

  Sterling joined the exchange rate mechanism on 8 October 1990. The Portuguese Escudo joined the ERM on 6 April 1992.

  Malawi
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement outlining Her Majesty's Government's policy on commercial loans to Malawi.

  Mr. Nelson
  Her Majesty's Government's policy on commercial bank loans to Malawi is that such loans are a matter to be decided by the banks and the Government of Malawi.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees participated in live registered profit-related pay schemes in the last period for which figures are available; how many schemes are in operation; and what is the estimated total value of those schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There were 736,000 participating employees in 2,895 live registered profit-related pay schemes at the end of April 1992. On the basis of the latest information provided by participating employers, the total annual value of the distributable profit-related pay pool for these schemes is tentatively estimated at about £500 million.

  Employee Share Options
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees have received shares under qualifying employee share option trusts; and what is the current total value of shares in such trusts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue may not learn of the establishment of employee share ownership trusts of the kind defined in the Finance Act 1989 until claims for the tax relief provided by the legislation are received. Such claims may be made up to two years after the end of the period of account in which the relevant contributions are made. A return seeking information on the operation of the trust will not be sent out for completion until confirmation that a claim has been allowed has been received centrally. No such confirmations have yet been received.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new lettings from investments under the business expansion scheme in 1990–91 there were in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) north-west England and (c) St. Helens; and what percentage these figures represent of (i) all privately rented property and (ii) all rented property.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates for new lettings from investments under the business expansion scheme in 1990–91 are as follows. Separate figures for St. Helens could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  New lettings

  As a percentage of:

  Total number

  All privately rented property per cent.

  All rented property per cent.

  North West England

  600

  0.40

  0.07

  United Kingdom

  5,300

  0.31

  0.07

  Maastricht Treaty
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the progress made towards achieving the economic objectives listed in article 109 of the EC treaty as proposed in the Maastricht treaty.

  Sir John Cope
  While the United Kingdom has reserved the right to choose whether or not to participate in the final stage of EMU the Government's policies are designed to ensure that the United Kingdom meets the convergence criteria as listed in article 109 of the Maastricht treaty.

  The Government are committed to membership of the exchange rate mechanism and will in due course move to narrow bands at the current central parity of DM2.95. Maintaining sterling within its ERM bands will ensure that United Kingdom inflation will move progressively into line with the best inflation performance of the ERM countries. Long-term interest rates can also be expected to converge with the best ERM countries' performance. Fiscal policy is designed to avoid running deficits that might be judged excessive.

  Benefits and Expenses
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the threshold on PI 1Ds was last increased; and what representations he has had to increase them.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The earnings threshold above which employers must report employees' benefits and expenses payments to the Inland Revenue on form P11D was last increased, to £8,500, from 1979–;80. A number of representations have been received suggesting an increase in the P11D threshold.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the estimated number of tax-payers above the current threshold for P11Ds and below the current threshold for the last available figures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that in 1992–93 there are some 15.4 million tax-paying employees earning above the £8,500 P11D threshold. There are also 0.8 million tax-paying directors who are subject to the special provisions for taxation of benefits-in-kind whatever the level of their earnings. There are 3.1 million tax-paying employees earning less than the P11D threshold.

  Pay and File
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he expects to bring into effect pay and file.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On present plans pay and file will start on 1 October 1993. The new rules will apply to accounting periods ending on or after that date.

  Wakefield Valuation Office
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 400, why neither the Members with constituencies affected, nor the local authority concerned, were consulted prior to or informed subsequent to the closure of the Wakefield valuation office.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The former Wakefield valuation office covered the local authorities of City of Wakefield metropolitan district council and Barnsley metropolitan borough council. The end of domestic rating caused a reduction of about one fifth of the work of the VO and a reduced network was necessary in order to protect costs.

  Both authorities were advised in advance of the closure and arrangements made for the transfer of work to Doncaster valuation office with effect from 30 September 1991.

  While the respective Members of Parliament were not directly informed of the closure, a copy of the "Valuation Office Address Book", held in the House of Commons Library, was updated in October 1991 and indicated the transfer of the above local authorities to the Doncaster valuation office.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the transfer of responsibility for financial services from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Treasury.
  22
  Mr. Lamont
  Responsibility for financial services was transferred to the Treasury on 7 June by the Transfer of Functions (Financial Services) Order 1992 which was laid before Parliament on 5 June.

  The transfer involves the functions and staff of the DTI's financial services division. In essence, these cover responsibility for policy and legislation, and overseeing regulation, in the areas of investment business, collective investment schemes, the issue of securities to the public and investor protection.

  The functions transferred include responsibility for the regulatory system under the Financial Services Act 1986 and oversight of the Securities and Investments Board, the Companies Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985, and part VII—(financial markets and insolvency)—and part IX—TAURUS—of the Companies Act 1989; EC directives in the financial services sector, (including the draft investment services and capital adequacy directives); arrangements with overseas regulators for exchanging information; encouraging international liberalisation in financial services through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the organisation for economic co-operation and development; and for litigation to recover the cost of the Government's ex gratia payments scheme to Barlow Clowes investors.

  The DTI will continue to be responsible for the generality of company law; insolvency matters including the disqualification of directors; investigations and prosecutions under the Financial Services, Insolvency and Companies Acts; and for prudential supervision of insurance undertakings, EC insurance directives, insurance interests in the OECD and GATT, and for general questions affecting the insurance industry.

  Banking and financial services have become increasingly closely linked, at home and abroad, and this will now be reflected by bringing policy responsibility together in a single Department. No changes are proposed in the way financial services are regulated as a result of the transfer.

ENVIRONMENT

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  Information relating to the financial years between 1979–80 and 1984–85 inclusive is not readily available and cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. Following is the information relating to the remaining financial years:

  £ million

  1985–86

  4.3

  1986–87

  5.0

  1987–88

  5.3

  1988–89

  9.5

  1989–90

  16.3

  1990–91

  10.2

  1991–92

  110.7

  1992–93

  210.6

  1 Provisional outturn.

  2 Provisional budget. Excludes PSA Services, the budget for which has yet to be fixed.

  Waltham Forest HAT
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what capital allocations will be made to the Waltham Forest housing action trust; and by what mechanisms capital spending by the trust will be determined and controlled.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Waltham Forest housing action trust will be provided with sufficient funding to cover the cost of capital expenditure on its agreed programme. Until its first corporate plan has been produced and agreed with the Department no overall allocation can be made and funding will be provided on a monthly basis against need. In common with other non-departmental public bodies the trust will be financially responsible via its accounting officer acting in accordance with a financial memorandum, management statement and corporate plan, and subject to external audit.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will issue a circular to local authorities to encourage them to introduce smoke alarms into homes for elderly people;

  (2) whether he will introduce legislation to require local authorities to install smoke alarms in all local authority and housing association homes occupied by pensioners.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has no plans to do so, but building regulations now call for the installation of smoke detectors in new dwellings, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for legislation on types of accommodation for elderly people which, among other things, provides for fire precautions.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has expended on the promotion or installation of smoke alarms in homes for elderly people in each of the last five years for which records are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1987 the Home Office has conducted a regional and national television advertising campaign promoting smoke alarms. The campaign has sought to increase ownership among all households in England and Wales. In 1990–91 and 1991–92 the Home Office targeted its national television advertising campaign primarily at elderly people.

  Four million copies of leaflets promoting smoke alarms have been issued by the Home Office. In addition, a leaflet and video promoting general fire safety for elderly people also encourage the installation of smoke alarms.

  Costs cannot be apportioned to specific target groups.

  There is legislation in place in respect of types of accommodation housing elderly people which, among other things, makes provision for fire precautions. Such legislation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Opencast Mining
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 269, further to 0273/92/93/(27), if he will list those organisations and individuals who have
  24
  contributed to his consultation exercise relating to minerals planning guidance 3 as it affects opencast coal mining operators.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has received 58 responses to the consultation exercise. I am placing a list of those who have responded in the Library of the House.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those planning decisions relating to opencast mining applications which have been called in by his Department in each of the last five years for the Secretary of State's ruling; and, in each case, whether permission was given or refused, or whether the case has still to be determined.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has called in one planning decision relating to an opencast mining application in the last five years. The application was by the British Coal Corporation for the Smotherfly—revised—opencast coal site in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. It was called in on 8 December 1987, and permission for the development was given on 17 March 1989.

  Canary Wharf
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary for the Environment if it is a prerequisite for accepting any private sector bid for the Canary Wharf project for there to be an agreement from the firm to give financial assistance to the Jubilee line extension.

  Mr. Redwood
  The terms on which Canary Wharf may be offered for sale are entirely a matter for the administrator appointed to manage Olympia and York's affairs in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sheldon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when considering any possible move to Canary Wharf he will take into account the cost of London weighting allowance and compare total costs of such a move to those of dispersing to other regions of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Howard
  The 2,000 posts in my Department which are to move to docklands, subject to securing accommodation on suitable terms, need to remain within London because they need to have regular contacts with Ministers. The question of the comparative costs of dispersal to other parts of the United Kingdom does not therefore arise. I shall, however, continue to look for further opportunities to relocate posts to other parts of the country, bearing in mind the point which the right hon. Member makes.

  Single Homeless
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department will make available over the next two years to agencies which provide shelter to single homeless people in(a) the north-west of England and (b) St. Helens.

  Mr. Baldry
  For 1992–93 the Department has offered financial assistance under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to 17 voluntary organisations in north-west England, all of which provide direct practical help to homeless people in finding and keeping suitable accommodation. One organisation, Merseyside accommodation project, is receiving support for its work in St. Helens. Funding for future years is subject to negotiation.
  25
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has for national assessment of direct access accommodation available to single homeless people.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Toxic Waste Plant (Teesside)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to announce his decision on the planning application to construct a toxic waste plant at Howdon on Tyneside; and what account he will take of the strength of public opposition to the proposal in reaching his decision.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend will issue his decision on the Howdon and linked incinerator inquiries on Teesside as soon as it is practicable to do so.

  In reaching his decision, my right hon. Friend will take into account all the representations made about the proposal.

  Surrey
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it remains his policy that the part of Surrey between the M25 and the old Greater London boundary should remain part of Surrey not London.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Local Government Boundary Commission has been looking at the local government boundary in this area. Its final proposals for changing the boundaries between Bromley/Tandridge, Croydon/Tandridge, Croydon/Reigate and Banstead and Richmond/Elmbridge/Spelthorne are presently being considered by the Secretary of State. The commission is still examining the remainder of the Surrey/London boundary and will report in due course.

  Planning Appeal, Southport
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to determine planning appeal number T/APP/M4320/A/91/189223/P8, relating to 93/93A High Park road, Southport; when the appeal was first submitted; and when the appeal was submitted for re-determination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the Planning Inspectorate Agency and I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to review the system of standard spending assessments for the financing of local government in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Discussions with the local authority associations about a few possible methodological changes to SSAs for 1993–94 have been under way since February.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the operation of section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  Councillors who are two or more months in arrears with payment of their community 26
  charge or council tax are required by section 106 to declare the fact and to abstain from voting on matters concerning charge or tax.

  Compliance with the law is the responsibility of individual councillors.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total level of revenue expenditure by local authorities in 1991–92.

  Mr. Redwood
  Total net revenue expenditure by English local authorities in 1991–92 is estimated to have been £36.4 billion.

  Buying Agency
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the Buying Agency does not discriminate against British suppliers or operate restrictive practices in its trading activities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Buying Agency—TBA—is a public procurement organisation which is bound by the EC supplies directive and the GATT agreement on Government procurement. The Buying Agency has no policies which could be interpreted as restrictive practices.

  Relocation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that central London weighting will continue to apply in full to staff relocated in docklands and whether allowances will be made for longer travelling time.

  Mr. Howard
  I have assured staff in my Department that I am committed to securing the best terms available on transfer to docklands, but details have yet to be settled. Two of the properties under consideration—Harbour Exchange and Canary Wharf—are in any case within the inner-London weighting area.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of employment opportunities for local people in the east end arising from relocation of his staff to docklands.

  Mr. Howard
  Through the normal process of staff turnover, substantial opportunities will in due course arise for employment in my department in docklands, for which local people will be encouraged to apply. There will also be an indirect benefit to the economy of the area from the needs of 2,000 extra workers.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response the trade unions have made to him arising from his propoals to relocate staff in docklands.

  Mr. Howard
  I have received no response from the trades unions to my announcement in the House on 2 June. The First Division Association had already written to me reporting a conference resolution on the matter. In addition, my officials have had a number of discussions with union representatives.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants have been taken on visits to docklands in connection with possible relocation to that area; and what hospitality was received.
  27
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: Staff responsible for accommodation have made a number of visits to docklands in connection with possible relocation to the area. In addition, there has been one organised visit for a small number of senior staff. Hospitality received has been in accordance with the normal rules.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants in his Department he is considering for relocation from headquarter buildings; and if he will list the areas currently under consideration for relocation.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: As I said in reply to a private notice question from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on 2 June, I have decided that some 2,000 civil servants from my Department will move to docklands, provided that we can secure fully commercial terms giving value for money to the taxpayer. The areas under consideration for relocation are Harbour Exchange, Isle of Dogs, Canary Wharf, Isle of Dogs, and East India dock, Leamouth.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place with the trades unions in respect of relocation of civil servants from his Department's headquarters buildings.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: Early discussions with the departmental trade union side—DTUS—were offered immediately following the announcement by my predecessor on 6 February that the Department's headquarters building at 2 Marsham street was to be demolished, and that options for relocating staff elsewhere in London—particularly docklands—were to be examined. Following a full discussion with the DTUS on 25 March, a sub-committee of the departmental Whitley council was established to deal exclusively with relocation matters. To date, three meetings of the sub-committee have been held. The staff of the Department are also being kept informed of developments on relocation matters through a series of relocation bulletins and other briefing material.

  Tenants Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give(a) the total number of completed transfers under the tenants incentive scheme completed to date and (b) the total amount of money paid out to date under the scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since its introduction in July 1990, the Housing Corporation's tenants incentive scheme has helped more than 4,800 housing association tenants move out into homes of their own with grants totalling more than £60 million.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of money allocated to the Housing Corporation for the tenants incentive scheme since its inception.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of £110 million, including £44 million for the current financial year, has been allocated to the tenants incentive scheme in the Housing Corporation's approved development programme in the three years since its inception.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the consultation paper on compulsory competitive tendering for housing management and the research on that subject carried out by consultants; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  As part of the citizens charter initiative, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today arranged for the following documents to be placed in the Library of the House: "Competing for Quality in Housing", a consultation paper on compulsory competitive tendering for Housing Management; and "The Scope for Competitive Tendering of Housing Management", a study carried out by consultants for our Departments and for the Scottish Office. Copies of these documents have been sent to all district housing authorities in England and Wales, and to a variety of housing organisations and other interested parties. The paper provides for a consultation period of over three months.

  Mundic Concrete
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 19 May, to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith),Official Report, column 70, if he will make a further statement on decisions taken on mundic concrete following the 6 April meeting.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: Following the 6 April meeting, technical experts met in Cornwall on 28 April and reached agreement on screening tests for distinguishing mundic material. Work continues on finalising the sampling procedures for identifying harmful aggregates. It is expected that guidance notes covering these matters will be published later this year. It is hoped that the information and guidance in these notes will assist in reducing the number of blighted properties.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been expended by his Department in the London Docklands development corporation area from the date of its inception until the end of the last financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: To the end of 1991–92, the total grant in aid paid to the London Docklands development corporation was £1,349 million. Further resources of £11 million have been made available through the Department's estate action programme to support local authority housing schemes in docklands.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish the terms of the master building agreement between the London Docklands development corporation and Olympia and York.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: No. The document contains information which is a matter of commercial confidence between the signatories.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current status of negotiations on the International Fund for Agricultural Development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Discussions on the fourth replenishment of IFAD's resources began in Qatar in April and will continue in Rome in July. The United Kingdom will work with others for a successful outcome to these negotiations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list his public engagements for Monday 11 May.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I had no public engagements on that day. This enabled me to pay a private visit to the garden festival at Ebbw Vale which I much enjoyed.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales have been given funds from the RECHAR programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 22 May, 1992 Official Report, column 333.

  Maxwell Assets
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will use his powers under the Financial Services Act 1986 to trace and recover Maxwell pension fund moneys and Maxwell family assets which have been removed from United Kingdom control to Liechtenstein control.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Financial Services Act 1986 does not provide powers to trace or enforce the recovery of assets outside the United Kingdom.

  Oil Exploration
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been issued for oil exploration off the Isle of Wight that have not found commercial oil deposits.

  Mr. Eggar
  Six licences have been issued giving rights to explore for oil and gas in the area off the Isle of Wight. Significant discoveries, which may prove to be commercial, have been made under two of these licences. No discoveries have yet been made on the four other licences: exploration is at a very early stage in two of these.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the policy for issuing licences in an environmentally sensitive area where no deposits have been previously discovered.
  30
  Mr. Eggar
  Before offering any area for licence, my Department consults a range of Government Departments and other interested parties, including fishery associations and the Joint Nature Conservancy Council. As a result of these consultations, some areas may not be released for licensing. Where licences are offered, conditions may be attached to protect environmental or other interests; these may restrict the timing and location of exploration activities. Licensees may also be required to consult local authorities and other relevant bodies before undertaking operations under their licence. Applicants for licences must also satisfy my Department that they are capable of carrying out their planned exploration programme with due regard to environmental concerns.

  Concessionary Coal Allowance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of retired miners' concessionary coal allowances following privatisation of the mining industry and on the arrangements that are available to retired miners who wish to convert to other forms of heating.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on 2 June,Official Report, column 493.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will describe the work that he has undertaken following the publication of the report by the interdepartmental party into the reduction of the bureaucratic burden of registration under the Data Protection Act 1984; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The interdepartmental group which reviewed the operation of the Data Protection Act 1984 disbanded when it had presented its report. Further action must necessarily await the outcome of negotiations on the draft EC directive on data protection, which appeared almost coincidentally with the group's report. However, the report has been a valuable aid in the first round of negotiations. A second draft of the directive is expected to be published in July.

  Generating Plants
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to amend the generating plant licensing provisions of the Electricity Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have no such plans.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to issue a statement on his licensing policy on gas-fired generating stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: The Government have made it clear that, in considering an application to construct and operate a generating station, as a general rule, matters such as the need for a generating station, its capacity, choice of fuel to be used and type of plant should be treated as commercial matters for the applicant concerned.
  31
  In a news release of 9 March 1992, the Government announced that they may also need to consider whether they should review the use of their powers under the Electricity Act to issue consent to power stations.

  That remains the position.

  A copy of the news release of 9 March 1992 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy concerning the approval of new non-fossil fuel generating plants.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Director General of Electricity Supply concerning the maximum number, location and total generating capacity from combined cycle gas-fired power stations capable of connection to the national grid without any adverse effect on the stability of the electricity supply system.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: I meet the Director General of Electricity Supply from time to time and discuss issues of mutual interest.

  Questions relating to grid code obligations are matters for the National Grid Company and the director general.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those applications lodged with his Department for combined cycle gas turbine power station consents, the date of lodgement and the timetable for processing these applications; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the role of gas in the United Kingdom energy market.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: The applications made under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 are as follows:

  Site

  Applicant

  Application made

  Plymouth

  PowerGen plc

  5 October 1990

  Staythorpe "C"

  National Power plc

  16 October 1990

  Didcot "B"

  National Power plc

  14 November 1990

  Ardleigh

  Eastern Generation Ltd.

  17 May 1991

  Connah's Quay

  PowerGen plc

  1 July 1991

  Stalling-borough

  Humber Power Ltd.

  18 July 1991

  Shoreham

  South Coast Power Ltd.

  27 September 1991

  Seabank

  Seabank Power Ltd.

  18 October 1991

  Greenwick

  MetroPower Ltd.

  31 October 1991

  Trafford

  Electricity System Industry

  31 December 1991

  King's Lynn

  Eastern Generation Ltd.

  15 January 1992

  Deeside

  Deeside Power Development Co. Ltd.

  17 January 1992

  Kingsnorth

  Kingsnorth Developments

  13 March 1992

  On timing, each application has to be dealt with on its merits. With respect to the role of gas, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what permission has been sought recently by the Atomic Energy Authority research establishment at Harwell to import plutonium 237 from Russia.
  32
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: Imports of plutonium by the AEA are covered by an existing import licence.

  Electricity Companies
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what discussions he has had with the privatised electricity companies and OFFER about the form and presentation of the companies' accounts;

  (2) what advice has been given to the privatised electricity companies by him or OFFER about the valuation of assets for presentation in their accounts.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: The successor companies' reports and accounts will have to be prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 1985 and any additional requirements imposed by the stock exchange.

  The enforcement of licence conditions relating to the successor companies' regulatory accounts is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Land
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is his most recent estimate of the total of land in the possession of the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Michael Alison
  At 31 December 1991 the commissioners' agricultural portfolio consisted of about 154,000 acres of mostly let farmland.

  Church Maintenance
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is their policy towards the maintenance of redundant and historic churches.

  Mr. Michael Alison
  Responsibility for the maintenance of Church of England churches in use for worship rests with individual parochial church councils.

  The commissioners' policy on redundant churches is governed by legislation, in this case the Pastoral Measure 1983. This provides for the future of the building to be settled by a suitable alternative use; or by preservation by the redundant churches fund; or by care and maintenance by the diocesan board of finance; or, failing these, by demolition.

  The Measure lays emphasis on finding a suitable alternative use for the church, if at all possible, and that is what is most commonly achieved. The new owner or lessee will normally be responsible for maintenance and this will be a consideration in determining the future of a redundant church.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the provision of magistrates courts in Chelmsford.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is for Essex magistrates courts committee, in consultation with Essex county council, to
  33
  decide what courthouse accommodation should he provided, and for the council to provide it. I understand that no formal decisions have yet been made about the future of the Chelmsford courthouse.

  Law of Property Act 1925
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes he plans in the Law of Property Act 1925.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is actively considering the report by the Law Commission on continuing obligations under leases and hopes to be able to make an announcement about it in the near future.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will investigate the cost of the law to individuals who are not eligible for legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In a case which is not covered by legal aid a solicitor's charge is a matter to be agreed with his client. In non-contentious cases a client who feels a solicitor's bill is unreasonable may use the Law Society's free remuneration certification scheme. In addition, in both contentious and non-contentious cases costs can be taxed by the court.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps his Department has taken in response to the report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the working of the criminal legal aid system.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government's response to the report, which was published on 13 May 1992, will be published in the usual manner by way of a Treasury minute. The hon. Member will, however, be aware of the circular on criminal legal aid issued to magistrates courts clerks on 1 April 1992 following the inquiry of the National Audit Office in October of last year and the appearance of the relevant accounting officers before the Public Accounts Committee in January of this year.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the percentage of refusals of initial applications for criminal legal aid in magistrates' courts for(a) the four weeks preceding the coming into force of the Lord Chancellor's recent circular on criminal legal aid and (b) the four weeks following that date.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to ensure that legal aid is made available to women seeking claims through industrial tribunals.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Advice and assistance, but not representation, is already available under the legal aid "green form" scheme to men and women.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to reduce 34
  the length of time taken by the investigations branch of the Legal Aid Board to process cases of suspected fraud by solicitors in relation to legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The investigation of fraudulent claims made by solicitors is a matter for the Legal Aid Board. Those which are subject to police investigation are given priority and close liaison is maintained with the investigating officers.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information he has on the number of fraud cases pending against solicitors in relation to claims for legal aid under the green form scheme; and what representations he has had from chief constables or their fraud squad chiefs and others in respect of unreasonable delays in computer processing of the information on claims required for such police investigations.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I understand from the Legal Aid Board that there are currently 27 cases under investigation by its fraud investigation branch which relate to alleged offences of fraud under the green form scheme; and that no representations have been received concerning information required for police investigations.

  Commonhold
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce commonhold law reform in this Session of Parliament.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Queen's Speech confirmed the Government's intention to bring forward legislation in this session to enable leaseholders of flats to acquire the freehold or to extend their leases. A commonhold scheme for the freehold ownership and communal management of flats will follow as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what response he has made to the covering letter from Mr. David Leppard of this May enclosing his book "On the Trail of Terror", referring to the Lockerbie bombing.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have not received the book "On the Trail of Terror", or any letter, from its author.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employee Financial Participation
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the progress which has been made by the social questions working group which is examining the draft EC recommendation on the promotion of employee participation in profits and enterprise results; and whether the European Commission has set up a working party to examine the possibilities for the creation at European level of formulae for employee financial participation schemes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The social questions working group has completed discussion on the draft recommendation. The recommendation is due to be considered at the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 24 June.
  35
  As far as the working party is concerned, while this is no longer mentioned in the draft recommendation, we understand that it is still the Commission's intention to establish such a body, although at this stage there is no indication of when this might be, nor of its precise terms of reference.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average weekly rate of enterprise allowance paid by each training and enterprise council in the United Kingdom in each 12-month period since the administration of the enterprise allowance was taken over by the TECs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is not possible to provide the information in the form required, except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those individuals who have started up businesses through the enterprise allowance in each of the years since its introduction, were still trading(a) after 12 months, (b) after 24 months and (c) after 36 months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been awarded moneys through the enterprise allowance scheme in each year from the introduction of the scheme to the current year; and in each of those years, how many people(a) attended enterprise allowance awareness days, (b) applied for enterprise allowance assistance but were refused, (c) were awarded enterprise allowance assistance but had the assistance terminated within the first 12 months and (d) continued to receive enterprise allowance assistance for a full 12-month period.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of enterprise allowance awards in each year since the scheme was introduced are set out in the following table. The information required to answer points (a), (b), (c) and (d) is not available.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme Yearly entrants

  Number

  February 1982—July 19831

  3,331

  August 1983—March 1984

  27,629

  April 1984—March 1985

  46,037

  April 1985—March 1986

  60,037

  April 1986—March 1987

  86,751

  April 1987—March 1988

  106,305

  April 1988—March 1989

  98,522

  April 1989—March 1990

  77,886

  April 1990—March 1991

  60,307

  April 1991—March 1992

  49,602

  1 (pilot).

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total sum budgeted by her Department for enterprise allowance in the current financial year; what has been the total cost of the enterprise allowance programme in each year since its introduction; and in each instance, what proportion of the total cost has been accounted for by administrative expenses.
  36
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The total sum budgeted for enterprise allowance in the current financial year is £107.6 million. The information on the total cost of the enterprise allowance in each year since its introduction is set out in the table. Information on the total cost accounted for by administrative expenses is not available.

  Enterprise allowance expenditure by financial year

  Great Britain £ million

  1982–83

  2.4

  1983–84

  23.2

  1984–85

  76.7

  1985–86

  103.9

  1986–87

  143.4

  1987–88

  195.9

  1988–89

  196.7

  1989–90

  170.9

  1990–91

  132.9

  1991–92

  195.1

  1 This is a provisional figure which applies to expenditure for England and Wales only. Information for Scotland is not available.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretry of State for Employment how many registered disabled people have been working; and what proportion they are of the total work force in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  However, tables showing the number and percentage of registered disabled people employed by a wide range of individual public sector employers are published in the Employment Gazette. The most recent complete set of figures is in the 1991 gazette and relates to June 1990. A partial set of figures. relating to June 1991 is in the February 1992 gazette.

  The percentage of registered disabled people employed, on average, by employers whose figures are in the gazette, together with estimated comparisons for the private sector, for the years 1986 to 1990, are set out in the table. The data relate to employers who have 20 or more employees. Later comparable information is not yet available.

  Percentage of registered disabled people employed

  Sector

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Private (approximate figures)

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  0.9

  0.9

  Public (based on Gazette figures)

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

EDUCATION

  Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the status of the adult literacy and basic skills unit; whether it has charitable status; how it is funded; and whether it publishes accounts.

  Mr. Forman
  The adult literacy and basic skills unit is a registered company limited by guarantee with charitable status. It is largely funded by grant from the Department for Education and the Welsh Office. The unit's accounts are published in its annual report.
  37
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the adult literacy and basic skills unit was formed and by whom; and how many people work within the organisation(a) full or (b) part time.

  Mr. Forman
  The adult literacy and basic skills unit—ALBSU—was formed in 1980 by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales as an agency of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education—NIACE. In 1991 ALBSU became independent of NIACE and is now a limited company and a registered charity. ALBSU currently employs 21 full-time and no part-time staff.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to include environmental education as a part of teacher training courses.

  Mr. Forth
  All courses of initial teacher training are required to ensure that prospective teachers are able to incorporate in their teaching cross-circular dimensions and themes, including environmental education.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing, for each local education authority with an approved LMS scheme(a) the percentage of the aggregated schools budget that is distributed by the age-weighted pupil numbers and (b) the ratio of the relevant age-weightings expressed in six bands of pupil ages—for pupils aged under five years, pupils in each of the four key stages and sixth-form pupils—with pupils in key stage 2 representing 1 in each ratio.

  Mr. Forth
  Figures on pupil-led funding for 1991–92 are contained in the table. Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available, but I will write to the hon. Member when our analysis of the data received from local education authorities is complete. The information on each authority's age-weightings could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Percentage of aggregated schools budget (ASB) based on pupil numbers and ages (1991–92)

  (1)

  (2)

  Local Education Authority

  Pupil-LED funding as a percentage of ASB

  1991–92

  (1990–91)

  1. Isles of Scilly

  93.21

  (—)

  2. Dudley

  90.00

  (85.72)

  3. Lincolnshire

  88.51

  (87.25)

  4. Barking

  88.36

  (86.73)

  5. South Tyneside

  88.33

  (86.93)

  6. Gateshead

  87.04

  (84.36)

  7. Wigan

  86.40

  (84.35)

  8. Bolton

  86.16

  (85.73)

  9. Northumberland

  86.07

  (85.49)

  10. Brent

  86.00

  (77.81)

  11. Bexley

  85.39

  (84.40)

  12. Tameside

  85.33

  (85.57)

  13. Kent

  84.93

  (83.72)

  14. Oldham

  84.69

  (84.77)

  15. Bromley

  84.43

  (84.99)

  16. Trafford

  84.40

  (83.28)

  17. Redbridge

  84.00

  (89.30)

  18. Sefton

  83.79

  (83.33)

  19. Cornwall

  83.75

  (80.93)

  20. Coventry

  83.57

  (83.52)

  21. Knowsley

  83.50

  (75.00)

  38

  (1)

  (2)

  Local Education Authority

  Pupil-LED funding as a percentage of ASB

  1991–92

  (1990–91)

  22. Harrow

  83.49

  (83.83)

  23. Westminster

  83.32

  (84.20)

  24. Leicestershire

  83.19

  (—)

  25. Calderdale

  83.19

  (82.17)

  26. Avon

  82.91

  (82.30)

  27. Devon

  82.78

  (82.64)

  28. Northamptonshire

  82.62

  (82.19)

  29. Rotherham

  82.57

  (81.79)

  30. Suffolk

  82.29

  (82.57)

  31. West Sussex

  82.29

  (82.13)

  32. Sunderland

  82.25

  (80.69)

  33. Manchester

  82.14

  (—)

  34. Salford

  82.02

  (81.69)

  35. North Yorkshire

  82.02

  (85.51)

  36. Barnsley

  81.98

  (82.80)

  37. Hereford/Worcester

  81.95

  (—)

  38. Isle of Wight

  81.85

  (81.62)

  39. Solihull

  81.70

  (82.29)

  40. Newcastle

  81.66

  (80.66)

  41. Waltham Forest

  81.66

  (81.99)

  42. Wiltshire

  81.56

  (81.00)

  43. Bury

  81.42

  (81.45)

  44. Cambridgeshire

  81.00

  (82.34)

  45. Gloucestershire

  80.64

  (83.22)

  46. Sutton

  80.53

  (80.29)

  47. Ealing

  80.53

  (80.62)

  48. Humberside

  80.42

  (81.97)

  49. Enfield

  80.40

  (79.21)

  50. Cleveland

  80.33

  (81.43)

  51. Stockport

  80.31

  (—)

  52. Leeds

  80.26

  (78.90)

  53. Croydon

  80.22

  (—)

  54. Durham

  80.20

  (80.40)

  55. Cheshire

  80.16

  (77.78)

  56. Liverpool

  80.00

  (75.00)

  57. Rochdale

  80.00

  (75.00)

  see Footnote 2

  58. Dorset

  79.94

  (79.03)

  59. Newham

  79.85

  (—)

  60. Richmond

  79.79

  (77.26)

  61. Lancashire

  79.60

  (—)

  62. Wirral

  79.55

  (—)

  63. Staffordshire

  79.34

  (84.00)

  64. Berkshire

  79.31

  (79.68)

  65. Somerset

  79.09

  (79.99)

  66. Buckinghamshire

  79.06

  (79.73)

  67. Sandwell

  79.03

  (74.94)

  68. Warwickshire

  79.02

  (79.89)

  69. Cumbria

  78.83

  (75.62)

  70. Birmingham

  78.69

  (78.63)

  71. Bedfordshire

  78.50

  (77.00)

  72. North Tyneside

  78.00

  (78.00)

  73. Merton

  77.99

  (78.36)

  74. Hillingdon

  77.93

  (—)

  75. Walsall

  77.87

  (78.19)

  76. Shropshire

  77.86

  (77.91)

  77. Hounslow

  77.82

  (81.42)

  78. Bradford

  77.66

  (78.51)

  79. Oxfordshire

  77.60

  (75.61)

  80. Haringey

  77.37

  (78.25)

  81. Sheffield

  77.30

  (77.19)

  82. Kirklees

  77.27

  (78.17)

  83. Barnet

  76.86

  (75.19)

  84. Kingston

  76.67

  (76.84)

  85. Doncaster

  76.66

  (75.38)

  86. Surrey

  76.58

  (74.91)

  87. Essex

  76.56

  (77.05)

  88. St. Helens

  76.50

  (75.00)

  89. Hampshire

  76.35

  (76.63)

  90. Nottinghamshire

  76.34

  (—)

  91. East Sussex

  76.29

  (77.41)

  92. Wakefield

  75.76

  (75.29)

  93. Hertfordshire

  75.33

  (—)

  94. Derbyshire

  75.32

  (76.04)

  95. Norfolk

  75.31

  75.99

  39

  (1)

  (2)

  Local Education Authority

  Pupil-LED funding as a percentage of ASB

  1991–92

  (1990–91)

  96. Havering

  75.09

  (75.36)

  97. Wolverhampton

  774.88

  (75.00)

  National averages

  80.17

  Footnotes to table showing the extent of pupil-led funding.
  1 The LEAs are ranked according to how much the funds delegated to schools have been allocated on the basis of pupil numbers and ages, with those allocating a greater percentage of pupil-led funding at the top of the ranking order.
  2. The aggregated schools budget (ASB) is that part of the potential schools budget which is delegated to the school level. The current requirement is that at least 75 per cent. of an LEA's ASB is based on pupil numbers and ages. From 1993 (1995 for inner London authorities) the minimum percentage will be raised to 80 per cent. The percentage of pupil-led funding in 1990–91 is given in brackets. Where a figure is not given in brackets, either the LMS scheme was not in operation last year or the relevant information was not contained in the LEA's budget statement.
  NB The percentages stated may differ from the percentages calculated by the individual LEAs because of the effects of rounding.

  Schools Admissions Register
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what restrictions are placed upon the commercial or other uses that can be made of the names and addresses on the schools admissions register when a parent has obtained such information by legitimate means in connection with a petition or a ballot being organised for a school to seek grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Illiteracy
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether the numbers of functionally illiterate people in England and Wales are increasing or declining; and when such records started to be kept.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department's current estimate of the number of people in England and Wales who are functionally illiterate is based on a survey carried out some years ago by the adult literacy and basic skills unit. There is no evidence as to whether numbers are growing or declining. ALBSU is however currently undertaking a similar survey, the results of which are likely to be known within the next 12 months.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 1992,Official Report, columns 158-59, if he will publish a breakdown of the 5.5 million people who are functionally illiterate in England and Wales into groups according to age, area and ethnic origin.

  Mr. Forman
  The figure of 5.5 million functionally illiterate people in England and Wales is an estimate based on a survey carried out by the adult literacy and basic skills unit. The survey did not distinguish according to age, area and ethnic origin.

  Environmental Studies
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make it his policy to review the current position of environmental education and promote the 40
  teaching of environmental studies in association with social education as a compulsory subject at both primary and secondary levels;

  (2) what efforts are being made by his Department to promote the teaching of the concept of sustainable development as part of the core curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend sees no reason to change the present arrangements for the teaching of environmental education and personal and social education as cross-curricular themes to all pupils through the compulsory core and foundation subjects and, where appropriate, additionally.

  Provisions for the study of environmental geography and sustainable development are set out in the geography order and its associated documents which are issued to all schools.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the documents or projects produced by his Department to be used in schools to raise the awareness of pupils on environmental issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Environmental education is a cross-curricular theme taught to all pupils through the core and foundation subjects, the terms of which are set out in the statutory orders and associated documents issued by my Department. Additional guidance has been provided by the National Curriculum Council.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information is available on the tampon industry's schools education programme; and if information on toxic shock syndrome is incorporated into schools curricula.

  Mr. Forth
  Teaching about the use of sanitary protection would normally be covered within a school's programme of sex education. Under section 18(2) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, responsibility for determining an individual school's policy on the content and organisation of sex education rests with the school governing body.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of pupils receiving free school meals at(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Forth
  The readily available information for pupils in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England is as follows. Information for 1981 was not published, and no survey was undertaken in 1985. The discontinuity in the figures in 1988 reflects the introduction of a new provision in the Social Security Act 1986 which came into force in 1988. Before then, LEAs had discretionary powers to provide free school meals to whomsoever they wished. From 1988, LEAs must charge for meals provided to all pupils other than those in receipt of income support.
  41

  Year

  Nursery' and Primary' Pupils

  Secondary Pupils

  1982

  533,140

  398,190

  1983

  597,545

  442,874

  1984

  651,647

  461,954

  1986

  685,018

  425,634

  1987

  682,804

  386,383

  1988

  491,000

  249,000

  1989

  515,395

  235,270

  1990

  519,228

  222,929

  1991

  562,993

  235,107

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what extra grant is made available for small schools under grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  All grant-maintained schools, irrespective of size, are eligible for transitional grants, special purpose grants and capital grants over and above their annual maintenance grant. The special purpose grant for staff and curriculum development and the capital formula grant each includes a minimum allocation, which is to the benefit of small schools. In addition, the annual maintenance grant will include a small school allowance to the extent that this is the case under the local management of schools scheme of the grant-maintained school's former local education authority.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what inspections are being made into the operations of grant-maintained schools; and whether his Department will be publishing a report on the findings.

  Mr. Forth
  The arrangements for inspection under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 will ensure that we have detailed inspection reports on a quarter of all schools, including GM schools, each year. In the meantime, Her Majesty's inspectorate has included GM schools, along with other maintained schools, in its regular programme of visits. To date, these visits do not yet provide the sort of evidence base that would be expected for a report aimed at fulfilling that part of HMI's remit which is to make known more widely good practice and promising developments, and draw attention to weaknesses requiring attention.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what geographical and age range criteria he employs to determine which combinations of schools will be entitled to consideration when considering applications from clusters of schools for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  At present, schools must apply individually to my right hon. Friend for grant-maintained status following a successful parental ballot. Each application is treated strictly on its merits. My right hon. Friend is considering arrangements to permit schools to apply for grant-maintained status in groups.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if it is his intention to introduce legislation to turn all local education authority schools, other than nursery and special schools, into grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  It is already possible for any local education authority county or voluntary school to apply to my right 42
  hon. Friend for grant-maintained status after a successful parental ballot. This arrangement is working well and there are no plans to change it.

  As at 4 June, 260 schools have already been approved for grant-maintained status. In time I expect grant-maintained status to become the natural organisational model, particularly for secondary schools.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines are issued by his Department for the operation of petitions and ballots which seek to determine whether a school should apply for grant-maintained status; what are the criteria for determining who is eligible to petition and to vote; and what arrangements are made to cross-check a person's entitlement to petition or vote with entries in local government and parliamentary electoral registers.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department produces a booklet entitled "How to Become a Grant-Maintained School" which gives guidance for the operation of petitions and ballots in connection with seeking to achieve grant-maintained status. It is the duty of the governing body to take reasonable steps to determine who is eligible to vote by virtue of their being a parent of a registered pupil at the school.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for the long-term funding of grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  We are keeping the matter under review as the number of grant-maintained schools increases.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what action the Government have taken to measure the effects of the student loans scheme on participation by social class or gender;

  (2) when he will undertake a survey of students' income and expenditure.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government and the Student Loans Company are committed to monitoring student loans. We have just issued a statistical bulletin which analyses take-up during academic year 1990-91 by gender, age and region. The Student Loans Company's first annual report was published on 21 October last year and placed in the Library. A second will be published this autumn. We shall commission further surveys of students' income and expenditure as and when appropriate.

  Asthma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his Department's estimate of the number of days lost from school due to asthma amongst the under-10 age group; and what were the comparable figures for five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not collected centrally.

  School Bussing
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to revise the legislation relating to school bussing in the Education Act 1944 to take account of the changes in the law concerning parental choice of schools.
  43
  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to change the law on home to school transport, which gives local education authorities the duty to arrange necessary transport and an unrestricted power to offer further help in the light of local circumstances.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he has any changes to announce to cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1992–93.

  Mr. Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 June, 1992, c. 618-19]: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the running cost limit of class XI vote 4 will be reduced by £1,530,000 from £105,060,000 to £103,530,000.

  This reduction results from the decision to transfer responsibility for sport to the Department of National Heritage, and responsibility for science to the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

SCOTLAND

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what annual salaries, allowances or honoraria are paid to the chairman and each member of Argyll and Clyde health board; if any increases or decreases in these are planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The chairman of Argyll and Clyde health board currently receives remuneration of £17,700 per annum and non-executive members receive £5,000. In addition, the chairman and members are entitled to claim travelling and subsistence allowances at rates set for members of public bodies. No immediate changes in remuneration and allowances are currently planned, but the position is being kept under review.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what undertakings firms have to give about their continued presence in an enterprise zone before receiving assistance from Scottish Enterprise or local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Such matters are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but as a general rule, before any company is considered for an enterprise zone site owned by Scottish Enterprise or a local enterprise company it would have to demonstrate genuine medium-term business prospects. If an EZ site is sold to a company, the conditions of sale would probably include a first option buy-back clause operative for the lifetime of the zone. Any assistance granted to the company would relate to employment levels and any serious reduction in employment would trigger a clawback arrangement.

  Renfrewshire Enterprise
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of Renfrewshire Enterprise; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Communications between my right hon. Friend and me and the local enterprise companies 44
  take place chiefly through Scottish Enterprise; and we have frequent discussions with the chairman and board members of Scottish Enterprise.

  I myself had a very useful and constructive meeting with the chairman of Renfrewshire Enterprise and his colleagues on 14 October last year at which a wide range of topics relating to training and industrial development were discussed; and I hope to meet representatives of Renfrewshire Enterprise again in the near future.

  Tattoos
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health authority in Scotland the number of patients waiting for operations; and of those how many are waiting for the removal of tattoos.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The total number of patients waiting for hospital treatment at 30 September 1991 is shown in the table:

  Health board

  In-patient treatment

  Day case treatment

  Argyll and Clyde

  3,715

  1,377

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4,686

  819

  Borders

  571

  182

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,023

  229

  Fife

  2,681

  1,487

  Forth Valley

  2,190

  723

  Grampian

  4,046

  1,609

  Greater Glasgow

  16,777

  4,835

  Highland

  2,223

  693

  Lanarkshire

  4,199

  1,357

  Lothian

  12,222

  3,830

  Orkney

  14

  9

  Shetland

  45

  71

  Tayside

  6,020

  2,470

  Western Isles

  138

  52

  Scotland

  61,550

  19,743

  Information about the number of patients waiting for the removal of tattoos is not centrally available.

  Funerals
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Institute of Burial and Cremation Administration to discuss the operation of cemeteries, crematoria and funeral undertakings in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for such a meeting.

  Health Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the average number of national health service beds available in the Argyll and Clyde health board area in each year since 1982 and the average number of those described as acute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  45

  National Health Service hospitals in Argyll and Clyde Health Board—average available staffed beds

  Year ending 31 March

  All specialties

  Acute specialties

  1982

  4,484

  1,259

  1983

  4,455

  1,258

  1984

  4,433

  1,255

  1985

  4,437

  1,248

  1986

  4,386

  1,245

  1987

  4,312

  1,236

  1988

  4,307

  1,233

  1989

  4,130

  1,276

  1990

  4,103

  1,275

  1991

  3,976

  1,257

  Forests (Equestrian Access)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will require the Forestry Commission to guarantee equestrian access as of right in the titles of any forests disposed of by the commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No. The sale of Forestry Commission woodlands does not affect horse riding on public rights of way which are bridleways. Other equestrian access to Forestry Commission woodlands is only allowed by express permission of the commission. In such cases, permission to ride in Forestry Commission woodlands after sale will be a matter for agreement with the new owners.

  Local Development Companies
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give details of the number and cost of the external consultancy studies on local development companies under Scottish Enterprise;

  (2) if he intends to publish the findings of the external consultancy studies on local development companies under Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Decisions on whether to commission external consultancy studies and whether to publish the findings of any such studies are matters for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Child Care, Fife
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report on the inquiry into child care in Fife was completed; if he will publish the report; what were the total costs of the inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I understand that the report of the inquiry into the child care policies in Fife region is likely to be completed within the next few days. So far as publication of the report and the costs of the inquiry are concerned I refer the hon. Member to my replies of 19 May, at columns 123–24.

  HIV
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many payments have been made to non-haemophiliacs infected with HIV as a result of NHS blood/tissue transfers, or to families of the deceased, following the announcement by his Department on 17 February that special provisions would be made.
  46
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 21 May 1992]: Payment of five claims received under the scheme has been made. A further three claims are in the process of being validated and payment will be made as soon as possible.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on advertising electoral registration in Scotland in 1989, 1990 and 1991; how much will be spent in the current year; and of this sum how much is spent on(a) television, (b) newspaper, (c) billboard and (d) other advertising.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 June 1992]: Annual publicity expenditure on electoral registration in Scotland in recent years is as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  30,648.48

  1990–91

  39,192.05

  1991–92

  41,640.50

  1992–93

  148,000.00

  1 Estimate.

  The expenditure for 1992–93 will cover newspaper advertisements along with an associated poster display in council and other public offices, libraries etcetera.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the population in each parliamentary constituency; and what is the number of(a) electors on each constituency register and (b) those registered on the community charge register within the area of each constituency.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 June 1992]: The information requested by the hon. Member is set out in the table for the latest available population estimates and electoral registrations by parliamentary constituency. No information is available centrally about the number of persons within parliamentary constituency areas who are on the community charge register.

  Parliamentary constituency

  1 Population estimate at 1990

  Total electors on 1992 register

  Aberdeen North

  75,500

  60,623

  Aberdeen South

  73,800

  59,230

  Angus, East

  82,400

  63,637

  Argyll and Bute

  66,200

  48,436

  Ayr

  84,700

  66,284

  Banff and Buchan

  85,000

  65,631

  Caithness and Sutherland

  39,800

  31,173

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  72,100

  56,024

  Central Fife

  72,400

  56,543

  Clackmannan

  63,600

  49,441

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  63,200

  47,773

  Clydesdale

  82,600

  62,684

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  63,100

  47,155

  Cunninghame North

  72,500

  55,490

  Cunninghame South

  65,100

  49,745

  Dumbarton

  79,800

  57,894

  Dumfries

  78,400

  61,773

  Dundee East

  76,000

  59,328

  Dundee West

  77,700

  60,386

  Dunfermline East

  67,800

  50,452

  Dunfermline West

  69,300

  51,310

  47

  Parliamentary constituency

  1 Population estimate at 1990

  Total electors on 1992 register

  East Kilbride

  83,100

  64,824

  East Lothian

  85,500

  67,588

  Eastwood

  84,100

  64,560

  Edinburgh Central

  69,100

  56,839

  Edinburgh East

  57,700

  46,157

  Edinburgh Leith

  70,800

  57,073

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  69,600

  56,433

  Edinburgh South

  76,100

  61,999

  Edinburgh West

  74,700

  59,702

  Falkirk East

  68,000

  52,387

  Falkirk West

  65,600

  50,631

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  70,000

  54,977

  Glasgow Cathcart

  60,200

  45,149

  Glasgow Central

  64,200

  48,383

  Glasgow Garscadden

  55,400

  41,675

  Glasgow Govan

  61,400

  46,199

  Glasgow Hillhead

  73,600

  57,586

  Glasgow Maryhill

  63,600

  48,791

  Glasgow Pollok

  62,000

  46,655

  Glasgow Provan

  49,700

  36,986

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  70,600

  53,325

  Glasgow Shettleston

  68,500

  52,381

  Glasgow Springburn

  60,100

  46,216

  Gordon

  102,500

  81,097

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  70,000

  52,661

  Hamilton

  82,500

  62,347

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  90,400

  70,164

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  81,100

  62,777

  Kincardine and Deeside

  84,900

  67,216

  Kirkcaldy

  67,400

  52,191

  Linlithgow

  82,000

  61,979

  Livingston

  82,700

  62,122

  Midlothian

  81,300

  61,178

  Monklands East

  65,800

  49,059

  Monklands West

  68,300

  49,935

  Moray

  84,500

  63,944

  Motherwell North

  78,000

  58,106

  Motherwell South

  68,800

  50,674

  North East Fife

  68,900

  54,196

  North Tayside

  72,600

  56,353

  Orkney and Shetland

  41,800

  31,837

  Paisley North

  61,800

  46,867

  Paisley South

  63,600

  48,385

  Perth and Kinross

  85,300

  65,826

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  76,000

  58,897

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  74,100

  56,112

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  54,100

  44,001

  Stirling

  74,900

  58,814

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  84,600

  61,924

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  49,400

  39,907

  Western Isles

  30,700

  23,015

  Total

  5,102,600

  3,929,112

  1 The derivation of these population figures involved a number of approximations.

  Plantable Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each financial year since April 1980(a) the amount of plantations and plantable land in hectares that has been sold by the Forestry Commission, (b) the proceeds from the sale and (c) the book value of the sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 June 1992]: The information is available in the form requested only from 1986, as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Areas (hectares)

  Receipts (£000)

  Book value (£000)

  1986

  8,314

  9,592

  7,845

  1987

  6,186

  8,308

  6,120

  1988

  6,387

  6,839

  6,406

  1989

  4,328

  4,993

  6,967

  1990

  5,559

  6,972

  7,992

  1991

  4,770

  7,073

  11,509

  The receipts are the actual prices received from the sale of plantations and plantable land, and reflect the state of the market at the time of sale. The book value is calculated from the expected future value of the wood production at the time of felling, discounted at the commission's target rate of return of 3 per cent.

  Postgraduate Grants
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to review the Scottish Education Department grants regime with regard to students wishing to pursue postgraduate qualifications.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: The operation of the postgraduate students' allowance scheme, which provides assistance to students undertaking vocational postgraduate courses, is reviewed at regular intervals in common with other schemes of student support.

  Fisheries Decommissioning
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the employment consequences of the introduction of the proposed decommissioning package.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: The detailed arrangements for the proposed decommissioning scheme are currently the subject of consultation with the industry. The impact of the scheme will also depend on the circumstances of the particular vessels which take up the scheme, but in the long term employment in fishing and related industries will best be protected by our proposals to reduce fishing pressure and hence conserve fish stocks.

  Fishermen (Retraining)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes any measures to ensure proper access to training and retraining facilities for those choosing to leave the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: At present Scottish Enterprise and several of its enterprise companies are actively engaged with representatives of the

  49
  fishing industry, its companies and local authorities to plan for the future needs of fishermen. The implications of reduced fishing activities in fisheries dependent areas are currently being addressed within the European Community, both as part of the common fisheries policy mid-term review and as part of the reform structural funds. Work is currently being undertaken by the European Commmission to identify dependent areas and possible measures to retrain and reorientate fishermen leaving the industry into other economic activities. The Government will give careful consideration to the results which emerge from these studies.

  EC Cohesion Fund
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of the possible advantages to Scotland of the EC cohesion fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: No such assessment has been made because no assistance will be available to Scotland through the cohesion fund. It will assist only member states whose per capita GNP is less than 90 per cent. of the Community average— Portugal, Spain, Greece and the Republic of Ireland—provided they meet certain macro-economic policy conditions.

  Creel Fisheries
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has considered the report jointly commissioned by Highland regional council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise into the prospect for creel fisheries in north of Scotland waters; and if he will make a statement on the implications of the reports recommendations for his Department.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]: The report was prepared to assist Highland regional council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in developing their own strategies relating to the industry in their region.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the amount of community charge in each district and islands area in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93 which is attributable to the costs of covering non-payment in previous years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 4 June 1992]:> This information is not collected centrally.

  Forestry
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to prevent the straight-up ploughing for forestry at Forest farm, Glen Croick, Sutherland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 June 1992.]: The Forestry Commission has approved an application for grant aid to plant about 2,000 hectares of native pinewood at Croick. It is a condition of this approval that any poughing is carried out in accordance with the commission's forests and water guidelines. Straight-up ploughing is generally acceptable under these guidelines. However, a small, steeply sloping area at Croick has been ploughed contrary to the approved plan, and the owners have agreed to carry out remedial action.

  Education
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in the current revenue support grant provision for Strathclyde regional council, what proportion is intended for the purpose of education; and what proportion of that sum is considered necessary to meet nursery education requirements.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: Local authority current expenditure is supported by aggregate external finance—AEF—which consists of non-domestic rate income—NDRI—revenue support grant—RS—Gand specific grants. The NDRI and RSG components are not hypothecated to particular services.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Comber Bypass
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the land has been acquired for phases 2 and 3 of the Comber bypass; and if he will make a statement about progress with the design work for this bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  Land acquisition and design work for phase 2 is well advanced. No work has commenced on phase 3 which currently falls outside the five-year major works programme.

  Tattoos

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each health authority in Northern Ireland the number of patients waiting for operations; and of those how many are waiting for the removal of tattoos.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information is not collected centrally on the numbers waiting for operations. The numbers of patients waiting for in-patient admission to the relevant surgical specialties in hospitals managed by each of the health and social service boards as at 31 March 1992 arc as follows:

  Board

  All surgical specialties

  Plastic surgery

  Eastern

  16,542

  1,695

  Northern

  1,664

  —

  Southern

  1,298

  —

  Western

  3,489

  —

  Northern Ireland

  22,993

  1,695

  The removal of tattoos is only one of the procedures carried out within the specialty of plastic surgery and the number waiting for treatment is not available centrally.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to ensure that all lists of candidates for public appointments in Northern Ireland contain equal numbers of men and women.

  Mr. Mates
  All appointments to public bodies are made on merit and the particular expertise which each individual
  51
  brings to the post. I will continue to ensure that sufficient numbers of women's names appear on the list of candidates submitted for consideration to increase substantially the representation of women on all public bodies in Northern Ireland.

  New Zealand Flatworm
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at how many places in Northern Ireland the New Zealand flatworm has been identified; what effect its presence has had on native earthworm populations; what research he has undertaken as to the consequences for soil fertility as a result of infestation by the flatworm; whether any control measures have been implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The New Zealand flatworm has now been identified at just over 300 sites, the majority of which are domestic gardens. It has occasionally been associated with reductions in earthworm numbers. The diversity of earthworm species may also be reduced by this flatworm.

  The importance of earthworms to soil fertility is well established and the impact of the flatworm on earthworm populations in Northern Ireland is being studied by scientists from the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  There are no control measures currently available.

  Tobacco
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to extend the provisions of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 will come into operation on 1 July 1992.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Michael Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the results of the households below average income analysis for 1989 is likely to be available and published.

  Mr. Burt
  As we announced on 12 December 1991, we expect the next edition of "Households Below Average Income" to be ready for publication in July. The date will be announced in due course in the Central Statistical Office monthly bulletin.

  Maxwell Pensions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the current position of the current pensioners, deferred pensioners and contributories of the Maxwell pension funds.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the latest Government position towards pensions in the Maxwell-owned companies.

  Mr. Lilley
  I understand that all Maxwell pensioners received their full payments for May apart from 240 52
  members of the Headington pension plan. I am well aware that the uncertainty facing many Maxwell pensioners must be causing them considerable anxiety and distress, and I share the deep concern of the House about this. I shall be making a statement shortly.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to guarantee payments to pensioners presently receiving payments from the Maxwell pension funds.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 13 May at column 140.

  Benefits (Means Testing)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to carry out a review of the scope for means testing of all universal benefits.

  Mr. Lilley
  On a number of occasions we have made clear our commitment to child benefit and retirement pension. We shall continue to monitor the effectiveness of the social security system, as we have done since introducing the major reforms of 1988.

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had on the levels of benefit payable to people with disabilities.

  Mr. Scott
  We receive a large volume of correspondence on disability benefits some of which touches on the rate of benefit payable. Under this Government, spending on benefits for disabled people has risen by 173 per cent. in real terms, a record of which we are rightly proud.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners currently have an occupational pension; and what was the equivalent figure in 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that 57 per cent. of all pensioners, and 69 per cent. of those who had recently retired, were receiving income from occupational pensions in 1988. The equivalent proportions in 1979 were 44 and 54 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many United Kingdom pensioners also have an occupational pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that a total of 6 million people receive income from an occupational pension. Of these, 4.5 million are over state pension age.

  Income Support
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase income support provision for young people.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no such plans, although all aspects of income support are kept under review as a matter of course.

  Social Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to modify the structure and administration of the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) earlier today.

  Youth Training
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will restore income support to 16 to 17-year-olds who cannot find a youth training place.

  Mr. Burt
  The Government's policy of providing a guarantee of a suitable youth training place to all young people who want one, instead of their depending on social security benefits, is the most effective way of encouraging young people to make the most of their opportunities. However, income support is available to those vulnerable groups of young people who are unable to participate in YT and to those seeking a YT place who would otherwise be at risk of severe hardship. We have no plans to restore general entitlement to income support, but we are monitoring closely the operation of these rules with a view to streamlining their administration where possible.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement about the age of retirement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our discussion paper, published on 18 December 1991, has been well received and there have already been many considered responses from both individuals and organisations. The discussion period ends on 30 June and we intend to bring forward detailed proposals in the light of comments received.

  Centenarians
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women reached their 100th birthday in the past year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that in the past year 263 men and 2,090 women celebrated their 100th birthdays.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total of Government spending on social security as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Burt
  For the year ending March 1992 social security spending is estimated to have been 11.73 per cent. of GDP.

  Pension Fund Trustees
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to review the role and responsibility of pension fund trustees.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier today.

  Benefits System
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further proposals he has for review of the benefits system.

  Mr. Burt
  We shall continue to build upon the reforms introduced in 1988 with the aim of further modernising and improving our social security system.

  Benefit Rights
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies he has made of the impact of the withdrawal of the standard rights to benefit on the health and well-being of unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds(a) who leave home and (b) who do not leave home.

  Mr. Burt
  This Department has not commissioned research on this specific topic. However, I welcome and study carefully reports on young people published by voluntary organisations and other groups.

  Pension Payments
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect on the availability of cash at post offices of the maximum limit of three months' pension which can be collected at one time; and if he will review this limit.

  Mr. Burt
  Arrangements for benefit payment and liaison with the Post Office Counters Ltd. are 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.

  Deserted Wives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to introduce legislation which will require the pension and life assurance benefits of husbands to be taken into consideration when assessing the level of benefit for deserted wives; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no such plans.

  Pension Law
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish his proposed review of pension law; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier today.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take action to speed up the processing of family credit claims; and if sufficient resources are available to meet current levels of claims.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of family credit 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.

  Departmental Press Release
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the purpose and cost to public funds of his Department's press release dated 11 May consisting of a curriculum vitae of the Minister of State for Social Secuirty and Disabled People; and how many inquiries were received in answer to it.

  Mr. Burt
  In common with other Government Departments' practice, the press release of updated biographical details was for information only. The cost for production and distribution was under £100. To date there have been no inquiries.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the change in pensioners' real income since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The average total net income of single pensioners and pensioner couples increased by 34 per cent. between 1979 and 1988.

  Queen's Speech
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the measures announced in the Queen's Speech; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received a number of representations concerning the new 1 per cent. additional rebate which we intend to introduce from April 1993 for appropriate personal pension holders age 30 and over.

  We shall continue to build upon the reforms introduced in 1988 with the aim of further modernising and improving our social security system.

WALES

  Fish Protection
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to announce his decision on the implementation of byelaws regarding the protection of salmon and sea-trout in the estuaries of(a) Meirionnydd and (b) north Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Following receipt of these proposed byelaws in 1991, consideration by the Department and discussions with the promoters have identified the need for some modifications. The Welsh Office has yet to receive final versions from the promoters.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of those individuals who have started up businesses based on the enterprise allowance in each of the years since its introduction, were still trading(a) after 12 months, (b) after 24 months and (c) after 36 months.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been awarded moneys through the 56
  enterprise allowance scheme in Wales in each year from the introduction of the scheme to the current year; and in each of those years, how many people (a) attended enterprise allowance awareness day seminars, (b) applied for enterprise allowance assistance but were refused, (c) were awarded enterprise allowance assistance but had the assistance terminated within the first 12 months and (d) continued to receive enterprise allowance assistance for a full 12-month period.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of enterprise allowance awards in Wales are readily available only since 1987-88 and are set out in the table.

  The information required to answer points (a) to (d) of the question is not available.

  Enterprise allowance scheme Yearly entrants (Wales)

  April to March

  1987–88

  6,654

  1988–89

  6,942

  1989–90

  5,433

  1990–91

  4,048

  1991–92

  3,267

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total sum budgeted by his Department for the enterprise allowance scheme in Wales in the current financial year; what has been the total cost of the enterprise allowance scheme in Wales in each year since its
  introduction; and in each year, what proportion of the total cost is accounted for by administrative expenses.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The total sum budgeted for enterprise allowance in Wales in the current financial year is £5.3 million. The information on the total cost of enterprise allowance in each year since 1987–88 is set out in the table. The information is not readily available for Wales for the earlier years from the introduction of the scheme in 1982 to 1986–87.

  Information on the total cost accounted for by administrative expenses is not available.

  Enterprise allowance scheme Expenditure by financial year (Wales)

  £ million

  1987–88

  12.0

  1988–89

  12.9

  1989–90

  12.4

  1990–91

  9.0

  1991–92

  7.1

  Valleys Programme
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the urban aid allocations for each year between 1987 and 1988 and 1992–93 to each district authority in the valleys programme area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Urban programme allocations between 1987–88 and 1992–93 for district authorities wholly or partly within the valleys programme area are given in the table:
  57

  Local Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Dinefwr BC

  132,211

  469,751

  377,700

  443,000

  687,731

  365,375

  Llanelli BC

  565,181

  322,197

  433,337

  495,254

  442,327

  489,327

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  983,291

  1,535,680

  2,415,849

  3,658,459

  5,910,950

  2,168,010

  Islwyn BC

  467,461

  573,219

  869,900

  1,004,350

  1,070,884

  1,456,686

  Torfaen BC

  720,127

  1,230,806

  1,255,349

  927,488

  821,739

  664,436

  Cynon Valley BC

  938,186

  979,098

  1,072,744

  1,405,701

  2,284,621

  1,803,960

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  1,229,332

  1,112,515

  1,215,003

  1,207,657

  1,071,184

  1,084,581

  Ogwr BC

  1,026,757

  1,212,365

  1,201,414

  1,195,481

  1,195,108

  1,229,028

  Rhondda BC

  1,037,248

  1,943,154

  2,042,747

  2,033,889

  1,836,311

  2,221,285

  Rhymney Valley DC

  708,991

  1,032,646

  1,096,007

  1,098,230

  655,358

  834,750

  Taff Ely BC

  333,113

  307,380

  429,045

  437,561

  675,850

  669,782

  Brecknock BC

  99,732

  1,600

  101,600

  122,000

  27,000

  250,000

  Port Talbot BC

  631,902

  770,823

  564,485

  705,425

  630,700

  183,047

  Lliw Valley BC

  362,735

  571,485

  431,750

  368,900

  309,300

  368,078

  Neath BC

  415,678

  496,627

  503,544

  516,324

  823,520

  554,317

  Swansea CC

  722,858

  673,528

  534,879

  524,943

  574,727

  544,277

  Note: Pre-1992–93 figures include, where applicable, supplementary allocations made during the year. Allocations to Blaenau Gwent BC from 1988–89 onwards include special provision for the National Garden Festival.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the male, female and youth unemployment rates in April for the years (a) 1988, (h) 1989, (c) 1990, (d) 1991 and (e) 1992 for the United Kingdom, Wales and the south Wales valleys programme area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The table shows the information requested, where available. Youth unemployment cannot be expressed as a rate as a breakdown
  of the work force by age is not available.

  Unemployment rates at April1

  Valleys Area

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1988

  18.9

  9.9

  13.5

  7.7

  10.8

  6.5

  1989

  14.9

  7.0

  9.8

  5.2

  8.3

  4.4

  1990

  13.1

  5.1

  8.4

  3.8

  7.4

  3.5

  1991

  17.5

  5.6

  11.4

  4.4

  10.3

  4.4

  1992

  18.7

  5.9

  13.1

  4.9

  13.0

  5.3

  Source: Employment Department.

  1 Workforce based, unadjusted.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage change in(a) total unemployment and (b) long-term unemployment between April 1988 and April 1992 and between April 1990 and April 1992 for the United Kingdom, Wales and the south Wales valleys.

  Valleys area

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  April

  Number

  1 Rate

  Number

  1Rate

  Number

  1Rate

  1988

  13,937

  5.7

  52,057

  4.1

  1,029,206

  3.6

  1989

  10,544

  4.3

  36,504

  2.8

  744,120

  2.6

  1990

  7,111

  3.0

  24,606

  1.9

  539,725

  1.9

  1991

  7,583

  3.1

  25,626

  2.0

  555,057

  2.0

  1992

  11,385

  4.7

  39,436

  3.0

  840,849

  3.0

  Source: Employment Department.

  1 The long-term unemployed (ie for more than 52 weeks) expressed as a percentage of the total work force.

  A465
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures for the number of(a) reported motor accidents and (b) deaths for each year since 1979 on the section of the A465 between Aberdulais and Glynneath.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of accidents involving personal injury and the number of deaths resulting from
  58
  Mr. David Hunt
  The table shows unadjusted numbers and rates of long-term unemployed for the years and areas requested.

  Percentage change April 1988–1992

  Percentage change April 1990–1992

  Total Unemployment1

  South Wales Valleys area

  -14.3

  37.2

  Wales

  -10.3

  48.6

  United Kingdom

  7.9

  68.3

  Long-Term Unemployment2

  South Wales Valleys area

  -18.3

  60.1

  Wales

  -24.2

  60.3

  United Kingdom

  -18.3

  55.8

  Source: Employment Department

  1 Unadjusted.

  2 Unemployed for more than 52 Weeks.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list he number and rates of long-term unemployed more than one year in April for the years(a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1990, (d) 1991 and (e) 1992 for the United Kingdom, Wales and south Wales valleys programme area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The table shows unadjusted numbers and rates of long-term unemployed for the years and areas requested.

  these accidents on the stretch of the A465 between Aberdulais, junction with A4109, and Glynneath, junction with B4242, are given in the table:

  59

  Number of accidents1

  Number killed

  1979

  23

  2

  1980

  13

  —

  1981

  10

  —

  1982

  27

  1

  1983

  11

  1

  1984

  14

  4

  1985

  18

  2

  1986

  18

  3

  1987

  10

  —

  1988

  14

  3

  1989

  19

  1

  1990

  36

  3

  21991

  25

  3

  1 Excluding those where there was no personal injury—for which no information is available.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the start date for construction of the missing link of the A465 between Aberdulais and Glynneath.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The scheme is planned to start in the current financial year. That is contingent on the management of the trunk road programme as a whole.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the fatal road accident on the A465 at Resolven on Saturday 30 May.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The accident involved three cars and occurred on a double bend in the late afternoon during wet weather. Two of the occupants were killed, four seriously injured and two slightly injured. An investigation will be carried out when full details are available.

  Ancient Woodland
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to double the planting of native broadleaf species in those counties which have lost one third of their ancient woodland since 1930.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The area of broadleaves planted in Wales has more than trebled over the last decade. A total of 450 hectares of broadleaves have, on average, been planted each year during the last five years, as compared with an average of 120 hectares during the previous seven years. Nearly all the planting was carried out with native species.

  The Government's policy is that there should be a continuing expansion of the area of native woodland in Wales.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether sites of special scientific interest which may include ancient woodland will, in future, be protected from any depradation by agriculture, quarrying or any other activity.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Sites of special scientific interest are already protected under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The joint Welsh Office/Department of the Environment circular No. 1/92 "Planning Controls over Sites of Special Scientific Interest", which took effect from 2 January 1992, announced further planning safeguards for these areas.

  Earnings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will show the gross weekly earnings of full-time adult employees in Wales as a percentage of the British average in 1980, 1985, and 1990 for(a) males and (b) females.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Average gross weekly earnings1 Wales as a percentage of Great Britain

  Male

  Female

  April

  21980

  95.7

  95.7

  31985

  93.1

  9.40

  31990

  87.5

  89.5

  Source: New Earnings Surveys

  1Full-time employees whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence

  2Men aged 21 and over, women 18 and over

  3All on adult rates

  School Governors
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will detail the action he has taken or proposes to take to recruit school governors in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The year 1992 marks the end of the first four-year term for governors who were appointed in the wake of the Education Reform Act. Some 13,000 school governorships in Wales come up for renewal later this year. While I hope that many existing governors will wish to put their names forward for a further four-year term, I anticipate that there will be many opportunities for others to become governors for the first time.

  We have, therefore, produced bilingual leaflets and posters together with a Welsh language video which local authorities and schools will he using as part of their efforts to encourage parents and others to become school governors. Local education authorities and schools are also working hard to ensure that all vacancies are filled.

  We all have an interest in ensuring that our children have a good education—the future is in their hands. I hope that as many people as possible will take the opportunity that presents itself this year to put their name forward and become involved in the running of their local school. It is a very rewarding job.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in his contacts with the Government of Libya over the transfer from Libya of the two persons suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie air disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are continuing our efforts to persuade the Libyan Government to comply with our request, endorsed by UN Security Council resolution 731, to hand over the two Lockerbie suspects for trial in Scotland or the United States. If Libya does not implement this resolution, the sanctions regime imposed under Security Council resolution 748 will remain in place.

  Refuseniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Arkady German and his family, of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can consider raising with the Russian authorities the case of Arkady German arid his family, but to make effective representations we would need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Mark Grunkin and his family of Krasnogorsk.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can consider raising with the Russian authorities the case of Mark Grunkin and his family, but to make effective representations we would need further details

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Arkady Gordon and his family, of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can consider raising with the Russian authorities the case of Arkady Gordon and his family, but to make effective representations we would need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Alexander Gekker and his family, of Kishinev.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can consider raising with the Moldovan authorities the case of Alexander Gekker and his family, but to make effective representations we would need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Alexander Melnikov and his family, of Apotity.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can consider raising with the Russian authorities the case of Alexander Melnikov and his family, but to make effective representations we would need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Alfred Rafalovich and his family, of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can consider raising with the Russian authorities the case of Alfred Rafalovich and his family, but to make effective representations we would need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Dmitri Yakubovsky and his family, of Kiev.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We made several representations to the authorities in Ukraine on behalf of Dmitri Yakubovsky and his family; the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed us in March that he had received permission to leave the country.
  62
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusnik Leib Levin and his family, of Ust Kamenogorsk.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We made several representations on behalf of Leib Levin and his family; we understand that he has now received permission to leave Kazakhstan.

  Human Rights Conference
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the forthcoming United Nations world conference on human rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom is closely involved with EC and other like-minded countries in the preparatory process leading to the world conference on human rights, due to be held in Vienna from 14 to 25 June 1993. The United Kingdom attaches particular importance to agreement on better implementation of international human rights standards.

  "Guardian" Ban
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of the Republic of Ireland following the ban on the sale of the British Guardian newspaper in the Republic on Thursday 21 May.

  Mr. Hurd
  None. No approach was made to Her Majesty's Government by The Guardian newspaper or by others directly involved.

  Young Endeavour
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have been received from the Australian Government on the training and use of Young Endeavour.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The board of the Young Endeavour youth scheme produces an annual report, and makes a copy available to the British Government.

  Since being presented to Australia in January 1988 the ship has carried more than 2,000 young Australians on 10-day sail training voyages, and 1,650 disabled young people on shorter trips. It has also called at numerous ports around Australia and been visited by approximately 20,000 members of the public each year. In addition, the vessel undertakes flagship duties such as going to Auckland for the Commonwealth games in 1990 and representing Australia in the present grand regatta Columbus.

  Dependent Territories (Investments)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out his policy and advice to Ministers of Finance in the United Kingdom's dependent territories on(a) the tendering for and appointment of investment advisers and (b) the tendering for and appointment of investment performance monitors.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Responsibility for the tendering for an appointment of investment advisers and investment
  63
  performance monitors for the United Kingdom's dependent territories rests with the Minister of Finance, or equivalent official, of each territory. Dependent territories wishing to recruit such advisers will do so on the basis of local legislation and regulations.

  Newspaper Distribution
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application of protocol 17 of the Maastricht treaty as it applies to freedom of distribution of United Kingdom newspapers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The protocol to which the right hon. Member refers is, of course, not yet in force. On 2 May, European Community Foreign Ministers agreed a legal interpretation and solemn declaration stating that it was not their intention that the protocol should limit the freedom to travel and the right to information about services legally available in other member states, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 13 May. I understand that the Government of the Irish Republic intend to hold a referendum later this year on an amendment to their constitution to confirm this.

  Iran
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to the export of military equipment to Iran.

  Mr. Douglas-Hogg
  The guidelines relating to all deliveries of defence equipment to Iran were set by the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 29 October 1985. They remain strictly enforced.

  Tamil Refugees
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government concerning the enforced repatriation of Tamil refugees from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. The Indian Government temporarily suspended repatriation of Tamil refugees from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka on 15 May.

  Ceremonial Dress
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 110, if he will itemise the expenditure on ceremonial dress for 1991–92.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Ceremonial dress for HM representatives cost as follows:

  £

  Bangladesh

  2,735

  Holy See

  3,193

  Kathmandu

  615

  Luxembourg

  3,440

  Stockholm

  2,613

  British Virgin Islands

  2,725

  Kuala Lumpur

  756

  64
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use is to be made of the ceremonial dress normally reserved for the Governor of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As I said in reply to the hon. Member's question on 13 May, Mr. Patten does not propose to wear ceremonial dress. None has therefore been made for him.

HEALTH

  Child Protection Units
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the staffing numbers for each local authority child protection unit in England and Wales; and what they were in 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held currently.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring forward proposals to amend the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 further to provide for the circumstances in which an organ may be retrieved from a dead person for the purposes of transplant, to require the anonymity of the donor and the recipient, to define death for the purposes of that Act of 1989 as the total and irreversible loss of brain function and for connected purposes.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. Conditions for the removal of human organs from dead people for transplantation are provided in the Human Tissue Act 1961. The anonymity of the donor and recipient is covered by the common law principle of patient confidentiality which applies to all medical information. The determination of death is a matter for the clinical judgment of doctors. Brain stem death criteria have been accepted by the medical profession as conclusive evidence of death and are already applied for the purposes of organ retrieval.

  Dental Treatment
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect on the availability of national health service dental care in Staffordshire of his Department's proposals to cut fees to national health service dental practitioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have made fair and reasonable proposals on dentists' remuneration which are being considered by the dental rates study group. These proposals would lead to the average dentist receiving in 1992–93 not just the 8.5 per cent. increase in pay recommended by the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration—and accepted in full by the Government—but some £5,000 in the full year in addition. We see no reason why such an offer should adversely affect the availability of the national health service dental care in Staffordshire, or elsewhere.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the proposals in the EC draft directive on the hygiene of foodstuffs; and if she will make a statement;
  65
  (2) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the current EC legislation which governs the safety of mail order foods by means of a voluntary code of guidance.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government welcome the EC Commission's proposal for a directive on the hygiene of foodstuffs as an important step in securing harmonised food hygiene standards throughout the Community. There is no current EC legislation dealing specifically with the safety of mail order foods.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has of the effect on deaths of children from cancer of the thyroid caused by contamination of the milk supply following the Chernobyl explosion.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for the United Kingdom show that no children died from cancer of the thyroid in respect of the period 1986–90. The Department is not aware of any evidence which demonstrates that any medical effects have occurred in the United Kingdom as a result of radiation exposures from the Chernobyl accident.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methods she is using to project the numbers of persons likely to require residential or nursing home care after April 1993; and what conclusions she has reached.

  Mr. Yeo
  We currently estimate that about 110,000 people annually would have permanently entered independent residential care or nursing homes if the system of higher levels of income support had continued. This figure has regard to the growth in numbers under the present system and turnover rates estimated from the results of recent surveys about the characteristics of people living in residential care and nursing homes, including length of stay. We shall keep this estimate under review as further information becomes available. All such estimates have a margin of error. The actual number of people admitted to residential care and nursing homes under local authority auspices from April 1993 will depend on an assessment by authorities of their care needs.

  South Birmingham Health Authority
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide details of the deficit reported by South Birmingham health authority for the last financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The deficit for South Birmingham in 1991–92 is currently estimated to be approximately £10.5 million. Of this, £4 million relates to excess creditors carried forward from 1990–91 and the remaining £6£5 million to overspending in 1991–92.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much the West Midlands regional health authority agreed to increase South Birmingham health authority's allocation in the last financial year; and what understandings were reached on compensating reductions for later years.

  Mr. Sackville
  South Birmingham health authority received an additional £15 million in the 1991–92 financial year, which was the best estimate, at that time, of the 66
  district's financial deficit. The additional funding was provided on the understanding that there would be a complete investigation into the cause and scale of the deficit. The district has agreed to take action to restore an income and expenditure balance. Any further actions which may be needed, must await the results of the investigation and subsequent discussions between the regional health authority and South Birmingham health authority.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the KPMG Peat Marwick report on South Birmingham health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  KPMG Peat Marwick has not yet completed its report.

  Asthma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her reply on 2 June,Official Report, column 465, what information is held by her Department on the incidence of asthma among children; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures on the incidence of asthma amongst children are not held centrally, but it is estimated that upwards of 700,000 children and adolescents under the age of 16 in the United Kingdom are affected by the condition.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department holds on the possible links between child asthma and vehicle pollution due to exhaust emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Asthma is an ill-understood disease. The role of air pollutants in affecting the interplay between genetic and environmental factors, such as exposure to vehicle emissions is unclear. Research is being carried out into factors contributing to the rise of asthma, but no clear conclusions have emerged.

  The Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes looked at the evidence linking ozone levels with asthma and concluded that the data were not persuasive. The group will soon examine other possible associations with asthma and other respiratory diseases.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were born in the United Kingdom in the last five years, for which records are available, to mothers aged 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 years, respectively; how many and what percentage of those mothers of age 16 years and over were married to the father of the child at the time of birth; and what is her estimate of the number and proportion of babies born to mothers aged 14 to 16 years which are being cared for by grandparents or other relatives.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested relating to live births is as follows:

  Live births in the United Kingdom 1986–90

  Year of birth of child and age of mother at birth

  Total births

  Births inside marriage

  Percentage inside marriage

  1986

  14

  208

  —

  —

  15

  1,279

  —

  —

  67

  Year of birth of child and age of mother at birth

  Total births

  Births inside marriage

  Percentage inside marriage

  16

  4,972

  531

  10.7

  17

  12,321

  2,415

  19.6

  18

  20,094

  6,257

  31.1

  1987

  14

  200

  —

  —

  15

  1,235

  —

  —

  16

  5,063

  441

  8.7

  17

  12,141

  2,043

  16.8

  18

  20,141

  5,237

  26.0

  1988

  14

  217

  —

  —

  15

  1,205

  —

  —

  16

  5,159

  396

  7.7

  17

  12,775

  1,759

  13.8

  18

  20,060

  4,709

  23.5

  1989

  14

  198

  —

  —

  15

  1,246

  —

  —

  16

  4,865

  316

  6.5

  17

  11,798

  1,381

  11.7

  18

  19,394

  3,959

  20.4

  1990

  14

  211

  —

  —

  15

  1,237

  —

  —

  16

  4,713

  260

  5.5

  17

  11,819

  1,231

  10.4

  18

  18,797

  3,504

  18.6

  No information is available on the numbers or proportions of babies cared for by relatives.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any proposals to further postpone the implementation of the community care reforms.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), on 12 May at column 81.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish her estimates of the cost to local authorities of community care in 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is being considered in the public expenditure survey. We are committed to resourcing community care fairly.

  Table

  Fatal casualties from fires in dwellings attended by local authority fire brigades by sex1 and country 1986–90

  All ages

  Children2

  Pensioners3

  Country

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  England

  1986

  568

  266

  302

  105

  61

  44

  277

  92

  185

  1987

  510

  246

  264

  82

  53

  29

  261

  85

  176

  1988

  532

  288

  244

  83

  40

  43

  242

  106

  136

  1989

  514

  269

  245

  90

  46

  44

  235

  95

  140

  1990

  478

  263

  214

  74

  44

  30

  222

  92

  130

  Wales

  1986

  26

  14

  12

  3

  1

  2

  17

  9

  8

  Dentists and General Practitioners
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the average net pay of(a) dentists and (b) general practitioners for each of the last five years; and what is the projected figure for 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body recommends to Government the target average net income for dentists and the intended average income for doctors.

  The target average net income of general dental practitioners and the intended average income of general medical practitioners since 1987–88 are as follows:

  General dental practitioners

  General medical practitioners

  £

  £

  1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  23,220

  26,840

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  24,920

  28,800

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  26,915

  31,105

  1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990

  28,800

  33,280

  1 January 1991 to 31 March 1991

  29,740

  34,680

  1 April 1991 to 30 November 1991

  31,970

  37,280

  1 December 1991 to 31 March 1992

  33,010

  37,975

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  35,815

  40,010

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that ECT is never administered to anyone under 18 years of age.

  Mr. Yeo
  Treatment decisions are a matter for clinical judgment. Electro-convulsive therapy is rarely used for people under 18 years of age, but can be the appropriate treatment in certain circumstances.

  Domestic Fires
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many men, women, children and pensioners died in fires in their homes during each of the last five years for which records are available, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information relates to deaths in fires attended by local authority fire brigades between 1986 and 1990 and is shown in the table.
  69

  All ages

  Children2

  Pensioners3

  Country

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  1987

  38

  17

  21

  6

  4

  2

  18

  4

  14

  1988

  36

  17

  19

  11

  6

  5

  17

  5

  12

  1989

  26

  17

  9

  8

  4

  4

  4

  2

  2

  1990

  21

  10

  11

  6

  4

  2

  10

  2

  8

  Scotland

  1986

  132

  72

  60

  12

  8

  4

  63

  22

  41

  1987

  138

  79

  59

  24

  14

  10

  62

  28

  34

  1988

  146

  74

  72

  25

  12

  13

  69

  30

  39

  1989

  88

  45

  43

  11

  4

  7

  43

  20

  23

  1990

  115

  59

  55

  3

  0

  3

  45

  20

  25

  Northern Ireland

  1986

  27

  14

  13

  2

  1

  1

  12

  5

  7

  1987

  24

  8

  16

  7

  2

  5

  8

  2

  6

  1988

  18

  8

  10

  2

  0

  2

  9

  5

  4

  1989

  14

  8

  6

  3

  2

  1

  5

  1

  4

  1990

  13

  8

  5

  2

  2

  0

  4

  2

  2

  1 The Total column includes some casualties of unspecified sex.

  2 Children are classified as those aged 0-16.

  3 Pensioners are classified as aged 65 and over for males and aged 60 and over for females.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many men, Women, children and pensioners, respectively, were injured in fires in their homes during each of the last five years for which records are available, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Table

  Non-fatal casualties from fires in dwellings attended by local authority fire brigades by sex1 and country 1986–90

  All ages

  Children2

  Pensioners3

  Country

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  England

  1986

  7,262

  3,938

  3,275

  1,194

  635

  559

  1,722

  653

  1,069

  1987

  7,476

  4,050

  3,411

  1,176

  641

  535

  1,799

  663

  1,136

  1988

  7,882

  4,296

  3,577

  1,317

  736

  579

  1,791

  651

  1,140

  1989

  8,076

  4,408

  3,655

  1,399

  762

  636

  1,821

  677

  1,144

  1990

  8,080

  4,471

  3,594

  1,383

  774

  608

  1,764

  687

  1,077

  Wales

  1986

  356

  195

  161

  42

  17

  25

  66

  26

  40

  1987

  398

  215

  178

  64

  30

  34

  90

  34

  56

  1988

  475

  233

  236

  108

  50

  58

  98

  33

  65

  1989

  446

  233

  210

  80

  39

  40

  97

  31

  66

  1990

  466

  261

  203

  93

  53

  40

  81

  29

  52

  Scotland

  1986

  1,499

  843

  655

  212

  105

  107

  311

  125

  186

  1987

  1,372

  776

  596

  204

  112

  92

  292

  108

  184

  1988

  1,591

  862

  727

  265

  136

  129

  357

  143

  214

  1989

  1,605

  869

  736

  247

  133

  114

  367

  141

  226

  1990

  1,624

  894

  728

  263

  129

  134

  331

  142

  189

  Northern Ireland

  1986

  286

  174

  112

  44

  20

  24

  47

  18

  29

  1987

  230

  130

  100

  57

  31

  26

  31

  14

  17

  1988

  230

  137

  93

  48

  29

  19

  33

  13

  20

  1989

  261

  161

  100

  38

  24

  14

  37

  19

  18

  1990

  287

  160

  125

  64

  31

  33

  28

  13

  15

  1 The Total column includes some casualties of unspecified sex.

  2 Children are classified as those aged 0-16.

  3 Pensioners are classified as aged 65 and over for males and aged 60 and over for females.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths she estimates occur each year in the United Kingdom due to the inhalation of smoke.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.
  70
  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information relates to casualties in fires attended by local authority fire brigades between 1986 and 1990 and is shown in the table.

  The available information is published in table 7 of the Home Office report, "Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1990", a copy of which is in the Library. Details of the cause of death come from fire brigade records of fires they attend, updated where possible by information from the death certificate.

DEFENCE

  Navigational Marks
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those navigational buoys and marks in the Solent which the Royal Navy provides and maintains.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows.

  Name

  Position

  W. Princessa

  50 40 12N

  1 03 57W

  Bembridge

  50 41 07N

  1 02 43W

  Nab End

  50 42 48N

  0 59 23W

  Nab East

  50 42 48N

  1 42 00W

  Dean Tail

  50 43 01N

  0 59 01W

  Dean Elbow

  50 43 33N

  1 01 50W

  Warner

  50 43 50.5N

  1 03 56W

  Horse Elbow

  50 44 14N

  1 03 48W

  Cambrian Wk

  50 44 14N

  1 03 56W

  Invincible Wk

  50 44.34N

  1 02.23W

  ASWE 1

  50 46.7N

  1 02.06W

  ASWE 2

  50 46.13N

  1 02.02W

  ASWE 3

  50 46.69N

  1 02.22W

  ASWE 6

  50 45.18N

  1 02.00W

  Langstone F

  50 46.17N

  1 01 16.5W

  Winner

  50 45 04N

  1 00 00W

  Saddle

  50 45 00N

  1 00 00W

  Horse Sand

  50 45 29N

  1 04 40W

  50 45 33N

  OSB

  1 05 25W

  50 46 11N

  Boyne

  1 05 18W

  50 46 11N

  Spit Refuge

  1 05 22W

  50 46 26N

  Castle

  1 05 18W

  50 46 26N

  Ridge

  1 05 34W

  50 46 44N

  1 Bar

  1 05 43W

  50 46.66N

  2 Bar

  1 05.58W

  50 47 02.5N

  3 Bar

  1 06 10W

  50 46 58.5N

  4 Bar

  1 06 16W

  50 47 38N

  Ballast

  1 06 16W

  50 46.58N

  Stokes Bay Pier

  1 09.00W

  50 45 18N

  N. Sturbridge

  1 08 09W

  50 44 42N

  N.E. Mining Gd

  1 06 18W

  50 44.38N

  S.W. Mining Gd

  1 06.57W

  72

  Name

  Position

  50 46 40N

  Stokes Bay

  1 10 35W

  50 46 32.5N

  Browndown

  1 10 52W

  50 47 12N

  E. Bramble

  1 13 33W

  50 46 35N

  N. Ryde Middle

  1 14 18W

  50 46 27N

  W. Ryde Middle

  1 15 42W

  S. Ryde Middle

  50 46 06N

  1 14 05W

  NE Ryde Middle

  50 46 11N

  1 11 48W

  SE Ryde Middle

  50 45 54N

  1 12 00W

  Norris

  50 45 55N

  1 15 24 W

  Peel Bank

  50 45 34N

  1 13 15W

  Peel Wk

  50 44 51N

  1 13 18W

  Mother Bank

  50 45 27N

  1 11 08W

  Flag 'T'

  50 43.19N

  0 59.30W

  Flag 'T'

  50 43 01N

  0 59.18W

  Flag 'T'

  50 42.88N

  0 59.49W

  Flag 'T'

  50 43.06N

  0 59.77W

  Mary Rose

  50 45 46N

  1 06 10W

  Gamma

  50 46.34N

  1 06.00W

  Delta

  50 46.01N

  1 06.20W

  Echo

  50 46.09N

  1 05.37W

  Lucas

  50 46.23N

  1 08.67W

  Alpha

  50 46 35N

  1 07 30W

  Beta

  50 46.37N

  1 06.25W

  Kemps

  50 45.15N

  1 9.55W

  Bowring Rose

  50 47.28N

  1 12.00W

  Ratsey

  50 47 63N

  1 13.57W

  DAKS Simpson

  50 45.5N

  1 14.3W

  Foul Ground 1

  50 48.85N

  1 07.09W

  Foul Ground 2

  50 48.93N

  1 07.09W

  Mobel

  50 46.13N

  1 13.00W

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the policy reasons for the provision of buoyage by the Royal Navy in the Solent.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Queen's harbour master provides and maintains navigation buoys in the Solent as required by schedule 1, regulation 1 of the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth Act 1978.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by(a) rank and (b) armed service the 35 British military observers who are joining the United Nations land operation in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are providing a total of 38 military observers for the United Nations Transition Authority in Cambodia comprising, from the Army, seven lieutenant colonels, 15 majors and 10 captains; from the Royal Air Force, one wing commander, one squadron leader and three flight lieutenants; and from the Royal Marines, one captain.

  NAAFI profits
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what method the use of NAAFI profits for sporting purposes within the armed forces is determined.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Units of the armed forces are paid a rebate, at rates agreed by the NAAFI council, on total sales at retail prices in junior ranks clubs. The rebate may be spent on improving the amenities of clubs or any purpose that collectively benefits service personnel, including sports. Within these guidelines, use of the rebate is at the discretion of unit commanders.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid by his Department in compensation to individuals in terms of(a) personal injury both physical and mental and (b) for damage to property arising from low-flying aircraft in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Statistics regarding compensation for low flying aircraft activity are not available in the format requested. The following is a breakdown of overall expenditure for claims relating to low-flying aircraft activity:74

  £

  1989–90

  356,000

  1990–91

  429,000

  1991–92

  441,000

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific statement was made by his predecessor on the future of Flight B202 Squadron search and rescue at RAF Brawdy in the press conference held at the Welsh Office, Cathays park, Cardiff, on 24 January.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made any statement at the press conference on 24 January, concerning search and rescue at RAF Brawdy. Final decisions on the structure and basing of the military search and rescue force have yet to be taken. It is, therefore, too early to say what the implications will be for the provision of search and rescue at RAF Brawdy.

  Thames House
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give further details of the works on Thames house, as shown in table I of class I, votes 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the supply estimates 1992–93—HC 273-I— showing which parts of his Department will be occupying the building; and which buildings currently in use will be thereby vacated.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment stated in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on 5 June, at column 667, Thames house is being refurbished principally for occupation by the Security Service. The Ministry of Defence has no plans to occupy the building.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.
Several Lords Several Lords— Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Specialist Mental Hospitals
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of operational difficulties relating to the implementation of their deadlines for closing specialist mental hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, no specific deadlines have been imposed by government. Our primary aim is not the closure of specialist mental hospitals but the provision of better care for people with mental health problems. This requires the development of suitable facilities in the community.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is serious disquiet among many organisations and in reports published by the prisons, resettlement agencies and other government organisations that people who have previously been in mental hospitals are now going to prison, sleeping rough or being placed in resettlement units? These people have received no back-up service at all when they were discharged.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness will perhaps also be aware that the evidence that we have is that homeless mentally ill people are not those who have recently been discharged from long-stay hospitals but are people who have had little or no contact with psychiatric services. We have recent research to prove that. There is some anxiety with regard to people who are in prison. The noble Baroness may be aware that a review is being undertaken at the moment by the Reed Committee which is looking into that specific aspect.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that over the past 15 years or so many mentally handicapped people have been discharged from long-stay hospitals and with the help of Mencap have been enabled to live within the community? Can she give an assurance that it remains the aim of the Government to advance that process? Can she also give an assurance that the matter about which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, has complained does not apply to the mentally handicapped?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I should like to pay tribute to Mencap and other voluntary organisations which have done an enormous amount of work in ensuring
1096
that such people have a better quality of life. People who were previously in hospital can now enjoy the freedom and the kind of life that many of us expect to lead in the community. I should like to join with him in paying tribute to those voluntary organisations.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there is a great deal of truth in what the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, says about voluntary organisations? For instance, we know that voluntary organisations like CHARD, and particularly the Simon Community, whose record is second to none in assisting people on the streets or people who are about to go on the streets, are suffering because of the cuts in local authority expenditure. In other words, local authority cuts are being passed on to the voluntary organisations, which are now finding it very difficult to find any alternative source of funding. Would the Minister take another look at organisations like the Simon Community to see whether they can be assisted to carry on the very valuable work that they are doing?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. I shall be delighted to meet representatives of any voluntary organisation. But I refute the allegation that resources within local authorities have been cut. In fact for people with learning disabilities and mentally handicapped people the increase in local authority spending since 1979 has been 91 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what happens to the people in the specialist mental hospitals when those hospitals are closed? I find it difficult to understand from the answers that have been given.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when hospitals for mentally ill people, or hospitals that have in the past cared for people who are mentally handicapped —people with learning disabilities—close, their patients have care plans drawn up for them by the social services, with National Health Service staff and also with voluntary organisations, to ensure that in the future their quality of life is good, that they have somewhere to live and that they are occupied not only during the day but at weekends and in the evenings. It is essential that we have care plans for every single person being discharged. That is the Government's policy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her statement a moment ago that she is willing to meet voluntary organisations will be very well received? We in this House are very grateful that she said that. Will she also take into consideration that the specialist medical professionals also have many problems that they would like to discuss with the department? Can discussions with them also please be considered?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I am prepared to meet anybody at any time, within reason.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, while accepting that my noble friend has in part answered the question in

1097
relation to that asked by my noble friend Lord Renton, would she further agree that as far as the mentally ill are concerned there are already some very good examples in the United Kingdom where the problems which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, has mentioned do not arise and that all along the policy has been one which has concerned the local authorities, the voluntary sector and indeed central government? It would be a pity to write off those organisations which otherwise are doing good work.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comment and question. I agree with him that tremendous achievements are being made in the community by voluntary organisations and statutory authorities working together. We should in no way decry that.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, what is to happen to the people who are so badly mentally handicapped that they cannot be returned to the community? Will provision be made for them? It is not just a question of people with learning disabilities but of those who are seriously handicapped who have not advanced since the age of two and who are now adults.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. There will always be people who need intensive care. There is a question as to whether or not those people should be cared for in an institution. In my district I have witnessed severely multiply handicapped people being looked after successfully in the community. We should give every person possible that chance.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the Minister agree that homelessness is a problem connected with people who were previously mentally ill and that homelessness itself causes mental distress? What is the Government's remedy for tackling the connection between homelessness and mental illness?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to reiterate the comment I made earlier; there is no evidence that homeless people have had experience of hospitals for the mentally ill. I am aware that there is a common belief in the country that that is so, but I draw to the noble Lord's attention the evidence that has emerged recently from several research projects.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I accept that good work is being done in the community. I congratulate all those who participate in it. I am involved with two organisations. I am worried about the observations of the Schizophrenia Fellowship. Its anxiety is serious. Those who are mentally ill are not receiving a square deal under the Patient's Charter.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. I should welcome evidence of specific instances of things going awry and people not being looked after in the community. It is only by looking into the individual case that we can ensure that that person's quality of life is improved.

Cyprus
2.46 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will outline the steps they are taking towards a negotiated settlement in Cyprus.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we continue to give active support to the UN Secretary-General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem. There are current grounds for optimism; both sides have accepted the ideas endorsed in SCR 750, and the recent round of talks by UN envoys has gone well.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer and the assurance, if I heard it aright, that Her Majesty's Government also support Resolution 750. That is a big help. Will the Government be represented at the peace talks which it is envisaged will be held during the next week or two? Can the noble Baroness give me any information on what progress has been made by the Government in ascertaining the whereabouts of those people (Turkish or Greek) who have been missing since the Turkish invasion of 1974?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, the United Kingdom remains especially involved as a guarantor power. With regard to the second part of his question, we support the United Nations Intercommunal Committee on Missing Persons, but its efforts depend upon full co-operation from both sides. Separate action by the UK would risk cutting across the committee's work. I realise that a great deal of human tragedy and misery lies behind the question asked by the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, do the Turkish and Greek Governments now fully support Security Council Resolution 750 which proposes a bizonal federation? Is there any truth in the report that there is a proposal to reduce the UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the short answer to the first part of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is yes. The answer to the second part is that the size of the force required remains under review. The UN Secretary-General proposes shortly to present a paper on the future of UN FICYP to the Security Council.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what effect the continued settlement in northern Cyprus of Turks from the mainland is having on negotiations?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, a conference has been arranged for 18th June to which both parties have agreed.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
2.50 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the renewal of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995; and whether they propose meanwhile to increase Britain's overall nuclear weapons capability.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the United Kingdom will support an indefinite extension of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in 1995. It remains our policy to maintain the minimum nuclear capability necessary to ensure effective deterrence.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I welcome that Answer, particularly the first part. Does the noble Baroness agree that while rightly getting rid of some comparatively small and obsolete nuclear weapons the Government propose to increase Britain's strategic deterrent? They also propose to acquire a new sub-strategic nuclear weapons system. Is the Minister aware that that is incompatible with the non-proliferation treaty and would greatly weaken our negotiations for a new treaty?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the UK is committed to maintaining a credible sub-strategic nuclear capability to provide the essential link between our conventional and our strategic forces. Without this link there would be a risk that a potential aggressor might gamble on our reluctance to resort to a strategic nuclear response and might think it safe to commit aggression. Global security would therefore not be enhanced by introducing a ban on this category of weapons.
I presume that the noble Lord was referring to Trident when he mentioned a new weapon. The replacement from the mid-1990s of Polaris with Trident is essential for the UK to maintain an effective and credible minimum nuclear deterrent into the next century.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the vertical proliferation by existing nuclear states is just as harmful to the possible spread of the treaty as is the horizontal spread a threat to the whole world? Under those circumstances, will the Government look again at the question of Trident? Will the noble Baroness say whether the Government appreciate that the renewal of the non-proliferation treaty, to which we all look forward as a means of removing or at least reducing the nuclear threat, is seriously threatened if the Government continue on their present line?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, Trident will simply replace Polaris as the UK's minimum nuclear deterrent. There is nothing in the NPT to prevent a nuclear weapon state from maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of its minimum deterrent forces in that way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that twice in the lifetime of many of us the
1100
power of this country to survive against aggression has ultimately produced the freedom of the world? Will she therefore be quite firm in maintaining Trident or whatever other effective nuclear deterrent the country requires for that purpose?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. I repeat, as I shall probably repeat indefinitely, that only the minimum capability is kept by this country to maintain our security.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House the assurance that the use or otherwise of Britain's nuclear deterrent will never be put under the control of the institutions of the Treaty of Rome? Will she also give an assurance that under no circumstances, in any arrangement outside the Treaty of Rome, will the Government allow majority voting to take place on the use or otherwise of any such weapon?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have two obligations. One is to defend our country ourselves and the other is towards NATO.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on a related point, is the noble Baroness aware that many people in the country believe that the time has come for us to move from a partial test ban treaty to a comprehensive test ban treaty? Can she say what the Government's view is about that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the United Kingdom is committed to the comprehensive nuclear test ban. It remains a long-term objective. We continue active participation in the discussion of test ban issues in the conference on disarmament in Geneva. But progress can only be made on a step-by-step basis, taking account of a number of factors, including further progress on arms control.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when we enter the negotiations to renew the non-proliferation treaty, will the Government's position be that Britain may increase her nuclear capability but that no other country may do so?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I repeat once again that we wish to have the minimum deterrent necessary for our security.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether her answer to me was "yes" or "no"?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot remember!

Civil R&D: Funding
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be their expenditure on civil research and development for 1992–93 and how this compares with that of the private sector.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, government funding of civil research and development for 1992–93 is expected to be £3.05 billion, an increase in real terms of more than 2 per cent. over last year. Forecasts of civil R&D spending in the private sector for 1992–93 are not available, but in 1990 UK industry spent £6.3 billion on research and development.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that there is an increase in real terms in the current year. That does not appear to be the view of many commentators in the field, but it is good to hear it. Does the noble Baroness accept that we still lag behind our international competitors in the field and that it is a serious matter?
In view of what the Minister said about the private sector, is she aware of the splendid and outstanding work being done by Parke-Davis in the field of coronary heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and also the exciting new potential cure for asthma? Will the noble Baroness say what co-ordination exists between the public and the private sectors in research and development?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The UK Government spend more as a proportion of GDP on civil R&D than Japan or the United States. What also matters is what the private sector is doing. The noble Lord referred to specific funding and, as a member of the Alzheimers Disease Society, I am aware of the work going on in that field. We should also be proud of the work in this country in the area of research and development.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the system continues whereby industrial research associations are funded partly by the private sector and partly by the Government? I apologise for not having given her notice of the question. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham would say, that system worked very well because if the industry agreed to fund research to a certain extent, the Government would assist it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am able to say to my noble friend that there is joint funding which continues to great effect. It is also true that the Government have moved away from near market research which has had the advantage of the private sector becoming much more involved. The contribution from the private sector has increased from 77 per cent. to 85 per cent. of funding. That is a good record.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the initial part of her reply, welcoming some increase in funding. However, is it not a fact that the budget for R&D in this country is heavily skewed in favour of defence rather than civil R&D? In relation to R&D in the civil area, how does our budget compare with that of our main competitors in the European Community, particularly France and Germany?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to disagree with the noble Lord in his premise. The total amount for research and development for science and technology
1102
is £5.8 billion; the civil amount is £3.23 billion, which includes technology transfer. The Government defence cut of that is £2.57 billion, so it is not skewed in favour of defence spending.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Baroness reply to the second part of the question I asked; namely, how does our effort compare with the efforts made in France, Germany and other European member states?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have a number of comparative tables but it would take too long to read them out. However, I have said that as regards civil R&D our record as a percentage of GDP is better than that of the USA and Japan. However, as regards other countries we have a better record than some while we have a worse record than others and are on a par with yet others. If the noble Lord wishes to ask me a specific question, I shall give him a specific answer in writing.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in a recent speech the President of the Board of Trade emphasised the need for further development of our manufacturing base. Many would support those words. Can we take it that, as an essential part of that development, the whole question of the effort put into civil R&D is being looked at afresh?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one of the advantages of having set up a separate department with a Cabinet Minister is that there will be more effective and better co-ordination across Whitehall departments. That includes the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and my own department, which is concerned with the university and polytechnic sector. The question the noble Lord has asked will be seriously considered when the new system is in force.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Minister advise us what proportion of the funds that are spent on research and development is of relevance to manufacturing industry?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be specific on that point because even some of the money spent on defence has some impact on manufacturing, as does money spent in the medical world. There is almost no part of research and development that does not have an impact on manufacturing, whether that concerns the equipment used for research or equipment that is devised as a result of research.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, what are the advantages in transferring government-sponsored research and development to Mr. Waldegrave's department? Is the Minister aware that some of us feel research and development may become buried among a host of other matters? As the Minister knows, the right honourable gentleman is responsible for a wide range of functions and R&D may become neglected.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a quite extraordinary statement. R&D has never had a higher profile and it has never been more exposed than at present. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be diligent in promoting

1103
R&D. I believe great attention will be given to research and development, and that has been welcomed by the scientific world generally. The rising profile that is attached to the funding of research and development has also been welcomed. I simply disagree with the noble Lord's comments.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Henley will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on pensions review. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Trumpington who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council in Oslo on 4th June.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that the first report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 3).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Sub-Committee membership
The Committee recommends that the rotation rule should not be applied to its sub-committees this session. The Committee has accordingly appointed the following Lords to form the sub-committees—
Finance and Staff Sub-Committee

L. Ampthill (Chairman),

L. Bancroft,

L. Cledwyn of Penrhos,

L. Dainton,

L. Jenkin of Roding,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Lane of Horsell,

B. Nicol,

L. Peston,

L. Thomson of Monifieth,

L. Wakeman (L. Privy Seal),

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Administration and Works Sub-Committee

L. Ampthill (Chairman),

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Dainton,

L. Dean of Beswick,

L. Gibson,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Hesketh,

B. Hylton-Foster,

1104

L. Peston,

B. Seccombe,

L. Tordoff

with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
Library and Computers Sub-Committee

L. Bonham-Carter,

B. Brigstocke,

L. Browne-Wilkinson,

L. Dainton (Chairman),

L. Flowers,

L. McColl of Dulwich,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

V. St Davids,

L. Walton of Detchant,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Refreshment Sub-Committee

L. Colnbrook,

B. David,

L. Denham,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

B. Hamwee,

L. Hesketh,

B. Hylton-Foster,

L. Mason of Barnsley,

L. Peston (Chairman),

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy,

L. Tordoff

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2. Accommodation
The Committee has considered the report of the Group on Accommodation established in July 1991 to "consider the accommodation needs of the House of Lords as a whole and, in particular, to make recommendations for the use of No. 7 Millbank, and for provision of Counsel's Dining Room". The Committee is grateful to Lord Tordoff and the members of the Group for their valuable work.
The Committee recommends that Black Rod be authorised to initiate work on the third floor of No. 7 Millbank so that it is ready for occupation after the summer recess, in the first instance to provide accommodation for—
—peers, their secretaries and research assistants
—the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), assuming that it is officially established and that it would be cost effective to locate it in parliamentary accommodation
—the staff required for the new parliamentary computer network
—a secretarial agency.
We recommend that the question of who should in the longer term occupy No. 7 Millbank be the subject of further study and discussion and that the occupancy of 6–7 Old Palace Yard be raised with the House of Commons.
We have considered the accommodation for the Lords of Appeal. This will be examined further in the context of a longer-term review of the accommodation needs of the House in which all those with an interest will be consulted.
We have remitted the other matters raised in the Group's report to the Administration and Works Sub-committee which will meet at an early date to consider the report and make recommendations.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I hope I may ask that it should be compulsory for all Members of the Refreshment Sub-Committee to eat in the dining room at least one day a week.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, the noble Baroness has obviously struck a chord with certain Members of the House. However, I do not think her comment has much to do with the Motion that I have just moved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was given a Second Reading on 10th March of this year. There was no opposition on that day. Indeed there was support for the Bill, including an assurance from the Minister that the Government welcomed the measure.
There was however the problem that the general election intervened in the discussion on the Bill. As your Lordships are aware, the election was held on 9th April and it meant that the Bill could not proceed in the previous Session. There is no alternative therefore but for me to repeat the reasons for introducing the Bill. I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes while I do so.
I shall comment on the background to the Bill as follows. Section 3 of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 created a framework for the licensing of football clubs for the sale of alcohol on the premises. In principle this is not a problem. However, the practical application of the Act's provisions is creating administrative difficulties and nuisance for clubs. It is also unnecessarily increasing the workload of the licensing authorities.
The Act requires that clubs should apply to the justices for licences every five months. This effectively means that each club has to apply for a licence twice in one season. This is an administrative inconvenience. The Football League has sought evidence from the League clubs as to the working of this section of the 1985 Act. It is clear that most clubs have good relationships with their police and licensing justices, and encounter no problems in obtaining an order. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that this is an important aspect of the situation. The clubs therefore
1106
see no reason why an application has to be made twice each season. They would prefer to apply for their licences once a year.
The League has made detailed inquiries at the Home Office. Officials there cannot explain why it is that the 1985 Act required applications every five months. It seems that this is just an anomaly. I understand that the Home Office will not oppose the modest change sought in this Bill.
The Bill has just two clauses. Clause 1 seeks to replace in the 1985 Act the words "five months" with the words "twelve months". This will correct the current anomaly. Clause 2 simply contains the Short Title and limits the Bill's extent to England and Wales only. This is only a very minor change to the existing legislation. It will not result in any change to the principle intended in the 1985 Act. It will however provide for greater administrative efficiency for both football clubs and licensing authorities.
I know that many people are anxious about the effects of alcohol—perhaps I should mention that I am a member of the parliamentary all-party group on alcohol misuse—but they need not have any worries about this proposed change in the law. I hope that I have made it clear—I repeat this merely for emphasis—that the change suggested is simply one that seeks to improve administrative efficiency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Dormand of Easington.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I shall not repeat the Second Reading speech that I made on a previous occasion when this Bill was presented just before the recent general election by my noble friend Lord Dormand.
The points my noble friend has made are correct. It seems nonsense that the period of five months was ever written into the Bill. However, perhaps one or two noble Lords who were involved in the original discussions on the Bill may have better memories or may know more about it than the civil servants whose advice was sought recently by Ministers.
The original Bill was rushed through another place and was rushed through your Lordships' House with indecent haste. That was done with the agreement of all the parties in another place and all the parties in your Lordships' House. Some of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and myself, tried to have some sense put into the Bill and to delay its implementation because we thought that it was a poor Bill and that your Lordships' House needed more time to consider it.
Advice was sought from a variety of sources. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was in touch with national representatives of the police, and licensing authorities were also consulted. Nevertheless, the Government went ahead with the Bill. A period of five months was written into the Bill despite the fact that the majority of alcohol licences are granted for 12 months or longer. Depending on the local licensing authority, licences may be issued for one year, two years or up to five years.

1107
I shall not delay your Lordships longer because there is a Statement to come and two further debates. The case has been put cogently and accurately by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington. I can say on behalf of my party that we support the Bill. When the Bill came before the House just before the election, the Minister indicated that it would have a quick passage in order to be in place for the commencement of the next football season. I hope that we can see sufficient progress for that to happen. I support the Bill.
3.11 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for getting to my feet, but as my name was the next on the list of speakers I assumed that I would be the next to speak. However, that does not matter.
We support the Bill, as I said when we discussed it in March. The situation has not changed. It also has my personal support as a vice-chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. Twelve months seems to be the right period rather than five months. Nobody knows why five months was included in the original legislation.
In an ideal world we should not have to legislate for the control of alcohol in sports grounds, but unfortunately we do. The situation seems to have improved in football grounds but anyone who saw on television at the weekend the rowdy scenes at Edgbaston will be aware that lager louts now appear to have moved to what were considered more sedate sports events. The problem is with us and I fear that we may even have to legislate again in the future. It is a great pity, but there we are. It is not that the alcohol becomes more plentiful, stronger or cheaper; it is just that people's ability to control themselves, behave properly and consider others seems to be diminishing. All of us in your Lordships' House find that deplorable.
Having said that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, for explaining this simple legislation so well. We wish it a quick passage to the statute book.
3.13 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that I spoke on the previous occasion in March when the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, introduced a Bill to amend the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985. On that occasion I welcomed the opportunity that the Bill presented to extend the maximum period for which an exemption order may be issued to sell alcohol at designated grounds.
As I explained then, the Bill, if enacted, would not relax any of the controls on the sale of alcohol. The police would retain their powers to step in and close bars if they foresaw a problem. The amendment would simply reduce the administrative burden on ground authorities and the courts.
It was unfortunate that events in another place prevented the progress of the noble Lord's previous Bill, though the events in another place had a
1108
satisfactory outcome. I must congratulate the noble Lord on his resolve in bringing forward again this practical and useful Bill. The Government welcome it as a sensible measure and I hope that your Lordships will do the same.
3.14 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful for the all-round support which has been given to the Bill in this short debate. It seems to be generally accepted—and I am grateful to the Minister for himself emphasising it—that there is an anomaly in the 1985 Act. I understand that there will be no objections when the Bill goes to another place. I repeat what my noble friend Lord Dean said from the Front Bench. I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to expedite this simple measure. I am grateful to see that I have his assent.
I trust that your Lordships will give the Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

The Arts in Schools
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose to protect the arts in schools now that they are no longer guaranteed under the national curriculum.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this debate, which comes at an early hour for an Unstarred Question, coincides with the unfortunate passage of the statutory orders relating to physical education, arts and music.
When the national curriculum was first outlined there was a wide welcome for the inclusion of music and the visual arts as foundation subjects. There was less pleasure at the way in which drama and dance were buried respectively in English and PE. However, at least the inclusion of the subjects meant that all children would grow up with some knowledge of the subjects and no one would leave school claiming that they had never encountered music and dance or had the opportunity to understand and enjoy them.
At the time of the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988 I argued by way of an amendment, and was within two votes of success, that the arts curriculum was too narrow and that the arts in total should be part of the core curriculum, not just music and art. It was a simple amendment which one would have thought the Government could have accepted. Several noble Lords on the government side of the House took the same view. At that time I pointed out that prior to the introduction of the curriculum drama was the fastest growing subject among 16-plus examinations and deserved better than to be treated as a minor branch of literature, which is what has happened.
Nonetheless, imperfect as the scheme was, protestations of commitment to the arts from Ministers and the inclusion of music and visual arts counted for something. I do not deny that. At the end of the debate noble Lords on all sides of the House

1109
were entitled to assume that the main strands of the arts would be guaranteed to children throughout their school careers from the age of five to 16 and, if they so chose, beyond. Now, with the passing of the statutory orders, that guarantee has gone, or has at least been watered down to the point where it is so innocuous as to be almost meaningless.
Going against the advice of the majority of those he consulted, the then Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, laid the statutory orders. As a result, alone among the foundation subjects music and the visual arts can be dropped before the final stage of compulsory education. They become optional at the age of 14. Dance is in an even more parlous state. It does not have to be studied at secondary level at all, a direct result of its merger with PE, a situation which in other countries which take a more cultured view would be considered ridiculous.
The arts have always been treated less than fairly in all governments' education programmes, to be fair, not just by this Conservative Government; there has never been enough emphasis on the arts. However, a programme which at the outset appeared likely to achieve something has now been pulled back. That is inexcusable. Some subjects had to be the last to be considered, but no one was surprised when it became clear that in framing the Act a serious miscalculation had been made in the arithmetic concerning how many hours there were in the school day and the Government decided that some subjects would have to go and that those subjects were the arts.
These decisions, which were vociferously condemned by most of the arts and education organisations, place the arts at a serious disadvantage in a highly competitive situation, where all other subjects of the national curriculum remain mandatory. In this House I do not have to stress the importance of giving children opportunities for personal enrichment and cultural development alongside their education in the so-called basics. After all, what could be more basic to the idea of a civilised and civilising education than an education in and through the arts?
By reneging on their original commitment to a broad and balanced curriculum, the Government have effectively tied the hands of head teachers and governors keen to see the arts play a full part in their students' education. There is mounting evidence that schools are balancing tight budgets by cutting back on their arts education. Local management of schools and the new arrangements for devolved funding mean that schools can no longer benefit from the collective arrangements formerly made by local authorities for their advisory services; for the provision of instrumental music teaching; for school visits to concerts; theatres, museums and galleries; for the funding of artists and outreach teams to work alongside teachers and give performances in schools.
School managers are having to make difficult choices and unpopular decisions in an effort to cut costs and balance their books. With Her Majesty's Government signalling their lack of interest in the arts in schools—that is what is being signalled, even
1110
though I am sure the Minister will deny it—little wonder if the unkindest cuts of all fall upon those now severely weakened school arts subjects.
This is particularly paradoxical now that we have a Minister for the heritage (I presume it means for the arts as well) with a seat at the Cabinet table. That development has been widely welcomed by everyone concerned for the future of arts in this country. But is it not sad, as well as unreasonable, that with the belated recognition of the enormous importance of the arts to the nation the Government should be failing the arts in schools and failing just those children who will become, we hope, the next generation of writers, actors, dancers, musicians, painters and film makers over a wide range of the arts and media? The Government are failing to prepare the next generation of audiences and patrons. The Secretary of State for National Heritage certainly should have a word with the Secretary of State for Education so that they are both on the same track, which certainly they are not at the moment.
I would argue most strongly that if my amendment to the Education Reform Bill had succeeded in 1988, the present dangerous situation might not have arisen. As things stand, with dance subsumed under PE and drama encompassed within English, two of the major arts subjects could virtually disappear altogether from the school curriculum after years of growth and development.
We wanted to ensure that all children in the course of their schooling had experience across the arts and were able to choose at least one art subject for specialisation at the top end of the secondary school, that is to say at 14-plus. That recommendation has the support of the Arts Council. Last week, at a meeting organised by the Parliamentary Group for the Heritage, the Chairman of the Arts Council, Lord Palumbo, stressed that it was most important that every child should have the opportunity to take one arts subject in his or her 14-plus years at school. He said that the Arts Council would be pressing the DES along those lines. In its strategy for the arts and media which has just been published, the council points out that education in the arts is one of the most important, if not the most important, matter with which it is concerned and with which we as a nation should be concerned.
In an attempt to deflect criticism, the Government recommended—though they stopped short of stipulating—that all senior pupils should have what they call an aesthetic experience. I am not quite sure what that means. Perhaps when the Minister replies she will tell us. Eating a bar of chocolate could be an aesthetic experience and so, I imagine, could a number of other things which probably do not come under the arts agenda. I suggest that a serious experience of one of the major arts subjects means a great deal more in terms of imagination, feeling, knowledge and understanding than is covered by the vague phrase "aesthetic experience".
The curriculum for English schools has been debased further by the exclusion of significant parts of the advice given to the DES by its working parties. They sought to make sure that music and art were

1111
discovered by children in the way that they were experienced: in three parts, which for both subjects involved creating, doing and understanding. Those were the attainment targets that they laid down. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who was chairman of the arts working party and had intended to speak in this debate, gave me permission to say that he was very unhappy that the attainment targets had been reduced from three to two. The same applied also to music. That advice was not complicated and the Welsh Office has had the good sense to recognise its advantages. My noble friend Lord Morris will enlarge on that point a little later. It does not ask for anything revolutionary or different. Instead, it argues that the arts should be taught in the same way as science, sport or languages. These come alive when we do them—as in music, both in performance and when there is the opportunity and help in composition. When the blackboard comes first, interest dies very quickly. In music, composing is the key to enthusiasm and understanding, whatever the style or age. That is as true for teachers as it is for children.
The need for this debate is clear. The original guarantees for arts in the national curriculum have been reduced to the nominal and impractical. Elsewhere in the system charge-capping has cut into extracurricular opportunities for young people to enjoy the arts. It has deprived many of the opportunity to train as actors, dancers, technicians or directors by forcing local authorities to abandon discretionary grants. The latest orders cut away at the base requirements for teaching arts subjects properly.
I cannot see how that will build the cultured and informed public envisaged by the newly established Department of National Heritage. It is not the way to give Britain an innovative and inspired workforce for the start of the next century. It is not the way to encourage the most important treasure that we possess in this field; namely, talent. It is not the way to provide a broad and balanced education, which I understood, as did many people, was the intention of the 1988 Education Reform Act. I suggest that the Secretary of State has a word with his opposite number in education so that they can not only get their act together but get together an act which is of advantage to everyone in the community.
On a number of occasions I have had dealings with the Minister who is to reply when she was Minister for the Heritage at the Department of the Environment. I always found her extremely sympathetic, understanding about what the heritage meant and very helpful as I hope she will be today. I only hope that now that the noble Baroness has gone to the Department of Education she will have taken with her not only her brains—which obviously she has done—but also her feeling for heritage and art. I am sure that she will bring her considerable influence to bear in order to obtain improvements and a start on the art programme that we need for our youngsters in this country.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has launched us upon an interesting discussion. I could wish that my name were a little further down the list of speakers because I have really only one point to make. At least my speech will not take long.
If the arts are to be protected, it is the children of today who will be the protectors. There will not be anyone else to do so. That places upon the present generation—which cannot bear to think of the arts losing their place in a rapidly changing world—a big responsibility. I suppose that down the ages the single greatest inspiration behind our great works of Western art has been Christianity and the Bible. One cannot fully and properly appreciate a great work of art without some understanding of the inspiration which lies behind it. We have as never before immigrant populations with faiths different from our own, differing faiths and some with no faith. Therefore, it surely places upon the teaching profession a difficult task. On the one hand the teaching profession—I refuse to call those people educationists—has the task of not seeming to be thrusting Christianity down the throats of children of other faiths. But, on the other hand, it has the responsibility surely to inculcate into its pupils some desire to learn enough about Christianity and the Bible to give them the opportunity to understand and appreciate the great works of art of the Western world which they will encounter.
Therefore, I do not envy the teaching profession its task. I believe it walks a tightrope. However, I hope earnestly that it will succeed.
3.33 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the Question implies that until now the arts have had a guaranteed position in the curriculum in schools. It is my understanding that that is not so. The Question also implies that now the arts have no guaranteed position in the schools curriculum. It is equally my understanding that that is not so.
Music and the visual arts have a guaranteed position. Drama is included in the literature curriculum and dance in the PE curriculum. On that last point, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that dance is just one element of five attainment targets but four have to be taken.
I recognise that the people in the arts are concerned that two areas of the arts are singled out as being of more apparent importance than other arts areas. However, the national curriculum is an extremely complicated subject and it is absolutely true that there is no unanimous view in relation to arts and its place in the curriculum. Unfortunately, I am told that at the time of discussions concerning the national curriculum the then Secretary of State was not convinced by the arts lobby. Perhaps it is a case that the arts sector should thrash out its real priorities as a group before approaching government on such a major issue as the shape and future position of the arts in the national curriculum.

1113
One heartening aspect of the new national curriculum is that for the very first time arts are now written in as a statutory requirement up to the age of 14. It will no longer be the so-called privileged children who will benefit from tuition in the arts—every child will benefit. That has to be a most worthwhile development. Because of that, the arts will be much more accessible to many more children, and the audiences of the future (made up of those same children) will feel much more at ease with the arts than do, or did, their parents or grandparents.
That is not to say that up to now arts have not had a wonderful level of support in the schools. Of course they have, but it was at the discretion of the teachers. Now that has changed. I see the national curriculum as endorsing the past activities of arts in schools, not replacing them. But the curriculum is not the sole element in encouraging the practice and appreciation of the arts by young people.
Since I am fortunate—and I stress that—to be employed in the arts administration sector I constantly see both the great efforts made by arts organisation in the arts education field and the results of those efforts in the terms of hundreds of arts events organised for and enjoyed by thousands of children. Arts activity takes place outside the confines of the classroom. School brass bands and school orchestras have always been an extra curricular activity as have school plays. School plays will never die —neither the children nor the doting parents (to say nothing of the proud teachers) will let that happen. I get the very strong impression that such activity is on the increase. It has, I assure your Lordships, a momentum all of its own!
Later this year, under the UK presidency of the EC, the European Arts Festival will take place throughout the country. All 350,000 schools have been contacted and are being encouraged to participate. Rightly, the European Arts Festival will have a very important educational focus.
I have a good knowledge of the education programmes of the two major arts organisations based at the Barbican Centre—the Royal Shakespeare Company and the London Symphony Orchestra—but I know that they are not unique. Many other major national organisations, local orchestras, local theatre companies and regional opera companies have all placed a very high priority on their outreach and education programmes. The Welsh National Opera, for example, went to Liverpool last autumn and produced a series of operas, sponsored by Peter Moores, specifically targeted at people who had never before been to the opera—people from disadvantaged backgrounds, including many children—and at seat prices which were the equivalent of three packets of cigarettes. Those large, thriving and concerned arts organisations are not totally altruistic. They know that they have to develop their future audiences. But they are playing a very strong role alongside the schools in encouraging young people to think of the arts as an essential part of the quality of life.
I hope your Lordships will not mind if I spend some little time talking about some of the detailed education
1114
work that is being carried out by both the RSC and the LSO. The RSC's education department was formed in 1983 since when it has been active in schools, universities and other educational institutions not only throughout the UK and continental Europe but also in the USA and Japan. Part of its activities involves calling on a range of RSC staff to work with teachers in schools to find appropriate ways of exploring Shakespeare's language in action. The company's projects at all levels centre on the experience of seeing a play in performance either in the RSC's own theatres in Stratford and London or on tour. These projects include introductory sessions on the text, the particular emphases of the production and appropriate follow up discussions. Actors, designers, directors, musicians and production staff work with education officers wherever possible so that school children can see the complexity of the theatre and begin to understand the meaning and richness of Shakespeare's language.
I find it interesting that the RSC has proved that young people across a wide ability range can respond to Shakespeare through a variety of routes. I believe that the activity going on outside the national curriculum is fundamental to the appreciation of arts.
The education department of the RSC worked with groups from schools and colleges in 39 locations last year ranging from Alcester in Warwickshire to York and geographically as far apart as Edinburgh and Tenby in Pembrokeshire. The company also undertook numerous workshops including a venue in Belfast. This work will continue and will increase despite the national curriculum.
The London Symphony Orchestra, the other resident company in the Barbican Centre, also has an education department and its activities are geared very much towards schoolchildren. Projects are taking place in schools, both primary and secondary, for children with moderate and severe learning difficulties, assisting the children in finding ways to achieve through their abilities rather than being frustrated by their disabilities. The projects have all begun with an initial two or three day period in the school succeeded by follow-up visits at a later date to maintain relationships with the children and to continue the music-making.
Projects recently in primary schools have been based on Saint-Saens "Carnival of the Animals" and Prokofiev's "Romeo and Juliet Suite", with musicians working with children on creating their own descriptive music, while also exploring the composer's music. In secondary schools the projects have involved music and non-music students in the creation of their own compositions, while exploring music in the LSO's current repertoire.
The point to emphasise is that the RSC and LSO activities are done because they believe that they have a responsibility to spend some of the monies which they receive not only from the Arts Council but also from private sponsors.
In an afternoon such as this there is no time to outline the whole gamut of the activities of two—only two—of the many arts organisations which are working hand in glove with the schools. Suffice it to

1115
say that no matter how the national curriculum develops those organisations are totally committed to continue their joint development of the arts. Every client of the Arts Council has an active educational policy and many schools throughout the country have benefited from close contact with the professionals from the arts organisations.
I welcome today's debate because it brings to your Lordships' attention the great amount of work that is being done to make the arts more accessible. Needless to say, whenever the arts are mentioned funding is never far behind. In this case it is good to be able to report that funding for the arts has never been stronger; by government through the Arts Council of Great Britain, by local authorities and by corporate and private sponsors. Government funding for the arts has increased significantly over the past few years; from £174.9 million in 1990–91 to £194.2 million in 1991–92 and to £221.2 million in 1992–93. They represent increases of 11 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively during the past two years. Since 1979 the value of the ACGB grant has increased by 44.2 per cent. in real terms.
The arts are thriving in Britain and the arts sector should, and in most cases does, pay a great tribute to the sources of funding. Sometimes I feel that the arts in Britain are appreciated much more abroad than we appreciate them here. Only on Thursday evening I was speaking to a leading Japanese industrialist who funded the overseas tour of the LSO last month to Japan and to the USA and will fund the September tour to continental Europe at a cost of £700,000. If he did not believe that we have a good artistic base he would not have done that.
But of course we must not be sanguine about the development of the arts. Inevitably the national curriculum has caused concern—a concern that I recognised at the beginning of my words this afternoon. I think it is important that those involved in the arts and those involved in the education sector have faith that the Government will continue to support the arts and that the future of the arts within the national curriculum is assured.
I hope it is inconceivable that the Government would increase their commitment to the arts on the one hand and reduce their commitment on the other by lack of interest in the development of arts in the schools. To that end, I should be most grateful if the Minister in her reply would deal with two matters. Out of courtesy I have already communicated these points to the Minister and I look forward to her reply.
First, would it be possible for the Minister to give an assurance that the whole question of arts in the national curriculum will be looked at again within the next two to three years; an appraisal made of what has been achieved; and, more importantly, an assessment made of what still needs to be done? I think that such an assurance would remove a great deal of the genuinely felt anxiety in the arts sector. My question really has been prompted by the widely-held view that music seems to be primus inter pares and that other art forms, drama and dance in particular, are being regarded as "second class citizens".
1116
Secondly, will the Minister put pressure on her colleagues in government to recognise the importance of dance? Dance is an amazingly vibrant, dynamically and successfully growing art form. It seems slightly bizarre to lump it with PE. I know that dance is a very good form of exercise but it is more than that—much more than that. I ask the Minister to put her undoubted skills of persuasion and logic to work in dance's favour and espouse the cause of a national dance centre. Thousands of schoolchildren would undoubtedly benefit.
If dance were my passion I should feel slightly irritated that music had been elevated to a position of much greater importance than dance. As music, in fact, is my passion I suppose I should not complain, but it truly is a nonsense to give the impression—and that is probably all it is—that such a vibrant art form as dance has so little support in the corridors of power.
Despite the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the wording of the Question, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has managed to raise this issue in this House. I applaud her action and look forward greatly to the comments of other speakers this afternoon.

Maxwell Companies: Pensions
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the framework of law and regulation of occupational pension schemes and about the plight of Maxwell pensioners.
"Rarely in the catalogue of crime has there been a fraud as callous and despicable as the pillaging of pension funds by Robert Maxwell.
"It raises two questions. First, how can we minimise the loss and anguish faced by the pensioners? Secondly, how can we ensure that such a crime never recurs?
"Madam Speaker, the whole House will share a deep concern for the distress Maxwell pensioners face as a result of this appalling crime. Unfortunately, it is still not possible to be certain of its full impact on pensioners.
"At present there is a gap of some £350 million between the assets which remain secure in the various Maxwell pension schemes and common fund, and their liabilities to present and future pensioners.
"The assets siphoned off through the Maxwell private companies seem to be largely beyond recovery. But over £200 million of assets were given to banks and others as security against loans. It is not yet clear how much of this will eventually be recoverable by the trustees.
"Mirror Group Newspapers has agreed to meet the liabilities to their 15,000 pensioners and

1117
employee members. Pensioners of the private companies now in administration have no such security. Most schemes are continuing to pay pensions from available assets. But the Headington Pension Plan has not yet been able to pay its 240 pensioners their pensions for May and June.
"Moreover, the Maxwell Communication Works Pension Scheme has said that from 1st July it will be able to pay some 4,000 of its pensioners only 30 per cent. of their entitlement.
"Over the longer term the priority must be to identify, locate and establish ownership of the stolen assets and to secure their return. The liquidators are actively pursuing all legal avenues for the recovery of stolen assets. This will no doubt include appropriate legal action against any members of the Maxwell family and others involved in transactions which may be found to be unlawful.
"However, this is not simply a legal issue. Over the years many financial institutions had dealings with Maxwell companies from which they profited handsomely. Such transactions were perfectly honourable. However, the institutions involved may well feel some moral obligation to assist the pensioners who have so cruelly lost at Maxwell's hands.
"Moreover, other financial institutions too may recognise the value to them of maintaining faith in the integrity of occupational pension funds. I want to make it possible for them to make some tangible contribution to helping the pensioners defrauded by Robert Maxwell.
"Expediting the return of assets and securing contributions from the private sector will be a complex and lengthy process. The Government may be able to give an impetus. I am therefore immediately setting up a special unit in my department to take this forward.
"The unit will work alongside the trustees and others seeking to secure the return of assets and their equitable distribution between schemes. The unit will do all it can to speed up the return of assets. The Bank of England supports the foundation of this unit.
"The unit will also help to set up a trust into which voluntary contributions from the private sector will be paid.
"These steps will help to minimise the shortfall in the long term. But there is a particularly acute problem in the short term.
"This is not just because the process of identifying, establishing ownership and securing return of assets is an immensely complex and lengthy one. But of the £230 million of secure assets some £100 million are locked in the Common Investment Fund since, unfortunately, it has not been settled how they should be allocated between the nine different Maxwell schemes. The trustees and liquidators have now agreed to accept the court ruling on the allocation of assets. But it will take some months before that ruling is given. Meanwhile those assets are frozen.
1118
"No government could accept a duty to make good losses resulting from fraud or theft of savings. But I do think it right to help ease the unique short-term pressures pensioners face while frozen assets are being released and progress is made in restoring and obtaining other funds. I therefore propose to provide temporary, emergency funding to help Maxwell schemes which are unable to maintain pension payments over the next few months.
"The funding I am making available will amount to £2.5 million in the form of repayable grants. The intention is that the grants should be repaid eventually, provided the assets of the pension funds are sufficient to permit this without detriment to their members.
"There is one final measure which may be of marginal benefit to some Maxwell pension schemes; that is, to bring in regulations to implement the provision of the Social Security Act 1990 which will make any deficiency of pension funds that have to be wound up, a debt on the employer company. I shall do this at an early date. This will apply to pension funds of the Maxwell companies. I would not wish to raise the hopes of Maxwell scheme members that they will stand to gain greatly from any payout to ordinary creditors of their former Maxwell employer companies which are in administration. Nonetheless, we are committed to implement this provision and I feel it right to do so now.
"Madam Speaker, the Maxwell fraud is shocking because it is so exceptional. Most private pension schemes have served their members well. They have expanded considerably over the last decade. This Government are committed to reinforce their role. They provide substantial additional benefits for those in retirement, and have contributed significantly to the growth in pensioners' incomes we have seen over the last decade. More than half of all employees are members of such schemes. We are determined to ensure that their standing is maintained and enhanced, and the security of their members protected.
"The Maxwell affair has focused attention on the whole framework of pension scheme law. It has raised questions about issues, many of which may have played no part in that crime, but which nonetheless need answering. I therefore agree with the Select Committee on Social Security that there should be a thorough review of this area.
"I propose accordingly to implement our manifesto pledge by establishing an independent committee with the following terms of reference:
'To review the framework of law and regulation within which occupational pension schemes operate, taking into account the rights and interests of scheme members, pensioners and employers; to consider in particular the status and ownership of occupational pension funds and the accountability and roles of trustees, fund managers, auditors, and pension scheme advisers; and to make recommendations'.

1119
"I believe that will enable the committee to consider all the issues raised by the Select Committee's valuable report.
"I am pleased that Professor Roy Goode QC, Professor of English Law at Oxford University has agreed to chair the review. I shall announce the names of members of his committee shortly. The committee will invite evidence from all interested parties and hold a number of public hearings. I have asked Professor Goode to report within 12 months or earlier if possible. If the committee finds changes which should be initiated urgently, it will report them to me before it concludes its work.
"I should emphasise that the committee will not be asked to carry out an investigation of the Maxwell affair. That involves crime and fraud and is rightly being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.
"In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I have initiated a wide-ranging, open and independent review of pension law; I have taken exceptional steps to ease the acute short-term pressures on some pension schemes and their pensioners; and I have established a unit to mobilise support for the pensioners from those in the City who recognise an interest or obligation towards them. I believe these measures are imaginative and responsible. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. On this side of the House, we welcome the Statement and its tone and join with the Government in calling to institutions which have profited from Maxwell industries in the past to recognise the moral responsibilities which go alongside that.
Also, we congratulate the Minister personally on moving from his inevitable somewhat stonewalling position taken up on Thursday on the Unstarred Question to the more helpful and elaborative Statement now. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would like to claim some credit for such a move.
We are especially glad that the Government have recognised the urgency of the situation and even to some degree their responsibility, if not culpability, as regards this matter. Why is that? It is worth recalling that so far the Government have refused to amend pension law despite the Labour Party White Paper calling for that in 1979, despite the Wilson Committee report in 1980, despite the Gower reports of 1982 and 1984 and despite the call by the Occupational Pensions Board in 1982.
The Government have also wilfully refused to enact the EC directive—EC 80/987—which should have taken effect in 1984. That would have protected the pay and pensions of employees in cases of company insolvency. We also criticise the Government for their failure so far to implement the safety net provisions of
1120
their Social Security Act 1990. We have had the welcome announcement that Section 58B is to be implemented shortly.
Finally, we criticise the Government for the failure of their regulatory apparatus, including the activity of IMRO —the body to which the Government, under the Financial Services Act 1986, subcontracted their regulatory role. IMRO's failure properly to scrutinise the Maxwell companies and its failure to respond to pensioners' anxieties in this area must surely raise questions about the Government's efficacy of regulation in such a subcontractual role.
Given the failure of the Government's regulatory agencies, their failure to implement the safety net provisions of their own legislation, their failure to implement the EC directive back in 1984 and their failure so far to reform that area of pension law, it is right that the Government should now accept some responsibility, some liability and even some culpability in this field.
The Government did so in the Barlow Clowes affair where £160 million was made available to those who had lost investments made for speculative profit. The Maxwell pensioners were saving for the security of their old age. They are entitled to nothing less, especially as before 1988 no pensioners had the choice as to whether or not they joined an occupational scheme if it was on offer. Therefore, the Maxwell situation is not just a tragedy for the pensioners themselves, many of whom did not even work for Maxwell, but it also undermines confidence in the entire pensions industry. Therefore, it is a matter of public policy.
Any of us with a pension do not expect to have to monitor it personally and to act as our own personal trustees. We all believed until now that our pensions were safe within the framework of government legislation. None of us would have invested our pay in pensions had that not been the case. The Government required pensioners to join those schemes. They were responsible for the regulatory structure and because of the default of that structure, along with the banks and Maxwell himself, they are responsible for the loss those pensioners face. Therefore, we welcome the Statement but we have some questions to ask the Minister.
First, will the provisions help those already receiving pensions or those about to become pensioners? There should be no category of deserving or undeserving among the Maxwell pensioners and those about to retire. All are entitled to aid.
Secondly, there is the question of resource, because £2.5 million is a very modest sum against the £160 million made available for the Barlow Clowes speculative investors. It may be enough to drip feed while assets are sought, but will it be enough? How many pensioners will it aid and for how long will it aid them? Will their pensions be made up fully to the sums which are due to them?
If the efforts to recover the assets are not adequately successful, will the Government undertake to review the pensioners' plight again and continue to drip feed until this sorry saga has come to a more happy conclusion?

1121
Thirdly, I turn to Section 58B of the Social Security Act which the Minister mentioned when repeating the Statement. That makes pensioners creditors of the company. How soon will that section come into effect? Why did the Government not enact that earlier as that would almost certainly have protected some 50 per cent. of the liabilities from the subsequent defaults experienced?
Finally, I turn to the pension law review. We obviously welcome the appointment of Professor Roy Goode. That is splendid news for Maxwell pensioners. We welcome the terms of reference and hope that Professor Goode will be able to make recommendations regarding chairmen being independent, 50 per cent. of trustees representing employees and pensioners and those trustees being properly trained. We welcome also the fact that it will encompass the role of professional advisers to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Will the Minister confirm that the review will take into account a proper review of regulatory functions, whether it be a revamped occupational pensions board, the role of IMRO or, as Sir David Walker, the departing chairman of SIB, mentioned some days ago, the need for an overarching and non-fragmented regulatory body?
At lunchtime today some of us were at the Maxwell pension lobby in Central Hall. The meeting was packed, deeply distressed and rightly extremely angry. As a first response to the distress we on this side welcome the Statement. However, we warn the Minister that if this help proves inadequate we shall pursue the matter until all Maxwell pensioners have their pensions rightfully and properly restored.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, which, as she observed, is somewhat different in both tone and content from the response made by the noble Lord after the debate last Thursday. On behalf of my colleagues and myself perhaps I may say that we are delighted that the debate initiated from these Benches led to such a dramatic and beneficial turn-round in the Government's thinking.
The two issues dealt with in the Statement are totally separate. No reforms of pension law either now or in the future will be able to help the existing Maxwell pensioners. I therefore turn, first, to the proposals to help those pensioners. I give them at once a welcome, which for the time being is a limited one. It may become more enthusiastic when I have heard the reply of the noble Lord to one or two simple questions.
First, with regard to the existing pensioners, is it the intention that in the immediate and foreseeable future their pensions will be paid in full? Secondly, with regard to the 240 pensioners in the Headington company who have received no money at all since last April, is it the intention not only that they will be paid in full for the foreseeable future but also that the arrears will be made up? Thirdly, the Statement refers specifically to the liability of the banks and to a possible liability of the Maxwell estate. Does the noble Lord agree that it will be desirable to look at the same time into the possible liabilities of other directors of
1122
the various Maxwell boards involved, both executive and non-executive, and specifically to the position of the trustees of the various pension funds? In addition, the position of both the DTI and IMRO should be considered for reasons which were examined in some detail last Thursday.
In the debate last Thursday I raised the possibility that the National Association of Pension Funds, although quite clearly blameless in this matter, may feel disposed to make a contribution to the present deficit sustained by the Maxwell funds. The Statement refers to that when it states:
"other financial institutions too may recognise the value to them of maintaining faith in the integrity of occupational pension funds. I want to make it possible for them to make some tangible contribution to helping the pensioners defrauded by Robert Maxwell".
When the matter was raised last Thursday the Minister, on advice, said that he thought it would not be legally possible for those financial institutions to make any voluntary contribution. Do I now infer from the Statement that a rather more constructive attitude is being taken in that regard?
My last specific question, to which the noble Baroness referred also, concerns Section 58B of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act. Can the Minister give an undertaking that the regulation to bring that into effect will be made in the near future, certainly in time to take effect before the parliamentary recess? Can he say also that it will be considered from the point of view of seeing whether a limited retrospective effect—perhaps only a matter of one or two months—will be desirable in order to ensure that the MCC organisation in particular can be brought within its provisions? The Statement refers to it having only a marginal effect. My information and clearly that of the noble Baroness is that it may have a substantial effect in reducing the deficit in the funds.
With regard to the long-term issue, I should like to congratulate the Government on closing the stable door with such a resounding bang. I welcome the action being taken, although clearly it is now too late to help existing pensioners. The only matters I wish to raise in that regard are these. First, I take it that it will be within the power of the committee that is to inquire into the matter to look at the role of independent trustees in the future. The Minister will no doubt agree that whether or not trustees are independent will make little difference unless they are totally diligent, committed and honest in everything that they do. The present law relating to the duties of pension fund trustees is, I venture to think, reasonably clear and adequate. The noble Lord may agree that it would help pension fund trustees to comply with the present law with even greater determination than they do if it were seen that the trustees of the Maxwell funds and their actions were being scrutinised with great care in the course of the present inquiry.
Secondly, the committee will no doubt have power to look into the question of whether or not a pension fund should be entitled to invest at all in the assets of its parent company. The present limit of 5 per cent. appears on the face of it to be wrong in principle. It may be desirable that there should be no such investment allowed by pension fund trustees.

1123
Thirdly, will the committee consider the possibility of applying the principle of the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 under which insurance companies are obliged, if necessary, in the case of disaster to pay a small levy in order to rescue an insurance company that has got into trouble? It may be desirable in the case of pension funds to apply a similar principle.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome the partial welcome from both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Obviously I am brin6ng a somewhat different message to the House than I brought last Thursday but events have moved on over the past three or four days. I am therefore grateful to be able to read the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place.
I begin by saying that I do not accept the analysis of the Statement by the noble Baroness that the Government were admitting responsibility and culpability. There is no such admission by the Government whatever. The issue is much more complicated than the noble Baroness suggests.
I stress also that we are looking at one small part of the whole general success of occupational and personal pension fund policies. We have seen enormous growth over the past 13 years in the income that pensioners throughout the country receive from both occupational and personal pensions. I appreciate the awful problems many individual Maxwell pensioners may have to face. However, one must look at them in the context of the overall success of occupational and personal pensions and the development that has taken place over the past 13 years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that there had been many previous requests to change the pension law. She also mentioned the EC provisions which have come into effect. She said that the Occupational Pensions Board had recommended as early as 1982 that we should give up trust law as it was no longer the correct framework for pensions. The noble Baroness will know that in 1988 the Occupational Pensions Board came to a completely different conclusion. It decided that our trust law was the appropriate framework for pensions. I am neither going to say that it is the correct framework now nor the incorrect one. It is a subject for the review body which is being set up to look into such issues.
One cannot really dismiss trust law as being bad because it was originally created, as the noble Baroness said last week, for some different purpose in the Middle Ages. By chance it might be the appropriate mechanism for these matters. However, it must be for the review body to come forward and advise us on this matter. I stress to the noble Baroness that there are of the order of 140,000 different schemes which operate perfectly well within trust law. Obviously Maxwell has brought this into question and the review will look into it.
As regards EC Directive 80/987, that relates to measures to protect employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. It covers quite a range of issues of which occupational pensions is only one part. We are satisfied that we have done all that was necessary to implement that directive. The noble Baroness also asked whether it would be only the
1124
pensioners who will benefit from the £2.5 million. The unit which has been set up within the Department of Social Security will be in discussion with the trustees to decide how best these funds, together with their existing assets, can be carefully distributed in the interests of the pensioners. We hope that full pensions will continue to be paid, but it will have to be a matter for the discussions which the unit holds with the trustees of the different funds as to how they will go about doing that.
Turning to Section 58B of the 1990 Act and the provision for employer debt, I do not accept that we delayed too long on this matter. The issues are certainly slightly more complicated than the noble Baroness gives us credit for. These matters will be brought forward as soon as possible. As I said last Thursday, I do not believe one should exaggerate the effect that those particular provisions will have in terms of assisting individual Maxwell pensions and, for that matter, individual pensioners. She also mounted some criticism of IMRO. It would be wrong of me to make any comment at the moment in advance of the discussions which IMRO is having with the SIB in the exercise of its regulatory responsibilities. When the report is made that will be the time to comment on those particular aspects.
I now turn to the various questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. He asked whether the Headington pensions would be paid in full and whether the pensioners would get their money back for May and June. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I cannot give that specific assurance. The unit will be in discussion to ensure that as many pensioners as possible and all those affected have their position protected as well as it may be. As regards the assets of various individuals to which the noble Lord referred, such as the various directors and members of the family, it would be appropriate that a particular body, such as the Serious Fraud Office or the trustees, should look at all appropriate assets of appropriate individuals. Obviously I cannot make any comment on the likely criminality, or lack of it, of any particular individual, with the obvious exception of the one who has possibly gone beyond our earthly jurisdiction. As regards the others that must be a matter for the Serious Fraud Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised the role of the independent trustees. That again is something that has been looked at in the past. It is certainly a matter which the review body can look at again. Earlier I mentioned a figure of about 140,000 different schemes. There are in fact practical problems. That was one reason why in the past we decided not to follow the advice of the Occupational Pensions Board. The noble Lord referred to the advice which I gave the House last week as to whether the NAPF could persuade its individual members to make up the money from their funds. My advice at that time was that they would be unable to because of the terms of their original trust deed. However, we hope that it will be possible for the unit to work with the trustees to overcome those particular problems. Again, I can give no particular guarantee.

1125
I now turn to the matter of self-investment. The noble Lord thought that possibly the 5 per cent. limit established when we brought in the self-investment rules last February was too high. Again one can be over-simplistic about that. If one had an absolutely rigid no self-investment rule one would very often be denying a particularly big firm which covered a very large share of the market the opportunity to invest in quite a considerable part of the market. Similarly one might be denying firms the chance to invest in their own success. I believe that 5 per cent. represents quite a sensible balance. A considerable number of people suggested a higher limit than 5 per cent. As regards Maxwell issues, I am not sure that necessarily it would have made much of a difference in this particular case.
The noble Lord also asked whether the Government agree that it is desirable to look at the liability of all the directors and trustees. That is something, together with the difficulties of all the schemes, which the unit will be discussing with anyone who may be in a position to help. I imagine that I have not dealt with all the questions which have been raised by the two noble Lords. If there are any specific points which they would like me to take up I shall write to them later.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to my noble friend for the careful and interesting analysis which he has given of this highly unsatisfactory situation. Is he aware that, apart from the hardship to blameless individuals, one of the unhappiest aspects of it is that it tends to undermine confidence in occupational pension schemes which, over the years, many of us have tried to build up? Therefore, it is immensely depressing that a rogue like the late Mr. Maxwell can do all this enormous damage. Will my noble friend assure your Lordships that one of the major objects of the Government's policy and handling of this matter is to repair the damage which has been done to confidence in these schemes?
Will my noble friend also amplify what he said about the pursuit of the members of the Maxwell family who may well be thought to have received very considerable assets from his estate? Is it the Government's view that the obligation, which exists towards the pensioners, demands that efforts should be made by all legal means to extract from members of the Maxwell family any of the funds which they may have acquired?
Finally, is my noble friend aware that the giving of aid from public funds to people who have suffered from rogueries of this kind sets quite a dangerous precedent which the Government will need to be very careful indeed to see does not become established? I am sure that my noble friend will agree that it is quite wrong that, where a rogue does enormous damage to individuals, it should be assumed in future that it is the duty of the taxpayer to make it up to them. We should get it quite clear that a system for pensions will be set up which is proof against this kind of roguery or, if not, that at least it secures that those who have profited from it shall repay to the taxpayer and not have the taxpayer pay for the damage done.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I certainly agree with the analysis that my noble friend gave that the damage that the activities of Mr. Robert Maxwell and possibly others has caused to the confidence that most individuals place in their occupational pension funds is very great indeed. We certainly intend to do all that we can to repair the damage done to that confidence. We in the Government believe in occupational pensions, in personal pensions and in the success that they have achieved in the past few years in terms of the dramatic growth in the real income of most individual pensioners.
My noble friend also asked me to expand on, as he put it, the pursuit of the individual members of the family, and on their possible guilt. Obviously, my noble friend will understand that I cannot comment on whether they are or are not culpable themselves. It would be quite wrong for me at the Dispatch Box, despite the protection that one enjoys from a legal point of view, to comment on them at the moment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I did not ask my noble friend to pronounce on their culpability. I asked him to indicate what the Government were doing to recover from them the funds that they have acquired out of the collapse.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was going to go on to that, but I wanted to make it quite clear that I must not in any way give any indication that I believe either that they are guilty—or whatever. What I was trying to say was that we should like to see any money that belongs to the funds recovered for the funds. We hope that the Serious Fraud Office will pursue these matters as best it can. We certainly hope that the trustees and the unit that we are setting up in the department will pursue all the moneys that legally belong to the individual funds. I also hope that any individual members of the family or others who have control over the money might also recognise that there is a moral obligation to pay back to the funds money that has been taken from them.
My noble friend rightly said that we must not be put in a position of automatically paying out taxpayers' money to people who are the victims of any individual fraud or crime. I must stress that what we are offering with the £2.5 million is not compensation. The payments will be made by means of repayable grants intended to assist the trustees to maintain pension payments for a limited period to enable clarification of the position on asset recovery for the Maxwell pension funds to be made. We do not believe that that creates a precedent; but, as I stressed earlier, we do believe that we must repair the damage that has been done to confidence in the schemes. If possible, a set up must be created that will allow people to have total confidence in the schemes with the hope that this sort of crime will never happen again. However, I am unable to give the assurance that a 100 per cent. watertight framework for pensions could ever be set up. To some extent, one must say that people can always rob banks, but we should like to get as close to that 100 per cent. as possible.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am sure that you must all agree with my noble friend Lady Hollis and with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that although we welcome the Statement, it cannot be regarded as adequate because the pensioners who are distressed will be neither fully reassured by it nor have all their anxieties removed.
My first point is that we must think of the pensioners as creditors. They gave money to the company and the company has defrauded them. Therefore, while I welcome the Minister's Statement that although in future the pension fund liability will be taken as the first claim on a company's assets, I wish that that could be made part of the law in the future. After all, the pensioners are loaning money to the company—somewhat involuntarily, I should add, because it is normal practice to join a company pension fund—and given that they are loaning money, the pensioners should be regarded as creditors in just the same way as anybody else who loans money to the company, and not regarded only as pitiable cases who are to be viewed as supplicants.
Secondly, surely we must now conclude that self-regulation has failed. I put it no stronger than that. Indeed, many self-regulation schemes across many different parts of the City have failed. It is time that the Government took a firm grip of the situation and restored faith in this country's financial institutions. If London is to be the capital of Europe's financial centres, we must take much greater care to ensure that such things do not recur in the future.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that reassurance is very important for the individual pensioners, and that is why we have this Statement today. As from last May, 240 pensioners in the Headington Pension Plan lost all their pension, and as from July, members in the Maxwell Communications Works Pension Scheme were possibly going to lose something of the order of 70 per cent. of their pension. By offering funds by way of a loan, we are trying to guarantee their situation for several more months so that the position can become considerably clearer. We hope that further assets can be recovered. This will ensure the long-term safety of those pensions.
Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord on one small item relating to Section 58B. That gives the power to make the debt an ordinary debt, not a preferential debt. Therefore, it would not do what I suspect that the noble Lord was encouraging us to do. Making this a preferential debt would have much wider implications over a whole range of insolvency matters which those of your Lordships who are lawyers will no doubt understand far better than me. Primary legislation would be required to further amend both those provisions and various insolvency acts.
I note what the noble Lord said about self-regulation having failed. He will not be surprised if I say that I do not agree with him but, as I said earlier, we must await the report from SIB and IMRO.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the Minister's reply to it, can the Minister first assure the House that other pensioners who may find
1128
themselves in the same unfortunate position as the Maxwell pensioners will not be treated any less favourably by the Government merely because they are likely to be less numerous and to have a lower public profile? It would be quite wrong for the Maxwell pensioners to be treated any better by the Government than other people who might find themselves in the same unfortunate position. Secondly, is there any evidence that any of the moneys in the Maxwell pension funds were illicitly used for political purposes either in this country or elsewhere?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the second question, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord an answer. I have no evidence about what happened as regards the political use of any money whatsoever. Regarding the first question, the noble Lord cannot expect me to comment on a future hypothetical situation. The Government will react as and when such a situation should arise, but I very much hope that such a situation will never arise again.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the setting up of the review committee and on its terms of reference. However, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether those terms of reference can be extended to allow the committee to look at the role and responsibility of the fund managers as well as of the trustees and the directors. I ask this especially as the fund managers are often responsible for the advice that is given to trustees and directors in smaller companies who may not have access to other advice. That advice could be of a disastrous nature. Smaller companies could end up being in the same position as those in the Maxwell case.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. In fact, we have mentioned fund managers in the second part of the terms of reference of the independent committee. Their role and position will certainly be looked at by the committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord referred in his Statement to the investigations being carried out by the Serious Fraud Office. Would he be good enough to indicate to his right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General the concern of many of us about the length of time taken in some of these fraud inquiries? In particular, we should like to be reassured that there is no question of these investigations being hampered because of a lack of resources in the Serious Fraud Office.
Lord Henley: My Lords, all I can say is that I note the noble Lord's concern in the case of this inquiry —and no doubt serious fraud inquiries generally. I shall certainly pass that on to my right honourable and learned friend.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend assure us that the Government intend to learn the widest lessons from this shameful and very damaging episode in Britain's financial history? Does he agree that it is a prime responsibility of any government, and particularly a Conservative government, who on the whole believe that goods and services should not

1129
be provided by the state, to ensure that consumers, employees, investors or pensioners are protected from abuse, fraud, exploitation and ill treatment? Will he ensure that those who have broken a fiduciary trust, either malevolently or through, as I suspect may be the position in this case, weakness in the face of a very unattractively strong man, are debarred, if necessary for life, from ever exercising such roles again? Finally, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, does my noble friend at least hope that the committee will consider in what other areas of financial activity in the City of London self-regulation may have failed or may be failing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should stress to my noble friend that in the main the existing procedures and the existing trust law work perfectly reasonably and perfectly well for most trust funds. As I have said, there are 140,000 individual schemes throughout the country. Most of them are providing a satisfactory service for the individual pensioners or deferred pensioners who will eventually benefit from them. As my noble friend has said, there has been a failure here —we accept that—as a result of massive fraud. That is why we are offering a general review of this area—to examine why there was a failure and what may be done to prevent such failures in the future.
My noble friend suggested that those individual members of trusts who are in breach of their fiduciary trustees' duties should debarred from ever serving as trustees again. I am sure that the committee that will review these matters will take note of the suggestion and will try to examine that point. My noble friend also alleged that the self-regulating bodies such as IMRO had failed in their duties in the City. As I said earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I do not accept that, and it would be premature of me to comment before we have the report from SIB and IMRO.

Foreign Affairs Council, 4th June
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, I attended a special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Oslo on 4th June to discuss the outcome of the Danish referendum on the Treaty of Maastricht.
"At the meeting, the Foreign Minister of Denmark, Mr. Ellemann-Jensen, explained that the Danish Government needed time to consider their response to the referendum. The Danish Government wished to keep all options open, with the aim of agreeing a way forward acceptable to all 12 member states. He was not seeking a renegotiation of the Treaty of Maastricht because
1130
he did not believe this would be agreed by other member states. In this, as the discussion showed, he was right.
"I made clear that the Government respected the outcome of the referendum as the democratically expressed view of the Danish people, as provided for in the Danish constitution. I added that the concerns of the Danish people against centralisation were reflected in this country too and that we would not be prepared to join any attempt to coerce the Danes. There are lessons for us all to consider. The Maastricht Treaty had, however, been signed by all member states. Like other Community governments, we believed it right, as the Prime Minister said to the House on 3rd June, to continue with the process of ratification. It was agreed that the door would be left open for Denmark.
"After discussion the Council agreed a short statement of conclusions, which has been placed in the Library of this House. The House will have an opportunity to debate those implications before proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill. Meanwhile the varied work of the Community will continue, with Denmark of course as a full member."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. As we had a lengthy exchange on the consequences of the Danish vote on the treaty, I do not propose to dilate on the problem this afternoon.
As most were agreed then, the Danish referendum has posed acute problems for the Community, and if I may venture to say, for the party opposite. Does the noble Baroness agree that the Maastricht Treaty has been placed in jeopardy and that there is a responsibility upon the Government to take some positive and constructive action when they assume the presidency at the end of the month?
We are all concerned about the future of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. As the Statement says, Foreign Office Ministers agreed in Oslo yesterday to press ahead with ratification by the end of the year on the basis of the existing text. The central question appears to me to be whether the treaty can become law if only 11 members ratify it. It has been made plain that unanimity is essential. If unanimity is to be achieved then the treaty must be ratified by the 12 members. It is not enough to say vaguely, as the Statement does, that the door must be left open for Denmark. Does the Minister not agree that we need to be clear on the legal implications of the Danish referendum result? Can she say precisely what steps are being taken to analyse these and to come to a conclusion?
Finally, does the noble Baroness not think that, against this uncertain background, Parliament's consideration of the Bill should be postponed until there is greater clarification on all these issues? I should also like to say that we all appreciate the reference to a debate in another place before any

1131
consideration is given to proceeding with the Bill. I hope that "debate in another place" also means that a debate will be held in this House as well.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. As has been made clear in numerous debates in this place, my noble friends and I had serious doubts about the Maastricht Treaty. In particular, we opposed the opt-outs on EMU and the Social Chapter as exposing us to quite unnecessary risks. We opposed also the apparent effect of the treaty in increasing the powers of the Ministers at the expense of Parliament—actually increasing instead of decreasing the democratic deficit. Nevertheless we welcomed the treaty overall as a positive move towards a Europe that was not only wider but also deeper.
We welcomed very much the reference in the treaty to subsidiarity because it underlined and illustrated our feeling about federation; namely, that it can and should be a process of decentralisation, of empowering the Community to decide matters of great importance where concerted decisions were essential, while preventing it from interfering, as on some maddening occasions it has been doing, in smaller matters where it should not and has not any concern at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, we are now faced with a very difficult situation. The last thing we should do is in any way try to pressurise the Danes. Unless European unity is based on the free consent of the peoples, it is wholly worthless. Therefore that should not be open to us as an option.
We on these Benches feel that it would be sensible to suspend the Bill temporarily while the dust settles. But the main point is that the Maastricht process must survive and go on. That is essential if Europe is to be prosperous and stable.
My noble friends on these Benches would want me to congratulate the Government and the Minister on their very clear stand on this central issue. While the Government continue to stand there, they can rely on us for our support.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. Perhaps I may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, first. We fully respect the constitutionally expressed views of the Danish people. All Ministers regretted the complications that this had introduced to the process of ratification of a treaty that all 12 had signed. But we respect what has happened, and it is very much up to the Danish Government what steps they take next.
The key question for the Danish Government to consider is how can they now ratify. It is clear that they will not ratify according to the original timetable, but ratification after some delay is not ruled out. The question of the debate, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, of course can be pursued through the usual channels.
Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was that amendments to the Treaty of Rome require ratification by all member states. It might be possible for intergovernmental co-operation for
1132
common, foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs, which are outside the Treaty of Rome framework, to be taken forward separately. But all 12 governments demonstrated a commitment by negotiating and signing the Maastricht Treaty. That commitment has not diminished. It is clearly important for the UK presidency to set a lead. If governments and people of other EC countries demonstrate their faith in the Maastricht Treaty, it may give a positive signal to Denmark. A great deal can change in six months.
It is still too soon to judge the implications for the UK presidency. Clearly this will be an important issue at the Lisbon European Council. We shall take forward in our presidency whatever comes out of that. There is an important agenda for the UK presidency anyway—completing the single market, preparing for enlargement and taking forward future financing negotiations. Any complications over the timing of the Maastricht ratification procedures need not affect this work programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised the question of subsidiarity. The subsidiarity position in the Maastricht Treaty is worded, at our insistence, to presume in favour of action at the level of the member states. The onus of proof is on those who desire action by the Community. This provision will therefore have a decentralising tendency. It will be binding on all institutions and ultimately justifiable before the European Court of Justice.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that a vote remains to be taken in the Irish Republic and that until that vote has taken place it is not proposed to continue with the legislation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we expect to go ahead and ratify with the other 10 countries—10 countries because of Denmark. We shall continue to go ahead and ratify.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend please answer this point? The Treaty of Rome is amended by the Treaty of Maastricht. The Treaty of Rome can only be amended unanimously. The Danes have refused to amend the Treaty of Rome, ergo it follows that Maastricht must therefore be dead. What on earth is the point in us ratifying a treaty which is unratifiable by the 12?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, 11 countries cannot operate the Treaty of Rome—existing or as amended—by themselves. Amendments need the agreement of all.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, —
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I appreciate that noble Lords opposite are rightly concerned about this matter but perhaps it is our turn now. I am very pleased that the British Government do not want to pressurise Denmark. However, is the noble Baroness aware that many people in this country, and indeed in this Parliament, have been frightened—not just concerned, but frightened—at the attitude that has

1133
been taken by certain heads of government and commissioners and the threats that they have issued against Denmark? Can she assure the House that during our presidency we shall make absolutely sure that Denmark is not pressurised in this way and that Her Majesty's Government will not pressurise Denmark to have another referendum unless that seems to be the wish of the Danish people?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that that point has already been made clear both in the Statement and in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. We shall not pressurise Denmark. It is up to the Danish Government and the Danish people.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Precisely, my Lords. But is my noble friend aware that the actual wording of my right honourable friend's Statement is in itself suspicious? It recognises that the Danish plebiscite shows that the Danes do not want any more centralisation. The Statement then goes on to say we shall not coerce the Danes to alter that view. But we do not say that we are reluctant to agree to any more centralisation. Since the Statement was no doubt very carefully thought out, is that omission deliberate or does it justify the suspicion that I suggest?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend is wrong to be suspicious. It is not yet clear what the Danish intentions are. The Foreign Minister, Mr. Ellemann-Jensen, has said that he will keep all options open. The Prime Minister, Mr. Schlüter, accepts the possibility of a second referendum. They have to work things out in their country, just as all the other countries work things out in theirs.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been good enough to indicate that, until there is unanimity among the 12, the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, remains in effective operation. Therefore it is binding on member states unless and until it is unanimously amended. Will the Minister put to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister the provisions of Article 6 of the existing Treaty of Rome which states:
"The institutions of the Community shall take care not to prejudice the internal and external financial stability of the Member States",
one of which is Denmark? Will she ask her right honourable friend to ensure that that article which, incidentally, is deleted by the Treaty of Maastricht, is brought to the attention of the European Commission, whose arrogant attitude towards the Danish people is widely resented, and to the President of the Council for the time being?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has so blinded me with his superior knowledge that I prefer to write to him.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we need to go a little further into the reasons why the Danes, and many people in this country, are worried, which worry has been reflected widely on all sides of the House? While the definition of subsidiarity that my noble friend gave to us would be acceptable if
1134
carried into practice, it takes someone with the political innocence of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and his political friends to believe that that view is accepted by the Commission when Mr. Delors keeps telling us that, on the contrary, it is the Commission that decides what goes to the centre—the leftovers are for governments—and when different Commissioners, when sending out draft directives, take not the slightest notice of subsidiarity. Until my noble friend and the Government can assure on those points, surely progress, as it is called, must come to an end.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is worth making clear that it is not the Commission that governs from Brussels. The Council of Ministers, upon which the United Kingdom is of course represented, is the Community's decision-making body. The Commission acts only under the provisions of the treaty and under powers delegated to it by the Council under strict conditions.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, following that discussion about subsidiarity, is it not all the more important that the Maastricht Treaty is somehow revived and ratified by all so that the principle of subsidiarity is adopted formally within Community law and is practised according to the law? Until that happens, the principle of subsidiarity will not apply to the Commission, the Council, or anyone else in Europe.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree that there is need for the political will to conform with subsidiarity. There is every indication that the Commission will conform. It has said as much in its 1992 work programme.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great tide of public opinion against further centralisation and bureaucratic interference by the European Community into people's day-to-day lives is sweeping across Europe? That change is by no means confined to Denmark. Would it not be wise of the British Government, and every other government, to take account of that great change in public sentiment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we must stick to the subject of the Statement, which is the meeting in Oslo to discuss the Danish position and the future for all EC parties. A little help in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has reached me. He asked why Article 6 of the Treaty of Rome is not dropped. Article 6 refers to the need for member states to co-operate over economic policies. That is provided for under Articles 102(A) and 103 of the treaty, as revised at Maastricht.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords—
Baroness Trumpington: Until the Maastricht treaty is ratified, the present treaty remains in effect. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, not to rise again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister has been kind enough to refer to my question that she

1135
could not answer previously. Perhaps I may additionally inform her, and those who advise her, that revised Articles 102 and 103 by no means satisfactorily replace Article 6 paragraph 2, which Maastricht deletes.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me to point the matter out to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I shall be delighted to do so.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again. My noble friend answered only the first part of my question, which was that the treaty of Maastricht cannot come into effect unless it is agreed unanimously. What is the point in continuing to ratify a treaty which has already been rejected? It cannot come into existence in its present form because the Danes have said no. We may not like it. It may not be satisfactory, but that, surely, is the case. Should we not face facts and look at reality rather than build castles in Spain, or whatever the best cliché I can think of is?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, all countries have their own way of doing things. We must all go ahead and ratify. There is no time limit on the ratification of the treaty. Is my noble friend interested in my answer or not?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am being rabbited at.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I may well sit down. If other countries go ahead and ratify the treaty, it will be an encouragement to the Danes. It will give them some time to marshall whatever plans they wish to make. The treaty is a good treaty. It has a decentralising tendency. The Prime Minister has commended it to Parliament on that basis. It has been approved by both Houses. The Conservative Government's position on Europe was endorsed by the electorate on 9th April.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister will surely agree that she is wrong. The treaty has not been agreed by both Houses, only one.

The Arts in Schools
Debate resumed.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps we can now leave the Continent of Europe and one or two other matters and return to our schools. When one speaks in the middle of a debate and everyone gets up to leave one knows what it must be like to be a comedian who dies in the house. I am sorry, but I must return to the subject of the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—it now seems a long time ago—referred to the magic things that the Government were doing for the Arts Council, for heritage and for drama. In the last part of her speech she asked some relevant questions, but this Question put down by my noble friend refers to schools. Unless things have changed, when a school
1136
wanted to take part in anything connected with the Arts Council, the Arts Council did not do it for nothing. There may have been change. The Government or the Arts Council may have become munificent. We should keep to the subject put so admirably by my noble friend. We must protect the arts (visual and static) if we are not to lose them altogether.
I was reading Uncle Tom's Cabin to one of my grandchildren yesterday. Significantly, slaves were punished if they learnt to read. For many centuries the working classes were punished if they learnt to read. Why? When we can read we begin to see things differently; we begin to think. Everything that happens in school must have relevance to the life the child will live afterwards. When I taught in primary school, a long time ago, we had strange things like examinations, fire drills, gates that shut so that child molesters could not get in. I know that we have advanced since then, but I wonder how far.
If it is not compulsory to include the arts in the curriculum one is inclined to ask: why? Will we have a nation of computer operators who do not know who Shakespeare was, have never seen a ballet, never performed in something or painted a picture themselves? Is that the kind of society we want?
I want everyone to have a decent job. That is the entitlement of every human being. But work is not the only part of life; we hope that in future we shall have more leisure time. It is a fact that has never been verified, but we know that the people who have had the worst education invariably have rather dull, static jobs. They do not live in exciting houses because they are not given a high wage. Their leisure is extraordinarily limited, confined to watching the box. If noble Lords think that they can learn anything from television nowadays they must be out of date. It is frightening that night after night rubbish is churned out for people to watch. It is equally frightening to think of the papers that people read. I was in a hospital ward with 11 beds and out of the 11 people eight took a paper owned by a certain Australian; only three other papers were sold. I became worried. Is this the electorate? Are these the people who vote? Our only hope for schools is to bring to the children every kind of experience that we can offer.
I quote D. H. Lawrence because it is extraordinary how accurate he was. About 50 years ago he said that most entertainments are described as anti-life, a view of the world in which progress is conceived to be the seeking of material possessions. How could he have known that so far ahead? But he did, and that is exactly what we are reduced to.
Yesterday I received the prospectus of two private schools where I shall give prizes. It is significant that their curriculum still includes the arts. The prospectus says that all girls go on to a higher education, the majority proceeding to university. GCSE is taken by all of them. Subjects taught include religious studies, English language, literature, maths, French—all the usual ones. Then we come to art, music, dance, drama, games, swimming. If that is good enough for private schools it is certainly good enough for state schools. They are entitled to it.

1137
My son had the misfortune to be made redundant as head of his department after 30 years in a school —a destructive experience. He was a brilliant classics student from Cambridge, but his subject was English. He was recently interviewed by a head who said, "Yes, I'll offer you the job. By the way, you now have to include drama". Being an honest man, he said, "I can't take drama". When he came back and told me, I said, "You take the English and I'll take the drama".
Is that how such subjects are regarded? Are they just tacked on to something else? They do not merit this lack of consideration. We are entitled to believe that we are an educated nation.
What does "education" mean? It means that we enjoy all the visual arts, sports, participation in activities with other people in our spare time, discussions, and books. Those are all a part of education. Yes, maths is important and so is science; though scientists are doing some things that are dangerous and they should have a rest. But let us have something else as well—the arts.
I remember another quotation, from Auden. He said:
"Here were decent, godless people,
Their only monument the asphalt road
And a thousand lost golf balls".
That may be what your Lordships want, but it is not what I want. I want an educated nation in the true sense of the word, particularly including the arts.
I hope that the Question tabled by my noble friend Lady Birk will be answered because the problem must be examined now or it will be too late. She is always well on the ball and we are lucky in having the Minister, Lady Blatch, because she will probably give us the answer. If it is "no", let us plead with her to look again at the matter.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if there is any doubt as to whether the Question on the Order Paper is necessary—as seems to be suggested —the House need not only rely upon my assurance that it is, I can quote more authoritative sources. For example, the Question asked Her Majesty's Government,
"how they propose to protect the arts in schools, now that they are no longer guaranteed under the national curriculum".
If I am not mistaken, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, says that the Question is unnecessary, the arts are already protected under the national curriculum. I believe that we can safely say that my noble friend on the Front Bench is right and the noble Baroness is wrong, but there is no need to rely on me for that.
I draw on another source. The National Campaign for the Arts has produced a paper which gives a little detail and may help to clarify the subject. It states:
"Only visual arts and music are … core subjects in the National Curriculum and of the ten core subjects they alone become optional at Key Stage 4—for children between the ages of 14 and 16. Drama and media studies have been absorbed into English; dance has been absorbed into PE and can be dropped at Key Stage 3 (11 years old). Schools are not required to offer any arts subjects for children between the ages of 14 and 16".
1138
Perhaps I may gently suggest to the noble Baroness that the quotation shows that the Question is necessary.
However I do not have to rely on that source. Noble Lords will recall that as recently as last Tuesday the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, addressed a group of us in Committee Room 5. He gave us a note of what he would say and began by referring to education:
"Education is perhaps the most important issue in the strategy".
He was talking about the amazing document, Towards a National Arts and Media Strategy, produced by the Arts Council. I shall say a word about that later, if it is in order. His note continued:
"it is at the heart of developing an interest in and an understanding of the arts and media.
The Department of Education and Science should make an arts subject a mandatory part of the national curriculum for the 14–16 age group.
The central place of education in the arts must be reflected in the support and funding provided for arts organisations. If it is to be a key part of their work it must be funded as such, not as an add-on".
I believe most of us would agree with those comments. As the quotation was taken from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, we can reasonably say that he would not make a point of the necessity of the arts to the 14 to 16 age group if it was unnecessary to do so. He has made the point that an arts subject should become a mandatory part of the national core curriculum for the 14 to 16 age group.
I must ask myself whether it is appropriate in this short debate to wander away a little from the Question on the Order Paper. I believe it is appropriate to do so because education of the young can only be effective if young people are educated in the arts as a whole. Young people need not only to be educated in the arts but they must also be shown the arts. The arts need to be taken into schools and young people need to be taken to theatres and to art galleries. In other words, they need to be introduced to the reality of the arts and not merely be lectured about them.
It is important, therefore, that theatres throughout the country should be enabled to provide scholastic education. The funds for providing such education have been seriously cut. Therefore, the amount of theatre to which young people are exposed today is very much reduced and they see much less theatre than has hitherto been the case. Some companies specialising in theatrical education for children are in serious financial difficulty. I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate she will address that point. I hope she will either say that that problem will be faced or, if she thinks there is no problem, she will explain why she holds that view. If she thinks there is no problem, that is contrary to what I believe are the facts.
I wish to talk a little about the Government's proposal to reorganise the structure of the arts. Noble Lords may be surprised to hear me say that I think the Government are absolutely right in principle as regards what they are doing in this matter. Long ago when I was a Minister myself I tried hard to persuade my colleagues that it was necessary to appoint a Minister who could cover the whole area of the arts, media, heritage and other such areas. By virtue of the

1139
width of that coverage such a Minister would rate a place in the Cabinet where he could speak for himself and not merely have to rely on speaking through intermediaries.
The Government are therefore absolutely right to have established the structure that they have. The Government have taken my advice. This is about the only occasion they have ever done so and perhaps they will never do so again. Therefore, I must make the most of this occasion. I repeat that the Government are right in principle as regards the structure that they have established, but they have got into a terrible mess.
I believe the noble Baroness will not disagree with me when I say that the Secretary of State really has only one Minister under his direct aegis, as it were. He is taking on an enormous task; in fact, the task is staggeringly big. At the moment I do not believe the Secretary of State has enough help. The noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate today may be the right person to add to the group. Then the Secretary of State would have a couple of Ministers to help him. That is the minimum number necessary to carry out this task properly.
Another curious matter has arisen. Before the Secretary of State was established in his present role the Arts Council embarked on a massive document entitled Towards a National Arts and Media Strategy. The Arts Council has taken a couple of years to compile that document. The document is an illustration of the Arts Council stepping right outside its own ground because it is not up to the Arts Council to say what should be done about the media. If that role belongs to anyone, it belongs to a Minister and not to the Arts Council. Nevertheless, the Arts Council has suggested what should be done about the media.
As the Secretary of State is short of a Minister, perhaps he had better take a look at the Arts Council's document—in any case, that document will be presented to him—and decide to what extent he agrees with it. I believe he will discover there is a lot of good stuff in the document. It is not absolutely perfect and I disagree with some of it, but a lot of work has been put into the document and I suggest that the Government should give it serious consideration.
I suggest to the Arts Council that the Minister well understands the necessity for co-operation between the media and the Arts Council. I am sure he understands that they must work closely together. However, it is not the job of the Arts Council to tell the BBC what to do and, equally, it is not the job of the BBC to tell the Arts Council what to do. One of the virtues of appointing a Minister responsible for the national heritage is that we may escape from the situation where people try to do each other's jobs, because someone is in charge of the whole matter. Therefore the Arts Council can get on with its job of supporting the arts and the BBC can get on with its job instead of treading on each other's toes.
The BBC is an important patron of the arts. However, what the Arts Council states about the BBC in the document I have referred to is not necessarily wrong. Nevertheless, those two organisations should
1140
not tread on each other's toes. The trouble is that we have never quite got right the structure of the arts in this country. The Government have made an attempt to get that structure right, but they will have to tread carefully in the matter of structure as it is easy to make a serious error. Everything depends on the relationship between the parties. If we can get the relationships right, everything will go smoothly. If we get the relationships wrong, chaos will ensue. I have ranged rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but, I could not resist doing so. I must beg your Lordships' pardon if I have done so.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I propose to speak briefly in this interesting debate. I wish to say straight away that I personally am a great supporter of the national curriculum but I believe it must be a balanced curriculum. We must have a curriculum that involves computers and the arts. I say with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that she was a little harsh on computers. If Britain's economic performance has suffered from anything it has suffered from insufficient computer education rather than from insufficient education in the arts.
The noble Baroness was also a little harsh on television. I have always thought one of the great achievements of the Government led by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, was the establishment of the Open University. I doubt whether the Open University would have ever got off the ground without television. I have enjoyed some of my most memorable experiences in art education when watching Open University television programmes on the arts.
I express the hope to my noble friend that the process of setting up the national curriculum involves real consultation. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has just referred to Key Stage 4 which is concerned with arts and music for the 14 to 16 year olds. I understand the National Curriculum Council consulted on that matter. The conclusion it reached was not the conclusion implemented by the Secretary of State, who decided to include neither arts nor music in the national curriculum. I hope this Government believe in openness and participation. That must mean real consultation. Consultation cannot be a sham.
I have been reminded of a letter which was written to The Times many years ago by A.P. Herbert after he had sat for the nth time on a Royal Commission and had his advice rejected. He said that the Government were like an elderly hypochondriac, always asking for a second opinion but never taking it.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling her Question this afternoon. I believe it is well known in the House that my noble friend has been concerned about the teaching of the arts in schools, not only since the national curriculum was introduced but also prior to its adoption.
I recall the debate we had in Committee on the Education Reform Act 1988 when my noble friend, as she indicated, sought to introduce an amendment which would have linked the various aspects of the

1141
arts as an integrated subject instead of their being diversified as they are at present. The Minister responding to that debate was the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. She indicated that the Government were concerned that replacing art and music as foundation subjects with some generic title covering all the creative arts would result in less attention being given to arts subjects in the national curriculum and in those subjects being treated with less rigour. She also said that the Government did not want to lose sight of the particular attributes of each individual arts subject.
We have to ask whether those objectives are being achieved. It seems to me that we are now moving in the opposite direction from that in which the Minister indicated at that time the Government wanted to move. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins said, dance is included in physical education and can be dropped at the age of 11. Art and music, the only two core arts subjects in the curriculum, are now being dropped as compulsory subjects from Key Stage 4, at the age of 14. That does not seem to me to be treating them with the rigour and attention suggested by the Minister. It will be seen as a downgrading of the subject and could well have repercussions on parental choice, the availability of qualified teachers and general employment prospects in the field of the arts and culture generally.
Despite all the excellent initiatives and projects outside the curriculum which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned and which we all applaud, if arts and music are not compulsory subjects up to the age of 16 there is a likelihood that many parents will be tempted to direct their children's choices into other options to the detriment of a balanced education. At present 45 per cent. of children study art and design to GCSE level. I am sure that we would all agree that British designers have an excellent reputation, and that is probably due in no small part to the strength of education in that subject. We have to ask whether that will continue if the subject is regarded as being of less importance or whether the planners of the curriculum will be forced to reduce the opportunities for art and design as an optional subject in order to make more room for other compulsory subjects up to Key Stage 4.
Similarly, the teaching of music in British schools during the past four or five decades was much envied by other countries but regrettably the availability of resources has been eroded. There is already a shortage of music teachers. I should like to ask the Minister what effect the Government expect this change in the national curriculum to have on the supply of music teachers. Is it a case of trying to spread jam more thinly? If so, is there not a danger that the supply of music teachers will become even more acute as the career opportunities in education decline?
One other aspect of the orders which I should like to mention as being of some concern is that affecting the ethnic communities, a subject mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. There is a view in some quarters that the national curriculum syllabus is rather narrow in its representation of art and music and
1142
appears not to encourage the inclusion of other cultures such as those in multi-cultural areas of the country—Asian, African and Caribbean cultures. I understand that the orders have been amended since originally drafted, but there are still some reservations as to whether the orders are sufficiently wide to accommodate the multi-cultural arts. I should like the Minister to comment on that.
Some authorities with multi-cultural populations have developed programmes of teaching which have combined the different cultures and have led to the enrichment of the education of both indigenous and ethnic children. That is particularly so in those areas such as Bradford, where museums and art galleries provide a resource for teaching which reflects the whole of the cultural diversity of the city.
The question also arises, and again perhaps the Minister will comment on it, as to whether the shortened timescale—the fact that art and music are not to be compulsory after the age of 14—does not make it more difficult to include the various cultures in the curriculum.
We are all concerned, and have been since the 1988 Act, that the national curriculum should present a broad and balanced educational experience for all pupils. We have to ask whether the introduction of the present orders meets that aim.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend has asked this Question because it enables many of us to voice some of our anxieties about the state of the arts in schools—and of course the state of the arts in schools affects the future of art in society as a whole.
Most of us present accept the premise that, if we are to have the broadly-based and balanced curriculum which Section 1 of the Education Reform Act demands, the arts must form an integral part of it. That has been stressed in the past over and over again. In 1982 there was the excellent report sponsored by the Gulbenkian Foundation, The Arts in Schools —Principles, Practice and Provision, which should be compulsory reading for all involved in education. The report stated:
"For the reasons we elaborate throughout the Report we are not prepared to concede that the Arts can be options on the curriculum which can, under pressure of time, space and resources be dispensed with …
We want to form a body of enlightened opinion drawn from all walks of life which will bring general public opinion to share our conviction and see our vision of the role of the arts in general education and the role of general education in the life of our mass industrial society".
What has happened? On the credit side, as has been said, we have a Minister in the Cabinet, Mr. Mellor, who is responsible for heritage. But I was disappointed that in his article on 25th May in The House Magazine devoted to heritage he made no mention of arts in schools. That must surely be the foundation of what he claimed to be his department's function in enabling people to reach the summit of cultural, artistic and sporting achievement while helping the rest of us to enjoy our participation in all those activities.

1143
Mark Fisher in an accompanying article at least recognised that and that our education and training system for the arts in schools and colleges was in danger of breaking down, a situation made worse by Kenneth Clarke's perverse decision to meddle with the reports of the national curriculum working parties on the visual arts and music, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and Sir John Manduell.
So now the visual arts and music are separate core subjects —as has been said, dance and drama having been absorbed into PE and English—but only to age 14. In 1988 from the Labour Front Bench we argued continually against making the core curriculum too prescriptive. We saw the dangers of trying to squeeze all those subjects into the compulsory school programme. We argued for greater flexibility. Our predictions have been justified by the constant changes that the Government have had to make since the Act was passed. Only last week we heard that technology was in real trouble.
The danger is that if a subject is not on the prescribed list it will be ignored. For instance, dance, which is one of several elements in the PE curriculum, is to become compulsory for primary pupils but not for secondary pupils. So after the age of 11 a pupil may have no further teaching in that discipline, which is a pity because some children are very good at it. They can express themselves in dance, get great satisfaction from it and show their ability there when they may have much less talent in other fields or in academic subjects. I see that both the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters and Women Teachers at their recent conferences were against dropping music and art at Key Stage 4.
We have all been very much aware of the controversies over the arts and music working party reports and the way that they have been treated by Kenneth Clarke. I regret very much that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was not able to speak in this debate. It would have been informative to hear his views. He must have been very annoyed to have his recommendations changed radically. He did not mince his words. He said:
"Clodhopping and mindless changes to art teaching in schools are being considered by Kenneth Clarke".
In outspoken comments, which parallel protests about the music curriculum, he said that the National Curriculum Council was trying to cram a lot of 'isms into an already full programme for five to 14 year-olds.
The council rejected the working party's recommendation for an integrated approach based on three attainment targets in making, investigating and understanding. Instead, prompted by Kenneth Clarke, it proposed two targets, one in knowledge and understanding and the second in making and investigating. Dividing the curriculum into two meant that pupils would spend half their time in active mode, painting or making things, and half their time in talking about art history, instead of integrating theory and practice.
There are also criticisms about the insistence by David Pascall, chairman of the National Curriculum
1144
Council, on detailed knowledge of Western art and major figures, altering the worldwide scope of the original proposals. This point was touched on by my noble friend Lady Lockwood and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. In a multi-cultural society, the original proposals seemed to me to make sense. There have been similar criticisms of the final music proposals.
I want to ask the Minister how her department expects teachers, and in particular primary teachers in schools where there are not specialist teachers, to deliver the curriculum in arts and music. To underline this point I should like to read out to the House what pupils are expected to do by the age of 11 as indicated in the document Art in the National Curriculum which was published in April. I imagine that I have the final version. By the age of 11, at the end of Key Stage 2, pupils should be able—and this is just one of the things that they should be able to do:
"[to] begin to identify the characteristics of art in a variety of genres from different periods, cultures and traditions, showing some knowledge of the related historical background".
The programme of study demands that pupils should:
"look at and discuss art from early, Renaissance and later periods in order to start to understand the way in which art has developed and the contribution of influential artists or groups of artists to that development".
The examples given are that pupils could:
"talk about how subjects are illustrated in Egyptian wall painting, on Greek vases, Assyrian relief panels and in the Bayeux tapestry; discuss how Breughel the Elder depicted the everyday life of Flemish people in the 16th century; compare how nature is represented in Impressionist paintings by Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, Renoir, Degas, with the work of Turner, Constable and Hiroshige".
I admire a great many primary school teachers, but even with specialist arts teachers there may be some problems about this programme. We have also been warned that the evidence available indicates that many primary schools would not be able to deliver the national curriculum in music without substantial and continuing support through in-service training for the whole staff. I must ask the Minister whether that in-service training will be forthcoming.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree with another comment. In a classroom with many West Indian or Asian children there is some justification for broadening the curriculum to embrace Caribbean and Indian traditions, though it is a rare teacher who is equally knowledgeable about raga, reggae and Rigoletto. Granted that teachers, and particularly primary teachers, will need help, what will be the position of advisory and peripatetic teachers who have been essential in helping with those subjects? Cuts in spending by LEAs because of overall restrictions on local authority spending and poll tax capping have meant a serious deterioration in these services.
I can give the House two recent examples. The Basildon Towngate Theatre has been forced into liquidation because of the withdrawal of local authority grant. Perhaps I may quote from an article about it in The Times:
"The disappointed performers include local amateur groups and hundreds of local schoolchildren, who had been rehearsing for a gala in July. The theatre was also a base for 'Towngate about Town', an 'outreach' group which ran theatre workshops for adults and children and toured local schools with a small team of performers".

1145
My other example is Coventry Peripatetic Music Services. Subsidies for instrumental music lessons are to be ended to save £200,000 in the current year, £373,000 next year. Parents will be required to pay increases of between 200 per cent. and 833 per cent., depending on the student's level. More than 4,800 children used the service last year.
Another related question that I should like to ask the Minister is how opted-out schools will cope with their music and art teaching. The LEA gave invaluable help with its advisory teachers, its peripatetic teachers and its inspectors. Without those back-up services what will happen? Considering the restricted timetable, will there be any plans to extend after-school arts provision? Will there be local school clusters to provide a broad range of disciplines—for example, subjects which disappear from the timetable, such as dance? Has the Minister any forward-looking ideas to offer to make up for the difficulties that we envisage will occur?
What plans does the department have for teacher training to cover the new situation and new curriculum? The decision to remove responsibility for teacher training from higher education institutions and pass it to individual schools will place an almost impossible strain on specialist arts teachers. Birmingham Polytechnic has been told to wind up its Drama in Education course after next year's intake and Middlesex Polytechnic have been told to close its course at the end of this year.
I have said that there are a great many problems about delivery of the arts in school. The Department of Education —I presume it is the Department of Education to which this Question is directed—must recognise those problems. I hope that in her reply the Minister will tell us how it is proposed to solve them. I look forward very much also to her reply to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, whose questions were very relevant.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, first, I must make a double apology—to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and to my noble friend the Minister—for missing my place early on through my own fault, and also in that I am obliged to leave the Chamber early as I have a long-standing appointment at the Department of National Heritage. At least the noble Baroness will approve of the reason for my absence. I am profoundly grateful to her for raising the question of the arts in schools. Her timing is naturally impeccable. This week there can hardly be a family in the land which does not have a teenager sitting an examination, whether it be a 14 year-old sitting for the first time a SAT (standard assessment test at the end of Key Stage 3) or a 16 year-old sitting a GCSE, not to mention thousands of older students taking A-levels, BTECs, NCVQs, City and Guilds or RSAs.
Examinations are an important element in the learning process. They are important for the teachers in order to demonstrate what their pupils have learned not necessarily what the teachers have taught. They are important for the pupils to help them monitor
1146
their own progress and to train them for those frequent occasions in later life when they will be required to deliver against the clock, on time, regardless of their inclination or feelings.
However, examinations are only one element in the learning process. Let me say in parenthesis that after years of inadequate and insufficient testing, we may be in danger of overdoing it. I am, however, sure that the Government will listen to the real concern voiced by the teachers who are operating the tests. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has already urged the necessity for consultation. I hope that we shall soon settle down to a system of testing which has the necessary rigour on the one hand but without unnecessary overloading and stress.
The national curriculum is a safeguarded basic minimum for every single school child in the country —at least it ought to be. It is a great step forward and we should be proud of the great Education Reform Act 1988. But that is all that it is or can be: a basic minimum, a starting point. The new Government have a glorious opportunity to build on that basis. I am sure that they will do so.
At present our systems of examination and assessment test only certain kinds of ability or capability. But schools are places where much more can be learned than mere facts. Professor Howard Gardner of Harvard University propounded several years ago the theory of multiple intelligences: the theory which isolates seven kinds of intelligence. It is suggested that in schools we test mainly logicomathematical and linguistic skills. However those are only two of the seven. According to Howard Gardner, the others are musical, aesthetic, spatial and physical skills, and two kinds of personal skills—interpersonal and intrapersonal. Interpersonal skills cover how good one is with other people, how well one works in a team, on a committee, in the cast of a play, in an orchestra, as a member of one's family or as a member of the community. Intrapersonal skills cover how comfortable one is with oneself, how honest about one's own strengths and weaknesses, self-discipline, self-confidence and motivation. Those mainly unexamined and unexaminable abilities must be fostered and developed in our schools. They are the lifeblood, the inspiration, to fill in the bare bones of the curriculum.
Perhaps it is not feasible to make drama, dance, music and the arts compulsory in the bare bones curriculum after the age of 14. But it is feasible to help schools to be places where every 14, 15 and 16 year-old has the chance to act, play a musical instrument, sing, draw, paint, sculpt, pot or sew. I want girls and boys to be literate—I include, I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, computer literacy—and fluent in, say, German, numerate, and able to play the cello, the bassoon or even the triangle, or able to take part in a class or school play, even if it is only managing the props or devising the lighting system.
Now that schools will be running their own budgets, what is to become of the local orchestra and the local education authority's central pool of peripatetic music teachers? Who will give help and

1147
encouragement to teachers not only of English but also of history and languages to use drama as a real learning resource?
In 1914 in Glasgow my mother, who was a student teacher at the time, wrote her MA thesis on "The graphical representation of all subjects": learning through looking, training the eye and the ear, learning by doing and by trying. As the great American educator, John Dewey, put it, we must safeguard the arts in the middle and later years of schooling.
Let me conclude with a story. I hope that it illustrates how dangerous it can be to compartmentalise our school education by putting academic subjects on one side and non-academic subjects—the arts, music, drama and dance—on the other. Many years ago two parents brought their 16 year-old daughter to me asking whether I would take her into the sixth form. The mother was a well known ballet dancer, the father an eminent surgeon. The daughter, Caroline, had spent her entire school career at the Royal Ballet School. However, she had just learnt that certain small and to me totally invisible physical characteristics would prevent her from reaching the top of the ballet world. Caroline therefore decided to follow her father and study medicine. Imagine the alarm of the science teachers when I begged them to accept Caroline for an A-level course in biology, chemistry and physics. She had studied only a little chemistry and absolutely no physics at that time. However, she possessed two qualities: the determination and self-discipline which she had acquired by the rigorous study of ballet, of dance. The science staff, bless them, accepted her and Caroline passed all three A-levels, graduating with a first class degree in medical studies from Cambridge. She is now a lecturer in the medical faculty at Birmingham University. I have two former pupils who took the opposite course. One was a graduate in modern languages, the other in classics. They now are embarking on successful singing careers.
Therefore this is my plea to the Government. Please build on the basis of the fine national curriculum and do not destroy the wonderful achievements of the 1970s and 1980s when we had spectacular county youth orchestras and when class music and practical art were thriving in so many state schools—more successfully than in many independent schools at the time, I have to admit.
Our new Secretary of State for National Heritage wrote in a recent edition of The House Magazine:
"We want to ensure that more and more people can share the enjoyment and benefits that participation in sporting, cultural and artistic activities can bring".
I am sure that the new Secretary of State for Education will realise what that means in terms of provision for drama, dance, art and music in our schools.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to reply since I have been attacked on two counts about computers. As an ex-teacher I have never seen so many appalling mis-spellings and so much indifferent English as I have since computers began to turn out those dreadful things that they call letters. That is why I do not like computers.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, in speaking so near to the end of the debate my problem is that I have heard and learnt so much. I have scribbled a great deal over my script and I now find that I am unable to read that. I have also crossed out a great deal of what I had intended to say because other noble Lords have spoken more ably. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to excuse me if I am a little inarticulate.
I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for introducing the debate. It is evident that many noble Lords think deeply about the subject and therefore the debate has been thoroughly worthwhile. I wish to take a slightly different approach and quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who unfortunately is not present today. Last autumn we debated special education, a subject in which she is expert. In speaking about education generally, she said:
"the purpose of education for all children, whatever their abilities, is to improve their understanding and enjoyment of the world, and thus to improve their chances of obtaining freedom, independence and an ability to make choices and therefore gain some meaning to their lives".
I believed that to be the definition of a true educationist. I apologise for using that term, which is disapproved of by my noble friend Lord Airedale, but I believe that the word has meaning.
The noble Baroness then contrasted that definition by saying:
The principle behind the Education Reform Act 1988 seems radically different. If anyone is defined as having needs in that Act, it is not children but society or employers who need a workforce with certain competences in order to meet the economic demand of society as a whole".—[Official Report, 20/11/91; col. 938.]
I sympathise deeply with the view that she, as a true educationist, produced.
In my experience, children learn in two main ways. The first is by the motivation of achievement. They must have the feeling that they are learning; that they have learnt one thing and can put it behind them and go on to the next. That is a linear approach whereby one collects achievements. They may be good test results, knowledge of certain books, certain stages of learning and examinations. The second and more important aspect of school life is the imaginative or emotional experiences which one can have as a child. Such experiences are to be had mostly between the ages of seven and 14.
The national curriculum necessarily works in the first way. That is the linear approach, taking no account of the second approach and the enrichment which children need to obtain. That is the source of my discomfort about public division, which I protested about during debates on the Education Reform Act four years ago. I remember in particular an argument about art and music which took place in the small hours. I had forgotten that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, introduced the amendment, but I remember that I supported it, as did my noble friend Lord Donaldson. We wrestled during those small hours; but the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, hardened her heart. In the end we had to accept the Government's wishes, and art and music were set in concrete as part of the national curriculum. However, other aspects of the arts were left out.

1149
Today there has been a great deal of talk about drama being an important artistic activity. It was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, as a growth activity. I know that to be true because I began producing plays in schools during the 1940s. I was considered to be most daring when I produced two scenes from Shaw's "St. Joan". Now I read about schools which produce "West Side Story" or "The Sound of Music" and think nothing of it.
I do not believe that the importance of drama in schools can be overestimated. I have seen children grow in confidence and gain an incredible sense of achievement. They have learnt and gained an imaginative insight into characters and situations and have developed in language, articulation and critical faculty. I have seen children watch with a most critical insight what was happening on stage. They also learn discipline and team effort. However, drama was not mentioned but was tacked on later as part of English. I note that it is not mentioned in the English curriculum. There are only three passing references in an HMI publication, which is the study of the implementation of the curricula requirements of the Education Reform Act as regards English.
Dance is mentioned in detail in the curriculum. The activity has fared better therefore, although it is optional after the age of 11. In the autumn of 1985 the National Foundation for Arts Education published a circular which stated:
"Her Majesty's Government does not have an adequate conception of the arts in education—except one rooted in old-style grammar school subjects of art and music, with the concession of drama within English and dance within P.E.".
In 1982 the Education, Science and Arts Committee of another place stated:
"The term 'the arts' includes, but is not limited to, music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio tape and sound recording, the arts related to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of such major art forms, and the study and application of arts to the human environment".
The Government's response to that in the national curriculum was not adequate.
The mid-1980s was in some ways a false dawn before the introduction of the national curriculum. The forerunner of the National Curriculum Council, the School Curriculum Development Committee, launched the Arts in Schools project. The objects were to ensure an appropriate balance between the arts and other major areas of the curriculum, between different arts disciplines and between young people's own creative work and their critical understanding of the arts. That gave rise to some admirable projects in schools. For example, my local comprehensive school in Rye, Sussex, undertook a project with the first-year children aged 11. They put aside a 70-minute double period and they chose as their topic the lifeboat disaster that occurred in 1928 in Rye where a 17-man crew of a lifeboat set out one terrible night to rescue a ship in distress and the lifeboat went down with all 17 on board.
The children of the school took that as the subject of their project. They compiled many documents
1150
about it. They wrote about it. They went to see people whose parents remembered the disaster. They visited and acted out life as it would have been in Rye harbour in the 1920s. They danced. They painted it and sang about it. Some of the fifth and sixth year children joined in.
That seems to me to be true education in the highest sense. It is of inestimable benefit. It includes history, geography, research, writing, painting, drama and music and also promotes links with the community, constitutes cross-curricular work and teaches resourcefulness among the children.
The point that I am trying to make is that the arts enter into everything. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke (who is no longer in her place), said, we cannot compartmentalise subjects in that way and say that the arts are on one side and science is on the other. In fact, the arts enter into everything. Much learning is done through the arts. How can you learn about acoustics without learning about music, or learn about technology or biology without drawing, or learn about social studies without architecture, without knowing the effect that buildings have on people?
Such an integrated approach, which all schools should have, needs time and staff. If there is no 70-minute double period available, which the Thomas Peacock school in Rye had for its project, the project cannot be undertaken. That double period is no longer available because the school is so preoccupied with fulfilling the requirements of the national curriculum. There is no longer time available for such projects.
Also, there is the question of staff. Such an approach in education is labour intensive and requires high levels of staffing. Very often the schools cannot afford the staff that they need. In fact, our local MP visited that school a short while ago when the headmaster complained that he found it difficult to make both ends meet. He was told to cut down his staff. The last thing to be cut should be staff because, apart from the children, they are the most important part of the school.
I believe that an integrated approach throughout the school is needed. I do not believe in setting arts on one side and science on the other. The children need that integrated and holistic approach—I use one of the "vogue" words. I hope that that sort of approach will not be edged out by the demands of the national curriculum, which are extremely exacting. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out, the things that children are expected to know now for the arts syllabus make one's head reel.
I do not believe that we have got it right yet, and I urgently reinforce the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that within two or three years the matter should be reviewed by the Government. It may well be that it will be decided that we have not got it right and that all arts subjects after the age of 14 should be optional in the sense that children must be required to take a selection of them. However, we should not have this rigid insistence on art and music with the other subjects forgotten about. At that age all arts subjects should be optional, with a wider choice. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some encouragement in that respect.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate on an extremely important subject. It may perhaps be said of the Secretary of State for Education, as Job said of God:
"the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away",
because, despite the wording of our Question, and to be fair to Her Majesty's Government, it must be said that in some ways, the arts now have a stronger place in the curriculum than they have ever had. As my noble friend Lady Birk said, the national curriculum has not destroyed a golden age of arts education because there never was one. Indeed, if it had been suggested in the Cardiff High School, which I attended in the 1940s, that we should give our attention to folk dancing and classical ballet, the members of the rugby XV would have offered quite a robust reply.
However, by defining art and music as foundation subjects for age range five to 16 years, and then making them optional at Key Stage 4, when the organisation of the national curriculum became problematical, the Secretary of State has done the equivalent of the three card trick: now you see it, now you don't.
The Government's thinking seems to have become rooted and fixed in that subject approach. They think of art and music with drama and dance packed off into English and PE respectively. That is it; the arts are settled. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, quoted from the 1982 definition of the arts which was endorsed by the Education, Science and Arts Committee of the House of Commons. The famous words were:
The term 'the arts' includes, but is not limited to, music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art",
and so on. That was 10 years ago and the arts have diversified greatly since then, but the Government have steadfastly ignored both the definition and developments. For them the arts are what they have always been: art, music, a bit of dance for the juniors and drama tucked up in bed with English. That is in a land where our theatres perform the works of Shakespeare, Shaw and Soyinka. That is not a curriculum which plans for and looks forward to the 21st century. It cannot facilitate change. It is stuck in a terrible timewarp of timidity.
However, we have no alternative but to accept that art and music are the school subjects and that the orders for art and music will not be changed in the foreseeable future. The National Curriculum Council has generously allowed that the orders are not a straitjacket but are flexible and are a framework for understanding the subject. With the greatest of all possible respect, I say, "Tell that to the non-specialist teachers in the primary school sector, especially those in small schools and in rural areas". How well my noble friend Lady David made that point. Devoted, experienced and able as most of those teachers are, they will not have a clue as to how to interpret the mechanisms of the orders unless they are given far more guidance about the possibilities of interpretation than they have so far.
I am told by the National Foundation for Arts Education—the professional experts in this matter—that it understands that non-statutory guidance
1152
provided by the National Curriculum Council will concentrate on Key Stage 2 and will not give suggestions for the in-service training of teachers. If that is so, I must ask the Minister in her reply to tell us what support, in the interpretation of the orders for the arts over and above the non-statutory guidance, Her Majesty's Government intend to provide for teachers.
Similarly, this House should be told what plans the Government have to provide LEAs and schools with additional finance for training and resources in the implementation of the orders for the arts. They have provided finance for other subjects. Are they prepared to make equal provision for the arts? The Government are directing schools to teach a wider and more demanding curriculum but have said nothing so far, that I have been able to find, about the resources necessary to equip teachers with new skills. They will the end; so far, they are silent about the means.
There is another worrying question. Will teachers and their pupils be assessed on their performance in that element of the curriculum which they have been told to do and which many of them at present are unable to do? As the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said, examinations pose problems for the examiner and the examinee. Teachers are ready, willing and able to improve their competence in those new areas but how can they do so when there is such scanty provision for in-service training? LEA support systems simply cannot provide the in-service training and there is no other source of funds. Is it then fair to assess children and their teachers on such a ramshackle basis?
I am forced to ask whether the Government have really considered the effects of making the arts optional at Key Stage 4. The independent schools take much greater care, as my noble friend Lady Phillips said. Obviously schools will take subjects which can be dropped at age 14 less seriously than those which cannot. Provision for the arts will be downgraded and uncertain. It will be anyone's guess how many pupils will select any one option. Teachers will probably not encourage pupils to specialise in subjects which may or may not be available in that specific school after they are 14. In most cases the arts will be marginalised and undervalued. My noble friend Lady Lockwood made that point most strongly.
The exceptions will be places like the Yehudi Menuhin School which caters for those most brilliantly gifted in the arts. But such segregation is the absolute denial of arts education for all. Arts are not solely for the infant prodigies on the violin. By the way, it is vital that those who are infant prodigies on the violin should have an educated audience to play to or indeed an audience at all. That is very much a part of what arts education is all about. But it is equally important that the person who makes planning decisions in a council office should have received an education which included an understanding of the visual quality of our environment. Visual literacy is vital. Too many of us grew up visually illiterate with dire consequences for our world. We need look no further than Marsham Street to prove that. Art

1153
education must be about the ability to see our world. It is not enough to memorise the dates of Leonardo da Vinci and the major works of Masaccio.
However, the die has been cast. In January 1991 the then Secretary of State announced that art and music would be optional at Key Stage 4. That was a perverse decision, as my noble friend Lady David pointed out. I do not believe that anyone who has spoken this afternoon supported it. Then followed the draft orders and statutory consultation, and what a farce it was. The overwhelming majority of those consulted favoured keeping art and music as foundation subjects until the age of 16 and supported the working parties. That view was ignored.
I ask the Minister whether or not it is a fact that the final date for submissions was 4th March 1992; that over 800 responses were received and nevertheless, that the orders were placed before Parliament on 10th March. Can such responses be digested and conclusions drawn in four working days? Or does that suggest that the decisions had already been made and that the consultation was no more than a tedious formality? How wise of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to remind Her Majesty's Government—most tenderly—about that point.
The NFAE, in its response to the NCC Key Stage 4 consultation, drew attention to Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It stated that the school curriculum should promote,
"the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society".
Section 1 also requires schools to prepare,
"such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
Do the Government really believe that the "spiritual, moral [and] cultural" development of a child is more or less complete by the age of 14—at the end of Key Stage 3—and that thereafter further spiritual and cultural development is available as an option? Is it not rather the case that the age of 14 to 16 is the very time when mature and adult interests are formed and when pupils can be introduced to the world of the arts outside school? That was a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
Paragraph 6 of the proposal included the words,
"all schools should offer some form of aesthetic experience in the curriculum for all 14–16 year olds".
The first point to make in that regard is that an aesthetic experience is not the same as an artistic education. Education in the arts is what we should all be talking about, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and my noble friends Lord Jenkins of Putney and Lady Birk pointed out. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to what precisely would be the nature and quality of the proposed "aesthetic experience". Will it be the headmaster reading a Shakespeare sonnet to the assembly once a month? Will it be a bunch of gladioli in each classroom? Or will it be a compulsory look at the prettiest girl or boy in the class? Each of those could be some form of aesthetic experience. What exactly do the Secretaries of State have in mind? One finds it difficult to give credence to the idea that the Government took that statutory consultation seriously.
1154
Can the Minister explain why the orders for England and Wales differ? It seems that the Secretary of State for Wales accepted the recommendations of the final working party reports. The Minister of State, Sir Wyn Roberts, is said to have made some such comment as, "We asked for the best advice; it seemed silly not to take it". On the other hand, the Secretary of State for England chose to ignore the working party reports. Therefore it seems that the orders for England now contain two rather than three attainment targets to make it simpler for teachers, and yet the NCC maintain that all the content of the previous three attainment targets is contained within the two.
We all know that Welsh children are infinitely more intelligent, artistic and hardworking than English children. But can the Minister explain to the House the manifest discrimination against English teachers who, it seems, are not clever enough to grasp three attainment targets but must have them simplified into two? Surely attainment targets should be the same on both sides of Offa's Dyke.
The orders for art and music are woefully woolly and will create great confusion among the teachers. They imperfectly reflect the dedicated work of the two working parties. They arise from a narrow ideology and take no notice of the consultations. The decision to make the arts optional at age 14 shows clearly that the Government are not prepared to give the arts the status of the other foundation subjects in the curriculum. How can the Government refute the charge of philistinism in education when the arts are the last subject to be considered, the least to be encouraged and the first to be dropped when Key Stage 4 gets crowded?
Like my noble friend Lady Birk, I beg the Government to reconsider the decision to make the arts optional at Key Stage 4 and at least make it mandatory to study one of the arts to the age of 16. We have a new Secretary of State. He has every opportunity. Otherwise, the words of Job will apply to the succession of them: "Miserable comforters are ye all"
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, not only for the Question that she posed to the House today, but also for her major contribution to the arts and heritage both inside and outside Parliament. Perhaps I may say also how much I admired the relaxed style with which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, dealt with a rather noisy exodus from the House when we had all sat patiently through two long Statements. I know the feeling. It is right to liken it to dying on stage when the audience has lost interest.
Having said that, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, in that she found it difficult to agree with the Question. I do also. I hope that I shall be able to convince people that the words of the Motion that the arts,
"are no longer guaranteed under the national curriculum" are simply not sustainable as a statement.
The importance of arts teaching in schools cannot be over-emphasised. Particularly valuable is the

1155
contribution that it makes to enable children to develop creativity and appreciate it in others as part of our rich heritage. The arts are an integral part and an integral element of a child's preparation for adult life.
The Government recognise that. By including art and music as foundation subjects of the national curriculum, we have not only enhanced but assured the position of arts education in the school curriculum. It is this Government who, for the first time, have made available and guaranteed that they will require all pupils aged from five years to 14 years to pursue art and music. That is nine out of the 11 years of a child's life. It will be guaranteed as part of the curriculum. It is a fervent hope that, on the basis of a sound grounding in the subject, that for the final two years of their lives at school that they will continue to find art and music available to them as subjects. No child from here on will leave school without a rigorous grounding in these subjects.
We are fortunate in this country to have many diverse and successful examples of school arts provision. The standards of excellence achieved by school pupils in the expressive arts are particularly impressive. In May 1991 the Department of Education and the Office of Arts and Libraries jointly published Arts and Schools. Following on some of the matters which I have heard today, it is clear that the booklet has not been read. I recommend it to noble Lords. The booklet emphasises the importance of the arts in schools and in the school curriculum. It describes some of the ways in which arts organisations can collaborate with schools to widen the boundaries of classroom learning. The booklet is designed to encourage and to make a contribution to the development of arts education, not just as a separate area of study but also as an integral element of children's education.
The kinds of work which are noted in the booklet include arts residencies where practising artists in all disciplines go into schools to work alongside teachers. Such residencies are increasingly sought by schools, both to supplement areas of the curriculum for which the school may have no expertise and to introduce new techniques and understanding.
Work experience in the arts is now more common in secondary schools as a result of the success of TVEI in schools. It has made work experience in the arts for 14 to 16 year-olds increasingly popular as a discipline and as a vocational "taster". Professional organisations are changing and broadening their approaches to schools and the community. We were graphically reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about a number of organisations. Included among them were the English National Opera company, the Royal Opera House, the Birmingham Royal Ballet, the London Sinfonietta, the London Symphony Orchestra, the London Philharmonic Orchestra, the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. All of them are active in their particular fields.
The work of museums and galleries is also becoming increasingly important as many have transformed their methods of stimulating interest in their collections and thereby developed their rich
1156
educational potential. Here it is worth mentioning a new museum which is shortly to open in Halifax named Eureka. It is a state of the art museum for children which will involve not only looking at exhibits but will also provide a hands-on museum experience for young people. It will be very exciting.
The benefits of such activities are various. Pupils learn new practical skills. Success in art or performance often builds confidence in other areas of the curriculum. We should pay tribute to those involved in this work which so enriches the school curriculum, to the teachers involved in such projects who work hard to prepare children for them, and to continue to develop children's skills and understanding after the formal project has ended.
I should also mention the role of business sponsorship in arts education. I should like in particular to mention the work undertaken through the Sainsbury arts education awards sponsorship scheme, the Barclays awards for youth music theatre, and the Lloyds Bank young theatre challenge run in association with the National Theatre.
Not all excellence derives from outside the school. There are many schools in this country which have developed a well-deserved reputation for their arts education. To mention just two, and recognising the many of which I have no knowledge, the Pimlico school in London has a special commitment to music. On Saturday mornings it becomes a centre for young musicians with some 400 primary and secondary pupils attending. Strength in art and design is a feature of the Chenerit school in Northamptonshire. The school benefits from good links with local companies which produce working briefs for the school's design work in textiles.
Perhaps I may add one or two examples of my own. In my own local authority area of Cambridgeshire some very impressive work is being done with art for young people with disabilities. The orders for the national curriculum contain provisions for the teaching of children with disabilities and in using the arts to do just that. A week ago I visited an excellent special school in Humberside. There were children at the school with profound difficulties. They were not only trying to perform "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat", but also doing the art work. They were also working with materials. It was very exciting work. All of that was going on within mainstream education.
The Government themselves have encouraged the development of the Britschool as part of the city technology college programme. The college is located in Selhurst, Croydon, and has a catchment area of 10 South London boroughs. The British Record Industry Trust has contributed more than £2 million to the establishment of the college, which is the first school of its kind dedicated to education and vocational training for the performing arts and the technology which makes performance possible.
We must not forget our tradition of using not just the formal curriculum but also extra-curricula work to enrich children's education. Perhaps I may take the example of instrumental music teaching. We are all aware of the international recognition given to the

1157
remarkably high standards achieved by the best of the many bands, orchestras and choirs which exist at school, area and county level in the country. Again, only a few weeks ago I was privileged to be present at a wonderful concert given by the British Youth Brass Band at the Barbican centre. All the participants were products of schools from across the United Kingdom. The standard was phenomenally high.
Only yesterday I spent the afternoon with my own local peripatetic music school which was celebrating its 25th birthday. It was alive, thriving and very vigorous and celebrating in front of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester. It was a very happy occasion. The arts are alive and flourishing with young people in our schools and outside of them. It is the high standards of excellence and the diversity of arts education which ensures that the cultural heritage and artistic life of this country is nurtured and sustained for the good of us all.
Perhaps I may refer to another school in the heart of Cambridgeshire; namely, the Ramsey Abbey school. It discovered a motte and bailey castle. I want to use that point to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, how wrong he is about putting subjects into little boxes. The national curriculum can become a vehicle for achieving some of these things right across the curriculum. This particular project has contributed to the science, history, English and arts curricula. That can go on and on. The school has just won an award for that, without losing the rigour of any of their subjects in themselves.
While it is right that I take credit for the introduction of the national curriculum for art and music, I recognise that it does not appear in a vacuum. It is rather that the national curriculum in these subjects builds on a long tradition of arts education in schools, setting out the curriculum for these subjects in the form of a carefully structured framework of attainment targets and programmes of study. These requirements will be introduced progressively into maintained schools from September. They will provide a structure within which aspirations and standards will be raised and the range of skills, knowledge and understanding will be widened. The national curriculum will provide a sound basis for challenging and rigorous courses of study in art and music for all pupils.
The Government's support for the arts in the curriculum is not confined to art and music. The other foundation subjects of the national curriculum provide further opportunities for the development of the arts in schools. Dance and drama are just two examples. I do not join with the scoffing at dance in PE. Dance can be a pure subject within the physical education curriculum. It is physically demanding. It is very important for the co-ordination skills. It has great educational merit. Where it is taken on by young people as an option past the age of 14 years, I believe that it is as valid an education option as many other subjects.
Dance is included within physical education. It is compulsory for all pupils up to the age of 11 years and an option for pupils aged between 11 years and 16
1158
years. Now that there is a more interesting option for physical education it might just be that more children will take advantage of it. The provisions in the order will ensure that dance has a more secure place in the curriculum than it has ever had before.
Drama is included in English and I do not scoff at that, though one or two Members of the House did. Although not a separate foundation subject, drama has an important role to play because of the numerous potential links that it offers to the rest of the curriculum—to subjects such as history and religious education.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, posed a number of specific questions. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, and to others among your Lordships who commented on the place of dance and drama in the curriculum, that I hope that my brief comments will have assured them that we are committed to the place of those particular arts within the curriculum. I can also assure the noble Baroness, who was absolutely right to raise the important point of monitoring, that the Government will monitor the place of the arts within the national curriculum. The new arrangements for the regular inspection of schools will give us extensive information about arts education. The National Curriculum Council also has a general duty to keep the curriculum under review and is monitoring the implementation of each subject as it is introduced.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that the proposal for a national dance centre is a matter for another department. However, I am the last person to pass the buck to another department when an issue has been raised during a debate to which I have to reply. I understand that there is pressure for a dance house, possibly in London, and that Lady Harlech is chairman of a group that has commissioned a feasibility study into the possibility of such a centre being housed in the Lyceum Theatre. That is one of a number of options. We must be sure that, if such a centre is found, it will have the capacity and the range of facilities required and, most importantly, that funding is available. I shall register the interest of the noble Baroness with my colleagues and shall speak across the departments about it.
The Government propose to amend the national curriculum to remove the requirement for art and music to be studied by all 14 to 16 year-olds. This change is part of a package of measures which have been made mainly in response to teachers' concerns about pressures on the school timetable for this age group. Perhaps I may link this point with that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and with the concern that is felt by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth who has not participated in the debate. It is important that space in the curriculum post-14 is made available for more vocational subjects, but it is wrong to believe that when young people study technology or craft and design art is somehow excluded. Art is very much a part of technology and is taught to great effect in many of our schools.
The Government believe that the requirement to study full courses in all 10 national curriculum subjects and religious education is too rigid and

1159
limiting for 14 to 16 year-olds. Those who pleaded for flexibility pleaded for total flexibility, which would have guaranteed absolutely nothing in the national curriculum. I think that we were right to start with the framework and to respond sensitively to the requests from teachers to introduce space in the curriculum to allow some flexibility post-14. The requirement to study those full courses restricts opportunity for the pupils concerned to pursue other courses of study outside the national curriculum framework either in other academic subjects or in vocationally relevant study. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, mentioned, this issue is more pressing in Wales as schools are additionally required to provide Welsh as an 11th foundation subject. The time simply would not be available.
Our intention is to ensure that the curriculum framework does not become a straitjacket, and to promote flexibility. Art and music have not been singled out for attention in that respect. The proposal is part of a series of changes that we have introduced to allow increased flexibility and choice in the 14 to 16 curriculum. Pupils will be able to choose, for example, between studying history and geography. There will also be the opportunity for 14 to 16 year-olds to take short rather than full courses in other foundation subjects.
In the arts, we want all schools to offer some form of aesthetic experience in the curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds. I do not make light of that choice because when we are talking about art, we are clearly talking about photography and pottery among other subjects. We are talking about art in all its forms as an experience and as the basis for courses that can be followed by pupils in that age range. That might be achieved through a study of art and music or it could involve a concentration on drama or dance. We believe that all pupils should have the opportunity to continue their development in the arts. We expect the great majority of schools to offer art and music to pupils who wish to continue their study of those subjects after the age of 14. Guidance will be made available to teachers.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, was concerned about guidance. I can assure him that detailed guidance will be given to schools, but he should also know that a great deal of information has already gone out to schools which are rather overawed by the amount of information that they have received. Clearly, however, where it is helpful guidance will be provided.
I have dealt with the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, about subject division. It simply is not true. Art, craft and design, technology, work with textiles and other materials, dance, drama, photography, theatrical activities and the art of communication can all be covered in English, science, technology, physical education, religious education and even in the study of a modern foreign language.
I should have to question the organisational abilities of the head teacher who says that a school cannot cope with a 70-minute double period. Again, only a few days ago I was in a school that operates
1160
90-minute periods in blocks of three. That school has cut out all the running around school when changing periods, but is managing to change teaching styles within those 90-minute periods.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked what had been lost from the advice of the arts and music working groups. I must advise her that absolutely nothing has been lost by reducing the attainment targets from three to two. It is a matter of organisation. All the content of the three original attainment targets is now contained within the two targets. Several noble Lords have made the important point that we are not talking about separate blocks or separate compartments. There can be—indeed, there should be—an integrated approach to the teaching of these subjects and to the achievement of the attainment targets.
I should like to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, on the points that she has raised. The noble Baroness, Lady David, was concerned about in-service training. Perhaps I may advise her that £176 million has been made available this year to support training and to provide equipment for the national curriculum. Only two subjects—maths and science— are actually named in that respect and beyond that it remains for the local authorities and the schools themselves to determine their priorities. Indeed, an additional £380 million has been made available since 1988. I have been asked how grant-maintained schools can cope. From my visits to them, and from my other knowledge of them, I know that they are coping very well.
Our plans for teacher training raise a more interesting question because, as the noble Baroness knows, a debate is currently taking place about the primary curriculum and the preparation of teachers for it. I hope that she will forgive me if I leave that question in abeyance because it is an interesting debate and I have no doubt that it is one into which she will have an input.
In answer to the point raised about teacher supply, perhaps I may say that new initial training courses have been introduced. The supply of new music teachers, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, made an important point, is improving. We are also making provision for in-service training to improve the quality of existing teachers and the scope of their knowledge and skills.
The noble Baroness also referred to multi-cultural arts. Again, the art and music orders emphasise the western European heritage but make it clear that the traditions of other cultures, especially those shared by minorities in this country, should be covered. There is no problem with time. Teachers can draw on a wide range of examples from different cultures to illustrate knowledge, skills and understanding. The noble Baroness also asked what effect the national curriculum changes would have on pupils in the post-14 age group. I believe that I have addressed that point in answer to other questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made an important point which I have taken on board. He is right that education is not only about academic life. As several noble Lords have said, it is about the spiritual,

1161
cultural, physical and academic development of the child. That is now built into the legislation. It was included in the 1988 Act and is also part of the 1992 Act. Its provision will be covered by the inspection process. It is important that we care about the whole child.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, suggested that I might take on the position of assistant to the Secretary of State for National Heritage. Perhaps I may make a plea to the noble Lord. I am already the Minister responsible for science, technology, education and the inner cities—and all sorts of other things. I do not want another job to be added to my portfolio.
In response to the points that have been made about computer literacy, I repeat that the arts must not take second place. These subjects can live happily together. Art is a very wide subject, cutting across design and technology among others.
The Government have shown their commitment to build on the existing achievements of schools in arts education through the introduction of the national curriculum. The fact that all pupils from five to 14 will study art and music within a structured framework is in itself a giant leap forward for arts education. I welcome the document from the Arts Council Towards a National Arts and Media Strategy and particularly emphasise how we welcome its reference to education. It contains a full chapter on the importance of education within our schools.
I fully expect that many pupils will continue to take these subjects after 14. This will be particularly so after the thorough grounding in these subjects they will have received up to the age of 14. By creating room in the curriculum for this age group we have made it more likely that pupils will be able to pursue one or both of these subjects to GCSE level where they wish to do so, or simply for its own sake for the experience of doing it.
The Education Reform Act charges us to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of our young people. The arts have an important part to play in this development. That is why the Government are implementing the national curriculum and that is why we are providing an education in the arts to launch our schools and our pupils into the 21st century.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may put a question to her. She has with her usual skill and fluency answered very well along Government lines. She gave an example of pupils from 14 to 16 having to take history or geography and yet at the same time she refuses to accept that an arts subject should be mandatory up to the age of 16. The Act itself says that there will be arts courses and arts tuition all the way up the school. She has praised the Arts Council for its strategy, but is she aware that it has said that the Department of Education and Science should make an arts subject a mandatory part of the national curriculum for the 14 to 16 age group? Although the noble Baroness put her case very well it has been completely unconvincing in regard to the 14 to 16 age group.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in view of what the noble Baroness said it is probably better that we agree to differ about this. A great deal of advice has been taken. If a young person wants to do an extra foreign language or a technical vocational subject it is just as important that there should be the flexibility to do that.
I hope that in responding to this interesting debate I have said, first, that there is a great deal going on out there of which we should be proud and which we should encourage, and, secondly, that at the end of the day it is a question of balance. The Government have come down in favour of balance to give as much flexibility to young people post-14 so that they will do some history or geography and will choose some aesthetic subject post-14.

County Hall
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the importance to London of the site of County Hall and its attributes as a listed building, and in particular whether they have considered its suitability as a site for the London School of Economics.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should first explain what this Question is not about or at any rate what it is not about in my mind. I wish to make it quite clear that this is not an anti-Japanese move. I recognise the importance to London of overseas investment. There is no suggestion in this Question of any discrimination against Japanese companies which wish to invest here. Nor is it about London government. I accept that the Government will pursue their plans for London and that County Hall will have no place in those plans. Finally, it is not a matter of special pleading on behalf of the London School of Economics. I did not attend the LSE myself. I was not approached by the LSE to raise this issue. In fact I approached the LSE and asked whether it would be useful for the House to debate the issue.
The Question is about the place of a major building in the life of London. I brought the matter to your Lordships' attention because I believe that a public building should remain in public use. The matter is of public interest and should be considered publicly.
County Hall is part of London's heritage. It was designed for public use and was paid for with public money. Therefore the use of the site is a legitimate public concern. The land was acquired by London County Council under an Act of 1906 which gave it compulsory powers to acquire land,
"for the purposes of erecting a hall, offices and buildings for the business of the council".
An architectural competition was held in the following year and County Hall was built in stages over a period of 25 years or so.
The recent history of the building has been complex and chequered but the history is not yet complete, though it may widely be thought to be so. The buildings are now in the hands of the London Residuary Body, which is something akin to the

1163
receiver of the GLC. Like local authorities, when it disposes of land the London Residuary Body must not dispose of it,
"for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained".
That is quite proper, but it is not the end of the story. The same provision—Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972—allows a disposal not at the best price with the consent of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, under Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1985, which dealt with the abolition of the GLC,
"each residuary body shall comply with any directions given to it by the Secretary of State".
In other words, responsibility lies with the Secretary of State. That is why I am asking this Question of the Government.
The current position is that the London Residuary Body entered into an agreement immediately prior to the dissolution of Parliament to sell the riverside building to a Japanese corporation for hotel and leisure facilities and flats. However, the contract includes a clause which allows revocation of the contract by the London Residuary Body before the end of 1992. That is an unusual clause. I wondered at first why it was there. I could understand why a purchaser might want time to reconsider, but it is a particularly helpful clause in that in this case the seller has the chance to reconsider. It is particularly helpful because this contract had not been in the public arena beforehand. Most importantly, it allowed the possibility for the Secretary of State to direct revocation and the disposal of the buildings to another purchaser.
Apart from the riverside building—the one which, as its name implies, fronts the river—I do not know what may be proposed for the other buildings on the site. It is fair to say that they are not well loved. It is also fair to assume that they are likely to go for a commercial use—perhaps for offices, with which London is currently vastly over-supplied. It is understood that the price agreed by the London Residuary Body is £60 million. I say "understood" because the London Residuary Body will not disclose the price until after completion, which under the current contract is set for October 1993. There are questions of secrecy—perhaps "confidentiality" would be the less aggressive word—surrounding the arrangements. I am not asking the Government to answer those questions today but I do ask the Minister to confirm the price if he is able to do so.
Noble Lords may ask why I do not consider the sale price to be a matter of particular importance. It has some importance but I do not believe that it overrides the other interests of Londoners and taxpayers. The price is not an insignificant amount. It would be paid by the London Residuary Body to the London boroughs, of which there are 32, plus the City of London. If I have the price right, that is an average of under £2 million per borough. Again, that is not an insignificant amount, but given the current restrictions on capital spending, that money would go to reduce local authority debt. It would be relevant but it would not be a major matter. The boroughs could not go out and spend that money.
In any event there are precedents for asking the London Residuary Body to consider whether it should obtain the best possible price and indeed for asking the Secretary of State to consider the same matter. There are properties in Covent Garden which were held by the GLC. They were sold en bloc following a direction by the Secretary of State which allowed less than the best price, and indeed the involvement of community trusts and restrictions to protect the historic nature of Covent Garden and its speciality shopping and entertainments. That was justified on the grounds of the importance of the area and additional benefits to London as a whole offsetting less than the best price.
Land at Thamesmead was sold to a housing trust for something like 10 per cent. of its value. That led to a challenge in the High Court, but the disposal was upheld because it was the best price that the trust could afford. In the case of industrial and commercial estates and seaside and country homes, two large portfolios, some 4,000 properties in all, contained, like County Hall, some good bits and some bad bits—something of a curate's egg as well. In that case the view was taken that the maximum yield would be obtained by breaking up the estates and leaving a hard-to-sell residue with a negative value. But in both cases the London Residuary Body sold in bulk at a discount in order to avoid being left with the rump and indeed to avoid delay.
Most recently, I understand that part of Jubilee Gardens has been sold to the Arts Council for the price of £1 in the public interest. If the property is later developed, the proceeds will go to the boroughs. But, in other words, the price of that property was not the sole issue.
Why should County Hall not be used as an hotel? That is not just because the imagination of those of us who knew the building will not quite stretch to the notion. I am sure that those of your Lordships who are familiar with the building will recall the sparsity of plumbing and wonder how it might become a luxury hotel where all rooms should have a bathroom. I believe a good deal of work would be required for that.
Nor is it just a matter of market economics. I believe that if we concentrate simply on marketable uses of individual sites and individual buildings our capital city would be the poorer for it. I think it is appropriate that we pay heed to have particular sites interact and combine to enhance the character, the confidence and the pride of our city.
County Hall is a public building. A commercial use could be grand; it could be in keeping with history, but it is more likely to be mundane. Indeed, the difficult lay-out of the building would lead to pressure for change of a listed building. The riverside building is a Grade II* listed building.
So why the London School of Economics? Partly because it is there; it has worked up the plan and it would be an excellent fit. It has worked up a scheme which has gathered considerable public support. Apart from the plumbing, the main impression for visitors to the riverside building is the long corridors, the distances one has to walk and the amount of space. That is a correct impression. Indeed, only some 50 per

1165
cent. of the space of the building is usable. The other 50 per cent. is a public area. That is well suited for a university, where there are many people who move around between lectures and seminars to talk and exchange the ideas that are the most valuable part of university life.
Also, the building is well suited to conference facilities, including the Council Chamber. The LSE would propose that use. It would not be necessary or indeed intended to make any substantial alterations to the listed riverside building. That has meant that the proposal has been supported by those who have an interest in the heritage aspects. Among them is the Royal Fine Arts Commission, which supported the recent planning application.
The proposal is also supported by the neighbours of the building, St. Thomas's Hospital—the full title of which I have now learned is the United Medical and Dental School of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital. It wrote to the local authority in support of the planning application, welcoming the proposal and saying that the presence of the LSE in the midst of what it described as a university complex, referring to its own work and the possible move of the life sciences department of King's College to Stamford Street. It stated:
"The presence of the LSE in the midst of this University complex could greatly enhance academic postgraduate and undergraduate teaching and lead to greater collaboration in research".
I asked another neighbour, Lambeth Palace, about its attitude. The palace authorities told me that they were quite happy that I should read to the House their letter to the local planning authority. The letter from Lambeth Palace fairly stated:
"We are not aware of the details of the scheme, and so our comments as fairly near neighbours must be necessarily limited. However, we thought you might wish to know that, in general, we would welcome this proposal. It seems to us that an educational institution would fit the cultural ambiance of the South Bank more appropriately than some of the other possibilities of which we have heard, e.g. a hotel".
The local planning authority has granted the London School of Economics permission for the change of use. The application extended beyond the riverside building to the other buildings on the site. The island block at the bottom of Westminster Bridge is an hexagonal building which lends itself remarkably well to use as a library. It would provide maximum reading light for those who wish to work there. That is important because the LSE houses the British Library of Political and Economic Science. The proposal would be that the north and south blocks would be used for a social science park. Noble Lords will be aware of science parks elsewhere where commercial organisations paying a commercial rent have what might be described as a symbiotic relationship with the university.
In other words, one of our premier educational institutions could expand its service, enlarge its spheres of operation and play an increasing role in the commercial as well as the academic life of London and of the country; it could carry out activities which it so badly wants to carry out now and which it cannot because of the cramped—that is an inadequate word
1166
—site on which it now exists. The expansion could be very exciting. It could, for instance—and I know that this has been proposed by the school—involve collaboration with the Civil Service College to develop the British equivalent of the French École Normale d'Administration.
The LSE could stay on its present site and continue a piecemeal development; it could meet the current shortfall in space by adding on bits of building in the way that it has had to over the past few years, but that would be most unsatisfactory. To acquire space near its Houghton Street premises to do what it could do at County Hall would cost something of the order of £80 million or £90 million. Indeed, one must question the wisdom of continuing expenditure on a site where the options are only to extend an existing rabbit warren.
I believe that every Londoner would benefit indirectly from the enhanced stature and facilities that would be provided here. I wondered initially about the scale of the development and the impact on the surrounding area, but I am very much persuaded that, though a large number of people would use the site, they would not, as with other large communities, strain transportation and infrastructure, as would a similar number of people in a commercial venture. I am conscious of the likely overload of Waterloo, particularly when it begins to act as a Channel Tunnel terminal. But it is worth noting that most students travel by public transport; they would not overload the roads, and they travel outside peak hours.
I am sure that noble Lords will be asking how the London School of Economics can pay for this. The school has proposals for this as well; it believes that the best arrangement would be for the listed building to be transferred to a trust and leased to the school at a peppercorn rent. The proceeds of the school's current buildings would be invested in the renovation. Here I have another question for the Minister. The school cannot estimate the precise cost of this because it has been unable to gain access to the riverside building—the London Residuary Body has not felt able to allow it access. I ask the Minister to confirm that he will use his good offices to persuade the LRB to grant that access.
Under this arrangement if the building were eventually disposed of, the proceeds then would go to the boroughs. That may sound idealistic, but it behoves us to strive for a vision. County Hall, facing the Palace of Westminster—indeed, sometimes confronting it—has a civic history. It is part of our capital's heritage. We know of the Government's keen awareness of the country's heritage, and we have a new department to deal with it. A public or civic use of sufficient dignity would do justice to that history and that heritage.
7 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, with slightly less emphasis, perhaps I may also disclaim a private or personal interest. Rather more than 40 years ago I gave one course of lectures at the LSE in the temporary absence of a more qualified member of staff. A few years later I was an unsuccessful candidate for the chair unfortunately vacated by the late Harold Laski.

1167
Showing its continued wisdom, the school rightly preferred Michael Oakeshott. On the other hand, I feel, as I believe other members of the academic community in the House and outside feel, that it is an important element in the country's system of higher education which it could enhance if it could escape from its present sordid physical circumstances.
The noble Baroness was a little kind. Anyone who attends a lecture at the LSE is always appalled, especially if they come not merely from better endowed universities in this country but, as so many do, from overseas. It has also played a great part in Britain's relations overseas. I suppose that next to Sandhurst the LSE has produced more members of the ruling élite of Commonwealth countries, especially the new Commonwealth countries, than any other institution.
In recent decades there has been a notable shift from undergraduate to postgraduate education and research and towards a higher proportion of overseas students. I gather that it is intended that that shift should continue to some extent. In other words, we are talking about an institution of international renown.
In the case of the building, I have a feeling that there are times when history somehow produces its own logic. The LCC, which built it, as the noble Baroness has described, was the product of a reforming wave in London in the last quarter of the last century which produced also the LSE. Indeed, some notable figures in British public life were involved in both those ventures. I do not wish to enter, and nor has the noble Baroness, upon vexed political territory. All one can say is that the fortunes of the then LCC were somewhat chequered, whereas the LSE has gone, as I have said, from strength to strength.
To have the opportunity of marrying those two great creations of an important reforming period in our social history is one which no government ought for a moment to overlook. I find it difficult to believe that a Secretary of State who has an opportunity to bring about that marriage would baulk at it because of the technicalities of financial advice from the LRB. That is a body whose interment one awaits with some impatience.
There is no obvious way in which the merits of the building, including its fine internal appointments—its great hall and so forth—can be preserved if it is put to commercial use. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, to turn it into offices or a hotel, as is now mooted, would inevitably mean such a degree of reconstruction that the imagination of the original architects would be largely lost. The Survey of London has recently investigated its history and the history of its arts treasures, and to investigate its history is surely one way of promoting its survival.
Furthermore, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the move to that site would be of benefit to some institutions other than the LSE itself. There are a number—some noble Lords no doubt have experience of one or another—of small research institutes in London, outside the realm of the physical sciences, which suffer a perpetual problem of location because the places that they can reasonably rent tend to be a
1168
long way from the libraries and other facilities which those who research in them require. The possibility of using the other buildings on the site to let to societies and other such institutes would be a major boost to the intellectual life of this city and to Britain's contribution to research in a number of fields. I am thinking of international relations and strategic studies—subjects with which I am personally associated—but I am sure that that is equally true of many institutes which deal with more domestic matters.
There is, as it were, an inherent logic about bringing those things together, and it is a logic which has convinced a great many people of the desirability of that marriage, or remarriage, between those two creations. I find it difficult to believe, as I have said, that any government would throw away that opportunity, especially remembering that people ask about London when they visit not, "Are there enough hotel rooms?" or "Can we rent another office?", but "What have you to show which is a parallel to what some other great cities are doing?". What we have to offer is in part the intellectual and educational achievements of this city, and to have them on the other side of the bridge from Parliament would again signal something which even the most casual visitor could hardly fail to notice.
If the Government are moved by nothing but commercial considerations, perhaps I may point out that tourism is, alas, one of our major financial resources. To agree to any other solution now that this one is available seems to me—if I may borrow a phrase—not so much selling the family silver as slashing the family portraits.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, sometimes I even surprise myself by my own actions; but never more so than when I succumbed some 12 or 13 years ago to the blandishments of the then director of the LSE to become one of its governors. I did so because I had "cased the joint" (as the Americans say) both in a private capacity after he had asked me to join, and earlier, as chairman of the University Grants Committee. Both those investigations showed me that the London School of Economics had more than a touch of quality. Moreover, I was curious to discover how a hard-nosed experimental scientist like myself, with a reputation for blunt speech, would fare in an institution devoted to politics, economics, sociology and cognate subjects generally regarded by physical scientists like myself as "soft".
Over the years, as I became more and more involved in the policy and decision making of the school, my respect for it grew. Its international renown is unquestioned. Fifty per cent. of its students are from overseas, nearly 40 per cent. of these being drawn from the USA, Canada and Germany. After leaving the LSE, they become powerful advocates for this country. The London School of Economics is therefore a great influence for building good foreign relations for the United Kingdom, not only now but in the future. Just under 45 per cent. of its students are postgraduates, as was hinted by the noble Lord, Lord

1169
Beloff. That fact testifies to its research reputation. If further testimony to its quality and influence were required, one has only to look at the careers of its alumni. Whether the disproportionately large number of them in this House is a recommendation, I leave to your Lordships' individual judgments.
I shall not weary your Lordships with more praise of LSE. Rather, I wish to make two points; and ask whether the Government are averse to them or open to them. The first is that rarely have I been in a university institution whose buildings—and I speak as an expert here—are so ill-adapted for their purpose, so ill-disposed relative to one another, so full of broken levels, so congested, so lacking in places well designed for study by staff or students. I could go on. The Houghton Street site is small and the buildings crowded. No one is to blame for this. The school has had to do the best it could in difficult circumstances over many years.
If I speak with some feeling on the matter, it is because for many years I have been chairman of the library panel, which is responsible for the British Library of Political and Economic Science, to which reference has already been made. It is an internationally famous research library, largely housed in a former commercial warehouse.
The second point is that the LSE is now at a moment in its history when it could and should grow and fill the important role in Europe which not only the governors but many influential Europeans expect and hope that it will occupy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has explained what a remarkably good "fit" County Hall provides for the activities of the LSE, and that this solution is thought to be economically sound. But of course more investigation is required.
As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, County Hall provides the opportunity of the century to solve, at one stroke, LSE's problems. I remind your Lordships that in two years' time LSE will be 100 years old and it would be a splendid celebration of its centenary if it could occupy County Hall. If that were possible, then as surveys have established, the various departments, including the library, can be decently and efficiently housed at costs which are reasonable and fully justified. Its future growth could be secured well into the 21st century.
I am well aware that just four weeks ago today the Secretary of State for the Environment, with his colleagues, began a re-examination of the possible uses of County Hall. I hope that your Lordships will, by your support today, convey to him that to allocate the site to the LSE would confer inestimable benefit on this country and its capital city, as well as on the London School of Economics itself. This is indeed, if I may quote Brutus, a tide in the affairs of the LSE,
"Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune",
but which if missed, would both stultify LSE's development and deny to an historic setting and listed buildings a singularly appropriate use. I ask the noble Viscount to urge his colleague, the Secretary of State, to take a decision which is wholly favourable to the proposition that the London School of Economics
1170
should occupy those buildings on the County Hall site, which it needs and thus provide for its growth and continued development.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a governor of the school. On behalf of the governors I am sure we wish to record our appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the extremely clear and cogent way in which she put the case tonight. We wish to emphasise that the fact that she did so on a completely unsolicited basis is all the more reassuring. We really are grateful.
Before I turn to the proposal, I wish to emphasise one point which the noble Baroness made. Among the governors there is concern that a scurrilous rumour has begun to develop that in some way what is being argued is hostile to the Japanese. We wish to make it absolutely clear that as a body we understand the tremendous importance of successful co-operation, commercial and otherwise, with the Japanese. There is nothing whatever hostile in the proposal. But we believe that the case for the move should be fully and properly examined.
As befits one of the country's best known university institutions, the purpose of the proposed move is educational. The school wishes to respond to the challenge presented by the Government's wish to expand higher education and at the same time to further its mission so eloquently and well described in 1901. Perhaps I may quote that mission as then described:
"To organise, promote and supply liberal courses of education specially adapted to the needs of persons who are … engaged in any kind of administration, including the service of government or local authority, railways and shipping, banking and insurance, international trade, and any of the higher branches of Commerce and Industry".
As we look at our own nation facing the challenges of the 21st century, could there be a more relevant investment than one in the healthy future of the school undertaking what has always been clearly its purpose?
Specifically, in the Riverside Building (the listed building) there are six priorities in the proposed move: first, to refurbish and equip the building to accommodate 50 per cent. more students than at present. I should emphasise, however, that there is no intention to make substantial structural alterations of any kind to the fabric of the building since, as the noble Baroness emphasised, the fit between the present activities of the school and the range of spaces available in the Riverside Building is good. It is for this reason that it is believed that the school's proposals have attracted the positive support of those concerned by the heritage dimensions of the listed building.
The second priority is to establish a conference facility to utilise the principal rooms on the first floor, including the council chamber. The LSE has a long tradition of providing public lectures and making available facilities to others who wish to provide educational services. It is hoped to expand this side of the school's activities and there is confidence that it could be done on a fully commercial basis.

1171
Thirdly, we should establish a national resource centre for the social sciences. The social science research community is coming under considerable pressure to respond to the Government's desire to see the Science Vote spent more selectively and in a more concentrated fashion. As the United Kingdom's leading centre for research in the social sciences, the LSE both wants to respond to this and also wishes to make its facilities, especially its library—the British Library for Political and Economic Science—more accessible to the wider community of UK research workers.
The intention is also to develop, in this and other ways that would be possible in the riverside building, closer interactions with policy oriented research organisations of the kind exemplified by the Policy Studies Institute and the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. There would be space for one or more such organisations to join the school as tenants in the riverside building if they so desired. It is probable that some would join the school.
Fourthly, we should expand the present Interdisciplinary Institute of Management and develop a wider European focus for its activities than is the case at present. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness refer to a matter the school likes to refer to; namely, the potential for establishing an institution similar to the École Normale d'Administration in France.
Fifthly, we should expand and extend existing courses designed to contribute to the professional development of those working in the professions, the financial services industry, Whitehall and Westminster. Sixthly, the school should house the new and imaginative centre for the study of global governments upon which it is just embarking. These initiatives would enable the school to maintain its present approximately 50/50 ratio of UK and foreign students while moving to a 40/60 ratio of undergraduate/postgraduate students and of course to retain its position as the UK's premier research institution in the social sciences.
In the island block the school intends to house its outstanding library which is the finest such collection of documents in the United Kingdom. The collection would be readily and securely accessible to others such as those who work in the Houses of Parliament and visitors to the National Research Centre. The remaining buildings on the site, the north and south blocks, would after refurbishment comprise a social science park. That has been suggested. There are a number of organisations which would benefit from proximity to the LSE's expertise and its library and which would be prepared to pay a commercial rent for space in those blocks. In addition, it is likely that spin-off companies would be established in such premises where commercial development of some of the ideas generated by the LSE's academics would be possible. Enterprise LSE Limited, the school's recently established consultancy company, would be such a tenant.
The County Hall buildings and the riverside building in particular are eminently well suited for university use—this has been argued—as the noble
1172
Baroness has described. Thousands of people could move from room to room between lectures and seminars. The ratio of 50 per cent. usable space to 50 per cent. public area is positively attractive.
The LSE believes that its proposals can be achieved without recourse to Department of Education budgets. However, while the school's costings have been prepared using the best possible information available to it, a full structural survey would have to be undertaken to enable the school to assure the Government that its proposals were financially feasible. Before proceeding there would have to be rock solid certainty that future maintenance costs would be manageable. In this context it must be stressed that the school has so far been unable to determine with the necessary precision the cost of carrying out the refurbishment that would be required or the future scale of maintenance costs as the London Residuary Body has so far denied it full access to the buildings and has not made available full survey reports on their current condition.
Therefore the amount of money that the school would have to spend in purchasing and refurbishing the property is still uncertain. Satisfactory answers on that matter are a vital precondition to proceeding further. The school is quite prepared to invest all of the realisable value of its present buildings in the purchase of the freehold and refurbishment of the site. However, the school's preference would be for the freehold to be held in trust on behalf of the London boroughs while it was given the security of a long lease.
In 1989 the school was awarded the Queen's Award for Export Achievement. It then earned £8.2 million. Last year this had risen to £10.5 million. The school expects this figure to more than double as a direct consequence of the move, the attendant changes in the composition of its student body and the nature of its research programmes. This year, for example, the school's income from research contracts from the EC has increased threefold.
Finally—this has also been stressed—if the school were not to move to County Hall it would still be faced with the inescapable need to modernise its existing buildings and to acquire new ones. While it is difficult to be precise in the present market, the school estimates that it would need at least £90 million to carry out its expansion plans and between £33 million and £48 million merely to make good its present shortfall in space. The school believes that County Hall would be a much better place for such investment. I believe that the school situated on the prime site across the river could be a powerful indication of confidence in the United Kingdom's role in playing a dynamic part in meeting the huge social, economic and government challenges of the third millennium.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, I too welcome the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in testing the intention of the Government on the future of County Hall. I do so with special interest in the outcome as I am a Londoner born and

1173
bred and was educated in London from primary school to the London School of Economics, where I am now an Honorary Fellow. I have also been involved with the LSE in its preparations for its centenary in 1995.
I do not wish to repeat the excellent arguments that have already been advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other noble Lords on the suitability of the site for the LSE. However, I wish to emphasise certain points which I hope the Government will take note of even at this late stage.
In discharge of its statutory rights to maximise the commercial benefit of the County Hall, the LRB has considered only the monetary offer of the Shirayama Corporation to convert this unique site to a hotel and leisure complex. But London has an abundance of hotels occupying the most prestigious sites—those sites range from Hyde Park Corner to Park Lane—and in every major location. Universities and their colleges, on the other hand, are usually small in number but are universally cherished by urban authorities as enhancing the status and culture of the city in which they are located. To adopt a strictly commercial evaluation of a unique site without regard for any cultural or national heritage interest is to equate a hotel and leisure complex with the singular needs and special characteristics of the LSE—a university college of worldwide renown and influence.
The school has produced 23 past or present prime ministers or presidents worldwide, 41 governors or presidents of banks and over 120 ministers and ambassadors. These are the invisible exports which the school regards as the basis of its 1990 Queen's Award for Export Achievement. For the Government to permit only the commercial return on the site to determine its use cannot be right. The following are my reasons for this unequivocal judgment.
First, the LSE needs to double its space requirement if it is to meet the additional numbers of UK and foreign students projected over the next decade, even if present density exceeds a standard set by the University Grants Committee, as graphically illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton.
Secondly, there is a remarkable fit between the requirement of the school and the riverside building. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the LSE will fit into the riverside building without requiring any structural works to the building. No external or internal alteration of substance is proposed. Therefore, the listing provisions affecting County Hall will not be challenged. The riverside building was purpose-built for a public body with a variety of functions intrinsically similar to the LSE requirements for accommodation.
Thirdly, the influx of 5,000 students, rising by the year 2000 to some 9,000 students, will bring life, activity and sparkle to the Waterloo area in a way that commercial development of County Hall could not.
Fourthly, despite the difficulty of access to the site mentioned by noble Lords, I estimate the cost of the adaptation of the site for the LSE as approximately £55 million. That is probably less than half what
1174
would be needed to upgrade County Hall to the standards required by a commercial development such as Shirayama proposes.
Finally, the LSE will launch a centenary fund-raising appeal later this year. As chairman of that campaign I can say that the acquisition of County Hall could make a substantial difference to that appeal, thus ensuring that, together with the sale of Houghton Street, the school should be in a position to commence the move without recourse to public funds.
I earnestly hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will seize this one-time opportunity to raise his eyes from the bottom line of the profit and loss account and consider instead the whole balance sheet of London's cultural and social assets. He has the power and responsibility to create a unique and historic environment for the education of generations to come. I hope that he will not retreat from that responsibility.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I shall be brief. As one who was on the staff of the then London County Council I was much involved with work at County Hall. From County Hall, in those far-off days, flowed policies, inspiration and reform beneficial to Londoners and, indeed, to the country. That statement was made by my noble friend Lord Beloff.
I have long had a connection with the Social Studies Department of the London School of Economics at Houghton Street, which I still have today. I know some of the difficulties of the students and staff who work in cramped conditions in a dark building. I support noble Lords who have pressed Her Majesty's Government to influence the residuary body to accept the application of the London School of Economics to purchase County Hall. A seat of learning on that site could be of intrinsic value to London, to the country and even overseas.
There are many students from all over Japan attending the London School of Economics. Furthermore, there is a close link between Toyota and the London School of Economics. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that there is no question of an objection to an application from another country for the site because there is already a connection between the London School of Economics and friends from Japan.
The question of finance was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lord Sharp and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I would add that the Houghton Street site is extremely valuable and will bring in a great deal of money.
I should like to say a few words about the lives of the students. I believe that students' lives would be greatly enhanced if the college was south of the river. Just imagine the students being able to go to the little restaurants south of the river; imagine them buying their fruit off the barrows south of the river and their T-shirts; and imagine them attending the Old Vic. I believe that siting the London School of Economics south of the river would, as my noble friend Lord

1175
Sharp said, add sparkle to the life of the South Bank. That would be greatly welcomed by people living south of the river.
I also believe that students would find it far easier to obtain accommodation near the London School of Economics on the South Bank than they do at present. Furthermore, being close to Waterloo Station and Waterloo Underground station students would find it much easier to travel from outside London or outer London into the college. Furthermore, as has been stated by other noble Lords, they would not travel at the same time as commuters and would not cause congestion on the railways.
A hotel and leisure centre have been proposed for the site. I point out that it was planned to have a leisure centre at Battersea Power Station and that proposal has not been successful. Furthermore, if there were a hotel on the County Hall site taxis would turn up merely to drive people to the West End; that would not contribute to the life of that part of London, which would be a great pity for the South Bank.
We should consider the needs of the London School of Economics and its students and staff, but we should also think of the people who live on the South Bank. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on this debate and consider not only the building and the seat of learning but also the social benefits that will flow from locating the London School of Economics on the South Bank.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, there is a link between this debate and the one which preceded it. In the course of that debate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the possibility of the Lyceum Theatre becoming the home of a new dance theatre. In this debate we are concerned with another building; we are considering the future of County Hall. If in the course of two successive debates we were able to do a little to bring appropriate life back to those two famous buildings, we should not have wasted our afternoon.
I approach the matter not from the point of view of the LSE, as other speakers have. I have no particular connection with the LSE other than one which I shall mention in a moment. However, I have a great affection for County Hall. It was in that building that I began a rather late post-war political career in the London County Council. At that time it was under the—I shall not say benevolent because that is hardly the word to describe Sir Isaac Hayward—beneficent guidance of that man who contributed a considerable amount to the life of London.
In my capacity as a councillor on the London County Council, I, with others, approached Sir Isaac Hayward. From those approaches came, among other things, the National Theatre. At that time the proposed plot for the National Theatre was in South Kensington. Sir Isaac allowed himself to be persuaded to provide a plot on the South Bank and so the National Theatre came alive. Once sold on the idea, Sir Isaac, who was a formidable man, put his shoulder
1176
to the wheel and from that moment on the building of the National Theatre and the further development of the South Bank became certain.
I have an affection for the building. In my view a very great deal has come out of it. More close to me personally were the great housing estates built by the London County Council, one of which was in Roehampton. If the Roehampton housing estate had not been built, I would never have become Member of Parliament for Putney in 1964. It provided a valuable source of Labour votes. As a result, I was for 15 years Labour Member of Parliament for Putney and for the past 10 years your Lordships have had to put up with me. So I have an affection for County Hall. I like to feel that I have contributed something to it; it certainly has contributed to London.
Had Labour won the last general election, it was intended to recreate a London government of some kind but I do not know whether we would have wanted it to go back to County Hall. However, the question did not arise. I cannot even guarantee that Labour will return in four years time or what will have happened to County Hall before then. In any case, the building has remained empty for long enough. Buildings do not remain unaltered when they are empty. They deteriorate both in physical and psychological ways. They deteriorate in the public mind. It is high time that both the Lyceum and County Hall were brought back into appropriate life.
In listening to this debate—I did not come to it with the degree of certainty with which some other noble Lords have come to it—I have been persuaded that this is the appropriate use for this building. It is an opportunity and if the chance is not taken, London could become much the poorer. The opportunity ought to be seized.
Would this historic building be suitable for this new purpose? I believe that it would be eminently suitable. I said that before I sat down I would mention my own late connection with the LSE. People at the LSE collect the papers of people who have been active in politics. It seems to me extraordinary, but they have shown an interest in mine. If by any chance this project were to go ahead, it would make a rather nice full circle for the beginning and ending of my career to be located in County Hall, as it were. I would not be alone.
I join other noble Lords in expressing the hope that the Government will look kindly on the proposal placed before them so persuasively this evening. I hope that the answer which we shall receive in a few moments will be of the kind that we all want to hear.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I speak as the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. The Survey of London (which published its excellent monograph on County Hall under our auspices in 1991) reminds us in that publication that County Hall came to exemplify the virtues of a lost age:
"good, traditional materials firmly used … a civilised pile worthy of its splendid position".

1177
Sir Hugh Casson, recalling his visits to County Hall when he was working on the Festival of Britain, said:
"it was a daily delight to pace those generously spaced and handsomely panelled corridors and to wonder at the diligence and detailed attention of the designers".
Therefore we are speaking of a building which enhances the South Bank and all London. I hope that we shall think long and hard before accepting any proposals for future use which might have the effect of submerging Knott's main or Riverside Building, a listed building, in some larger, amorphous and incongruous development.
The Anglo-Japanese consortium, whose proposals for a hotel and new office buildings were under consideration in 1989 to 1990, and are so again, had just such plans. The proposed Belvedere and Addington centres which were to constitute the hotel and the offices would have dwarfed the Knott building and were properly judged unacceptable on planning grounds.
The Department of the Environment's own guidelines rule that the best use for a historic building is obviously the use for which it was designed. It seems to me that the London School of Economics, with its great international reputation, would meet that criterion well, if it can find the money.
I first entered County Hall as a schoolgirl from a London secondary school. I went there to compete for one of the modern language scholarships which were then awarded upon examination. I still remember the sense of space, strength, dignity and civic pride which the building conveyed. County Hall needs preserving as a major London public building. The LSE, one of London's great institutions, needs a central and prestigious site for the advancement of learning. I also strongly support the argument of my noble friend Lady Faithfull for better serving the housing needs of LSE students. It seems to me of critical importance that they should have access to relatively inexpensive housing and good communications which a move by LSE to the South Bank would provide. It could also bring more employment and more money, as my noble friend Lord Sharp pointed out, to a relatively deprived area on a long-term continuing basis.
I recognise that the London Residuary Body has a duty to secure the best possible offer. Fortunately, the Secretary of State has the power to set aside such an offer, as he has done before. I suggest that the positive human investment at national level resulting from enabling the LSE to function in the best possible circumstances and enabling students to live and work in conditions under which they will be free to learn with the least possible stress should also be reflected in the balance sheet. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will urge the Secretary of State to exercise his powers in favour of the LSE solution.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to whom we are extremely grateful for initiating this debate, I have a personal interest in the LSE, which I should declare. When I came down from Cambridge, I spent a year at LSE. I must admit that the contrast was somewhat bizarre. Even in those days
1178
there was a basement lecture room which boasted rats, which I had not experienced on the Cam. I then spent 10 years in industry and returned to stay for over 30 years on the staff of the LSE.
I should like to start by stressing how urgently necessary it is that somehow or other the LSE should have better physical accommodation. There is a limit to what can be done by buying up every building that becomes available in the area. It is an inefficient way to deal with space. The provision is simply not worthy of the work that is undertaken there. The need for new premises cannot be denied.
There is also an undoubted need to preserve County Hall. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out, the resurrection of County Hall is to await the success of the Labour Party, I suspect that County Hall might find itself in rather a bad state before it is resurrected.
However, neither of the two points that I have made is the major reason that I beg the Government to look favourably at the opportunity for the LSE to move into County Hall. For decades the LSE has been a centre of study for students from overseas. By its nature it is an international institution. I remember one year that someone took a count. We had 42 different nationalities among the students studying at the LSE. I have always found it difficult to work out all those nationalities; I cannot get as far as 42. But that is what I was told. There is no doubt that the tradition of students coming from all over the world has continued and extended. It is even more the case today than when I was on the staff.
One must consider not only the European Community but the global economy in which we have to operate. At the formative stages of their lives, with education on an international level young people meet a variety of other students from other countries. They get to know them, become friends, exchange visits with them and establish invaluable industrial, economic and political links. It is the time of life when those people's attitudes are developed and remain with them. There can be no question but that if at the student stage people make friends, exchange ideas and share studies with people from a variety of cultures they are infinitely better prepared to cope with the world of the 21st century than if they are educated in a single-nation institution with perhaps a marginal number of students from overseas.
On trade and political terms it is very important to encourage an institution which already has a vast international base to its studies. In particular I believe that if the LSE can get into the riverside site there is a very good chance that it could become the European centre for social studies. That is an important area of studies. There are those to whom the mere words "social studies" are anathema. But they include such studies as economics—which I believe is a respectable study these days even among the most prejudiced—psychology, political science and even the much despised sociology (which no doubt will come into its own again sooner or later). It also has an important research and training element for people who will work in social sciences and in the social services, both in this country and overseas.

1179
Other speakers have drawn your Lordships' attention to the number of distinguished people in political life overseas who have been educated at the LSE. It used to be our boast that we had trained all revolutionaries in the old British Empire—for better or worse, is a matter for your Lordships to decide. However, we also trained, and continue to train, a great many people who went back to their own countries to establish social services, to work on the economies of those countries and to lay the foundations to raise the standard of living of those countries. That has not gone far enough, but it will go much further and much faster if students from those countries come to this country, and mingle with students at the formative stage of their education.
Although it used not to be so in my time, there are a large number of German students at the LSE. It is a great opportunity to establish a real European centre of social sciences at the LSE. The institution already has a great reputation which may be much greater outside the shores of the United Kingdom than inside this country: the prophet is without honour. Perhaps the best evidence of the feeling for the LSE from people overseas who have studied there is indicated by the great library which has been established. The late Lord Robbins went twice round the world visiting old students in a variety of countries when the money was being raised for the library. Without the contribution of overseas students, the library could not possibly have been completed on the scale that now exists.
The school cannot maintain standards in its present premises. An unrivalled opportunity, which will not arise again, exists to reinforce the work that it does, to give the LSE a chance to expand and to deliver the education services that will be needed in this decade and in the next millenium.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing this Question to our attention. I immediately declare an interest in the London School of Economics. It is the only place that has given me a job for the past 27 years—but that should not be held against the London School of Economics.
However, I do not speak as an advocate of the LSE's interest but on behalf of the party in opposition. Being at the LSE and belonging to the Labour Party are not as common as people may think. Professor Harold Laski, whom the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to, managed to be disliked both by the director of the LSE and the Leader of the Labour Party. I shall try to do better than he did.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, pointed out with reference to the DES circular of 1987, the best use for a listed building is the use for which it is designed. We are quite clear that the County Hall is designed for London government. We would prefer County Hall to exist for London government. I cannot join with my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, or the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in taking a defeatist position on the prospect of a Labour Government.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if I may interrupt, I do not take any such defeatist position.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am glad to hear that. However, if we cannot have a London government in County Hall, we prefer that County Hall be put to public rather than private use. The Labour Party spokesman on arts in another place stated that it is important that we regard the use of the site as a matter of public gain and not private profit. We definitely prefer County Hall to be devoted to some public use.
Many noble Lords have made an eloquent case why the London School of Economics should have the use of County Hall. However, let me deal with the problem of the LRB. The LRB has the duty to sell County Hall to the highest bidder. To that there are several caveats, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out. The Secretary of State can indeed give directions that can override the LRB's duty. The LRB has the power to request the Secretary of State's permission to dispose of the property at other than the best price available. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already given examples.
Does London need another luxury hotel? Does any city need a luxury hotel? I doubt it. I ask the Government about the wisdom of selling the building, for, let us say, £60 million —we do not know the exact sum—for use as a luxury hotel. The money could arrive in October 1993.
In the meantime, what is the cost of maintaining County Hall and who is paying for that? I have estimates showing that the cost of providing security in County Hall in order that it does not deteriorate even faster runs into millions of pounds. Is the cost as much as £30 million? Will the delay in disposing of County Hall cost us money and, if so, who will pay? Will the cost be set against the £60 million or will it come out of the taxpayers' pockets?
As regards other problems, many noble Lords have pointed out the aspect of our national heritage. In a previous public inquiry into the use of County Hall the inspector said, in criticising the LRB's case:
"It is also apparent to me that the procedure followed for the disposal of this building, given its quality and the need to sustain its historic authenticity"—
I emphasise the phrase "historic authenticity"—
"might be regarded as less than satisfactory".
If we are to preserve the building, which has been described in fulsome terms by other noble Lords and which is part of our national heritage, we must now consider whether we are making a choice which will irretrievably remove it from public life or whether we are making a short-term monetary gain. In the meantime we are spending money to save the building from deterioration. The commercial gain may not be worth it, but even if there were to be a commercial gain we should set that off against the possibility that we shall not have another chance to build a similar building for £60 million.
Coming late in the debate I do not wish to speak at length. Several noble Lords have made the case for the London School of Economics, pointing out its international reputation, its contribution to public life here and abroad and the prospect of it using the building profitably for itself and for the nation as a

1181
European centre for social studies. It has also been pointed out that this is not an anti-Japanese move. My noble friend Lord Judd said that the LSE has intimate relations with Japanese businessmen and so forth.
I ask the Government to rethink now. Is it the case, as we have heard, that the company which plans to buy the site is buying only the riverside site? How does the LRB intend to dispose of the other buildings? Given the delay in disposing of the site since 1976 how much longer will it take to dispose of the site unconnected with the Shirayama purchase? Secondly, will further planning permission be required by the Japanese developers or do their proposals closely match those of the County Hall development group? If so, will the objections raised against the plans of the County Hall development group be sustained against the present plans? How much does it cost to keep the building unoccupied and how much will it continue to cost if only part of the building is sold? We are hoping for an answer which will be at least encouraging if not a firm yes.
8.5 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is clear from this afternoon's interesting and useful debate that the future of County Hall is a subject which has the power to raise strong feelings. That is not surprising when we consider what a fine building it is and how prominent it stands as a landmark on the London scene, and one which is so visible from this House. I can assure your Lordships that my colleagues in government are fully aware of the importance which people such as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and my noble friend Lady Park, attach to County Hall. For that reason, we are determined to ensure that the decision taken on its future is the right one.
It might be helpful if I first cover the legal position. The Local Government Act 1985, which abolished the former Greater London Council, established the London Residuary Body and gave it the responsibility for disposing of land and property formerly owned by the GLC. The Act also placed the residuary body, when disposing of land, under the same statutory obligations as those which are binding on local authorities under the terms of the Local Government Act 1972. This means that the residuary body is prohibited from disposing of County Hall for any consideration less than the best that can be reasonably obtained in the interests of local chargepayers in London. To dispose of it for any less than that would require the consent of the Secretary of State.
As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Secretary of State has such powers which have been exercised in circumstances described. However, each case must be judged with regard to the specific circumstances. It was with that clear statutory obligation in mind that the London Residuary Body entered into its agreement with Shirayama. The exact price agreed to constitutes commercially-sensitive information, particularly when one takes into account the fact that the other buildings on the site are to be sold.
That agreement relates to the riverside building
1182
only and provides for the sale of that building to Shirayama to be completed in October of next year. It also provides a power for the residuary body—but not Shirayama—to be able to withdraw from that agreement at any time up to the end of this year in return for the payment of compensation.
I cannot accept the suggestion which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the Shirayama proposals represent a use which is unworthy of County Hall. On the contrary, to address a point put forward by my noble friend Lady Faithful], a major new hotel with associated conference centre, offices and shops could do a great deal to bring new life and new jobs to the South Bank and it would be a significant attraction for visitors from overseas—
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I did not say that I agreed with the proposal. I do not agree.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's comment that she did not agree with the proposal, I am saying that I agree that such a development will do a great deal to bring new life to the area.
A major anxiety for my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State in his consideration of the planning application was that the architectural and historic features of the riverside building, including the famous council chamber, should be respected. There is now another alternative proposal before us from the London School of Economics, which the noble Baroness has referred to in her Question, and which has occupied so much of our debate this afternoon.
Many noble Lords have this afternoon indicated that there are a number of features of the proposal which could prove attractive, not least the extent to which a development on those lines might stimulate interest and attract talent and resources from overseas, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dain ton. Noble Lords will be aware that the LSE has obtained planning consent from the London Borough of Lambeth for the change of use of the riverside building for the school application, together with the renewal of the existing permissions for the utilization of the other buildings as offices.
Those proposals raise wider issues which will need careful consideration by my ministerial colleagues. There is, however, one further point that I wish to make. It is, I believe, unlikely that the LSE, with the resources available to it, including those that might be raised by the sale of its existing premises in Houghton Street, would be in a position to offer a higher price for County Hall than that which could be obtained by disposing of the site through other channels. It must be remembered, in this context, that the agreement which the residuary body has entered into with Shirayama relates to the riverside building only.
I do not say this with the intention of ruling out the proposals put forward by the LSE, but rather to indicate that this potential reduction in the amount of consideration to be received for the County Hall site as a whole is one of the factors to be taken into account when assessing the merits of the proposals put

1183
forward by the LSE. That is particularly true in the light of the statutory obligation on the residuary body, to which I referred earlier, to dispose of County Hall for the best price that can be obtained in the interests of the chargepayers of London.
Perhaps I may now deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate. To answer the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the LSE has had access to all the plans and structural records relating to County Hall. I am aware of its wish to obtain physical access to the building in order to carry out a full structural survey. The Government are considering the feasibility of that request.
Secondly, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, the Secretary of State has already granted planning permission, upheld in the courts, for the conversion of County Hall into a hotel and conference centre. The permission is subject to stringent conditions, with which Shirayama would need to comply, which are designed to protect the appearance of the riverside building. Changes to the interior require listed building consent which is a strict form of control again intended to ensure that internal features of the building are protected and that alterations are congruent with its character.
Thirdly, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I appreciate that the LSE's existing premises at Houghton Street leave a great deal to be desired. I appreciate also the exciting possibilities which the LSE is considering to mark its centenary. However, it is clear that there must be other sites, other premises, which may be able to provide for the kind of development which the LSE has in mind. The Government are considering whether County Hall is the place in which to house the future development of the school.
1184
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, the LRB allows £6 million per year for the upkeep of County Hall. That sum covers heating, maintenance, security and insurance. In addition to that, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked how the LRB intends to dispose of the other buildings. Bearing in mind that the agreement with Shirayama covers just the riverside building, the other buildings will be sold in parallel with that.
I assure the House that my colleagues will weigh very carefully all those considerations with the firm intention of reaching a decision which is in the best interest of Londoners and the country.
Lord Desai: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he confirm whether it is true that the LRB has sold Jubilee Gardens to the Arts Council for £1?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not have that information in front of me at present but, off-hand, I believe that that is the case.

Mauritius Republic Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Statutory Instruments
A message was brought from the Commons that they have appointed a Select Committee of seven members to join with the Committee of this House, and that they have ordered that their Select Committee do meet the Committee of this House as proposed in the message from this House of Wednesday last.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  SHEEP SCAB CONTROL
  SHEEP SCAB CONTROL
  VAUXHALL CROSS
  VAUXHALL CROSS
  HOUSING MANAGEMENT: COMPETITIVE TENDERING
  HOUSING MANAGEMENT: COMPETITIVE TENDERING
  GORDON'S GIN: ADVERTISING
  GORDON'S GIN: ADVERTISING
  VIETNAM: FUNDING FOR NGO PROJECTS
  VIETNAM: FUNDING FOR NGO PROJECTS
  TAXICARD SCHEME: THE DISABLED
  TAXICARD SCHEME: THE DISABLED
  EUROPEAN CIVIL AVIATION MEETING, 17th MARCH
  EUROPEAN CIVIL AVIATION MEETING, 17th MARCH
  VILLAGES: VEHICLE SPEED CONSTRAINT
  VILLAGES: VEHICLE SPEED CONSTRAINT
  LIGHT RAIL SCHEMES: FUNDING
  LIGHT RAIL SCHEMES: FUNDING
  SOVIET FORCES IN THE BALTIC STATES
  SOVIET FORCES IN THE BALTIC STATES
  OVERSEAS CAPITAL PROJECTS: ADVICE
  OVERSEAS CAPITAL PROJECTS: ADVICE
  EC: ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
  EC: ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
  RIVER ACHELOOS, GREECE
  RIVER ACHELOOS, GREECE