Sitting of 10 June 1992

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
PRICE'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [Lords]
ULSTER BANK BILL [Lords]
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Europe Open for Business
    Mr. French: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses have responded to his Department's Europe Open for Business initiative.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): More than 400,000 requests for information have been received by the European Open for Business campaign since March 1988, including 266,000 calls to the hotline.
    Mr. French: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of this initiative. What further measures does he propose to assist business after January, when the market starts? What representations has he received from business about the way in which it feels it can best be assisted to take the greatest advantage of single market opportunities?
    Mr. Needham: I will pass my hon. Friend's congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who must take the credit as I was in other parts during the successful campaign. There is an immense amount to be done, not least in the enforcement and implementation of the single market. In the summer I shall certainly have discussions with industry about how we can develop the next part of our strategy for ensuring that British industry can take advantage of the single market and that the single market is working effectively.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister think it part of the success of the European Open for Business campaign that thousands of British jobs, including precious high-tech jobs from INMOS in my constituency, are being syphoned off to European countries? Why has his Department built a Chinese wall around itself, refusing to reply to messages from hon. Members and the managing director of INMOS who are begging the Department to set up practical partnership arrangements with INMOS to save high-tech
    290
    jobs that have a great future? If France and Italy are prepared to invest in British industry and technology, why is the Department not prepared to?
    Mr. Needham: As far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has not yet been on the telephone to me. The number is 215 4301, and there is no Chinese wall around my office. The single market presents enormous opportunities for our industry. Now that Britain has returned a Conservative Government who are setting the right atmosphere and the right mood of confidence for industry, thousands of jobs will be created.
    Mr. Adley: As one who has been on the telephone to my hon. Friend at the weekend about a company in my constituency, may I thank him for his assiduous attention to duty? At an early date, will he give me a report by telephone or note about the progress that he is able to offer the company, Lovaux, on its current problems?
    Mr. Needham: I shall phone my hon. Friend later this afternoon.

    Recession
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to meet representatives of the south-east CBI to discuss the effects of the recession on industry.
    The President of the Board of Trade and secretary of State for Trade and industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have no meetings planned with the CBI's south-east regional council in the immediate future, although I met the CBI's national manufacturing council on 29 April and I often meet individual CBI member companies.
    Mr. Gapes: Why, given the jobs crisis in the south-east, has the Minister no such meetings planned? In view of the crisis in docklands and especially in Canary Wharf, the difficulties with the channel tunnel project and his so-called initiatives for east London corridors—we do not hear much about them at the moment—why is he doing nothing to deal with the serious jobs crisis in my constituency, where 4,600 people are out of work and the total is rising every month? One in nine people is out of work and we want jobs now.
    Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman misstates the contribution that the Government have made. We have brought down interest rates by 5 per cent. over the past 12 months and secured a level of inflation that is extremely attractive compared with that of our competitors. Above all else, to help the recovery of our economy we have kept the Labour party out of power.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend intend to explain to the CBI the significance of his adopting the title President of the Board of Trade? Does the board, which is potentially the most powerful of all Cabinet Committees, now meet?
    Mr. Heseltine: The Board of Trade has not met for many decades, except in a celebratory mode to commemorate its 200 years of success. If it were to meet, it would be attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would doubtless give inspiration to those Opposition Members who are looking for an industrial strategy.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: I welcome the Minister to his new post. Will he confirm that, despite what he says, his Insolvency Service is predicting that insolvencies will rise to 35,000 this year? That will represent an appalling 60 per cent. increase in the number of business failures. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the industrial policy that he once supported included investment in a research tax credit, a training levy, strengthened regional policy and reorganised export services, all measures that should be implemented immediately? Will he explain why action man is failing to act? Has the right hon. Gentleman exchanged his principles for his presidency?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have merely exchanged the Department of the Environment for the Department of Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that his ideas were very much the discussion basis of the recent general election. Having failed to persuade the country, it is extremely unlikely that he can persuade the House.
    Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the reductions in interest rates that have already taken place. May 1 humbly suggest to him that a further reduction may well be necessary?
    Mr. Heseltine: I shall take the liberty of passing on my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Regeneration
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet representatives of the TUC and of the south-east region of the CBI to discuss prospects for regeneration.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—[interruption] The answer is worth waiting for. I have no such plans at present.
    Mr. Mackinlay: If the President were to meet representatives of employers and workers in south-east England, what excuses would he advance for the record number of liquidations in the first quarter of the year and for the fact that 800 jobs are being lost in the region every day? What excuse would he offer to Essex man and Essex woman, who are enduring unemployment of 66,000 in their county this year?
    Mr. Heseltine: I would offer no excuse. I would merely say that the country has to fight its way out of one of the worst recessions that we have seen since the war, and that it must do that against a background of all similar capitalist nations facing similar problems. The only way in which we shall succeed in fighting our way out is to excel in the increasingly competitive world that we face.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the part of the south-east that I represent the Government arc already showing clear signs that they recognise the certainty that Kent will lead the regeneration of the region? They are already spending millions of pounds on the necessary infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all the forecasts suggest that the volume of trade passing through and settling in Kent will be such that Kent will need to receive continued Government support?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to ask that question. The level of Government support is substantial
    292
    in terms of the infrastructure plans that are already under way and those that will unfold as the decade proceeds. It is a fact that the part of south-east England that my hon. Friend represents is bound to benefit enormously from the completion of the single European market. The scale of the benefit will depend very much on the entrepreneurial ability of British companies to react to it.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Hall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consulations he has had with the chairman of British Coal concerning future long-term contracts with the electricity generating companies.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I meet the chairman of British Coal on regular occasions and discuss a variety of issues.
    Mr. Hall: That is a remarkable answer from a Department that now claims to be interventionist in industrial policy. Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, before the privatisation of the electricity generating industry, it was announced that Fiddlers Ferry, a coal-fired power station in my constituency, was to use 2 million tonnes of imported low-sulphur coal a year? That would serve only to worsen our balance of trade deficit and to threaten jobs in the Lancashire coalfield, where Parkside is the only remaining pit, and it would leave us with sulphur dioxide emissions of 70,000 tonnes a year. Will the right hon. Gentleman now take urgent action to reduce coal imports, negotiate with British Coal to ensure that the power generating companies have a long-term coal plan, stop the dash for gas, invest in clean coal technology and rein back opencast mining?
    Mr. Eggar: No. It is not an appropriate role for Government to stop coal imports, nor could we under our international obligations. However, I am confident of British Coal's ability at some collieries, particularly at the inland coal generating plants, to compete with coal imports. It must be the priority of all hon. Members to ensure that British Coal becomes world competitive. I am confident that it can.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the size of the contracts to be concluded between the coal industry and the generators, not the shape of the privatisation, that will determine the size of the coal industry in the future? Can he tell the House when he expects those contracts to be concluded?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware, as I am sure the House is, of the importance of those commercial contracts to the future structure and size of the British coal industry. I understand that negotiations are taking place between the generating companies and British Coal and the regional electricity companies and the generating companies. They are commercial negotiations, but I am taking a close interest in them.
    Mr. Redmond: What discussions has the Minister had with the chairman of British Coal on importing dirty fuel?
    Mr. Eggar: As I have already said, I have had a number of discussions with the chairman of British Coal on a variety of matters. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware,

    293
    British Coal has alleged that coal has been dumped by certain countries, and those allegations are with the European Commission.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to ensure that long-term contracts for British coal continue is to ensure that research and development into efficient and clean coal-burn technology continues? Does my hon. Friend have plans to ensure that our lead in that area is maintained, even after privatisation, by ensuring that the Coal Research Establishment at Stoke Orchard survives?
    Mr. Eggar: I am well aware of the importance that my hon. Friend and others attach to clean coal and new coal-burning technologies and we shall take that into account as we go through the consultation process on the road to privatisation.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister recall that the Government's merchant bank advisers, Rothschild, advised the Secretary of State to intervene directly in the negotiations between the generators and British Coal to ensure that British Coal obtained high-take, long-term contracts? Will the hon. Gentleman take that advice and intervene; or is this yet another example of his having no such plans at the moment?
    Mr. Eggar: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening. I made it clear that I understood that commercial discussions and negotiations were going on. I also made it clear that I am keeping a close watch on them.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Would not limits on coal imports effectively be placing the interests of the coal industry above those of its customers, which include many energy-intensive industries employing millions of people in jobs which may well be lost if those industries are forced to rely on high-price domestic coal? Are not such trade barriers ultimately self-defeating —first for the protected industry which simply becomes cosseted and inefficient, secondly for its customers, who have to buy high-priced goods, and thirdly for the economy as a whole?
    Mr. Eggar: As usual, my hon. Friend has put his point effectively and well. We are doing no one any favours by artificially raising energy prices both for the domestic consumer and for the major energy users. I remind my hon. Friend that, since 1979, the Government have made about £17 billion available to British Coal; that works out at a third of a million pounds for every one of the 50,000 people now employed in collieries, and it shows the extent of the subsidies and other assistance given to British Coal by this Government.

    Monopolies and Mergers
    Mr. Watson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received on policy for monopolies and mergers within the banking and financial sector.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I have received a number of representations on the bid for the Midland bank by the Hong Kong and Shanghai banking corporation, and on the possible offer made by Lloyds bank, which has now been withdrawn.
    Mr. Watson: The threat of a Lloyds takeover of the Midland bank has now been withdrawn, but had the takeover gone ahead it would have posed a threat to thousands of jobs and, possibly, hundreds of bank branches. Will the President of the Board of Trade take account of his own advice now that he is Secretary of State? According to that advice, in the event of a takeover bid involving a company with more than 500 employees, that company should involve its employees in consultation plans with a view to implementation of the takeover, and the bidder should be required to show that any benefit resulting from the takeover would be in the wider national interest.
    Why did the President of the Board of Trade show such interest in takeovers before he returned to government, and why, now that he is back in government, has no Government action been taken on this important matter?
    Mr. Hamilton: The Government take the national interest into account in all mergers and takeovers. If the Lloyds bid had gone ahead, it would have been examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which would have considered both its benefits and its disadvantages. The Government's policy is perfectly clear; it is as it always has been. We look to competition, but not exclusively to competition: the national interest may well be wider.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I welcome the likelihood that, for the foreseeable future, there will be four rather than three clearing banks in England and Wales. But are my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade happy that those four banks should have 90 per cent. of the corporate lending market? Has not that effective oligopoly enabled the banks to achieve a remarkable success in driving through an increase in their margins and charges at a time of falling loan demand, in a recession? Will my hon. Friend ask the Office of Fair Trading to take a thorough look at the whole position?
    Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to keep that question under review. My hon. Friend will be aware that, last year, the director general considered whether there was any evidence of collusion, anti-competitive practice or exploitative behaviour by the banks in their relations with small businesses. He concluded at that time that there were no grounds for action under competition legislation, but it is open to him to institute an investigation at any time if he thinks fit.

    Petroleum Engineering Department
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to relocate the petroleum engineering department from London to Aberdeen.
    Mr. Eggar: The arguments for and against relocating the Department's petroleum specialists to Aberdeen are being considered in depth by independent consultants. I await their report and conclusions.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Has not the consultation being going on for a considerable time? If it is not obvious that the PED should be relocated in Aberdeen, will the Minister tell us what factors are persuading him that that may not be a good idea?
    Mr. Eggar: The independent consultants' study has begun, and I hope to receive the results in August. We are committed to publishing it, and I shall of course take account of its findings in reaching a final decision.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend refer the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) to the Scottish Conservative manifesto? It stated unequivocally that, should the independent inquiry say yes to relocation, the Government were committed to relocating the PED, and that in the meantime it would be entirely wrong to pre-empt the inquiry.
    Mr. Eggar: I agree, and I pay tribute to the energy with which my hon. Friend has made me aware of his concerns— and those of his constituents—about the relocation of the PED.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister assure the House that the comments that he made on Monday about the high cost of operating in Aberdeen were not an attempt to soften us up for the decision not to relocate to Aberdeen? Does he accept that the industry would like the jobs to be located in Aberdeen, as that would increase efficiency? The comparison with America, therefore, is hardly relevant. Will he put pressure on the Scottish Office to make the necessary infrastructure investment in north-east Scotland, which would help to reduce operating costs?
    Mr. Eggar: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the comments that I made in Aberdeen about the potential long-term problem of moving to Aberdeen's higher-cost base do not show that I have formed any view about the PED. I am deliberately keeping an open mind until I receive the consultants' report.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order later.

    Ealing Enterprise
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funding his Department has provided to Ealing Enterprise; and what estimate he has made of the number of jobs created.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): Ealing Enterprise received pump priming in its start-up phase and is now supported by the West London training and enterprise council.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ealing Enterprise was founded by me and that it has been a source of many jobs for my constituents and others? Will he put more money into it and commend its excellent example to other parts of the country?
    Mr. Leigh: Most Members are just Members, but my hon. Friend is Mr. Ealing. The whole House will recognise that he is one of the most dedicated and conscientious constituency Members. The enterprise agency that he founded has been successful. It has been helped by us in the past and it has created more than 1,200 jobs. Enterprise agencies are central to our strategy of creating
    296
    the enterprise culture which so transformed the economy in the 1980s and resulted in there now being more than 3 million businesses in this country.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte report on inward investment relate to London, and in particular to Ealing, in the same way as it relates to the northern region, in so far as it makes recommendations about assisted area status? What is the report's status? Is it a consultative document? Will it be debated by the House before Ministers make recommendations? Will we have the opportunity to question Ministers on the contents of the report, which has major implications for my constituents?
    Mr. Leigh: One thing is absolutely certain: the report has nothing to do with Ealing Enterprise.

    GATT
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations.
    Mr. Needham: Talks are continuing between the United States and the European Community to try to resolve their remaining differences, principally over agriculture. That is essential to open the way to wider agreement in the round.
    Mr. Taylor: Has my hon. Friend noted the forecast that a successful conclusion of the GATT talks could lead to an increase in world trade in goods and services of £110 billion a year? With the safeguards for countries in the developing world, might not the benefits of such a successful conclusion be far more in the long-term interest of those countries than the discussions in Rio, with all the media attention focused on them? May we have more media attention focused on the GATT round?
    Mr. Needham: I entirely agree that a successful outcome to the GATT round would lead to an increase in trade, as suggested by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, of £110 billion. That wealth creation can produce the tax stream that can do so much to improve the lot of the third world and, above all, its terrible environmental problems.
    Mr. Madden: To ensure confidence in the British textile and clothing industry, will the Minister say when the Government will announce a further extension to the multi-fibre arrangement?
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the multi-fibre arrangement will finish at the end of this year, and the method of replacing it is tied up with the GATT negotiations. I still believe that it is probable rather than possible that we shall be able to reach some agreement on GATT, but, failing that, I assure him that the Government will ensure that arrangements are put in place to cover the future of the MFA.

    Monopolies and Mergers Commission
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the legislation preventing a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry reconvening to review the effect of its recommendations.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Where appropriate, the Director General of Fair Trading may be asked to review the effectiveness of measures taken following a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He also has a general duty to keep markets under review. Where he has concerns about the competitive situation, he may ask the MMC to look again at markets that have been the subject of previous investigation by the commission.
    Mr. Field: May I be the first Conservative Member to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment? As he saved the nation from the roof tax in a memorable speech, I hope that I can invite him to save the nation from a number of perverse decisions by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—such as the decision on the brewers, which has thoroughly upset all the landlords and beer drinkers of the nation, the decision on gas prices which has put the horticulturalists in a parlous state, and the report on Isle of Wight ferries which said that we had the most expensive ferries in the world but drew no conclusions. Will my hon. Friend either amend the legislation so that in future the Monopolies and Mergers Commission must reconvene within nine months to reconsider the results of its actions, or abolish that last reservoir of state-subsidised socialism for ever?
    Mr. Hamilton: I cannot satisfy my hon. Friend on his last point, but he may be aware that the chairmanship of the commission becomes vacant later in the year. If he would like to apply for the job, he might be able to sort it out himself.

    Recession
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from businesses in the north-west concerning the effects of the recession on industry.
    Mr. Heseltine: Ministers and officials of my Department receive considerable correspondence about the state of business in the north-west.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Given that two Tory recessions have cost a third of a million manufacturing jobs in the north-west and that last year 4,130 businesses in the north-west went bust—a 54 per cent. increase on the previous year—would not Ministers be better served by changing their approach and policies rather than the title of their Department?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is curious that the hon. Gentleman should ask me that question when, if his party had been elected to government, it would by now have refused to order the fourth Trident submarine and be threatening the nuclear industry in the north-west and slaughtering the defence budget on which so many companies there depend.
    Mrs. Peacock: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of the GATT negotiations not only to the textile industry in the north-west, but to Yorkshire. Can he assure the House that the Government will retain their robust position on the GATT round in the hope of a successful outcome for textiles as well as agriculture?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises perhaps the most important opportunity facing our companies. We are committed to doing everything in our power to press our
    298
    colleagues to reach an early conclusion to the GATT round, and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Hoyle: As the President of the Board of Trade has taken that rather pompous title, does it mean that he is no longer bothered about industry and energy, or can he tell the people of the north-west what he intends to do about all the industry that has been destroyed by the Government and about the last remaining pit which is hanging on by a thread?
    Mr. Heseltine: The fact that the hon. Gentleman somehow thinks that trade has nothing to do with industry or the price of energy is a devastating revelation of the ignorance of the attitudes of the Labour party.
    Mr. Sumberg: Does my right hon. Friend recall that before the election the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) came to the House to forecast doom and gloom for the north-west, saying that there would not be one Conservative seat left and that we should be completely decimated in that area? Should we not therefore take his forecasts with a large pinch of salt?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have not kept such a beady eye on the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend has. Perhaps I shall do so in the future, although on mature reflection I very much doubt whether I shall.

    Regional Policy
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's regional policy.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Government remain committed to an effective, well-focused regional policy.
    Mr. Hutton: Does the Minister agree that an important element of an effective regional policy for Britain in the 1990s, unlike the statement that he has just made, would include specific and targeted measures to help constituencies such as mine which are dependent on defence-related spending? Is he aware that tens of thousands of jobs in the defence industry have been lost since 1990? When will he present to the House a range of specific policies which will offer a reasonable prospect of secure employment to people in my constituency?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman that employment opportunities will be the major factor that we shall take into account in our review of the assisted areas map. The implications for employment opportunities of cutbacks in defence spending will be fully taken into account, along with all other relevant factors.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that business and commerce should always be based where they are most efficient, and that we therefore have no national cohesion policy?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government do not intend to try to dictate to industry or commerce where they should go. I recall industrial development certificates and, even more horrific, office development permits. I dare say that if the Labour party had its way we might return to those bad days.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As employment in the regions could be improved at a stroke by reducing interest rates, why does the Minister continue to support the exchange rate mechanism, which freezes those opportunities?
    Mr. Sainsbury: Interest rates have some influence on industry's decisions on investment and expansion, but currency stability also has a great influence, as do many other factors. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to take that into account.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend is examining the policies, will he look carefully at travel-to-work areas? In particular, will he note that in my constituency a travel-to-work area was created some years ago embracing Blairgowrie, Pitlochry and Aberfeldy? Anyone who knows the highland parts of Perthshire knows that it is nonsensical to describe that as a travel-to-work area.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend must be the most knowledgeable person about those areas, and I admit that I should like to know them better than I do. However, travel-to-work areas will be the basic building block of the review of the assisted areas map and there will be no fresh census data on which to reassess those areas until 1994. That would leave the review too late.
    Ms. Quin: In his book, "Where There's a Will", the President of the Board of Trade called for an active regional and industrial policy, but other DTI Ministers in the past have supported the anti-regional policies of the No Turning Back group. Will the Minister give a clear statement today that the DTI is turning its back on the No Turning Back group for good?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Lady, as I said in my original answer, that we have had and will continue to have not only an effective regional policy but an active one.
    Mr. Michael Brown: May I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the fact that when my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was in charge of regional policy up to the general election he promoted Government regional policy in my constituency by ensuring a Government grant of more than £12 million to the Kimberley-Clark factory, resulting in more than 750 jobs to be created next year—
    Madam Speaker: Order. What is the question?
    Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the presence in his Department of a distinguished member of the No Turning Back group clearly proves the Government's commitment to regional policy?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I share my hon. Friend's admiration for the skill with which our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) carried out his responsibilities for regional policy and I am glad to follow such an excellent record.

    Coal Prices
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards the attempts being made by the European Commission to establish a reference price for coal.
    Mr. Eggar: The Commission has put forward preliminary ideas on reference prices for coal as a device to restrain excessive levels of subsidies for coal mining in some member states. There is no suggestion that the Commission intends to subsidise Community coal production so that it is all sold at a reference price level. We support the Commission's aim of reducing unjustifiable subsidies.
    Mr. Williams: Is there not an appalling unfairness and absurdity in the fact that Britain, which produces the cheapest coal in Europe, is running down its coal industry while Germany, whose coal production is twice as expensive, is providing massive subsidies? What are the British Government doing to open up Europe's coal market?
    Mr. Eggar: I have made it clear that the European Commission is as concerned as we are about the subsidies offered to some coal-producing member states and has made proposals to reduce the level of subsidies which it currently pays. Although we have some doubts about the precise proposals, we support the broad thrust of the Commission's suggestions.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend and the House take note in response to an earlier question that Scotland is a supplier of low sulphur coal? May I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the reference price and urge him to take urgent action to ensure that our coal can be sold on a level playing field with other coal produced in Europe?
    Mr. Eggar: Yes, I share my hon. Friend's objective. Clearly, it is important that no artificial subsidies are available which distort market pricing.
    Mr. Morgan: In the light of the President of the Board of Trade's curiously forked-tongued speech yesterday to the annual conference of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, in which he said that he would not intervene in the relationships between British Coal and the two electricity generators, can the Minister tell the House what price and what length of coal supply contracts National Power and PowerGen should sign with British Coal to ensure long-term security of supply, long-term viability for the coalfield communities and his long-term friendship with Roy Lynk?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman should do my right hon. Friend the courtesy of reading his speech, which clearly he has not, or—if he has—he has misinterpreted it. His latter question is a commercial matter for the generating companies and British Coal.

    Textiles and Clothing
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the total value of exports by the textile and clothing industries in the first quarter of 1992.
    Mr. Leigh: They were £1.2 billion.
    Mr. Winterton: Although I am sure that the whole House will congratulate the textile and clothing industry on its record exports in the first three months of this year, does my hon. Friend accept that imports were also up, at a record £2.1 billion, that this important sector of our economy is finding it difficult to export to countries in Asia

    301
    and to the United States of America, which erected substantial barriers against us, and that overall we are, sadly, dangerously exporting our manufacturing base? What steps will my hon. Friend take to stand up for British industry and help the regeneration of our manufacturing base?
    Mr. Leigh: As my hon. Friend is the Member of Parliament for manufacturing, we always welcome his positive, helpful statements on these occasions. No doubt he will have noted that since the early 1980s manufacturing output is up by a quarter, productivity by a half and exports by three quarters. He himself has pointed out that exports are up by a record 9 per cent. in the first quarter. Imports have declined by 1 per cent. in the past year. The key point is that the textile industry has successfully restructured, as my hon. Friend knows, into higher-valued lines which ensure that we are competitive on world markets. My hon. Friend and others and I must work together to ensure that we have a successful GATT round as we phase out multi-fibre arrangements and unfair subsidies.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that a successful GATT round with adequate arrangements for the textile and clothing industry, which employs 450,000 people in this country, including 12,000 directly in Bradford, does not mean an efficient, well-organised, high-investment industry asking for special treatment or favours but one that is simply asking for fair competition, an end to dumping, and the prevention of outward processing and the many other abuses that it has had to face from other countries? Will the Minister assure us that he will not allow the Government to let down the textile and clothing industry and cause further losses in a manufacturing industry which is vital for our nation?
    Mr. Leigh: That was an excellent question and I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. He is right that the textile industry is vital and successful, as we have seen in the increase in the value of exports. The challenge now is to ensure that we have a successful GATT round. I have no doubt that when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade takes over the presidency of the trade part of the Community in July he will ensure a successful conclusion to the GATT round. I can assure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to a successful and competitive textile industry. Our textile industry now has nothing to fear from international competition because we are so competitive in the higher-valued brands. We shall ensure that MFAs are phased out fairly and properly.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Notwithstanding the excellent export performance of the textile industry, particularly carpet manufacturers, does my hon. Friend recognise that further progress in Europe depends on stopping national Governments giving illegal subsidies to various parts of their textile industries? For instance, five years on, £5 million has still not been repaid to the Belgium Government by Beaulieu, the world's biggest carpet manufacturer, and the Italian Government are still paying significant subsidies to textile machinery companies in Italy which are pricing British firms out of jobs.
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole purpose of the GATT round and our negotiations with the EC is to prevent unfair subsidies.
    Mr. Henderson: Since the Minister took over his new responsibilities, representatives of the textile and clothing industry will have made representations to him pointing out that that industry, perhaps more than any other, has been savaged by the current recession, with the loss of 70,000 jobs and perhaps many more job losses to come. Will the Minister accept, under his new boss, the responsibility that the Department of Trade and Industry and now the Board of Trade have to help companies to stop the job loss and to restructure their business? If the Minister accepts that responsibility, what measures does he propose?
    Mr. Leigh: That is precisely what companies are doing. They are restructuring their business because they realise that output in western countries has had to decline over a long period as a result of increased competition from low-value areas. Unfortunately, that restructuring involves a loss of labour because it involves new machinery. I do not know what the Labour party's policy on these matters is. Clearly, it has no policy except to make vague generalisations about throwing money at the problem—a policy which has failed in the past and would fail again.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the restructuring to which hon. Members have referred has come about largely because of the protection that the multi-fibre arrangement has given to companies, enabling them to make changes and to plan for the future? Does he agree that an equivalent of the multi-fibre arrangement must be included in the GATT talks if we are to ensure the successful continuation of the industry?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I can, indeed, give that assurance. Although the MFA will be phased out over a 10-year period, as the GATT round proceeds, there will be more than adequate safeguards for our own industry. That is absolutely essential, and there will be no weakening of our resolve on the matter.

    Petroleum Engineering Department
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to relocate the petroleum engineering department from London to Aberdeen.
    Mr. Eggar: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) a short time ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the fact that BP has decided to move its office from Glasgow to Aberdeen makes the case for the petroleum engineering department coming to Aberdeen even more compelling? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that his denigratory remarks in Aberdeen recently do not signify any intention to repudiate the Conservative party manifesto pledge to move the PED to Aberdeen?
    Mr. Eggar: I made no denigratory remarks in Aberdeen. I merely drew attention—quite understandably —to the need for Aberdeen to control its costs as a centre. I believe that Aberdeen is the offshore oil centre of Europe. It has done spectacularly well over the past 20 years, and I want to see it doing even better. I want it to be a Europewide centre, not just a United Kingdom continental shelf centre. Aberdeen has some things to do

    303
    to take advantage of those opportunities. I made that quite clear because oil companies had expressed to me their concern about the cost side. I repeat the assurance that I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that I have an open mind with regard to relocation. I am awaiting the report from the independent consultants. I have given a pledge that that report will be published and I will, of course, take account of what it says.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will not only consider moving the centre of offshore petroleum exploration, from London to Aberdeen, but will examine the possibility of moving to the AEA Technology site at Winfrith in my constituency, next door to the centre for onshore petroleum exploration? A new technology park is to be established there and a great deal of research work is already being done into petroleum technology. I am sure that a move to the site would be warmly welcomed.
    Mr. Eggar: I have listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend has said and I will look into the matter further.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister reconcile the enthusiasm with which the Government move thousands of civil servants to bail out the subsidy junkies in the London docklands with their reluctance to move 80 civil servants from opposite Buckingham palace to the centre of the oil industry in Aberdeen? What will happen to a party in Scotland that pledged before the election to move jobs to the north-east of Scotland if, after the election, it is seen to be conspiring to keep them in the south-east of England?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what was in the Scottish Conservative manifesto. He also knows perfectly well what I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have said. I suggest that he awaits the publication of the independent consultants' report and the decision that will be made taking account of that report and other matters.

    Egypt
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on trade with Egypt.
    Mr. Needham: Our commercial relations with Egypt are good. United Kingdom exports to Egypt have been just under £300 million annually. Imports have been just under £150 million.
    Mr. Dalyell: With a major railway contract between the Egyptian border and Tobruk, with 1 million or more Egyptians working in Libya and 5,000 or more British nationals working in Libya, what are the Egyptians saying about the imposition of the increasingly farcical sanctions and what is the cost of those sanctions to Britain? When Time magazine and the Pan Am lawyers—not exactly organs of the left—are saying that the target is wrong in respect of the Libyans who were, at most, operatives, will not the Government reconsider the whole question of sanctions, 'because the responsibility may lie in Teheran?
    Mr. Needham: I know the hon. Gentleman's views about sanctions on Libya, but I spent the past six and a half years seeing the consequences of Libyan Government actions through the Semtex, machine guns and rocket
    304
    which have been blowing up the people of Northern Ireland and its economy—and so far as I am concerned personally, I should like the sanctions to be even harder against Libya.

    Insolvency
    Mr. Battle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the workings of the Insolvency Act 1986.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The Insolvency Act 1986 has a number of major aims: to provide remedies against abuse of limited liability by company officers; to regulate the activities of insolvency practitioners; to simplify formal insolvency procedures to allow official receivers to concentrate on protective and investigative work and to introduce new voluntary procedures allowing those in difficulties to come to an arrangement with creditors. I am broadly satisfied that the Act is achieving these objectives, but my officials in the Insolvency Service executive agency continue to monitor its workings.
    Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that the Maxwell pensioners—and others, such as the Lewis's pensioners in Leeds—are trapped not only by faults in social security law, but by the inadequacies of the Insolvency Act 1986? Does he agree that the Government must amend that Act to ensure that occupational pensions are better protected and that they are not simply lost when a company goes under? If not, it would seem that the Maxwell episode is sadly proving to be the tip of a lost pensions iceberg.
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made a statement on Monday, an ingredient of which was that we should make provision under the Social Security Act 1990 to make deficits from pension funds that are wound-up a debt owed by the employer. The hon. Gentleman wants those debts to be made preferential. If that were done, it would be at the expense of other unsecured creditors of the company. It is not absolutely certain in welfare terms that that would be an improvement. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced a wide-ranging review of the law on pensions and that is one of the subjects that it would be appropriate to consider in connection with that review.

    Artefacts of Torture
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to deter the trade in artefacts of torture.
    Mr. Needham: The export of leg irons, shackles, gang chains and certain types of handcuff which may be misused against prisoners is already controlled by my Department. We pay great attention to the human rights records of other countries when deciding whether an export licence should be issued.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend accept that, just as it is right and proper that our overseas aid policy is geared to acceptable human rights in the countries to which our aid is targeted, the same should apply to our trade? Does my hon. Friend accept also that there is no way in which

    305
    any British firm should export devices which are either designed to be or turn out to be used as barbaric forms of torture or barbaric types of imprisonment, including the leg irons to which he has referred?
    Mr. Needham: Indeed, they should not. There is, of course, a difficulty whereby certain products which in normal use are perfectly safe can be misused and changed into measures of repression when they get to countries overseas. As I have said, my Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence keep a very close eye on this.
    Mr. Alton: How does the Minister justify the sale of such equipment—not just leg irons, but entire cells which have been used for the execution of political prisoners in totalitarian regimes—in contrast with another decision by his Department to deny to the Croatian Government the use of mine detection equipment for the humanitarian purpose of clearing mines from areas where civilians are living?
    Mr. Needham: I do not justify that, and I would not even attempt to do so. The point in my previous answer—I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to me—is that much of the equipment is exported and the exporting company has no idea that the equipment may be altered and used for the purposes that the hon. Gentleman describes. In those circumstances, it is impossible for the Government to stop the export of all sorts of equipment which, for the vast majority of the time, are perfectly proper products.
    Mr. Bellingham: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment. Is he aware that we are talking not only about artefacts of torture but about artefacts of execution? Is he aware that the Amnesty International report gives details of a set of gallows being exported from this country to a certain middle eastern country? Does he agree that that is totally unacceptable and must be stopped?
    Mr. Needham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. As he knows, that was a single incident. Once the company had discovered it, it dealt with those involved. I agree that it is totally unacceptable to export gallows from this country.

    Regional Policy
    Mr. Byers: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for regional policy.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The Government remain committed to an effective, well-focused regional policy. I announced to the House yesterday a review of the United Kingdom assisted areas map.
    Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that, since 1979, unemployment in the northern region has increased by 58 per cent. and that bankruptcies have increased by more
    306
    than 200 per cent? Will he explain why, at a time of rising unemployment and record bankruptcies, the Government have cut regional assistance to industry in the north by 85 per cent. in real terms? When will the Government discharge their responsibilities to the people of the north by investing in the north so that it can bring real jobs to the people living there?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said in my answer that the Government remain committed to an effective, well-focused regional policy. The focus, of course, can be improved by reviewing the assisted area map to take into account changes in employment, employment opportunities, industry and other factors in the region since the map was last drawn in 1984. The hon. Gentleman refers to the overall volume of expenditure. He will recall that there was a grant called regional development grant—RDG—which was remarkably unfocused, as I believe is generally agreed. Much of what was spent went on paying companies to do things that they were going to do anyhow.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Department is uniquely placed to consider which regions of Britain are best placed to have more Government Departments relocated there from London? While the whole House and, indeed, the whole country looks forward to the demolition of Marsham street, can my right hon. Friend ensure that only those jobs which need to remain in London will remain here and that as many as possible will be relocated to the regions, especially Yorkshire?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot give a guarantee to my hon. Friend, who is a great supporter of Yorkshire, but I can assure him that it has long been the Government's policy to relocate as many Government jobs as appropriate. I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said about the attractions of Yorkshire will have been carefully listened to by the Departments and will be taken into account when they come to make decisions about how many of their employees can be relocated and where they might best be relocated.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that if regional policy is to be more effective in the future than it has been in recent years it needs not only a commitment of resources but an ability to fine tune so that assistance can be given in areas where there may be substantial closures of companies? Will he give an undertaking to the House both that the resources will be available and that flexibility will be built in to do a real job?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I do not accept that regional policy has not been effective in the past, but I recognise the need for the policy to respond to changing circumstances. Indeed, that is why we are redrawing the map. Several of the instruments of regional policy, such as regional selective assistance, can take account of circumstances at any given moment in any given area.

  Points of Order
  Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: One at a time.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise briefly to raise two linked points of order. One is on hybridity and the other is on judicial cases before the courts. The second one, to which reference is made on page 378 of "Erskine May", is about whether there is a substantial risk that there will be prejudice to the trial of a case. There is authority for saying that legislation can overrule cases which bodies may bring before the courts, especially the civil courts. I should be grateful for guidance on how that might affect clause 52 of the Finance Bill.
  The second point of order is about hybridity, to which reference is made on pages 519 to 521 of "Erskine May". Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop referred to it in the 1975–76 Session as reported in Hansard, in volume 912, column 299. "Erskine May" says:
  "it is not easy to describe generally the ground on which such objections have been sustained or over-ruled."
  My question to you, Madam Speaker, is whether there is a way, other than on the Floor of the House, in which clause 52 of the Finance Bill in so far as it refers to the building societies should be referred to the examiners. If that is a question on which you require notice, I can happily wait until tomorrow.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should talk to the Public Bill Office about the matter. But I can tell him that the Bill to which he refers has been examined and it is not a hybrid Bill.
  The sub judice rule does not apply to proceedings on Bills in Committee. What is in order on clause 52 of the Finance Bill is a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee to which it has been referred.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It will be within the recollection of the House that when he answered Question 18 the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) most unusually gave expression to a personal opinion as a Minister. I do not doubt that it was strongly felt—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has excellent parliamentary manners and has been here a long time. He should not try an extension of Question Time on me. He seeks a further explanation. That should not be addressed to the Chair. I have heard enough of that and I have answered the hon. Gentleman correctly.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will remember that yesterday the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) raised a point of order on a matter which involved my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick). I gave the hon. Lady notice that I intended to raise the matter now. I seek your guidance. Before a packed House and on live television, the hon. Lady made allegations about my hon. Friend, suggesting that my hon. Friend had acted improperly. My hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Hillsborough denying the allegations
  308
  that she made in the House yesterday afternoon, and totally refuting the claim that my hon. Friend presented a petition at No. 10 Downing street.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Is that a point of order for me?
  Mr. Riddick: It is indeed. It is important that the record be put straight, and I want to ask you, Madam Speaker, how we can prevent such abuse of the procedures of the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have the perfect answer—right hon. and hon. Members can behave in a courteous and civilised way to one another.
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and it is on the record. I will not take any retrospective points of order. That matter is finished with.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appeal to you as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers. In a letter of 19 April, I raised a certain matter with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and did so again in questions to him and to other Secretaries of State on 3 February, 18 February, 14 May, 18 May, 19 May, and 22 May. Answering the first question on the Order Paper today, the Minister for Trade claimed that he was ignorant of the matters in question, and contemptuously gave me his telephone number—suggesting that I had not carried out my job in raising the matter. Will you, Madam Speaker, instruct Ministers that when right hon. and hon. Members raise intelligent questions, they should receive serious answers?
  Madam Speaker: Ministers are responsible for the answers that they give, and that matter is not for the Chair.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Is there another point of order. Yes —I thought as much. Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the end of the day, you, Madam Speaker, have something to do with questions to Ministers, because you decide whether or not they are in order. We could be placed in some difficulty in the near future because, according to some reports, at least two Cabinet Ministers—the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—are holding secret meetings. May we know the precise moment that they get the sack so that we may table our questions to the correct Minister? We want to know who is to answer them. May we be informed?
  Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is always most capable of addressing his questions to the correct Minister.
  Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On much the same subject—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It has been answered."] It is a totally new point of order.
  Madam Speaker: Then I need to hear it very rapidly.
  Mr. Enright: At the beginning of May, I tabled a written question to the President of the Board of Trade. By

  309
  19 May, the right hon. Gentleman replied that he would make an announcement shortly. Up to the present, no such announcement has been made. Is that not an abuse of the House?
  Madam Speaker: I hardly think that matter is for the Chair. It is for Ministers to answer when questions are put to them.

  Points of Order

    BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR 26 JUNE
    Members successful in the ballot were:

    Mr. Barry Field

    Mr. Dennis Skinner

    Lady Olga Maitland

  BILLS PRESENTED
    LOCAL. GOVERNMENT (OVERSEAS ASSISTANCE)
    Mr. Jim Lester, supported by Sir Michael Marshall, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Dr. Michael Clark, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Mr. Bowen Wells, Mr. John Bowis, Sir David Steel and Mr. Andrew Smith, presented a Bill to enable local authorities in Great Britain to provide advice and assistance as respects matters in which they have skill and experience to bodies engaged in local government outside the United Kingdom; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
    OSTEOPATHS
    Mr. Malcolm Moss, supported by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Alan Duncan, Sir Anthony Durant, Mr. Frank Field, Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Ms. Liz Lynne, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Peter Thurnham and Mr. John Townend, presented a Bill to establish a body to be known as the General Osteopathic Council; to provide for the regulation of the profession of osteopathy, including making provision as to the registration of osteopaths and as to their professional education and conduct; to make provision in connection with the development and promotion of the profession; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 13.]
    SHOPS (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Ray Powell, supported by Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr, Michael Lord, Mr. Malcolm Thornton, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Michael Alison, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mr. A. J. Beith, presented a Bill to provide for a general prohibition on the opening on Sunday of shops for retail trade or business; to make provision for the registration with the local authority of certain specific categories of shops which are to be permitted to open on a Sunday; to make provision for certain exempt categories of shops which will be permitted to open on a Sunday without prior registration; to make provision for the payment of fees for registration; to provide for the protection of persons employed in or for the purpose of a shop which is to be permitted to open on a Sunday; to make consequential amendments to and repeals in the Shops Act 1950; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

    FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESS
    Mr. Mark Fisher, on behalf of Mr. Clive Soley, supported by Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mrs. Angela Eagle, Mr. Chris Smith, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Ms. Glenda Jackson, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Ms. Clare Short, presented a Bill to require newspapers to present news with due accuracy and impartiality; to secure the free dissemination of news and information in the public interest; to prescribe certain professional and ethical standards; to make provision with respect to enforcement, complaints and adjudication; and for connected purposes:

    311
    And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

    CARAVAN SITES (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Cranley Onslow presented a Bill to amend Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Harry Barnes, supported by Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Alton, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the compilation and publication of electoral registers and the powers and duties of electoral registration officers; to require the publicising of certain matters; to require improved physical access to polling stations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
    RIGHT TO KNOW
    Mr. Mark Fisher, supported by Mr. Jeff Rooker, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Alistair Darling, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Clive Soley, Miss Emma Nicholson and Mr. Teddy Taylor, presented a Bill to establish a general right of access to official records for members of the public subject to certain exemptions; to provide for the correction of inaccurate official records; to provide for individuals to be notified of the availability of benefits in certain circumstances; to establish a right of access by individuals to their employment records subject to certain exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of these provisions; to amend the Companies Act 1985 with respect to the disclosure of certain information in the directors' report; to repeal the Official Secrets Act 1989 and replace it by new provisions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
    ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION BY DISABLED PERSONS)
    Sir John Hannam, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Peter Thurnham, Ms. Liz Lynne, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Malcolm Thornton, Mr. lain Mills and Mrs. Angela Browning, presented a Bill to make provision for enabling persons with certain physical disabilities to be authorised, in certain circumstances, to give paid instruction in the driving of motor cars; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

    MEDICINES INFORMATION
    Mr. Giles Radice, supported by Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Alistair Darling, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Jack Thompson and Ms. Tessa Jowell, presented a Bill to provide for the compilation and disclosure of information about medicinal products and related matters, subject to certain restrictions; to amend the Medicines Act 1968; and for connected purposes: And
    312
    the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

    NOISE AND STATUTORY NUISANCE
    Mr. Andrew Hunter, supported by Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Terry Dicks, Mr. David Evenett, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Michael Lord, Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. J. F. Pawsey, Mr. Richard Shepherd and Mr. John Watts, presented a Bill to make provision for noise in a street to be a statutory nuisance; to make provision with respect to the operation of loudspeakers in a street; to make provision with respect to audible intruder alarms; to make provision for expenses incurred by local authorities in abating, or preventing the recurrence of, a statutory nuisance to be a charge on the premises to which they relate; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
    SEXUAL OFFENCES
    Mr. Jerry Hayes, supported by Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Eric Pickles and Mr. John Bowis, presented a Bill to abolish the presumption of criminal law that a boy under the age of fourteen is incapable of sexual intercourse: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
    PENSIONS
    Mr. Bill Michie, supported by Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Jimmy Boyce, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Helen Jackson, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Audrey Wise and Mr. Dennis Skinner, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to occupational and personal pension schemes; to provide for the appointment of trustees by scheme members; to provide greater protection for the interests of scheme members; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
    EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (PARENTAL LEAVE)
    Mr. Greville Janner, supported by Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mrs. Llin Golding, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mrs. Glenda Jackson, Ms. Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Ms, Clare Short, presented a Bill to provide that parents shall have the right to a maximum of three months' leave in respect of the birth of their child or children; to permit that leave to be apportioned between those parents as they decide; to give similar rights to grandparents and other close relatives in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February 1993 and to printed. [Bill 24.]

    SHOPS
    Mr. James Couchman, supported by Mr. John Marshall, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. John Ward, Mr. Nick Harvey, Ms. Janet Anderson, Mr. Richard Alexander, Dr. Keith Hampson and Sir George Gardiner, presented a Bill to repeal the Shops Act 1950; to

    313
    make provision with regard to the opening hours of shops on Sundays; to make provision as to the rights of persons employed in or for the purposes of a shop which is open on Sundays; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

    OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS
    Mr. Andrew Miller, supported by Mr. Nick Raynesford, Mr. Frank Field, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Ms. Helen Jackson, Ms. Ann Coffey, Ms. Janet Anderson, Mr. Greg Pope, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Bryan Davies and Ms. Angela Eagle, presented a Bi11 to protect the interests of, and extend new rights to, members of occupational pension schemes in the event of changes in company ownership; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
    LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PERSONS) (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. James Hill, supported by Sir Anthony Grant, Sir John Hunt, Sir Dudley Smith, Mr. David Young, Mrs. Angela Knight, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Bob Litherland and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, presented a Bill to amend the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

    HEDGEROWS
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth, supported by Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. Nigel Waterson, Mr. John Ward, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. David Willetts and Mr. John Bowis, presented a Bill to make provision about
    314
    hedgerows: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (REGISTRATION ETC.)
    Mr. Richard Page, supported by Mr. David Harris, Mr. Patrick Thompson, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Peter Atkinson and Mr. Michael Wood, presented a Bill to amend and restate the law relating to the registration of ships and related matters, to make provision in relation to ships on bareboat charter and to make amendments designed to facilitate, or otherwise desirable in connection with, the consolidation of the enactments relating to shipping and seamen: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
    CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT)
    Dr. Roger Berry, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Sir Richard Body, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Sir John Hannam and Mr. John Bowis, presented a Bill to amend the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 to require the provision of day and respite care to people with disabilities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
    DAMAGES (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. Brian Wilson, supported by Mr. Tam Dalyell, presented a Bill to clarify and amend the law of Scotland concerning the right of certain relatives of a deceased person, and the right of executors, to claim damages in respect of the death of the deceased from personal injuries; to make provision regarding solatium where personal injuries result in loss of expectation of life; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

Ways and Means
Madam Speaker: Shall I put the motions together?
Mr. A. J. Beith: I was proposing to speak on motion No. 5, unless the motions are taken together for the purposes of the debate.
Madam Speaker: I will therefore put the first four motions together.

Ways and Means

  DISTRIBUTIONS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made as to whether any interest or other distribution paid after 14th May 1992 is a distribution for purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts.—[Mr. Dorrell].

  DOUBLE TAXATION: INTEREST
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about the construction of arrangements under section 788 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as regards interest paid after 14th May 1992—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  FOREIGN EARNINGS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for the year 1992–93 and subsequent years of assessment in relation to foreign earnings.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for the year 1992–93 and subsequent years of assessment in relation to deductions on account of annuities and other annual payments.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Companies carrying on life assurance business
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about companies carrying on life assurance business.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
3.43 pm
Mr. Beith: I suppose I am not surprised that the Government did not see fit to move Ways and Means Resolution No. 5 because it is another of their regular adventures into retrospection, of which the Finance Bill has a considerable quotient this year. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) raised a point of order at the end of Question Time and obliquely referred to another such matter. Ways and Means Resolution No. 5 states specifically
"That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made".
The Government arc seeking to make retrospective provision for the taxation of life assurance companies. The Government's justification for that—it is one of their customary ones—is that, in doing so, they will cause the law to conform to what people thought it was. They will be able to pre-empt the outcome of the judicial proceedings in which some life assurance companies arc engaged. The Revenue fears that it will lose the appeal and must therefore make some provision to fend off that possibility.
The House should not ever engage in retrospective legislation without the most careful assessment of whether it is desirable. These clauses were not in the Bill when it
316
was first published but were added as a sudden afterthought. That is why there is a Ways and Means resolution about them.
If the taxpayers charter is to mean anything as part of the citizens charter apparatus, the right to challenge the Revenue's interpretation of the law must be a real right. Every time that a taxpayer, whether corporate or individual, succeeds in such a challenge, thereby casting doubt on whether the Revenue's interpretation can be sustained up to the highest courts in the land, why should Parliament leap in before the judicial process is complete to return the law to the position that the Revenue thought it was or wanted it to be? What does the Minister with responsibility for the public services think about the Inland Revenue's apparently insatiable appetite for retrospective legislation?
There is a great deal of uncertainty about the facts leading to the Ways and Means resolution. The Inland Revenue claims that the cost of not bringing it in might be £450 million in 1992–93 and a further £100 million in subsequent years. That figure is strongly disputed by the Association of British Insurers which is not aware of claims that would add up to that amount.
Mr. Paul Boateng: How very surprising.
Mr. Beith: I note the hon. Gentleman's eager intervention. Traditionally no party has been more enthusiastic about retrospective legislation than Labour. That is why the hon. Gentleman is so keen to support the Government on this issue. The Opposition are ready to let the Government get away with it. They do not ask questions about it and I feel that they would prefer the questions not to be answered.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I support retrospective legislation when it is about working class people. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here in 1974 when retrospective legislation was used in connection with Lord Winstanley, at that time the Member for Hazel Grove, who had taken an office of profit under the Crown. He was due to be expelled from Parliament for breaking the law. Retrospective legislation was used to save the neck of a Liberal Member of Parliament. Every Liberal Member supported that legislation.
Mr. Beith: What is more, it was debated at the time so that the House could consider whether there was a reasonable case for saying that Lord Winstanley held an office of profit under the Crown. The hon. Gentleman should know because he took part in the debate. We should not make retrospective provision without first considering whether the case is justified.
The hon. Gentleman speaks about life insurance as if the working classes have no interest in it, but they have an abiding interest. Many people hold insurance policies and depend upon pension funds for retirement, not least, of course, the funds that were administered by a former Labour Member of Parliament whom no Labour Member appears prepared to admit ever having met. Pensions and life insurances are bound up in financial institutions on which working people depend for their security in retirement. When considering whether a series of life insurance companies should pay millions in tax, we are considering whether those who pay the premiums to those companies should pay that tax through the premium. Let us allow no further currency for the notion that the

317
institutions that hold the savings of ordinary British people are somehow remote and of no interest. Their fate is bound up with that of those who put their money in pensions or life insurance.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): The hon. Gentleman spoke about policy holders. Does he suggest that they will suffer and be disadvantaged by the resolution?
Mr. Beith: Yes, that is precisely my argument. The costs of the companies concerned will rise and almost certainly policy holders' premiums will rise as a result. The argument is about the relative effect on policy holders and taxpayers in general.
The issue of principle is whether retrospection is justified. If the argument for retrospection is so strong, I wonder that it did not occur to the Government earlier. If in later stages in the consideration of the Finance Bill Ministers tell Opposition Members that their amendments would not have the desired effect or that they are incorrectly drafted, we shall receive that advice with wry amusement. There must have been a series of incorrect Inland Revenue draftings and repeals that led the law to be in a very different state from that which the Government imagined.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I shall give way for the last time before I invite the Minister to tell us a little more about the matter.
Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when Conservative Members were in opposition and the Clay Cross issue arose they were opposed to retrospection? It seems, however, that they have shifted their ground. For example, during the general election, the Government tabled a statutory instrument—it came into force on 28 March—that gave tax concessions. It was a retrospective measure for Lloyd's underwriters that went back to 1988–89.
Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to another example of retrospection. Every piece of retrospective legislation should be examined carefully, and that is why I took the view that the resolution should not go through on the nod.
3.51 pm
Mr. John Greenway: As chairman of the all-party insurance and financial services group, of which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is one of the much valued vice-chairmen, I wish to take up a position that I suspect will be somewhere between the one that he has outlined and the stance that I suspect will be taken by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary when he replies to this brief debate.
It would be wrong to give the impression that life assurance policyholders throughout Britain will suffer irrevocably if the resolution is approved by the House. I understand that only two—albeit very large—composite insurance companies are affected by the measure. The Government are attempting to put the law on all fours with their expectation of what it would be when the arrangements for the reform of the taxation of life assurance were approved by the House two or three years ago.
318
It seems that two principles are at stake, both of which concern some of us. I imagine that we shall want to listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary's reply, but however we choose to vote on the issue the two principles will rest heavily in our minds.
The first principle relates to a dispute between the two life assurance offices and the Treasury about the correct interpretation of the law. It might take several years for the matter to be fully resolved through the normal processes of legal challenge on taxation matters, for these processes can be drawn out. It must be right, therefore, to amend the law to incorporate what we intended three or four years ago when the new arrangements were introduced. The revenue that would be collected as a result of the arrangements that we thought we were making will not therefore be forgone.
My difficulty—I think that other hon. Members are in the same position—is in determining whether it is right for the change to apply retrospectively to matters that predated the Government's decision to change the law—in other words, retrospective legislation. One argument is that if we are to change the law, the change should have effect only from the date on which the Government signalled their intention to make it.
That brings me to my second difficulty and to the fulcrum of the argument. In responding to my first difficulty, I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that the Government signalled their intention to change the law in 1989 when we altered the arrangements for the taxation of life assurance companies. Nevertheless, we are again entering the difficult and highly emotive territory of retrospective legislation. Life assurance companies and the world of commerce generally would like to hear my hon. Friend define where the Government think that the line should be drawn: where retrospective taxation legislation is permitted, and where it is not?
We all understand that advice is given to taxpayers, whether they are ordinary members of the public, employees of firms or some of our largest corporations. That advice is always given in good faith on an interpretation of the tax laws which can be finalised only through the courts. That brings me back to my first point, which is to ask my hon. Friend to tell the House this afternoon why he thinks it is better for the House to decide that it knows best, whatever the courts may think of the claims of two companies against the Treasury, and to confirm that we should ensure that there is no prospect of the Exchequer losing any revenue as a result of the two challenges.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is an insurance issue and a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), are paid employees of insurance brokers or insurance organisations. Whatever their point of view, they should make that clear. The rules state categorically that if an hon. Member thinks that he has a financial interest, he should make it clear.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If there is any financial interest at all, I am sure that hon. Members will make it clear.
Mr. Greenway: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I prefaced my remarks by pointing out that I am chairman of the all-party insurance and financial services group, to which representations on this issue were made some three weeks ago at a meeting attended by some

319
Opposition Members. I have no interest to declare in the matters that I have discussed this afternoon other than the interest that we all have, given our rights and responsibilities as Members of Parliament, to protect consumers and our constituents.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Ryedale is parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Insurance Brokers, which would seem to bring him within the terms of the resolution passed by the House which states that a financial interest should be declared. There is a clear connection, and it is the advice of the Clerk of the House that where there is any doubt it is safest to declare an interest.
Madam Speaker: The Register of Members' Interests is one thing, but the declaration of an interest in the subject matter before us is another. I think that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is correct.
3.58 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised a serious point. Even if Parliament approves retrospective or retroactive legislation, it should not let it go through on the nod without explanation. There is clearly no problem if the House assents to retrospective legislation that gives people something, but there should be more care when such legislation takes something away.
We depend on the rule of law and the rule of Parliament and, as you said in your ruling on my point of order, Madam Speaker, it is within the power of the House to legislate to overrule private interests, whether of individuals or organisations, in matters that are before the courts. However, the Boulton edition of "Erskine May" says that that power should be used sparingly in criminal cases. In civil cases, the law is plain, and I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for spelling it out to the House. However, I hesitate to go as far as Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop would have done on the hybridity question.
The difficulty is that in an insurance-linked case, similar to that of the building societies' transitional arrangements for composite tax, those who work within the Revenue and the Treasury have to be far-sighted in assessing the law and proposing clauses in Finance Bills which, once enacted, with or without amendment, are watertight. The problem is that there are clever people outside the Revenue in commercial and insurance companies and building societies who look for gaps or overlaps in the law.
It is reasonable for Treasury Ministers to come back to the House of Commons and openly say that they believe that the law is in doubt or wrong and that they want Parliament to consider the matter and to make a change. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister explain what is behind resolution No. 5.
The Minister's explanation will be based on information from the Inland Revenue, which itself is sometimes based on anticipation of what a court may decide—or on an attempt to interpret what a court has already decided, which is not always entirely clear. Problems arise when the consequences are not spelt out to the House. I hope that, in the case of life assurance companies and taxation, we
320
will not be faced with a difference of view and perspective between the Inland Revenue and the Treasury on one side and affected corporate bodies such as insurance companies and building societies on the other.
The saga of clause 52 is not about to end. The problem there was that the Treasury was looking at the cash flow to Government and saying that there was a net cost to Government, while a number of building societies were saying that, because the end of the financial year coincided with the transitional arrangements, they were paying tax for a period in relation to which they had already satisfied the Revenue's demands.
I shall not go into detail, but I feel that my hon. Friend the Minister must try to explain whether it is fair and reasonable to establish certainty in regard to insurance company taxation. Perhaps he will also consider whether we are faced with the "sledgehammer and nut" problem that applies to clause 52. It may be necessary to protect £15,000 million that is at risk, but that need not mean eliminating the taxpayer's chance to establish a £57 million case, or a £100 million case. That represents less than 1 per cent. of the sum that the Opposition seem to think is perfectly reasonable. I might agree in relation to the £15,000 million level, but not in relation to the £57 million.
4.1 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): A point that is not in dispute is that, if any proposal for retrospective legislation comes to the House, every individual Member of Parliament should examine it carefully. The burden of proof on anyone who proposes such legislation is very heavy. I do not disagree with any of the hon. Members who have spoken about that. I also want the House to be clear about the precise nature of the debate, and the consequences of approving the resolution—if, indeed, the House approves it.
Mr. Cryer: The Minister is right to emphasise the importance of the issue of retrospective legislation. Can he assure me that, if a prayer is tabled against a statutory instrument that gives retrospective facilities to members of Lloyd's for 1988–89, he will treat the matter sympathetically and encourage the Government to provide time for a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Dorrell: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's request. I would consider any case that he put to me in writing equally carefully.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I think it important to make a point about retrospective legislation in respect of Lloyd's. I stress that I have no interest to disclose.
Lloyd's legislation specifically recognises the existence of a different accounting basis. That is recognised in the Lloyd's Act—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not at all relevant to our present debate.
Mr. Dorrell: Let me remind the House of the precise nature of the decision that it is now being asked to make. It is being asked not to approve a clause tabled for consideration in Committee but simply to provide a Ways and Means resolution so that the Committee can— within the rules of order—consider whether a retrospective clause should be written into the Finance Bill. I suggest that the proper time at which to consider the detail of the issue is on clause stand part, during the Committee stage.

321
Let me briefly sketch in the background to the clause, and explain why the Government are "leaping in"—to use the phrase employed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). There are three salient points. First, there is the need for clarity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) reminded the House, if the judicial process is to be carried to its conclusion—that could take several years, and substantial sums are at stake for the life assurance industry—clarity is a relevant consideration.
Secondly, there is the need to avoid capricious distribution of benefit— not, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, between policyholders in particular and taxpayers in general but between one group of policyholders of one life house and another group of policyholders of another life house. The House should be aware that the dispute underlying the resolution arises because, although ever since the legislation was put on the statute book in he first world war we have collected tax on investment returns of life houses that are making trading loss, it is now being argued that the statutory basis on which that tax has been collected is wanting. This is not an example of new legislation not having the meaning that was originally intended. We have several decades of experience of having collected tax from life houses that have been in precisely the position of those who are now arguing that tax is not payable.
If that case were allowed to continue and no retrospective legislation were introduced, policyholders of houses that made a trading loss would receive an enormous tax windfall, which would not be available to policyholders of life houses that did not make a trading loss. Substantial sums would be distributed on an entirely capricious basis, which the House would not wish.
The third consideration is that, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed properly said, £450 million of revenue is at stake. Although that is not a decisive argument, it is relevant to whether, in this tax year, the House wants to see that amount of money made available on the capricious basis that I have described.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about companies carrying on life assurance business.

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill

    (Clauses 19 and 20)
    Considered in Committee.
    [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
    Ordered,
    That the order in which proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill are to be taken shall be Clause 20 and Clause 19.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Before we consider clause 20, I note that three hon. Members wish to make their maiden speeches. I respectfully point out that, although it is entirely appropriate that they should refer to their constituencies and to former Members, they must address their more general remarks to the specific clauses and amendments.

    Clause 20

      SMALL COMPANIES
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      4.7 pm
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The purpose of the Bill is to set the small company rate of corporation tax for the year 1992–93. As the House will be aware, clause 20 puts into effect the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made in his Budget statement: that for the current financial year the small company rate should continue at the same rate as it has been for a number of years—25 per cent. on the first £250,000 of taxable profit, and a marginal rate of 35 per cent. for profits between £250,000 and £1,250,000. The average rate on profits of more than £1¼ million is 33 per cent.
      The clause continues the policy that the Government have espoused since 1983 of aligning the standard rate of income tax with the small company rate of corporation tax. We believe that the policy achieves fairness between small companies, personal traders and partnerships. It reflects our belief that the small business sector should be encouraged because great economic benefits, both short and long term, flow from it.
      The House might be interested to know that, among the companies which pay corporation tax, 300,000 out of a total of 380,000 now fall within the 25 per cent. band—in other words, they make profits of less than £250,000. It is a rate from which a large number of small businesses benefit and it reflects our continuing emphasis on the importance of ensuring a low marginal rate of tax on wealth creation in order to provide a proper incentive and reward for the wealth-creation process. The small companies' rate of tax is one of the clearest examples of the progress that the Government have been able to make since 1979 in the desire for a reduction in the marginal rate of tax and the encouragement of the wealth-creation process.
      In 1979, the small companies' rate of corporation tax stood at 42 per cent. We have now reduced it to 25 per

      323
      cent. Furthermore, in 1979 the limit above which the tax rate started to rise was profits of £70,000. If one made profits of more than £70,000 in 1979, one no longer benefited from the full small companies' rate but was moving towards the full main corporation tax rate of 52 per cent. The £70,000 limit has risen to the current level of £250,000 and the small companies' corporation tax rate has fallen from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent.
      The clear result, of which the House should take due cognisance, is a more vibrant and vigorous small business sector. The effect has been to create more new businesses and jobs and a small business sector which is a more vibrant part of the economy than it was 15 years ago. Since 1979, 400,000 more businesses have been created and become active. There are now, on average, 610 more businesses in every constituency than in 1979. I strongly believe that that is the result of the more benign environment created by the Government.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Before the Financial Secretary gets carried away by the compelling effect of the small companies' rate of corporation tax, which I support, I hope that he will recognise that only 335,000 companies pay corporation tax compared with 1.7 million which pay value added tax. Therefore, although the clause is important, it will benefit only a minority in the small business sector.
      Mr. Dorrell: I recognise that it is a minority of the total, but the small companies' rate of corporation tax is an important part of the total package of tax and other incentives available to the small business sector. What we did during the 1980s, and on which we must build in the 1990s, is to ensure that our tax and regulatory regime properly considers the interests of the small business sector because it is from that sector that the big and successful businesses of the future grow.
      Clause 20 is an important part of our total commitment to improving incentives and rewards within the small business sector, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Chris Smith: As this is the first opportunity that I have had, I begin by welcoming you, Mr. Morris, to your post. Three Members of the House are former councillors of the London borough of Islington—you and I happen to be two of them. Two Members of the House happen to be former chairmen of housing in the London borough of Islington—again, you and I are those two hon. Members. It therefore gives me particular pleasure to welcome you to the high office that you now hold.
      As the Financial Secretary outlined, clause 20 sets the small companies' rate of corporation tax at the same level as last year. We have no quarrel with the clause, although the picture that the Financial Secretary painted of the average number of additional businesses which have mushroomed in all our constituencies must be set beside the additional number of business liquidations which have also mushroomed in our constituencies. The additional number of unemployed people has become all too evident in our constituencies in the past two years.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: For the sake of clarity, I should explain that the figure that I gave is net of closures. It refers to new businesses operating today, compared with the number operating in each constituency in 1979.
      Mr. Smith: I appreciate that point, which is frequently made by Ministers, but they fail to understand that the number of people without jobs and claiming benefit has risen inexorably over the past two years, and Government policies are doing nothing to assist that problem.
      The Financial Secretary spoke warmly about the fact that the Government have aligned the small companies' rate of corporation tax with the standard rate of income tax. What do they intend to do about the new 20 per cent. band of income tax? It appears to be their intention, difficult though it will be to achieve, to expand the 20 per cent. band until it caters for a larger number of people than the standard rate band. What will they then do about the small companies' rate of corporation tax? It would be interesting to hear their forward thoughts on that.
      Although we have no quarrel with the 20 per cent. figure in the clause, we must place it on record that the Government should be taking many other steps to assist small businesses. I will mention just two for starters. First, there should be a root-and-branch reform of the uniform business rate. The suspending measure that the Chancellor announced in the Budget was helpful, but it went nowhere near far enough to alleviate the difficulty that the uniform business rate is causing to small businesses. Secondly, there must be more effective measures than the paltry steps announced in the Budget to tackle the problem of late payment of bills, especially by large companies to small companies. For instance, the Bill does not provide for a proper system of interest payments on outstanding bills.
      We shall wish to return to those issues in the course of our discussion on the Bill. In the meantime, however, we are happy to see clause 20 make reasonably swift progress to the statute book.
      Mrs. Judith Chaplin: I shall speak on clause 20 in a moment, but I should like first to go a little wider.
      It is traditional in a maiden speech to praise one's predecessor, and I have listened with interest as my fellow new Members have praised—or even damned with faint praise— their predecessors, but no hon. Member who sat in the last Parliament would not join me in my admiration for the previous hon. Member for Newbury. Sir Michael McNair-Wilson had the unenviable distinction of being the first Member of this House to suffer kidney failure, undergo dialysis and, eventually, have a kidney transplant. Hon. Members will recognise how well he continued to perform his parliamentary duties, with enormous courage. I know from many examples how diligently he continued to serve his constituency, and many kidney patients know how well he turned his experiences of illness to bring them benefits and much better facilities. I know that Sir Michael would agree with me that he could not have done that without the support of his wife, so I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing him continued improved health, and them both a long and happy retirement.
      The Newbury constituency takes its name from the largest town within it. It is a large constituency which stretches across the whole of west Berkshire—a beautiful area with many diverse activities. One of its most important industries is racing. Indeed, the highlight of the

      325
      election campaign and of "party politics" there was unrelated to any candidate—when the horse of that name romped home in the Grand National to the extreme benefit of many of my betting constituents.
      The racing industry is important. It employs enormous numbers of people not only in the stables but on the courses and in the betting shops. I welcome the announcement in the Budget that betting duty is to be cut so that £15 million can be redirected to helping this important industry. Nevertheless, the industry continues to face a substantial problem in that the value added tax at 17.5 per cent. levied on the sale of racehorses here is much higher than in France or Ireland and there may well be a real danger of auctioneers, breeders and perhaps even trainers going overseas. In the past, one of the arguments that the Government have deployed against tax harmonisation was that it removed their ability to reduce taxes in a competitive situation. This is exactly such a case. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider how to restore our competitiveness in this area.
      Another important industry is the defence industry. The very names Aldermaston and Greenham common are synonymous with the protests of the past. Few now doubt that the protesters were wrong, that it was a strong defence policy which continued to bring the former Soviet Union back to the negotiating table, and that it was the siting of cruise missiles at. Greenham common which eventually led to the intermediate nuclear forces treaty and the abolition of a whole class of nuclear weapons. Now, the people of Newbury hope that it will not be long before Green ham common is common land once again and open to them all.
      Perhaps what the Newbury constituency most exemplifies is the economic development of the 1980s. It stretches along the M4—the golden corridor—and has many young high-tech companies competitive with the best in the world. Many started as small businesses, with their founders putting capital and security at risk, and many have suffered hard in the current recession. It is important that the Government should do all that they can to restore confidence there and to help those companies begin to expand again.
      I know that we have the lowest corporation tax in Europe, but other countries are bringing their rates down and we should stay ahead. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, it is to be hoped that we shall repeat that process and look to reduce company taxation in the same way as we have committed ourselves to reducing personal income tax.
      The amount of corporation tax is a function of the profitability of a company, and estimates of future profitability affect companies' capital values. Businesses and farmers in my constituency welcome the proposed increase in inheritance tax relief on business assets to 100 per cent. Too often in the past firms have been damaged or even broken up in order to find liquid funds to pay the tax following an unexpected death—and death seldom comes at a convenient time for companies. That problem will now no longer occur.
      That welcome change, however, could lead to an unwelcome consequence. Currently, if such assets are handed over during the donor's lifetime, capital gains tax is rolled over but not eliminated. The Finance Bill proposal may lead owners to hang on to their possessions until death to avoid capital gains tax on the increase in value of the assets, rather than handing them over at the best time for the development of that company. And who
      326
      can blame them? The vast majority of capital gains tax is paid each year by a relatively small number of people selling out of firms that they have built up at considerable risk and sacrifice to themselves. They resent paying the Government nearly half the increase in the value of their companies.
      In the past few years, we have seen the risks to which such companies expose themselves. Those small companies, which are started up with very little capital, are the life blood of the economy. I hope that the Chancellor will reconsider the impact of this complex and distorting tax in terms of discouraging risk-taking in this country.
      Previous Conservative Chancellors have been proud to abolish a tax each year. The present Chancellor has continued that admirable tradition with the proposed abolition of the matches and mechanical lighters duty in this year's Finance Bill, but there are many other, more important taxes that I could suggest as candidates for abolition. I hope that the Government will continue to be both a tax-reforming Government and a tax-cutting Government.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin) on a cogent and well-delivered maiden speech. Her enthusiasm for Finance Bill Committee work will already have been noted by the Whips, and she has shown herself well suited to such work. If she does not want to serve on the Standing Committee, she would be well advised to say quite soon that she does not agree with the building society provisions and proposes to vote against them in Committee. I fear that that is her only hope of escaping service on the Committee now that she has shown herself so well prepared for it.
      We all appreciated the hon. Lady's tribute to her predecessor, who was held in very high regard in this place and whose health and recovery were a matter of great concern to hon. Members. There grew up around the Christian fellowship in the House much prayer and support for Michael McNair-Wilson and his wife during that time, through which they both came with marvellous courage. Many in the House will remember that experience and it will be one of the ways in which they remember Michael affectionately, too.
      The clause relating to corporation tax and small business has to be seen in its proper perspective, which is that a large number of small businesses do not pay any corporation tax because they are not making enough money to do so. Many of them are victims of the recession and are hanging on desperately, and although they may be worried about a number of matters —about the uniform business rate and the impact that it had on them until this year's changes, about the VAT inspector and the burdens that he places upon them and about sorting out their employees' pay-as-you-earn—corporation tax is certainly not top of their anxiety list.
      One of the striking things about the tax is that most of it is paid by a relatively few companies. Some 3,500 firms—1 per cent. of the total paying corporation tax—paid 70 per cent. of the total yield of the tax, and seven firms paid 10 per cent. of that yield. Looked at another way, that means that 99 per cent. of firms paying corporation tax contribute only 30 per cent. of the yield. It follows that the administrative costs of collecting corporation tax from small businesses are relatively high, and those costs fall not just on the Government but on business. That is an

      327
      argument for trying to keep small business out of the corporation tax net to a large extent, not by making it less profitable but by ensuring that the allowances and tax rates are conducive to the achievement of that end.
      That is quite difficult. We cannot use the same allowance system as for personal taxation because if we did companies would simply subdivide themselves to maximise benefit from allowances. Although it is desirable to minimise the impact of corporation tax, we probably need to look to other instruments of small business taxation to give the help that the Minister seems to feel could be offered under the corporation tax provision.
      The Minister cited the corporation tax rate as an example of the climate in which business operates. I understand his point, but other things will probably matter more to small businesses, one of which is obviously the uniform business rate. I welcome the changes to the uniform business rate, although we argued for going a little further than the Government. After his experiences in Bath, Mr. Chris Patten may, on reflection, be able to offer a little support for the change. The Bath experience is a good example of how the uniform business rate has hit large numbers of small businesses very hard in many parts of the country.
      The tax burden on small business could be reduced in other ways and by a greater amount than through the proposals in clause 20. For example, if national insurance and income tax were integrated as systems, that would reduce the enormous administrative burden on business of running the two systems. The national insurance system imposes a kind of poll tax on business in the form of class 2 national insurance contributions which are a disincentive for the smallest businesses.
      There are many opportunities for reforming the tax system to help the small business sector. Many of those opportunities lie in the administration of taxes that affect all small businesses. When judging whether the climate of taxation is as helpful to small businesses as it could be, I hope that Treasury Ministers will look far beyond corporation tax, welcome though that provision is.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: I welcome the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin). Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have welcomed what she said about Michael McNair-Wilson. She was entirely right to stress his courage, which was displayed on many ocasions in the Chamber, and his effective advocacy of his constituents' interests. As a former Health Minister responsible for the transplant programme, I had good reason to know what an effective advocate he was of the interests of kidney patients. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the new Member for Newbury said about the effectivenesss, courage and personal niceness of Michael McNair-Wilson.
      I have a particular link with Michael McNair-Wilson because he was my immediate predecessor as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Peter Walker.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): And look where that got him.
      Mr. Dorrell: Indeed, look where that got everyone.
      328
      Michael McNair-Wilson showed me the ropes and taught me how to be a PPS from behind.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury stressed the importance of the racing industry, which is of great interest to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have noted her point about the need to ensure that the VAT charge paid by the racing industry is measured against a test of competitiveness, as well as a test of fairness, against other industries operating in this country.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury also reminded us, as I tried to do earlier, that the tax regime on small companies plays a vital role in the development of an effective free enterprise economy. She reminded us of the old aphorism that great oaks from little acorns grow and that, if we do not have fertile ground for the development of small business, we will not have the new businesses that become big businesses, such as those that now operate in her constituency and employ her constituents.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury about inheritance tax and the link with capital gains tax is well taken. If one wants to build a large company from a small business start, the year-by-year profit tax regime must be congenial to the growth of the small business and the tax system, as a whole, must also be congenial to the growth of small business.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) stressed that small company corporation tax is not the only part of the system that we must ensure is congenial to small business. I agree with that. A wide range of tax and other regulatory activities impinge on the activities of small business. We must ensure that all of them are as favourable as possible so that the ground is fertile for the growth of small business.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) asked about the link between small company corporation tax and the standard rate of income tax. As we develop our marginal rate policy at the bottom of the income tax scale, we will obviously need to review year by year how that impacts on small company corporation tax. But we have made it clear that it is our intention to reduce the standard rate of tax to 20 per cent. By implication and extension, we could therefore, on the basis of our record, assume that we would expect and hope to be able to do the same for small company corporation tax as well.
      The hon. Gentleman argued for root-and-branch reform of the uniform business rate. It is not unfair to say that he did not sketch in enormous detail what he had in mind. It is difficult to react to proposals for root-and-branch reform without a slightly greater idea of it, fleshing out the grant strategy that he obviously has in his hidden agenda, but we shall seek to winkle it out to establish precisely what he has in mind.
      The importance of ensuring that effective action is taken to encourage prompt payment and to discourage late payment of bills was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech. We are addressing the matter through the Government's own contracts by ensuring that, when the Government sign a prime contract, we use that contractual mechanism to ensure that not only our own prime contractors but subcontractors pay their suppliers on time.
      We are addressing the matter also, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget, through

      329
      a review of small claims recovery procedures to ensure that they are as effective, cheap, efficient and, perhaps most important, timely as possible.
      The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. We agree with him and we are taking action to ensure that words are turned into action.
      Mr. Kenneth Purchase: What instruction has been given to health authorities in regard to the average number of days for payment of debt? When I served on a health authority, there was an implicit instruction to increase from 32 to 35 days the average time for discharging bills.
      Mr. Dorrell: The policy of the national health service is very clear and has been laid out time and again in guidance to health authorities: health authorities should pay bills on time and should organise their affairs so that they have the resources to do that. Indeed, the Government backed up that policy with action during the previous public expenditure survey, when we provided £80 million to the national health service specifically to reduce the amounts outstanding by health authorities beyond the due date. We have not only made the guidance clear but provided real money to put health authorities in a position in which they can carry out that guidance. I commend the clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 19

      CHARGE AND RATE OF CORPORATION TAX FOR 1992
      Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 12, line 46, at beginning insert '(1)'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 4, in page 12, line 47, at end add—
      `(2) Where a company whose activities consist—
      (i) wholly or mainly in the manufacture of finished goods, partly finished goods or materials, and
      Mr. Smith: The purpose of the amendments is to provide enhanced first year capital allowances for investment in plant and machinery by manufacturing industry. The debate takes place against a background of continued manufacturing decline in this country. For 13 years, our manufacturing sector has been neglected by a Government obsessed with the purported virtues of market forces and blind to the needs of a crucial part of our national economy. The devastation began in 1980 and 1981, when we lost a quarter of our manufacturing capacity, but the recession that we are still living through has compounded the problem.
      As a country which once prided itself on being the workshop of the world, since 1979 we have seen our manufacturing performance slip to the bottom of the international league. We have performed worst out of all the OECD countries on manufacturing performance in recent years. From 1974 to 1978, manufacturing accounted for nearly 30 per cent. of our GDP. Last year, it was less than 22 per cent. Manufacturing is not the be-all and end-all of our economy, of course—the service sector remains every bit as important—but we ignore and neglect manufacturing at our peril. It is, and will always be, the principal internationally traded part of our economy. We
      330
      make and sell goods or we falter. The choice is entirely clear. It is just a pity that that cannot be recognised so readily on the Conservative Benches.
      In 1983, for the first time since the industrial revolution, Britain imported more manufactured goods than we exported. Ever since that day, throughout the windfall of North sea oil, throughout—indeed, perhaps because of —the Lawson boom, and throughout the subsequent impact of recession, we have continued to be in deficit. That is the manufacturing background against which the debate takes place. That is the legacy of the Government's time hitherto in office.
      If manufacturing output has performed poorly—we should remember that even the Government admit that it fell by 5.25 per cent. in 1991—the picture in manufacturing investment is even bleaker. In the past year, manufacturing investment fell by 11 per cent. At constant prices, there is less investment now than there was in 1979. What is worse, in every one of the eight years following 1979 there was less investment than there had been in 1979.
      While competitor economies, especially in Europe and Japan, were increasing their investment performance, we reduced ours. That is no way to prepare our economy for the challenges of the single market. In the past two years, the picture has been similar. Only last week, the European Commission published comparative figures on investment performances in the various countries of the European Community. In terms of investment in equipment and looking at volume rather than merely value, they show a minus figure for investment in the United Kingdom in 1990—a decline of 3.8 per cent. The European average was a plus figure of 4.8 per cent.
      In 1991, the picture was worse. There was a decline in the United Kingdom of 11.8 per cent. but a decline in the European average, which is sharply affected by the United Kingdom figure, of 0.5 per cent. The prediction for 1992 is a fall in the United Kingdom of 4 per cent. and a rise in the European average of 0.2 per cent. Those figures show clearly that, consistently in the past two years and into this year, we are performing substantially worse in manufacturing investment and equipment than the average—let alone the best—performers among our European partner countries. We were told by the Government in the Red Book published at the time of the Budget that the prospects for the rest of the year were for a further fall of 0.5 per cent. in overall investment.
      Of course, we must note the Government's tendency to juggle with definitions of investment. At one moment, they will talk about overall investment in the economy, at the next moment they will talk about business investment, and at other times they will talk about manufacturing investment. As always, the Government carefully select their definitions to put the best possible gloss on their failures. However, even if we take the Government's favoured measure—overall investment—their prediction of a further decline of 0.5 per cent. this year is open to question. Let us consider the evidence. The Central Statistical Office published figures last Thursday predicting a 2 per cent. fall in the investment of British firms surveyed. There is no 0.5 per cent. there—a fall of 2 per cent. is predicted.
      The first quarter survey by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce showed a 3 per cent. negative figure for intentions to invest in manufacturing plant and machinery—down from the 2 per cent. negative figure in the fourth quarter survey last year. The independent

      331
      averages compiled by the Treasury show a similar picture. The average of non-City, academic and institutional forecasts for the coming year shows an average decline of 1.5 per cent. in gross fixed investment. Only one out of the 12 institutions agrees with the Government that the fall is likely to be 0.5 per cent.
      4.45 pm
      According to 16 City firms surveyed in gathering independent forecasts, the picture there is even worse: they expect a decline of 2.3 per cent. in gross fixed investment. Out of 16, only two agree with the Government that the decline will be 0.5 per cent. or less.
      What of the Government's position? We read with interest in The Daily Telegraph yesterday—not the source least likely to be favourable to the Government—a report which said:
      "The Treasury is to scrap its one per cent. growth forecast for 1992–93, following a poor first quarter and the absence of any evidence of any recovery since then … the Treasury team has cut its growth forecast to under ½ per cent."
      If the growth forecast is being revised downwards, that obviously has immediate implications for output, unemployment, public sector finances, the public expenditure round and, most probably, investment levels.
      We ought to be told in the clear light of day whether The Daily Telegraph report is correct. Have Treasury growth expectations been more than halved? What impact will that have and is it expected to have? I hope that the Financial Secretary will have the courage and decency to tell us when he replies to the debate.
      Whichever way we look at it, the picture of manufacturing investment is far from healthy. It has fallen sharply in the past two years and is still falling. Our amendment seeks to reverse that decline. Investment is a crucial preparatory economic activity. If investment lags behind recovery and demand—worse still, if it does not respond to or predict a recovery in demand—the supply of goods will not be there, our dependence on imports will increase, and the imbalance between supply and demand will become even more severe.
      Investment in manufacturing industry is vital now if we are to achieve anything like a sustainable recovery in the years to come. Enhanced capital allowances such as those proposed in our amendment would help enormously in stimulating investment. Our amendment is carefully targeted. It is aimed at manufacturing industry in particular, and specifically at plant and machinery. It raises the first year allowance, for a period of one year only, from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. It would provide a direct incentive to firms to bring forward investment decisions that might otherwise be postponed—sometimes indefinitely.
      We know from the experience of 1984 to 1986 that capital allowances work. They are not perfect—no fiscal stimulus ever is—but they can help. That is why the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, and the Trades Union Congress called for enhanced allowances, and why business men throughout the country endorse precisely the proposal contained in our amendment.
      Tom O'Connor, chairman of the CBI's Small Firms Council, said last September:
      "An increase in the rate of depreciation allowance for plant and machinery from the current 25 per cent. would
      332
      provide a powerful and direct stimulus to small companies' investment. The economy would benefit: as growth increases so will revenues from business, in the form of corporation tax."
      The only person who does not seem to agree with the need for enhanced allowances as a one-off stimulus for investment activity is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He and his colleagues have consistently ruled out the case for capital allowances. They accuse us of dirigiste tendencies in advocating them, but that is total nonsense. Perhaps the Chancellor ought to consider the words of the President of the Board of Trade who in 1987, in an earlier incarnation, wrote an extremely interesting book, "Where There's a Will". It praises, in particular, the Japanese approach to the relationship between Government and industry. The right hon. Gentleman wrote that the Japanese
      "have done the very thing which we pretend no government can do: they have targeted the world marketplace and, with a combination of domestic competition and taxpayer support, they have come to capture an increasingly large share of it. Do we really think our companies can win without the backing of our government when the consumer appetite in Britain is so eagerly fed by imports from a country whose economic and industrial effort is so single-mindedly directed?"
      That puts the case in a nutshell.
      This country needs Government support of manufacturing industry in particular—especially in the form of fiscal stimulus of the kind that our amendment proposes. That cannot completely ensure effective and sustained recovery, but it would be a key part of the required package.
      The Government's record on manufacturing investment is appalling. In real terms, the level is now lower than when the Tories took office in 1979. Britain is the only country in the Community to have suffered in that way. Worse still, the value of investment in our manufacturing industry is still falling. In the past year, it fell by a staggering 11 per cent., and Government figures published last week show that the decline is continuing.
      Investment in plant and machinery is the seed corn of future wealth creation. Unless we invest now, we shall not produce goods, provide jobs, make sales, and achieve growth in the years ahead. That is especially true of manufacturing industry—yet the Tories have neglected and denigrated its importance for far too long. With our balance of payments deficit already starting to rise again, nothing is more crucial than providing a boost to manufacturing investment. Our amendment would achieve precisely that, and I commend it to the Committee.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: In one of the numerous speeches that have been made in the House on the Maastricht treaty in recent months, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) reminded us that the German economic miracle was not created by the Bundesbank but was the consequence of innovative industrial investment by German companies—and that, for all the changes that might occur in economic and monetary union and among the central banks, the ultimate test of an economy is whether it invests in manufacturing the products that consumers want.
      I have had the privilege of representing for more than 20 years a community that began the industrial revolution. It had iron and steel works in the 18th century, and holds to the traditional belief that manufacturing is a good thing. This country seems to have lost its appetite for making

      333
      things, and now believes that there are other ways of sustaining the economies of communities such as mine. That has proved to be an illusion.
      The Financial Secretary spoke of his pupillage under Mr. Peter Walker. We all had our pupillage under him. When he was Secretary of State for Wales, he was our new economic whiz kid for the best part of two years. He used to travel around boasting that the Principality supported more jobs in banking than in mining. I never understood the point he was making. Perhaps he was suggesting that it was a good thing that there were fewer jobs in mining, or that at least there were alternative jobs in banking. We did not understand why they could not be complementary. Why should it be thought that miners were competing for jobs with bankers? Nevertheless, that is the basis on which, for the past two or three years, we were sold an alternative economy.
      It was suggested that the service sector would be our exciting new saviour, but in the past year or two we have started to see insecurity in the very sector that was supposed to provide our salvation. The recent threat of a takeover by Lloyds of the Midland created a wave of insecurity, and taught us how wrong it is to attempt to rebuild the economy of a community such as mine on the service sector.
      It would be all right if that sector had brought to our communities the sophisticated information technology that characterises today's new-style, high-class financial services, but it has not done so. Instead, we have seen only a spate of DIY retailers—large sheds selling DIY goods of one kind or another. They are heavily dependent on the community's purchasing power, so other jobs must exist to create it if those new retail activities are to survive. owever, cuts are occurring even in that sector in communities such as mine.
      The only modern inward investment in my community has come from the Japanese, who were attracted by successive Governments. The first to establish itself in my constituency did so under a Labour Government in the 1970s. The most recent new project was announced 12 months ago.
      Inward investors require two things. First, they are looking for a work force trained in manufacturing. The real victims of the recession and the collapse of manufacturing investment in my community, apart from companies, have been the manufacturing training programmes and manufacturing training opportunities.
      5 pm
      Great public corporations, such as the British Steel Corporation and Hoover, offered great training opportunities to young people in my constituency, but, in the past decade, they have closed down their manufacturing training schools. National vocational qualifications and training and enterprise councils have not replaced the training infrastructure, which was an intrinsic part of the manufacturing communities that I represent.
      Sadly, in communities like mine, we are training to obtain yesteryear's skills on yesteryear's machines. That is the real tragedy. Inward investors ask, "Where are the modern skills and a trained work force? Where are the work force who understand the concept of total quality management and understand a modern production line rather than the old-fashioned ones?" Because of the lack of manufacturing investment, people in my area are being trained on machines, and therefore for skills, that are
      334
      already out of date. The problem is not only a lack of manufacturing investment, but the fact that that lack has led to the sacrifice of the training skills in our communities.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has raised an important fundamental principle that is essential to the redevelopment of the economy in areas such as mine. As a result of inward investment, we desperately hope that the development of component making and the provision of services to new manufacturers will play a part in our manufacturing salvation. There have been some exciting success stories, such as Nissan in the north-east and Sony in Bridgend, where the resourcing of components has begun to create alternative manufacturing job opportunities in smaller companies.
      I have been involved in prompting, cajoling, pleading with and begging the Welsh Development Agency and a succession of Secretaries of State to take the supply development initiative seriously. It would enable local companies to service, feed and deliver components to the occasional new company that we manage to attract to our areas. That is the way to increase the number of manufacturing jobs in our society. In the present climate, in which companies face cripplingly high interest rates, a lack of liquidity and the absence of proper manufacturing incentives, manufacturing supply development initiatives are simply dreams rather than practical propositions.
      The desperate need to create a new manufacturing training programme and the opportunity to develop supply development initiatives are dependent on a new spirit, attitude and set of incentives designed to assist manufacturing in communities such as mine.
      Mr. Tim Smith: I apologise to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) because I was not present at the start of his speech. However, I listened carefully to the remainder of what he said.
      Although the hon. Gentleman's amendments are well intentioned, they are misguided. They are well intentioned because everyone wants a strong manufacturing base and increased manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom. The question is whether it makes sense in tax terms to discriminate positively in favour of manufacturing and, by definition, against other forms of investment.
      Labour Members have consistently had difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that, in an expanding economy, manufacturing, by definition, tends to constitute a smaller and smaller proportion of national output. In Britain, it constitutes about 25 per cent. of output, but in other economies it accounts for a much smaller proportion. That is a sign not of failure but of success. It is a sign of overall growth, because there is a finite limit to the demand for manufactured goods by consumers. Consumers with large disposable incomes have a greater propensity to spend on increased services, such as leisure, tourism, sport and other service products.
      Labour Members also find it difficult to appreciate that manufacturing businesses have tended to concentrate more and more on their core activities. For example, they may have carried out one particular function that was important but ancillary to the core business, in-house, but today they tend to contract out that service.
      The successful American company, Mars, which is based in Slough, ran a large transport business, which was an integral part of its manufacturing business. A few years

      335
      ago, it sold the transport business, through a management buy-out, to the people who ran it. Therefore, that is now a separate business and, for the purposes of the standard industrial classification, is now categorised as a service rather than as a manufacturing business. Nothing had actually changed, but Mars, like many other companies, had decided to concentrate on its core manufacturing activity and to contract out the important support services.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that capital allowances work, and he cited the period from 1984 to 1986 to support his proposition. However, that proposition depends on what one means by capital allowances and what one means by work. The hon. Gentleman picked a strange period, because it came immediately after the Lawson reforms. The great advantage of, and the important element in, the Lawson reforms was that the standard rate of corporation tax was reduced from 52 to 35 per cent. Since then, the Treasury has further reduced the figure to 33 per cent., as we can see from clause 19.
      Mr. Chris Smith: The reason I cited that period was that the Lawson reforms were announced in 1984, and they were introduced in 1986. In the intervening period, when the threat of the removal of capital allowances was hanging over British industry, manufacturing investment increased by 19.1 per cent. in 1984 and by 14.7 per cent. in 1985. It was clear that the existence of capital allowances, combined with the prospect of their removal, acted as a powerful incentive for investment to take place.
      Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman is almost right. The allowances were not announced in 1984 and introduced in 1986. There was a three-year transitional period, in which the rate of capital allowance was reduced by a percentage per annum. I think that the transitional period ran for three years, during which capital allowances were gradually phased out. I accept that, in that period, some investment was brought forward to take advantage of the higher rates of allowances.
      When I worked in industry in the 1970s and a 100 per cent. capital allowance existed, there was no doubt that, at the end of the financial year, we carefully considered whether we could make any additional investment because the rate of allowance was so high. Such investment was made for the wrong reasons. It is quite wrong for any commercial decision to be taken for tax reasons.
      If commercial decisions are taken for tax reasons and not on their commercial merits, taxation can distort decision making. That happened in the 1970s, when we had a high rate of corporation tax and high capital allowances. From my experience, I can tell the House that that is what happened. We should not focus on the quantity of investment only: we need to focus on its quality.
      Mr. Clive Betts rose—
      Mr. Smith: I shall give way in a moment.
      Over the past 30 to 40 years, there was no shortage of investment in eastern European countries. The result of that investment is derelict and serves no useful purpose at all. The investment was totally and utterly useless, because it was not part of a market economy and the products produced were quite unsaleable.
      Mr. Betts: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that taxation distorts commercial decisions. Is the logic of that that there should not be any taxation in the commercial arena and that, far from changing allowances, there should be no allowances to encourage investment?
      Mr. Smith: The object of taxation is to raise revenue for the Treasury. If we were in the fortunate position of some countries, such as some states in the middle east, we would not need taxation, which has no virtue of its own. There is a good intellectual case for not having corporation tax and for taxing only company profits that are in the hands of shareholders. That is rather wide of the debate, but it is an interesting argument against corporation tax.
      Any corporation tax is a burden on companies. The main source of investment in the United Kingdom is not borrowed money or shareholders' money, but retained profits. That is not widely understood. That forms the largest source of investment, and the larger the proportion of profit removed by the Treasury the smaller the proportion that remains for investment. That is why any sensible taxation system should be based on the lowest possible rate. That applies to income tax as much as to corporation tax, and there should be as few allowances as possible. That will lead to the fewest possible economic distortions.
      Politicians always want to interfere in industry to try to achieve this, that or the other worthwhile objective. That did not work in the 1970s, and it would not work now.
      Mr. Beith: The debate is a re-run of one that we had a year or 13 months ago when virtually the same amendment was tabled. Since then, I have not become any more convinced by the argument. I accept the analysis by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of the worrying state of investment in manufacturing and I share some of his general observations. However, that is some way from being convinced that the proposed method of operating the tax system would bring about the sensible investment that is required. That is a large assumption. To start with, one has to distinguish between manufacturing and services, and that is a difficult and unreal distinction.
      It is not necessarily detrimental to a country to have more investment in services than in manufacturing. The line is arbitrary, and activities which some people might consider wholly undesirable are to be found in manufacturing while activities which would pass the highest test of acceptability to every Labour Member are found on the service side of the line.
      There is no established correlation between the size of a country's manufacturing sector and its general economic performance. Manufacturing is desirable, but it is not an index of overall economic success. It is therefore difficult to justify a pro-manufacturing or pro-services stance. That has not been shown to be a direct route to overall economic success.
      In assessing the amendment, we must consider whether investment decisions taken on the basis of this year's tax relief would be significantly different, and, if so, whether they would be significantly better. It is arguable that they might not be significantly different and that one year's tax relief is not enough to tip the balance on many major investment decisions. Would it indeed be right for that to tip the balance, and what are we discounting against that tax relief? How marginal was the investment decision, and

      337
      what assumptions are made about future achievements for which one year's tax relief will pay? At best, it is a questionable proposition.
      More effort must be directed to justifying the expenditure of large amounts, especially if the resources could be used to improve the system in other ways. I shall argue on a subsequent amendment that it might be better to give business the security of knowing that inflation would not erode the allowances that it enjoys under the tax system. That would enable it to predict with reasonable accuracy the relationship between the tax system, the company's financial position, and the value of its assets. No doubt the Minister will have estimated the cost of accepting the amendment.
      In criticising the effectiveness of the proposal, and in saying that its effect, if any, might be to lead to bad investment decisions, I do not dissent from the expressed desire for greater investment—but the case is not proven that such measures will lead to good quality investment decisions in manufacturing.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Jim Dowd: I rise to speak for the first time in the Chamber. When I was preparing my speech I asked someone whose recollection of when he made his maiden speech is dim and distant about the sort of reception that I could expect. I was told that the Chamber has three types of people: those on the Front Benches who are present because they have to be; those who have just spoken and who will stay for a decent interval before leaving; and those who would be waiting for me to sit down so that they could speak. I shall therefore do what I can to keep my speech brief.
      My first thanks go to the people of Lewisham, West and I pledge to work on their behalf. My constituency has had a habit—I use the past tense—of changing its representatives at fairly regular intervals. I am sure that it has outgrown that, however, and can look forward to some decades of uncharacteristic tranquillity. The constituency covers a fairly anonymous part of inner suburban London—Forest Hill, Catford and Sydenham. I am sure that not many Members are familiar with it because it is so far from a tube station and the paucity of black cabs means that journalists, in particular, regard it as an extreme adventure to go that far. In common with millions of people throughout the British Isles, however, the people of Forest Hill, Sydenham and Catford are decent, hard-working and industrious and judge their public representatives harshly. I shall be happy to rest on their future judgment.
      The constituency has had a collection of representatives in the House. The father of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who was in the Committee a short time ago, represented the constituency for a short time just after the war. John Maples was my immediate predecessor. Politically, he and I were about as opposed as it is possible to be on most things. In his maiden speech some nine years ago he called, rather inauspiciously, for the introduction of a poll tax. He even called it that at the time. He then spent some years learning to call it a community charge. In the world outside, one can always recognise Ministers or their predecessors because they are the only people who talk about the community charge—the rest of the world calls it the poll tax.
      338
      As I have said, I did not get on with Mr. Maples politically. He strongly supported the abolition of the Inner London education authority, a blow which inflicted grievous damage on the education prospects not just of children but of almost the entire population of inner London. He opposed the establishment of a London-wide authority, the absence of which has damaged the prospects of London people. Despite our political differences, however, I found Mr. Maples helpful and courteous and I wish him well in whatever lies before him. I am led to believe that he is well thought of in certain circles in the Conservative party, so perhaps we shall see him somewhere else. I suspect that the people of Lewisham have taken permanent leave of him.
      The hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) represented Lewisham, West for a couple of years back in the 1960s, as did the now Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      Mr. Paul Boateng: Did he?
      Mr. Dowd: My hon. Friend should know that. I was reminded of the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office in Lewisham only the other day when I heard a farmer being interviewed on the radio. The interview took place the day after the right hon. Gentleman returned from discussions in Brussels on the reform of the common agricultural policy. The farmer was making some fairly unenthusiastic comments about the Minister and at the same time there were strange noises in the background. In a broad west country accent, the farmer said, "No, that be not John Gummer—that be Crocus the pig." That was on "The World At One". The Minister is remembered in Lewisham, West.
      Perhaps my most illustrious predecessor was Christopher Price. He made a considerable mark and is well remembered for his efforts. He is well remembered, especially in these times, for the work that he did in what became known as the Confait case. It was one of the earliest exposures of poor practices in the administration of justice and in the processes of the Metropolitan police. Christopher Price was tenacious for many years. I believe that many hon. Members who have followed in his footsteps to some extent examined the way in which he pursued justice in the Confait case. They have gone on to reveal many of the sad but damning miscarriages of justice that we have seen in recent times.
      That is a broad outline of Lewisham, West and of those who have represented the constituency in the past.
      I am grateful to be able to speak in the debate because my background is in engineering, which is the largest element of manufacturing industry. I disagree with those who have said that the plight of manufacturing industry is a tribute to our success. I am reminded of the comment that if we have many more successes like this, we shall all be ruined. The economy has always relied on a strong manufacturing base and it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. That being so, we need to do what we can to nurture manufacturing industry.
      I accept that an enlightened taxation regime alone will not enable manufacturing industry to thrive and flourish. That alone will not make the difference between success and failure. I am certain, however, that such a regime provides a framework around which much can be achieved. Without a sympathetic, understanding and supportive industry, Britain will dissolve and enter into a

      339
      stately decline over the years as other nations overtake us one by one, whether they be our European competitors or the emerging industrial powers of the far east. Such a decline would have grave economic and social consequences for the people of Britain.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) asked whether, if we provide tax incentives for manufacturing, we shall discriminate against other forms of investment. My short answer is that we would and we should. Manufacturing strength is the key to the wellbeing of our competitors in Europe and throughout the world. Their pre-eminence in industrial and economic terms is built on their manufacturing base. Until we are able to emulate them, we shall be in terrible trouble.
      The manufacturing sector is losing an enormous number of jobs. At the same time, production is in decline. That is one of the consequences of the lost jobs, many of which were skilled. We are losing skills and Britain is in danger of providing the tin bashers of Europe. That will happen if all the high-value-added jobs go abroad. If that happens, we shall be lucky if we are able to attract, by tax policies as much as anything else, investment by overseas multinationals for the assembly of high-tech goods which are manufactured elsewhere. There is the danger that we shall become little more than an assembly operation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) talked about training. In 1967, I became an apprentice telephone engineer with what was then the Post Office. That was before all this British Telecom nonsense and when the Post Office was something worth while. During 1967, when I was 16, about 25,000 apprentices were taken on by the Post Office; last year, British Telecom took on about 100. That is what happens when a manufacturing skills base is lost. Opportunities are lost for young people and communities become unbalanced.
      I went on to work for Plessey, which was taken over by the consortium of GEC and Siemens. I am not entirely au fait with parliamentary privilege, so I shall not say precisely what I should like to put before the House. Those who have expressed their views of Arnold Weinstock outside the Chamber are currently before the courts, so I shall not be too provocative. There is a strong likelihood, however, that GEC-Plessey Telecoms, which is the only large-scale British telecommunications manufacturing company, will be entirely in German hands in the near future. Much of the high-value work that is carried out on modern telephone digital systems will he undertaken in Munich and Berlin and British plants will be reduced, if not closed.
      I am talking about good telephone systems. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that they are good because the one used in the Palace of Westminster was manufactured by Plessey and it functions extremely well. On the underside of the telephones that most of us have on our desks—large white ones with digital displays—there is the statement that they were made in the United Kingdom. That is actually a slight fiction. On the display side of the telephones are two red lights, the message waiting light and the call diverted light. Those are the only two items that were made in the United Kingdom. The telephones were shipped here as complete units, having been manufactured by Nitsuko in Japan. When they
      340
      arrived here, the two light-emitting diodes were added. That qualified the telephones to be classified as made in the United Kingdom, but all the real work was done elsewhere.
      I shall bring my remarks to a close because I have spoken for slightly longer than I intended. A healthy service sector is important, as everyone realises, but only as an adjunct to a firm manufacturing base. The British people will not survive if they are restricted solely to taking in one another's washing or cleaning one another's windows. There must be a firmer base for our prosperity across the range of engineering and industrial activities, which sadly have been in decline.
      It is possible to recover. Everyone in the Chamber will recall that a few decades ago the title, "Made in Japan" was regarded with derision. We bought Japanese goods only if we could not afford better, or if they were the only goods available to us. These days, that title means quality and value for money. It is a lesson that we would do well to learn. It is Britain's future in manufacturing that will serve the British people best in the long run.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Peter Mandelson: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) on his excellent maiden speech, which reflected well on himself and his future contributions in the House and his constituency. He described his constituency as an anonymous place, but there is little doubt in our minds this afternoon that, if he continues to make contributions such as he has made today, his constituency will quickly cease to be anonymous. I warmly congratulate him again.
      Amendment No. 2 addresses the problem of the many firms which are postponing or abandoning much-needed investment decisions, prolonging the recession and further weakening Britain's long-term manufacturing strength. By enabling a company to offset more of its investment costs against its corporation tax liability, an increase in allowances would stimulate and bring forward much needed industrial investment in Britain.
      The independent Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that the change contained in the amendment would lead to an increase in investment of 6.5 per cent. That, in its estimation, represents an increase in manufacturing investment of about £3.3 billion. Because the proposal is time-limited to one year, essentially so, it provides a powerful incentive for investment decisions presently in the balance to be brought forward, and would thus aid much-needed recovery. That is why we are promoting this important amendment.
      But let us be clear why we are doing so in the context of the wider argument that we need to have today about the importance of manufacturing in Britain, about the relationship between Government and industry in Britain and the conditions in which business can flourish. Let us be clear why manufacturing is so important.
      Manufacturing has been, is and always will be the main tradeable part of our economy. It is literally Britain's means of paying its way in the world. The idea that we can simply replace our manufacturing base with the service sector is not only economically wrong but underestimates the extent to which a thriving service sector depends on a thriving manufacturing sector. As this month's balance of payments figures demonstrate all too clearly, the principal

      341
      constraint upon our economic recovery, even when it comes, will be the inadequate base of our industry and our inability to increase the tradeable part of the economy.
      Of course, no one would claim that any lone action by Government, any single change in the tax regime or any specific increase in capital allowances would transform industry's prospects or performance. Instant solutions are not available, and the Labour party is not putting them forward. But that is not an argument for doing nothing, which seems to be a view held by many Conservative Members. Lying behind the amendment is the Labour party's contention that the Government simply must exercise much greater responsibility for supporting and encouraging the manufacturing sector.
      Why, during the past 13 years, have the Government turned their back on manufacturing in the way they have? It was not just a consequence of misguided economic logic, but a product of political prejudice, with manufacturing repeatedly dismissed as an obsession of the Labour party.
      By a uniquely destructive combination of policy measures, the Conservative party took a hatchet to manufacturing in Britain—hiking interest rates and the then value of the pound, massively increasing the price of electricity and gas supplied to industry, increasing VAT to 15 per cent. which affected service as well as manufacturing industry, and dismantling crucial instruments and areas of regional development policy. By all those means, that uniquely destructive combination of policies, the Conservative party wiped out 25 per cent. of Britain's manufacturing in its first five years in office.
      The effects of those locust years were disastrously experienced in my constituency. With the closure or retraction of major steel, marine engineering, electronics and light manufacturing works over that period, no fewer than 10,000 jobs were lost in Hartlepool in that period.
      In the current recession, the closures and the loss of jobs have continued. In the past two years new emerging high-tech firms have been left to flounder. The loss of high-precision engineering at Rolls-Royce in my constituency resulted in 450 redundancies. The closure of Isocom, making precision electronic parts, created a further 90 redundancies.
      What a tragedy—not just that the huge, wanton destruction of productive capacity has taken place in new as well as traditional industries, but that, in the second recession, like the first created by the Government, the Conservative party failed to take the measures necessary to spur the reinvestment needed to build up manufacturing afresh.
      There has never been any secret about the path to economic recovery of towns such as Hartlepool and the country as a whole. That path depends above all on innovation, on developing new products and new processes to replace those that have gone. It rests on converting scientific inventiveness and research into competitive production and tradeable goods. The Government recognise that need only in their rhetoric. They fail to take the action necessary to make it a reality.
      In the past 10 years, the Conservative Government have cut and cut again public support for research and development in Britain. The result is that, for every £1 spent in Britain on discovering and developing new technologies, £1.50 is spent in Italy, £2 in France and £2.35 in Germany.
      Government figures published only this week reveal that, despite the welcome increase in spending on research
      342
      and development by many British companies, we still as a nation spend less than half the amount per employee on research and development that is spent by companies in the United States and Germany.
      On the eve of the completion of the single market, the Germans, with the active backing of their Government, will invest about £3,000 for each manufacturing worker, and the Italians and the Americans will invest about the same. The Dutch will invest more than £6,000. Yet no more than £1,800 will be invested in each British manufacturing worker.
      There is just no comparison between what is being done in Britain for manufacturing and what is being promoted by the Governments of all our industrial rivals. Yet we compete in the same global marketplaces and are subject to the same intense competitive pressures as our rivals.
      It is not as if there is a shortage of inventiveness in Britain. There is no absence of enterprise in towns across Britain such as the one that I represent, yet what is so often researched in Britain is developed abroad. What is invented here is manufactured elsewhere. All too often, that is because neither the Government and their agencies nor the banks and their local branches will do enough to nourish new products and new firms from their inception. The Government still refuse to face up to that fact and to act on it.
      We have heard that again today in contributions from Conservative Members. Their complacent, apathetic response to Labour's proposal this afternoon confirms the extent of the Government's indifference. It shows the depth of their insincerity when they talk of the needs of industry.
      It is worthy of note that, in its Budget submission to the Chancellor in January, the CBI called for increases in investment allowances to help industry. It wanted the Chancellor to raise allowances for plant and machinery from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent., which is what Labour proposes today. I am happy to act as a mouthpiece for the CBI when it acts as a champion of British industry. There is no doubt what companies now want. Business men in my constituency are asking not only for much-needed economic stability but for banks that stick with them and a Government who are willing to use the instruments of regional policy to target incentives for location, expansion and innovation.
      The message is clear, but who is listening in the upper reaches of Government? Following the general election, industry must have been heartened and encouraged to read some of the early newspaper stories that were spun from 10 Downing street. "Major focusses on industry", said the Financial Times; "Major puts support for industry at centre of post-election strategy", said another newspaper. Industry waited for the new initiative heralded by those headlines, eagerly anticipating the first decisive action of the new appointee, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). When the first blow was struck, however, it was not for the promotion of manufacturing but for the self-promotion of the man.
      The right hon. Member for Henley decided to rename his job—not to emphasise industry, but to drop it entirely from his title. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry became simply the President of the Board of Trade. What signal was that supposed to send to Britain's manufacturing firms? The right hon. Gentleman cared so much for industry that he could not even be bothered to retain the word on his letter heading.

      343
      As the weeks have gone on, we have heard one presidential keynote speech after another—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from his own party's amendment.
      Mr. Mandelson: I am trying to put the amendment in context.
      The Chairman: It is for the hon. Gentleman to judge how to do that, but he has not succeeded so far.
      Mr. Mandelson: Let me try to return to the main argument.
      According to the right hon. Member for Henley, the Government want to "take determined, positive action" to deal with the trade deficit and to promote the interests of manufacturing industry. That is the objective of our amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, however, boasts openly that increasing his Department's activity would mean increasing that Department's expenditure, and he says that he refuses to do that.
      One is left with the unavoidable impression that what the right hon. Gentleman wants is not better relations with industry and the promotion and growth of the manufacturing sector but better press relations for the President of the Board of Trade. He is seeking not greater public support for industry and the manufacturing sector —which we seek in our amendment—but greater public attention for himself. If that impression is correct, the right hon. Gentleman's reputation will soon become the most rapidly squandered in government.
      There are some in the north-east who have a keen interest in the growth of the manufacturing sector, and have voiced support for the amendment, and who retain some hope for the right hon. Member for Henley. One prominent business leader in the region, a former public servant, commented: "From what one hears, there are one or two things that he would be willing to do"—but quickly added, "only if his colleagues were like-minded, and from what I hear that is not so." Judging by what Conservative Members have said so far, most of those colleagues are assembled on the Front Bench today—including, I suspect, the Minister who is to reply to the debate.
      5.45 pm
      No one can take any satisfaction from the fact that the right hon. Member for Henley seems to be losing his battle against the intransigence and indifference of the Treasury in the course of his quest for the promotion of the manufacturing sector. Many managements and work forces have shared objectives, and feel an ardent desire to act in partnership within their local communities; they want to boost their businesses, and they want our amendment to be accepted. When they call for such measures, they are not engaging in special pleading, and they do not want to be featherbedded. All they want is a framework of support in which they can prove themselves.
      That is why the Labour party will continue to champion the cause of manufacturing, and to call for the adoption of increased capital allowances for investment. We must do that: we have no choice, because so much is at stake for our constituencies and for manufacturing industry throughout the country.
      Mr. John Townend: I did not intend to speak, but I should like to make three short points.
      It is a bit rich for the Opposition to try to blame the Government for what has happened to manufacturing industry. We all appreciate the importance of manufacturing, especially those of us who represent northern constituencies, but we must ask where the greatest declines have taken place. One of the main components of our current balance of payments deficit is the car industry deficit. Who destroyed the British car industry? It was not destroyed by a lack of capital allowances, or by a Conservative Government. It was destroyed by the car industry itself—principally the unions, with strikes, go-slows, bad quality and restrictive practices. We all remember the time when inspectors could reject only a certain number of cars coming off the line on grounds of poor quality, because if they rejected more the workers would strike.
      Who destroyed the shipbuilding industry? We all remember a time when the order books were full, but then the boilermakers said, "We want to drill the holes in the hulls and we shall strike unless we get work."
      The Chairman: Order. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Let us return to the subject of capital allowances.
      Mr. Townend: I think that what I am saying is relevant. The decline in manufacturing industry is not due to a lack of capital allowances; it is due to the trade union activities of the 1970s as much as anything else.
      Training and education in the engineering industry have been mentioned. When the Opposition talk of the dearth of engineers, they always mention training, but they never mention education. We must remember that more and more of our able young people are going to university. Many youngsters who would once have taken apprenticeships at Rolls-Royce now opt for university instead. Regrettably, however, too few read engineering: they read history, sociology or business studies.
      Those are the future captains of industry. In Japan, far more graduates have engineering degrees. When they move on to general management and become captains of Japanese industry, they have an engineering background. I think that we should encourage far more people to read engineering at university. Not enough are encouraged to do so while they are at school, and many do not want to because qualifying as an engineer is very hard work—much harder than reading history, sociology or business studies. Anyone who denies that has not studied engineering.
      I do not think that capital allowances would play a major part in encouraging investment. Investment is being deterred by the lack of demand and by high interest rates. Despite reductions of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., our interest rates are still high in real terms. Industry is looking for lower interest rates. If we achieve higher demand and lower interest rates, investment will follow. Even if capital allowances of 100 per cent. were offered, without demand investment would not be made—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like to hear the truth.
      The Government might consider a change which would be helpful and just. Capital allowances are based on written-down values. It therefore takes a long time to write off machinery. I ask my hon. Friend the Financial

      345
      Secretary seriously to consider adopting the straight line method whereby machinery is written off within four or five years.
      Labour Members should realise that the Government have created an environment for investment, a low tax regime, and good industrial relations. As a result, we have had more than 50 per cent. of Japanese and American inward investment into Europe, and we can see the resurgence of the British motor industry with the Nissan plant in Sunderland and the Toyota plant in Derbyshire. In 18 months or two years' time, with those Japanese companies based in this country, we shall win back our export markets and reduce the deficit in motor vehicles.
      Dr. Roger Berry: It is with much pleasure that I rise to make my maiden speech. I have long wondered what the corridors of power were like. Little did I realise that, one day, I would have a desk in a corridor and, a few days later, a telephone. No doubt, given the ministerial statement last week, docklands is the next place on the agenda for Members.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), I received advice from colleagues about making my maiden speech and was told about the traditions. I put to one side my normal response to the word "tradition"—recalling that tradition is the democracy of the dead—and listened to what they told me. They said, "You must be non-controversial, must ay nice things about your predecessor and your constituency and, above all, must be brief." They did not say, "You must never plan to make your maiden speech in the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill before you know the outcome of the Danish referendum."
      My predecessor, Rob Hayward, paid me the compliment of referring to me in the Chamber before the general election. I assume that he did so in response to the vigour of my activities as Labour leader on Avon county council. In so doing, he established a new tradition in the House. I am aware of the tradition that new Members say nice things about their predecessor. Mr. Hayward established the tradition that existing Members say nice things about those who are destined to replace them. Notwithstanding our substantial political differences, I should like to place on record my gratitude for the work that he did for many constituents in Kingswood. I wish him well in the future.
      The constituency of Kingswood straddles the boundary between the city of Bristol and the borough of Kingswood. Half the constituency lies within the city of Bristol, parts of which were previously represented by Arthur Palmer and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The half of the constituency in the borough of Kingswood—if hon. Members are still with me—was previously represented by my good friend, Terry Walker, and the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall). I should like to thank them for my inheritance.
      That list shows that Kingswood has a rich and diverse political history. It also has a rich and diverse industrial history. It used to be an important area of coal mining —it is no longer so—and it used to be an important area for the boot and shoe manufacturing industry, but today only one firm is engaged in that work. Today, most of my constituents work in aerospace, defence-related industries, other manufacturing industries, financial services, local government and the health service. Many jobs have been lost in all those sectors.
      346
      Unemployment, or, according to the Government's statistics, the number of unemployed claimants—a rather different figure—has trebled in Kingswood in the past two years. I say to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who yesterday described the unemployed as "layabouts" and received no rebuke from his colleagues, that that is due not to a sudden outbreak of laziness in my constituency but to the fact that many manufacturing companies have shed hundreds of jobs. The list—Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, DRG Cartons, Bendix Engineering, Avon Tin Printers—is very long. Hundreds of people have been laid off.
      My unemployed constituents are not layabouts. They spend day after day and week after week looking for work. They are unemployed because work is not available. On their behalf, I resent the comment about them yesterday. My remarks reflect the views not only of my unemployed constituents but of unemployed people throughout the country and, I hope, of the majority of people.
      Unemployment and record interest rates have caused mortgage misery for thousands of families in my constituency, as elsewhere. There has been a record number of home repossessions because people have lost their jobs and because mortgage interest rates have been so high.
      The problem of homelessness in Bristol and Kingswood is second only to that in London. That is a result of the economic position in which my constituents find themselves. They want the Government not simply to sit on their hands but to take appropriate action. That is why I strongly support amendment No. 2. Measures to stimulate investment in manufacturing are not everything, and can never be, but they are an important part of a programme that any sane Government would propose to restore manufacturing and to reduce unemployment.
      Yes, of course other things can be done to reduce unemployment, such as releasing local council receipts to allow them to build the homes that people need and to repair crumbling schools. Yes, of course there should be an action programme for the long-term unemployed and greater investment in training.
      I say in response to the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that, yes, more investment should be made in education as well. Before becoming a Member, I worked in higher education. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the problem of underfunding in higher education is serious. I can tell him that Avon county council is working hard to train and educate young people. It is not helped when the Government's spending target requires the county council to make cuts of 12 per cent. or 13 per cent. in education year after year. The hon. Member for Bridlington was right—investment in education is important—but I would digress too far if I said any more about that.
      6 pm
      The importance of manufacturing was outlined earlier. Reference was made to the Lawson report. Mr. Lawson, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a big point of saying that he failed to understand why manufacturing was especially important. I offer two reasons. First, manufacturing is the engine of the economy. It is the sector of the economy which, above all, is engaged in innovation and developing new products. It is an engine for growth, which is why the economies that grow the most rapidly are those with a strong manufacturing sector.

      347
      Secondly, as has been said, our balance of trade is crucially dependent on our performance in manufacturing. Our economy is faced with a 0.5 per cent. predicted growth rate for this year—the worst growth rate for any of the European Community countries—and has an annual current account deficit heading for between £10 billion and £12 billion this year, following the most tentative signs of economic recovery imaginable. If such an economy is not in need of investment, I do not know what kind of economy is.
      For those who can see, there is enough evidence to suggest that Britain's lack of competitiveness is a serious matter. Restoring that competitiveness is an essential part of any strategy to reduce unemployment in my constituency or anywhere else. For that reason, I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
      Mr. Alan Milburn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry). His wit, passion and insight are a credit to the House and, like other hon. Members, I shall look forward to his contributions in the future.
      I support the amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition because, without them, the Finance Bill is a damp squib. I say that for two reasons. First, it is out of date even before it becomes the law of the land. The very economic predictions on which it is based have already been revised downwards as economic indicator after economic indicator and forecast after forecast have forced the Government to acknowledge that economic recovery is as far away as ever.
      Secondly, the Bill tackles the wrong problems. The essential economic problem facing the country is not over-taxation but chronic under-investment and short-termism. The Bill will merely exacerbate rather than tackle that particularly British problem. Crucially, the Bill does nothing to encourage investment in the key manufacturing sector that forms two thirds of the country's visible trade, which is why the amendments proposed by the Labour party are so important. They will begin to close the yawning investment gap that has developed between Britain and our competitors.
      According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in the decade after 1978 the United Kingdom's proportion of gross domestic product devoted to manufacturing investment fell from 3.3 per cent. to only 2.4 per cent., while that of France and Germany grew to 3.5 per cent. and 3.9 per cent. respectively. It is therefore little wonder that this country's balance of trade in manufactured goods went into the red for the first time since the industrial revolution and has stayed there ever since. Quite simply, our industries cannot compete because they lack investment in up-to-date plant and equipment. Between 1980 and 1989, the amount spent on manufacturing investment per employee in this country was only £1,980 a year. By contrast, in the United States and Germany it was £2,850 per employee, in France it was £3,300 and, finally and not surprisingly, in Japan it was £5,360.
      The Government's attitude towards the crisis is one of utter complacency. It is as if the £1,300 million trade gap that opened last month did not matter, as if the manufacturing import bill had not risen by 8 per cent. in
      348
      the previous year or as if the Confederation of British Industry's prediction of a further loss of 200,000 manufacturing jobs in 1992 was absolutely irrelevant.
      My region, with its reliance on manufacturing, will again inevitably be one of the losers because of the failure of perception on the part of Ministers. In this recession, my constituency of Darlington has already lost 1,300 manufacturing jobs. Between September 1978 and September 1991, manufacturing employment fell by about 36 per cent. in the north as a whole. It will come as no surprise that in the decade after 1979 investment fell by 43 percent. in my region —the largest collapse of any region in the United Kingdom. Almost £3,500 million more would have been invested in manufacturing in the north between 1980 and 1987 if investment had remained at its 1979 level.
      Two recent surveys of local businesses corroborate the picture of declining investment. According to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce's quarterly survey of investment intentions, the north-east's largest companies revised their investment plans downward by 5 per cent. during the first quarter of this year. In its first quarter review of business conditions in the region, the Northern Development Company reported that the balance of companies increasing exports sank to its lowest level for the seven quarters in which it had been undertaking its survey. Nearly one third of northern manufacturing companies were reported as cutting their work force. Inevitably, in this climate, the vast majority of surveyed firms were delaying their investment decisions.
      The north's skills and enterprise are being fatally compromised by a Government who have given up the ghost with regard to investment in the regions. Indeed, the Government are contributing directly to disinvestment in areas such as the north as they deliberately dismantle regional policy. Only this week I received figures from Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry that show that, since 1978, Government spending on regional financial assistance had collapsed by 85 per cent. in real terms in the north. In that year, the Labour Government were spending £158.8 million on regional assistance in the north. Last year, by contrast, the Conservatives spent just £23.6 million at 1978–79 prices.
      While the Government have let Britain's regions go to the wall, other Governments have helped their regions to adapt to new industries. A renewed commitment to regional investment is now needed to give our regions the chance to compete effectively and to benefit from the single European market; otherwise, we face the prospect of a two-tier Europe developing, with regions like the north of England doomed to decline on the periphery of our continent. Such regions are brimming with ideas, innovation and enterprise, but they need investment and the companies there need an incentive to invest.
      The Labour party's amendments represent a step in the right direction, towards a reinvigorated manufacturing base and a sustainable economic recovery, giving an immediate boost to manufacturing investment. Any failure to act now will forestall long-term economic recovery and, ironically, prove to be the Government's undoing. The chickens are already coming home to roost, as a weakened industrial base proves incapable of meeting even the weakened consumer demand during this recession. Inevitably, imports will go on rising and, with them, prices will rise. We shall no doubt then repeat the

      349
      same mistakes that were made during the 1980s. The brakes will be slammed on once again and we shall be plunged back into recession.
      There is another way—one that will stimulate investment to help British industry to compete and to export and, in particular, help regions like the north. The Confederation of British Industry reported in February this year, prior to the Budget, that it was seeking increased capital allowances along the lines that the Labour party is proposing today. CBI News in February said:
      "encouraging investment does not mean taking risks with inflation. Indeed, a more flexible, more efficient and more productive business sector is essential if the economy is to grow without inflationary pressures developing and a high level of investment is a key element in achieving this."
      If the Government are not prepared to listen to the Opposition and take note of our amendments, I hope that at least they will listen to the voice of business.
      Mr. John Hutton: May I add to the words of my hon. Friends my congratulations to hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who made highly articulate and impassioned speeches on behalf of their constituents. Although she is no longer in her place, may I also congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin), who made a highly articulate and cogent maiden speech.
      I wish to speak in support of the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and about its relevance to the engineering industries of the United Kingdom, particularly companies with a traditional association with the defence sector, which needs practical and tangible help from the Government if it is to succeed in moving successfully into new product markets.
      Some of the great industrial and manufacturing centres of the United Kingdom are represented on the Opposition Benches tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke passionately about the last 12 years in his constituency and the effects of the Government's policies on manufacturing investment and employment in south Wales. All my hon. Friends could repeat such stories of the misery caused by the Government's policies on manufacturing investment. In the past two years alone, my constituency has lost 7,500 jobs, all in the manufacturing sector. I remind the House that Barrow and Furness has the highest proportion of people employed in the manufacturing industry of any constituency in the United Kingdom. We are suffering directly and visibly because of the Government's consistent failure to support engineering and manufacturing industries. The amendment proposes a new regime of fiscal encouragement to stimulate fresh investment in the engineering sector, which will benefit companies in my constituency.
      The year 1991 was, without doubt, a bad year for manufacturing industry. The Engineering Employers Federation reported that engineering output continued to fall last year and no prospect of growth is predicted for the mechanical engineering sector either. The United Kingdom machine tool industry sees no sign of improvement this year. Manufacturing output has fallen from 11.8 per cent. of GDP in 1970 to about 8 per cent this year. OECD figures reveal that real growth in manufacturing output in the United Kingdom is the
      350
      smallest of all our principal economic competitors. Growth in the United Kingdom was only 0.8 per cent. compared to nearly 10 per cent. in Japan, more than 4 per cent. in the United States, nearly 3 per cent. in Italy and nearly 2 per cent. in West Germany.
      Mr. Barry Porter: Is it unreasonable to ask the hon. Gentleman to consider, in view of the attack that he has made on the Government's economic policies in the past 12 years, that, had the defence policies of the Labour party as evinced in 1979, 1983 and 1987 been followed, Barrow would have been a desert?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Hutton: That is an utterly predictable and hopelessly outdated response. It must be apparent to the hon. Gentleman that my constituents wanted a Labour Government because they returned a Labour Member of Parliament to represent them in the House. [Interruption.] I shall return to the main theme of my comments and ignore the hon. Gentleman's sedentary and ignorant comments.
      The last two recessions have reduced employment in engineering from 3.3 million in 1979 to only 1.9 million in 1991. The employment prospects of engineering companies continue to decline. The past 20 years have seen a consistent decline in engineering and the past 18 months of severe recession have only compounded those problems. That weakness in engineering can be clearly seen in the figures for manufacturing investment, which show that total manufacturing investment was lower in 1991 than in 1979, despite the windfall that came to the Treasury from North sea oil. Manufacturing investment has fallen as a percentage of GDP. The Government predict further falls in overall investment and I suspect that those falls may be larger than they envisage.
      The challenge facing the Government, therefore, is to pursue a much more productive approach to encouraging investment and to accept that they should pursue any instrument or tool available to them to stimulate that vital investment in engineering. It is the Government's responsibility to the defence industries of Britain to support companies such as Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. in my constituency, which is anxious to move into new product areas. The amendment will support the efforts of many companies in my constituency.
      For all those reasons, the amendment is important to the engineering industries of Britain. Increased capital allowances are an effective means of promoting new investment, as shown by many of the reports which my hon. Friends quoted this afternoon. We recognise that improving capital allowances in manufacturing industry, particularly engineering, will not produce a sudden splurge of new investment but it will produce an essential source of new investment for engineering companies and encourage them to invest. By time-limiting the new allowances to one year, as the amendment proposes, investment decisions will be brought forward. Our amendment would go some way towards putting right the signal neglect of manufacturing industry since 1979, and I endorse it.
      Mr. Betts: First, I congratulate you, Mr. Lofthouse, on your appointment and my colleagues the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) on their excellent maiden speeches on this crucial issue of investment in our manufacturing industries.

      351
      After Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister, a funny thing happened to some of my constituents: they had problems getting to sleep. Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion and thinks that perhaps the spectre of the lady on our television sets had something to do with it, let me tell the House that the problem had to do with noise. For years—indeed, for generations—my constituents who live near the industrial heartland of Sheffield, the lower Don valley, had gone to bed at night and listened to the rhythmic thumping of the drop hammers and forges which were the basis of the great steel and engineering industries of our city. Suddenly, within three or four years, that rhythmic sound stopped. Many of my constituents found that after the decline of that industry they could no longer get to sleep because they had been so conditioned to the noise and its lulling effect that its absence led to insomnia. Within four years, the powerhouse, not merely of Sheffield industry but of the British steel and engineering industry, was cut out. Highly specialised and highly skilled though it was, it became largely redundant.
      The decline began with short-time working. It continued with redundancies. It was followed by further redundancies, closures and the sale of machines, often to other countries that still saw a need for manufacturing investment. It was further followed by the removal of factories' roofs and then by the demolition of the factories; piles of rubble were left in their place. Then the Government acted: we had the introduction of derelict land grants. The Government's response to the collapse of industry in Sheffield was to offer grants to clear up the sites once the factories had been demolished and 40,000 jobs in one valley had been destroyed in fewer than 10 years. That is the record that my constituents have to look back on.
      Certainly, a lack of investment by many of the firms played a part—that is why this amendment on manufacturing investment is so important—and subsidised imports from other countries played a part; yet, throughout that time, the one consistent factor in the Government's response was complete inaction—the same sort of inaction that characterises their approach to the Finance Bill and the amendment.
      I am not one of those who argue that wealth can be created only by manufacturing industry. Nurses and home helps are an important part of wealth creation. However, historically, manufacturing industry has been a key element in the British balance of payments. Until 1983, we always had a surplus on our trade in manufacturing industry. It is significant that since 1983 we have had not a surplus in any one year. Nor am I seeking to argue that we can replace like with like. We cannot recreate the drop hammers and forges of the past. Yet the amendment is important because it is a signal that we do not regard British manufacturing industry as dead, although in many ways it is profoundly unhealthy and in need of the sort of assistance that our amendment would provide.
      In the initial years of the 1980s while the Government failed to act, Labour local authorities often sat down with industrialists to work out in partnership some alternative way forward. Eventually, the Government introduced development corporations and had the idea of city challenge. Both ideas were imposed without consultation. They were flawed, but at least they signalled some
      352
      recognition by the Government that some action was necessary, in particular to stave off the threat of a further decline in our older industrial areas.
      Tonight we ask the Government to listen to our argument that so far action has been too little, too late and that therefore they should support our proposals. It is not only manufacturing industry that needs that response. Look at the construction industry and the unemployment there. Construction firms are going to the wall. Think how much they would benefit from any resurgence in manufacturing investment because it would create work for them.
      Our suggestion of capital allowances is a positive move forward. What alternative are the Government offering? So far as I can see, little—indeed, nothing. That should not surprise us. Their record is deplorable. We are the only country in the European Community to have a lower level of manufacturing investment now than we had in 1979. There has been an 11 per cent. fall in manufacturing investment in the past 12 months and a 27 per cent. fall during the recession. Those figures come from Government Departments, so the Government cannot deny them. Manufacturing output is only 2 per cent. higher than it was in 1979. How does that square with the claims for a great economic miracle? Since 1979, growth in manufacturing output has been less in Britain than in any other major industrialised country. Even the CBI predicts further falls this year.
      For the crucial issue of our balance of payments, that basic lack of manufacturing capacity means that as soon as there is any spark of recovery imports will be sucked in because our industry will not be able to produce the goods. The basic problem of a lack of investment in manufacturing industry will put a cap on the effective limit of any recovery that the Government can achieve. It will cap their ability to deal with the fundamental issue of unemployment.
      I will not argue today that agreement to the proposal for capital allowances will bring back those rhythmic sounds that might help some of my constituents to sleep, but at least it might do something to bring back investment to manufacturing industry and that might help some of my constituents to find jobs.
      Mr. Ken Purchase: I rise to speak in support of the amendment and then to speak specifically about my area, the west midlands, and Wolverhampton in particular, which it would assist. I do not need to rehearse the arguments or review history again —it is plain to see. There has been a massive reduction in employment opportunities in the west midlands, where manufacturing has been hit particularly hard. My colleagues have reviewed many of the discussions and introduced the statistics that underlie and illustrate what we have been seeing in the United Kingdom, especially in the west midlands, in recent years.
      If we adopt the amendment, we will send a signal to industry that the Government support a revival and reinvestment strategy for engineering and manufacturing production. In the meantime, it is not the perception of industry that the Government care what is happening to it. Therefore, the adoption of the amendment would send a good signal.

      353
      6.30 pm
      In Wolverhampton and the black country, industry and housing have long lived cheek by jowl and, in recent years, steps have been taken to ease the tensions that frequently arise between two. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on local authorities and companies to reduce and clean up emissions from their plants in urban areas and so prevent the pollution that has been such a problem for so many years.
      We all support the view that emissions should be purified and pollution dealt with, but there are problems. Wolverhampton has many foundries, and I understand from the local authority that more than 140 of the processes used in them will require authorisation under the 1990 Act. Existing companies have been given time to introduce the changes, and that is helpful, but new companies have to meet the requirements from day one.
      The Minister talked at some length about the need to encourage new starts and boasted of the Government's record in that regard, and we need not refer to the number of companies that have failed in the same period. It is important, however, that we recognise the difficulties that both new and existing companies—particularly in the foundry industry in my area—will experience as a result of the 1990 Act.
      I remind hon. Members that it costs £900 simply to apply for authorisation. To some small companies, that is a great deal of money. One company in my area consists of just a couple of blokes with a process for brass-plating door furniture and other household goods. The cost of applying, and the cost of improving the quality of factory emissions, will place a great burden on such companies. The amendment would be of some help in the important process of improving the quality of industrial emissions in my area.
      The metal melting industry also has considerable problems and would benefit from the amendment. It is expected that, for quite a small company, the capital outlay involved in complying with the new regulations will be up to £10,000. At a practical level, assistance with the work would be helpful. The Department of Trade and Industry is not over-helpful at present. No company seeking merely to meet the requirements of the 1990 Act qualifies for help, and the amendment would be of considerable assistance in solving that problem, especially as the cost to larger companies with a number of stacks is expected to be as high as £500,000.
      Wolverhampton and the west midlands desperately need investment. They also need to comply with the new requirements. I ask the Minister to recognise the help that the amendment would give to many small companies—companies for which he professes concern in overcoming their difficulties in improving their processes, and in meeting the demands that are rightly to be made of them. Given what is happening elsewhere in the world—I am thinking of Brazil in particular—it is especially important that we recognise the need to meet such environmental standards. I repeat that the amendment would help many small companies in Wolverhampton and the west midlands to do that.
      Mr. Dorrell: I could spend a long time on the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), as I am familiar with the problems of foundries. One in my own constituency faced exactly the environmental problems that the hon.
      354
      Gentleman described. His argument was not quite the same as that of most Opposition Members who spoke in support of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
      We have heard two maiden speeches. The first was from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), and I am grateful to him for the good wishes that he offered to John Maples. Conservative Members have good reason to be grateful to John because, during the general election, he was one of the most effective exponents of our case. He exposed the weakness of the shadow Cabinet's argument and helped to ensure that in the end, faced with the choice between the economic policy and Budget proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the policies espoused by the Government, the electorate chose the latter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Except his constituents."] That is the great loss of the people of Lewisham, West and, as their new Member of Parliament was gracious enough to say, the House is confident in the expectation that John will soon be back here with us.
      The hon. Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) also made his maiden speech, and I was grateful to him for what he said about Rob Hayward. The Boundary Commission is to continue its work during this Parliament and I am sure that Conservative Members, at least, will miss the expert advice that Rob gave us on the activities of the commission and their implications.
      The hon. Member for Kingswood stressed the importance that he attached to manufacturing industry as the solution to the unemployment problem in his constituency, and it is that issue to which I shall now refer. I do not disagree with the proposition that manufacturing industry has a part to play in job creation and economic expansion, but it is only a partial role. The Opposition have argued that a special case should be made for manufacturing. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that their arguments are simply not convincing.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked us to go back to, and to back, manufacturing. The Government have been accused of attaching inadequate importance to manufacturing and of being biased against it. I simply do not accept that any of those propositions is true. I do not need persuading of the importance of manufacturing or of the contribution that it can and does make to a buoyant economy. I came from a manufacturing background myself, and my family business is still involved in manufacturing. If I took seriously the strictures of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I might even have declared an interest in manufacturing at the beginning of my speech. I do, however, need persuading that the contribution that the manufacturing sector makes to the economy is better, more vital or more special than—or different from—the contribution that any other sector of the economy makes to economic output.
      I will explain why I take that view. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, the definition of manufacturing as an economic activity is very arbitrary —so arbitrary, in fact, that two Opposition Members spent a significant part of their time espousing the causes of companies which were not even in the manufacturing sector. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked why Peter Walker deemed it desirable to shift people from mining into banking. Neither of those

      355
      activities is manufacturing. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West spoke about his former employment in British Telecom. The vast bulk of BT's activities are not manufacturing.
      Mr. Dowd: I said that I started with the GPO 25 years ago. That was where I was trained. I subsequently spent 25 years with Plessey which is now GEC-Plessey Telecoms. I did not work for British Telecom.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman was also at pains to say that he worked in British Telecom in the days when there was none of the "privatisation nonsense". As one of my colleagues remarked, in those days people had to wait four months for a telephone.
      I am trying to remind the House that the definition of manufacturing is relatively arbitrary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield explained, when Mars moved its distribution activity from in-house and subcontracted it to a third party, that moved activity—entirely arbitrarily—out of manufacturing into the distribution and, therefore, the service sector.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Minister is labouring the point. However, the Government support selective financial assistance with great enthusiasm. In communities such as mine, the SFA is defined in terms of manufacture investment. The Minister should not stress the point too much or he will undermine one of the central points and policies which has been supported by successive Secretaries of State for Wales.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to establish a split on that subject. It is important that all economic activity is desirable. Manufacturing, although desirable, is no more or less desirable than other forms of economic activity.
      The suggestion that the Government are uncommitted to manufacturing because it has been declining as a share of our total economic activity over many years, including under Labour Governments, does not stand up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield rightly said, the share of manufacturing in total economic activity is declining in all developed economies, partly because of the point about definition that I have made, and partly because when consumers have marginal income available to them they spend it disproportionately on other activities rather than on the purchase of goods. That leads to an expansion of other activities within a free economy.
      I do not find attractive the particular method of promoting manufacturing espoused by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The House should concentrate for a second on the fact that the amendment would not even channel capital allowances to the totality of manufacturing industry. The flow would be to those parts of manufacturing activity designated by order. The amendment seems to imply that Labour believes that it is desirable that capital allowances should be available to sectors defined by order by politicians. That seems to me to be the least desirable kind of capital allowance.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I was disappointed to hear the Minister refer to manufacturing industry as though it were equivalent to any other part of our economy. Nigel Lawson made that point early in his period as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but then seemed to
      356
      withdraw from it. I am disappointed to see the idea resurrected. Clearly the most important aspect of manufacturing industry is that it is responsible for most of our exports. Japan and Germany are more successful than the United States and Britain because of the development of their manufacturing industries. We have not heard such comments from a Minister since they were made by Nigel Lawson some years ago.
      Mr. Dorrell: The export record of British manufacturing industry is substantially more successful than most observers often recognise. Our share of world trade in manufactures is estimated to have risen in 1991 for the third year running. I am not trying to belittle the importance of manufacturing. At the beginning of my remarks, I stressed that I come from a manufacturing background and I represent a constituency where a substantial proportion of people are employed in manufacturing. However, I do not support the assertion, which is the necessary consequence of arguing that manufacturing is more important, that those employed in distribution, banking, services or mining and primary production are less important than those involved in manufacturing. I do not believe that that is true.
      Whether or not we accept that manufacturing is separate, special and should be particularly assisted, there is the wider question whether capital allowances are a desirable way of promoting investment in manufacturing industry specifically or in the generality of industry.
      6.45 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget speech that the Government had reconsidered that point again very recently. All the considerations of issues in the run-up to the Budget are supposed to take place in total secrecy. However, in the interests of open government my right hon. Friend the Chancellor drew the veil aside slightly on Budget secrecy in his speech when he said:
      "I have considered this proposition very carefully. I would be as concerned as anyone if I thought that the corporation tax system introduced in 1984 was acting as a drag on profitable investment … The evidence suggests that the cost of higher capital allowances to the Exchequer would be several times greater than the resulting increase in investment over the next few years. I have therefore concluded that, whatever its superficial attractions, an increase in capital allowances would not be a sensible use of the resources available."—[Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 750.]
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor considered the point carefully and recently, and concluded that it was not
      "a sensible use of resources".
      It is legitimate to ask why he reached that conclusion.
      Mr. Chris Smith: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury must realise that studies undertaken by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Keele university, both of which I tend to believe rather more than I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, find to the contrary. The cost of introducing capital allowances would be far outmatched by the benefit in terms of investment which would then take place.
      Mr. Dorrell: That point may be espoused by Keele university, but it is not espoused by the Government. Before I was interrupted, I was about to explain why we reached the conclusion that we did. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reached the conclusion that he did because he looked at the evidence. He found that if we

      357
      consider the record of business investment over the past 15 years and compare the investment records of British business under the regime espoused by the Labour party and put in place by Labour during the five years of the 1974 Parliament with the five years of the 1987 Parliament, it is clear that the average rate of investment over the five years of the 1987 Parliament was 52 per cent. higher in real terms than under the regime espoused by the Labour party. I am not trying to dissemble between different types of investment. Manufacturing investment was 15 per cent. higher in the 1987 Parliament than it was in the 1974 Parliament. The facts do not support the assertion that capital allowances increase the flow of investment in the way argued by the Labour party.
      If we compare the profitability of British industry now with earlier years, not only has investment continued to flow quickly into the business sector under this Government: the profitability of British business is also significantly higher. That is important for two reasons. First, it signifies that the investment is better and higher quality investment, delivering a better economic return. Secondly, it is important for the reason made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield—that the largest single source of capital to finance investment is retained profits. If we want investment to expand, one of the best ways to deliver that is to improve the rate of profitability so that business has more money available to use for that desirable investment.
      Mr. Sheldon: I apologise for intervening again, but I read with some care the passage from the Chancellor's speech that the Minister has quoted. The Chancellor had obviously considered the matter and, as a result, I am sure that the House took note of it. However, he was referring to capital allowances generally, not to manufacturing capital allowances or plant and machinery. Those are the areas about which we should be concerned. If the Minister considered that more limited area, he would find the arithmetic rather different.
      Mr. Dorrell: I made it clear that I had moved on from the speciality of manufacturing to the general matter of capital allowances. For the reasons that I stated earlier, I do not accept the proposition that we should seek to bias the tax system in favour of manufacturing. I was then considering the wider matter of whether capital allowances were a sensible proposition in themselves, and I concluded that they were not.
      The amendment relates to the wrong issue. It would aim to generate an investment-led recovery, but history has shown time and again that investment-led recoveries are chimeras. Investment decisions by business should not be led by political considerations as to how to get a tax relief. Investment decisions should be the result of the assessment by business men themselves of the sales prospects and productivity gains which will deliver profits to business and economic strength to the community.
      The statistics show clearly that the regime that we have espoused has delivered not only more investment, but higher profitability of investment, and therefore the creation of a virtual circle which will deliver an expanding economy capable of financing further investment for the future and, most important of all, the expanding job opportunities that hon. Members rightly want as the result of a successful economy. I do not believe that the Opposition have made their case.
      Mr. Boateng: This is the first of our Committee debates on the Finance Bill. I suspect that it will be one of our shortest debates, because Opposition Members intend to fight the Bill with all the vigour that we possess, and to fight it when necessary late into the night. We possess great vigour.
      The debate takes place against a background of the most abject failure of manufacturing industry under the stewardship of the Conservatives. For example, 562,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector during this recession alone. According to the CBI, employment in manufacturing is forecast to fall by 143,000 between the first and fourth quarters of this year and by 214,000 by the end of 1993. No other country in the European Community has seen such a dramatic fall in manufacturing employment since 1979.
      The speech of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) was redolent with memory for hon. Members who have heard his speeches on previous Finance Bills.
      Mr. Tim Smith: It was the same speech.
      Mr. Boateng: Yes, it was the same speech, almost—we had a copy of the hon. Gentleman's contribution last year. We were told by him, "Never mind the quantity of investment, think only of the quality." I am bound to say that the contributions by Conservative Members—all three of them—were lacking in both respects.
      In respect of the quality and quantity of Opposition Members' speeches, we could not have hoped for better. One by one my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), for Kingswood (Dr. Berry), for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) spoke, and one by one they impressed by their knowledge and command of the subject. I would not do justice to their contributions if I did not pay particular regard to the maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, North-East and for Kingswood.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: What about my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin)?
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Newbury is not present, but she made a useful contribution. We agree with her on one point at least—the sooner Greenham common is returned to its true purpose, the better it will be. [Interruption.] Yes, the enjoyment of the common land by the ordinary people of that neighbourhood. We hope to celebrate that early return.
      It is useful to consider the amendment and Conservative Members' responses to it. We have brought forward a modest amendment—it is not outrageous and it should not offend those who are concerned about the health of our manufacturing industry—in a constructive spirit. We found support for the amendment from the CBI, engineering employers and the Trades Union Congress. They recognise the extent of the manufacturing crisis. They recognise, although it appears that the Government do not, the depth of the recession.
      Only yesterday, Government spin doctors were at work in no less a journal than the Evening Standard. [Interruption.] All right, it is hardly a journal of record, I grant hon. Members, but at least it is the authentic voice

      359
      of the modern Conservative party. What does the authentic voice of the modern Conservative party have to say about the recession. It says:
      "The Chancellor is still convinced the recovery will become firmly established this year."
      We have heard that before. Then it trots out some of the usual suspects for the cause of the recession and for the non-appearance of the recovery. We have heard many of them before, so I need mention them only in passing. They include a lack of consumer confidence. We were told, of course, that consumer confidence would suddenly revive the minute the Tories won the election. No such thing happened, of course. However, that point was trotted out. Interestingly, we are told that
      "Weaker energy output caused by maintenance work in the North Sea"
      is apparently a cause of the failure of the recovery to come on tap. The third reason, which is the most unusual of them all, is the "unseasonally good weather."
      Apparently, according to the Evening Standard and the spin doctors at the Treasury, some of whom may be writhing as I speak, the "unseasonally good weather" has a hand in the poor performance in the first quarter. We need to explore how the "unseasonally good weather" acounts for that poor performance and, more important and more interesting, what the Government will do about it.
      We have a hint from the Government's performance this afternoon. We have heard the rain-dancers of the Conservative party at work. I use the term "rain-dancers" advisedly. We have seen a variety of ritual movements and ritual incantations of the same old nostrums that those of us who have had to listen to them have heard year in and year out—the same old nostrums of Conservative market philosophy that have proved to be absolutely redundant and incapable of promoting the recovery that we seek. We have brought forward the amendment in the hope that the rain-dancers will recognise that, if they continue those incantations, vapid and vacuous movements and statements, they cannot hope to be the flower in the desert that they themselves have created.
      The case for capital allowances is unanswerable, and the Government have not answered it. It is built on a desire to begin to counteract the devastation that has occurred in the manufacturing sector. We take no comfort from any notion that, somehow, the development of the financial services industry is not to be welcomed—we welcome it. If we are creating a strong economy, we need a balance between financial services and manufacturing. But, as was pointed out in the debate, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood and for Lewisham, West, if one neglects manufacturing and believes simply that financial services alone can form the basis of a sound economy, one lives in cloud cuckoo land.
      Since the news was put out that the plug was to be pulled on Olympia and York at Canary Wharf, GEC has announced a cut of more than 800 jobs in Chelmsford in Essex on top of the 5,000 jobs lost in the company last year. The Commercial Vehicle company has announced that it is to go into receivership. Harking back again to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, British Aerospace has lost up to 640 jobs. Belling has gone into receivership, with the loss of 850 jobs in Enfield and a further 200 jobs in Burnley in Lancashire.
      360
      7 pm
      In this afternoon's debate we have heard speeches from those who have been engaged in promoting business in north Tyneside. They are not engaged in an academic exercise but are encouraging the development of business there. We heard from those involved in promoting co-operative industry in the midlands. Again, that is not abstract or esoteric; it is the practical experience of those men and women who are involved in building a strong manufacturing economy.
      We stand four square alongside those men and women and with the tide of history that says that manufacturing is important, that there is something important about the rhythm of creating, manufacturing and producing goods. We make no apology for that. The bell tolls for those on the Conservative Benches who constantly seek to undermine the strength of our manufacturing industry. Our amendment will carry the day. It holds the best hope for the future of our economy and I commend it to the Committee.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 231, Noes 329.

      Division No. 28]

      [7.2 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cryer, Bob

      Ainger, Nicholas

      Cummings, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ashton, Joe

      Darling, Alistair

      Austin-Walker, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Barnes, Harry

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

      Battle, John

      Denham, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dixon, Don

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dobson, Frank

      Bell, Stuart

      Donohoe, Brian

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Benton, Joe

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Berry, Roger

      Enright, Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Etherington, William

      Blair, Tony

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Fatchett, Derek

      Boyes, Roland

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bradley, Keith

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Flynn, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Byers, Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Caborn, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gapes, Michael

      Cann, James

      George, Bruce

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clapham, Michael

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clelland, David

      Gordon, Mildred

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Graham, Thomas

      Cohen, Harry

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Connarty, Michael

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Gunnell, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hain, Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Hall, Mike

      Cox, Tom

      Hanson, David

      361

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Henderson, Doug

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hinchliffe, David

      Olner, William

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Patchett, Terry

      Home Robertson, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hutton, John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Illsley, Eric

      Purchase, Ken

      Ingram, Adam

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

      Radice, Giles

      Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Janner, Greville

      Redmond, Martin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Richardson, Jo

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Roche, Ms Barbara

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooney, Terry

      Keen, Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

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

      Rowlands, Ted

      Khabra, Piara

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Salmond, Alex

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lewis, Terry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Litherland, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Livingstone, Ken

      Short, Clare

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCartney, Ian

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

      McFall, John

      Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

      McKelvey, William

      Snape, Peter

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Spearing, Nigel

      McLeish, Henry

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Strang, Gavin

      Madden, Max

      Straw, Jack

      Mahon, Alice

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mallon, Seamus

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Tipping, Paddy

      Marek, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Vaz, Keith

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Martlew, Eric

      Walley, Joan

      Maxton, John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Meacher, Michael

      Watson, Mike

      Meale, Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Michael, Alun

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Milburn, Alan

      Wilson, Brian

      Miller, Andrew

      Winnick, David

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wise, Audrey

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Worthington, Tony

      Morley, Elliot

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Wright, Tony

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mudie, George

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

      Mullin, Chris

      Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Murphy, Paul

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Ashby, David

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Alexander, Richard

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Ancram, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      362

      Bates, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Beggs, Roy

      Forth, Eric

      Beith, A. J.

      Foster, Donald (Bath)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Freeman, Roger

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      French, Douglas

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fry, Peter

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gale, Roger

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gallie, Phil

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Booth, Hartley

      Garnier, Edward

      Boswell, Tim

      Gill, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowis, John

      Gorst, John

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bright, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hague, William

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Burns, Simon

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Burt, Alistair

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Butcher, John

      Hannam, Sir John

      Butler, Peter

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Harris, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Harvey, Nick

      Carrington, Matthew

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawkins, Nicholas

      Cash, William

      Hawksley, Warren

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Heald, Oliver

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Hendry, Charles

      Clappison, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hicks, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Horam, John

      Congdon, David

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dicks, Terry

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

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dover, Den

      Key, Robert

      Duncan, Alan

      Kilfedder, James

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dunn, Bob

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Eggar, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Elletson, Harold

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Knox, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evennett, David

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Faber, David

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Legg, Barry

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Leigh, Edward

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      363

      Lidington, David

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lord, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Luff, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sims, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Maclean, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Speed, Keith

      Maginnis, Ken

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Malone, Gerald

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mans, Keith

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Marland, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Marlow, Tony

      Sproat, Iain

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mates, Michael

      Stephen, Michael

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stern, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Streeter, Gary

      Merchant, Piers

      Sumberg, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Sykes, John

      Milligan, Stephen

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Moate, Roger

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thomason, Roy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Needham, Richard

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tracey, Richard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Trend, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Trimble, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Trotter, Neville

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tyler, Paul

      Page, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Paice, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Patnick, Irvine

      Walden, George

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Pawsey, James

      Wallace, James

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waller, Gary

      Pickles, Eric

      Ward, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Watts, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wells, Bowen

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Redwood, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Richards, Rod

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Riddick, Graham

      Wilkinson, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Willetts, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wood, Timothy

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Yeo, Tim

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Sackville, Tom

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 12, line 47, at end add
      `and shall have effect as if there had been added to section 25(1)(b) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 after "thereto" the words
      "The balance so arrived at shall be up-rated by the rate of inflation for the chargeable period, as given by the gross domestic product deflator, in respect of any chargeable period beginning on or after 1st April 1992".'.
      I shall be brief, because I do not share the ambition of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to fight the Bill line by line, tooth and nail. It does not justify that, and the hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty identifying more than half-a-dozen clauses to which anyone could take strong exception. It is just not that kind of Bill. Other legislation might justify that sort of treatment, but not this.
      The amendment suggests a sensible way of changing corporation tax arrangements to protect companies from inflation adding to their corporation tax burden. Providing a long-term, stable corporation tax framework is more likely to provide the climate for investment than one-off incentives designed to promote manufacturing investment in a particular year. I hope that the Government share our objective, even if they feel unable to agree to the amendment.
      The present tax system—certainly corporation tax—is distorted by inflation. When the Government's inflation policy goes wrong, business is hit not only by higher prices and higher interest rates but by a higher real corporation tax burden. That distortion can itself lead to lower investment.
      The most pernicious aspect relates to investment allowances. Companies can only write down a machine's historic cost, not its current cost, which creates a disincentive to invest. Removing that distortion would be a simple and sound long-term reform of greater value than one-year investment of the kind that the Committee has rightly just voted against, by a substantial majority.
      With the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, the Financial Secretary might feel obliged to argue that there will not be any inflation, because the Government will remove that scourge from the economy. Even the Chancellor has taken to talking about not the zero inflation rate which the Prime Minister repeatedly mentioned, but a target of 2 per cent. Some have even criticised him for setting so ambitious a target, with the downside that it has in terms of some of the more uncomfortable disciplines associated with it. I share his desire to set a firm target, and would be inclined to go for the zero target rather than for 2 per cent.
      Industry has been down this road before when it was told that it could make reforms because there would be no inflation. Nigel Lawson thought and said that in 1984, but inflation took off after reforms led to the removal of the stock allowances. Business was penalised twice as a consequence of inflation.
      It would be more sensible to introduce this reform when inflation is low because that would reduce its cost. Its introduction now would also show that the Government are determined to keep inflation low. If inflation rose, the cost of that reform would increase. It therefore makes a great deal of sense to make the change now.
      The corporation tax system is vulnerable to distortion in other ways because there is no stock relief, and because nominal rather than real interest rates are deductible. We

      365
      simply propose one change in the way in which inflation is accounted for in that system. It is a modest change, which would provide more stability for business and encourage more investment decisions to be made on the right grounds rather than because they would incur one-year tax relief. Those decisions would be made because they represented good economic, business sense. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) described the amendment as a modest measure and that is a fair description. I shall make a brief reply, and I am afraid that I shall not suggest to the House that we accept the amendment.
      The amendment would adjust capital allowances to allow for inflation, presumably on the ground that the current write-down allowance for tax understates the true cost of using the asset. That is not true because, as I quoted earlier, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Budget statement:
      "on average, the current tax rules allow capital investment to be written off more quickly than economic depreciation would imply".—[Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 750.]
      The 25 per cent. write-off allowance already allows for inflation, plus a bit more. The hon. Gentleman's assumption is wrong.
      There is another reason why this would not be a desirable amendment. I refer to the hon. Gentleman's confidence, or lack of it, that inflation will be brought under control. I am not sensitive about it and I simply remind him that our monetary policy is now set in the context for which the Liberal party argued for many years on the ground that it would be a more successful counter-inflation policy. The pound is in the exchange rate mechanism and we share the hon. Gentleman's confidence that his policy will deliver low inflation. The amendment will, therefore, he unnecessary.
      Mr. Beith: I am unconvinced and I believe that i f the Government anticipate a successful anti-inflation policy, they should recognise the reasonable cost of the amendment. Business is dissatisfied with the extent of the write-down allowances and it does not feel that the present system adequately allows for inflation. I therefore invite the Committee to make a sensible change to the corporation tax system.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 291.

      Division No. 29]

      [7.23 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nicholas

      Callaghan, Jim

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ashton, Joe

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Battle, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cox, Tom

      Beggs, Roy

      Cryer, Bob

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cummings, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Betts, Clive

      Dafis, Cynog

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Darling, Alistair

      Boyes, Roland

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Bradley, Keith

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

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Dixon, Don

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      366

      Enright, Derek

      Mandelson, Peter

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Marek, Dr John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Flynn, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Foster, Donald (Bath)

      Martlew, Eric

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Meale, Alan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Milburn, Alan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Miller, Andrew

      Graham, Thomas

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morley, Elliot

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Gunnell, John

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hall, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Harvey, Nick

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Heppell, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Radice, Giles

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Roche, Ms Barbara

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Hutton, John

      Salmond, Alex

      Illsley, Eric

      Simpson, Alan

      Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Janner, Greville

      Spearing, Nigel

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Strang, Gavin

      Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Trimble, David

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

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

      Wallace, James

      Khabra, Piara

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Wareing, Robert N

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Winnick, David

      McKelvey, William

      Wise, Audrey

      McLeish, Henry

      Wright, Tony

      McMaster, Gordon

      Madden, Max

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maginnis, Ken

      Mr. A. J. Beith and

      Mahon, Alice

      Mr. Paul Tyler.

      Mallon, Seamus

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brazier, Julian

      Alexander, Richard

      Bright, Graham

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Amess, David

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Ancram, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burns, Simon

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Burt, Alistair

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Butcher, John

      Ashby, David

      Butler, Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Clappison, James

      Bates, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coe, Sebastian

      Bendall, Vivian

      Colvin, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Congdon, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Conway, Derek

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Booth, Hartley

      Cormack, Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Couchman, James

      Bowden, Andrew

      Cran, James

      Bowis, John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      367

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hendry, Charles

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Hicks, Robert

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Devlin, Tim

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Horam, John

      Dicks, Terry

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

      Dover, Den

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Duncan, Alan

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Dunn, Bob

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Eggar, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Elletson, Harold

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Evennett, David

      Key, Robert

      Faber, David

      Kilfedder, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Knapman, Roger

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Forth, Eric

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

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Knox, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      French, Douglas

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fry, Peter

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Gale, Roger

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Gallie, Phil

      Legg, Barry

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Leigh, Edward

      Garnier, Edward

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Gill, Christopher

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Gillan, Ms Cheryl

      Lidington, David

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Lightbown, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Gorst, John

      Lord, Michael

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Luff, Peter

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Maclean, David

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Hague, William

      Madel, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Malone, Gerald

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mans, Keith

      Hannam, Sir John

      Marland, Paul

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Marlow, Tony

      Harris, David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Hawkins, Nicholas

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Mates, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      368

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Merchant, Piers

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mills, Iain

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Spring, Richard

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Sproat, Iain

      Moate, Roger

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stephen, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stern, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stewart, Allan

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Sweeney, Walter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Sykes, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Thomason, Roy

      Paice, James

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Pawsey, James

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thurnham, Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tredinnick, David

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Trotter, Neville

      Rathbone, Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Redwood, John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Richards, Rod

      Viggers, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Walden, George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Waller, Gary

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Ward, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Watts, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Wells, Bowen

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Sackville, Tom

      Whittingdale, John

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Willetts, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Yeo, Tim

      Sims, Roger

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mr. Tim Wood and

      Soames, Nicholas

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Speed, Keith

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill (Clauses 19 and 20), reported without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

  Northern Ireland (Prevention of Terrorism)
  7.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
  The order will renew the emergency powers and provisions currently operating in Northern Ireland. The debate also gives us the opportunity to review the operation of a number of new provisions contained in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the benefits of which are already beginning to be seen. First, I shall speak briefly about the need for the provisions.
  We have available yet again the invaluable help of Lord Colville's review. As always, Lord Colville has thought deeply about the nature of the emergency powers and has consulted widely about their operation. He has suggested this year a number of significant and specific improvements, some of which I will mention later. I very much welcome, however, his central conclusion that:
  "The new Act, and new arrangements in it, seem to have been introduced and have since been operated without any appreciable adverse reaction."
  He does not recommend the suspension of any of its provisions.
  It is entirely right that Parliament should take this annual opportunity to see whether the emergency powers and provisions continue to be needed. Determined as we are to bring about the elimination of terrorism, the Government aim by co-ordinated policies to eliminate the need for these measures. For the present, however, it is my duty to report to the House that, regrettably, they remain essential and that we intend that they continue to be used, certainly with sensitivity, but with unremitting resolution.
  During the past 12 months the campaign of violence by terrorists from both sides of the community has continued with all its malignity and futility. Since July, 101 people have died and many more have been injured. Homes and livelihoods have been destroyed by bombs and incendiaries recklessly strewn in the midst of human beings or in the premises of businesses which provide employment and prosperity. I will give examples from the past six months alone. A young mother was gunned down in a chemist's shop. A 17-year-old boy was murdered while working in his father's shop. A young policewoman on patrol was killed and a male colleague hideously injured by a horizontal mortar fired at their passing vehicle. A pensioner sitting in a bar was murdered entirely at random. Eight workmen returning from their lawful employment were murdered by the detonation of a mine. Five customers in a betting shop were murdered by a machine gunner.
  The terrorists, on whatever side, claim to present themselves as soldiers fighting honourably. Some soldiers —and some honour—when they defile their very humanity like this. They have no mandate for what they do. They are bereft of any justification and they have no chance of success—hence their futility, for neither the people of Northern Ireland, nor their Government, nor the Irish Government, will yield to their attacks. I think that this is dawning on them, and I intend to reinforce the message.
  370
  The toll exacted would have been far worse were it not for the shrewd and courageous operations of the security forces. The terrorists have been forced to abort many of their intended operations by reason of most valuable intelligence and resulting interdiction. Substantial finds of arms and munitions and numerous arrests have been made. In 1991, 391 people were charged with terrorist-type offences, including 120 with murder or attempted murder. For the first four months of this year, the figures were 140 and 44 respectively.
  It is thanks to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces, and the determined and professional leadership under which they operate, that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland conduct their daily lives in safety and normality. Measures continue to be taken which will further improve the effectiveness of the security forces' operations. Most importantly, last week a second deputy chief constable was appointed. Following a review of the senior command structure of the RUC, he will be responsible for all operational police work, including the gathering of counter-terrorist intelligence and its prompt employment by both the RUC and the Army.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the new assistant chief constable have direction also of Army intelligence gathering, and will the Army report directly to him?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is a deputy chief constable, not an assistant chief constable. He will have overall operational control under the chief constable. The primacy of the police being in place, and continuing to be in place, the Army's operations are ultimately under his direction. That is as much so in intelligence as in other operational areas.
  Mr. David Winnick: I recognise that the fight against terrorism must always be within the rule of law and that anything else—any murky business that has come to light, or allegations of it—only helps the terrorists. That is my view. Does the Secretary of State agree that when it comes to a mandate, which he mentioned, there seems not to be one for the Provisional IRA? We know that the Provisional Sinn Fein lost a seat in the general election, and all the evidence suggests that there is no majority within the minority community when it comes to voting for terrorism. The Provisional IRA always claims that it speaks for the Irish people as a whole, but when it last contested elections in the Irish Republic it obtained less than 2 per cent. of the vote. Is it not important for these people to recognise that after 22 years of terrifying crimes—the Secretary of State has referred to some of the crimes committed by terrorists in the past six months—in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, they have not achieved anything? Would it not be wise for the terrorists to recognise that the objectives that they have set themselves have not been achieved, or anything like it?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said.
  I think that it would be helpful if I summarised, albeit briefly, the principal provisions that we propose shall be renewed in a few days' time if the order is accepted. The Act provides the legal basis for the trial of terrorist-type cases by a single judge—the so-called Diplock courts. It contains special rules on the admissibility of confessions in

  371
  scheduled cases. It provides for the discretionary proscription of terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. It provides the security forces with powers to stop and question, arrest, search and seize. It contains statutory rights for persons arrested to have a person informed of their arrest and whereabouts, and to have access to legal advice, and it regulates the private security guard industry in Northern Ireland.
  Last year's Act strengthened the law in several respects. These include new offences of possessing items intended for terrorist purposes, of directing terrorist organisations and of constructing bypasses around border crossing points which have been closed by the security forces. It created new powers for the security forces to examine documents and other recorded data found during searches, to seize equipment used to reopen closed border crossings, and to employ civilian specialists in conducting searches and in investigating terrorist finances.
  Last year's Act also introduced new safeguards in the exercise of the emergency powers. These include allowing the security forces to stop and question people about their identity and movement only for so long as is necessary, and requiring particulars of searches of premises, dwelling houses and, in some instances, vehicles to be recorded in writing. The Act requires me to produce codes of practice covering the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects in police custody and to use the new powers to investigate terrorist finances, about which I shall say more in a moment. It contains provisions for the appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints procedures.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. Does he intend to introduce videotape recordings of interviews with suspects in Northern Ireland? As he well knows, having had great responsibility for the matter on the mainland when he was Attorney-General, we are moving towards the practice here as a safeguard against any sort of miscarriage of justice which might result from interrogations. I understand that there is a move towards having the practice adopted for terrorist offences on the mainland. If it is to be the practice on the mainland, as a matter of logic it should be adopted in Northern Ireland. I shall be grateful for any indication that my right hon. and learned Friend can give of his thinking on the matter.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. and learned Friend asks an important question about a topic to which, naturally enough, I shall be coming in a few moments when I refer to the holding centres. I have no responsibility for what happens on the mainland, but I have responsibility for what happens in Northern Ireland. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to come to the point specifically in a few moments.
  First, I shall deal with the terrorists' finances. Lord Colville notes that the new provisions in the Act relating to terrorist finances are very significant. There can be no doubt of the great importance of action disrupting the ability of terrorists and terrorist organisations to finance themselves and interrupting the flow of funds to them. As the Chief Constable has reminded us, in recent years more than 300 people have been convicted of involvement in
  372
  illegal funding operations, which were probably worth about £45 million. More recently, terrorists have been engaging in much more elaborate methods of fund raising and of concealing their funds. It was to counter that trend that the special powers of investigation set out in section 57 and schedule 5 were enacted.
  I am glad to be able to tell the House that all those provisions are now in force, and the signs are that they will prove extremely useful. They have already underpinned the provisions that were first to be introduced. A recent and major operation was conducted by the security forces called operation Cristo with the full support and co-operation of their counterparts in the Republic. The preparation of the draft code of practice for the conduct of investigations into terrorist finances is nearly finished. When that is completed, it will be circulated for comment before being laid before Parliament.
  With regard to the holding centres, it is necessary, as in Great Britain, so in Northern Ireland, that the police should have appropriate powers to detain for questioning people whom they suspect of terrorist offences. Those powers must be subject to safeguards but, as Lord Colville mildly points out, the bringing of the guilty to justice is as much a feature of a proper criminal justice system as is the protection of the innocent from wrongful conviction.
  It is essential, however, that allegations of ill-treatment of persons in police custody be dealt with in a way which secures the confidence of the public. The maintenance of the rule of law requires compliance from the police as much as from everyone else. Physical assault is a criminal offence, and abuse of persons in custody is strictly forbidden.
  The review discusses in some detail the circumstances in which such allegations arise. Some, as Lord Colville points out, undoubtedly arise for the purpose of undermining public confidence in the police. But whenever a complaint is made against the police it is, as it must be, thoroughly investigated. The evidence is sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland who decides, in accordance with his normal criteria, whether any prosecution should be instigated or whether further inquiries are necessary.
  Very properly, a wide range of statutory and administrative safeguards for those in police custody exists. For example, an extension of detention requires the Secretary of State's authority. The suspect has a right to have a member of his family or a friend informed of his arrest and whereabouts, and a right to consult a solicitor privately. All interviews are monitored by close-circuit television. They are monitored for the purpose of seeing that nothing is going wrong, but not recorded.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) utters thoughts which, I recognise, are quite widely shared, and they have been considered by the Government in the past. Lord Colville in his report records that the Government have firmly rejected the suggestion that in the interrogation of terrorist-type suspects a television record should be kept. That has been the view of the Chief Constable and it remains his view, and I believe that, having regard to the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, for which I alone am responsible, and the problems of investigating terrorist offences, the arguments against the suggestion outweigh the persuasive arguments which can be put forward in favour of it.
  Detailed custody records are maintained in writing. There is a right to regular medical examinations and to a

  373
  continuous period of at least eight hours rest in any period of 24 hours free from questioning, travel or interruption. A further reinforcement of those safeguards will be provided by the forthcoming codes of practice that I have mentioned.
  Mr. McNamara: It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could inform the House how much has been spent in out-of-court settlements arising from allegations of ill-treatment in holding centres and how it is that such money has been spent although there is not one recorded occasion of any person monitoring an interrogation considering it necessary to stop that interrogation. That contradiction needs some explanation.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: Such matters are not so simple as they sometimes seem. I do not have at my fingertips the figure for compensation awarded as a result of claims brought in that context in recent years, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to provide it when he replies. However, it is not easy for such a claim to be defended. It is by no means uncommon for those representing a claimant who has begun civil proceedings to refuse to co-operate with the police. That means that it is difficult for the allegations to be investigated, which has a bearing upon the ultimate decision as to whether an agreed disposal is to be made. It certainly has a bearing upon the disparity between the number of cases which are settled in that context and those which lead to disciplinary or even criminal investigation.
  I was referring to the forthcoming codes of practice governing the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Before going any further, I should complete that point by saying that we all know there are considerable constraints on disciplinary, let alone criminal, proceedings when a long time has elapsed. If a long time has elapsed, taken up by the progress of a civil claim, that has a bearing on the ability to bring disciplinary proceedings even in a case where, on legal advice, a settlement has been arranged.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recording and retention of a tape, even for six months or a year, would prevent a claim from being made in the first place by a suspect who alleges maltreatment?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course I agree with that, but other considerations have to be taken into account, not least among which is the effect that the knowledge that a televised recording is being made of the interview might have, and foreseeably would have, upon someone who in other circumstances might be prepared to speak, knowing that he would have no control over what happened to that tape recording.
  I have decided that an independent commissioner for the holding centres of Castlereagh and elsewhere shall be appointed. His duty will be to visit the centres on a random basis so that Ministers and the general public may be assured that the safeguards and procedures to protect the interests of persons detained are being fully implemented.
  The lay visiting scheme introduced by the police authority has undoubtedly been a success and the commissioner scheme will draw heavily on that experience. I shall be consulting the Chief Constable and the police
  374
  authority on how the arrangements for the commissioner scheme should be carried forward and I shall make a further announcement soon.
  The reliability of statistics is obviously an important factor in securing public confidence that all is well. Lord Colville has shown that there is substantial room for improvement here and that is being taken in hand. We are examining his other proposals closely. For every reason it is desirable for us to take all practicable steps, as he recommends, to secure comprehensive, contemporary records of what happens when someone is detained in custody, and that we propose to do.
  I come now to how we should handle questions of police and Army conduct. I know that we all agree that the conduct of individual police officers and soldiers is central to their operational effectiveness. Any security force activities which break the law, or otherwise fall short of the professional standards required, will not be met with a blind eye. They will be impartially investigated, as is happening in connection with events at Coalisland, East Tyrone, at present. Where the necessary evidence exists, it will be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
  Those are precisely the standards that the security forces set themselves, which their arduous training inculcates and which all units—I emphasise all units—strive to maintain. I ask the House and those outside to remember that there is constant interaction between the security forces and the public, the vast majority of it friendly and with no hint of friction.
  However, complaints, sometimes entirely justified, are made and the timely processing of complaints is an important part of the maintenance of good relations with the community. Lord Colville mentions that the Army is now setting itself targets for the speedy resolution of formal complaints made to it. That is part of the process that I am describing, and I intend shortly to announce the appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints procedures under the power contained in the Act.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will those powers allow the investigation of a complaint from any member of the public—or from the House—about the activities, behaviour and standards of very senior officers who may still be involved in army intelligence, specifically in the force reconnaissance unit, or will they simply apply to the squaddie on the street?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The terms of assessment for the independent assessor of military complaints procedures will have to be worked out. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, however, and I think that he can take comfort from the fact that there is no doubt in the minds of the Army authorities, the police authorities or the Government that the rule of law must be maintained. If criminal allegations are made, they will be investigated. If complaints are made about the conduct of soldiers they, too, will be investigated within this procedure. I cannot tell the House the terms of reference, but it will be up to the authorities I have mentioned to decide whether, ultimately, the hon. Gentleman's question is answered in the affirmative.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State reinforce the view expressed by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke),

  375
  in an earlier debate? The right hon. Gentleman said then that no member of the security forces, however junior or senior, would be allowed to act in a way that was not compatible with the law. Will the Secretary of State put it on record again that no member of the security forces or of the general public in the north of Ireland will be allowed to act above and beyond the normal law?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the answer to both questions is yes, without qualification.
  Border crossings are also discussed in the review. Lord Colville bestows deserved praise on the security forces for their efforts to deal sensitively and quickly with the community issues that are bound to arise from the need to resite and modernise permanent vehicle checkpoints. He gives a number of examples of the use of the powers conferred by the Act in border areas, which illustrate their importance.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State will have more to say about that when he winds up the debate, but let me say now that the efforts of the Garda and the Irish army in the fight against terrorism also deserve praise. Their diligence and professionalism have already led to a series of major arms finds and arrests this year. That includes the discovery of more than 1,500 kg of home-made explosive in Donegal, and of 51 rifles, two machine guns and 20,000 rounds of ammunition in Cork.
  Mr. Flynn, the Irish justice Minister, has said that those discoveries have almost certainly saved lives, and I readily endorse that. The Irish Government share our determination that terrorism should not prevail, and we work closely with them to ensure that co-operation on the ground is close. Much has been achieved, but much undoubtedly remains to be done to ensure that terrorists—whether in the north or in the south—cannot escape justice.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Why do we continually hear reports on the radio that groups of people have met at the border, and that border crossings closed by the Army have been reopened? Neither the Garda nor the Royal Ulster Constabulary seem to be taking any action to deal with people who are deliberately breaking the law.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I recognise the basic desire of people in the neighbourhood to be able to cross the border. North of the border, however, there are criminal sanctions against the reopening of crossings which have been lawfully closed by the security forces, while south of the border such powers do not exist. We are discussing the matter with our counterparts in the Irish Government and, as with other issues, we hope to achieve much more by way of co-operation in our effort to ensure that terrorists from both sides of the border do not escape justice.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am watching the clock, and I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. I will give way for the last time.
  Mr. Colvin: The question of frontier controls is very important. It has been suggested that frontier controls between member states will be unlawful in the EEC. If, for instance, the European Court ruled against such controls
  376
  and they are therefore bound to be removed, could that not lead to the introduction of the carrying of identity cards within the Province? Might not that help the security forces rather than hindering them?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is nothing to prevent member states from maintaining security controls. My hon. Friend knows very well the difference of opinion between the British Government and others about the effect of treaty legislation in that context.
  Time spent on remand in custody is probably the last topic in Lord Colville's report with which I shall deal. It is an important subject. Lord Colville refers to the recommendation, in his report on Belfast prison, about the need to reduce the time that prisoners spend on remand in custody in Northern Ireland. My predecessor accepted that the case for cutting such remand times was "unanswerable". I agree, and the agencies involved in the prosecution process share my anxiety.
  We have accordingly decided to introduce a special scheme in Northern Ireland, aimed at reducing and monitoring the time defendants spend in custody before they are tried on indictment for scheduled offences. The scheme will start on 1 July. It will impose administrative targets for scheduled custody cases, which present the most serious delays. The targets set will be to take such cases from first remand to committal stage in 38 weeks; and from committal to arraignment, when the defendant enters his or her plea, in 14 weeks—a period of 12 months overall from first remand to arraignment.
  Those targets are challenging, and will require a significant improvement in the processing of such cases in Northern Ireland. They can be achieved only through the agencies' having agreed—as they have—to introduce new arrangements to monitor closely the progress of the cases involved, and to introduce new reporting arrangements for cases which are in danger of overrunning.
  I should have preferred to introduce even tighter time limits straight away. I have had to conclude that that is not a reasonable realistic expectation for the time being, but I emphasise that I wish to see further reductions in remand periods over and above those being introduced in the next few weeks. I have naturally considered whether to introduce a statutory scheme, but I have had to reject that option because I cannot at present be satisfied that it could operate without a real risk of dangerous people being released.
  I believe that the measures that I have outlined today will lead to a significant and welcome improvement in the time scheduled remand prisoners spend in custody and will lay the necessary foundations for sustained and continued improvements for the future. They are designed to ensure that Lord Colville's wish to reduce remand times is given substance, and will start to be realised.
  I know that the whole House will wish to express our deep gratitude and admiration to the security forces, and the prison service, for their dedicated and frequently dangerous work. We ask so much of them, and I believe that we get it in a measure that no other country could begin to approach. The Government are determined that the necessary resources, in terms both of manpower and equipment and of an appropriate framework of law, shall be in place to enable them to carry out their duties successfully.
  Finally, I pay particular tribute to the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland who endure bravely, with

  377
  resolution and resilience, an ordeal which has gone on for more than 20 years. Given the subject matter of today's debate, it is inevitable that our focus should principally be on security matters, but that is only one element of our policy on Northern Ireland. Social and economic programmes and the pursuit of constitutional, political progress are fundamental to a just and tranquil future for the people of Northern Ireland. Those policies affect far more people directly than those who will ever encounter personally the emergency legislation that we are discussing.
  It is my most earnest desire, and that of the Government, to help the people of the Province to secure such a future. Meanwhile, we shall continue to confront terrorism with unremitting resolution, by the careful deployment of all the formidable measures and means made lawful by the legislation which is justly provided for that purpose. I commend the order to the House.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: These renewal debates have become a traditional occasion for the House to reflect on security developments, to listen, as we have with interest, to the fresh developments that the Secretary of State outlines and to consider the general security position. I wish only that the paramilitaries of all persuasions would occasionally stop and reflect on the lives that they take, that they wreck and that they lay down themselves. Perhaps they might then realise the awful waste, hurt and despair that they create.
  Although I am not so convinced about the commitment of some Conservative Members to civil liberties that I can argue that the legislation would no longer exist in the absence of terrorism, it must be clear that there would be no pretext or justification for the order if the paramilitaries stopped the killing.
  We recognise that some emergency legislation may be necessary, but we cannot support the order. Our reasons have been well rehearsed, particularly in debates on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. As long as the power of internment remains in the legislation, even if it has not been activated, it is unacceptable to Labour Members. It is a constant reminder of the unacceptable face of the state and an admission of political failure.
  Like the Secretary of State, I should like to express, on behalf of the Opposition, our admiration for the courage and resourcefulness of members of the RUC, the Army and the prison service. We ask them to do a difficult job and, by and large, they do it professionally and effectively.
  The Opposition fully support the police and the Army in their efforts impartially to uphold the rule of law. That is why we view with concern any departures from the high standards that are set by the vast majority of police officers and soldiers. Any such departures damage public confidence in the administration of justice and make life more difficult and dangerous for the security forces.
  I should like to quote Sir John Hermon:
  "This is not some simplistic war being fought, this is a complicated political, social and community problem which requires handling with the utmost sensitivity and understanding."
  The Opposition therefore view with deep concern the allegations about the ill-treatment of detainees at the Castlereagh holding centre. For the first time, Amnesty
  378
  International has issued an urgent action alert in connection with incidents within the United Kingdom and associated with Castlereagh.
  In many cases, detainees have subsequently received compensation as a result of their detention and their treatment while in custody. I regret to say that I find the sections of Lord Colville's report on this issue far from convincing. If there is any evidence that moneys paid in compensation end up in the coffers of terrorist organisations, one would expect criminal charges to ensue, for that would be a criminal offence. There has been no sign of that, no evidence and no cases brought.
  Mr. Mallon: Does the hon. Member agree with Lord Colville's comment in the report that the people of Northern Ireland are "highly litigious by nature"?
  Mr. McNamara: It is always dangerous to make sweeping comments about any particular nation or people. I prefer to judge people on their individual merits.
  Mr. Mallon: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that such a comment, in what is supposed to be an impartial assessment of legislation, is advisable?
  Mr. McNamara: I regard it as an undesirable statement to make about any group. I believe that one should deal with people as individuals. To make sweeping generalisations without taking into consideration the circumstances in which the litigation arises is, I think, not the wisest course to take. I was surprised to read what the noble Viscount said.
  Until such time as adequate and credible safeguards are put in place at Castlereagh, those allegations will continue to gain credence. The damage that such incidents do to confidence in the security forces should be well known by now. Neither they nor police officers will be safe from false accusations until safeguards are established.
  A number of options have been advanced to provide conditions in which the RUC can conduct its investigations in a correct and effective manner. It cannot help the pursuit of justice if the police are not seen to be above suspicion.
  I deal now with the point that was made earlier by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Perhaps the most satisfactory safeguard would be video-recording suspects' interviews. This has been a long-running controversy, and the arguments on all sides are well known. I regret that Lord Colville seems to have given up hope on the suggestion. His previous report contained the most persuasive case and arguments in its favour—far more persuasive than the present report.
  We hope that the Government and the Chief Constable will finally see sense on this issue. Television recordings can protect the identity of the interrogating officer—the techniques are simple—and can prevent accusations about a blow being struck. It is possible to tape-record interrogations in such a way that an application could be made to a judge in chambers if it were felt that the transcript of sensitive intelligence material was likely to fall into the wrong hands, provided that it was not dependent on the bringing of the case. The Minister of State shakes his head in disagreement. If he would like to say why, I should be happy to give way. He does not take the point.
  In paragraph 6.5 of his report Lord Colville quotes from a letter that we should seriously consider. It says:
  "The damage to the reputation of the RUC and the United Kingdom as a whole which results from the continuing

  379
  publicity, if not credibility, given to these allegations far outweighs any marginal advantage which may account to the security forces from the absolute privacy surrounding the interrogation process."
  It is worth repeating that
  "the continuing publicity … given to these allegations far outweighs any marginal advantage".
  I would have hoped that, with the arrival of a new Secretary of State, there would be greater appreciation of the need for that safeguard to be introduced, especially if it is to be introduced on this side of the water and if it is also to be used in terrorist-related offences on this side of the water.
  There are other forms of safeguards that could be employed more efficiently, some of which the Secretary of State outlined. One is ensuring that detainees have a genuine right to legal advice, a right that is severely qualified at present by time and other matters to which the Secretary of State referred. It would be helpful if he could explain the stark contrast between the practice in Northern Ireland and that on this island. In Britain, detainees under the PTA have legal representation as a matter of course, and the fact of detention is usually broadcast all over the place by the police. In Northern Ireland, suspected terrorists are routinely denied access to legal advice and held incommunicado. Why the difference?
  I regret to say that the arguments used in defence of the status quo are unworthy of those who advance them. Essentially, it boils down to a suggestion that the legal profession is not to be trusted. If true, it would be an appalling indictment of the condition of Northern Ireland society. Allegations about and insinuations against members of the legal profession are not only disgraceful but dangerous, as the murder of Mr. Finucane showed.
  Even in a recent book called "Big Boys' Rule" by Mark Urban, the degree to which the slur on the legal profession is maintained is clear. Accepting it as gospel and producing no evidence at all, he states:
  "There is undoubtedly a community of republican lawyers, supported financially by the movement, which is prepared to act in ways which might be considered unusual in Britain. For example, the lawyer may agree to pass a message from a terrorist to his commander, or might use cross-examination of a security force witness in an attempt to probe whether an operation had resulted from a leak within the IRA."
  Despite such insidious suggestions, no member of the legal profession has ever been prosecuted for abusing his or her status as an officer of the court on behalf of terrorist organisations or individual terrorists; nor have any complaints been made to the appropriate disciplinary bodies. I am sure that the Secretary of State, as a former Law Officer, should have a particular interest in defending the right of defence and ensuring that there is full appreciation of the fact that lawyers acting for the defence are as important for the rule of law as judges and prosecutors.
  The Secretary of State announced in skeleton form his suggestions for an independent visitor or commissioner to attend the holding centres. He did not say why he could not accept immediately the recommendation of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland that ordinary lay visitors should attend the centres. He did not say to whom the new commissioner will be answerable; nor has he given any details of the commissioner's precise powers or the statutory basis of those powers. It would be far better if the
  380
  authority's proposals for lay visitors had been accepted, but we shall consider with interest what has been suggested.
  It is also interesting that the Secretary of State announced that the gentleman or lady who is to examine procedures in the Army is to deal with complaints. The fact must be taken on board that it is a power not to examine the substance of complaints but only to examine the procedures for dealing with complaints. That is a very different matter.
  A number of recent developments have cast some doubt on the policy of police primacy. We believe that, although there are obvious difficulties, the principle that the police should be responsible for law and order is vital if there is ever to be normal society in Northern Ireland. Any deviation from police primacy is a setback for such hopes. Recent incidents such as those in Coalisland are under investigation by the RUC, so any detailed comment would be inappropriate. However, many people would like an answer to the question, "Who is in control?" The Secretary of State tried to answer that question and said that the control rests purely with the police. It must be said that recent experiences and experiences of what is happening now tend to suggest that on occasions the police are not and have not been fully in control.
  Can the Secretary of State therefore assure us that he is satisfied with the preparation now being given to military units before they come to take up service in Northern Ireland and that there is adequate supervision of the military by the police? No one should seek to underestimate the difficulties and frustrations experienced by young soldiers who live with the constant risk of death or injury and fear of ambush, but it is precisely discipline and respect for the law that distinguish the legitimate armed forces from their terrorist opponents. That is something on which we all agree and must insist.
  As the role of the Army is to assist the civil power, can the Secretary of State give a further assurance that the RUC has control over the deployment of the military forces and that the requirements of the police take precedence over military rivalries? There has been a recent case in which military disrespect for the authority of the RUC reached frightening proportions—I refer to the case of Mr. Brian Nelson. If the allegations in Monday night's "Panorama" programme are accurate, there is great cause for concern about the operations of the security forces in Northern Ireland.
  The Nelson case raises serious questions. These are not matters that can be swept under the carpet—they go to the heart of the issue. Is Britain serious about upholding law and order and establishing a society in which all sections of the community will be fairly treated, or is Northern Ireland an adventure playground for secret agents? I hope and believe that the former is true. If not, we will have dealt a massive blow to all the efforts of those working for peace and justice, especially the thousands of police officers and soldiers who go about their difficult jobs with dedication and integrity. However, if the Secretary of State wants to convince us that all sections of the security forces operate within the law, some explaining still needs to be done.
  We know that Mr. Nelson violated the law but, as he was an agent of the force reconnaissance unit, it is difficult to understand why his criminal activities developed to such an extent and why he alone was subject to prosecution.

  381
  Surely some of his handlers were accessories before, and certainly after, the fact of some very evil deeds, but they allowed him to continue.
  We presume that a review of the relations between the various intelligence gathering agencies has taken place since the arrest of Mr. Nelson. Indeed, the announcement of the appointment with which the Secretary of State began his speech is proof of that, but can we now assume that the RUC's special branch has the full co-operation of military intelligence, that police primacy in intelligence is a reality and that no agents will be run by any bodies without the knowledge of the police?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew indicated assent.
  Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State nods his head in agreement, and that is welcome.
  The Nelson case also demonstrated the importance of guidelines for the use of agents. Colonel J, the commander of the FRU at the time, argued that the Home Office guidelines were inapplicable in Northern Ireland. Is that true? If so, have new, specific guidelines for Northern Ireland been introduced to prevent agents indulging in the kind of mayhem perpetrated by Mr. Nelson and his miscellaneous colleagues? Do Home Office guidelines rule in Northern Ireland or are there different guidelines?
  I seems clear that the Nelson operation yielded next to nothing to the RUC. Do the Secretary of State and the Government stand behind the claim that Mr. Nelson saved more lives than he destroyed? The House would also be interested to hear what arrangements have been made to prevent the recurrence of such an extraordinary case.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Gentleman refers to those incidences on the basis of media reports. I wish to point out the dangers of doing so. A programme broadcast some time ago entitled "Death on the Rock" was acclaimed by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and won an award. But that programme was based on very unreliable witnesses. Bearing in mind the media content of the hon. Gentleman's speech, will he join me in asking the recipient of the award, who obviously did not do his research, to return that award?
  Mr. McNamara: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interjection in the debate. First, the killing of three unarmed people when no bomb was in evidence and for an event that was supposed to take place in three days' time, with evidence given by people behind screens, makes me extremely worried about the handling of such matters by the security forces in this country and Gibraltar. Secondly, the transcript of much of Mr. Nelson's trial revealed many of the facts that I have stated. Thirdly, I am aware of no action that has been taken against the producers of that programme, nor of any comment by Government sources that it was inaccurate in any detail.
  "Panorama" also made specific accusations that are so appalling that the truth must be established as quickly as possible and remedial action taken if necessary. Did the FRU help Mr. Nelson to turn the chaotic files of the UDA into effective intelligence? Did Mr. Nelson give five warnings prior to the murder of Terence McDaid? If so, why were they ignored?
  Will the Minister of State explain when he winds up why the FRU attempted to conceal evidence from Mr. Stevens, a senior police officer appointed by the Chief
  382
  Constable of the RUC? What action was taken against those responsible? Why were they not proceeded against for seeking to pervert the course of justice?
  By now, the South African connection with loyalist terrorists is beyond doubt. I cannot understand why the representatives of a state that colludes with terrorists to kill inhabitants of Northern Ireland are still permitted to fly their flag in Trafalgar square. If "Panorama" is to be believed, matters are much worse than previously suspected. A military intelligence agent appears to have been involved in arms shipments from South Africa, which were allowed to enter Northern Ireland and were later used in at least eight murders at the Milltown cemetery and the bookies on Ormeau road.
  I can only conclude that the sooner South Africa has a democratic Government, the better for Northern Ireland. I am particularly concerned that agents who were involved in those terrible mistakes might still be active or involved in the security forces.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I urge the hon. Gentleman to maintain fairness in his comments, because the South African connection clearly runs both ways. As long ago as 1969, and reinforced in 1978 and 1984, the IRA acknowledged its support for and co-operation with the African National Congress.
  Mr. McNamara: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman on that subject in the past but have never found that his comments have much substance. May I make one thing clear: we are not swapping tit-for-tat allegations between nasty, mean terrorist organisations, but discussing the role and conduct of the British Army. We condemn the IRA and all the other terrorist organisations out of hand. We are discussing the standards that we expect from our forces.
  Mr. Mallon: Is the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) aware that a Sunday newspaper that carried a comment of his has paid substantial damages to a constituent of mine because of exactly the same kind of nonsense that he has spoken today? That is a matter of quantifiable fact.
  Mr. McNamara: That "Panorama" programme made a serious allegation against the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I hope that he will make a statement at the earliest opportunity to clarify matters. The programme alleged that, when he was at the Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Gentleman or someone acting on his behalf wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions while he was considering the evidence against Mr. Nelson to say what a valuable agent Mr. Nelson had been to the Army. Is that true?
  The Secretary of State is obviously not prepared to reply to my question. It is important because, if it is true, it means that a senior Cabinet Minister, or subordinates acting on his behalf, attempted to lean on the DPP while he was considering whether to bring charges against a man accused of the most terrible terrorist crimes. If it is true, it is another hammer blow to the independence and credibility of the criminal justice system. It means that a senior Minister interfered in the course of justice in a Department to which he is not directly related that was seeking to decide, on the evidence before it, whether charges should be brought.

  383
  Yesterday, The Independent made other allegations from which various inferences can be drawn. It may reflect on the allegation, which the Secretary of State does not seek to contradict, made in "Panorama". It said:
  "Early in 1987, Colonel J's superiors came under pressure from Tom King, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. According to one source: 'King was complaining—"Where are your successes?" The clear message from King was: "You must do better."'
  One of the FRU's responses was to seek clearance to insert a new agent into the loyalist paramilitary groups. This was opposed by MI5, which argued that the Special Branch had already penetrated the Protestant paramilitary organisations with its own agents.
  The Special Branch was not even informed, but Colonel J, with political backing, was able to overcome MI5's objections and Brian Nelson was recruited."
  The effect of Brian Nelson's recruitment, against the advice of MI5 and without special branch being informed —allegedly because of political pressure—resulted in all the evil consequences that we have seen.
  I hope that the Government will realise the significance of those matters and will not treat them with their usual complacency. If we want the rule of law to prevail, we must respect it ourselves and we cannot write to the DPP pointing out the value of a particular agent.
  There are no short cuts to a solution in Northern Ireland. There may be temptations to cut corners with the rule of law. Indeed, the legislation on which we are voting tonight shows not only what happens when we yield to that temptation but leads us into more temptation. We do not want the Government to lead us into temptation; we want them to work to deliver us from the evil of terrorism. We do not believe that they are doing that adequately and, for that reason, we shall vote against the order.
  8.39 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not—[Interruption.]
  Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The statement has just been made, which you may have heard, that I did not give the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) notice of my question. I wrote to him today:
  "Dear Tom,
  Just a brief note to inform you that I shall be referring to the Nelson Case and your part in it in tonight's debate.
  Yours, Kevin McNamara."
  The note was on the board at 2 pm.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not propose to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Nobody should be tried in this House on speculation or media presentation. Nor should a Member of this House be entitled to say to another Member, "I give you an opportunity to reply" and take his seat. If the allegations are of such a serious nature—the hon. Gentleman went on for some time—how can proper clearance be made in an intervention? Unfortunately, it seems that in tonight's debate the hon. Gentleman has made a long and serious accusation against the Army and has moved away from the fact that we need to defeat terrorism. That is what is important. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow all the ramifications of his speech.
  384
  As the first Member from Northern Ireland to be called in this debate, I should like to pay tribute on behalf of the Northern Ireland people to the gallant special constable, Glenn Goodman. I salute his memory tonight, as do all right-thinking Ulster people. I also salute the courage and integrity of his wife. I assure her that what she said tonight is what many widows in Northern Ireland have said. I salute her as a courageous woman who deserves the sympathy of the whole community and our praise.
  Yesterday, the chairman of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Police Federation, Mr. Beattie, said:
  "If war weariness is affecting the community it is not quite sufficiently evident yet among our politicians. For those of us on the outside of the political talks it seems that progress is extremely disappointing …
  It will also be much more tragic if we allow the paramilitaries to fill the political void by claiming that their murderous activities reflect the frustration of ordinary people with the political process."
  I utterly deplore Mr. Beattie's remarks. Since he was appointed to his office, he has had the habit of making remarks against politicians. Yet when he is challenged he does not name them—he says, "All politicians".
  The elected Members of Northern Ireland have had no say whatever in controlling the security strategy of the police, the Army or the Ulster Defence Regiment during the troubles since Stormont was abandoned. We have had no responsibility whatever. Over and over again the elected politicians of Northern Ireland are blamed for failures in a strategy for which they are not responsible. This House took into its control the entire war against the IRA and any other terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland, and it is responsible. Successive Governments, whether Labour or Tory, are responsible—not us. I want to make that perfectly clear tonight.
  There is a contradiction between Mr. Beattie's two paragraphs. First, he tells us that he is disappointed, although he is outside the talks, that this war weariness has not caught up with the politicians. I have news for him: the people of Northern Ireland are not war weary and the men whom he pretends to represent are not war weary. I challenge him to hold an opinion poll of the members of the federation and to announce the results publicly. The ordinary man in the street and the policeman who has to carry out his task is not war weary. He does not want the politicians in Northern Ireland to cobble up some miserable betrayal and then pronounce that it is a recipe for peace. Mr. Beattie does not know what is going on behind the doors in Stormont and he will not hear about it from me. Mr. Beattie should mind his own business and not pillory Northern Ireland politicians.
  Mr. Beattie then makes the strange statement:
  "if we allow the paramilitaries to fill the political void by claiming that their murderous activities reflect the frustrations of ordinary people with the political process."
  That statement contradicts his first statement. He wants to blame politicians and then he attacks ordinary people as if they would think it right that paramilitaries should act in that way because they are frustrated. I will leave Mr. Beattie to carry out his opinion poll and I look forward to seeing the result next time he brings out his glossy magazine. Knowing the policemen, their wives and families, as well as the bereaved and the awful suffering that they have endured, I can tell the House that war weariness is not apparent in them or in the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. They will not give in to any plan of surrender or compromise.

  385
  Explanations and exercises of so-called understanding terrorism, how it operates and why we must work this way and that way will not defeat terrorism. The men and women of Northern Ireland do not crave for the philosophies of certain politicians and others to explain to them why we have terrorism in the Province. Every day they see the full force and tangible reality of a terrorised existence. They know from desperate experience and personal scarifice that there is terrorism, and they want that terrorism stopped. They look to the Government, who are now responsible for controlling the strategy of the fight against the IRA and other terrorists, to stop this war. No amount of political initiatives or talks will bring the violence to an end. Politicians are not plenipotentiaries for the billigerents. Indeed, the belligerents are not at the talks table and I trust that no Government will ever bring them to that table: they need to be told that they cannot bomb their way to it.
  What I see is yet another endeavour to give respectability to the IRA. I do not believe that there is any difference between Sinn Fein and the IRA. One cannot carefully package part of a terrorist organisation, call it by another name, sit down with its representatives and engage in a dialogue with them, claiming that by that means they will be encouraged to persuade the IRA men to leave their weapons and stop their murders. Sinn Fein is part of the IRA, and it has pulled off a great propaganda stunt. Now its members can say, "Oh, but the clergymen accept that we are not the IRA." Today, another effort has been made to give credibility to these murdering thugs and to those who speak for them and justify their diabolical wickedness and are part and parcel of their organisation.
  The sooner the Government and the House learn of their awesome responsibility to seek to protect the citizens of Ulster by extinguishing terrorism, the better it will be for everyone. Emergency legislation, military and police manpower, superior fire power and vast amounts of expenditure on security will not in themselves bring an end to terrorism. They are the ingredients, but without the proper strategy they will never bring an end to the conflict.
  The Government and the House must have the will to win the war against the IRA republican terrorists, who kill three times as many people as any other organisation in Northern Ireland. What I say about the IRA, I say about other terrorist organisations, some of whose members are referred to in the House as "Protestant" paramilitaries. I never hear IRA men referred to here as "Roman Catholic" IRA men. The House should realise that it is an insult to the Protestant people and the Protestant ethos to say that terrorists are Protestants. Terrorists have rejected the very ethos of Protestantism, which is the belief in civil and religious liberty for all men. All terrorists must be crushed, and we must face up to the IRA now.
  Pandering to the political needs of the IRA by permitting members of Sinn Fein to have a role, however minor, in the political institutions of the land legitimises the organisation's message and gives it hope. Its members thrive upon the hope that, some day, they will be at the table. An ecumenical clergyman whom I heard speaking in the general assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church argued that, even if the four parties at the table in Northern Ireland reached a settlement, the fifth party would still be at loggerheads and the problem would still be with us. Given that sort of thinking, Ulster people must ask themselves what the end will be.
  386
  The Government should show their will to extinguish any hope that the terrorists may have by proscribing Sinn Fein and bringing its members to justice for illegal activities. If the Government know of other organisations that should be proscribed, they should proscribe them. They are responsible, and they must do what it is their business to do.
  Neither the vast sums of money spent, nor increased RUC and military manpower will defeat the IRA. It is the proper allocation and deployment of that money and manpower that will defeat it. The security policy of Northern Ireland must change, and change significantly.
  The reactive mentality of protectionism must change to a proactive mentality of dynamic aggression against the terrorists. The security forces and not the terrorists must take the initiative. One cannot win the war against the IRA by spreading the security forces in an attempt to protect all IRA targets. If, as Government sources tell us, there are about 500 IRA men, why cannot they be monitored and marked by the security forces and dealt with when they try to pursue their campaigns of murder? The time has come for a change in strategy and in Government policy.
  We must also get off the treadmill of emergency legislation. We are debating yet another renewal tonight, and emergency legislation has now become the norm. This is the way we live in Northern Ireland: the norm is terrorism and murder. It has become normal for our children to be brought up against that background. My children are past 20 and, every day of their childhood, they heard of policemen being murdered, of bombings, killings and awful attacks. We must break away from that norm, and ask what emergency legislation does. It serves only to maintain the status quo, and we shall not get anywhere without a change of strategy.
  Emergency legislation is the excuse that successive Governments have used to maintain the status quo. The law-abiding people are willing to forgo some of their civil liberties if it means an end in the short to medium term to the nightmare, but they are not willing to give them up indefinitely just so that the Government can maintain the status quo. That should not be the motivation behind the legislation that the Government introduce. The motivation ought to be to deal effectively with the violence, to nip it in the bud, and to bring about stability and peace—and not allow the emergency situation to be institutionalised by time, which is what is happening.
  The Unionist population is not convinced that the present Government have the will to defeat terrorism, not just in condemnatory, graphic, melodramatic descriptions but by definite actions that strike at its heart. Actions speak louder than words. The people of Northern Ireland have no confidence in the Government's will to deliver peace. They say, "Give us an effective security policy and you will get our full confidence and support. Let us see the job being done." The IRA and all its fellow travellers—those who talk to it—are deceiving themselves when they say that they are interested in political progress. They are more concerned with inflicting the vilest crimes on a free people to ensure that, in any political statement, they can call the tune.
  What would Ireland be if the IRA won the war? What sort of settlement would it be? Who would want to live in an Ireland controlled by the IRA? In the infant days of the Irish Free State, the new Government under Michael Collins demonstrated its determination to extinguish

  387
  violence. There was resolution and determination—a lesson which the British Government should learn from Irish history.
  So much money has been wasted in Ulster because the Government have not destroyed terrorism. In January this year the total compensation paid out over the past nine months was £22.8 million. Provision for bomb-damaged property between January and March was a further £10 million to be paid on compensation claims. If the Government pursued a policy of inflicting injury on the IRA, there would be no need for that expense. Targets are many and terrorists are few. We cannot expect the police to protect every possible target. They ought to be deployed against the terrorists.
  We must also consider the disruption. The City of London has witnessed the kind of disruption that the IRA has caused in our city. The disruption that terrorism brings robs our city and Province of employment and investment. Last year 19 days were lost due to traffic being thrown into chaos because of bomb alert hoaxes. One hundred and forty-three vehicles have been hijacked in the past 12 months in an attempt to bring our city to a standstill. In respect of only 23 of those hijackings of vehicles was anyone arrested, brought to court and tried.
  In the past 12 months, bomb disposal experts responded to 1,758 call-outs. That was the highest total in 13 years and it looks as though the record will be broken again this year. Those are the sad statistics. The largest bomb ever used in Northern Ireland was defused at Annaghmartin. Massive bombs were exploded in Glenanne, Kilrea, Markethill and Craigavon. That is what has happened since we last discussed these matters.
  The spiral of appalling killings is becoming more horrendous as 1992 advances. Forty-seven people have been killed already this year, 45 of them civilians. More than 12,000 troops are in Northern Ireland. In all, there are about 35,000 security personnel in the Province. Yet the Government assure us that there are only 500 active terrorists. Why, then, cannot the security forces do something to deal with the problem? The spiral of vile criminal activity will continue for as long as the current inept attitude of the Government is permitted to continue. Emergency legislation can be successful only if it is backed up with effective action.
  We heard from the Secretary of State about border security. I was not satisfied when he said that the people who open the roads in Northern Ireland cannot be prosecuted because there is no law in the south about that. Those people come into Northern Ireland and do that particular job. We hear about it continually on the radio. Public figures and representatives advocate opening roads. No effective action seems to be taken against that.
  I could repeat the things that I have said over many years in this place, but I do not want to weary the House. Northern Ireland can climb out of the litany of failure only if democratic structures are nurtured and the security forces are given the opportunity to deal with the problem.
  The one point with which I want to deal tonight is the attitude of the Irish Government in deliberately refusing to extradite people wanted in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom for terrorist attacks. The list of IRA men
  388
  freed in the Irish Republic yet wanted in the United Kingdom continues to grow, despite claims and promises that the law will be reformed.
  In February 1990 there was the case of Clarke and Finucane—convicted IRA murderers who had escaped from the Maze prison. They were released by the Irish Supreme Court on the spurious judgment that if they were returned to the Maze they would be "assaulted or injured." Such allegations do more to destroy any hope of good cross-community and cross-border relations.
  In 1990 the courts in the south refused to extradite Owen Carron him for political offences. The political offence was the possession of firearms. In December 1988, in the case of Patrick Ryan—the most notorious case in recent Irish history of extradition—the Irish Attorney-General permitted that priest to go free on the basis that he could not receive a fair trial if he was extradited. Patrick McVeigh, who was wanted for charges of bombings in the United Kingdom, had his warrant refused by the Irish court on the basis that it was faulty.
  In August 1986, John Gerard O'Reilly, who was wanted in Belfast on charges of conspiracy to murder, was released in Dublin because the warrants were defective. In March 1986, Evelyn Glenholmes, a triple IRA murder suspect, was released in Dublin because of alleged faulty warrants. In December 1985, Brendan Burns, who was wanted for killing soldiers in Northern Ireland, was released because warrants were declared invalid.
  In December 1982, Dominic McGlinchy was wanted for murdering an elderly postmistress. The Irish Supreme Court ruled that such a murder was not a political offence, and he was the first suspect to be extradited to Northern Ireland for trial. At his trial in Northern Ireland, he was acquitted—I am sure that he would agree that it was a fair trial—and re-extradited to the Republic, where he was jailed for other offences. The excuse that suspects would not get a fair trial in Northern Ireland has been exploded —it is a myth. Claims that suspects will receive an unfair hearing in the United Kingdom courts are purely fictional. Two years after the McGlinchy episode, Seamus Shannon was returned for trial in Belfast in connection with the murder of Sir Norman Stronge and his son. Shannon was acquitted.
  Other cases in which suspects have been extradited include Gerard Harte, who was extradited in 1988 and gaoled, Robert Russell. who was extradited in August 1989 and regaoled, and Paul Kane, who was extradited in April 1988 and regaoled.
  Those extradition figures show the absolute failure by the Republic to keep faith with its claim of wanting to be a good neighbour. The IRA can openly abuse the border as a safe haven, and the Irish Supreme Court openly sanctions such claims. It is little wonder that the northern majority refuse to participate in any proposed cross-border relations.
  In 50 per cent. of those extradition cases in which the British Government have been successful in extraditing a suspect, the suspect has been acquitted, thus making a mockery of the Irish Supreme Court's claim that those who are extradited to Northern Ireland for political offences will not receive a fair trial.
  The time has come when the Government must look carefully at the problem of those who are held in Castlereagh. I do not see any difficulty in showing a video without sound, indicating whether an officer approaches a prisoner, whether he strikes a prisoner, or whether he does

  389
  anything that he should not do. I do not see what the objection is. There are some objections to recording an entire interview because of security reasons, and I can understand why, but I do not see why there should be such objections to a picture. Not only Roman Catholics but Protestants object.
  I have a serious case at the moment involving accusations by a mother who was taken to Castlereagh. She is an old woman of 70, and she was taken to Castlereagh and shown her son sitting in a cell. The police are alleged to have said to her, "You see your son there? Well, he will be there for ever." That is very serious. The way to deal with such a case is to film the people concerned. There may be difficulties for the defence and for security in recording everything that is available, but I do not see why we cannot have a camera record of a suspect—
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. That facility has existed for some time. Cameras are monitored independently by uniformed members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary quite separate from the investigation branch in Castlereagh. All the time a suspect is under interrogation he is watched from outside on a closed-circuit video by a uniformed officer of the rank of inspector.
  Rev Ian Paisley: I accept that, but is a recording available? Can the Minister answer that? Can a recording be made available to the judge in a court?
  Mr. Mates: No, the interviews are not recorded, but the inspector takes a note of when the person for interview goes in and how long he is there and watches him the whole time he is there. That is part of the inspector's daily duty.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept what the Minister says, but he has not given me any new information. I must not have put my message across. I am arguing that a recording should be made which can be made available when accusations are made. I can only see that as helping to clear police officers. I know that it is a usual ploy of people brought in for questioning to accuse the police. We all know that. Why cannot we have a recording of the interview without any words being recorded? I am aware of the argument about a full recording of the words. I am talking about seeing the interview afterwards. That is an important point and the Government must face up to it.
  We must also make it clear that there is no support in any part of the community for holding people for long periods without trial. That feeling goes across the communities. It is not a pleasant thing to be held in Crumlin Road prison. I have done two stretches there, so I know Crumlin Road prison well. It is unpleasant to be in a cell for 24 hours every day. I do not know whether any men here have been in a cell, but to sit there with the door locked 23 hours a day for perhaps a year or 18 months is unacceptable.
  When I visit the prison as the Member of Parliament for my constituency and as the Member of the European Parliament for the whole of Northern Ireland, all the men say, "Get us tried. Get us to court. Then, if we are found guilty, at least we shall have reasonable living conditions."
  390
  Living conditions in Crumlin Road prison are not reasonable. The Government must face up to that, and I hope that they will. I know that there are difficulties.
  I am glad that there is now proper segregation in the Crumlin Road prison and that we do not have confrontations between various sets of visitors. I hope that that segregation will long continue. The Government may argue tonight that it is not separation or segregation but no longer do Republicans and Loyalists mix. I was talking to a prisoner the other day when I was doing my duty at the prison who said, "I never see a Republican." I said, "Long may it continue." The Republicans say, "I never see a Loyalist." That is the way it ought to be.
  I hope that the conditions in Crumlin Road will be brought under careful scrutiny by the Government and that something will be done to ease not only the time that it takes to bring people to trial but the conditions in which they are held while waiting for trial.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: It was most appropriate that Lord Colville prefaced his report by outlining the dilemma that the Government and security services face in the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, I was once again disappointed at the way in which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) trivialised the debate and displayed what at best can be called a degree of naivety in dealing with the difficulties that face the security services in their fight against terrorism. I pay tribute to members of the security services who place themselves between the law-abiding community and those people who would bring murder and mayhem to our community.
  I suppose that an example of the difficulties that the security services have was the bombing campaign in Belfast over the Christmas period. Business men and Christmas shoppers were held to ransom by the terrorists, and the imposition of security checks at the level necessary to prevent bombings was also a source of frustration to the community. Inevitably, it led at times to the community being less than sympathetic towards the job that the security services had to undertake.
  It is important that sensible decisions are taken more quickly, and before the event. As to the Belfast bombing campaign, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and I had numerous meetings prior to that campaign with the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We told him that our information indicated that vast quantities of explosives were being brought across the frontier from the Irish Republic into west Belfast so that a campaign could be mounted.
  We pressed privately and publicly for a couple of extra battalions to be deployed along the frontier, so that a degree of interdiction could occur. That advice was not heeded. We have two extra battalions now and we are glad to see them, but they were not made available in time.
  The Government and the Ministry of Defence must give a greater commitment to the task confronting the security services. When reinforcement in the short term or medium term is required it should be available when requested—not after the event. It is important also that our cross-frontier checkpoints are properly manned. I shall refer to them in detail later. While there remains ineffective liaison and co-operation with the Irish Republic, we must look to our own frontier defences.

  391
  We are not helped by our own tourist board, which goes out of its way to criticise our frontier checkpoints—describing them as ugly, forbidding and an offputting experience for tourists. That is totally to misunderstand the need for the checkpoints, to proect those who live close to the frontier—as my constituents do—and to intercept arms and explosives coming from the Irish Republic in considerable quantities.
  I do not need to remind the House that Libya supplied 150 tonnes of arms and explosives that were imported into the Irish Republic. They were dispersed throughout that jurisdication, and are now brought across as required to enable terrorists to wreak havoc on our community. I suppose that I can expect little else from the Northern Ireland tourist board than criticism of the checkpoints given that it sees the conflict as a curiosity factor that could be positively harnessed to encourage people to visit Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will pay more heed to the ordinary people, who for 20 years have withstood the onslaught of terrorism, than to those who sit in ivory towers and who believe that some 5 per cent. of abnormal people should be catered for in the tourist programme. I do not know what the tourist board's ideas do for the 95 per cent. of people who come to Northern Ireland for justifiable reasons.
  I am worried because I read today that the Killeen checkpoint may be abandoned. I do not believe that it has been totally effective. For years, members of my party and I have argued that a checkpoint that can be driven around quite easily is ineffective. We have made official representations on that issue but we have not been heard. Instead of making amends for its shortcomings, we have heard the hint—it was perhaps only a fishing exercise to see how we would react—that the Killeen checkpoint may be closed. If that was a fishing exercise, I assure those responsible that we are not prepared to see the frontier opened up, with no checks against the importation of weapons and other illegal goods.
  The purpose of permanent vehicle checkpoints needed to be re-examined, because for years and years we have argued that "permanent vehicle checkpoint" is the wrong name for such frontier posts. It suggests the wrong idea. I would prefer to call them permanent patrol bases, because to use them simply to prevent traffic moving backwards and forwards across the frontier is not enough. We must use them as jumping-off points for pre-emptive patrolling. Patrolling cannot take place 10 to 15 miles from the frontier, because that creates a no-man's-land, in which the terrorist dominates and in which he is able to lay land-mines and prepare ambushes. Those areas become more difficult to police.
  Lord Colville referred to those actively involved in trying to open up unapproved roads that lie between the various monitored and official routes across the frontier. I am afraid that those people are able to operate because of the ineffective legislation in the Irish Republic. They approach closed roads from the Irish Republic with lorry-loads of stones, earth-moving equipment, diggers and bulldozers and, from there, they are able to reopen the crossings, thus providing more access points for the terrorists who murder and bomb in Northern Ireland.
  Does the Secretary of State agree that most of the bombs exploded within 15 to 20 miles of the frontier had
  392
  been prepared in the Irish Republic? Again and again the vehicles involved are stolen in Clones, Dundalk or Sligo. Close to the frontier the campaign is directed from the Irish Republic, but the weapons and explosives used in Belfast also come from the Irish Republic, from as far away as Limerick. As Lord Colville says, there is no justification for saying that the closure of minor, or, as we call them, unapproved, roads greatly hinders farmers on both sides of the frontier. It may cause a small amount of difficulty. Lord Colville said that the diversion caused by the closure of Farellys crossing in my constituency was about 3 km.
  Between 100 and 125 tonnes of Gaddafi's weaponry is still in the Irish Republic and somebody has to persuade the Government of that jurisdiction to do more to find that weaponry more quickly. In the interim, we must try to implement an effective means of interdiction close to the frontier. It is too late when the explosives wreak havoc in Belfast of Lurgan or other Northern Ireland towns.
  The Government must concentrate not just on weapons; they must investigate racketeering. I congratulate Customs and Excise, the police and the Army on their success to date and on the seizure in the past month of thousands of illegally copied videos and pornographic material. That has been a serious blow to the IRA's ability to finance itself. But not enough is being done to ensure that the finances of illegal organisations are cut much more quickly. I know that that is difficult.
  Lord Colville says that with the single market there will not be the same rip-off with hydrocarbons, beers and spirits and other such products. But we are worried not just about illegal videos and pornographic material. Illegal substances such as clenbuterol, better known as angel dust, are widely used not just in Ireland but throughout Europe. In Ireland angel dust is profitable. I shall give the House an idea of how profitable it is. A cannister that is "wholesaled" for £40 will be passed on to the farmer for £120. That is a 300 per cent. profit. The farmer will be able to treat 10 animals with that amount of angel dust, and each animal will probably increase in value by between £100 and £150. There will be a profit of between £1,000 and £1,500 from the farmer's £120. Does anyone believe that a business that is more profitable than that of cocaine, so we are told, will be missed by the terrorist? The terrorist controls the market from the rest of Europe into Ireland and from South America into Ireland.
  Sadly, I must find fault with the Department of Agriculture. In its desire not to harm the majority of good, decent farmers who are trying to make a living and produce good beef for the consumer, it sweeps the issue under the carpet at an early stage. I went to the Department and I was assured that its checks and balances were such that the use of clenbuterol could not be sustained. I was told that it would be detected but, unfortunately, that has proved not to be so. As a result, the terrorist is making great capital.
  The Government fall down, as it were, when it comes to claims against the Royal Ulster Constabulary that are made by those who are taken in for interrogation. On being released, there are claims of ill-treatment, which constitute a real money-spinner. We reached the stage when a firm of solicitors, Madden and Finucane, to which I have referred in the House before, is able to boast on behalf of its clients about the vast sums that it has obtained

  393
  in compensation from the Northern Ireland Office without ever having to go to court. Out-of-court settlements are unforgivable.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Newry and Mourne was worried about the description—I cannot remember it exactly—of the people of Northern Ireland as
  "litigious". In other words, it was said that they were keen to get into court. We saw examples of that for years when actions were brought against the road service authority. There was no obligation on anyone to lift his foot or to look where he was walking. Indeed, the exact opposite was the case. If someone thought that he could find a hole to fall into, he sought it diligently. There were estates where there was not one house in which someone had not been to court claiming damages because of a fall in the street.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to take up the matter in his own speech. I shall not give way because of the time.
  Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman feels that it is necessary to refer to me again without giving me the right of reply, perhaps he will at least refer to my constituency correctly.
  Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is capable of doing that.
  Mr. Maginnis: Claims resulting from the state of the road surface dropped dramatically when claimants were forced over the step and into the court to prove their case. Out-of-court settlements are a disaster.
  It would be interesting if those claiming ill-treatment by the police were forced into court where they could be cross-examined. We would see some interesting people with some interesting connections in court. It might be a revelation.
  One of the most surprising of all claims that were settled out of court was that made by the widow of Daniel Doherty. Daniel Doherty was shot in Londonderry as he approached a hospital there, armed and intent on killing a member of the security services. One fails to understand how his wife could be compensated for his death.
  I remind the House of the reply when I asked about the case. I was told:
  "It is not the practice to publish details of police investigations. The death of Daniel Doherty was fully investigated by the RUC, and the report passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who directed 'no prosecution' of the soldiers involved.
  However, I believe that it is widely accepted that Daniel Doherty was engaged in terrorist activities when he was killed."—[Official Report, 16 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 59.]
  The irony of that award to Daniel Doherty's widow is that the person who was attacked received no compensation, nor when he died prematurely did his widow. Where is the justice in that? The Secretary of State and his team must give some consideration to that. Justice is as much about ensuring that people who do not deserve do not get as about ensuring that people who do deserve receive what is rightly theirs.
  The whole issue of answers in the House must be considered carefully. It is necessary that members of the community and Members of the House should know what
  394
  is going on, but again and again when I ask questions I find that the facts about the situation in Northern Ireland are hidden.
  Last December, I asked about the award of compensation when terrorists had been shot dead or shot and injured by the security services. I was told:
  "The available information is set out in the table below. It should be noted that this information, which is based on the date of settlement and not of the incident concerned, does not differentiate between 'terrorist' and 'non-terrorist' incidents". —[Official Report, 12 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 522.]
  How can the House be kept informed when we do not differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists when it comes to the compensation that is awarded, mostly in out-of-court settlements?
  If there is One issue on which I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North it is the issue that many of us consider to be the crux of the Northern Ireland security question—but I think that I agree with every hon. Member in the House on that issue. I believe that there must be de facto police primacy in Northern Ireland. It is not enough simply to believe in police primacy; it must work in practice, and so far it has not done so.
  I do not intend to go into the Nelson case, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did, or to rely on newspaper reports or television programmes. I followed the trial of Brian Nelson, however, and elements in it deeply disturbed my colleagues and me. Let me say clearly that, although my party wishes to give the security services wholehearted support, we do not intend to try to justify the unjustifiable. If we do that, we shall deliver the security services in their entirety as hostages to fortune: it would be self-defeating as well as morally wrong.
  The police know exactly how far they can go within the law—and God knows, at times decisions are difficult; mistakes have been made, and will be made again. They know how far they can go, because it is clearly laid down for them. For that reason, I believe that no aspect of security must be hidden from the police. The new deputy chief constable will have operational responsibility for all aspects of policing, and I look forward to seeing him get to grips with all the available intelligence and information, whether it is made available to the Army, MI5 or the police themselves. Someone will be accountable, and in that way we shall deprive the terrorist of one of his greatest weapons: the insinuation that the security services are involved in illegal activities.
  A problem arises when Army units are brought into Northern Ireland for three-month roulement tours. I am not happy even with six-month roulement tours, but I know the difficulty of providing the necessary level of military manpower in Northern Ireland. As has already been mentioned tonight, an unfortunate situation recently developed in Coalisland, in my constituency. Soldiers behaved unwisely, but I do not believe that they were to blame: they had been brought in on a three-month roulement tour, without being given the proper training that should be available to everyone who serves in Northern Ireland.
  It would be wise to ensure that, in future, three-month roulement battalions are held at brigade reserve level and are not put on the streets where, without the proper briefing and knowing that they are in difficult areas, they tend to view the entire community as hostile.
  That attitude is reciprocated. There are many decent people in Coalisland, but there is a strong IRA element

  395
  within the community. We must not give those people the opportunity to exploit our weaknesses. Things have now settled down, and I hope that such an incident will not happen again. My party wholeheartedly supports the security services, but we cannot justify the unjustifiable.
  My final point—
  Mr. Mallon: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Maginnis: Of course, Madam Chairman—
  Mr. Mallon: Madam Speaker; get that right at least.
  Mr. Maginnis: Yes, Madam Speaker.
  I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will be relieved when I stop speaking, but he will have to spend a few minutes trying to avoid the issue of how we effectively deal with terrorism.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: You will hear, Madam Speaker—
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: Given what the hon. Member—
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Maginnis:—said from a sedentary position, I think that I am entitled to answer.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: No, I will not.
  Mr. Mallon: How can the hon. Gentleman accuse me of refusing to comment if he will not give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: We shall hear many platitudes from the hon. Gentleman but little that is designed to help the situation in Northern Ireland or to show some understanding of the position in which our security forces find themselves.
  I welcome the news that a commissioner will be given access to the holding centres. That will help to protect the police, who have a difficult job in those centres. I hope that the commissioner's brief will be very carefully thought out and explicitly defined. In the past five or six years, great improvements have been made in monitoring holding centres. More attention is now paid to the way in which notes are validated. That is an improvement compared with 10 or 15 years ago. There are now means of visually overseeing what goes on when suspects are being questioned.
  Most sensible people will agree entirely with Lord Colville's decision that video-recordings should not be made. Without the present system of questioning, less intelligence would be given to the security services. Much good work is done in holding centres in a way that protects the person being questioned as well as the questioner. It would not matter what method was used to acquire the video recordings or to try to safeguard their use, there would come a time when a solicitor or barrister would be able to convince the court that it was in the interests of justice to see those recordings, and lives would be put in danger.
  I hope that, although the commissioner will have the right to visit unannounced at any time, day or night, he will not have direct access to the room in which suspects
  396
  are being questioned. I believe that he will have the right to watch and listen to what is shown on the video. In that way, he will be much more effective. The police will not know that he is there, so their behaviour will at all times have to be circumspect; nor, of course, will the suspect know that the commissioner is there, so he will always have difficulty deciding how and when he should allege ill-treatment. Overall, meticulous care in the way in which the police carry out their duties is important—it is also important for their benefit.
  The morale of the community depends on the legislation available to deal with terrorism. Many would think that the legislation is inadequate, but if we had the task, I do not think we could do much better. Legislation must be fair and must be accepted by the vast majority of the community if it is to work. I am concerned that the community does not have confidence in the legislation, and it is the direct responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office to reassure the community.
  In 1984–people died as a result of terrorism. In 1990–91, the last year for which I have figures, 82 people died. That is an increase of 90 per cent. since the period just before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. In 1985, 89 per cent. of murders were carried out by Republican terrorists and 11 per cent. by Loyalist terrorists. In 1990 the figure for Republican groups was 71 per cent. and for Loyalist groups it had risen to 29 per cent. Again, I believe that that was due to the lack of morale in the Loyalist community. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the need to raise the morale of the community through the passing of honest and reliable information to the community and to the House. That is a prerequisite for success against terrorists in the community.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I must inform the House that, unless speeches are curtailed on a voluntary basis, I shall not be able to call all hon. Members who wish to speak.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: A sense of déjà vu descends over relatively seasoned debaters of this issue, and rehearsed arguments are given a further hearing. My position is unequivocal and unambiguous: I deeply lament and regret the circumstances which have led to the measures but, given those circumstances, I regard the measures as absolutely essential and look forward to their being approved tonight.
  I wish to be selective and return the debate to Lord Colville's report. In his opening remarks, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State drew attention to the summary statement on page 2 of Lord Colville's report, which says:
  "The new Act, and new arrangements in it, seem to have been introduced and have since been operated without any appreciable adverse reaction. I do not recommend the suspension of any of its provisions."
  That makes good reading, but some points are worthy of attention and debate.
  I was particularly interested in Lord Colville's comments on one of the new sections in the Act, section 30, and the provisions regarding the possession of items intended for terrorist purposes. The origins of that measure lie in Lord Colville's report of 1990 on the emergency provisions legislation. Lord Colville acknowledges that it is early days yet and says that, so far, there

  397
  have been no convictions. At the time of his writing, three people were on remand. None the less, he points to that item as being a valuable weapon in the armoury against terrorism and already sees signs of its having a deterrent effect. That is encouraging and we can look forward, next year or whenever we next review the matter, to seeing further evidence of the progress of that part of the measure.
  The second subject to which I wish to refer is the obtaining of confessions, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred in his opening comments. Lord Colville's 1992 review seems to show that he is happy with what he has found. He concludes on page 10:
  "Certainly nothing has happened to throw doubt on the wisdom of having re-enacted section 11 this time last year".
  On page 14, he writes:
  "I cannot accordingly recommend that there is any material which should now lead to a relaxation of the section 11 rule. If anything terrorists are becoming more adept at resisting interrogation".
  Notwithstanding Lord Colville's comments, it is right that we still question why there is a divergence with regard to the admissibility in evidence of statements between EPA and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I have not yet been reassured that sufficient grounds exist for that divergence. I note that Lord Colville's paper refers to hostile assessments of the situation in Northern Ireland in the light of that section.
  Another area of concern is complaints about ill treatment at holding centres—pages 24 to 38 in the report. By any criteria of judgment, the catalogue that Lord Colville describes makes uneasy reading. In his report on the prevention of terrorism legislation in March last year, he spoke of his growing concern about complaints of ill treatment at holding centres. Page 25 of the report says:
  "I suggest that something needs urgently to be done."
  His 11-point description of a typical course of events makes profoundly disturbing reading. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, in summing up the debate, note that we want to eliminate the running sore of disquiet on those matters?
  Having said that, I warmly welcome the measures and sincerely hope that they will meet with the approval of the House tonight.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: This is one of the most depressing debates in the House, for the good reason that there is a certain amount of ritual about it. That ritual repeats itself because the problem and its supposed solution keep being repeated ad infinitum.
  If we had the honesty to admit reality, it is that there is no solution to be found through this type of legislation. That is not to say that there is not a need for legislation that copes with terrorists. From listening to tonight's debate, one would almost assume that the order will solve the problems. I regret it, but in two, five, 10 or 20 years' time, exactly the same problems will be faced by those dealing with the legislation and exactly the same points and comments will be made, if we do not have the honesty to question the basis of the legislation—that it provides the power to find a solution. I do not believe that that is possible. To stop this ritualistic dance, I ask of us all not to repeat what we have said ad infinitum. That is what we are doing.
  The Government, whatever their structure, will defend the legislation with great self-righteousness. They will
  398
  score political points over the Opposition. The Opposition, whatever their complexion, will oppose because they are the Opposition. The Northern Ireland Members who are here from all parties will range over various factors, from angel dust, through people getting their big toe broken and a compensation claim, to the human tragedies that face us all. If we do not face up to the facts, that kind of black theatre will continue. Sooner or later, a Member on the Government Benches, whoever the Government are, will have the courage to ask: is this not becoming a ritual, is there not another way, are we not at the end of history and at the beginning of the future, and is there not a way other than continuing as we are doing?
  What are we doing? Each time the legislation is debated, the law is diluted further. That is not a political point; it is a fact. We have more troops to guard those who are building the border checkpoints, about which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke at great length. A British Army brigadier told us publicly that it took one brigade to guard those who were building the look-out post at Annaghmartin. While that was happening, the Irish army was across the border guarding the brigade that was guarding those who were building the checkpoint. I call it black theatre and that example starts to put it into perspective.
  We now have more technology on the hillsides and look-out posts that see nothing. We have look-out posts that cannot see when terrorists are sitting in front of them making and planting bombs. Those look-out posts are causing anxiety about possible radiation, but the one thing that they cannot do is see. We have more dubious tactics. Could anyone on this side of the Irish sea have watched the "Panorama" programme without feeling slightly ashamed, embarrassed and squeamish about the allegations? I am not in a position to know whether or not they are true, but I do know that the men who made that programme took more than a year to make it, and they were so thorough in their research that I believe that we should at least look at it seriously.
  Of course we shall have more checkpoints of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It is thought good to have these great checkpoints —it keeps people happy. If I happened to live in Britain and if my son were one of the young soldiers blown to bits in one of those static checkpoints, there just to reassure people or keep them happy, I should be a very angry man indeed. Two young men have been blown to bits in my constituency, in a checkpoint which I believe serves no security purpose whatever.
  Unless we face reality, and unless some of us start having the courage to question things which we have accepted, or which have been accepted, for so long, we shall have more self-perpetuating failure. It could be the beginning of the future if we had a little bit of courage. If not, we shall come back year after year, for however many years it is, and we shall all be saying the same things.
  It is interesting reading the reports in Hansard. One could almost have written in advance most of the speeches that have been made tonight—the reference to angel dust being the honourable exception. In reality, there is nothing more for the Minister to say. He cannot take away from the legislation; he adds a little each time. There is little more that any of us can say. We can only try to ask for a change of thinking on the subject. We must ask ourselves

  399
  the fundamental question: is the legislation capable of succeeding and of solving the problem? If it is not, the Government should think again.
  I take this opportunity—it may cause me problems—to say to the IRA that it cannot win with this campaign of violence. There can be no military victory for the IRA, and I say to it unequivocally, "Stop now, without any discussion, because what you are doing is wrong." I say to the Government that they cannot win either. There can be no military victory for this Government or for any other Government in circumstances such as this. So I say to the Government, too, "Stop. Think. Reassess the situation and see whether you are going down the wrong road". Is there not another way of proceeding, which will not cost the British taxpayer £2.5 billion a year—money which, by and large, goes down the tubes in a wholly unproductive way—and which will not cost lives, scar the countryside with look-out posts, closed border roads, checkpoints in the hills or whatever? They should ask themselves whether there is another approach to the problem.
  It is time that some of us started to tell the IRA and the others involved in the search for a military solution—and that is the Government—that our peace, lives and future happen to be more important that their prejudice or principles. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than to be locked into military combat between two sides, neither of which can win. It is time that there was some thinking on that. I know that that view will not be accepted readily—of course it will not—but it is time that someone started asking some questions.
  Much has been made of the "Panorama" programme, and I shall not labour the point. I merely ask what sort of system it is which, after 20 years and with all the legislation that is in place, must rely on the dubious tactics whose use was alleged on that programme. In a previous renewal debate, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), said:
  "we shall continue to work unreservedly for the defeat of terrorism with all the means at our disposal that are compatible with the letter and spirit of the rule of law." [Official Report, 12 March 1990, Vol. 169, c. 32.]
  Would any objective person watching that "Panorama" programme accept that that was compatible in any way with the spirit and letter of the rule of law? I make no judgment about that programme. However, if a reputable programme with the investigative powers of "Panorama" makes so many allegations, it is not doing that without information or with faulty information.
  It is clear from the transcript taken in a court of law that Colonel J was, in his own words, in many ways colluding with murder and ignoring it. If that is the case, we had better sit up and end the self-righteousness that is injected into this kind of debate. We should ask ourselves what kind of society is being left for us in the north of Ireland.
  Yes, we have our problems. We have enough of them and we do not need any more. We do not need that can of worms every two, three or five years. That is not compatible with the rule of law.
  Perhaps the most serious point is the allegation that Colonel J and FRU knew that arms were to be shipped into the north of Ireland from South Africa, but they did not intercept them. Those arms were used to kill the lady
  400
  from the chemist's shop, the people in the betting shop on the Ormeau road and God knows how many other people. If that is so—and it must be the Government's responsibility to discover whether it is true—Colonel J should be in the dock to answer for collusion and involvement in murder. As a former Prime Minister once said, "Murder is murder is murder." There cannot be any conditions on it. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will take that on board and ensure that we do not have such a legacy in Northern Ireland.
  I want to make a few points about the Colville report. Lord Colville is always complimented when he produces his report. I have tried to understand the mind of Lord Colville in his most recent report. Normally his reports are very objective and impartial. As a lawyer, he has been able to deal with the problems from a distance and to assess them.
  About 14 pages of Lord Colville's report rubbish the right of a person to make a claim of ill-treatment while in custody. I am not naive enough to think that people do not make spurious claims. However, I believe that there are enough problems to be dealt with in Northern Ireland and there should not be 14 pages of highly partial and pejorative terms like "dubious purposes." The report states:
  "even unmeritorious claims can bring acquittal or substantial tax-free cash sums, or both, to those who do not deserve it."
  That is in regard to court decisions or decisions to settle out of court. Not only does the report pour scorn on those who make claims; it pours scorn on the legal process itself.
  The report also states:
  "The system can so seriously be exploited that it serves as an encouragement to false accusations."
  Are we saying, or is Lord Colville implying as some previous speakers have implied, that the people of the north of Ireland do not have any integrity whatever? As a person from the north of Ireland, I resent that.
  The final insulting paragraph of the report states:
  "Considering the allegiance of some of those who exploit the system it is not fanciful to suppose that terrorist organisations take at least part of the damages awarded, so that they are being financed directly at the taxpayers' expense."
  The report continues:
  "That harsh catalogue deserves intricate analysis of which I will attempt to sketch the outlines."
  It does not, with respect. It demands proof that that happens. It demands hard facts in at least one case to back it up. Is it there? Lord Colville is a lawyer, someone who has been preparing his report for a number of years. There is not one scrap of evidence—nothing which is not hypothetical. There is nothing to suggest that the points that he makes in the first 14 pages have any great relevance to the problem. That is most disappointing indeed. That brings his position into question. That section of the report certainly seems to be an apologia for the legislation rather than a critical analysis of it. Surely a person who is engaged to do that task must provide evidence if he draws such fundamental conclusions. He has not done so.
  Lord Colville then concludes by making three recommendations which disturb me. The first one is that a log of everything be kept so that
  "the slightest incident is noted lest it should turn into a complaint … by way of pre-empting any later claim of abuse."
  That reminds me of a statement by Willie John McBride when he was captain of the British Lions when they went to play New Zealand. His instruction was, "Get

  401
  your retaliation in first, lads." The report smacks of that. and that cannot be good for the legislation or the consideration of it.
  If we are to advise people to pre-empt any claims of abuse, what will happen to that log? How would one deal with the incident at Coalisland? Have we a log on that, as Lord Colville tells us? If he is right, it surely is written in the log book of some of those soldiers. Then they will tell us why they acted unwisely, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said, when they went into a bar, shot three people and destroyed the bar. That is a fact. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us about that. There was a photograph of the incident in Derry. Was that in a log? If we are not going to be honest about these matters, we will merely conduct a charade, and that must be challenged.
  Some of Lord Colville's other points should also be challenged. They are that a number of claims are spurious because they are not backed up by complaints to the Police Complaints Commission. He is implying that, in effect, the way to deal with that is to ensure that anybody who makes a civil claim for compensation should be required to make a formal complaint so that one version may be compared with the other.
  A person in my constituency made a complaint to the Police Complaints Commission. He was subsequently charged with an offence by the RUC. His evidence to the Police Complaints Commission was used against him in court by the police. How did the police get that evidence from the Police Complaints Commission? Is that ethical? Is that professionally correct? People would be very concerned if that approach were taken. I shall give the person's name to the Minister of State so that he can inquire into the matter. I have the name, the time and the place. That is something into which Lord Colville should inquire, but he comes out with recommendations that simply do not measure up.
  Much was made about checkpoints. I believe that checkpoints are a death trap for those who have to man them. The Minister and the Secretary of State know my views, so I shall not labour them. But at a time when frontier posts are coming down all over Europe, when Europe is beginning to integrate and when other countries are moving away from the history and the problems, we arc building more frontier posts and more edifices on the border. Instead of letting in a breath of fresh air, we are entering the siege mentality that has been shown throughout the debate tonight.
  We should examine the ethos of the legislation closely, not least where it refers to terrorist financing. There was a massive operation not so long ago, mainly in my constituency. I am told that it involved 1,000 soldiers and policemen and that it was remarkably successful. I am not sure that any charges have been brought as yet. I do not know whether any charges will be brought. I do not know whether any charges will centre on some people involved in terrorism.
  However, ordinary decent people in Newry, south Down and south Armagh were subjected to that operation who have no connection with terrorism. We were worried when it was trumpeted from the Northern Ireland Office in the media that the operation was the final body blow to the IRA in that area. It was not very efficient. I hope that the Minister will take steps to ensure that the next time it is efficient.
  402
  One gentleman, whose name I shall give to the Minister, had his house raided. His life insurance policies were taken away. Photocopies of the policies were sent back. That is against the legislation in any case. Photocopied life insurance policies are no use to anyone because they are not accepted. Of course, at the end of the day, it was the wrong man and the wrong house anyhow. But still his life insurance policies have not been returned.
  In another case, a highly respected accountant was searched. Even though the warrant identified the files that were to be taken, every other file in not only his house but that of his mother-in-law and his partner was scrutinised. In a third case, a person had his house identified as that belonging to another person of the same name. He was subjected to the same type of approach.
  What does that do in a place such as south Armagh? What attitude does it leave among ordinary, decent people? It leaves them with the impression that when it comes to the operation of the legislation, they come a poor third and their position is not given much consideration. I know that the Minister of State thinks that it is funny, but I happen to believe that every individual has a right to respect for his or her position and his or her rights.
  If an individual breaks the law, society has the right to subject that person to the rigours of the law through a proper court system. But the longer that legislation such as we are considering tonight remains, the more we postpone the day when we can set about solving the problems and the greater legacy of distrust and lack of confidence in the law the Government will leave in my country. It is time that they started to face up to that.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Madam Speaker, although for reasons that you will readily understand it seems rather a long time ago, I recall that the elegance of the language used by the Secretary of State in introducing the debate did nothing to conceal the horror of the catalogue of death and destruction of which he spoke. Indeed, if anything, the dispassionate account that he gave underlined the unspeakable nature of the behaviour which he described as a justification for the renewal of the order.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the appointment of an independent commissioner and an independent assessor. He will understand that we will want to know the terms of the appointments, and the competence that attaches to them.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about his attempts to reduce the time suspects spend on remand. The whole House welcomes the efforts that he will put into that. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not close his mind entirely to the possibility of a statutory scheme. Already within the United Kingdom there is one jurisdiction in which a statutory scheme operates with great success, although I do not pretend for one moment that a statutory scheme such as that in Scotland could be brought into existence by the mere passage of a piece of legislation.
  If there is a Division, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the order. We shall do so not with any great enthusiasm but because we view it as a regrettable necessity. We shall vote for the order with considerable reservations—not least because it is our

  403
  profound belief that the rights, protections, and civil liberties of all United Kingdom citizens should be the same wherever they live.
  Only in the most unusual circumstances can there be any justification for departing from those principles. It is my sad conclusion again this year that such circumstances still obtain in Northern Ireland and justify renewal of the order. That circumstances exist to justify such draconian powers as those that it contains must be a matter of profound regret to us all.
  We must not maintain those powers for an instant longer than necessary. We should tolerate them grudgingly, and work to withdraw them at the earliest possible date. Such powers should never be embraced enthusiastically, for they represent a serious incursion into the rights which citizens of the United Kingdom are entitled to expect, and which we look for in all civilised systems of government.
  Why do I believe that the powers are justified and that the order should be renewed? It can only be because the cancer of terrorism still stands at the heart of life in Northern Ireland. It can only be because I believe that the powers provide a means of containing that cancer. It is my profound belief that we delude ourselves if we think that more and more stringent powers, or even the more stringent exercise of powers already available, will bring peace and tranquillity to the Province.
  So long as the legislation is seen to be strictly necessary, it will be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, but if abuses occur or if the powers are too wide the legislation will become counter-productive and public confidence will be dissipated.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I am sorry that he is not in his place, although he has been present throughout the debate. I hope that I do not do him an injustice, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that if there is a Division he and his party will be unable to vote for the continuance of the order—I see that the hon. Gentleman has returned to his place—because of their resistance to the power of internment.
  I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to challenge the necessity for the other powers in the order. I share his repugnance for the existence of the power of internment, but not his conclusion. If circumstances justify the existence of the other powers, is it adequate to deny those powers to the security forces because of the existence of a power that is not being exercised? That is a question of judgment, but if the hon. Gentleman does not challenge the need for the order's powers, save for that of internment, surely he ought to consider carefully whether he is not dealing the security forces a hand that they will find extremely difficult to play.
  There are some who argue for the use of the internment power—curiously, the debate has been notable for an absence of reference to that—and I do not doubt the sincerity of their belief, but I am equally sincere in my belief that its use would be counter-productive. Its use would result in the alienation of communities and create an atmosphere of desperation. It would be a signal of impotence in the face of terrorism.
  When the Diplock courts were established on the recommendation of Lord Diplock, I cannot imagine that
  404
  they were ever seen as more than a short-term measure. Is it not time to reconsider whether trial by jury should be available in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the kingdom, unless it can be shown that good cause exists for not allowing that right? Should not the onus rest on the prosecution in Northern Ireland to show good cause why a man or woman should not have his or her guilt or innocence determined by a jury?
  I understand the security implications of video taping the interviewing of suspects. I am disappointed, however, that the Government do not show a willingness at least to experiment to see if such recordings could not be made without prejudice to the interests of state or security. Surely such recordings would reduce the scope for the denial of confessions subsequently or for unfounded attacks on police methods. Their use might have consequences in terms of combating more easily false claims made against the police. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind on this, because in my judgment the video recording of what transpires between police and suspect would be more likely—it is a question of balance—to serve the interests of justice than the fact that such recording is not available now.
  I can say as much from my professional experience as from anything else that it is the nature of the transaction between the suspect and the police which frequently allows someone accused of a crime a peg upon which to hang a defence which would not otherwise be available. I hope that what has been said about the video recording of such interviews will be seriously considered by the Government.
  One does not use the word conversion easily in respect of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) lest it be thought to imply anything other than the stern Calvinism or Protestantism of which he is a robust proponent. However, his conversion to the idea that the use of such recordings should be considered reflects a great change of opinion on his part. I hope that I do not do the hon. Gentleman an injustice, and I hope that the Government will keep an open mind on the topic.
  The order offers no long-term solution. The best hope for that lies in the talks that the Secretary of State has instituted. It is right and proper that they should not form any part of our discussions tonight. I am not party to those talks, but those engaged in them should understand that the people of the United Kingdom earnestly hope for a successful outcome. They are too worldly and too used to violence in Northern Ireland to believe that a solution is likely to be at hand immediately, but those engaged in the talks should calculate how much good will would result from progress in those talks. They should consider the extent to which the sustained progress and political stability created by such a successful outcome might make orders such as the one that we are debating superfluous. It is too much to hope that we are debating such an order for the last time, but is it too much to hope that that day will not for ever be postponed?
  10.34 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) effectively criticised the Labour party's attitude to the legislation. I hope that that that criticism will be taken to heart by Labour Members if the House divides, although I hope that it will not. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the legislation makes serious incursions into the rights of

  405
  citizens. I had difficulty following him on that point because, bearing in mind the fact that the internment power is not operational. no provision in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 in any way conflicts with the European convention on human rights. Therefore, that Act is not a serious incursion into the rights of citizens. Comments could be made about the detention powers in the prevention of terrorism Act, but that is another matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement about the introduction of an independent commissioner for police centres. I also welcomed his comment about remand prisoners. I am glad to know that there will be target time for bringing people forward for arraignment to reduce remand periods. I understand the reluctance immediately to adopt a statutory scheme, such as the one in Scotland, but I hope that, when the informal targets have been reached, we can move to a statutory scheme, because failure to achieve sensible progression could lead to a deterioration of the position. Such a statutory scheme would ensure that there is no subsequent backsliding.
  Much of the debate has turned on Lord Colville's report. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate Lord Colville not only on that report but on his series of reports over the years. They are well worth reading. My one regret about them is that they do not seem to receive the circulation and study that they deserve. People who are worried about the legislation will find that Lord Colville checks matters such as applications for extension of periods in detention and looks extensively at individual cases. That is a considerable reassurance.
  I should like to deal with a few other issues in Lord Colville's report. He says that the current difficulties about definition arise from the difference in statistics emanating from the Lord Chancellor's office and the Northern Ireland Office and suggests that that conflict should be resolved. Perhaps the Minister will outline the arguments on definition and say why we cannot have reliable statistics. Such statistics are important. How else can one measure the effectiveness of legislation?
  In the previous Parliament, I tabled a question about how often those convicted of murder were actual trigger men for people who placed bombs. I was informed that it was not possible to answer that, because statistics were not available. That is quite incredible. Without such statistics, how can we measure the effectiveness of the security forces and the legal system?
  I regret to say that I have the impression that the number of trigger men who are convicted of murder in any one year could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. If figures were available, they would demonstrate that the system is not as effective as it should be. I fear that such figures as are available give a somewhat false impression.
  On the fifth page of the report, Lord Colville discusses the legislation that is designed to deal with terrorist funds. He refers to the position on the Channel islands and on the Isle of Man. He notes that power is available to extend part of the emergency provisions legislation to the islands. He then states:
  "Whatever may be said about the efficacy of section 13 and schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, it must be of direct concern that the fullest possible range of facilities
  406
  should be to hand for the authorities in those jurisdictions to give such assistance as they can to expose terrorists' off-shore accounts and money laundering."
  Two issues arise from that passage. The Prevention of Terrorism Act provisions that operate on some of the islands are much narrower than those in the emergency provisions legislation. Part VII of the EPA deals with the confiscation of the proceeds of terrorists' illegal activities. I think that it is fair to say that the PTA provisions on terrorist funds—the Minister's comments will be interesting—are virtually useless. The EPA provisions may be useful, but the PTA provisions are not. That underlines the need for uniform legislation throughout the British Isles, but excluding the Republic of Ireland.
  In the same passage of his report, Lord Colville refers to protection payments and tax. Unfortunately, his comment is wrong. I have personal experience of persons who reported that they were being intimidated by terrorists and were making protection payments. They found that, as a result of taking up the invitation of the previous Secretary of State to report these matters, they were raided by the Inland Revenue, and found themselves in a much worse situation. Lord Colville states that he is not aware of such cases, but unfortunately they exist. His comment is no response to the position of those citizens, who behaved, perhaps at a later date, in a responsible manner.
  That brings me to the section of Lord Colville's report which refers to cases of irresponsibility on the part of the television medium. At paragraphs 4.2.9. and 10 he refers to a case that went to court in 1991. The defendant was a man called Gilgunn. A complaint was made by the detainee's mother on his behalf to the Anglo-Irish secretariat alleging serious threats made to him by the police. In the witness box, however, the detainee made no attempt to substantiate the allegation. The judge in the case said:
  "I am satisfied that there is no truth in any suggestion that any threat of this kind was made at any time. I have said previously that Gilgunn was an intelligent young man. He is also, I am satisfied, a manipulative young man."
  Lord Colville continues:
  "In the recent Channel 4 documentary programme 'Behind the Walls of Castlereagh', Mr. Gilgunn repeated these allegations. I heard no reference to the comments made by the judge."
  The inescapable conclusion is that Gilgunn manufactured the complaint in an attempt to discredit the RUC and that Channel 4 was too gullible. It is not the only time that there has been such gullibility. I recall the notorious "Despatches" programme which alleged the existence of a so-called inner circle in which it was said that police and loyalist terrorists plotted assassinations. What was produced on screen in the way of evidence was singularly unconvincing.
  After the programme, in an attempt to bolster their case, those involved in the production of "Despatches" supplied the RUC with names, some of whom they said were members of the inner circle. Some of the names were not even in the RUC, although those involved with "Despatches" said they were. I believe that the RUC is satisfied that none of those named was so involved.
  If the programme makers had consulted any reputable journalist operating in Ulster, they would have been told that the allegations were fantasies. Indeed, some journalists working in Northern Ireland are now reluctant to have any dealings with Channel 4 programmers as a result. I understand that the programme cost about £250,000, which is something worth considering.

  407
  I suspect that the programme involved more than gullibility. The person who made it was no wide-eyed innocent coming to Ulster for the first time. He was a native of Ulster who in his student days was associated with extreme Republican politics.
  If the police succeed in their attempts to compel "Despatches" to disclose its sources, I think that it will be found that essentially that programme had one source—a person who is known to have a Republican political background. We shall then see that the programme was tainted from the outset. The sinister aspect of the programme was that, in addition to smearing the police, it effectively identified members of a mythical inner circle and so targeted individuals in the Loyalist community. That is a dangerous consequence of irresponsibility.
  That naturally leads one to the programme earlier this week and the case of Mr. Nelson. Like other hon. Members, I shall suspend judgment on that until we know more of the facts. It illustrates what we do know from what has come out through the courts and elsewhere and underlines the danger of competing organisations in intelligence matters and the danger of not having proper co-ordination and effective control.
  I am not drawing any conclusions about what may have happened. It is clear from what we know that Mr. Nelson was or may have been a double agent. It is unwise to conclude that all his actions were controlled by his intelligence handlers, but there is sufficient in the public domain of a reputable nature to show that there is cause for concern.
  I appreciate the difficulties of inquiries into intelligence matters, but I should like to be reassured that there will be an investigation into those matters and that as much as possible will be put into the public domain so that we can see where the truth lies. However, as I say, I caution against taking what emanates from Mr. Nelson as gospel because it comes from a tainted source.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that the "Panorama" programme, which I am afraid that I did not see, alleged collusion in the importation of arms. If I remember correctly, all the arms that were being imported for the UDA on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers were seized and the majority of the arms destined for the UVF were also found.
  Mr. Mallon: Those arms were imported by a group known then as Ulster Resistance. Some of them were handed over to the UDA and some to the UVF. A consignment was seized by the police outside Tandragee and the rest have not been recovered. It has been established that the gun which killed the people in the betting shop was imported in that shipment.
  Mr. Trimble: I am aware of that fact. The facts are, as I stated, that all the weapons in that shipment going to the UDA were found. The majority of those going to the UVF were found. It is said that there were some going to another organisation which have not been found. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the gun used in that terrible attack was found, it could well be from the UVF contingent.
  408
  The significance of the situation is that Mr. Nelson was said to be working for the UDA, and all the weapons destined for the UDA were seized by the RUC. I think that there is no dispute about that.
  The hon. Gentleman referred critically to a long passage in Lord Colville's report about complaints against the police. At this stage, I shall simply urge hon. Members to read everything that Lord Colville says on that point. He makes a number of cogent points analysing the way in which the system is not working effectively. There is a serious problem here, because of the way in which the civil legal system is being used to give a false impression.
  The actions of the authorities on that point—particularly the Northern Ireland Office—are reprehensible. It is wrong to settle those cases. They should be contested unless it is clear that there is wrongdoing by the soldiers and policemen concerned, in which case, by all means settle. But, as I understand it, Lord Colville points out that cases are being settled because the material to defend them is not available. His suggestions are directed towards ensuring that evidence is preserved.
  It is wrong to criticise the suggestion that detailed records should be kept when they are kept, for example, on interrogation and patrolling. Anyone who reads the passage concerned will note that Lord Colville makes some cogent points, which probably provide uncomfortable reading for the Northern Ireland Office: they require a positive response and certain changes.
  The current IRA bombing campaign has, of course, caused great concern, which has increased significantly over the past year. My own constituency has suffered the effects of three large bombs. One, containing 1,200 lb of home-made explosive, was defused at Banbridge; another, containing over 2,000 lb of HME, destroyed Craigavon RUC station, wrecked a nearby Catholic school and damaged a Catholic church, various community services and hundreds of houses. The third, containing over 1,000 lb of HME, tore the commercial heart out of Lurgan, a town in my constituency.
  Following the bombing of the Baltic exchange in London, people in England may have some idea of the effect of such large bombs. The bomb in the City, however, affected modern buildings, and most of the damage—although it was bad at the time—was essentially superficial: the structures remained intact, and the damage can be repaired relatively easily. In Lurgan, two entire blocks with over a dozen different buildings suffered severe structural damage. I do not want to labour the point, but I think it fair to say that immediately afterwards—and, indeed, today—the town resembled scenes from the blitz.
  The bombs did not come from nowhere. A large home-made explosive bomb takes time to prepare: fertiliser must be ground up, other ingredients must be bought and mixed in, and the thing must eventually be assembled and primed. Grinding up the fertiliser for a large bomb requires several days' work, which must be done in places where there is apparent freedom from detection or interruption.
  I believe that the bombs that went off in my constituency were made up in the IRA safe havens along the south Armagh and Monaghan frontier; I am not sure which side was involved, but that was where they originated. They were not, however, moved up along the length of Armagh, where they might have been intercepted by vehicle checkpoints. It is believed that they were taken

  409
  up through the salient in the Irish Republic created by County Monaghan, crossed the frontier into east Tyrone and then moved into north Armagh.
  The police in my constituency may sometimes suspect that a bomb is in transit. They then face the impossible task of covering all the likely targets. That, of course, cannot be done; judgment must be exercised, and the defence of some targets prioritised. It is then child's play for the IRA to see which way the police have gone, and to go the other way and hit a target that has apparently been left open. Many believe that that happened in Lurgan. After the event, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) mentioned a last-minute reconnaissance car going through the town, and that lends support to their belief.
  If that happened, however, I think that it would be wrong to blame the police. As I have said, theirs is an impossible task. The question that should be asked is, why are they given that task? The obvious response must be to go to the source of the bombs, and cut off the movement at that point rather than trying to catch the bombers when they come in. That must focus attention on the frontier areas—not to keep people happy, but to keep people alive and our towns intact.
  At this point, we come up against what I regard as a fundamental flaw in the Government's policy: a flaw that has vitiated policy for over a decade, and will continue in the future to render of no avail the sacrifices of soldiers and policemen. The Government believe that they must at all costs have the co-operation of the Irish Republic on the frontier. They have some co-operation, but the truth is that they do not and will not have effective co-operation; effective, in the words of the previous Secretary of State —the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who I am glad to see is present—to end the use of the border as a resource for terrorism.
  I think that a little quiet reflection on the nature and objectives of the Catholic Irish nation will make it clear why that degree of co-operation will not be forthcoming. The necessary job can be done by our British security forces. It will be done when the necessary reassessment of policy has been made. The legislation that we are renewing contains almost all the legal tools necessary for the job. All we need is for Ministers to have the wit and the will to use them well.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I hope not to make the same kind of personal intervention in this debate as I made in the last debate of the previous Session, when the sitting had to be suspended because I was taken ill and had to be examined.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The hon. Gentleman is worth waiting for.
  Mr. Marshall: I am always worth waiting for: that is why the House has been waiting so long.
  I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) for being brief. I know that he wanted to make more points if time had been available. I thank him for leaving enough time for the Minister of State and me to reply to the debate.
  410
  I should like to reinforce one of the points that the hon. Member for Upper Bann made. He claimed that Lord Colville's conclusion in paragraph 2.1.5 is incorrect. The paragraph refers to anecdotal stories of employers co-operating with the authorities, who would then attract the attention of the Inland Revenue and Customs. Lord Colville says, quite clearly and categorically, that there is no factual basis for that fear. What the hon. Member told the House a few moments ago is completely contrary to that conclusion, so I should like to hear the Government's view.
  It feels as though we started the debate a long time ago. I regret that the Secretary of State is not here—that is not a criticism—as I wanted to thank him for taking us so clearly and succinctly through the order, and for the overview he gave of the security situation in the Province in the past 12 months.
  If I had been Secretary of State, I would have felt some trepidation, because this must be the first occasion in recent years when the Secretary of State had his two immediate predecessors hovering in the shadows. I should like to think that they were here to give him moral support. I am sure they were, but perhaps they were here also to ensure that he stayed on the straight and narrow and trod the path that was so well laid out by them.
  It was a delight to me, and I am sure to the House, to see the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) acting as Parliamentary Private Secretary, conveying information from the Box to the Minister of State. I hope that he does not intend again to seek a ministerial career, which he gave up recently.
  The Secretary of State went through the customary practice of congratulating Lord Colville on the review. Perhaps I may enter a counter-view. There is a growing view in the Province—clearly not a majority view—that perhaps Lord Colville has passed his sell-by-date. It is felt that, regrettably, he has not introduced the reforms that were suggested in previous reports. We certainly regret that he feels that there is no point in advocating changes that the Government have already rejected. That relates to a point made by a number of hon. Members—in previous years, Lord Colville has argued for televised recordings which were refused by the Government, and it is unfortunate that he has not reiterated that suggestion.
  We welcome the Secretary of State's words about the close and growing co-operation between the security forces north and south of the border. The co-operation shows an increasing willingness and desire by the United Kingdom and the Irish Governments to ensure that terrorism does not succeed, and co-operation will increase in order to bring about that state of affairs.
  We also welcome the time limits set for prisoners on remand. I realise that it is on a non-statutory basis at the moment, and although we welcome it, it should not be too long before the system is placed on a statutory basis.
  We agree that it is essential to pursue social and economic policies to enhance the lives of all the citizens of Northern Ireland. I only wish that the Secretary of State had the necessary freedom to introduce policies that would increase the living standard for the people there, but I strongly suspect that the curbs on public expenditure that are likely to take place in Great Britain will also impinge on citizens in Northern Ireland. Instead of an improvement in living standards, there will be a standstill.
  We share the Secretary of State's view that there is a need for a political settlement in the Province. Despite all

  411
  that has been said, until there is a clear political settlement which is seen to be fair to all the citizens of the Province, the good will shown by the Governments and politicians from both sides of the divide will come to naught. There must be a political settlement which is seen to be fair and non-discriminatory and one in which all citizens of the Province feel that they are equal in a social, political and economic sense.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Marshall: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman came in at 10.45 pm and has missed a great deal of the debate.
  Mr. Porter: I came in at 10.40 pm.
  Mr. Marshall: I apologise. I tend to exaggerate occasionally, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be unfair to give way to him, as that would take time from the Minister.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) gave us his usual views, and I am sure that the House was grateful to receive them yet again. He referred to a certain gentleman, whose name I forget, not knowing what was going on behind closed doors at Stormont. He tantalisingly hinted that he knew, and I thought for one moment that he was going to share his knowledge with the House so that not only he and Ministers but all hon. Members could share his knowledge of any progress being made in Stormont. I was extremely disappointed that the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who is usually loquacious, did not go on to give us that information.
  I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North, although we disagree in a gentlemanly way. However, I agree with two points that he made, and I certainly agreed when he said that it should be made clear to the terrorists and their apologists that they cannot bomb and murder their way to the conference table. He certainly has the Labour party's support on that, and I would guess that he has that of every right hon. and hon. Member.
  I also agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North —he shares the view of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—that there should be a visual record at the Castlereagh holding centre to assist the police and to help to refute allegations made against them. That alone will make it easier for the authorities to refute allegations and prevent people of violence from being able to use those allegations to undermine public confidence in the security forces.
  When the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone talks about the need to curb racketeering and close off funds to terrorists, he has the House's full support. In speaking of the need for police primacy, not just in theory but in practice, he again echoes a view repeatedly expressed by the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has occasionally been unfairly criticised for persisting in putting that view.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that Lord Colville had drawn attention to complaints about ill treatment at holding centres. He then said that the disquiet arising from those matters needed to be eliminated. If that is the hon. Gentleman's view, why did
  412
  not he suggest the next logical step: to introduce recording equipment into those centres so that there would be a visual record to help in refuting most of those allegations? I was a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman picked up a point made by Lord Colville but did not then take the next logical step.
  In a succinct—perhaps a euphemism for brief—speech, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asserted that the reintroduction of internment would be counter-productive. We agree that it would be a recruiting sergeant for terrorists in the Province. He then asked why the Labour party was voting against the renewal order this evening. There is not time adequately to answer that question now—[Laughter.] If those hon. Members who laugh at that assertion read in detail the Second Reading debate last year, they will see all the constructive criticisms that we made about the legislation in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. They will then realise that we had sound and valid reasons for opposing it, and the necessary changes have still not been made to it.
  I shall name but two of our objections to the legislation: first, the question of internment remaining on the statute book; and, secondly, the power to seize documents—a matter that is even dearer to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads those debates—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I shall make a point of doing so.
  Mr. Marshall: I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find time. I just wish that Conservative Members would avail themselves of the same opportunity.
  In the few minutes remaining to me, I shall make one general political point. The debate has shown that, although we may hold differing views on the efficacy of the emergency provisions legislation, all Members and parties are united in our determination that terrorism will not succeed. Political change must be brought about through the democratic process, not by the power to bomb and murder. No one can bomb their way to the conference table.
  We all recognise the difficult and dangerous work undertaken by the RUC and the security forces. On behalf of my party, I pay tribute to them for their bravery and steadfastness. We must never forget that, in the battle against terrorism, the security forces are there to protect citizens' lives, not to place them at risk; to protect individual freedom, not to undermine it; and to uphold the rule of law, not subvert it. There is no doubt in my mind that in most instances those high ideals are upheld, but when they are not, the consequences provide succour to the terrorists and make the job of the security forces that much more difficult. It is in all our interests that, in the defeat of terrorism, no corners are cut and no laws deliberately broken.
  Finally, let me make our position absolutely clear: we intend to force a Division on the order, and I urge support from all quarters of the House.
  11.11 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): I warmly endorse the penultimate words of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). We entirely agree with everything that he said about the necessity for the forces to act honestly within the law and

  413
  evenhandedly. I congratulate him on, for the large part, a moderate and sensible speech. I hope that my saying so from here will not damage his credibility, but we find little to quarrel with in most of what he said. The hon. Gentleman has a problem and he was honest enough to say that he did not intend to explain to us tonight what it was. That is why he is urging his colleagues not to support the order.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) started down that road, using a slightly different tack from usual—but then he has been known to change his fig leaf from time to time. Although he produced a different fig leaf this time, that is to say that he could not support the order because inherent in it remained powers of detainment—not an argument that has been in the forefront of his reasons for opposing the measure in the past—the order does nothing of the sort. The power of detention, or internment as he called it, is not dealt with in the order and could not be brought into force without our coming to the House for an affirmative order. Therefore, that reason is even less valid than usual.
  In looking to what I hope is mainstream thinking that would command support in both Houses, one can do no better than quote the words of Lord Mason in the last debate in the other place. He spoke for many people when he said:
  "Unfortunately the circumstances are such within the United Kingdom that some liberty must be sacrificed in the defence of liberty, insidious though that may be. It is the price that must be paid in defence of our democracy … Nothing gives the IRA more joy and some encouragement than to see a divided House, and especially the image created by some within Parliament of seeming to be too protective of the terrorists and their political allies, rather than wishing their destruction."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1989; Vol. 504, c. 33-4.]
  That used to be the words of the mainstream Labour party and I long for the day when it is so again.
  Tonight's debate has enabled the House to examine once again the requirement for, and the scope of, the emergency powers now in effect in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Winnick: I listened with care to the Minister's quotation from Lord Mason, who has a point of view, even if it is not one shared by us. The Minister gave the impression, at least, that the Opposition display some softness towards terrorism. He will know of our loathing and hatred for terrorists on both sides of the sectarian divide, not least for the Provisional IRA, whose members have for 22 years committed the worst type of crime, as I said in my intervention in the speech by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister therefore reconsider and recognise that, although there are genuine differences of opinion, there is no difference of opinion in the House when it comes to condemning the crimes and atrocities that have been perpetrated, some of which have occurred in the past six months?
  Mr. Mates: I acknowledge unreservedly that that is the view of the hon. Gentleman, and I have never questioned that. But some Labour Members entertain these people —they have brought them over to the mainland and into this House. For as long as that happens, it will be perfectly reasonable to point it out.
  I welcome the scrutiny that we have given the measure tonight. It is entirely right, in a parliamentary democracy such as ours, that there should be full and open debate on the need for exceptional powers such as these. In that
  414
  regard, I must say that I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that our annual debates are no more than a ritual. It is because we examine the legislation every year, because changes are made in the light of experience and because we continue to draw on the independent advice of people such as Lord Colville that they are not a ritual but a real event, and I am glad that they take place—inconvenient though that may be for some of us.
  The Government's aim is a full return to normality and the eradication of terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is our first priority. Terrorist organisations are criminal conspiracies, representing perhaps the most dangerous threat to the fabric of any democratic society. We are determined that they will not prevail. Violence in pursuit of political ends is neither acceptable nor inevitable and for so long as it continues terrorism will be met with a firm, resolute and proactive response.
  Within that basic approach, however, it is open to the Government—indeed, it is incumbent on them—to introduce specific measures and powers, where the ordinary law is insufficient, to enable the police and Army to deal with the particular difficulties that they encounter in protecting society from terrorism and apprehending the perpetrators of it. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and the relevant sections of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 also being renewed by the order do precisely that.
  We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate, and I shall be dealing with some of the points raised by hon. Members in such time as I have. Before I do so, however, it may be worth illustrating the practical application of the emergency provisions Act measures by examining one particular case—the refurbishment of a number of permanent vehicle checkpoints. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made some valuable points based on his considerable experience of these matters, and I promise him that I will consider them carefully.
  The permanent vehicle checkpoints in border areas provide protection for communities particularly vulnerable to terrorist attack. They deter terrorists by controlling cross-border traffic. They block key escape routes used by terrorists and they provide bases for security force patrols working in dangerous areas.
  Following a thorough review, 10 permanent vehicle checkpoints in Fermanagh and Londonderry are being refurbished and improved. In some cases, they are being moved a short distance to more operationally suitable sites. The upgrading programme, which began in south-east Fermanagh, is designed to reduce inconvenience to local communities by improving traffic handling arrangements as well as to provide better protection and improved accommodation for security force personnel at the bases.
  The entire exercise provides an example of how powers provided for in one part of the Act can be used to ameliorate the impact of the operation of others of its powers. We recognise the disruption caused to local people by the necessary use at the checkpoints of the powers to stop and question people for so long as is necessary to ascertain their identities, movements and any knowledge that they may have of recent terrorist incidents, and to search vehicles under sections 23 and 26 of the Act.
  Part of the refurbishment programme is intended to reduce or remove the lengthy traffic queues that can build

  415
  up by redesigning or resiting the PVCPs, providing space for controlled bypasses and lay-bys where inquiries and searches can, where necessary, be made without delaying other traffic. The necessary land is, in a number of cases, being acquired using powers contained in section 24 of the Act, and compensation is being paid under section 63. Work is still in progress, but I understand that the new arrangements for the finished checkpoints have proved much more acceptable to local communities. The repositioning of some checkpoints may also allow the reopening of one or two minor roads in the south Fermanagh area. The Irish security forces have been providing necessary security for the operation on their side of the border and their assistance has been greatly appreciated.
  I turn now briefly, I am afraid, to some of the points that have been made during the debate. Reference has been made to videotape recording. Of course we acknowledge that there is genuine concern about the interview procedures. I know that that is a difficult subject and I have made it my business early in my new incarnation to go to Castlereagh. I have been right round the course that a detained person goes round and I have seen every aspect that that person goes through. I have also seen the controls and checks intended to ensure that there is no ill-treatment.
  There is provision for medical inspection as soon as the detained person arrives and for a log to be opened to show where that person is at every moment of the day and night. Every time the person is taken out of the cell, even to go to the lavatory, and is returned to it, that is recorded. Whenever that person is taken to an interview room, that is recorded by someone who is not involved in the investigation. That is an imporant safeguard. The people who carry out that part of the handling of a detained person are uniformed members of the RUC. All the time that someone is being interviewed in an interview room, that is monitored by a uniformed police inspector who is not part of the investigation team.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wanted to know whether we could go even further than that and provide a record. We have obviously considered that. However, there are difficulties which do not simply relate to the difficulties in obtaining a confession. It is important that people should understand that.
  There are difficulties in that some people who belong to terrorist organisations will have their lives and the lives of their families put at risk if they so much as talk to the authorities. That is why many of them adopt a policy of silence to start with. That is visible to the inspecting officer and to the inspector who is present. If a recording of the tape became available even showing that the detained person had opened his or her mouth—never mind whether to make a confession—perhaps just to ask the time of day, there are fears that that person, his friends or relations could be in danger from the terrorists who would suspect—
  Mr. Rupert Allason rose—
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Mr. Mates: I am sorry, I will not give way as I have only a very short time left. I am trying to reply to the debate.
  416
  That is why the Chief Constable and those who advise us have concluded that it would not be right to move further at the moment. However, I happily give the undertaking that we will continue to monitor the situation. We do not want those who are detained to be able to sue us afterwards. That makes no sense. However, so long as there are real dangers and when life might be at stake, we must take the cautious view.
  The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and for Antrim, North referred to out-of-court settlements. Lord Colville makes it clear that many of those actions cover a portmanteau of complaints and that in those that include an allegation of assault that claim is very often not substantiated or pursued. The police authority is now analysing civil action settlements to determine in how many cases the settlement relates to a claim of assault and in how many to some procedural error. The results of that study will be made public.
  The House may be interested in one example cited by Lord Colville. The plaintiff alleged false imprisonment, wrongful arrest and assault. The police contested the claim, and the assault claim was not accepted by the court, but compensation was paid for overholding—that is, for holding him for too long. The plaintiff was delayed for 45 minutes while a doctor was called to make a final medical examination. Those are some of the problems that we are up against in settling out of court, and they have nothing to do with ill-treatment.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North complained about Crumlin Road and delays on remand. I hope that he is as pleased as others have been with the announcement that we really are seeking to tackle the problem by administrative means, and I repeat my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance that we will not be satisfied with a year's limit if we can bring it down further.
  As to the conditions in Crumlin Road, I have visited that prison myself, although I did so voluntarily and not as a guest of the governor. There are some difficult accommodation problems there. It is an old Victorian prison in the middle of the city. The governor, the staff and the prison department in the Northern Ireland Office are making herculean attempts to put that right, but it is inevitably a fairly slow process.
  Mention was made by several hon. Members of the independent assessor. His terms of reference will be published when they reach fruition. Of course, that information will be given to the House at the appropriate time.
  Legislation, no matter how well-focused and appropriate, is effective only when it is properly enforced. I am pleased to report to the House that the vigorous and impartial actions of the police and Army are bringing real results. The level of security force activity is very high. In addition to the numerous patrols mounted by the RUC, the Army currently undertakes 250 to 300 patrols per day, day in and day out in the Province. For that it should be thanked. That very high figure should be put into perspective when the inevitable but fortunately rare occurrence of improper action by the security forces takes so much of the headlines. It is in the context of 300 or more patrols of young professional soldiers and police going out in fear of their lives day after day that we get the odd regrettable incident. But there is one way in which that can be stopped at once, and that is for the terrorists to stop their deadly business. There would then be no further need for Army or police patrols.

  417
  Last year, more than twice as many people were charged with murder as in 1990. Adjustments to force structures and deployments to meet the evolving threat continue to be made where appropriate. Reference has already been made to the establishment of the new post of Deputy Chief Constable (Operations), and I note the wide welcome that that has received in the House. Recruitment of the additional 441 police officers, which was announced last November, continues. For example, an addition al 104 regular officers and 40 reservists were recruited during May alone.
  Although I welcome the appointment of the Deputy Chief Constable, I do not want anybody to think that there will be an immediate panacea as a result of it. We are hoping, as the terrorists' tactics evolve and change, to evolve and change the structures whereby the control and co-ordination of all the security forces takes place. Having a senior policeman clearly in charge of all operations of the police and the Army is, I hope everyone will agree, a step in the right direction.
  Our commitment to the defeat of terrorism is undiminished. I hope that that message is getting through to the terrorists on both sides. There are some small signs that it is. Whether it is or not, the security forces will continue their relentless pursuit of the criminals. The emergency powers continued by this order are vital to enabling them to carry out that task. In that context, we would all agree with the valuable contribution by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). It is on that basis and not with any pleasure, of which some accused us, but with reluctance and determination that I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 170.

  Division No. 30]

  [11.29 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butler, Peter

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttis, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clappison, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bates, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Congdon, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Conway, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowis, John

  Day, Stephen

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Brazier, Julian

  Devlin, Tim

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Duncan, Alan

  418

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Legg, Barry

  Dunn, Bob

  Leigh, Edward

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Luff, Peter

  Evennett, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Faber, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maginnis, Ken

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Malone, Gerald

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mans, Keith

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Marland, Paul

  Forth, Eric

  Marlow, Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gallie, Phil

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Merchant, Piers

  Garnier, Edward

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gill, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Roger

  Gorst, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Needham, Richard

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Paice, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  Kilfedder, James

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

  Smith Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knox, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui Speed, Keith

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  419

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spring, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Stephen, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stern, Michael

  Wallace, James

  Stewart, Allan

  Waller, Gary

  Streeter, Gary

  Ward, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sykes, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Willetts, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Trimble, David

  Mr. Timothy Boswell.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainger, Nicholas

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cohen, Harry

  Austin-Walker, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cryer, Bob

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, Alistair

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Boyce, Jimmy

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

  Boyes, Roland

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Dixon, Don

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Donohoe, Brian

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Byers, Stephen

  Eastham, Ken

  Caborn, Richard

  Enright, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Etherington, William

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Flynn, Paul

  Cann, James

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foulkes, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  420

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gapes, Michael

  Martlew, Eric

  George, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michael, Alun

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Milburn, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morley, Elliot

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mudie, George

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Gunnell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hanson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Patchett, Terry

  Heppell, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pope, Greg

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Redmond, Martin

  Ingram, Adam

  Reid, Dr John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Jamieson, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Short, Clare

  Keen, Alan

  Simpson, Dennis

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Khabra, Piara

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Leighton, Ron

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Strang, Gavin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  McCartney, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth Gower)

  McFall, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  McGrady, Eddie

  Watson, Mike

  McKelvey, William

  Wicks, Malcolm

  McMaster, Gordon

  Winnick, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wise, Audrey

  Madden, Max

  Wright, Tony

  Mahon, Alice

  Mallon, Seamus

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mendelson, Peter

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Marek, Dr John

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.

  Prison (Liverpool, Walton)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The debate concerns a basic dispute between my constituents and the Home Office about the proposal for a new prison in Fazakerley. The need for that prison is based on a projected prison population of 57,000 in the year 2000. In the past few years, the prison population has dropped from 51,000 to 47,000. Notwithstanding those fluctuations, on 3 June, a Home Office spokeswoman said in the Liverpool Daily Post and Echo:
  "The underlying trend means there will be more and more people in our jails."
  The real problem is the admission of failure by the Home Office of its prison policy and the failure of the sentencing policy pursued by the courts. One in four prisoners are on remand, awaiting trial or sentence. Only one in three prisoners are in gaol for a crime relating to violence, sex or drugs. That prompts the obvious question: Why do we have so many people in our gaols? Why do we gaol more people than any other European country? Before we start talking about increasing our prison capacity, we must address those questions.
  No one disputes the need for accommodation for the burgeoning prison population. No one disputes that any civilised society needs to provide some humane form of incarceration given that that is the punishment for so many of our crimes. However, why was it decided, within the past two weeks, to dust off a plan to build a new category B prison in Fazakerley in my constituency? We thought that that plan had been shelved 18 months ago. Now, the director general of the prison service, Joe Pilling, feels able to declare that the proposed site is "an ideal place"—without, to my knowledge, ever having visited it or considered its many drawbacks.
  I can only assume that there is some sort of vindictiveness. It is certainly not the NIMBY syndrome affecting people in Walton or in Liverpool, because my constituency already has the largest prison of its kind in the country. There is a young persons unit at Dyson Hall and a special unit at Ashwell hospital two miles up the road. It is hardly a case of people who do not have prisons in their area complaining about one being built there. We are overloaded with prisons. I recall—I apologise in advance if I am incorrect—that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), was prominent in his constituency in a campaign against a remand centre.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I withdraw that, although I thought that the Minister was involved in that campaign. The Minister will not face in his constituency the problems that we face in mine, because the nearest prison to Fareham is the deportee prison in Gosport. He does not have the two and a half prisons that we have on our doorstep.
  I am concerned that a disproportionate number of prisoners will be located in my constituency. It is as if we have been targeted as the refuse dump for the flotsam and jetsam of society. If the prison proposal is implemented, I compute that that area of north Liverpool could have up to 6 per cent. of the prison population. That is a wholly
  422
  disproportionate number of prisoners to locate in any one part of the country and they will be within a two-mile radius of Fazakerley. That is in addition to the madcap announcement that negotiations are taking place between the Home Office and Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and Merseyside development corporation about prison ships in the Mersey docks. That is incredible and would turn Liverpool into a virtual penal colony, a latter-day Botany bay.
  Ms. Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate is timely, in that it is being held just days after the Minister confirmed in a letter to me that he is actively investigating the possibility of siting prison ships on the Mersey, possibly in Wallasey docks? He stated that a suitable accommodation vessel has already been identified by the Home Office and that preliminary talks about a suitable berth have been held with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Does my hon. Friend also agree that floating prisons are not the answer to the current crisis in prison accommodation? That crisis vividly illustrates the Government's abject failure to deal with the crime explosion or to plan—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Lady is a new Member and I hesitate to intervene, but an intervention must not be a speech.
  Ms. Eagle: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have one final question for my hon. Friend. Will he join me in demanding that the Government respect the views of local people and abandon these Dickensian plans to create an Alcatraz on the Mersey?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. As I have said, Merseyside is being targeted as the country's No. 1 prison centre—I know not why. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the Government deal with such matters regionally. Why must there be such a concentration in one small part of our region to deal with a large catchment area and a large number of prisoners in the north-west?
  Mr. George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people in Knowsley, and especially those in the Fazakerley end of my constituency, agree entirely with his opposition in the past, in this debate and in future to the development of another prison on the Fazakerley hospital site? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) agrees.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, which is shared by all parties and all sections of the community in our part of the world. We have a rare unanimity of view on the proposal. We believe that it is entirely alien to the needs of the area.
  I am aware that a shortage of prison accommodation has resulted in prisoners being kept in police cells, but on 9 June—only two days ago—only 71 prisoners were held in police cells on Merseyside. How does that justify investment in a 600-prisoner category B prison? If it reduces the burden in other parts of the country, it will add to Merseyside's burden.
  Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Is my hon. Friend aware that a similar proposal was made only a couple of years ago? The good citizens of Knowsley, both north and south, were consulted and they expressed their

  423
  views clearly. They were against the proposal. They are highly indignant that, so soon after they expressed their opinion, the proposal has been resurrected.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: This is the third attempt in three years, I believe, to site a prison on the north side of Liverpool. As my hon. Friend has said, there was a successful campaign in 1988, as I recall, that prevented a similar prison being built in Bootle. Local opposition stymied that proposal. As I have said, it was only 18 months ago that we thought that the proposal that is the subject of the debate had been consigned to the dustbin.
  It is not merely a matter of building another prison on the north side of Liverpool. Where have the people in the Home Office chosen to site it? It would be the length of a cricket pitch away from Fazakerley hospital, which is a large tower block. People recovering from major surgery would be looking down on a floodlit exercise yard. I can assume only that the Home Office has thought of a new form of therapy in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Health. I cannot see the presence of a prison being conducive to the recovery of patients in the Fazakerley hospital. They would find themselves looking at a huge security wall, and those on the upper floors would be looking down into the courtyard of the prison.
  Fazakerley hospital is part of the Aintree hospital trust, and the Merseyside regional health authority was in the vanguard of the hospitals that decided to opt out following the introduction of the Government's so-called reforms. In this instance, however, we are at one with the trust because there has been a long-term plan to develop Fazakerley hospital as a centre of excellence along the lines of St. James's hospital in Leeds. That ambition will be thwarted at a stroke by the proposal to build a prison immediately alongside the hospital.
  There were alternative offers for the site. A company called AMEC was pre-empted by the Home Office after it had offered £3.5 million to the regional health authority to buy the site and develop it. It would have been developed in conjunction with developments on the hospital site. It was hoped that there would be auxiliary industries to the hospital along with mixed housing and secondary developments. That was not to be. The Home Office took the site and the proposed development fell by the wayside, but that development still exists as an option, especially if the Home Office were to relent.
  I understand that the contractor for the Home Office project is to be Mowlem. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if it is not the case that Mowlem is involved with a rather dubious sounding organisation, Correction Corporation of America, which is attempting to run privatised prisons in the United Kingdom. Does the Minister envisage, as one of the options, a privatised prison on the site, if the project were to go ahead?
  If arguments that are based on the number of prisoners in the area and on the inappropriateness of the site have no effect on the Minister, surely he should heed the extent of the opposition that has been expressed by local people. He must take some cognisance of the wide range of individuals and organisations that have come together on the issue.
  It is to be expected that my hon. Friends and I would be at one, but the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) has given us his full support. The hon. Member
  424
  for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), a Liberal Democrat, has given us his verbal support. We have the support of the Liverpool, Sefton and Knowsley district councils, which are all vehemently opposed to the proposal, as are the Aintree trust, the Merseyside police authority, the South Sefton magistrates, the Churches and, most importantly, the people.
  A telephone poll, commissioned by the local paper, unscientific though that may be, showed that 96 per cent. of those contacted were against the prison and 4 per cent. were undecided.
  The proposal has nothing to offer the residents of the area. It has nothing to offer the people of Merseyside or Liverpool. It is a foolish proposition. I hope that men and women of good sense and good will can come together, look at the matter afresh and see that it is in no one's interests.
  Therefore, I invite the Minister to come to see for himself what it would be like to be in the tower block looking out on a prison and to meet the various people who have expressed support for our opposition to the scheme—reasonable people, who refuse to countenance an unreasonable project.
  11.55 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on his good fortune in securing the debate and making a most effective maiden Adjournment speech.
  I can well understand why he sought this opportunity to debate the proposal to build a new prison on a site at Fazakerley in his constituency. Any such plan is bound to create misgivings locally, and he has powerfully represented his constituents' doubts and fears, which I can well understand. I am grateful to him for providing me with this opportunity to explain the background to the planning application which the prison service recently made to Liverpool city council on the scheme.
  I should begin by explaining briefly how the prison service came to select the site for a new prison. The site was identified in 1988 after a very thorough survey of sites in the north west. That covered some 40 sites in various parts of the region. The site at Fazakerley is particularly well suited to the prison service's needs, and in particular offered a rare opportunity to acquire a site in an urban area which was readily accessible but which was at a distance from any private housing.
  Having identified the site, the prison service began negotiations with its owners, the regional health authority, and opened discussions with Liverpool city council about the development of the site.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall not because I have a lot to say. If there is time towards the end, I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
  In May 1989, the prison service made a formal application to Liverpool city council, and at that time there were full consultations with the general public as well as the council. In September 1989, however, the city council decided to object.
  By then, there were already some signs that the prison population had begun to fall and that fall continued in 1990. From a peak of almost 50,000 in 1988, the prison

  425
  population fell sharply to 45,600 in 1990. The fall of 3,000 prisoners between 1989 and 1990 was the largest absolute fall in the prison population since 1915. A fall of that size obviously made it necessary for the service to review the prison estate and, in particular, the likely need for new prisons.
  It became clear that, on the projections at that time, there was unlikely to be a need for a new prison at Fazakerley in the next few years, and in November 1990, it was announced that we were not proposing to proceed with the project. Early in 1991, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), reviewed the sites which the prison service had earmarked for new prisons, and in March 1991 wrote to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Eric Heller, to let him know that the site at Fazakerley was to be sold.
  But in the past year or so, the prison population has started to rise again. Having fallen to 45,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis between September 1990 and March 1991, it rose to 48,000 in April 1992. We now have 1,400 more people in custody than we had a year ago. So far, the rise in the prison population has not been as sharp as the preceding fall, but we have needed to look again at our projections of the future prison population. Recently, the Home Office has published projections of long-term trends in the prison population, which suggest that, in the mid-1990s, there are likely to be between 50,000 and 52,000 people in prison, and by the end of the century more than 57,000.
  Although uncertainty is inevitably attached to any long-term projections, they are based on a thorough analysis of the trends, taking account of a wide range of factors, including demography and measures to divert offenders from custody.
  Mr. George Howarth: So far, the Minister has based his case on two factors: the recent rise in the prison population, and the proximity of the proposed development to private housing. Will he also take into account the considerable amount of council and housing association property in the vicinity? Not only is there a good deal of private housing in the general area; there is a good deal of residential housing in the immediate area.
  Mr. Lloyd: There is never a perfect site. It is entirely unsuitable for a prison to be sited far away from any central population. If an urban area is involved, there are always difficulties, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that private and council residential housing is not particularly close to the site, and that it is a surprisingly suitable site, given its urban surroundings.
  Mr. Wareing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: I will, because I said earlier that I would, but as a result I shall not have time to complete my own remarks.
  Mr. Wareing: My hon. Friends are quite right. The Sparrow Hall estate, in my constituency, is well within a mile of the proposed prison.
  My point, however, is that the Government's proposal affects another Government Department. What consultation has the Minister had with the Aintree hospital trust and the South Sefton community health council? The proposal is most objectionable: sick people in the Fazakerley hospital will face a prison just across a narrow road, and that is bound not to improve their health.
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course we have had discussions with the health authorities. That is why the hospital is being landscaped as it is. There is no particular problem in prisons being sited near hospitals: Wormwood Scrubs and the Hammersmith hospital provide an example. It is possible for such institutions to function close to each other if they are sensibly designed and if the landscaping is good, and that is what we intend in this instance.
  Against that background, we are looking again at the need for new prisons. No firm decisions have yet been made about when work will start. Too often in the past, however, the prison service has found itself unable to respond quickly to the pressure imposed on it, because it has not had sites for new prisons that it could develop rapidly. We are determined that that should not happen again.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not. I have very little time left, and the hon. Gentleman has raised a good many points.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: What about the visit?
  Mr. Lloyd: When I am in the area, I shall make a point of looking at the prison, but I give no undertaking to do so in the near future. As the hon. Gentleman himself suggested, the director general of the prison service will be visiting the site in the near future, and I shall certainly hear his report when he comes back.
  Our forecasts suggest that there will be a particular need for new places in the north-west—
  Mr. Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman keeps interrupting me. I have been asked a number of questions, and I am trying to present the whole picture. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that time for an Adjournment debate is limited, and more than a quarter of an hour—more than half the time—has been taken by the hon. Member for Walton and several of his hon. Friends, who have interrupted. I have no objection to those interventions, although I was not asked, but I consider it reasonable, when I have allowed interventions, for me to be allowed to conclude in my own way.
  There are particular needs for new places in the north-west. Against that background, the prison service recently made a fresh application to Liverpool city council for the construction of a 600-place secure prison on the Fazakerley site. The hon. Member for Walton argued that there is no justification for reviving the proposal to build the prison, but we expect the prison population to increase rapidly.
  I shall skip over a number of points because of the interruptions, but the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) spoke about using floating detention centres as a temporary measure. Prisoners being held in police cells are a major problem throughout the country, but it is particularly acute in the north-west. There are 97 prisoners in Liverpool bridewell, which is unsuitable for holding prisoners for any length of time. We are considering every possible short-term measure to relieve police cells of prisoners, including floating detention centres. Again, no decision has been taken on whether we should have them or where they should be.
  The hon. Member for Walton argued that it is unjustifiable at any time to site a new prison at Fazakerley,

  427
  and that the prison service should look elsewhere in the north-west or somewhere else in the country to meet its needs.
  The prison service looked widely in the north-west before identifying the Fazakerley site. A wide range of factors must be met in choosing a site for a new prison. The site must be large enough. A modern prison for 600 inmates needs at least 35 acres. We tried to avoid sites near enough to affect houses, schools and places of worship detrimentally, since there are likely to be particularly strong objections to a prison in those neighbourhoods. We looked for a site that could meet the shortfall in places in particular parts of the country.
  Finally, we looked for a site that is readily accessible to visitors, which, as anyone who has read the Woolf report will know, is a most important factor. We attach great importance to this factor as part of our commitment to helping prisoners maintain family relationships. Too often in the past the prison service has been driven to use sites for prisons that are remote and where visits by families burden them with long and wearisome journeys. Labour Members are arguing that the prison should be sited so far away that family relationships could not be maintained.
  Fazakerley meets this and other criteria for new prisons. Transport in the area is good.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: It is a small point.
  Mr. Lloyd: They are small points. If I have time before I finish, I shall give way.
  The hon. Member for Walton argued that there is no need for additional accommodation in the Liverpool area, as Her Majesty's prison, Liverpool has difficulty in filling its remand wing from the local catchment area. We do not envisage Fazakerley taking adult remand prisoners. It would be used to provide training places for adult males, and would thereby reduce the number of sentenced prisoners at Liverpool.
  At present, disproportionate numbers of sentenced prisoners must be held at Liverpool because there are insufficient training places in the north-west. The remaining 300 places in the prison would be used for young men on remand and would relieve pressures at
  428
  Hindley, which currently takes young men on remand from a wide area of the north-west, including Merseyside and north Wales, which is unsatisfactory.
  Hindley is habitually overcrowded and, at present, about 100 young men who would otherwise be in Hindley are held in police cells. The opening of a new establishment in Lancaster early next year will ease some of the pressures at Hindley, but there will, in our view, still be considerable pressures there which must be eased.
  The hon. Gentleman also argued that there are already too many institutions serving the criminal justice system in the area, such as the prison at Walton, the secure hospital at Park Lane and Dyson Hall assessment centre, but the prison is more than a mile from the site of Fazakerley, Park Lane is about four miles, and even the assessment centre is a considerable distance from the boundary of the secure zone of the prison.
  The hon. Gentleman also argued that the prison would be too close to Fazakerley general hospital and that the hospital would overlook the prison. We held discussions with the regional health authority about that and have agreed with its arrangements for landscaping the boundary between the hospital and the proposed prison. We believe that the screening will ensure that the hospital is not adversely affected. I do not accept the argument that there would be too many institutions in that part of Liverpool. In any case, it would be virtually impossible to find locations for prisons in an urban area if they had to be near neither institutions nor housing.
  One hon. Gentleman said that floodlighting would disturb patients in the hospital. In fact, the prison would be lit only to the normal level of street lighting. The prison service has made it clear that it intends to be a good neighbour in Liverpool. Not only will there be economic benefits from a new prison—an investment of about £80 million in construction and, thereafter, opportunities for about 300 jobs, many to be filled by people recruited locally—but the prison service is conscious of its responsibilities—
  Mr. George Howarth: The Minister should visit the site.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman should also visit prisons around the country to see that it is possible to have a prison in an urban area—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Offences
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of males reaching the age of 30 years in 1991, or in the latest year for which statistics are available, had at some time committed(a) a notifiable and (b) a summary offence.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available in the form requested. Of all males born in 1953, one third had been convicted of a standard list offence by the age of 30. The information has been produced from a series of Cohort studies of persons born in 1953, 1958 and 1963, published in Home Office statistical bulletin issue 32/89 "Criminal and custodial careers of those born in 1953, 1958 and 1963", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Officials are aware of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation or other initiatives which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984, and will consult him as necessary when planning the collection, use or disclosure of automated personal data.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will describe each separate index of personal data stored on the intelligence and investigation unit at Harmondsworth; how many items of data are stored under each index; how many entries are in each index; and what was the number of accesses to each index over the last year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are two databases on the Immigration Service's intelligence and investigation unit's computer at Harmondsworth which contain personal data:the ISIIU index contains information considered to be of long term immigration interest;
  the United Kingdom passport abuse database contains information about United Kingdom passports which have been detected in fraudulent use.

  Individual records in the ISIIU database contain 11 fields of information. Those in the United Kingdom passport abuse database contain 15, of which 11 are the same as in the ISIIU index.

  The ISIIU database contains about 500,000 records; the United Kingdom passport abuse database about 3,500. No record is kept of the number of accesses to either database.
  166
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will describe, in a form that does not jeopardise the prevention of crime or national security, the circumstances when the security services or the Customs and Excise(a) have terminal access to police computers or (b) can receive information from police computers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Access to police computer systems and the disclosure of information from these systems and from the police national computer are matters for chief constables.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect on privacy of freely available copies of the council tax valuation lists, in relation to the list's combination with(a) the electoral register, (b) the credit reference agencies and (c) vendors of databases derived from public sources; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. Any evidence of misuse of automated personal information will be investigated by the Data Protection Registrar, who has responsibility for enforcing the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he has held with bodies representing the views of data subjects in relation to the European Commission's proposals for a data protection directive.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None since taking up this post, but the then Minister of State had one such meeting on 21 February 1991. Ministers and officials are regularly informed of the views of all who have an interest in data protection, whether as data subjects or data users.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will describe each category of suspect index made available to officials at ports of entry; how many suspect persons are under each category; how many items of data are stored about each category; and what was the number of accesses made to each index over the last year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is a single suspect index, the purpose of which is to alert the immigration officer to take action in respect of an individual who might not he identified in the course of routine examination. The index currently contains about 10,000 entries. No record is kept of the number of occasions on which it is consulted by immigration officers.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will describe each separate index of personal data stored on INDECS; how many items of data are stored on INDECS under each index; how many entries are in each index; and what was the number of accesses to each index over the last year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Data are stored on INDECS according to a unique arrival number and relate to the immigration status of individuals given conditional leave to enter the United Kingdom on a non-permanent basis under the terms of the Immigration Act 1971. In each case, details entered on the landing card are recorded together with the expiry date of the leave to enter. The number of data elements linked to the arrival number will range from 20 to 40 according to the conditions applying and the
  167
  number of subsequent movements in and out of the United Kingdom. There were 2.8 million records on I NDECS at the beginning of June 1992. Information on the number of accesses to the system is not available.

  Police Officers (Attacks)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of 1990 and 1991(a) how many police officers were attacked on duty, (b) how many of their assailants were charged and (c) how many were convicted.

  Mr. Jack
  Information collected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary shows that in England and Wales 17,568 police officers were assaulted on duty in 1990 and 18,372 in 1991. No information is collected centrally on how many assailants were charged or convicted. A survey covering the second half of 1991 showed that 2,500 offenders were sentenced for assaults against the police during that period. The results of this survey were published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 3/92, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Trespass
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a Bill to make trespass a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have no plans to extend the criminal law to all cases of trespass. However the Government

  Establishment

  Population 4 June 1991

  Certified normal accommodation 4 June 1991

  Population 4 June 1992

  Certified normal accommodation 4 June 1992

  Acklington

  514

  676

  626

  676

  Albany

  357

  389

  293

  309

  Aldington

  109

  127

  126

  127

  Ashwell

  385

  404

  395

  404

  Askham Grange1

  103

  134

  107

  129

  Aylesbury

  239

  296

  236

  241

  Bedford

  244

  171

  250

  170

  Belmarsh

  374

  360

  760

  841

  Birmingham

  993

  575

  959

  567

  Blantyre House

  87

  87

  95

  95

  Blundeston

  398

  410

  336

  410

  Brinsford

  —

  —

  339

  336

  Bristol

  394

  379

  415

  374

  Brixton

  1,061

  739

  773

  630

  Brockhill

  241

  161

  155

  160

  Bullingdon

  —

  —

  386

  635

  Bullwood Hall1

  95

  119

  104

  126

  Camp Hill

  453

  461

  422

  481

  Canterbury

  337

  230

  173

  207

  Cardiff

  457

  338

  425

  325

  Castington

  260

  300

  294

  300

  Channings Wood

  579

  594

  570

  594

  Chelmsford

  374

  244

  360

  244

  Coldingley

  246

  299

  220

  222

  Cookham Wood1

  119

  120

  117

  120

  Dartmoor

  526

  619

  521

  599

  Deerbolt

  354

  404

  383

  422

  Dorchester

  208

  152

  200

  139

  Dover

  220

  347

  265

  312

  Downview

  276

  286

  283

  286

  Drake Hall1

  189

  262

  186

  261

  Durham1

  880

  640

  805

  579

  East Sutton Park1

  75

  84

  87

  90

  Eastwood Park

  89

  134

  86

  134

  Elmley

  —

  —

  313

  635

  Erlestoke

  212

  218

  206

  218

  Everthorpe

  265

  304

  223

  228

  168
  recognise that the current law relating to squatting in premises is unsatisfactory and we have recently completed a consultation exercise which sought views on a range of possible options for improving the protection available to owners and legitimate occupiers. We are presently considering what action would be appropriate in the light of responses to that exercise.

  Prisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list, by prison establishment, the current number of inmates held; what is the recommended establishment per Her Majesty's prison; and what was the comparable figure 12 months ago;

  (2) if he will list by Her Majesty's prison establishment, the current number of inmates held per cell; what was the comparable figure 12 months ago; and if he will indicate those establishments where women are held.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of inmates held in each Prison Service establishment in England and Wales and the certified normal accommodation (CNA) for 4 June 1991 and 4 June 1992 for those establishments are shown in the table.

  Information on the number of inmates held per cell is not collected centrally. But on 10 May (the latest date for which figures are available) 9,392 inmates were being held two to a cell designed for one, 1,294 fewer than 12 months ago. The number of prisoners being held three to a cell designed for one was 1,038 which was 969 fewer than in May 1991.
  169

  Establishment

  Population 4 June 1991

  Certified normal accommodation 4 June 1991

  Population 4 June 1992

  Certified normal accommodation 4 June 1992

  Exeter

  403

  243

  430

  317

  Featherstone

  585

  599

  541

  599

  Feltham

  781

  874

  734

  874

  Finnamore Wood

  84

  116

  87

  112

  Ford

  518

  568

  518

  536

  Frankland

  421

  432

  327

  332

  Full Sutton

  424

  634

  463

  624

  Garth

  503

  512

  456

  512

  Gartree

  276

  320

  235

  245

  Glen Parva

  736

  854

  687

  854

  Gloucester

  254

  200

  169

  107

  Grendon

  196

  225

  190

  226

  Guys Marsh

  112

  180

  116

  240

  Haslar

  103

  105

  109

  110

  Hatfield

  151

  180

  175

  180

  Haverigg

  331

  351

  322

  351

  Hewell Grange

  109

  136

  137

  136

  Highpoint

  773

  824

  717

  747

  Hindley

  384

  323

  404

  323

  Hollesley Bay

  305

  569

  307

  569

  Holloway1

  504

  517

  461

  517

  Holme House

  —

  —

  193

  649

  Hull

  600

  402

  349

  277

  Huntercombe

  159

  166

  211

  225

  Kingston

  141

  150

  93

  96

  Kirkham

  569

  632

  516

  632

  Kirklevington

  75

  106

  —

  —

  Lancaster

  239

  186

  257

  186

  Latchmere House

  31

  127

  58

  131

  Leeds

  960

  627

  938

  591

  Leicester

  332

  205

  326

  200

  Lewes

  431

  230

  373

  301

  Leyhill

  409

  410

  403

  410

  Lincoln

  578

  391

  606

  389

  Lindholme

  752

  800

  723

  800

  Littlehey

  527

  593

  530

  543

  Liverpool

  1,158

  931

  1,192

  931

  Long Lartin

  417

  432

  352

  362

  Low Newton1

  229

  167

  305

  199

  Maidstone

  515

  549

  511

  517

  Manchester

  180

  185

  337

  350

  Moorland

  —

  —

  627

  620

  Morton Hall

  155

  168

  164

  168

  The Mount

  305

  484

  386

  484

  New Hall*

  101

  122

  146

  122

  North Sea Camp

  187

  202

  201

  204

  Northallerton

  186

  146

  192

  148

  Northeye

  225

  249

  206

  210

  Norwich

  467

  495

  466

  421

  Nottingham

  221

  218

  204

  218

  Onley

  419

  520

  409

  460

  Oxford

  157

  121

  161

  121

  Parkhurst

  220

  239

  225

  286

  Pentonville

  811

  754

  791

  756

  Portland

  465

  527

  421

  439

  Preston

  492

  408

  426

  331

  Pucklechurch*

  49

  56

  61

  56

  Ranby

  334

  363

  345

  347

  Reading

  253

  184

  114

  184

  Risley*

  399

  417

  370

  417

  Rochester

  313

  306

  256

  306

  Rudgate

  292

  300

  289

  300

  Send

  100

  101

  108

  113

  Shepton Mallet

  241

  175

  193

  158

  Shrewsbury

  293

  176

  251

  168

  Spring Hill

  214

  210

  201

  210

  Stafford

  742

  606

  733

  657

  Standford Hill

  366

  384

  361

  384

  Stocken

  394

  396

  387

  396

  Stoke Heath

  276

  360

  281

  300

  Styal

  170

  258

  201

  189

  Sudbury

  506

  523

  453

  523

  Swaleside

  498

  504

  496

  504

  Swansea

  315

  229

  281

  213

  Swinfen Hall

  178

  182

  170

  172

  Thorn Cross

  204

  300

  208

  300

  170 171

  Establishment

  Population 4 June 1991

  Certified normal accommodation 4 June 1991

  Population 4 June 1992

  Certified normal accommodation 4 June 1992

  Thorp Arch

  148

  150

  128

  163

  Usk

  192

  240

  198

  241

  The Verne

  590

  600

  564

  580

  Wakefield

  652

  753

  621

  638

  Wandsworth

  1,335

  1,275

  1,214

  965

  Wayland

  572

  580

  580

  580

  Wellingborough

  203

  344

  275

  314

  Werrington House

  95

  110

  109

  110

  Wetherby

  156

  196

  163

  196

  Whatton

  162

  161

  201

  204

  Whitemoor

  —

  —

  414

  518

  Winchester

  564

  530

  481

  458

  Wormwood Scrubs

  865

  743

  703

  472

  Wymott

  766

  816

  755

  768

  The Wolds

  —

  —

  113

  320

  1 Establishment holding females.

  Police (Absence from Duty)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct chief constables to maintain separate records in respect of absences from duty of police officers due to(a) injury on duty and (b) other sickness.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on 20 May, column 141. Separate records are already maintained on absences from duty of police officers due to sickness as a result of assault on duty, and other sickness. The recent issue of guidance about the recording of data will ensure that more accurate information is collected.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by(a) year and (b) nationality for the last 10 years the number of people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the number of people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in Great Britain is given in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 9/92 "Statistics on the operation of prevention of terrorism legislation—1992 first quarter". Table 1 contains annual information about detentions in connection with Northern Irish terrorism for the past ten years. The information for international terrorism is given in table 2 for the period since the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 on 22 March 1984. A copy of this bulletin is in the Library. Information on the nationality of those detained under the legislation could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Automatic Fingerprint Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Data Protection Registrar with respect to the standardisation of automatic fingerprint systems(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) as part of the Trevi arrangements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. It is the responsibility of individual chief constables to register their local computer systems with the Data Protection Registrar. As for the national automatic fingerprint identification system being 172
  implemented by the Home Office, it is still too early in its development for useful discussions about it and its relationship to the Trevi arrangements to be held with the registrar.

  Boundary Commisioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the parliamentary boundary commissioners and assistant commissioners for the yorkshire and Humberside area, giving their period of office, and appropriate qualifications.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Madam Speaker is chairman of the Commission. The other members are:

  Appointed by

  Period of appointment

  Mr. Justice Knox

  Lord Chancellor

  1.1.91–31.12.951

  Miss Sheila Cameron QC

  The Home Secretary

  3.3.89–31.12.92

  Mr. David Macklin

  The Secretary of State for the Environment

  16.2.89–31.12.92

  1 Deputy Chairman. First appointed 1 January 1987.

  The deputy chairman is required to be a High Court judge. No other formal qualifications are prescribed.

  The Home Secretary has appointed the following assistant commissioners for the purpose of conducting local inquiries during the general review of constituencies currently being undertaken by the Commission:

  Miss Caroline Alton

  Michael Findlay Baker Esq, QC

  George Robert Bartlett Esq, QC

  Francis Martin Thomas Burkett Esq

  John Anthony Bush Esq

  James Charles Gibbs Esq

  David Thomas Hallchurch Esq

  Simon Tristram Hammond Esq

  Michael Guy Vicat Harrison Esq, QC

  Christopher Robert Jervis Esq

  William Martin Kingston Esq

  Brian Joseph Knight Esq, QC

  Michael Edward Lewer Esq, QC

  Humphrey John Lloyd Esq, QC

  Donald Alexander McConville Esq

  John Oliver Neligan Esq

  David Price Esq

  John Edward Anthony Samuels Esq, QC

  Paul Anthony Spencer Esq

  John Victor Williamson Esq

  173
  Additional assistant commissioners will be appointed in due course. Appointees are usually senior lawyers with extensive court experience, nominated by the Commission.

  Commisioners and assistant commissioners are appointed to consider proposals for constituencies across the whole of England. Where practicable, local inquiries are conducted by assistant commissioners from a nearby area.

  Vehicle Clamping
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the clamping operation being run by Nationwide Carpark Services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I receive correspondence from time to time regarding the activities of wheelclamping companies on private land but have no record of receiving any representations concerning Nationwide Carpark Services. The issues concern the rights of private citizens on land off the highway. Unlike wheelclamping on-street, the activities of wheelclampers off-street are governed by common law, not by statute. We are keeping the matter under review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Student Grants
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full-time third level students(a) have had to withdraw from their course and (b) returned to their course after a period of absence due to illness, during the past five academic years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Academic year

  Withdrawals due to illness

  Returned to course

  1986–87

  158

  135

  1987–88

  162

  136

  1988–89

  l48

  126

  1989–90

  148

  117

  1990–91

  159

  121

  Totals

  775

  635

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what current financial provisions exist to support full-time third level students during periods of absence from their course, as a result of illness; and if he will introduce appropriate regulations to provide for such students who do not as a result receive education grant or other benefits.

  Mr. Hanley
  Students retain their entitlement to grant under the Students Awards Regulations for periods of illness lasting not more than 28 days. Students can also apply for a student loan if they are still meeting course attendance requirements. Assistance from access funds may also be obtained.

  Income support and housing benefit are available throughout the year to prescribed groups of students, in particular, lone parents and disabled people. Any student who is ill for more than 28 weeks and has been submitting medical evidence can claim benefits available to disabled students.
  174
  There are no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Vehicle Licensing Authority
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average length of time taken to process an application for(a) a driver's licence, cars, (b) an HGV licence, (c) a PSV licence, (d) a provisional driving licence and (e) a driving test.

  Mr. Atkins
  The average processing times are as follows:

  —An ordinary driving licence (cars)—15 working days.

  —An IGV (formerly known as HGV) licence—16 working days.

  —A PCV (formerly known as PSV Bus) licence—16 working days.

  —A taxi driver licence (initial)—43 working days.

  (renewal)—6 working days.

  —A provisional driver licence—15 working days.

  —A driving test—43 working days.

  Applications for LGV and PCV licences which have to be referred to the medical authorities or the police for further advice on average take twice as long.

  Figures for taxi driver licences and driving tests were provided by the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average monthly number of(a) drivers licences, (b) HGV licences, (c) PSV licences, (d) provisional driving licences and (e) driving test applications processed by the Vehicle Licensing Authority in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is as follows (based on 1991–92 financial year):

  Number

  Driver licences

  6,900

  LGV (formerly known as HGV) licences

  910

  PCV (formerly known as PSV Bus) licences

  910

  Taxi driver licences

  123

  Provisional driver licences

  2,900

  Driving test applications

  4,175

  Figures for taxi driver licences and driving test applications were provided by the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency.

  Parole
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners were scheduled for parole in 1992; and of these how many have subsequently had their hearings postponed.

  Mr. Mates
  There is no system of parole for prisoners in Northern Ireland. However, there are schemes which allow for the temporary release of prisoners on compassionate grounds, summer and Christmas home leave for the longest serving prisoners, and pre-release leave.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners were scheduled to have their sentences reviewed by the Life Sentence Review Board in 1992; and how many of these have subsequently been informed that their reviews have been postponed.

  Mr. Mates
  A total of 80 indeterminate sentenced prisoners cases are scheduled for review by the Life
  175
  Sentence Review Board during 1992. Thirty seven of these have been reviewed to date, of these, the review board decided to defer 11 cases for further review.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will lay before Parliament the annual report of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The report, which is the fourth annual report produced by the Commission since its inception in 1988, has been laid before Parliament today. It reflects the Commission's considerable efforts to maintain and build upon its relationship with both the public and the Police Service. It also continues the essential process of promoting wider understanding of what the Commission is required to do and how it does it by providing detailed and helpful explanations of a number of important aspects of its work. These include how the Commission supervises complaints against the police, its role in disciplinary proceedings following a complaint and the procedure by which relatively minor complaints are resolved informally. It makes clear that, as is right and proper, the police are accountable to the community they serve.

  I am grateful to the Commission for all its work. I have no doubt that it will continue to contribute significantly to the enhancement of public confidence in the police. I know it will continue to apply its own high standards of objectivity and impartiality thus ensuring that complaints against the police are thoroughly and fairly investigated. In doing so it will have my fullest support.

  Rathfriland Ward
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any representations have been made, directly or indirectly, through the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference or otherwise, to Her Majesty's Government or the Boundary Commissioner by the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning the proposal to transfer the ward of Rathfriland from Newry and Mourne district council to Banbridge district council.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: Responsibility for reviewing local government boundaries and wards rests entirely with the Local Government Boundaries Commissioner who is independent of Government. At the inter-governmental conference meeting in November 1991 both Governments took note of the Commissioner's independence in drawing up his recommendations. At no time during the current review have representations been made by either the United Kingdom or the Irish Government, directly or indirectly, to the Commissioner about the Rathfriland ward.

DEFENCE

  Support Management Group
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much accommodation is required to house the support management group and related command units following his review, together with ancillary domestic accommodation for personnel.
  176
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some 19,200 sq m of office accommodation; and 1,760 sq m of workshop and hangar space. The estimated requirement for domestic accommodation is some 350 married quarters, and some 270 mess spaces. The requirement for domestic accommodation for support staffs would vary according to location chosen, and the eventual provision of domestic accommodation would depend on the individual circumstances of those involved.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites examined as potential accommodation for the relocation of the support management group with or without the related logistics command units, in the vicinity of Harrogate.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Harrogate itself; the MOD site at Pennypot; RAF Church Fenton; and RAF Linton on Ouse. The latter two sites were assessed as homes for technical support services, with and without the support management group.

  Adjutant General's Headquarters
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made with the relocation of the Adjutant General's headquarters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A study is now being undertaken to examine the efficiency and cost effectiveness of forming an integrated Army personnel centre outside London. In addition to the headquarters of the Adjutant General and the military secretary, the review will encompass the manning and record offices, regimental pay offices and the Army pay office (officers accounts). The study team is expected to report by the end of the year: no decisions will be taken before the study has been completed and all concerned (including the trade unions) have been fully consulted.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  COCOM
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of COCOM.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport. West (Mr. Flynn) on 5 June at column 673.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on the United Kingdom's abandoned bases in Antarctica.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government are fully committed to implementation of the environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty.

  The British Antarctic survey is already implementing fully the provisions of the protocol. It has undertaken a survey of all accessible abandoned United Kingdom bases in Antarctica. A programme either to remove the bases, or to retain some as emergency refuges or historic sites is in preparation.
  177
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the new international instrument negotiated for conservation of Antarctica.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government are fully committed to implementation of the environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty.

  Boat People
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what latest discussions he has had with the Government of Vietnam and the Governor of Hong Kong about the plight of the boat people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Most recently, I discussed the problem of Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong and repatriation of non-refugees with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Nguyen Manh Cam, during his visit to London on 4 to 5 June. I also discussed this issue with the governor of Hong Kong during my visit to the territory from 25 to 29 May.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people remain in camps in Hong Kong; and what timescale is envisaged for their resettlement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A total of 54,686 Vietnamese migrants were in the camps in Hong Kong on 4 June 1992. Those determined to be refugees will be resettled in third countries. Those who are not have no option but to return to Vietnam. At current rates of arrivals in Hong Kong and returns to Vietnam, it will take over three years to clear the camps.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the Vietnamese boat people have been resettled from Hong Kong(a) in individual countries and (b) in total.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Between 1979 and April 1992, a total of 129,607 Vietnamese boat people who were considered to be refugees were resettled from Hong Kong in the following countries:

  Number

  Argentina

  75

  Australia

  9,289

  Austria

  437

  Belgium

  196

  Bermuda

  7

  Canada

  24,872

  China

  37

  Denmark

  1,408

  Finland

  485

  France

  1,745

  Germany

  2,429

  Greece

  50

  Hong Kong

  554

  Iceland

  60

  Ireland

  110

  Israel

  38

  Italy

  112

  Ivory Coast

  1

  Japan

  554

  Luxembourg

  32

  Netherlands

  1,042

  New Caledonia

  80

  New Zealand

  877

  178

  Number

  Norway (direct)

  486

  Norway (via RPC1)

  547

  Spain

  251

  Sweden

  1,277

  Switzerland

  679

  United Kingdom

  14,296

  USA (direct)

  48,623

  USA (via RPC1)

  15,754

  Vanuatu

  12

  Others

  50

  In refugee transit centre at Bataan awaiting resettlement

  3,142

  1 RPC=the refugee processing centre at Bataan.

  Refuseniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Gersh Furman and his family of Kazan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made various representations to the Russian authorities on behalf of Gersh Furman. In Moscow in March I raised human rights issues with the Russian first deputy Foreign Minister, including the case of Mr. Furman.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Pyotr Slutsky and his family of Primorsky Kray.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can consider raising with the Russian authorities the case of Pyotr Slutsky 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 Yakov Rovinsky and his family of Moscow.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can consider raising with the Russian authorities the case of Yakov Rovinsky 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 Igor Gopp and his family of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made various representations to the Russian authorities on behalf of Igor Gopp. In Moscow in March I raised human rights issues with the Russian first deputy Foreign Minister, including the case of Mr. Gopp.

  United Nations Centre for Transnational Corporations
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to make representations to the Secretary General of the United Nations for the restoration and strengthening of the United Nations centre for transnational corporations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the recent restructuring of the United Nations secretariat and the Secretary-General's efforts in this respect, which include
  179
  the establishment of the new Department of Transnational Corporations and Management. The expectation is that this will lead to an improved focus on priority issues, which are increasingly multi-disciplinary, and a better use of resources and co-ordination of work between the various parts of the secretariat.

  EC President
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the period of office of the President of the EC Commission comes to an end; and if consideration has been given to extending this period beyond this date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The period of office of the president of the EC Commission will end, along with that of the rest of the Commission, on 6 January 1993. A decision on the next Commission president is likely to be taken at the European Council in Lisbon on 26-27 June.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Nations sanctions against Serbia preclude the provision of emergency relief aid by humanitarian organisations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Foodstuffs and supplies intended strictly for medical purposes are exempt from the embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council resolution 757. Applications for the delivery of other humanitarian supplies will have to be considered by the Sanctions Committee established by SCR 724.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure the onward travel of the two vehicles owned by the charity Blythwood, which are being prevented by the German authorities from completing their journey to deliver blankets and bedding to the refugee centre in Belgrade.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A request has been put to the United Nations Sanctions Committee for permission to deliver the consignment to Belgrade.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Transport Office
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if he will outline the arrangements, including the period of franchise, under which Thomas Cook Ltd. provides the travel agency service within the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Beith
  The present arrangements under which the Transport Office is operated on behalf of both Houses by Thomas Cook Ltd. date from an agreement concluded in August 1985. They are set out in detail in the third report from the Services Committee of Session 1984–85 (HC 437); but have been subsequently amended and extended by resolutions of the Services and Administration Committees.

  Under the terms of the Services Committee's resolution of 15 May 1990 the 1985 agreement between the House
  180
  and Thomas Cook Ltd. for the operation of the Transport Office was extended beyond its original four years for an indefinite period; but it was a recommendation of that Committee that these arrangements should be fully reviewed within 12 months of the beginning of this Parliament (HC 100-iv). It is expected that the Administration Committee will be invited to initiate that review as an early priority.

  Thomas Cook Ltd. is required to report regularly to the Administration Committee and to the Transport Office consumers' panel whose chairman is a member of that Committee and which includes representatives of the Finance and Administration Department and the main user groups.

  Full details of the services provided by the Transport Office are contained in the Booker's reference guide issued by Thomas Cook Ltd. to all Members and in the Members' handbook.

WALES

  Hospital Incinerators
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the locations of hospital incinerators in Wales which have not been registered with the local authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  District health authorities in Wales have confirmed that applications for the authorisation of incineration processes have been submitted to local authorities for all incinerators currently in use.

  Environmental Care
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to develop community-based primary environmental care programmes in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The environmental programme for Wales encompasses a wide range of policies and initiatives, including measures to support environmental improvement at the community level. Support for locally based action includes the Environment Wales initiative, which provides assistance to voluntary groups; the community revival strategy for the south Wales valleys; as well as funding for the activities of the Groundwork trusts in Wales.

  Arsenic Contamination
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department has investigated the levels of arsenic contamination in mining spoil used in concrete for house building in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and any agency which reports to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Government's memorandum on this subject which was
  181
  submitted to the Environment Committee of this House in the last Session. It has now been published by HMSO as part of the Environment Committee's report on Coastal Zone Protection and Planning Volume II, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices.

  Swansea Canal Society
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance his Department is currently providing to the Swansea Canal Society; and what further assistance is under consideration.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department is not currently providing or considering any assistance to the Swansea Canal Society.

  Ramsar Sites
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to designate further Ramsar sites in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department is currently processing two submissions for Ramsar site status, and the Countryside Council for Wales is considering further submissions.

  Plantings
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of non-native species and native broadleaf species have been planted in Wales in each year since 1984.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information in this detail is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  National Trails
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to designate further national trails in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for making proposals for designating long-distance routes in Wales rests with the Countryside Council for Wales, although these require my right hon. Friend's approval. There are no such proposals currently before the Department.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Officials are aware of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation or other initiatives which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984, and will consult him as necessary when planning the collection, use or disclosure of automated personal data.

  Environment Programme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which organisations have received grants to date under the Environment Wales programme; and how much has been allocated in each instance.
  182
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name of organisation

  Total value of grants awarded to each organisation £

  Association of Welsh Wildlife Trusts

  16,000

  Amelia Trust Farm

  9,000

  British Trust for Nature Conservation

  21,333

  Cardiff City Farm

  5,110

  Centre for Alternative Technology

  15,000

  Community Service Volunteers

  21,333

  Friends of the Earth

  32,149

  Friends of Forest Farm and the Glamorgan Canal

  1,800

  Groundwork Trusts

  40,750

  Keep Wales Tidy Campaign

  31,333

  National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardners

  1,820

  National Trust

  5,000

  North Wales Wildlife Trust

  3,300

  Offa's Dyke Association

  2,385

  Open Spaces Society

  3,470

  South Glamorgan Play Resource Centre

  8,000

  Prince of Wales Committee

  60,000

  Prince of Wales Committee—Environmental Education Group

  16,536

  Rambler's Association

  8,320

  Royal Society for Nature Conservation

  21,333

  Wales Wildlife and Countryside Link

  12,480

  Welsh Historic Gardena Trust

  7,200

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust

  6,942

  Special Protection Areas
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the designated special protection areas currently developed in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Previously designated areas are Skoholm and Skomer, the Dee Estuary and Grassholm. I have today announced the designation of four more sites: Glannau Aberdaron/Yns Enlli; Ynys Feurig/Cemlyn bay/the Skerries; Glannau Ynys Gybi and Traeth Lafan.

  Conservation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to designate new areas of heritage conservation and marine nature reserves in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Heritage coasts in Wales are defined by local authorities in consultation with the Countryside Council for Wales.

  My right hon. Friend is responsible for designating marine nature reserves in Wales following an application from the Countryside Council for Wales. There are no such applications currently before the Department.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he hopes to announce his final proposals for local government reorganisation in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Later this year, in a White Paper.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he hopes to introduce legislation to give effect to his proposals for local government reorganisation in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Legislation will be introduced at the appropriate time, following publication of a White Paper.
  183
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he plans that elections will take place for the new shadow authorities consequent on local government reorganisation in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1994.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he plans that the new authorities established as a consequence of his plans for local government reorganisation shall take over responsibilities from the present district and county authorities in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 1 April 1995.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average amount of time spent awaiting an initial assessment by a speech therapist in each health authority area in Wales; and what is the average amount spent per week in dealing with each patient.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are currently being undertaken by his Department to encourage more applications for training places as speech therapists in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is currently no shortage of applicants for the training in speech therapy provided in Wales.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much is currently allocated by his Department to each individual health authority area in Wales for the training of speech therapists; and what plans he has to increase the allocation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office makes no specific allocation to health authorities for the purpose of training speech therapists. How much district health authorities choose to invest in speech therapy training services to meet the needs of their resident populations is a matter for determination in the light of local priorities and local circumstances.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Grounds (Safety)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish the next edition of the "Guide to Safety of Sports Grounds", known as the green guide.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have no plans to publish a new edition of the "Guide to Safety of Sports Grounds".

  Football Supporters Association
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to hold discussions with the Football Supporters Association; and whether the association's views have been taken into account when considering the implementation of the Taylor report.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have no specific plans at present to meet the Football Supporter's Association but would be willing 184
  to meet both it and the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs. The views of both organisations have been sought on the review of all seating at Football League grounds which I announced on 4 June.

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and any agency which reports to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's memorandum on this subject which was submitted to the Environment Committee of this House in the last Session. It has now been published by HMSO as part of the Environment Committee's report on Coastal Zone Protection and Planning, Volume II, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. Since the preparation of the memorandum the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment for the heritage, including the protection of historic wrecks, and those of the Department of Education for sport and recreation have transferred to the Department of National Heritage.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he intends to proceed with the proposals to list works of art to prevent their export.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 5 June 1992 at columns 646-47.

TRANSPORT

  Bicyclists
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bicyclists sustained serious head injuries in the United Kingdom in 1991, or the latest year for which statistics are available; what study he has made of the potential impact of a regulation requiring all bicyclists to wear crash helmets on this injury rate; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Provisional figures for 1991 indicate that 239 cyclists were reported killed and 3,939 seriously injured in road accidents in Great Britain. The standard report form does not provide information on the part of the body affected. However research by the Transport Research Laboratory suggests that 53 per cent. of cyclists reporting to a hospital had injuries to the head and that had helmets been worn some 11 per cent. of serious injuries would not have occurred whilst a further 18 per cent. would have been only slight injuries. The sales of helmets have increased in recent years, particularly for children following the Department's television campaign in 1991. We shall continue to encourage this trend but have no plans to introduce compulsion.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the parking of heavy goods vehicles in residential and other unsuitable areas; and what proposals he has to assist local authorities to deal with this problem.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I receive correspondence from time to time on this issue. Local authorities have a wide range of powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to control or prohibit lorry parking. These are described in detail in the Department's publication "Lorries in the Community", produced in 1990 in conjunction with the Civic Trust and the County Surveyors' Society, and in the accompanying manual of guidance issued to all local authorities. Parking arrangements for heavy goods vehicles may also be controlled by the traffic commissioners under operator licensing.

  International Passenger Station, Kent
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest position as regards the provision of an international passenger station at Ashford, Kent.

  Mr. Freeman
  British rail has announced that it is soon to submit an application for planning permission for the central Ashford proposal for an international passenger station. I welcome this move, which will help allow early progress.

  Shipping (Foreign Flags)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will assess the impact of the transfer of merchant shipping to foreign flags since 1979 on the balance of payments deficit.

  Year

  Provisional (Car)

  Full (Car)

  LGV

  PCV

  Total

  1989–90

  94,465

  447,538

  —

  —

  542,003

  1990–91

  80,010

  439,042

  —

  —

  519,052

  1991–92

  76,990

  453,176

  35,086

  7,186

  572,438

  Driving tests applications figures are available for England/Wales and Scotland.

  Year

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Total

  1989–90

  165,223

  15,136

  180,359

  1990–91

  156,594

  14,740

  171,334

  1991–92

  137,373

  13,627

  151,000

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of railway staff employed per million train kilometres for each of the EC member states, Sweden, Norway and Finland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: I have placed the information requested in the Library of the House and am writing to the hon. Member sending him a copy.
  186
  Mr. Norris
  For the calculation of the balance of payments, the sea transport account includes the international income and expenditure of all ships owned by United Kingdom residents, without reference to flag of registry. Thus the transfer of ships to foreign flags has no direct impact on the balance of payments.

  Licences
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average length of time taken to process an application for(a) a driver's licence, cars, (b) an HGV licence, (c) a PSV licence, (d) a provisional driving licence and (e) a driving test.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The average length of time currently taken to process a full and provisional car driving licence is nine days and eight days for a lorry and bus licence. This includes three days taken to return the licence to the customer. Driving test applications currently take seven days in total.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average monthly number of(a) drivers licences, (b) HGV licences, (c) PSV licences, (d) provisional driving licences and (e) driving test applications processed by the Vehicle Licensing Authority in the most recent year for which figures are available for (i) England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Driving licence information is available only in a national figure. LGV and PCV figures are not available for the years prior to 1991–92. Over the last three years the monthly average number of driving licences processed was:

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Marginal Tax Rates
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the numbers of (i) working heads, (ii) dependants and (iii) families with children facing marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates in the manner of his answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) of 23 January 1991,Official Report, column 249; and if he will identify how many more families with children will face higher marginal tax rates as a result of the change in the hours rule from 24 to 16 per week for family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table. This is not directly comparable with previous answers, in that these related to the population of benefit recipients working 24 hours per week or more, whereas the current table adds in all those working 16 to 24 hours.
  187
  It is unlikely that any families with children will face higher deduction rates as a result of the change of hours rule. This is because those affected would have continued to receive income support if the rule had remained at 24 hours, and so would have faced marginal deduction rates of 100 per cent. (after taking into account the earnings disregard).

  Combined marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates, 1992–93 for benefit units in receipt of in-work income-related benefits where at least one partner works more than 15 hours a week.

  Great Britain (thousands)

  Numbers facing combined rates of over 50 per cent.—in bands1

  Per cent.

  Families with children

  Couples and single people

  Total

  100

  0

  0

  0

  90 to 99

  75

  0

  75

  80 to 89

  130

  40

  170

  70 to 79

  180

  60

  245

  60 to 69

  5

  5

  10

  50 to 59

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  1 Figures are based on pooled Family Expenditure Survey Data, uprated 1992–93 prices, taxes and benefit levels.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Totals may not add due to rounding.

  Analysis does not take into account Transitional Protection.

  Figures do not take into account Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Officials are aware of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation or other initiatives which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984, and will consult him as necessary when planning the collection, use or disclosure of automated personal data.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the implications of the Danish referendum on the Maastricht treaty for the Barber protocol and the rights of occupational pensioners;

  (2) if he will take steps to implement the Barber protocol before the remainder of the Maastricht treaty is ratified.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The protocol to article 119 of the treaty of Rome forms an integral part of the Maastricht agreement which has to be ratified as a whole.

ENVIRONMENT

  Building Temperatures
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been undertaken to date to enforce statutory instrument No. 1013 188
  (1980) limiting temperatures in non-residential buildings to 19 deg C; and what proportion of these have ended in successful convictions.

  Mr. Baldry
  No prosecutions have been undertaken to date.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of properties sold by local authorities under the right-to-buy legislation in England in 1991; what was the average price paid after discount; and how many of these properties were flats.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1991 about 51,900 dwellings were sold by local authorities in England under the right-to-buy legislation, approximately 13,900 of which were flats. The average price paid after discount for sitting-tenant sales, the vast majority of which are right-to-buy sales, is estimated to be £20,800 in 1991.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing, for each region in England, the number of local authority homes sold under the right-to-buy legislation since its introduction and that figure as a percentage of the total number of properties owned by local authorities in the region.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is given in the table.

  Region

  Right-to-buy sales to 31 December 1991

  Sales as a percentage of stock1

  North (excluding Cumbria)

  89,689

  21.2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  116,450

  19.2

  East Midlands

  103,141

  24.1

  Eastern

  127,198

  22.8

  London Boroughs

  165,462

  18.0

  South East

  129,319

  22.7

  South West

  96,097

  24.8

  West Midlands

  128,915

  20.5

  North West (including Cumbria)

  126,922

  17.1

  England

  1,083,193

  20.6

  1 These percentages are based on estimates of stock at 1 April 1979, calculated by adding back sales since then to the latest estimate of stock, as at 1 April 1991.

  Gravel Extraction
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the public inquiry into the application by Aylett Gravel Company for gravel extraction on land at East Tilbury, Essex closed; on what date he received the inspector's report; on what date he published his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is as follows:Inquiry closed—21 December 1990.
  Inspector's report received by the Secretary of State—6 November 1991.
  Decision published—7 May 1992.

  I cannot comment on individual applications but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the inspector's report was considered very carefully before the Secretary of State made his decision.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the construction industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State keeps closely in touch with the construction industry and receives representations about it from time to time.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to improve the air quality at Tinsley, Sheffield, as measured by his air quality tests.

  Mr. Maclean
  The air quality measurements made at the Tinsley site suggest that motor traffic in the surrounding area is responsible for much of the oxides of nitrogen monitored there. From 31 December 1993, all new cars entering into service will have to comply with strict new European Community emission standards. This will result in a steady improvement in air quality at sites such as Tinsley.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue advice to residents of Tinsley, Sheffield, as to the health implications of the air quality tests conducted near to the M1 motorway.

  Mr. Maclean
  Advice on the health implications of air pollution episodes is available on a free telephone line (0800 556677) and from general practitioners. Daily air quality bulletins and forecasts are available on the same telephone line, on CEEFAX and in some newspapers.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the comparability of air quality measurements made at different types of sites.

  Mr. Maclean
  The comparability of air quality measurements of ozone and the oxides of nitrogen was examined for my Department by the photochemical oxidants review group in its first and second reports. Warren Spring laboratory has performed the same function for the smoke and sulphur dioxide surveys. The quality of urban air review group was asked in January to consider this issue for a wider range of urban pollutants.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used to determine the location at which checks for air quality are carried out.

  Mr. Maclean
  Air quality monitoring carried out on behalf of the Department of the Environment usually requires expensive instrumentation, operating over extended periods, so careful siting is imperative. The aim is to assess the general exposure of the public and the natural environment to a range of pollutants of policy concern. These considerations determine the general locality in which measurements are undertaken; specific locations are selected on the basis of access, cost and security.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to Sheffield city council to their representations about the equipment and procedures used by his Department to measure air quality; and if he will make a statement.
  190
  Mr. Maclean
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) visited Sheffield last autumn and was pleased to see the comprehensive urban air pollution monitoring network which has been established there. The city council has been in correspondence with my Department about a number of issues concerning instrumentation, the choice of monitoring sites and the air quality bulletin system.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to review the policy in his Department's circular 2/87 for the award of costs to parties in appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other legislation.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have today issued a consultative draft DOE and Welsh Office circular about awards of costs in planning and other similar proceedings, which would replace DOE circulars 2/87 and 23/91 (Welsh Office circular 5/87 and 77/91). A copy of the draft circular has been placed in the parliamentary Libraries.

  Noise Review
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is considering bringing forward legislative proposals to respond to recommendations made in the report of the noise review working party.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department issued yesterday a public consultation document containing proposals which would extend the statutory nuisance procedures to include noise in the street; improve the control of loud speakers in the street; and provide adoptive powers for the local authorities to require the fitting of cut-out devices to burgler alarms. The consultation document also deals with some points of clarification in the existing statutory nuisance provisions in the Environmental Protection Act, 1990. Copies of this consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tenants Choice
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the regulation and administration of the tenants' choice scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 9 June 1992]: It is encouraging that two transfers of housing stock have now taken place under the tenants choice provisions of the Housing Act 1988, and a further five formal applications have been made to acquire property under these provisions. Implementation of the tenants choice scheme is the responsibility of the Housing Corporation and I have, therefore, asked the corporation to reply to the hon. Member direct with more information about the scheme.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in assessing properties in the Easington district council area for the purpose of council tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Good progress is being made and the valuation banding work is on target for completion by the due date.

EDUCATION

  Residential Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to set up a higher education centre to lead research in residential care.

  Mr. Forman
  None. The setting up of such a centre, and its funding, would be a matter for consideration by the research funding bodies and individual higher education institutions, in response to demand from potential users of the research.

  School Leavers
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for Great Britain and for each region and for each year since 1980, separately, for male and female and for 16 and 17 year olds, how many school leavers have(a) stayed in

  (a) Number of school leavers going to full-time education

  Thousands

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South East

  South West

  Total England

  1989–90

  Aged 16

  Male

  1.89

  3.78

  5.86

  3.16

  4.50

  1.41

  4.63

  8.78

  5.41

  39.43

  Female

  3.82

  5.59

  8.70

  5.47

  7.44

  2.34

  6.27

  13.59

  8.05

  61.27

  Total

  5.71

  9.37

  14.56

  8.64

  11.94

  3.75

  10.91

  22.36

  13.46

  100.70

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.40

  1.10

  0.91

  0.64

  0.82

  0.35

  1.65

  1.95

  0.73

  8.55

  Female

  0.36

  1.02

  1.06

  0.69

  0.98

  0.34

  1.66

  2.42

  0.96

  9.49

  Total

  0.76

  2.12

  1.97

  1.33

  1.80

  0.69

  3.32

  4.37

  1.69

  18.04

  1988–89

  Aged 16

  Male

  2.12

  3.97

  6.38

  3.08

  5.14

  1.71

  4.74

  10.15

  5.53

  42.82

  Female

  3.24

  6.39

  9.29

  5.06

  7.75

  3.13

  6.59

  15.60

  6.85

  63.91

  Total

  5.36

  10.36

  15.68

  8.14

  12.89

  4.85

  11.33

  25.75

  12.38

  106.73

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.30

  0.86

  0.85

  0.54

  0.88

  0.26

  1.38

  2.43

  0.61

  8.13

  Female

  0.49

  0.90

  0.99

  0.55

  1.01

  0.18

  1.95

  2.72

  0.95

  9.73

  Total

  0.79

  1.75

  1.84

  1.10

  1.90

  0.45

  3.33

  5.15

  1.56

  17.87

  1987–88

  Aged 16

  Male

  1.74

  3.92

  5.91

  3.50

  5.08

  1.93

  5.04

  8.91

  5.28

  41.31

  Female

  3.16

  5.05

  8.83

  5.13

  7.93

  3.41

  6.74

  14.97

  7.95

  63.18

  Total

  4.90

  8.97

  14.75

  8.64

  13.01

  5.33

  11.79

  23.88

  13.23

  104.48

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.28

  0.67

  0.66

  0.69

  0.86

  0.42

  1.74

  2.05

  0.78

  8.14

  Female

  0.42

  1.07

  0.95

  0.66

  1.03

  0.49

  2.29

  2.27

  0.93

  10.11

  Total

  0.71

  1.74

  1.61

  1.35

  1.89

  0.91

  4.03

  4.32

  1.71

  18.25

  1986–87

  Aged 16

  Male

  1.72

  3.29

  6.47

  3.36

  5.57

  1.94

  5.07

  9.60

  5.00

  42.02

  Female

  3.51

  5.13

  10.42

  5.66

  7.84

  2.93

  6.76

  15.35

  8.24

  65.83

  Total

  5.23

  8.42

  16.88

  9.02

  13.41

  4.87

  11.84

  24.95

  13.25

  107.85

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.38

  0.77

  0.93

  0.55

  0.88

  0.29

  1.74

  2.31

  0.93

  8.79

  Female

  0.60

  1.03

  0.83

  0.74

  1.05

  0.39

  2.45

  2.91

  1.15

  11.16

  Total

  0.98

  1.81

  1.77

  1.30

  1.93

  0.68

  4.19

  5.22

  2.08

  19.95

  1985–86

  Aged 16

  Male

  1.61

  3.20

  5.89

  2.99

  4.75

  1.42

  4.63

  9.23

  5.02

  38.75

  192
  full-time education, (b) joined a youth opportunities scheme or youth training scheme or (c) entered a job; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The tables give details of the numbers of school leavers by age intending to(a) stay in full-time education other than school, (b) join YTS and (c) enter employment by individual regions in England since 1985. The year 1989–90 is the latest year for which the data are available.

  The numbers going to youth training schemes have been collected separately only since 1988–89; prior to this the figures would have been included in the employment category.

  Information prior to 1985 is not readily available in the format requested, that is, by age and region.

  The figures for Wales and Scotland are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland respectively.
  193

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South East

  South West

  Total England

  Female

  3.04

  5.42

  9.30

  5.73

  7.77

  2.86

  7.01

  15.43

  8.34

  64.90

  Total

  4.65

  8.62

  15.20

  8.72

  12.52

  4.27

  11.64

  24.67

  13.36

  103.66

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.27

  0.75

  1.01

  0.65

  0.99

  0.40

  2.10

  2.18

  1.08

  9.43

  Female

  0.41

  1.11

  1.22

  0.69

  1.40

  0.59

  2.41

  2.68

  1.22

  11.73

  Total

  0.68

  1.85

  2.23

  1.35

  2.39

  0.99

  4.50

  4.87

  2.30

  21.16

  1984–85

  Aged 16

  Male

  1.44

  2.86

  5.92

  3.36

  4.91

  1.47

  4.08

  8.54

  5.07

  37.66

  Female

  3.08

  5.43

  9.82

  5.58

  8.12

  3.07

  6.27

  16.12

  7.84

  65.34

  Total

  4.53

  8.29

  15.74

  8.94

  13.04

  4.55

  10.35

  24.66

  12.90

  103.00

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.26

  0.65

  0.80

  0.49

  1.02

  0.39

  2.11

  2.23

  0.85

  8.78

  Female

  0.65

  0.97

  0.99

  0.61

  1.15

  0.50

  2.42

  3.15

  1.44

  11.89

  Total

  0.90

  1.62

  1.78

  1.10

  2.17

  0.89

  4.54

  5.38

  2.29

  20.67

  (b) Number of school leavers entering YTS

  Thousands

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South East

  South West

  Total England

  1989–90

  Aged 16 Male

  5.30

  5.19

  6.10

  3.42

  5.30

  0.97

  0.83

  2.25

  2.97

  32.33

  Female

  3.79

  3.44

  4.88

  2.43

  4.94

  0.85

  0.63

  2.08

  2.26

  25.30

  Total

  9.09

  8.63

  10.98

  5.84

  10.24

  1.82

  1.46

  4.33

  5.23

  57.63

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.16

  0.19

  0.18

  0.11

  0.15

  0.04

  0.07

  0.15

  0.13

  1.18

  Female

  0.23

  0.24

  0.29

  0.08

  0.20

  0.04

  0.14

  0.15

  0.06

  1.42

  Total

  0.39

  0.42

  0.46

  0.19

  0.35

  0.08

  0.21

  0.31

  0.18

  2.60

  1988–89

  Aged 16

  Male

  5.94

  7.61

  7.85

  5.25

  6.88

  1.78

  0.92

  4.26

  4.89

  45.38

  Female

  4.86

  5.65

  6.55

  3.92

  6.88

  1.33

  0.79

  3.55

  3.79

  37.31

  Total

  10.80

  13.26

  14.40

  9.18

  13.76

  3.11

  1.71

  7.81

  8.68

  82.69

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.15

  0.44

  0.41

  0.18

  0.34

  0.03

  0.10

  0.35

  0.22

  2.23

  Female

  0.38

  0.31

  0.52

  0.18

  0.45

  0.03

  0.17

  0.33

  0.14

  2.50

  Total

  0.53

  0.75

  0.94

  0.35

  0.79

  0.05

  0.27

  0.68

  0.37

  4.73

  Prior to 1988–89 school leavers entering YTS were included in Employment category.

  (c) Number of school leavers entering employment

  Thousands

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South East

  South West

  Total England

  1989–90

  Aged 16

  Male

  3.85

  7.98

  10.44

  6.65

  9.00

  3.99

  7.92

  18.53

  7.07

  75.44

  Female

  2.18

  5.04

  6.11

  4.43

  5.74

  2.46

  5.91

  12.30

  4.59

  48.76

  Total

  6.03

  13.01

  16.55

  11.09

  14.74

  6.45

  13.82

  30.84

  11.66

  124.19

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.80

  1.54

  1.87

  1.02

  1.32

  0.39

  2.42

  3.67

  1.10

  14.12

  Female

  0.71

  1.51

  1.70

  0.93

  1.37

  0.52

  2.40

  4.30

  1.05

  14.50

  Total

  1.51

  3.05

  3.57

  1.94

  2.69

  0.92

  4.82

  7.97

  2.15

  28.62

  1988–89

  Aged 16

  Male

  2.90

  6.72

  8.95

  5.56

  8.51

  4.01

  7.91

  18.36

  7.19

  70.10

  Female

  1.56

  4.54

  5.46

  3.45

  4.62

  2.42

  6.49

  12.27

  4.42

  45.23

  194 195

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  Other South East

  South West

  Total England

  Total

  4.46

  11.26

  14.41

  9.01

  13.13

  6.43

  14.40

  30.63

  11.60

  115.33

  Aged 17

  Male

  0.75

  1.25

  1.35

  1.06

  1.42

  0.65

  2.29

  4.52

  1.18

  14.46

  Female

  0.77

  1.58

  1.36

  1.19

  1.24

  0.87

  2.69

  4.52

  1.13

  15.35

  Total

  1.52

  2.83

  2.71

  2.225

  2.66

  1.52

  4.98

  9.03

  2.31

  29.81

  1987–88

  Aged 16

  Male

  12.06

  19.34

  22.43

  14.75

  19.66

  6.97

  12.49

  29.28

  15.59

  152.56

  Female

  9.81

  14.97

  17.98

  10.96

  15.18

  5.31

  10.04

  22.58

  11.33

  118.17

  Total

  21.88

  34.31

  40.41

  25.71

  34.84

  12.28

  22.53

  51.86

  26.92

  270.74

  Aged 17

  Male

  1.02

  1.93

  1.85

  1.46

  1.58

  0.78

  3.39

  6.11

  1.67

  19.80

  Female

  1.26

  1.88

  2.25

  1.41

  1.79

  0.90

  4.13

  6.04

  1.38

  21.02

  Total

  2.28

  3.81

  4.10

  2.87

  3.37

  1.68

  7.52

  12.15

  3.05

  40.82

  1986–87

  Aged 16

  Male

  14.34

  22.72

  27.34

  16.62

  21.90

  7.04

  15.35

  34.05

  16.38

  175.74

  Female

  11.44

  18.61

  21.22

  13.09

  17.64

  5.81

  12.51

  27.27

  12.60

  140.18

  Total

  25.78

  41.33

  48.57

  29.71

  39.54

  12.84

  27.86

  61.32

  28.99

  315.93

  Aged 17

  Male

  1.23

  2.33

  2.14

  1.58

  2.02

  0.91

  3.76

  6.69

  2.02

  22.66

  Female

  1.02

  2.67

  2.60

  1.66

  2.08

  0.94

  4.17

  6.69

  2.16

  23.99

  Total

  2.25

  5.00

  4.74

  3.24

  4.10

  1.84

  7.93

  13.37

  4.18

  46.65

  1985–86

  Aged 16

  Male

  14.52

  22.34

  27.26

  16.83

  23.50

  7.79

  16.07

  34.34

  16.03

  178.67

  Female

  12.00

  18.34

  21.79

  12.96

  19.06

  6.20

  12.51

  26.43

  12.61

  141.90

  Total

  26.52

  40.68

  49.05

  29.79

  42.55

  13.99

  28.58

  60.77

  28.64

  320.57

  Aged 17

  Male

  1.20

  2.69

  2.49

  1.71

  2.37

  1.03

  4.28

  6.84

  1.83

  24.43

  Female

  1.69

  2.91

  2.72

  1.96

  2.11

  1.10

  5.16

  7.12

  2.19

  26.95

  Total

  2.89

  5.60

  5.20

  3.66

  4.48

  2.13

  9.44

  13.96

  4.02

  51.38

  1984–85

  Aged 16

  Male

  15.10

  23.10

  28.21

  16.93

  24.19

  7.98

  17.14

  35.87

  17.07

  185.57

  Female

  12.19

  18.71

  22.33

  13.88

  18.73

  6.00

  13.46

  26.91

  13.30

  145.52

  Total

  27.29

  41.81

  50.54

  30.81

  42.92

  13.98

  30.60

  62.77

  30.37

  331.10

  Aged 17

  Male

  1.47

  2.56

  2.33

  1.87

  2.15

  0.90

  4.63

  6.53

  1.89

  24.32

  Female

  1.60

  2.93

  2.67

  2.07

  2.19

  0.99

  5.66

  7.07

  2.10

  27.28

  Total

  3.07

  5.49

  5.00

  3.94

  4.34

  1.88

  10.29

  13.59

  3.99

  51.60

  Hearing-impaired Pupils
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to introduce regulations to require all teachers working with hearing-impaired pupils to obtain the additional qualification of teacher of the deaf.

  Mr. Forth
  Regulation 15 of the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1989 requires teachers of a class of pupils who are hearing impaired—but not including teachers of a craft, trade or domestic subject—to possess a qualification approved by my right hon. Friend.
  196
  The policy objective behind these regulations is to ensure a minimum standard of teaching expertise in handling such a class. There are no plans to extend the scope of the regulations.

PRIME MINISTER

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data: and if he will make a statement.
  197
  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  When planning any project involving information technology, the standing instructions include a specific action to consider the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1984. In any case of doubt, the Data Protection Registrar is consulted. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is satisfied with the effectiveness of these arrangements.

  International Parliamentary Assemblies
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on the appointment of non-elected persons to the United Kingdom delegations to those international parliamentary assemblies for which he makes appointments.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Any appointments my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister makes to United Kingdom delegations to international parliamentary assemblies are made in accordance with the rules of the assembly concerned.

  Energy Tax
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government intend to support the EC energy tax proposal.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government will examine the European Commission's recent draft directive on a carbon/energy tax carefully, taking account of the outcome of the Rio summit, and the actions taken by other major countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

  Brazil
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the authorities in Brazil what bilateral action can be taken to provide for the(a) housing requirements, (b) education requirements and (c) medical requirements of street children in Brazil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  We provide assistance under the ODA joint funding scheme to programmes for street children and other groups carried out in Brazil by non-governmental organisations. We are open to requests for external professional advice under our bilateral technical cooperation programme to Brazil.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the authorities in Brazil what bilateral action can be taken to(a) tackle the plight of street children and (b) bring to justice their killers.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: 1 have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to raise the matter during his visit. While it is for the Brazilian authorities to take measures to resolve the problem, we are doing what we can to alleviate the plight of street children by assisting the non-governmental organisations which work with them.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he intends to make about the plight of assassinated street children in Brazil, during his visit to Rio de Janeiro; and if he will make a statement.
  198
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government share the hon. Member's concern. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to raise the matter in Rio de Janeiro.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when the legal services ombudsman intends to publish his annual report.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The legal services ombudsman has today published his first annual report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Statistics
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his proposals to replace the trade statistics source provided by the single administrative document.

  Sir John Cope
  With the completion of the single market on 1 January 1993, single administrative documents will no longer be required for trade within the European Community. Trade statistics will be collected through the new Intrastat system which is provided for in EC Council regulation 3330/91, published in Official Journal L316/1 dated 16 November 1991. This is a framework regulation which leaves many points of detail to implementing regulations which have not yet been finalised. Customs have kept traders in the United Kingdom informed of progress on a regular basis and will issue a public notice in September.

  Statistics on trade in goods with non-EC countries will continue to be collected from single administrative documents.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his proposals to introduce criminal penalties for failure to make statistical returns or discrepancies under the Intrastat regulations; and if he will detail those business organisations he has consulted on these proposals and indicate their concerns.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs has consulted the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry regarding proposals to introduce legislation. Concerns were expressed both about the nature of the proposed regime and the possibility of penalising innocent errors. These concerns are being taken into account in drawing up legislation analogous to the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. The legislation will he introduced as a regulation, made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, to be laid before Parliament this summer.

  VAT
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the special provisions to apply to the sale of new boats, aircraft and motor vehicles for intra-Community trade VAT returns from 1 January 1993.
  199
  Sir John Cope
  Intra-Community supplies of goods which qualify as new means of transport will always be subject to VAT in the EC member state of destination. United Kingdom VAT-registered sellers of such goods will therefore not account in their VAT returns for the VAT due on those which are removed to other member states. However, people who acquire new means of transport in the United Kingdom from suppliers in other member states will either account for VAT in their VAT return or pay VAT directly to Customs and Excise depending on whether they are registered.

  Drug Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by year for the last five years and the current year to date the value of counterfeit medicines being imported into the United Kingdom that have been discovered by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  There have been no importations of counterfeit medicines discovered by Customs and Excise in the past five years.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the use of fiscal instruments to encourage energy efficiency investment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on 4 June 1992 at column 634.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money from the United Kingdom is invested abroad; and what is the level of income generated as a result.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest estimates of levels of overseas assets held by United Kingdom residents are contained in table 8.1 of the annual Pink Book 1991 "UK Balance of Payments", published by the CSO. Estimates of interest, profits and dividends received by United Kingdom residents from overseas assets are contained in table D of the quarterly balance of payments press notice, CSO(92)35. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Global Environment Facility
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being undertaken by his Department to ensure that Third world Governments are fully represented in the decision-making of the global environment facility.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply. The Minister for Overseas Development is responsible for the global environment facility. The United Kingdom has pressed for global environment facility to evolve to ensure full and effective representation by developing countries. The GEF participants meeting on 29-30 April agreed that membership of the GEF should be open to all countries and that it would fund programmes and projects, with 200
  agreed global environmental benefits, which are country driven and are consistent with developing countries' national priorities.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Development Grants
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of grants paid by the Overseas Development Administration to non-governmental organisations working on overseas development projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1992–93 the Overseas Development Administration has allocated £47 million to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations working on overseas development projects. Of this figure, £28 million is earmarked for the joint funding scheme, £17.8 million is allocated to the volunteer programme and £1.2 million is provided in miscellaneous grants to nongovernmental organisations. This excludes funds for disaster and refugee relief, food-aid and for projects which NGOs are implementing on our behalf.

  Cash Flows
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being undertaken by the Overseas Development Administration to explore ways of limiting cash flows from lower to upper income countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Cash flows from lower to upper income countries can be limited through debt relief and through pursuance of policies by lower income countries which attract investment and discourage capital flight.

  The Government have consistently taken the lead in promoting debt relief measures for the poorest countries. Agreement to begin implementing the Prime Minister's Trinidad terms initiative to relieve the burden of debt on these countries was achieved in December 1991. Five countries have already benefited from the terms, and we expect more to do so over the coming months. As these new arrangements take effect, we can expect a significant reduction in repayments due to Government creditors. In addition, the ODA has relieved developing countries of around £1,000 million of old aid loans since 1980.

  The United Kingdom has supported and provided its share of the finances needed to implement a 1989 agreement, known as the Brady plan, to help deal with the problems of a commercial bank debt. Under the Brady plan, the IMF and World bank set aside a part of their existing lending to indebted countries to support commercial debt reduction operations. They do this by financing debt buy-backs at a discount, or by providing collateral for reduced principal or interest payments. We are now seeing the fruits of this agreement and arrangements to cancel substantial proportions of commercial bank debt have been agreed, or are likely to be agreed soon, with most of the largest debtors.

  The pursuit of policies aimed at sustained economic growth is fundamental to overcoming the problem of outward financial flows. One of the main aims of our aid programme is to help developing countries do this as effectively as possible. Recent experience in Latin America shows that determined adjustment and policy reform

  201
  efforts can quickly attract considerable amounts of foreign direct investment. There has been progress also, particularly in Mexico and Chile, regarding the effective mobilisation of domestic resources, including substantial return of flight capital.

  Commodity Prices
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being undertaken by the Overseas Development Administration to support and stabilise commodity prices in lower income countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We participate as part of the European Community in Stabex and Sysmin, schemes under the Lomé convention for compensating African, Caribbean and Pacific countries for loss of commodity export earnings. We also participate in a number of international commodity agreements, the purpose of which is to assist the flow of commodity trade between producer and consumer countries. The overall trend of prices is of course determined by the state of global supply and demand for individual commodities.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is currently granted by the Overseas Development Administration to help lower income signatory countries to implement action under(a) the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer and (b) the Geneva convention on long range transboundary air pollution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On(a) I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 June.

  On (b), the Government contribute about 5 per cent. to the United Nations budget which funds the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe which administers the long-range transboundary air pollution convention. In addition, the United Kingdom contributed about £63,000 direct to the convention trust fund in 1991. The United Kingdom also supports a number of research activities under the convention amounting to about £370,000 per annum.

  Drainage Basins
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made by the Overseas Development Administration to encourage the use of drainage basins as units for land and water management; and what support is granted towards the evaluation of the economic value of each basin's ecosystem.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We recognise the importance of drainage basins as units for land and water management. Research on catchment protection is a component of the ODA's renewable natural resources research strategy. The importance of catchments is also recognised in the ODA "Manual of Environmental Appraisal". The 1990–91 annual report on the RNRR strategy and the revised and updated "Manual of Environmental Appraisal" have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  While no specific work has been undertaken by ODA on the economic value of drainage basin ecosystems, the
  202
  ODA commissioned work by the Overseas Development Institute, published in June 1991 as a book "Values for the Environment: A guide to Economic Appraisal" by J. T. Winpenny, which provides guidance on quantifying environmental costs and benefits of development projects. Copies of this book have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Development Programmes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being undertaken by the Overseas Development Administration to improve planning integration of technical co-operation within overall and sectoral development programmes of recipient countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Technical co-operation, which comprises mainly the provision of British expertise overseas and the provision of training in the United Kingdom, is made available as an integral element of aid to projects, sector programmes and broader national development efforts. Effective integration of all forms of aid, including technical co-operation, from all donors is also sought by means of multi-donor co-ordination meetings with the authorities of individual recipient countries.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bass
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his French counterpart about the conservation of bass stocks.

  Mr. Curry
  No specific discussions have been recently held with the French. However when the EC minimum landing size for bass, introduced in 1990, was being negotiated, the Government discussed the issue with other member states as well as with the European Commission.

  I am willing to take up any issue concerning fisheries conservation with any opposite numbers when there is clear evidence of cause for concern.

  Under-sized Fish
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his French counterpart about the landing and sale of under-sized fish at channel ports and towns.

  Mr. Curry
  I raised this issue when we met earlier this month, and at the Council in Luxembourg on 9 June, when improving enforcement was a major item of discussion.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 9 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I attended the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 9 June 1992 together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office.

  The Council continued its consideration of the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy. The

  203
  Commission will now be preparing proposals for consideration during the next four months to implement improvements to the policy on better enforcement, measures to reduce discards and the development of fisheries management in the Mediterranean.

  The Council accepted the need for improved enforcement by member states, and at the EC level, and asked the Commission to make urgent proposals for strengthening the powers of the Community inspectorate. The Council also recognised the importance and complexity of the problem of discards and asked the Commission to press ahead with the examination of ways of reducing them.

  I urged the Council to follow the United Kingdom lead in introducing a one-net rule and announced that to achieve stronger co-operation between the national control authorities we have arranged a meeting for the principals of these authorities to take place in the United Kingdom during our presidency.

  The Commission undertook to study the position of sole and whiting in the North sea, the southern North sea fishery and the application of a one-net rule in Community waters.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Policy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to meet representatives of the European Commission to discuss industrial policy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I will attend the meeting of the Industry Council on 17 June at which representatives of the European Commission will be present.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet representatives of the Yorkshire and Humberside regional CBI to discuss industrial policy.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have no meetings planned with the Yorkshire and Humberside regional CBI in the immediate future.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet representatives of the south-east regional CBI to discuss industrial policy.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have no meetings planned with the CBI's south-east regional council in the immediate future.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with British Coal regarding the privatisation of the industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the chairman of British Coal on regular occasions and discuss a variety of issues.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish his proposals for the privatisation of the mining industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  No decision has yet been taken on the form or timing of the Government's policy announcement on coal privatisation.

  Privatisations (Competition)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any plans to increase competition in industries which have been privatised.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government are committed to promoting competition throughout the economy. The telecommunications market is already open, and plans have been announced to increase the scope for competition in the markets for gas, electricity and water services.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the textile industry in relation to the GATT talks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  I and my officials are in regular contact with the textiles and clothing industry. We share its view that its best interests will be served by an early and successful conclusion to all aspects of the GATT Uruguay round, including the phase-out of the multi-fibre arrangement linked with strengthened rules and disciplines over international trading practices.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for regional policy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government remain committed to an effective, well-focused regional policy. I announced to the House yesterday a review of the United Kingdom assisted areas map.

  Shark Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ban the import of all shark products.

  Mr. Needham
  No. Sharks are not currently recognised as being endangered. If evidence were produced that any species of shark was becoming endangered, consideration could be given to controlling the trade under either the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) or the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the state of the glass-reinforced plastic ship building industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Two United Kingdom yards have the capability of building glass-reinforced plastic ships. One yard put its facility on a care and maintenance basis in 1984.

  Due to reduced demand, the other yard is actively pursuing warship export orders and greater diversification into commercial activities.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.
  205
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our policies of reducing barriers to trade and enterprise will help British companies.

  Cars
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on United Kingdom car production and new car sales.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A total of 138,106 cars were sold in the United Kingdom in April, 9 per cent. more than in the same month last year. This is the first time since October 1989 that new car sales have been higher than the comparable month in the previous year, and clearly indicates that the market is recovering.

  Colliery Manpower
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal concerning future levels of colliery manpower after the expiry of the long-term bulk coal purchase contracts with National Power and PowerGen in April 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  I look forward to continuing to meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Trade and Industrial Activity
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry on matters relating to trade and industry activity.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I met representatives of the CBI and its National Manufacturing Council on 29 April and at the CBI annual dinner on 19 May. On both occasions we had a wide-ranging discussion on trade and industry matters.

  Gas Turbine Generating Stations
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the number of applications before his Department for the construction of new combined-cycle gas turbine generating stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering 12 applications for his consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct new combined-cycle gas turbine generating stations.

  Traditional Industries
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to assist traditional industries in Leicester.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The DTI already has in place a number of schemes that are helping companies in Leicester and elsewhere.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with his Department's consumer credit marketing proposals.

  Mr. Leigh
  The responses to the recent consultation have been examined and a number of possible modifications to the draft regulations are being considered.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next proposes to meet the chairman of British Coal concerning the future level of coal imports.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for ensuring that economic under-achievement criteria other than the present Department of Employment count or percentage unemployment rate are taken into account in reviewing assisted area status; and if he will list other appropriate criteria and the weight to be given to them.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the promised review of the assisted areas map will begin; and what criteria will be applied to judge each area's status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 9 June, at the column 127.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to require manufacturers of tampons to publicise a warning about toxic shock syndrome on the outside of packets.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no plans to require manufacturers to put a warning about toxic shock syndrome on the outside of the packet. At the request of Government, manufacturers of tampons have improved the warning label on the outside of the packet and advise women to read and retain the leaflet on safety included in the packet. The leaflet warns the user about the risk of toxic shock syndrome, describes the symptoms and advises her to consult a doctor if they occur.

  Fabric Safety
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations his Department has made into the safety of the fabric known as ramie.

  Mr. Leigh
  Ramie is a natural fibre that has long been used in clothing fabrics. If it is used to give a fluffy effect to the surface of the fabric, loose fibres can catch fire. However, the flammability of a garment can be reduced when other fibres are introduced.

  My Department will be holding an early meeting with major clothing retailers to discuss what might be done about the marketing of potentially unsafe fashionwear.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many incidents of garments containing ramie catching fire have occurred in the past 18 months.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: Available statistics on clothing fires do not give information on the fibre content of the garments involved.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce safety standards for flammable materials in garments.
  207
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: My Department has commissioned an initial research project into the burning behaviour of fabrics, particularly those used in lightwear garments. This work will be presented to the British Standards Institution as a basis for the preparation of appropriate safety standards.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the plans he has to make progress on the draft directive on data protection and telecommunications in the period 1 July to 31 December; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Commission is at present considering its proposals in the light of the European Parliament's opinion, which was adopted on 13 March. The possibilities for progress on the directive will be considered once the Commission has submitted its revised proposal to the Council.

  Maxwell Pensions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if investigators from his Department will contact Dr. Werner Keicher in connection with the recovery of monies due to the Maxwell pension funds and their trustee companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As my hon. Friend will now know, on 8 June the President of the Board of Trade announced that he had appointed Mr. J. L. Thomas QC and Mr. R. T. Turner FCA as inspectors under section 432(2) and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc. The inspectors have been asked to look in particular at the offers for sale of the company's shares in early 1991. How inspectors conduct their inquiry and whom they contact is a matter for them.

  AAH Holdings plc
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his interim order under section 74 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 concerning AAH Holdings plc is due to expire; and whether he will extend the order.

  Region

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs

  1990–91

  Scotland

  41

  9,799

  798

  10,595

  Wales

  70

  2,636

  7,166

  9,802

  Northern Ireland

  23

  1,248

  2,186

  3,434

  North East

  44

  2,714

  2,972

  5,686

  North West

  53

  1,810

  8,697

  10,507

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  26

  2,464

  2,091

  4,555

  East Midlands

  15

  820

  1,572

  2,392

  West Midlands

  73

  4,410

  6,815

  11,225

  East

  3

  135

  700

  835

  South East

  4

  475

  25

  500

  South West

  3

  580

  0

  580

  Other

  1

  0

  2,300

  2,300

  Total

  356

  27,181

  35,230

  62,411

  1989

  Scotland

  34

  4,551

  645

  5,198

  Wales

  42

  3,564

  2,050

  5,614

  Northern Ireland

  17

  1,187

  8,558

  9,745

  North East

  46

  4,495

  1,438

  5,933

  North West

  52

  2,646

  4,538

  7,184

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  600

  1,100

  1,700

  208
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Merger Situation (Medicopharma NV and AAH Holdings plc) (Interim Provision) Order 1992, which was made under section 89 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 on 7 May 1992, revoked the Merger Reference (Medicopharma NV and AAH Holdings plc) Order 1991 and the Merger Reference (Medicopharma NV and AAH Holdings plc) (Amendment) Order 1991, which had been made under section 74 of the Act. The effect of these earlier orders, limited to the Grampian and Highland regions, is reproduced in the new order. This new order has no expiry date.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects information about inward investment into the United Kingdom for 1991 to be made available;

  (2) what was the regional breakdown of inward investment into the United Kingdom in 1990;

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of jobs safeguarded or created by inward investment in 1990;

  (4) how many inward investment projects were begun in the United Kingdom in 1990, 1989 and 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information about inward investment into the United Kingdom for the financial year 1991–92 has yet to be finalised and will be announced in my Department's Invest in Britain bureau's annual report.

  A regional breakdown showing the number of projects notified to the IBB and the number of jobs created and safeguarded for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1991 is in the table, together with the same information for the calendar years 1988 and 1989.

  The decisions recorded include the establishment of new business, expansion or acquisition of an existing business and involvement in a joint venture. These figures are based on information provided by the companies themselves at the time of the investment and take no account of subsequent developments.
  209

  Region

  Number of projects

  New jobs

  Safeguarded jobs

  Total jobs

  East Midlands

  11

  4,073

  2,420

  6,493

  West Midlands

  87

  5,629

  7,035

  12,664

  East

  2

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  21

  2,163

  610

  2,773

  South West

  8

  1,848

  40

  1,888

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  331

  30,756

  28,434

  59,190

  1988

  Scotland

  58

  5,429

  1,978

  7,407

  Wales

  56

  6,006

  2,085

  8,091

  Northern Ireland

  22

  2,610

  916

  3,526

  North East

  22

  2,041

  31

  2,072

  North West

  30

  1,763

  3,844

  5,607

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23

  1,790

  380

  2,170

  East Midlands

  18

  1,139

  880

  2,019

  West Midlands

  69

  3,671

  7,840

  11,511

  East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  46

  2,400

  983

  3,383

  South West

  5

  479

  0

  479

  Other

  3

  325

  0

  325

  Total

  352

  27,653

  18,937

  46,590

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much inward investment there was from the rest of the world into each EC member state in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is as follows:

  Direct investment into EC member states 1989

  £ million

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  4,304

  Denmark1

  5

  France

  6,274

  Germany

  4,001

  Greece

  459

  Ireland

  52

  Italy

  1,548

  Netherlands

  3,620

  Portugal

  989

  Spain

  5,140

  United Kingdom

  19,629

  1 1984 latest available data.

  Source: IMF Balance of Payments Statistics.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which operators will he required to comply with the telecommunications provisions of the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 will apply only to those telecommunication operators which have been designated under the provisions of section 10. The power to designate can be exercised only it' the President is satisfied that the operator provides at least 25 per cent. of the voice telephony services supplied within the area in relation to which he is a public telecommunications operator. Only BT and Kingston Communications (Hull) plc meet that criterion and I have signed an order today so designating them.

  South Africa (Oil)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if exports of crude oil from the United Kingdom continental shelf will be permited to South Africa 210
  following the EC's decision to lift its embargo; and whether United Kingdom companies can now ship oil of other origin to South Africa.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following the decision taken by EC Ministers on 6 April 1992 to lift the EC embargo on oil movements to South Africa there are no restrictions imposed by the Government on United Kingdom companies exporting oil to South Africa either from the United Kingdom continental shelf or elsewhere.

  Staff Salaries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the cause of the corruption that occurred to hon. Members' staff salaries for the month of May.

  Mr. Newton
  The corruption of the Members' staff computer payroll records for the month of May was a direct result of operator procedural error at a time of extreme pressure. It did not originate from a computer virus nor from unauthorised access to the computer system or records held in the Fees Office.

  I am assured that all possible steps are being taken to prevent a repetition of the error.

SCOTLAND

  Hardy Nursery Stock
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development of the hardy nursery stock industry in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office agriculture and fisheries department provides general encouragement for the hardy nursery stock industry in Scotland which is demonstrating steady and welcome development as regards range and quality of products and market expansion.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the population of(a) Orkney, (b) Shetland, (c) Islay, (d) Jura, (e) Colonsay and (f) Mull; how many people are considered to be economically active on each of these islands.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Figures from the 1991 census of population are not yet available. The most recent figures are from the 1981 census and are given in the table.

  Area

  Residents

  Residents economically active

  Orkney

  18,425

  8,156

  Shetland

  22,768

  10,957

  Colonsay

  134

  57

  Islay

  3,792

  1,636

  Jura

  224

  97

  Mull

  2,196

  963

  Hospices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the development of the hospice movement in Scotland: what plans he has to encourage this development; and what criteria he applies to the award of financial assistance to individual hospices.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The 13 voluntary hospices in Scotland have benefited over the past three years from the Government's scheme under which at least 50 per cent. of their running costs have been met by health hoards. This initiative, which runs until the end of the current financial year, was designed as a transitional measure to enable the hospices and health boards to work together to construct a sound basis for contractual relationships and future development. Its effectiveness and possible future arrangements arc now being assessed by the Scottish Office home and health department. Views have been sought from each voluntary hospice and each health board with a hospice in its area. We shall make known the outcome of this assessment when it has been completed.

  The main criteria which a hospice must satisfy in order to be eligible for assistance under the initiative are:
  —the hospice must be recognised as a charity by the Inland Revenue;—
  services must he provided to meet the needs of terminally ill patients (and their families) when those needs can no longer be met by curative treatments;
  —medical, nursing and paramedical stall' should be employed, who are skilled in the provision of palliative medicine for cancer patients, and for others who require such expert care for a span of time; and
  —no charge should he made to patients or their families.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Council for Single Homeless to discuss the homelessness crisis in Scotland; and it' he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no immediate plans for such a meeting, but my officials meet representatives of the council on a regular basis.

  Placentas
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the supply of placentas by the national health service to(a) national health service and university research departments and (b) private companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Arrangements for the supply of placentae from NHS hospitals to research departments of the NHS and universities or private companies are the responsibility of individual health hoards. Information on the disposal of placentae is not held centrally.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to health boards on the disposal of placentas after childbirth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Placentae are regarded as clinical waste. Guidance produced by the Health and Safety Commission and issued to health boards in June 1982 by the Scottish home and health department requires that placentae should be placed in a suitable bag or bin and incinerated.

  Arthritis Care
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Arhtritis Care organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. and noble Friend, the Minister for Health in Scotland plans to attend the reception which Arthritis Care has arranged at the House of Commons for 26 November 1992.

  Local Government Services
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future operation. management and organisation of(a) legal, (b) architecture and related services, (c) personnel, (d) administration, (e) planning and development and (f) general management services within Scottish local authorities.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The responses to the consultation paper "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services" are being carefully considered. Announcements will he made in due course about the proposals for extending the list of activities subject to the compulsory competition provisions of the Local Government Act 1988, and on the timetable for implementation.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last formally and collectively met Members of the European Parliament representing Scottish constituencies; when he next plans to meet them: what matters he hopes to discuss; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Secretary of State last formally and collectively met Members of the European Parliament representing Scottish constituencies on 9 July 1991. There are no immediate plans for a further such meeting.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the most recent percentage of the population which is(a) under 16 years, (b) 16 to 24 years, (c) 25 to 34 years, (d) 35 to

  Residents 1981

  Percentage

  Age

  Paisley, South constituency

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  Under 16

  23

  24

  23

  16-24

  16

  15

  15

  25-34

  13

  14

  14

  35-pensionable age

  33

  31

  31

  Pensionable age and over

  15

  16

  17

  Total =100 per cent.

  67,430

  2,375,410

  5,035,315

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the most up-to-date percentages of the population in each recognised socio-economic group in(a) the Paisley, South parliamentary constituency, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Scotland.

  Residents age 16 or over in employment

  per cent.

  Socio-economic group

  Paisley South Constituency

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1. Employers and managers in central and local government, industry, commerce, etc.— large establishments

  5

  5

  5

  2. Employers and managers in industry, commerce, etc.—small establishments

  4

  4

  5

  3. Professional workers—self employed

  0

  1

  1

  4. Professional workers—employees

  3

  3

  3

  5.1 Ancillary workers and artists

  11

  10

  10

  5.2 Foreman and supervisors—non-manual

  1

  1

  1

  6. Junior non-manual worker

  23

  21

  21

  7. Personal service workers

  8

  6

  6

  8. Foreman and supervisors—manual

  3

  3

  3

  9. Skilled manual workers

  19

  20

  19

  10. Semi-skilled manual workers

  16

  13

  12

  11. Unskilled manual workers

  6

  7

  7

  12. Own account workers (other than professional)

  2

  2

  2

  13. Farmers—employers and managers

  0

  0

  1

  14. Farmers—own account

  0

  0

  1

  15. Agricultural workers

  0

  1

  1

  16. Members of armed forces

  0

  1

  1

  17. Inadequately described occupations

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  Rape
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, in rank order for each police force, the number of females who have reported being raped during the last 12 months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of rapes reported to the police. The available information on the number of rapes recorded by the police is as follows:

  Number of rapes recorded by the police in Scotland in 1991

  Number

  Strathclyde

  138

  Lothian and Borders

  72

  Grampian

  42

  Dumfries and Galloway

  18

  Tayside

  17

  Central

  14

  214
  pensionable age and (e) pensionable age in (i) the Paisley, South parliamentary constituency, (ii) Strathclyde region and (iii) Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Annual population estimates by age are not made for parliamentary constituencies. The most recent figures are from the 1981 census of population and are given in the table.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Figures from the 1991 census of population are not yet available. The most recent figures are from the 1981 census and are given in the table.

  Number

  Fife

  11

  Northern

  8

  Scotland

  320

  Maedi Visna
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current incidence of Maedi Visna in Scotland; and what steps the Government intend to take to limit the spread of Maedi Visna.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Maedi Visna is not statutorily notifiable; but one outbreak has been reported, in a flock which was brought into Scotland in 1990. Under the sheep and goat health scheme flock owners may have their flocks tested annually for maedi visna, or may achieve and
  215
  maintain maedi visna accredited status. The scheme is regularly publicised at markets and shows; and following the recent outbreak the Scottish Agricultural college has advised veterinarians in private practice to be alert for evidence of the disease.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government have plans to make Maedi Visna a statutorily notifiable disease within the terms of the Animal Health Act 1981.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the findings of the Maedi Visna/Caprine arthritis-encephalitis programmes carried out by the Agriculture and Fisheries Department.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In the year ending 31 March 1992, 20,157 samples were taken from flocks in the sheep and goat health scheme in Scotland, and only one positive reactor was found.

  Waste Collection
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision of specific financial assistance to local authorities which wish to establish or develop efficient collection and recycling of industrial, commercial and domestic waste.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 June 1992]: I have no plans for specific grant to authorities for recycling nor to specify that elements of capital spending consents may be used only to finance recycling initiatives. To do so would constrain the freedom enjoyed by local authorities to determine their own spending priorities. Recycling projects identified in authorities' expenditure plans are taken into account when setting the capital expenditure allocations each year.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the forum on nephrops, to be convened by the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, is expected to meet before the summer recess.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 June 1992]: The arrangements for the nephrops forum are being made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I understand that the forum is to be held on Friday, 31 July.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what surveys of the quality of Scottish coastal waters in respect of meeting EC standard on shellfish production have been made by DAFS; and whether he will make the findings available.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 June 1992]: The classification of shellfish harvesting areas to meet the requirements of EC directive 91/492 is being undertaken by my Department's marine laboratory in Aberdeen. The exercise involves establishing the level of bacteriological contamination present in samples of shellfish flesh taken from harvesting areas.

  Decisions on classification will be taken later in the year but information on the results so far will be issued to interested parties this month. Thus far the results have
  216
  been encouraging with some 70 per cent. of results indicating category A, with 20 per cent. suggesting category B and the remainder in category C. But these are early days and some deterioration in the results over the coming months may occur linked to changing conditions.

  Environmental Issues
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: The provision of material for use in schools is primarily a matter for education authorities. The following documents dealing with environmental education have recently been made available to education authorities by the Scottish Office.
  This Common Inheritance; A Summary of the White Paper on the Environment (Command 1200) (October 1990). Environmental Studies 5-14; SOED Working Paper No. 13 (December 1991).
  Environment in Trust: a series of leaflets covering: river quality; global atmosphere and air quality; radioactive waste management—A Safe Solution; pollution control systems; One World; Cleaner Seas; The Countryside; and Waste Management and Recycling (February 1992).

  The primary education development project has developed materials which it is intended to make available to support the delivery of environmental studies 5-14, and Scotland is currently participating in an OECD project on environmental education which will result in further materials for use in schools.

  In addition a working group under the chairmanship of Professor Smyth is currently reviewing the provision of environmental education generally in Scotland. Its findings are expected later this year.

  East Kilbride DC
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide details of the arrangements for the sale of individual assets held by East Kilbride development corporation in the value range £250,000 to £4 million.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: The arrangements for the disposal of the assets of the new town development corporations in Scotland are set out in guidance issued by The Scottish Office industry department in April. A copy of the guidance was sent to the hon. Member on 19 May 1992.

EMPLOYMENT

  Small Shops
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received from OPEN, the small shops group about the consequences of the unamended working time directive for small convenience stores in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My predecessors received representations from OPEN about the proposed provisions in the draft directive on working time which would make Sunday a rest day in principle. At the Council of Social Ministers
  217
  on 30 April there was general acceptance that any provision in the draft directive on the principle of Sunday rest should not be obligatory in its effect on member states. Negotiations are continuing on these issues.

  Training
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment of every 100 people who join employment training, how many will be expected to obtain a job at the end of their training; and what is the figure for a similar number of people who do not join employment training but who are unemployed for the same period.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Currently, for every 100 people who join ET, 33 are in employment or self employment three months after leaving. Comparable figures are not available for the unemployed who do not enter ET.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if it is her policy that youth training and employment training trainees be issued with a copy of their individual training plan before they commence training or on request; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Under the terms of the training and enterprise councils' operating agreement, TECs must ensure that all persons entering YT or ET are given an individual training plan agreed between the training provider and the trainee, either immediately upon entry or within a week of such entry. The issued document must contain specified information about the trainee and the training programme. The plan plays a key role in defining training intentions and trainee rights. It is also a fundamental requirement in financial control that training providers should keep a properly completed and up-to-date copy of each plan to support claims for payment. The existence of such a plan is normally regarded as a test for a trainee being recognised as a YT or ET trainee.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for what reasons he decided to reduce the TVEI budget allocated to Staffordshire for 1992–93 from that allocated for 1991–92; what assessment he has made of the effects of this reduced allocation; and if he will now reinstate the 1992–93 allocation to the 1991–92 level.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Staffordshire's TVEI budget for 1992–93 has not been reduced. When Staffordshire started its TVEI extension programme in 1988 a phased allocation of the total available funds was agreed with the Department. This was weighted towards the early years when the major changes would be introduced. The planned budget for 1992–93 still applies, apart from the usual annual uprating of 2.5 per cent.

  Job Search Seminars
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the role, purpose and cost of job search seminars and which unemployed people are eligible for their assistance for Great Britain and for each region; how many job search seminars have been established; how many people have been helped by those seminars; how many people have been directly placed into jobs; how many have been directly placed in other outcomes; and if she will make a statement;
  218
  (2) what is the role, purpose and cost of job referral teams and which unemployed people are eligible for their assistance and for Great Britain and for each region (a) how many job referral teams have been established, (b) how many people have been helped by those teams, (c) how many people have been directly placed into jobs and (d) how many have been directly placed in other outcomes; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what is the role, purpose and cost of job review workshops and which unemployed people are eligible for their assistance and for Great Britain and for each region (a) how many job review workshops have been established, (b) how many people have been helped by those workshops, (c) how many people have been directly placed into jobs and (d) how many have been directly placed in other outcomes; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) for Great Britain and for each region how many people have been called in to attend 13-week Employment Service counselling interviews; how many people have actually attended such interviews; and of those who attended (a) how many have been placed directly into jobs, (b) how many people have been placed in what other outcomes and (c) how many have had their benefit stopped or suspended and for what reasons; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred these questions for reply.

  Northgate Complex, Glasgow
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list by Department the number of working days that have been lost so far this year at the Northgate complex, Milton street, Glasgow, due to problems with the air conditioning system; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive has no knowledge of any working days lost this year at the Northgate complex, Milton street, Glasgow due to problems with the air conditioning systems.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the recommended protective clothing to be worn when using organo-phosphorous sheep dip; what changes have been made to these recommendations in the last year; and what changes are planned.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Advice on protective clothing is given on the label and data sheet of individual products. General information is also available in the free leaflet "Sheep dipping: Protect your health" published by the Health and Safety Executive and available from their local offices.

  The leaflet advises that personal protective equipment should include rubber gloves, coverall and a face-shield when handling the concentrate and rubber boots, rubber gloves and waterproof coat or bib apron when handling the diluted liquid and freshly dipped sheep. Sheep dip manufacturers and personal protective equipment suppliers can provide more specific advice.

  There have been no changes in the last year to these recommendations, nor are any planned. The Veterinary

  219
  Products Committee is, however, reviewing the licences for sheep dip products and will be considering personal protective equipment requirements in formulating its advice to the licensing authority.

  I will arrange for copies of the leaflet to be placed in the Library.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the Employment department group instructions have been issued that the Data Protection Registrar should be consulted on proposed legislation which might affect, or be affected by, the Data Protection Act. Such proposals and other planned initiatives are notified to the data protection co-ordinator who consults the Data Protection Registrar as appropriate.

HEALTH

  Bowel Complaints
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are given to general practitioners about performing rectal examinations on patients with bowel complaints.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for the profession to issue guidance on such clinical matters as appropriate.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State if she will list by regional health authority the average current delay between patients reporting(a) symptoms starting and (b) diagnosis of a patient with inflammatory bowel disorder.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Provisional waiting time figures—April 1992 In-patients and day cases combined

  Numbers waiting—April 1992

  Region

  Under one year

  One to two years

  Over two years

  Total

  Northern

  53,855

  4,005

  0

  57,860

  Yorkshire

  63,452

  6,658

  8

  70,118

  Trent

  75,816

  9,641

  20

  85,477

  East Anglian

  34,367

  4,108

  77

  38,552

  North West Thames

  46,233

  8,894

  44

  55,171

  North East Thames

  68,637

  8,690

  713

  78,040

  South East Thames

  67,360

  8,700

  175

  76,235

  South West Thames

  44,101

  2,576

  26

  46,703

  Wessex

  53,598

  4,177

  0

  57,775

  Oxford

  39,354

  5,695

  30

  45,079

  South Western

  62,933

  3,252

  94

  66,279

  West Midlands

  85,761

  5,787

  214

  91,762

  Mersey

  49,918

  803

  0

  50,721

  North Western

  78,017

  6,864

  64

  84,945

  All regions

  823,402

  79,850

  1,465

  904,717

  SHAs

  12,011

  1,397

  534

  13,942

  Total

  835,413

  81,247

  1,999

  918,659

  Note: Based on provisional figures obtained from regions.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the guidance which the Department of Health has received on the potential value of a ban on tobacco advertising.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has received guidance on the potential effect of a ban on tobacco advertising from a number of sources. The Department is currently undertaking a study on the effects of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption. The contents of this study will be made available in an appropriate form when it is completed.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Cambridge regional health authority are waiting more than six months for a first time referral to a consultant.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not collected in the form requested. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Colin Walker, chairman of East Anglian regional health authority, or Richard King, chairman of Cambridge Health Authority, for details.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the last year in the number of patients waiting over two years for hospital treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to the reply, 12 May 1992, c. 489-92]: Provisional waiting time figures as at 30 April are given in the table. These show that the number of patients waiting more than two years for treatment increased in April by 399 to 1,999. This compares with 51,100 patients at 31 March 1991. Regional general managers have been told to take firm management action to ensure these patients are treated as soon as possible and that the rapid fall in waiting times achieved in 1991–92 is continued.

  Community Care
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if her Department's estimates of the cost of housing provision necessary to meet the requirements of the Government's community care plans and the implementation of the Children Act 1989, identify separately the respective costs of(a) the provision, management and maintenance of the accommodation, (b) services directly related to the provision of accommodation, (c) personal services, including the provision of food, heating, lighting and laundry services, (d) care and support services, including medical and social care, counselling, social work support, skills training and therapy and (e) any other requirements;

  (2) what are her Department's estimates of the cost of the housing requirements arising from the Government's community care plans and the implementation of the Children Act 1989 for each of (a) people with mental health problems, (b) people with learning difficulties, (c) young people leaving care or who are homeless, (d) elderly people, (e) people with drug or alcohol abuse problems, (f) people with physical disabilities including degenerative and debilitating illnesses and (g) other client groups falling within the statutory provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and the Children Act 1989 in each of the three years from 1993–94 onwards.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government do not have estimates broken down in the way requested.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions she is making to fund care in the community in the county of Durham; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The personal social services standard spending assessment for county Durham in 1992–93 is £53.3 million. The county council is responsible for determining its social services priorities and how much is to be spent on community care. Similarly, the relevant health authorities are responsible for deciding how much should be spent on community health services from within their general allocations determined by the regional health authority. Announcements about the funding of community care in 1993–94 will be made in the context of this year's local government expenditure survey.

  Health Education
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of expenditure on health education; and what it was in 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not possible to calculate overall expenditure on health education because so much health service activity includes both explicit and implicit health education whose costs cannot be separately identified.

  The allocation made to the Health Education Authority for health education in England for 1992–93 is nearly £34 million. In 1979–80 the expenditure on health education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Health Education Council was £4.5 million.

  The Department also provides funding under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to a large number of voluntary bodies, many of which undertake health education as part of their overall role.

  Childhood Asthma
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out, or is currently being carried out, to see if gas ozone may be an integrated factor in childhood asthma; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We attach particular importance to maintaining the improvements made in child health and are concerned by the increase in reported cases of childhood asthma.

  In 1990 an advisory group was convened by the chief medical officer to look at the short-term health effects of exposure to specific air pollutants. Its first report—"Ozone" (published by HMSO in August 1991)—found that there was no conclusive evidence to show that exposure to ozone or other air pollutants at levels occurring in the United Kingdom cause people to become asthmatic, but recommended that there should be further research. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  The Department has raised this with the Medical Research Council; the main agency which supports biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom and which in 1990–91 —the latest year for which figures are available—spent £1 million on research into asthma. We have also set up a further advisory committee with a wider remit to co-ordinate work on the assessment of the effects of exposure to air pollutants on health.

  Investigation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what limitations there are on where a medical general practitioner may send patients to hospitals for investigation and treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have always made clear that GPs are free to refer their patients to whichever hospital or other unit best meets the needs of the patient. We remain committed to this principle.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she proposes to issue new guidelines and regulations for hygiene training for food handlers arising from the Food Safety Act 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are currently considering what the scope of the regulations should be and expect to bring forward proposals later this year.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will arrange for an additional right to be added to the patients charter in respect of waitintg times for a first out-patient appointment.

  Mr. Sackville
  The patients charter already requires that local standards are set for waiting times for first out-patient appointments. We will consider looking at the possibility of extending these to a national level.

  Purchasing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district health authorities in England and Wales have entered into a purchasing consortium arrangement.
  223
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally. I understand that a number of district health authorities have entered into purchasing consortium arrangements. The latest information available, which reflects the situation up to May 1992, is set out in the table.
  The list does not include districts that have merged

  DHA Purchasing consorita (by region)

  District health authorities

  Name of consortium

  Yorkshire RHA

  Northallerton, Scarborough, York, Harrogate, Airedale (Part)

  North Yorkshire

  Hull, East Yorkshire

  North Humberside

  Scunthorpe, Grimsby

  South Humberside

  Calderdale, Huddersfield, Dewsbury

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford, Airedale (Part)

  (no name)

  North East Thames RHA

  West Essex, North East Essex, Mid Essex

  North Essex

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood, Southend, and Basildon and Thurrock

  (no name)

  South East Thames RHA

  Lewisham and North Southwark, Camberwell, West Lambeth

  South East London Commissioning Agency

  Dartford and Gravesham, Medway, Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells

  West Kent Commissioning Agency

  South East Kent, Canterbury and Thanet

  East Kent Commissioning Agency

  Greenwich and Bexley

  (no name)

  Brighton, Eastbourne, Hastings

  East Sussex

  Oxford RHA

  Wycombe, Aylesbury Vale, Milton Keynes

  Buckingham Purchasing Agency

  South Western RHA

  Torbay, Plymouth, and North Devon

  Devon Management Consortium

  Mersey RHA

  Southport and Formby, South Sefton, St. Helen's and Knowsley, Liverpool

  North Mersey

  Wirral, Warrington, Halton, Chester, Crewe

  Wirral/Cheshire

  North Western RHA

  North, Central and South Manchester

  Manchester Purchasing Consortium

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble DHA with Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale DHA

  (no name)

  other RHAs

  None

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances incontinence Pads can be supplied against a Prescription.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Incontinence Pads are Provided by the hospital and community health services free of charge to NHS Patients. They may not be Prescribed by general Practitioners.

  Children's Homes, Staffordshire
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State For Health when she expects to the Publish the social services inspectorate's report of the inspection of children's homes in Staffordshire.

  Mr. Yeo
  The report is being Published today. Copies are available in the Library. The report is clear that some important improvements have been made in the quality of service and the management of children's homes. No evidence was found of Practices similar to "pindown". It is also clear, however, that some recommendations from the
  224
  Formally or those that have reached informal agreements to Purchase Particular services. For more up-to-date information the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the regional health authorities concerned. The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State For Wales.

  previous inspection in 1990 have not been implemented fully and some standards of care remain unacceptable. I have asked Staffordshire county council to produce a detailed action plan to deal with those matters requiring urgent attention and the social services inspectorate will continue to work closely with the council to ensure that the appropriate action is taken.

  Dentistry
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the average gross earnings from the national health service of a dentist if her proposals on dental fees submitted to the dental rates study group are implemented.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We estimate £89,300 per dentist.

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of dentists earned a gross income of over £100,000 in 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1991–92, 34.8 per cent. of dentists earned a gross NHS income of over £100,000.
  225
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state, in the last three years for which data are available,(a) the actual level of dentists' expenses and (b) the figure allowed for by the dental rates study group.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90, the last three years for which data are available, the dental rates study group forecast a level of practice expenses above the actual outturn by £1,851, or 5.5 per cent., £1,650, or 4.5 per cent., and £1,678, or 4.3 per cent. respectively.

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of expenses she has proposed to the dental rates study group for dentists in 1992–93; and what was the figure in 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The sum of £47,228 per dentist, an increase of 11.6 per cent. over that allowed for in 1991–92.

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how average dentists' pay has changed since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since 1979–80, the target average net income of dentists has increased from £11,128 to £35,815 in the current year, a real terms increase of nearly 33 per cent. Our latest proposals are likely to exceed £35,815 by about £5,000, which would mean a real terms increase of about 51 per cent.

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the Doctors and Dentists Review Body recommendation for the increase in dentists' income in 1992–93 over 1991–92; and what were the corresponding awards to doctors and nurses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Doctors and Dentists Review Body's recommendation, which the Government accepted in full, increases dentists' pay for 1992–93 by 8.5 per cent. This is the biggest increase for any large group of NHS staff. Doctors—general medical practitioners—were awarded 5.5 per cent. and nurses and midwives 5.8 per cent.

  Warrington General Hospital
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) the amount of over or under spending in each of the last five years and (b) the throughput of patients over each of the last five years at Warrington general hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. Hannah, the chairman of Warrington health authority, for details.

  NHS Management Bonuses
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) what is the range of financial bonuses available to(a) general and (b) senior managers in the national health service;

  (2) if she will list the criteria used in deciding whether a general or senior manager in the national health service should receive a financial bonus;

  (3) under what circumstances general and senior managers within the national health service may earn financial bonuses in addition to their basic salaries.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Financial bonuses may be paid to individual general and senior managers in the national 226
  health service on the basis of good performance, depending upon the degree to which they meet agreed objectives decided and set locally by their employing authority. In general, payments are based on a proportion of basic salary and can be up to 8 per cent. per annum for general and 6 per cent. per annum for senior managers —subject to cumulative limits.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital consultants employed by the Northern regional health authority are members of ethnic minorities; and how many of these are holders of merits awards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether her Department records the ethnic origin of hospital consultants who hold merit awards; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Merit Awards
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken towards publishing background information and material defining the basis upon which individual consultants are awarded merit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The leaflet "Consultants' Distinction Awards" was issued in October 1990 to help consultants and managers understand how the National Health Service distinction and meritorious service award scheme works in England and Wales. A copy is available in the Library.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current value of merit awards to the national health service and to North West Durham health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1990–91, the last year for which complete figures are available, £41,370,322 was paid in distinction awards to consultants in the national health service in England and £31,127 in North West Durham health authority.

  North Durham Hospital
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the proposals for the siting of the new North Durham hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  North Durham district health authority and Northern regional health authority are currently considering a number of options for replacing the general hospitals at Dryburn and Shotley Bridge. No formal approach has yet been made by the Northern regional health authority to seek the approval in principle of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for any particular proposal.

  Child Care
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to publish the response to the European Council of Ministers' recommendation on child
  227
  care; and when she intends to draw the recommendation to the attention of local authorities, employers business interests, childcare providers and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Yeo
  Article 7 of the Council recommendation requires a response by no later than March 1995. We will be discussing how to carry out this work with other Government Departments. It will be drawn to the attention of other interested parties during the coming months.

  Tomlinson Report
  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to publish the Tomlinson report on health services in London.
  228
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Bernard Tomlinson and his team are due to report to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education in the autumn. The report will be published shortly afterwards.

  South East Thames RHA
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will intervene under regulation 19(4)(b) of the Community Health Council Regulations 1974 (as amended) to require South East Thames regional health authority to carry out further consultations on its capital strategy, "Investing for Excellence in Health."

  Mr. Sackville
  No. I am satisfied that South East Thames regional health authority has acted properly in this matter.

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.

Yugoslavia: Aid to Refugees
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any action to help with relief for refugees from the territories which were formerly Yugoslavia, in view of the particular burden being borne by Austria.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, since last November the UK has given £9.7 million to the Red Cross and the United Nations humanitarian agencies for work in the former Yugoslav republics, much of which involves assistance to refugees.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her most satisfactory reply. Does she agree that the Austrians have an outstanding record for humanitarian and efficient reception of refugees from neighbouring countries? Does she further agree that western European countries should give help to them when necessary?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, Austria should deal with asylum seekers under the terms of the convention in the same way as would all other signatories.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the situation is obviously grave. Does the Minister agree that there are 1.4 million internally displaced people in Yugoslavia as a whole? Does she agree that in Bosnia-Herzegovina alone 800,000 have had to flee their homes in the past two months and that 250,000 have had to resettle in other European countries? Does the noble Baroness accept that much more must be done when the UN has appealed for 174 million US dollars to deal with the problem and so far only 26 million US dollars have been subscribed?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is, yes. The international relief effort is being led by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN High Commission for Refugees. UNHCR is also co-ordinating the work of two other UN humanitarian agencies: UNICEF and the World Health Organisation.
The ICRC has launched an appeal for £15.1 million for its activities in the former Yugoslavia and the UN agencies have issued a joint appeal for 174 million US dollars. I believe that that answers the question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there ought to be a formal European agreement so that any country faced with the enormous expense and the duty of looking after refugees can rely on automatic funding from the whole of Europe?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord refers to the EC, which has been involved on a financial basis. It has given £33 million since November 1991. The countries which have been most involved—Italy, Germany and Austria—have held meetings and appealed to people to give to the agencies which are involved.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to inform the House which, of the various nationalities which used to make up Yugoslavia, form the bulk of the refugees?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure that I am. However, I can give the following figures. The total figure for refugees is 1,152,600, of whom 541,000 are from Bosnia; 128,000 are internally displaced from that area; 5,500 are from Macedonia; 22,500 from Montenegro; 31,200 from Slovenia; 294,400 from Serbia and 575,000 from Croatia.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that any relief operation in Bosnia is made virtually impossible because the airport at Sarajevo is closed? Will the noble Baroness confirm that the United Nations has now decided to send a force of over 1,000 men to the area in order to secure the airport and to ensure that it is kept open? That would transform the scene. Can she tell the House precisely what progress is being made?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it would be wrong for me not to say how greatly concerned the UK Government are at the suffering of thousands and thousands of people. The UN Security Council resolution of 8th June authorised the deployment of 60 military observers to supervise the creation of secure conditions to allow the re-opening of Sarajevo airport. It also endorsed in principle the deployment of 1,000 UN troops to secure the airport once the ceasefire is in place. However, the UN Secretary-General will have to revert to the UN Security Council before deployment can go ahead.

Ayrshire: Child Abuse Cases
2.44 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to review the Ayrshire child abuse cases.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): No, my Lords. A complaint has been made to the Procurator Fiscal in a case concerning two children in Ayrshire. This complaint is still under investigation. In the case of a further three children the Court of Session has just upheld the sheriff's conclusion that the grounds of referral had been established and press

1261
reports indicate that the solicitors are considering other legal proceedings. An appeal is still to be heard in another case involving four children.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. In view of the fact that Sheriff Crozier criticised the handling by the Ayr social work department of one of the cases and then dismissed the case, is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that present procedures in these cases are satisfactory? Is he also satisfied that the recommendations of the Butler-Sloss report are being acted upon in Scotland, where some sections of the Children Act 1989 do not apply?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I cannot comment on the particular case referred to, but on the general point following the Cleveland inquiry, copies of a shortened version of the report by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss were sent to all social work departments and their attention was drawn to the full report. Fresh guidance was issued to all the agencies involved in such cases. That guidance and other relevant matters will be reviewed in the light of the report of Lord Clyde on the Orkney inquiry when that is available.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that many people will welcome his reply that there is no intention to hold an inquiry into the Ayr cases? In case people tempt him in the future to hold such an inquiry, will he keep in mind the inquiry on children's matters in Fife under Sheriff Kearney which has been going on since March 1989 and from which no report has yet surfaced? Will he also bear in mind the inquiry in Orkney conducted by Lord Clyde which started last summer, stretched into the autumn, then into the winter and then into the spring? It perhaps only survived the summer because the summer was late in Orkney this year. Will my noble and learned friend bear in mind that these methods of solving such difficult problems are thought by many of us to be totally unsatisfactory? The cases in Ayr which involve serious allegations are currently before the courts and the courts are the proper place for the evidence on these cases to be decided.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the difference is that the cases just referred to are before the courts and the matter will be decided by the courts. The more general point concerns matters that have already been reviewed by Lord Clyde and by Sheriff Kearney. As I have said, we shall take account of their comments.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate aware that I, too, welcome his statement that the normal processes of law will now apply to the allegations that have been made in Ayrshire? Will he bear in mind the experience of the Orkney tribunal which sat for over a year and has, I believe, cost £5 or £6 million? It has led, as these inquiries so often do, to accusations being made against people who have no opportunity to defend themselves.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord's comments indicate the importance of these matters being dealt with in the proper forum, which is the courts.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord suggested that the Ayr cases are sub judice, although I do not believe that he used that term. Therefore it is difficult to discuss them and it would probably be improper to do so. Nevertheless I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree that public opinion in Scotland has been gripped in recent years by a number of sensational cases of actual or alleged sexual abuse of children in Ayr, Orkney and Fife. We know that child abuse exists and often results in emotional and physical damage along with the loss of innocence. I do not envy social workers their task of investigating these cases as they are often in a no win situation. It is easy to jest that social workers have too much power. However, as I understand the position—I hope the noble and learned Lord will bear me out on this—social workers have no powers themselves unless they are given powers in specific cases by justices' courts or children's hearings. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to confirm that point.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, social workers operate within a statutory scheme involving the children's hearing system, which is widely respected.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that unless the public are reassured that children will not be arbitrarily removed from their homes unnecessarily there is a grave danger that suspected cases of child abuse will not be reported when they should be?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it is, of course, important that they are reported. However, I believe that the system which exists for such matters to be reviewed by a children's hearing and further on appeal to the sheriff provides the necessary safeguards.

EC: UK Ministerial Sub-Committee
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will upgrade the Ministerial Sub-Committee on European Questions (OPD (E1)) to a full Ministerial Committee of the Cabinet under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): No, my Lords. It is appropriate that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs should chair the Cabinet sub-committee concerned specifically with European Community issues. European Community matters may also be considered in other ways; for example, by OPD or by the Cabinet under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. He will doubtless be aware that the terms of reference of that particular ministerial sub-committee, under the chairmanship of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, are merely to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy, of which the Prime Minister is himself chairman. Does the noble Lord agree that, regrettably, he himself, who represents this House, is not a member of either the ministerial sub-committee or of the ministerial committee? Does not the noble Lord agree that in view of the fact that the Prime Minister will assume the presidency of the European Council on 1st July it is entirely fitting that the Prime Minister should be seen to be fully in control of European Community policy and Britain's place within Europe rather than it being dealt with as a matter of Foreign Office concern?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that these are matters which are most appropriately left to the judgment of the Prime Minister. As I indicated to the noble Lord in my original Answer, major matters of policy are discussed in Cabinet or in the committee chaired by the Prime Minister. I believe that that is the best way to proceed. As for myself, I have a way of getting to the meetings if I really think that your Lordships would like me to be there.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I not right in thinking—and will my noble friend put me right if I am wrong—that the constitution and chairmanship of Cabinet committees is not a matter of government responsibility but the personal responsibility of the Prime Minister of the day?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble and learned friend would have put me right if I had got it wrong. He is absolutely right and that is why I said that such matters are best left to the Prime Minister.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that his reply seems to indicate that the Government still regard European matters as foreign affairs?
Lord Wakeham: No, my Lords. These are matters which are dealt by the Cabinet, by OPD and, as appropriate, by a sub-committee. European affairs feature rather largely in our discussions at the present time.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that this is a committee of the first importance, especially at so critical a moment for the Government? Will he tell the House how often the committee meets and, in view of the importance of economic issues and the fact that we are on the threshold of the single market, whether there is a Treasury Minister on the committee?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the list of those who are members of the committee has been published, but I do not have it to hand. I believe that the Treasury is almost certainly represented; I cannot conceive of the
1264
Treasury not being represented. However, I do not believe that I should be tempted to give the noble Lord the information he requires because the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he does not propose to give details of the topics discussed by individual committees, the timings of meetings or their proceedings.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that my noble friend is seeking to assist the Government?
Lord Mason of Barnsley: As always, my Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is particularly so on matters European. My noble friend has great expertise in the matter. Would it not be useful to listen to what my noble friend said and uprate that particular committee, especially bearing in mind the mess that has been created in Europe recently? Would it not be as well for the Prime Minister in his cabbage patch contemplating the Maastricht Treaty also to contemplate whether he should take the chair of that particular sub-committee?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it never crossed my mind that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was trying to be anything other than helpful in his Question. I am surprised that his noble friend felt it necessary to remind me of that fact. I had taken the noble Lord's instructions to heart. I listened very carefully to his Question. I hope that he will forgive me if I feel that it is the Prime Minister's judgment on which I am most likely to rely in these matters.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend reflect for a moment upon the awful fate which might await anybody who was unwise enough to accept assistance from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, or the originator of the Question? Does he agree that intrusion into such delicate matters is quite improper and indecent and that they are far better left unprobed and unrevealed?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend will know that I shall listen carefully to his advice. Indeed, I am not so proud that I shall not listen to advice from wherever it may come. However, over the years my noble friend has been a wiser counsellor than perhaps some of the noble Lords opposite, if they do not mind me saying so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister inform the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that there is no machinery by which a Question can be addressed to the Prime Minister personally in this House and one can only address a Question to the Government? Will the noble Lord please accept my assurance that in this instance, as in many others, I am seeking to be helpful to Her Majesty's Government in relation to European matters? Does he agree that at the moment there is considerable disagreement in the Government's own ranks, as publicised in the press, and on the Government Back Benches? Does he agree that it would be in the interests of the nation as a whole if the

1265
Prime Minister could be seen to be speaking on this subject for his entire Cabinet, united under his chairmanship?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, up to this moment the noble Lord had conducted this exchange in a way with which I could find no criticism. However, I thought that his last question was perhaps a little excessive. The noble Lord should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. I have no anxieties about disunity in the Cabinet. I was present at the meetings of which details appear to have been leaked, and the reports do not appear to bear much resemblance to what happened.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, in the spirit of open government which I know the Government accept, tell the House whether among the membership of the committee are Mr. Lilley and Mr. Portillo?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not sure to which committee the noble Lord is referring. We have moved fairly freely from one committee to another. If it is the committee which is the subject of the original Question, neither of my right honourable friends appears to be a member of that committee.

Domestic Water Supply: Disconnections
3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in view of the number of disconnections of domestic water supply to customers in the last year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Director General of Water Services is responsible for protecting consumers' interests. He has expressed his concern over the level of disconnections, and has recently issued new guidance to water companies on the subject of debt and disconnection to ensure they take a consistent approach towards consumers with unpaid charges. The Government welcome the action that he is taking.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, indicating that Mr. Byatt the Director General of OFWAT is taking action. Is the Minister aware that statistics have been published from various reliable sources which, if taken together or separately, show a very substantial increase in the number of disconnections in this sector? Can he give some indication of the number of disconnections in the last year when the water supply was under the control of the water board? To what extent have those disconnections increased since privatisation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the most recently available figures show that in the last year 21,286 domestic customers had their water supply disconnected. That figure compares with 7,673 customers for the year before and represents an increase of 177 per
1266
cent. Comparisons with the period before privatisation are not helpful because the figures are difficult to get. However, I make the point that customers have no less protection than they did before privatisation. There has always been a minority who refuses to pay until faced with disconnection.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware of more recent reports in the press showing an astronomical increase in the number of people in various areas of the private water sector who complain about the substantial increases in water charges? Does he agree that that is an indication that, if the Director General of OFWAT does not take strong action, we shall be speaking next year of a further substantial increase in the number of domestic users who have had their water supply cut off? As most of those people are at the bottom end of the social scale, will the Government do their best, through Mr. Byatt, to ensure that such adverse action does not take place?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Director General of OFWAT is very worried. He has also proposed to carry out research to find out how many of the customers disconnected were in real financial difficulty rather than simply trying to avoid payment. Perhaps I could remind the House that the average daily household charge for all water services—drinking, cooking, washing and watering the garden; and all water delivered to the house and taken away—is 46 pence, which is less than the cost of a bottle of fizzy water.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the matters that has exacerbated the problem is that in central London and elsewhere the water rates are based on the old rateable values? In central London they can be over £800 a year. Does he agree that if that is widespread across the country, it may be one of the reasons that people are unable to pay?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, between now and the end of the century the water companies have to come up with alternative ways of charging their customers. At the moment all customers can demand to be put on a meter.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any similarity between reconnection to the water supply and reconnection to the telephone if one has not paid? Is there a charge for the customer to have the water reconnected?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question but I shall find out.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how successful is disconnection as a means of collecting the money? Is the money paid within a week? Can he say what is the average time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that the industry's figures suggest that about 75 per cent. of disconnections are reconnected almost immediately.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any regard is taken of the health of the community when water authorities turn off the water? Is he aware that in a block of flats in Staffordshire people were recently found throwing faeces out of the windows, which is very dangerous to children and adults?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am well aware of the problem to which the noble Countess referred. That was an unusual case involving 16 out of 114 tenants. But the local authority was alerted and all those who were contactable had supplies restored virtually immediately.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes and in that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, 14 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate. Possibly I should remind your Lordships that in the case of the first debate, when eight minutes appears on the digital device above your Lordships, it means that eight minutes have passed rather than are about to commence.

Works of Art: Export Controls
3.6 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to call attention to the reports by the reviewing committee dated September and October 1991 on the export of works of art; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this Motion because the reports of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art are the most ironical and exasperated official documents that I have ever read. The committee say that the Waverley rules governing the export of works of art have totally broken down. If the Government would not contribute to keep the statue of the Three Graces in this country, it was hard to know what would stir the Government to save a work of art. The heritage, the committee says:
"seems to come at the very bottom of the back page of the Government's list of priorities and indeed that page may have been mislaid altogether".
The committee went on to say that when a major item came before it the procedure to save it resembled:
"one of those quaint British rituals like Morris dancing on the green, a harmless custom, the original purpose of which is almost forgotten".
What was the point of the committee meeting and making a recommendation, since item after item went
1268
abroad because our museums and galleries could not afford to buy them and the Government refused to intervene?
Why has the Waverley system broken down? The answer is very simple. Today there are numbers of very rich individuals and institutions who want to buy works of art, and Britain is one of the very few countries which possess great masterpieces and allow them to be exported. The purchase grants of our museums and galleries cannot begin to compete with American, Japanese or German competitors. Mr. John Welsh, Director of the Getty Foundation in Santa Monica, is a scrupulous and honourable man. He behaves impeccably when a work that he covets appears in the market. But his trustees are compelled under American law to spend each year £30 million to £40 million of their income on the purchase of works of art. In the recent Mantegna exhibition at the Royal Academy there hung a painting put up for sale by the noble Marquess, Lord Northampton. Mr. Clifford of the National Galleries of Scotland raised £4 million to keep it here. The Scottish Office refused to find a matching sum. That painting now hangs in the Getty Museum.
I do not criticise those who sell their treasures. In 1984 the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, most reasonably decided to build up an endowment fund to preserve Chatsworth and the estate. He therefore decided to sell 74 drawings from his renowned collection. He made a public spirited offer to the British Museum asking for £5½ million. The British Museum replied that it could raise only £5¼ million. The trustees of the noble Duke's estate felt obliged to put the drawings on the market. They fetched, so I understand, £23 million.
Consider the case of the sensational collection of the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, which consists of 22 paintings. Among them are five Titians, two Raphaels and seven Poussins. With great generosity the noble Duke has lent them to the National Galleries of Scotland. What will happen when eventually his estate has to pay inheritance tax? Almost inevitably, to protect his landed estate, one or more of those paintings will come on the open market.
Faced with that situation, the last Minister for the Arts said to the reviewing committee, "What do you recommend?" The committee concluded that the Waverley rules should continue to be observed for most objects. But with great reluctance it said that the only way of ensuring that certain supreme works of art —about 2,000 in number—would be saved was to list them and tell their owners that they could not be sold for export. They could of course be sold to anyone who kept them in this country.
The committee did not recommend that scheme. It is perfectly clear that it disliked it. It is unfair to the individual owner. It breaks the Waverley rules that have made Britain the centre of the world's art market. The criterion is that the vendor should receive the full market value for the work of art that he possesses.
As we all know, the Minister has decided that a scheme of listing is unacceptable to the Government. He is to be congratulated on making that decision

1269
quickly; otherwise the auction houses might have had a sensational number of items for sale. That is one issue on which we do not have to waste a great deal of time today. As St. Augustine said: Roma locuta est: causa finita est. The Minister has spoken and that is the end of the matter.
What then can be done? There is one defect in the Waverley rules that the Government could amend at once. I shall not weary the House with the tangled story of the Three Graces. However, the upshot is this. Fine Arts Investment, a company based—need I say? —in the Cayman Islands, refused an offer by the brothers Barclay of £7.6 million for the statue. By so doing it forfeited its chance of an export licence. But by a decision of the courts, the Minister does not have the power to compel Fine Arts Investment to forfeit that work of art. The sharks who skulk behind the anonymity of this corporation and who intend by hook or by crook to sell the statue abroad have stored the statue in this country. Presumably they are waiting for the art market to recover somewhat and to sell the statue at a higher price to a willing purchaser who will then be entitled to apply for an export licence.
Surely the Government should legislate to stop such chicanery? If a genuine offer is made that is above the price paid by the original purchaser, the original purchaser should be compelled to accept that offer whether the new purchaser is the Victoria and Albert Museum or some benefactor such as the Barclay brothers who intend to keep the object in this country. Surely that is one case where the right of the property owner to do what he will with his own should not govern the matter.
What alternative to the Waverley rules, other than listing, exists? On that issue Mr. Mellor was deafeningly silent. Some museum directors favour the creation of a contingency fund into which will be paid, say, £20 million a year for disposal by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. In 1946 Hugh Dalton put forward his land fund scheme for just such contingencies. The Treasury scuppered it. The Treasury allows no official body to create nest eggs or to hypothecate general taxation towards a specific purpose.
I am sceptical about pinning hopes on the national lottery. The claimants on that treasure trove will be too numerous to mention: Norman churches, opera houses and third division football clubs unable to finance the stands in which their fans must now, by law, be seated. My guess is that probably the first proceeds will go to boost Manchester's bid for the Olympics. Clearly the Minister will have to devise a notional carve up of the proceeds of the lottery: a percentage of so much for sport, so much for buildings old and new, so much for works of art, and so on. But we do not need a new quango to do that. The old hands-off principle of the Arts Council is almost as dead as the Waverley rules. The Minister should make the decisions. But perhaps he might consent to have an advisory committee to indicate just how important are the various claims made upon the proceeds of the lottery.
Some I am sure will urge that the purchase grants to the national museums and galleries—which have not been raised since 1985—should be increased; and I imagine that there are few who would grudge them an increase. But that is not the way to save the 2,000 masterpieces. I hope that the lottery will enormously augment the income of the National Heritage Memorial Fund in time to come so that when a supreme work of art comes on the market the fund does not have to beg for an exceptionally large sum. Incidentally, at present it is overwhelmed with applications.
What can be done in the interim? I believe that the best hope is not to urge the Treasury to adopt the American model where gifts to museums can be offset against tax. The best hope is to beef up the acceptance in lieu procedures which are not at present very effective. Could not the 25 per cent. douceur be raised to 50 per cent.; and cannot the procedures for the in lieu provisions be made the same as those for private treaty sales? At present, acceptance in lieu negotiations are between the family, the Treasury and the Museums and Galleries Commission. Some people murmur that the commission is not always that helpful. A work is allotted to a museum only after it has been accepted. But in a private treaty sale the vendor bargains directly with the museum, and the Office of Arts and Libraries (as it was) merely has to give final approval.
There is also the question of the relation between the auction houses and the museums and galleries. Do not the auctioneers sometimes so inflate the estimates of a prospective sale that the client is dissuaded from approaching a museum? Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will consider laying down some ground rules on that matter. I do not expect the noble Viscount to deliver a solution to these problems off the top of his head like Zeus giving birth to Athena. But I do ask him to tell his right honourable friend how urgent it is to wrestle with the Treasury and in the interim to give the National Heritage Memorial Fund a hefty increase in grant. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for bringing this subject before us today. However, unlike him I believe that the export reviewing committee did us a great service by bringing a scheme forward that was then able to be knocked down. In so doing the committee said:
"If we are between the devil of a continued freeze on the funding of our museums and galleries and the deep blue sea of losing key heritage objects because Government funding is not made available to acquire them, then with reluctance we would support a system of listing".
The committee has certainly woken everyone up—including the Government, one hopes—to the parlous situation of the arts in this country.
The Waverley criteria have worked well, and still do, so long as the Government play fair and enable essential funds to be available. But now that listing is definitely out, we must be prepared to find funds to prevent such losses. The gap estimated by the export

1271
reviewing committee is between £15 million and £20 million a year. That is in addition to the annual £12 million to the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to the loss of the land fund scheme. I am sure that he remembers as well as I do that after the débâcle of Mentmore, the National Heritage Memorial Fund was set up. It has done and is continuing to do a wonderful job but on stretched funds, which should be increased.
I am afraid that many of us will bank too much on the national lottery. I have previously asked the Minister whether it will be restricted to objectives which come within the National Heritage Department or wander further like the good causes which Mr. Kenneth Baker, when Home Secretary, mentioned in his press handout. Even if the lottery is restricted to the objectives of the National Heritage Department the claims upon it will be enormous, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out.
The state still has a tremendous responsibility. It would be a great pity if it were thought that a national lottery when we have it—there is as yet no Bill—would let the state and therefore the Government off the hook. Recently the chairman of the Arts Council, the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo—unfortunately he is not in his place today—spoke to the Parliamentary Heritage Group. He said that he saw the national lottery as providing the capital funds for museums and galleries. That would be wrong; the responsibility for the buildings of museums and galleries must rest with the state and the Government. It is therefore right that money which comes from the lottery should be spent on acquisitions. Furthermore, an attractive proposition to put before the people who will be asked to buy the tickets will be not only that they have a chance to win an enormous amount of money, but that the money they made will be used to acquire objects that they will appreciate and enjoy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, the purchase grants have been frozen for seven years. That is an absolute scandal. The new Secretary of State must be pressed hard on that issue. I realise that the noble Viscount cannot answer all my questions—I am not sure that even the Secretary of State has the answers. I do not suppose that the noble Viscount can go out on a limb alone, but I hope that on behalf of all noble Lords who are speaking he will press hard on that matter and will express our strength of feeling.
The situation is especially damaging to museums and galleries such as the Tate which have a statutory duty to collect contemporary art. Any acquisitions missed now can only be made at a later date at a much greater cost. Then stronger provision is needed, equivalent to Grade I listing on buildings, to prevent the removal of works designed for a particular location; for example, Canova's The Three Graces. The extension of the gift-aid and acceptance-in-lieu schemes, as mentioned by the noble Lord, would allow works of art to be given to museums rather than go on sale on the open market. The Government could extend those schemes without tremendous cost; the chairmen of the Museums and Galleries Commission and the National Art Collections Fund have recommended this as a cost-effective way of saving
1272
works of art. Today The Times has printed a letter from the chairman of the National Art Collections Fund in which he expresses the need for an increase in the amount of government money given to the arts.
Listing has diverted attention from many of the excellent recommendations in the ERC report: for instance, the replacement of current outdated legislation for export control; the inclusion of national heritage items such as fossils; and VAT remission on sales to national and university museums, which would bring them in line with local authority museums.
The Secretary of State's track record has wandered between the Treasury and the arts. I hope that he will remember that he is now permanently wearing his arts and heritage hat and that he must fight the Treasury rather than the arts Ministers as he has in the past. It is crucial that as we enter the year of the UK's presidency of the EC and seek to establish agreement among EC member states on harmonised policies on the movement of works of art we put a stop to the drain on our own works of art.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it would be appropriate to begin my remarks by paying a tribute to Sir John Anderson, later the first Viscount Waverley. He was the perfect civil servant, even though for many years he was a Minister of the Crown. If one went to him with an awkward problem he would always find the cheapest and least damaging way round, whether as secretary to the Board of Inland Revenue, later in connection with air-raid shelters (when his name was immortalised), as the unexpected first chairman of the Royal Opera Board, or as the ingenious inventor of the Waverley rules, which we are discussing tonight. I never met him but I know, or knew, many who have consulted him to their benefit. We must be careful before we replace his solution with something else. In making that comment I follow my noble friend Lady Birk.
The Waverley rules were introduced in 1952, the export committee being formed at the same time. They constitute a notable example of reliance on the open market tempered with some very definite, voluntary but not compulsory encouragement to act otherwise than strictly on the best price available. That is a complicated statement but Lord Waverley was trying to deal with a complicated situation. As was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the seller agreed a maximum price with the museum or gallery interested and calculated the tax due on a sale at that price. If the review committee then said that the particular article was worth the price the Minister was advised. The gallery then had to pay the agreed price less the tax. The Treasury gave a receipt for the amount of the tax due as if it had been paid.
Then came the douceur by which, though it is hard to believe, the Treasury refunded 25 per cent. of the tax which had not been paid. It was a really breathtaking arrangement and it worked for many years. Throughout the time that I was connected with the scheme—during the last quarter of its life—there were few failures. There had to be a few as people can

1273
never be content with anything but the last penny. However, there were not many failures and not enough to threaten the voluntary status of the scheme. I wanted your Lordships to realise what an extremely ingenious and unlikely scheme it was to have worked so well for so long.
However, it went wrong because three things have changed. First, the levels of taxation have been somewhat reduced. Therefore, the tax concession is less valuable and the douceur is equally less valuable. Secondly, the purchase grants to the museums and galleries—and here I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—have been allowed to fall seriously below the level of inflation.
I should like to explain just how far they have fallen behind. The purchase grant of the National Gallery in my time—1979–80—was £2,612,000. After some ups and downs over the years it settled at £2,750,000 in 1985–86 and as the noble Baroness indignantly announced, it has not moved since. Similarly, the British Museum purchase grant was £1,023,000. In 1986–87 it was £1,400,000 and it has not moved since. In today's values that amounts to a reduction, in the case of the National Gallery, of 56 per cent. and in the case of the British Museum, a reduction of 43 per cent. on the figure which we were giving in 1979. Can we expect the system to work as well? The only way forward is to address that problem. If people are not prepared to pay that money, or an increase on the present figure, there is no hope of doing anything.
Those steep falls would put the museums and galleries in a poor position even if art prices had kept within inflation, but we all know that they have not done so. The explosion in art prices has reached absurd levels, but it has fallen back now to something like 10 times that which it was in the 1980s. That is the figure we are stuck with. I am sure that your Lordships understand that if you get back the tax agreed, plus the 25 per cent., that means you are as well off as if you sell something for considerably more to somebody else. That is the point of the issue.
What can be done to correct the shortfall in those purchase grants? It seems to me that there can be no other way of tackling the problem than by bringing the grants up to 1979 levels, plus inflation. That should be done not just as soon as possible but at once. Consideration could perhaps be given to increasing the douceur, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested, to 50 per cent., but I doubt whether the Treasury will agree to any of those proposals. I am surprised that it ever agreed to Sir John Anderson's proposals in the first place; and that was a triumph for him. However, I see no other answer to the problem and the cost would not be enormous. The noble Baroness quoted a figure of £15 million to £20 million. I believe that that figure comes from the export committee's report and will be the kind of figure at which one might arrive if one took a list of those people who have sold not through the Waverley rules and estimated what it would have cost had the sale been carried out in the other way.
That brings me to the question of how much the nation is prepared to pay to keep its treasures within
1274
those voluntary limits—liberal and not fascist or dictatorship limits. That should be discussed openly and fully and we should realise the kind of figure we are talking about. If it is really £10 million or £15 million, we should not hesitate to insist that the Government do something about it.
Finally, as regards listing I agree that that is over, at any rate for the moment.
I conclude on a note of grave warning. By far the worst thing that could happen to our heritage would be the application of VAT to works of art. I understand that the EC is threatening that. Although I am a good European, I offer the Minister total support to the death in opposing any such innovation.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, your Lordships are no doubt grateful, as I am, to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for raising this extremely important matter.
Before I deal with the issues raised so far in the debate, perhaps I may say how glad I am that my right honourable friend Mr. David Mellor has been appointed to this enlarged department. Of course, its responsibilities are very wide and go far beyond the arts and heritage; but each of its responsibilities are matters in which your Lordships have always shown great interest and indeed have great expertise. I am glad that, as a first step, Mr. David Mellor has been realistic enough to abolish the listing system. I believe that that will be generally approved. Of course, he is a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and his success will depend to a great extent upon how he can use his expertise in getting money out of the Treasury.
I am also delighted by the appointment of my noble friend Lord Astor as Under-Secretary to the department because he is well qualified to advise and answer your Lordships' questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, seems to be disagreeing with me and perhaps she will correct me at a later stage.
Let us realise that, over the past 300 or 400 years, this country has acquired far more of the works of art of the countries of Europe and Asia than any of those countries have acquired from us. As a result, we have great public and private collections of Italian painting and sculpture and French, Dutch and Flemish paintings. It is wonderful that we have so many magnificent art galleries full of those treasures. However, you will not find many British pictures in the Louvre, the Tuileries, the Pinakothek, the Pitti Gallery or any of the palaces of Asia. Therefore, it seems to me that we can afford to have London as the principal art market of the world, which it undoubtedly is. It is to our economic advantage that we should do so and it is part of the life of a free society.
Your Lordships may wonder how it was that last Session I was responsible for raising questions in your Lordships' House about the disposal of the Badminton cabinet. I was persuaded to do so by the chairman of the National Art Collections Fund, of which I happen to be a member. I thought that there were good reasons for trying to keep it in this country. First it was simply a matter of finance but then it went

1275
beyond that. The Government and the splendid committee on export of works of art, of which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was rather disparaging, gave a licence eventually when the money could not be found. I wanted the cabinet to go to the Fitzwilliam Museum because I live less than 20 miles away from that museum but between us we were not successful in that.
Let us face it, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which has made extremely good use of the limited funds at its disposal, could use unlimited sums of public money to public advantage. It will not get those funds although we hope that it will receive more money than it has so far.
Therefore, let us consider the other possibilities. The National Art Collections Fund does marvellous work within its limitations. I am in favour of a national lottery; but let us not raise our hopes too high. I do not see any money coming from the national lottery, for the purposes to which this debate relates, for at least two financial years and it is more likely to be three. When the money is available, there will be many competing claims upon it; for example, sport and so on. I do not know whether a quango or the Government will decide which of those good causes shall have the money, but there will be many competing claims and the amount available for keeping works of art in this country will be somewhat limited. We must go on living in hope, doing our best.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—no doubt accurately—gave us figures to show that less money was spent by the British Museum. We can rejoice in a wonderful paradise. The British Museum and all our other museums have improved year by year whatever funds have been available to them. Let it continue to be so. Preserving the national heritage gives rise to a confused situation. I feel that the Waverley rules, which have stood the test of time, are simple, direct and workable. They should continue to give the guidance that is needed. Meanwhile, a debate of this kind in your Lordships' House can offer a great deal of valuable advice.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I am grateful to and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for instituting the debate. I agree with everything that he said, particularly regarding added resources for the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I should like to congratulate also the Secretary of State for the National Heritage on abandoning the idea of listing works of art. I see the temptation to do so. I am glad that it has been resisted and hope that the idea will not be reverted to.
During the past 12 years it has been my great privilege and joy to be the chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, a job which has now been taken over by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. During that time I was intimately concerned with the preservation of two parts of our heritage. The first part is what I call real estate—houses, woods, bogs, fens, flats, mountains and meadows. The second part
1276
is what I call the moveable heritage—pictures, sculpture, drawings, books and manuscripts. It is with the second category that any list would be concerned.
Having been able to observe the present system at close quarters, I shall defend it. I concede that the position I held makes me more conscious of what has been saved than of what has been lost. However, the system of which the National Heritage Memorial Fund is an essential part is perfectly good, with one obvious proviso; that is, that it must be properly funded. It is a good system because it allows adequate movement of works of art; because, with it, London remains the art centre of the world; because it allows the owners of heritage property who sometimes need to sell to obtain a proper price for their assets and it is good because it allows museums and galleries to acquire treasures for the nation.
The provisions of the private treaty sales involving the douceur and acceptances in lieu are of help both to the vendor and to the buyer. The system is extremely British—it is civilised; it is not too loaded down with logic; there is room in it for negotiation; it is absolute in nothing; it is foggy and uncertain and beneficent, like our climate. But everything depends on adequate funding.
It is my contention that over the past 12 years—since the National Heritage Memorial Fund came into existence—with the help of one or two massive private donations from rich people like Mr. Getty, the funding has not been too bad. Of course, there have been sad losses like the Badminton Cabinet but there have been many triumphs ending with the purchase by the National Gallery of Holbein's "Lady with the Squirrel and the Starling" from Houghton.
The elements of the system involved in that purchase were the National Gallery, private resources of the National Gallery given to it by Mr. Getty, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the National Art Collections Fund and the private treaty sale. Practically everyone in this country assumed that the picture would go abroad. It did not go abroad. The system worked and we kept it.
One can measure the effectiveness of the system by what I shall describe as the "rumpus quotient". I refer particularly to political rumpus. How much fuss and bother is there in Parliament about the loss of works of art? Over the past 12 years there has been nothing to compare with the row that occurred over Mentmore, which, we must not forget, brought the National Heritage Memorial Fund into existence. There was almost a row over Calke Abbey but the Chancellor of the Exchequer managed to stop that when he was making his Budget speech. There would certainly have been a row over Kedleston, Fyvie, Belton and Chastleton. They were all saved by the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
There has not been much in the way of rumpus quotient over moveable heritage; that is, nothing compared with Leonardo's Cartoon. I cannot remember who bought that. However, there might have been a similar sort of row if, through the workings of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, we had not acquired the painting by Altdorfer, "Christ

1277
taking leave of his Mother", the "Enchanted Castle" by Claude, the "Fabula" by El Greco and, lastly, the Bute Cuyp.
All that is because the National Heritage Memorial Fund kept the rumpus out of the political arena. But make no mistake about it. If we are not properly funded it will go right back into the political arena. It is all a matter of proper funding. It is an absolute disgrace that museums and galleries have not had their purchase grants increased since 1985. It is important that they should be properly funded. Not only does it help the nation to acquire works of art, but also, unless museums and galleries have funds which they can spend and thus increase their collections, they themselves become fossils.
We must put the situation right, and quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that the National Heritage Memorial Fund was swamped. But the next period will be extremely difficult. Many people who suffered terrible losses at Lloyd's will put their houses and moveable works of art on the market. By all means let us have more in the National Heritage Memorial Fund, but remember one thing about the fund—particularly when one is thinking of museums and galleries. The National Heritage Memorial Fund can only assist with matters which are considered to be part of our heritage. Many items at museums and galleries such as icons and so forth are not part of our heritage and we and our successors cannot help them.
Purchase grants must be restored. Resources of the National Heritage Memorial Fund should be increased. We must remember the great maxim of war: reinforce success. The National Heritage Memorial Fund has been a success, so we must reinforce it.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating this short debate. Perhaps in company with other noble Lords I may say also how warmly I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State last Friday that he intends not to proceed with the idea of listing important heritage objects in private hands.
The case against listing was put forcefully and convincingly by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art in its special report. It is an infringement of the rights of owners to dispose of their property as they wish and also it would distort market values not only for outstanding works of art but, of course, all down the scale. Indeed, I have never met anybody in the art world who has been in favour of listing. The whole world seems to be unanimous in opposing it. The Labour Party was also against it, as confirmed in a letter from the Shadow Minister for the Arts to The Times just before the election. I congratulate the Government on that wise decision.
I only hope that it will not be reversed one day by a directive from Brussels. Britain has much the best system of flexible control over art exports—the Waverley system —and I hope that we shall be successful in persuading our European partners to adopt it when the matter is debated by the European
1278
Parliament next month. I am also delighted that the control of art exports has been transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the new national heritage department and that the arts have now at last a Secretary of State in the Cabinet. Therefore, the Government have started well but there will continue to be problems unless there is sufficient financial back-up, as has been said.
There are signs that the threat of listing had increased the flow of important works on to the market. There was the Holbein from Houghton—a pre-eminent heritage painting if ever there was one —which was secured recently by the National Gallery only after considerable trouble and concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said. The gallery's annual grant has had to be foregone for the next three years in consequence. There will be further works coming on to the market shortly, I understand, including a Rembrandt from Dalmeny, and a Turner, a Gainsborough and a Constable from the Royal Holloway and Bedford New College.
What is to be done? I suppose that one possible solution—it may sound strange coming from these Benches—would be to consider abolishing the inheritance tax, because all our problems stem from that and always have. I was interested in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rees, on the final day of the Queen's Speech debate, in which he put forward that suggestion. With all his great authority as a former Treasury Minister, he said that the tax brings in only very little money and is mainly cosmetic. Such a measure is of course perhaps not politically feasible but I hope that one day a Chancellor will take the plunge just as my right honourable friend, who is soon to be my noble friend, Mr. Healey, took the plunge when he abolished the inheritance tax between spouses after a long campaign against abolition conducted by the Treasury.
Therefore, the only possible solution at present is to try to save our heritage by increased finance and more tax incentives. The annual grants to our 18 national museums and galleries have been frozen since 1985. The National Gallery's grant is just £2.75 million and the Tate Gallery has only £1.8 million. Indeed the Tate was only able to save the Canaletto of the Old Horse Guards' Parade, through the great generosity of Mr. Andrew Lloyd-Webber. As a first step, these and other grants should be increased. The reviewing committee estimate that an extra £15 million to £20 million a year for the National Heritage Memorial Fund would be sufficient to keep most major works of art in this country. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, for his wise and eminent chairing of that fund and the splendid work which it has done.
In his announcement last Friday the Secretary of State stressed the importance of in lieu acceptances, and with that I agree. However, with the reduction in the rate of inheritance tax to 40 per cent., the inducement to offer works of art in lieu of tax should be made more attractive. The so-called douceur, which is at present 25 per cent., should be increased to 50 per cent. and made more flexible in certain cases. I must also ask the noble Viscount who is to reply—although

1279
he is not yet a Minister as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, supposed, we know that his heart as regards the arts is in the right place and we welcome his presence here today—whether there is a ceiling on the amount allowed by the Treasury for in lieu acceptances.
In 1985 when the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was arts Minister, he stated that the amount of £10 million set aside from the reserve was an estimate and not a target or a limit. That was confirmed in a Parliamentary Answer by the then Minister for the Arts, Mr. Renton, on 16th March just before the general election. The Shadow Minister for the Arts has also confirmed that it is Labour policy not to have a ceiling.
As one Parliament cannot bind another, I ask the new Government to say whether it remains their policy that there will be no ceiling on the acceptance in lieu reserve. I hope so because, unlike the French Government, which moves promptly to secure for the nation parts of its patrimoine, we have allowed too many important treasures to be exported from Britain in recent years. As the reviewing committee said in its last report:
"The Waverley system of export controls for major works of art has been, to all intents and purposes, killed off for lack of funds".
Let us hope that the new heritage department will mean a fresh start, increased government interest, more arts funding and a real will to save our national heritage.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, first, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for raising this important subject. I wish to declare an interest. I am honorary treasurer of the Historic Houses Association and I am also the owner of an historic house which is open to the public. I would like to echo the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and other noble Lords, in welcoming the announcement made last Friday by the Secretary of State rejecting the listing of key heritage objects. All owners of historic collections will have welcomed the demise of that proposal which threatened a form of planning blight on heritage objects without the right of appeal.
Historic house owners also welcome the establishment of the new Department of National Heritage. It must be right that responsibility for works of art and other moveable heritage objects and for historic buildings and monuments, should all be under one roof. We welcome not only the content of the Secretary of State's statement but also the tone in which it was expressed. Much of our effort is directed towards avoiding the need for works of art coming to the market in the first place.
It is extremely important to maintain the right balance between the public and the private interest in matters of the heritage. It is in the public interest that private owners should be encouraged to keep their heritage assets in good repair and to make them available as and when appropriate for public viewing. It is in nobody's interest if owners are driven to allow historic properties to fall into disrepair, works of art to deteriorate and historic collections to be broken up.
1280
In the case of works of art the principle of private treaty sales and acceptance in lieu of tax is well established. There have been some great successes, as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has told us this afternoon, due in no small part to his expert stewardship of the National Heritage Memorial Fund in recent years. We should all be very grateful to him for that. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and others have pointed out, it is to be hoped that the new heritage department will be able to improve and extend these schemes; to streamline the procedures involved and to permit the process of decision-making to be speeded up. There are too many stories—we have heard some of them this afternoon—of works of art being sold on the international market at huge prices following the failure of protracted negotiations with the various national bodies at much lower price levels.
In the case of historic houses, owners can often only raise the resources necessary to maintain the building by selling works of art. If works of art have to be sold and tax paid —and a larger tax liability will be involved if the objects have been previously conditionally exempt—it means that more objects will have to be sold from collections to finance the necessary repairs, which must be contrary to the public interest.
With successive Administrations, historic house owners have developed the principle that if private assets are pledged to the maintenance of an historic property in a dedicated maintenance fund, income and the proceeds of asset sales within the maintenance fund should be free of tax. That should apply also to objects that are already conditionally exempt under past provisions. I hope that the new department will continue to develop this valuable principle of co-operation between the public and private interests and will tidy up the remaining deficiencies in the rules on maintenance funds so that they may become more widely used as the accepted standard mechanism for ensuring the preservation of historic houses.
Finally, perhaps I may take this opportunity of expressing to the Minister the concern of owners of historic houses at the fall in the level of grant aid that is available from English Heritage. Grant aid to private owners fell from £3.1 million in 1988–89 to a paltry £1.8 million in 1990–91. This is not attributable solely to the squeeze on national resources. English Heritage has changed its policy to one of concentrating grant aid on "buildings at risk"—the implication being that grant aid is available only if a building has been so neglected that its survival is at risk. That does not seem to be a policy for good housekeeping.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will encourage the Secretary of State to review the workings and priorities of English Heritage with its new chairman. I know that many historic house owners who have met with delays and frustrations when dealing with that institution will be hoping that the new Department of National Heritage will promote greater efficiency in this area as well.
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, as your Lordships all know, the listing of works of art is out. I should like to add my voice to those who have congratulated the Secretary of State with responsibility for the arts on having made that decision so quickly. Several important works of art have already been sold, and it was quite clear that the trickle would become a flood. However, that is over. Despite the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that the idea of listing is all in the past, I shall touch on that point for a little while because it is mentioned in the second report and because we all hope that the suggestion of listing will never rear its ugly head again.
I know that the reviewing committee was between the devil and the deep blue sea but, having explored the idea of listing, I believe that it should have made it very clear that it would have no part of it, especially when the listing was linked to expropriation—or legalised theft, whatever one likes to call it. However, that issue does not arise now because the Secretary of State has ruled it out.
Incidentally, I do not believe that listing would have worked at all well—if at all. My reason for believing that is that it would have been a paradise for the bureaucrats, lawyers and art professionals. It would have provided an opportunity for endless dispute and skullduggery.
A lot of very large sums of money are involved. The report put a figure of £2 billion on the treasures that should be listed and rather light-heartedly said that the amount to be paid to the owners should be reduced to £1 billion. It would have been some sort of record if the owners had found themselves £1 billion worse off than they had expected. Who are the owners? So often they are those to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. They possess great national treasures, and if asked they almost always volunteer to lend them to exhibitions at considerable inconvenience or sacrifice to themselves—and their reward was to be the loss of £1 billion.
Money is at the heart of everything. As we have heard, the shortfall amounts to between £15 million and £20 million a year. I cannot help but think that that sort of money represents postponing the building of a mile or two of motorway for a year or two, which would be a very good thing for the environment.
Of course, we all hope that lotteries will come to the rescue, but what should be done in the meantime? First, we must recognise that we cannot and should not try to save everything. After all, almost all of these objects have come from abroad and we should not be too unwilling to let others have some of these great treasures. Therefore, I start from the premise that we should not mind some things going abroad including, say, the Badminton cabinet—pace Lord Renton—but on the other hand I might argue that saving the Middleham jewel was of immense importance. There are bound to be differences of opinion about what constitute the right treasures, which is where the reviewing committee, the arts world, the benefactors and, as a last resort, Parliament and the public come in. I believe that the expression is "the rumpus factor"—and I agree with that.
1282
Where do we go for help? First, we have the private benefactors who have shown immense generosity in the past few years. I refer, for example, to Mr. Paul Getty and his gift to the National Gallery and to the host of contributors to the National Arts Collection Fund. I include also the many friends of the museums and galleries. I could continue adding to that list for a long time, but many of your Lordships know well who I am talking about. We have also had unexpected benefits from people such as Mr. Lloyd Webber who has saved the Canaletto and who may perhaps do even more. I must also pay tribute to the Sainsbury family and the Clores. After all, they have done as much as anybody—if not more—to enable our treasures to be exhibited and to be saved. Long may such generosity continue.
Now comes the question of government help. It is so easy for us all to say, "Only a few more million pounds." The Secretary of State's statement rightly pinpointed saving in lieu of tax. That is a very important channel, but is not properly known. Owners very often do not know what we are talking about and do not realise the potential advantage to them. They may be able to do a deal that nets them, say, £5 million for certain, and they will know that the work of art is going to the nation, which is what they would undoubtedly like to happen. If the work had gone on the open market, the figure might have been £12 million; but the owners would not have been any better off. The Government and the Secretary of State should try hard to make the merits of that channel of help more widely known. Incidentally, I must pay my tribute to the auction houses which so often work towards encouraging owners to take that course of action—at a loss to themselves. Perhaps I may suggest that that system is given wide publicity. There could be a new campaign. I know that that has been tried once; but let us see some more of it.
There is also a need to stop the freeze on the museum acquisition grant. Grants to the National Heritage Memorial Fund have been quite good; but there has been a tendency recently to centralise on that fund rather than also let the museums have their chance. That is a wrong policy. It must be enormously discouraging for the directors of museums and galleries. I very much hope that the policy will be reconsidered.
In mentioning the National Heritage Memorial Fund, I feel that we all owe an immense debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. He has made us wonder how the rather limited funds with which he has been provided have gone twice as far as anyone could expect. I am sure that his successor will do all he can to continue its good work.
I have a suggestion to make. The Secretary of State should start a comprehensive study of the benefits which the arts bring to the Treasury and the economy of the country. There are great benefits in terms of employment. Such benefits are provided not only through works of art but through opera, etc., and historic houses. The country as a whole is not sufficiently aware of the economic benefits which the arts bring to the country.

1283
I wish to make one final point. The outlook for the arts has been transformed. Waverley remains the best system that was ever devised. The national heritage is now centralised in the Secretary of State rather than having part of its business in the Department of Trade and Industry, which was a muddled affair. I feel that we have a new Secretary of State who will really care about our heritage. I wish him well.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I gladly endorse the remarks of the noble Earl in thanking the great benefactors who have made possible the acquisition of a number of important works of art and in commending the work that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has done in the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
It is only fair to say, to put it in perspective, that the former Minister with responsibility for the arts, the right honourable Tim Renton, only asked for an opinion about the principle of this scheme. He did not in any sense commit himself, or the government at that time, to it. I welcome the fact that the present Secretary of State in the new Department of National Heritage has rapidly said that it was a non-runner. I not only agree with that but I should like to see the funds that would have been spent on the administration of such a scheme made available for the acquisition of works of art.
While I think the Waverley rules are sensible—and we are indebted to the work of the reviewing committee—we should also pay attention to a rule which the department has adopted which I do not think was one of the original three Waverley rules; namely, whether there is a comparable work of art by the painter or artist available for public display in this country. That is obviously an important consideration. All too often we have the feeling that where a famous name is concerned or a famous picture, no matter from whence it came, we ought to keep it here. I am not at all sure that that is right. I would be in favour of abolishing the licensing system altogether.
What will happen in the future? So far as I understand it, the one part of the extension of the European Community for which we have full approval is the creation of a single market. If that is to happen, where will there be the barriers to which one has to present export certificates? If I had an old master which I wanted to sell—sadly I do not—what would stop me putting it in the back of a car, driving it to Paris or Frankfurt and putting it up for auction there by one of our own auctioneers—Christie's or Sotheby's? That problem has to be addressed.
Another problem concerns what will happen in a single market to the restrictions we have on the import, subject to quarantine, of domestic animals? If we do not have controls at the frontiers, what will happen? I hope that when he replies the noble Viscount will tell the House the Government's thinking in connection with the Common Market, at least on the question of free movement of works of art between the various members of the Community.
Since 1985 the grants to our museums have been frozen and that has coincided with a remarkable
1284
increase—it is abating a little now—in the auction values of all the old masters. It could not have come at a worse time. Not only the listing prospect, which I agree is now happily dead, but the actual operation of the licensing system has tended to pre-empt what funds were available in the public sector for the individual galleries to spend on such works of art that might be available either here or abroad and also on the works of contemporary artists. The money is often mortgaged because they have gone in to save this work or that work at the behest of the reviewing committee. We have to take a quite different view about it.
I accept the principle that if public money is to go in, as it should, to support purchases of works of art they should be available for public inspection. I do not draw a distinction between public galleries and private houses. Equally, I commend the fact that one of the first priorities of the new and rather controversial director of the Victoria and Albert Museum was to have the roof of the building waterproofed, which if one is conserving pictures is just as important as some of the other considerations.
I have a very good opinion of the Secretary of State for National Heritage and I have an idea which I hope the noble Viscount will convey to him. When many of our art galleries have storerooms or basements full of pictures which they never show—this is not a national but an international problem—I wonder why we cannot develop a system of exchange, perhaps beginning in the European Community and extending into the Council of Europe as developments occur. Such a system would not involve the expenditure of funds.
We are very short on the work of certain artists. I shall just mention one or two examples. There is a quite distinguished Luxembourg painter none of whose works are to my knowledge on show in this country. Certainly, we are very thin on the Austrians Klimt and Schiele and on the Norwegian Munch. Moreover, there are some very interesting Norwegian impressionists whose works I had never heard about until I visited the art gallery in Oslo.
It is possible that other countries have surplus works of their own artists as, indeed, we have many surplus works which, because we never show them, we might well be prepared to exchange. It should be possible, and I should have thought rather easier than having a valuation list, to encourage galleries to produce a list of works that they are prepared to sell or exchange. Then a review committee or an independent person could award so many stars, or whatever it may be—a plus or a minus—so that an exchange system could be run. That could be done during our presidency of the Community with the proviso that in no way would the Commission in Brussels be allowed to have anything to do with it.
A proposal could be put forward that consideration should be given to an exchange of surplus pictures in our galleries for pictures from foreign galleries which those concerned would like to have available in this country. I think that the idea is certainly worth considering. I agree that the details of such an exchange system have not been worked out but I should be very glad to work on it, if that would be

1285
helpful. However, I am sure that others could look at the matter more competently than myself. As I said, I very much hope that the noble Viscount will convey the idea to his right honourable friend, for whom we have very great hopes. We hope that he will discharge with much distinction the wide and difficult job that he has undertaken.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, my only qualification for taking part in the debate is that I was for about 20 years, until I was superannuated last year, a member of the Executive Committee of the National Art Collections Fund. Therefore I had a ringside seat to observe the operation of our export controls on works of art. I should like to add my testimony to that of other noble Lords. For most of that period I thought that the system worked extremely well. It only broke down because of funding. It is not a crisis of operation or of the system; it is a crisis of lack of funds. On the one hand, since 1985 funds have been frozen: while, on the other hand, the prices of first-class objects —not of everything—rose inexorably.
One reads a note of bitter despair in the document that we are discussing today. I shall not quote the parts read by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which are colourful and which have great impact. However, there is one sentence that I do not think he read out which seems to me to be particularly bitter. The report says:
"It is tempting to recommend that you should end the charade of the Committee's activities",
and so on. When good men, who, so far as I know, are paid nothing for their activities and who are very busy and expert people, feel that they are performing a charade, the word "crisis" is not too strong. Therefore, it is natural that the reaction of many people would be that we must fall back on the system of listing without compensation. I am very glad that that has been knocked on the head by the new Secretary of State. It would have been severely damaging to our art trade, as well as being unfair to owners.
Of course, our art trade has by far the largest share of the art market of the EC. Its success is largely due to our open, liberal system. Its skill and its experience are other components of its success. But one successful French auctioneer said that, if only he could operate under the British system, he believes that he could outdo British auctioneers. Whether or not that is the case, it is an indication of how much our liberal system is envied by the trade abroad.
I believe that the French operate three methods. First, they have a large list of objects which may not be exported. I forget the actual number of objects involved, but many thousands of objects may not be exported. Secondly, they require export licences for various categories of works of art—for example, by age, by price and so on—which the French Government can then acquire at the price on the export application. If one wants an illiberal system, that is quite a cute method. Thirdly, the French Government can pre-empt at the hammer price
1286
objects sold at auction. Thus they vigorously protect their artistic patrimony. In consequence, they have a much less vigorous art trade. We must try to hold, and continue to hold, the proper balance.
I applaud the decision not to proceed in that way. I must say that I believe discussing the possible introduction of a listing system—that is, a list of forbidden exports—is rather like discussing devaluation of a currency before one devalues. It leads to a rush to sell. I can only hope that that rush has now been stemmed.
But what can we do to protect things that it is very important for us to keep? First—and here I find myself at one with the noble Lord, Lord Renton—we must not try to keep too much. I say that not because of the cost to the Exchequer, although that is not unimportant, but because art objects which are movable and which satisfy the Waverley criteria should, in my opinion, move unless they are very rare. I shall just remind your Lordships of the objectives of the latter. First, is the object closely connected with our history; secondly, is it aesthetically important; and, thirdly, is it of outstanding importance for study?
Those criteria are often met by objects which are not of great rarity. An example would be a great Turner or Constable painting. It would be very nice to keep them but in a way I would rather see them go abroad. We have so many of them and unless it has a very special meaning for this country—which I cannot at the moment imagine because so many of the ones that we have have those qualities—I would rather that foreigners also had Turners and Constables in their museums and in their private collections. I should like the world's appreciation of such pictures to be equal to our own. It has not always been so, although it is now coming to be so.
Further, objects which are exported are not necessarily lost to view in this age of easy travel. Moreover, if works of art go into private collections they may well return. We should not lose sight of that fact. Another reason for us not to keep too many things is that in my opinion—and I say this as a former chairman of the National Trust and will therefore be thought to be biased, which I am—we need to devote a larger share of our resources to those objects which would meet the Waverley criteria, if they were applicable to them, but which are immovable and which, if neglected, will decay and disappear. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, spoke of that category regarding the beneficiaries of his fund. I think that the claims of cathedrals, historic Churches and country houses must be brought into the Government's calculation of what we can afford. I urge that, other things being equal, immovable treasures score more marks when competing for resources than those which are movable.
However, as regards those movable objects which we should keep and which by reason of their quality, their association and their rarity will almost always be necessarily expensive, where are we to turn for funds? Apart from recommending better funding of public collections, the reviewing committee recommended a modification of the tax system to make private treaty arrangements more attractive to owners wanting to

1287
sell and an improvement in the operation of the gift aid scheme so that works of art could be more readily offered in lieu of tax. I heartily endorse those improvements. But a major source of funds can be expected ultimately from another source which has been mentioned once or twice and that is of course the national lottery.
I must declare a non-pecuniary interest here because, like my noble friend Lord Birkett, for a year or two I have been a director of the National Lottery Promotion Company. At the moment we do not think that we have done too bad a job. I hope that the national lottery Bill, which is still awaited, will set up the lottery in a form which will enable the net proceeds to support arts, sport and the environment really effectively and, I trust, with as much confidence as I can muster, that the Government will resist any effort by the Treasury to deplete the proceeds through tax. I know that the Treasury takes 37 per cent. of the pools but the comparison is false. The pools are corporations run for profit whereas the national lottery should be run for public purposes. I believe that the national lottery could provide a major contribution to solving the problem over time.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, there was a moment when I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, had merely given us the opportunity to hear the mandarins of the art establishment of the United Kingdom defending the status quo and asking for more money. The first half of the debate was in fact exactly that. But the last two speeches have slightly restored my faith in human nature. The noble Lords, Lord Mulley and Lord Gibson, have actually challenged some of the bases on which the previous speeches were founded.
If one goes back and reads the Anderson report (the Waverley report) and examines its logic, one will find that that element is remarkably absent. My noble friend Lord Donaldson spoke highly of Sir John Anderson and, yes, that document is a model of a civil servant arriving at a consensus—a consensus which will certainly work for at least a time and for quite a long time. But there is very little logic in it. This is particularly so when one comes to any kind of definition of what is the national heritage.
I am at one with, I suspect, everybody in this Chamber in thinking that we have a definite duty to save for this country those works of art which are specifically to do with the history of this country and part of our heritage. But there are a great many works of art which we are striving to keep which have absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
I think we should set up a logical basis by which we define what works are of national interest. I suggest that the way we could quite easily measure this is by saying, "If this was adopted by every other country would we regard it as fair?" The converse of that is "Do other countries regard our definitions as fair?" For instance, do the Italians regard Mantegnas as part of the British national heritage? It seems to me quite extraordinary if they should do so.
1288
We should narrow the definition and then we would have another look at the universally condemned—in this Chamber —list approach. Once we have a narrower definition of what everyone agrees ought to be kept in this country, then many of the disadvantages of the list system would disappear. We would then have a fairly small number of objects with which we could challenge people as to whether the guff that they often produce about being stewards actually means anything or whether, in the last resort, they are only interested in the money; in which case they could sell their works of art to the nation which would then preserve them.
If we had such a set-up we could indeed also apply a certain amount of common sense to another problem from which we usually run away; that is other people's ideas of what is their national heritage. I take as an example the Elgin marbles. If we say that a country should be entitled to preserve as much of its heritage as it can look after and preserve, we find ourselves in a rather difficult position with regard to the Elgin marbles. There was, of course, a time when it was right that we should keep them because it was quite clear that they would not be kept and preserved properly if they were returned to Greece. I do not think that that is the kind of accusation which we can now level against a fellow member of the European Community and I do not think that it is the kind of accusation we can level against Greece today.
There is a real case for looking at the whole basis of this problem. I do not think that in the debate today we have yet succeeded in examining logically and clear-headedly what it is that we are attempting to do. We would be well justified in causing a new national treasure to be formed by getting hold of some artist of any nationality and getting him to do a picture of the noble Peers sitting on the Cross-Benches and calling it "The Night Watch". It appears that they have in fact been performing that extremely good service of defending the status quo. But it is only a good service if we then look at the situation which will arise when we have several countries trying to apply this criterion. We wish to apply the same criteria as they do and we wish to respect their criteria, as we wish them to respect ours. With the so-called Waverley criteria, which I do not think stand up to any logical examination, we have not got it. I think that we should go back and start again.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I enjoyed very much reading the October 1991 report of the reviewing committee which is the cause of an admirable choice of debate by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. One does not usually look to White Papers, Green Papers and government reports as examples of fine writing, clarity and brevity. However, in this case I thought the report admirably written and I wanted to go on reading it. I congratulate Jonathan Scott, the chairman, on preparing such an eminently readable report. Of course, he had to spend a great deal of time perforce on the merits and demerits of the listing system. Thank

1289
goodness that is out of the way. I add my own voice of congratulation to the Secretary of State on that admirable decision.
One of the interesting things about the report is that it quotes literally dozens of experts on the subject of the Waverley criteria and the system as it is at the moment. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I think it works admirably. It is singular that out of those dozens of experts there is one absolutely steady chain of agreement; first, that the Waverley criteria and the system work very well, and secondly, that the reason the whole system goes wrong is that there is not enough funding. Practically everyone whose views appear in the report said so.
There has not been a capital fund for the arts of any sort in this country for years. Even counting the small and now departed Housing the Arts Fund that the Arts Council used to operate there has not been any serious capital money available at all. It is a miracle that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has been able to do what he has. I add my voice to that of everyone else in congratulating him on spreading the little butter he has had so amazingly thinly and with such delicacy and grace.
Of course, one has to ask, "So where is the capital coming from?" I am glad to say that my noble friend Lord Gibson has declared my interest for me because I too am a member of the Lottery Promotion Company. I have been banging on about it for years, and I am delighted that it looks as though we shall have one.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked the Government whether the proceeds of the lottery would be confined to matters within the new Department of National Heritage. I do not know whether the noble Viscount will be able to give an answer. I suspect that his noble friend the Secretary of State has not yet worked out the details of the lottery. I rather hope that it will be confined to matters within the department at any rate for the major part, although I do not exclude all charities from it. The admirable decision to set up the Department of National Heritage and give it a Cabinet post—again something I have recommended for years and which I am sure meets with the approval of most noble Lords —has happily put almost everything that counts in the quality of life within one department. That is a sensible grouping. I hope that the proceeds of the lottery will wind up in the department, however they are distributed.
The question is how much those proceeds will amount to. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was rather gloomy about the prospects and wondered whether the amount would be enough. He predicted, and I am sure he is right, that there would be countless applications for funds from all those who need money. We need all kinds of capital.
As regards preserving our national heritage, urgency is often of the essence. There may be great needs for all kinds of buildings within the arts, sport and the environment, where action is required within six months or it is too late. That is the case with a great deal of our heritage.
1290
Predictions about how much money a lottery would raise have often been looked at askance. People have said, "It's pie in the sky to dream of a turnover of £2.5 billion or £3 billion a year". Counting one's chickens before they are hatched has been a national pastime for years, but in this case one must try to do so. The only reason for predictions of large sums of money is the experience of other nations. Since we are the only country in Europe, except Albania, which does not have a lottery, there is much experience to go on. There are lotteries all over the world. If we carry out computations based on population, gross national income and so on, the figure of £2.5 billion or £3 billion a year gross is not too far fetched once a lottery is successful and up and running.
How much of the proceeds of the lottery goes back to our heritage and all the items associated with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said, will depend on whether or not it is taxed. If somehow the Treasury can manage to keep its tax claws off the money, it will not only be beneficial to the lottery and the causes which will receive money from it, but I believe it will also be beneficial to the Treasury. There is a good case for saying that the amount that goes into arts, sports and all the other subjects we are talking about today benefits the Treasury indirectly by between four and eight times the original money. That is more than any taxation could achieve. Taxation of a charitable lottery, which I hope this will be, is ill advised. Whether the wisdom of my words will have any impact upon the Treasury is another matter; I hope however that it will at least listen to the argument.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, point out that he has only the capacity to save and cope with objects within our national heritage. I agree with several speakers that there is often too wide a definition of that. Anything that is both desirable and expensive tends to be described in the press as "part of our national heritage" if it happens to be found in our country. That is not only an illiterate but a hopelessly impractical definition of our heritage.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, I like to see works of art going round the world. What is more, I like to see them in private houses and private collections. There is a danger of art being regarded as something found only in museums while furnishings are found only in houses. It would be a poor world in which that was a criterion.
What is good is that the Waverley criteria work. They are a sensible guide to what should be retained. If my predictions about the lottery or some other form of income come true, everything in our garden may well yet be lovely.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, several distinguished and experienced speakers in this important debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Annan, have expressed far more eloquently than I could our anxiety that the country continues to be stripped of so many works of art, even precious natural objects such as the fossil, Lizzie the Lizard. But for a last minute rescue, it would have gone to Germany.

1291
I speak as a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission which welcomes the Secretary of State's decision to reject listing as an option for safeguarding great works of art from export. I join everyone who has spoken so far in believing that it is most encouraging that the Secretary of State appears to recognise that a relatively small amount of additional funding—£ 15 million to £20 million per annum, about half what the Getty museum has—is needed to make the present system work.
If museums had access to adequate purchase funds or, on occasion, to special Treasury grants, there would be a considerable saving of taxpayers' money. For example, the Badminton cabinet was initially available for purchase by the Victoria and Albert Museum for £4 million spread over three years. If a United Kingdom museum had succeeded in raising the eventual auction price, it would have had to pay £8.6 million, more than double the original price. Had a special grant been available in the beginning for this treasure, not only would it have stayed in the country but we should have got it for what one might almost call a bargain price.
Then there is the Middleham Jewel, for which the Yorkshire Museum was unable to afford the £1.4 million which it first fetched at auction. When it came up for export, I am glad that the museum was by that time able to acquire this important heritage object. But at what price? By this time it had risen to £2.5 million.
Additional funding is needed now. The national lottery which should be a major source of funds for acquisitions—or so I thought until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Annan—will not be operational for at least two years. Extra funding must come now through increases in museum purchase grants which, as we have already heard, have been frozen since 1985 for English nationals. There should be access to the public expenditure reserve for special grants for outstanding items. Latin seems to be in order this evening, so I say to the Treasury: Bis dat qui cito dat. He gives twice who gives quickly.
I fully endorse the call of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for the acceptance in lieu scheme to be improved. I emphasise that the Museums and Galleries Commission places the highest priority on seeking new acceptance in lieu offers and encouraging owners to make more use of this excellent scheme.
I should like to turn to the noble Lord's implied criticism of the Museums and Galleries Commission. So far as I know, its negotiations with owners are always conducted with twin aims: first, to secure the maximum number of successful acceptances; and, secondly, to ensure that the tax settlement figure arrived at is fair to the taxpayer. It may be that the auction houses are not always too happy. I hope I may remind noble Lords that the usual commission figure that an auction house can expect to receive on an auction sale is a full 20 per cent., that is, £2 million on a £10 million painting, and the usual commission for a private treaty sale or acceptance in lieu is 5 per cent. Indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has pointed out,
1292
an auction house takes an enormous cut when it encourages a private treaty sale or an acceptance in lieu.
The Secretary of State has the opportunity now to put a stop to the drain of great works of art from the United Kingdom. The Government have already demonstrated their commitment to the national heritage. Now I should like to see the Treasury follow suit by taking all the excellent advice it has been given this evening.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, it is a great honour for me for the first time to follow a noble Baroness in a debate. I had intended to be brief but I shall be still briefer. I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Annan for introducing this debate. Like other noble Lords, I greatly welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State. The idea we are discussing was fundamentally flawed from its earliest conception and the nation will be greatly relieved by the announcement and saved from irreparable damage.
I, too, wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Charteris for his role as a much respected and loved chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I have two near neighbours, Thirlestane Castle and Paxton House, which might not have survived without the help of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, although sadly they have pinched all our visitors!
I feel I must declare an interest as almost everything I own is listed and indeed conditionally exempt from inheritance tax. My home also has the dubious honour of having the country's first maintenance fund. On 1st July 1978 the then treasurer of the Historic Houses Association, Commander Michael Saunders-Watson, wrote a letter to The Times bemoaning the fact that no maintenance fund had been established. That very same day we received notification from the Treasury that our maintenance fund had been accepted. I would at this point like to pay tribute to Commander Saunders-Watson for all the hard work he has put in over the years to help safeguard the nation's heritage. I do not think any of us realise quite how much he has contributed and how almost single-handed he persuaded successive governments from both sides to change the inheritance tax laws.
The Secretary of State's wise decision will be particularly welcomed by the private owner who, over the centuries, has played an important role in acquiring works of art and more importantly displaying them to the public, especially in houses that are open to the public. Many may now feel considerably freer and less restricted to resume their role in acquiring works of art. To have the arts supported by the private purchaser must be a good thing. I am greatly taken by the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, about exchanging works of art. The National Gallery of Scotland, for example, is literally stuffed full of works of art that have not been seen for years. Latterly the gallery has lent 70 pictures to Paxton House, which is situated next door to my home.
In his evidence to the Scott Committee Sir Hugh Leggatt mentions the national lottery—many noble

1293
Lords have mentioned that tonight—and we all eagerly await its introduction in 1994. However, it is vital that this is seen as additional funding.
As many noble Lords have mentioned, it will no doubt be difficult to allocate its funds between the arts and sports, and what must be taken into account is the fact that the arts by their very nature are a non-commercial activity. It will no doubt also be difficult to apportion funds between the fine arts and the performing arts. However, what is to happen before 1994? This was so well brought out by Mr. Timothy Clifford in his toast last week to the Royal Academy of Arts. There must be some interim extra funding and I agree with Mr. Clifford that the Minister should set up a committee of independent minded people to look most urgently into this matter.
If there is one message that comes out of the report and out of our debate this afternoon it is the gross underfunding of the country's galleries. Here one must hope that the Government will keep this continually under review. Time and time again those interviewed in the report mention "lack of funding" or something similar—we have discussed that tonight—and what of course must not be forgotten is that all those interviewed in the report were among the most distinguished in the field of the arts and the heritage. On page 12 of the report there is mention of maintenance trusts, and the committee rightly urges that they become more attractive for those trying to protect and conserve our built heritage. Today there are still under 60 such trusts in existence, which is a pathetic record if one considers that legislation has been in existence for the past 14 years. There are two extremely simple things the Government could do to rectify the situation. First, they could and should reduce the level of income tax levied on maintenance trusts. It currently stands at a ridiculous 35 per cent. —a full 10 per cent. higher than the basic rate. That surely simply does not make sense. Secondly, maintenance funds should be exempt from capital gains tax.
Finally, as an associated and vitally important measure, the Government could and should abolish VAT on repairs to listed buildings. I beg the Minister to look at these points and not to lose sight of the fact that maintenance funds have one purpose and one purpose alone which is to help preserve the nation's heritage.
4.57 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating this important debate. I am well aware that when the noble Lord tabled his Motion he was concerned with the question of the listing of important heritage objects in private ownership and our response to the suggestion of listing by the reviewing committee.
I am afraid that in the meantime, if I may use a phrase that befits my right honourable friend's new sporting responsibilities, the Secretary of State has clean bowled the noble Lord. However, this has
1294
enabled your Lordships to concentrate positively on the way forward without any note of rancour which might otherwise have crept into the debate.
The debate has raised a number of issues mainly concentrating on the provision of adequate funding to enable the retention in this country of works of art and other heritage objects. In replying I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to say something about the establishment of the new department concerned with national heritage. I am sure that the House will join me in welcoming this important development.
The creation of a department with a Secretary of State at its head is an important step forwards. It is a just recognition of the value which the Government place upon all aspects of the national heritage. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is uniquely equipped to head the new department. As a former arts Minister and Chief Secretary to the Treasury he has turned from poacher to gamekeeper and back, or indeed the reverse depending on which side of the fence one sits on. I am sure your Lordships wish him all success in his new, well deserved wider heritage responsibilities. I am delighted to be a member of his team and look forward to representing the department in your Lordships' House as well as —this is most important—representing your Lordships' interests in the new department.
It is undoubtedly true that our national heritage represents a major resource for this country and it is only right that we should be vigilant in ensuring that it is properly maintained. My noble friend Lord Renton pointed out the wide-ranging responsibilities of the Department of National Heritage—the arts, built heritage, sport, tourism, and broadcasting. Our remit ranges from Stonehenge to the Royal Opera House, Wembley to the British Museum, the Royal Parks to the BBC, and the British Library to Fleet Street, Wapping or wherever the press are now. We shall, as has been mentioned, also be responsible for legislation to establish the national lottery and implementing its provisions. The department is actively reviewing its role and its policies in all areas of its enlarged responsibilities.
I shall now turn to the specific issues raised in the debate. First, however, I should like to remind your Lordships of the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in May of last year. Much of that debate covered the same ground as we have traversed this afternoon. There was concern then for the underfunding of the Waverley system, so much so that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, called for a high level review, a working party that would examine the balance of purchase grants to national museums and galleries against the annual grant to the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
In that debate my noble friend Lord Rees asked whether I saw merit in transferring responsibility for the control of the export of works of art from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of Arts and Libraries. I am glad to say that we considered that suggestion, and we have made the transfer to the new department. Therefore, I must say to the noble

1295
Baroness, Lady Birk, that some of what is said in our arts debates is taken seriously and, indeed, acted upon.
The same concerns continue to exercise your Lordships today. But time has not stood still, and nor have the Government in dealing with those concerns. As I said, our most significant innovation has been the creation of the new Department of National Heritage. One of my right honourable friend's first major policy decisions was precisely to address the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in this House—the use of the Waverley system in the retention against export of important heritage objects, and also the other recommendations in the two most recent reports from the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art.
The Government are very conscious of the need to protect our heritage for the benefit of future generations. That is why our policy in relation to export control is kept constantly under review. It was in response to criticisms, particularly those expressed in this House, that my right honourable friend, the former Minister for the Arts, asked the reviewing committee to undertake a review of the operation of the Waverley system.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the reviewing committee, which, under the chairmanship of Jonathan Scott, conducted what was a most thorough review of the present system of controls on the export of works of art. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that its report on that review was not only extremely well presented and argued, but also made excellent reading, a point admirably made by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett.
The committee was asked to examine the existing export control procedures against the background that "Waverley standard" objects presently require a compensating offer to purchase to be made before an export licence can be refused for them, and that existing financial constraints have contributed to a decreasing number of important heritage items being retained by the compensating offer method.
In its report the committee recommended, most reluctantly, that in the absence of additional funds a small list of perhaps 2,000 to 3,000 pre-eminent items was possible, though it set out a number of objections of principle and practice which surround the concept of listing. The purpose of such a list would be to define those few items which could be sold within this country but not exported.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the representations, which have almost unanimously opposed listing however limited it would be. He announced in another place last Friday that he shared the view that the disadvantages of listing far outweigh the advantages. Listing would represent a diminution in the rights of owners to dispose of their property as they saw fit and prohibition upon the export of outstanding heritage items would distort the market value, both for the outstanding items and for others. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will appreciate the approval of his decision expressed by all noble Lords today.
1296
In welcoming that decision your Lordships have rightly asked the crucial question whether the Government have accepted the view that an additional injection of public funding should be provided for the Waverley system in order that it may operate properly. Over the last six years during which the reviewing committee has reported on its activities, namely, between July 1985 and June 1991, 51 per cent. of export deferred objects worth in excess of £31.5 million have stayed in this country. That is creditable in a climate of continued high prices for pre-eminent works of art. My right honourable friend cares deeply about improving that percentage, but he has a duty to balance that against the wilder extremes of the fashions of the art market. When fashion and fancy lead to an extraordinary surge in the prices of particular objects such as we have seen over the past few years prudent public expenditure should not necessarily try to compete. Indeed, all of us have noticed that many of those prices have now started to come down.
Among the objects retained since May of last year, the Middleham jewel, an item starred by the reviewing committee, was purchased by the Yorkshire Museum. It is a noteworthy example of public enthusiasm and determination to succeed against enormous odds. Similarly the recent case of Holbein's "Portrait of a Lady with a Squirrel" acquired by the National Gallery, and Canaletto's "The Old Horse Guards" acquired privately but lent to the Tate, demonstrate how both public and private funding can be successfully tapped in order to acquire important objects for the benefit of the nation or to prevent their export. However, we must accept that we lost the Badminton cabinet, although it was not a starred item, as noble Lords reminded the House.
In May last year I pointed out at some length the Government's record in maintaining a balanced approach to retaining this nation's heritage. In addition to the significant grants given to bodies such as the National Heritage Memorial Fund and others to assist in the purchase of items threatened with export or destruction, there exist a number of important tax concessions created by the Government to support our heritage with which the noble Lords will be familiar.
I echo the tributes paid today to the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, for his magnificent stewardship of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. In his 12 years he has received in grant £123 million and managed to convert that to spending of £143 million—I apologise to the noble Lord, £153 million! That is a feat of which many government departments would be very proud, if they were able to match it. We must all appreciate what the noble Lord has achieved. It is important to remember that what he and his fund have managed to save puts export licence problems into their proper perspective. Many great items have been saved for this country.
I should like to remind your Lordships of our record. Heritage items, buildings and land may be offered in lieu of inheritance tax. In 1991–92, 12 items were accepted in lieu of just over £3.28 million of tax. Since 1980 over £45 million worth of tax has been

1297
satisfied in that way. Several noble Lords—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—called for further encouragement in the take-up of that concession by raising the douceur from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. and making it more flexible. I can assure your Lordships that the matter will be kept under review. However, I am pleased to say that at present there is no shortage of offers in the pipeline. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the Government's policy in relation to the ceiling for those funds remains as stated by my right honourable friend the former Minister for the Arts.
The Government also offer a significant tax concession to individuals owning items on which inheritance tax is due if that item is sold to an approved institution. Between 1985 and 1991 items valued in excess of £55 million have been acquired by UK museums and galleries through the mechanism of the private treaty sale at a cost to those institutions of only £25 million—under half the gross figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, drew attention to the disincentives to auction houses to negotiate private treaty sales. I shall draw this to my right honourable friend's attention for further consideration in the context of the tax concession arrangements for retaining heritage quality items. But I must say that I believe that the auction houses have been very helpful in negotiations over private treaty sales and have given many people great help in achieving those sales.
I must add that there is the system of gift aid, an excellent tax incentive, which has been warmly welcomed by the arts world. It covers one-off single payment donations from £400 upwards and was reduced from £600 in the last Budget. I am sure that that will lead to a significant surge in personal and corporate support for museums, theatres and arts organisations all over the country.
Much of the discussion today on funding has naturally centred upon the continuing freeze on the purchase grants for national museums and galleries, on funding of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and on the possible benefits of the introduction of a national lottery. It is the case that the purchase grants of the national museums and galleries have been frozen since 1985. Nevertheless, just over £9 million is provided annually. The decision by successive Ministers to freeze purchase grants reflects the priorities identified by the national museums and galleries in their annual corporate plans that extra resources available should be directed to running costs and building works. In announcing his decision on listing, my right honourable friend said he was sympathetic to the reviewing committee's view that between £15 million and £20 million per annum would solve most of the problems of the export of significant items. He will bear that in mind in the forthcoming public expenditure round. He can of course give no guarantees of additional funding; but he accepts the reasonableness of the case made by the reviewing committee and others, as well as by noble Lords today.
1298
We have discussed the introduction of a national lottery and the degree to which the proceeds might assist in the retention of our heritage in this country. We are at an early stage, and the consultation period on the government White Paper closed only recently on 1st June. The responses are still being analysed. It is therefore too early to identify precisely who will be the beneficiaries or to provide details of the level of additional funding which it might generate. We do accept that the lottery should be additional funding and hope to introduce a Bill in the autumn.
There are a number of procedural recommendations in the reviewing committee's last report concerning the operation of the export controls, some of which have been touched on today. Most of them remain to be considered by my right honourable friend. For example, he is sympathetic to bringing natural heritage items within the scope of the controls, but a practical definition is still being sought. We also see a great deal of merit in encouraging private offers but will reflect separately on the committee's wish to circumscribe them with access and conservation conditions.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that the Waverley rules have worked well and have stood the test of time. The Government agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Cobbold, on the importance to this country of the private owner and private collector. I shall study carefully the points that were made, particularly in regard to maintenance funds and grant aid to English Heritage.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson and Lord Mulley, referred to measures proposed by the Commission in Brussels. It may be helpful to clear up one or two misapprehensions and bring your Lordships up to date with developments.
A number of member states are anxious that the creation of the single market and the removal of internal frontiers may mean that many cultural items will leave their territories without the permission of the national authorities. Some of them may be national treasures which should not have left at all and which Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome allows as an exception to the operation of a free market in goods. Our Waverley system will continue after 1992 to define our national treasures. Some noble Lords no doubt regard the European Commission under Mr. Delors as an interfering busybody. But it does recognise our right to continue our own export system and the equal right of each member state to do the same.
The mania for harmonisation and approximation has not yet manifested itself where national treasures are concerned. But I am sure that it will, if we are not vigilant. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that he will not be allowed to take his old master to Paris, Brussels or Bonn without an export licence. If he does we shall make strenuous efforts to seek its return.
Lord Mulley: Perhaps I may make it clear that I do not have any such picture.Lord Mulley: Perhaps I may make it clear that I do not have any such picture.
Viscount Astor: I am sorry that the noble Lord does not have one. If he should win the national lottery he

1299
may acquire one. We may have reason to feel flattered that the Commission and some member states have a high regard for our Waverley system, with its pragmatic approach and the balance it strikes between the interests of the nation, the art trade and owners.
With its current proposals the Commission is trying to achieve an extra level of protection over and above each national system, based on close co-operation between member states. Thus the directive allows for the return of national treasures which are found elsewhere in the Community outside the territory of the member state. The regulation requires individual cultural items falling into category and value limits along the same lines as our own system to be accompanied by an export licence when they leave the Community.
None of that will be retrospective. No object currently in public or private ownership in the United Kingdom is threatened by restitution, however murky its past. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that I disagree with him about what he said about our heritage. I do not believe that our heritage should have "Made in Britain" stamped on it. I believe that great works of art transcend national barriers and cultures. I hope that we shall always be able to appreciate the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: That is exactly what was saying. They transcend barriers and therefore they should not be kept in one country.
Viscount Astor: I apologise to the noble Lord if I misheard him. In that case I totally agree with him. The Government in negotiation have influenced the content of the Commission proposals away from the heavily bureaucratic, though in some ways idealistic, toward a more realistic, potentially effective system which should result in only the minimum uncertainty for buyers and sellers of cultural goods. In order to have that additional protection we shall have to accept that some uncertainty as to the correct provenance of items is inevitable. I am sure that we can do so, given the great importance that we all attach to protecting the heritage. Trade in legitimate works of art is a vital part of our economy. We have no intention of weakening it both in this country and in the Community generally.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, raised the point about the Three Graces. I understand the frustration when an offer is made, whether it be from a public or private source, and it is refused. However, I am sure your Lordships would be among the first to raise the alarm at any attempt to legislate for compulsory powers of purchase over private property. That is an important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who does sterling work as chairman of the House of Lords' Works of Art Committee, sensibly said that we must keep only the most important works of art. We have won support for that among European countries. Our system works but it is never easy to say that the built heritage should have a financial priority. It always has to be on the merits of each case or indeed on the merits of each crisis.
1300
It has been a stimulating debate. Financing the purchase of important objects has and will always remain a problem. However, I hope that I have gone some way to assure your Lordships of the goodwill of this Government towards meeting the problem with a variety of solutions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be putting his considerable determination and skills into support for the heritage in all its manifestations. I should like to think that a similar debate in a year's time will record the results; and I look forward to that rumpus, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for replying at such length and so well. I do not wish to break any lance with him, but I congratulate him on the splendid statistic that the department dug out about 51 per cent. of all objects being saved. It does not deal with the value of those which were not saved; and it was those, the most valuable, which got away.
I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Like others, I cannot fail to single out the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. If ever there was a case of the right man in the right place, it was his appointment as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It is characteristic of the noble Lord, and in the tradition of his regiment, that, although he could perfectly well have pleaded that he was today a walking wounded, he is present on the battlefield.
I believe that, unless something can be done in the fairly near future, we are bound once again to have some new scheme —not necessarily listing—raising its head. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, having conversations with M. Laclotte of the Ministre des Beaux Arts or M. Pierre Rosenberg of the Louvre, and trying to convert them to the English model. We are not European on this matter. Through the Commission we may be able to achieve some liberalisation of the export of works of art in other countries in Europe, but I would not put too much money on it.
I thank the noble Viscount again and all those who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.23 to 5.28 p.m.]

Energy Strategy
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is with some regret that I have to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Hanworth appears to have become indisposed or to have met with an accident. Therefore it is my intention merely to move, in a rather formal way, the Motion on the Order Paper. It seems to me —and I have the agreement of the usual channels that this shall be done

1301
—that we should proceed with this important debate, if for no better reason than that the noble Lord, Lord HolmPatrick, will grace us with his maiden speech. It would be very unfortunate if he were deprived of that opportunity.
I am sure that my noble friend had many things to say in opening the debate which I cannot emulate. The long-term strategy for the generation and use of energy and the inter-relationship between nuclear and renewable fuels is an important matter. I only wish that we were in a position to hear my noble friend on those problems. Nevertheless, we have the opportunity of hearing other noble Lords give their views on the subject. Therefore, I beg to move the Motion for Papers standing in his name on the Order Paper.
5.30 p.m.
Lord HolmPatrick: My Lords, I am pleased to speak to the House for the first time and to do so in this important debate. In order to stay within the traditional guidelines of a maiden speech I shall say a few words on a particular aspect of this important subject, while sticking to the efforts being made in the British Isles.
There are in place in the British Isles a number of power stations which burn either non-renewable fossil fuels or are nuclear powered. I must say that without them we should not have much electricity with which to supply our domestic and industrial needs. I should not hesitate to say that the whole House is concerned about the polluting effect on the atmosphere of the burning of fossil fuels. I have no doubt that your Lordships are also aware of the increasing problems of the disposal of certain waste materials from power stations.
With the increasing demand for electricity new power stations will be built and some of the older stations will have to be replaced in the near future. But do they all have to be replaced with conventional power stations? I believe that there are alternative sources of power which should be given serious consideration. I am talking about renewable energy from the earth's natural resources. Hydro-electricity has been used for some time. It is clean and renewable but it has its problems. Any major projects tend to have a large and somewhat distressing environmental impact. It is now a little difficult to find new sites. Only recently has the technology for smaller hydro-electric generators been good enough and now a landowner or small community wishing to install a small turbine can take advantage of the considerable price reduction in the installation of such a machine. They can now also rely on the co-operation of their local electricity board.
Energy can be obtained from various wastes. That which strikes me as being the most significant is the landfill site. Properly-buried waste will gradually break down and the organic matter contained will produce methane gas which can be used for all kinds of purposes, including the generating of electricity. My local site has recently installed a small plant to collect the gas which is then taken away in a tanker. That is a small reward, if you like, from what is an
1302
ever-increasing headache; namely, the disposal of domestic rubbish. That source is renewable but it is not quite clean.
Solar power is not a strong contender and must be further researched and developed before we have much use for it in this country. I am sure that many noble Lords have already made arrangements to receive during the Recess a guaranteed supply of that renewable source of energy while in other parts of this planet.
Perhaps I may at this stage remind the House of the non-fossil fuel obligation which came about in 1990. There is an 11 per cent. levy on all electricity produced by fossil-fuel burning power stations. The money accumulates and is held by the non-fossil fuel purchasing agency. The power companies can draw from that fund enabling them to buy in at a premium price any electricity produced from non-fossil fuel sources.
One such renewable source of energy which has been able to take advantage of that important act is the wind farm. I should like to congratulate Wind Electric, National Power and South-Western Electricity Board for their combined effort in setting up the first commercial wind farm at Delabole in Cornwall. Wind Electric was formed in 1989 and was the result of 10 years' research and hard work by a determined individual. Cornwall County Council granted planning permission in August 1991. A company in Denmark was approached to supply the 10 machines required. At the beginning of December everything needed to start the installation was on site. By 15th December Delabole Farm was producing its first electricity, which was fed into the grid system by means of a small substation.
Not only must a great deal of money have been saved—the on-site operation lasted only 15 days—but the environmental disturbance and the disruption to local traffic was kept to a minimum. Your Lordships might be interested to know that the 10 wind machines at Delabole represent 12 million kilowatt hours per year, which in real terms represents one year's consumption by 3,000 average households. Wind farming has attracted a great deal of interest from landowners because in these difficult times it offers an alternative to producing crops and raising animals. I believe that it will be many years before even the most ingenious and hardworking farmer will find a way of overproducing electricity.
There has been insufficient time to assess how much distress is caused to local people either by unsightliness or by noise from wind farms. But there is nothing more unsightly than a pylon in your own backyard—and we all had to get used to that. The sceptics, in particular those who support alternative forms of energy but "not in my backyard", should go and see for themselves as I did. I believe that the number of machines that we shall see in future will be limited by common-sense and by normal planning permission. Legislation is the only way in which we shall see a dramatic increase; the same legislation that brought us pylons.
I have dared only to come up with a few simple facts and figures. Multiplied by the number of wind

1303
machines on proposed sites throughout the British Isles they present a strong case and show that wind farming has a great future in Britain.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to congratulate my noble friend Lord HolmPatrick on his maiden speech. His splendid effort was made even more remarkable by having to make his speech in rather unusual circumstances. We are all aware of the nervousness of the occasion. To see a huddle of noble Lords at the end of the Chamber before being called upon to speak must make the experience even more nerve-racking. Your Lordships might not he aware that he is also an important member of the House of Lords' tug-of-war team. Let us hope that he pulls as well as he speaks. The House of Lords will then again win a great victory. I agreed with his comments about the importance of alternative energy, in particular wind power which undoubtedly has an important part to play.
I am sure that all noble Lords pass on their best wishes to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, if he is indisposed. We thank him for bringing forward the debate.
I wish to talk about two issues; the first is combined heat and power and the second is the opportunity for the use of bioenergy and biomass. Combined heat and power brings together the opportunity to reduce the use of energy and to use it more efficiently. Energy is the key to creating development, opportunities, growth and wealth. The sudden development of cheaper and easier forms of energy has created the great economic surges in our history. Since the middle of the last century we have been dependent upon oil as a cheap source of energy. It has generated the engine which has created the enormous improvements in people's lives and has led to the tremendous economic development during the past 100 or so years.
Inevitably there will be a change in that engine which creates and makes energy available not only to us in the West but to the rest of the world. It may well be that the great opportunity of the future will not be the discovery or development of a new source of energy but a more efficient use of the energies which are now available to us. The development of the technology will make those energies more available to the world at large and will make the use of our energy sources more economical and cheaper. That is the great opportunity now before us. Combined heat and power will, by bringing together all the technology needed to create from the use of one energy the development of another, be one of the key issues that we can develop.
There are certain opportunities that others in Europe have which we do not. Certainly to be able to sell automatically into the grid the electricity produced from combined heat and power would be another great stimulus and encourage many more companies to use it. There are more opportunities within our health service and schools to use and get the benefit of combined heat and power, which would reduce their costs very considerably.
1304
In my view, the other area at which we must look is eastern and central Europe. Certainly when considering the way in which they run their industries it is apparent that the tremendous cost of energy has been one of the great difficulties in developing their economies. I hope that the Government will find ways to encourage those who can help in central and eastern Europe to develop combined heat and power and show the benefits of renewed energy systems because that will do a great deal of good for the developing economies of those areas. That is a great opportunity because Britain is so well ahead on combined heat and power technology, which we can sell and develop in the rest of the world.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is biotechnology and the opportunity in the future to produce energy from crops. Your Lordships may remember that last year the House of Lords' Select Committee on agriculture, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Middleton, produced a report on non-food use of agricultural products. It used as its analysis a report published in 1986 which then estimated that in order to make crops viable with other energy sources —oil, at that time—there would have to be a subsidy of £67 per tonne, bringing wheat prices down to £45 per tonne before energy from wheat could compete with the price of oil.
However, it is interesting that in the past three weeks decisions have been taken as a result of the renegotiation and reform of the CAP that will bring down wheat prices within three years to £65 or £70 per tonne. In 1986 the price of oil was about 11 dollars per barrel. The price of oil now is around 22 dollars per barrel. There is considerable talk on the world scene about having further energy taxes which again will increase the price of oil. Some noble Lords may remember an interview which took place a few weeks ago with the oil Minister for one of the oil producing Middle East countries. He said that if the western nations wish to gain by taxing their oil—"our oil" as he described it—the producers should increase the price of oil so that they also get something from it. In other words, if the West increases the tax on oil, the producers will want more for it. Putting those two matters together there is every indication that, over the years ahead, the price of oil will increase and the price of our cereals will fall.
In addition, it is estimated that within the UK alone some 500,000 hectares will be taken out of production within the next three or four years, again as a result of the CAP reform. Therefore, it seems to me that decisions based upon facts emerging in the mid-1980s have changed dramatically and there is an important opportunity for us to look again at the use of crops for development into oil products and energy. Now is the time to take up that opportunity. We should not leave it until the fall in prices suddenly makes that possible because time is then taken to develop the technology efficiently.
I hope that in both those areas the Government can play an encouraging role—because I do not believe that governments should play too great a role—in the development of those two technologies.

1305
Biotechnology and the more effective use of crops —crops can be more adaptable for this aspect—will also take great strides. The bringing together of all those new technologies can mean the rebirth of a new energy level which can be the stimulus to continual growth during the next century.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord HolmPatrick on an excellent maiden speech in fairly difficult circumstances. I hope that we shall often have the pleasure of listening to him giving us the benefit of his knowledge about various energy and environmental matters.
I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Wade has just said about biomass and alternative forms of fuel through cereals and other methods. I agree with everything that he said but I should like to speak about more conventional fuels.
My particular interest within the field of energy is concerned with the opencast coal mining industry in this country and also the waste management industry, and in that I must declare an interest.
First, the opencast coal industry plays a vital part in the production of coal for the national generating bodies. I congratulate the Government wholeheartedly on the soon-to-be-privatisation of British Coal. We have a vibrant, indigenous coal industry in this country and it is my view that privatisation will open the doors to produce a much more competitive industry where a cheaper product will be produced to the benefit of industry in general and the individual customer.
A major constraint on the private sector in the past in the opencast business has been the tonnage licensing system. Although relaxed over recent years to a maximum extraction limit for private sector opencast operations of 250,000 tonnes, I hope that, as a part of the new legislation which will soon come before us, that tonnage limit will be scrapped.
In purely economic terms, there are economies of scale involved. It is much cheaper to win, for example, 500,000 tonnes of coal than 250,000 tonnes of that mineral. Thus, coal becomes cheaper to the generators and it follows that then, as a fuel, it can compete in economic terms with alternative fuels used in the production of electricity into the national grid.
However, even after privatisation there will still not be a level playing field in European terms as subsidies to the coal industry will still be in force in Germany and Spain. That anomaly will almost certainly have to be addressed at some stage in the very near future as this country cannot be expected to compete in Europe on unequal terms. As I have said before in this House on a number of occasions, there are many matters coming from Europe where we in this country find ourselves at a serious commercial disadvantage when conducting business with our European counterparts.
To sum up this particular subject, by the removal of the present tonnage licensing system, there will be provided cheaper coal and less need for foreign
1306
imports of this basic fuel. Therefore, that will bring considerable benefit to the Exchequer and the balance of payments.
As regards the landfill and waste management industry, as other noble Lords have already said, landfill of household waste is an increasing problem and such sites produce considerable amounts of methane, which is often dispersed through a venting system, into the atmosphere. However, there are some such sites which have already harnessed that problematic gas and are producing electricity into the national grid. I suggest that that process has a great future. Each year every household produces increasingly more waste and it must be disposed of in an environmentally friendly way. By producing and harnessing a potentially useful byproduct—methane —considerable benefits can be achieved. Although such a method of energy production makes but a small dent in the country's total energy requirement, it is a useful contribution, and one which has a long-term future.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is many months since I last referred in your Lordships' House to the, to my mind, great English satirists of the 1960s—Flanders and Swann. One of their themes seems to me to be appropriate for today's Motion on which I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his most regrettable and unfortunate absence, for bringing the views of my noble friend Lord HolmPatrick to our attention. Never can a maiden speech have been made by a hereditary Peer in such unusual circumstances. I congratulate the usual channels on going on with the debate and my noble friend, not only for his bravery, but also for getting this debate onto the rails with such verve by talking about alternative energy.
Perhaps I may say in passing that, contrary to what one might gather from the list of speakers today, there is no north west or perhaps western Mafia in the energy field on this side of your Lordships' House, although my noble friend Lord Wade may have known some of the maiden's thoughts as I thought the two speeches went together hand in glove and worked together extremely well.
The theme to which I refer is the Flanders and Swann reformulation of Sir Edward Boyle's famous chemical law. As I recall, it went, "The greater the external pressure, the greater the volume of hot air". As debates in your Lordships' House have shown over the years, we are great agents of external pressure but are the exception that proves the rule. We rarely if ever get hot air from governments of any persuasion as a result. I am sure that we will not do so from my noble friend Lady Denton who has the unenviable task of responding to what I anticipate will be a wide-ranging debate this evening.
Many years ago I met what can loosely be described as "hot air" in Costa Rica. A British veterinarian under contract to the ODA had spent much of his time in a veterinary research institute developing a simple methane generator. He had joined a number of thick black fertiliser sacks together, laid them on a slight

1307
slope in the sun and channelled slurry from the cow shed through them. A pipe led from the centre of the contraption to a twin ring gas burner. When I saw it a large saucepan of water was boiling away merrily. Ever since—that was 10 years ago—I have believed that that could be the start of an energy policy for rural areas in the third world. At no cost a waste product goes in and gas and a low-grade fertiliser or fuel comes out at the other end.
I am ashamed to say that the ODA did not share my enthusiasm. The vet in question nearly got the sack from his contract, in spite of the enthusiastic support from the then Ambassador. To the best of my knowledge unsophisticated technology of the type I described has never been widely taken up. Cheap energy is as much a human requirement as cheap food or water. After all, all those things sustain life on earth.
Moving closer to home, in recent weeks, since visiting British Gas in the Recess, my thoughts have become much more high-tech. I have been trying to work out for myself what the Government's electricity policy actually is today and how, or rather whether, things have changed under the new regime of the primary sources of energy being treated as industries in the same way as, for example, the car industry under a ministerial team in the DTI.
I congratulate my honourable friend Mr. Eggar on his appointment as Minister for Energy. He comes to this newly created post at a time of both opportunity and challenge for energy. It is a time when stocks of plutonium will last for something like 400 years if used wisely and consumed not in a fast breeder reactor of the type we know at Dounreay, which was indeed designed to breed, but of the type which is being developed on the continent—one that consumes all its own nuclear waste. I suggest that that is a better solution than the potentially dangerous long-term storage of such wastes which have half-lives of thousands of years.
Be that as it may, around 5 per cent. of our electricity comes from nuclear power. As I understand it, that is to continue as it is a good way of producing base-load electricity. Many of us cast envious glances at the French with their much higher proportion of nuclear and hydro-electric schemes leading to extremely cheap electricity. That electricity is imported into this country at moments of stress through the under-Channel link.
Coal has always been the primary fuel for the bulk of energy generation. The trouble is that British coal expensively mined, as it has been in the past, had been pricing itself out of the market until the Government began a massive £8 billion investment programme with the objective of producing cheap coal for the nation. As my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said, our imports have been growing at an alarming rate. That may be healthy for the generating companies but it certainly is not healthy for the long-term future of our coal industry. In passing, I have noted the words of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place when, as Secretary of State for Energy, he said that the way to achieve cheap electricity was for British Coal to achieve new long-term contracts when they came up
1308
for renewal in the near future. He was sure that they would. At the same time he inferred that he was not against imports as long as the exporting countries were not subsidising production unfairly. That was another point made by my noble friend. I noted that during the last Commons energy Questions before the election, Germany was specifically criticised in that respect.
It is not only cheap imports of coal that are putting pressure on the system. The potential of using gas in generators has been at least as great a challenge to the coal industry here as have imports. Not only is it cheap, but also it is a low polluter. It is easily and safely delivered direct to the consumer's premises without the need for unattractive road and rail transport. It is no wonder that we are seeing what has come to be known as a "dash for gas". That is an expression on which I am not keen but it works as a descriptive phrase.
My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade said that he does not want to see that taken too far. But how far is too far? The electricity industry has a duty to go for the cheapest primary fuels available. That must mean the cheapest after environmental costs are taken into account. At least, I assume it must, but to say the least the signals are a little opaque in that respect at the moment. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to give us some guidance.
The point the department must bear in mind is that by influencing either the generators or any one of the primary fuel producers, there will be an inevitable knock-on effect on the others in the chain. With the exception of nuclear, they are all either in or about to be in the private sector. That has a direct effect on their ability to raise capital. It was that more than anything that persuaded me that they would be far better off in the private sector. My noble friend Lady Denton will recall that I have made that point before—and recently. I make no apology for repeating it.
Up to now capital has been available from the City for the investment that is so badly needed and doled out sparingly by governments over the years. Money is needed for the replacement of generators, for cleaning up the environment and for the prevention of leaks. Years ago I knew the figures for the leakage of electricity, water and other fuels. Today I have only been able to check the gas figure, which is around 1 per cent. and I am told is falling. It is falling because of the replacement of cast iron pipes by the new alkathene piping and the development of the intelligent pig which identifies weakness in pipes before they actually crack.
Of course, all that is at a cost, and a cost which must be paid for. If the companies are so bound up by regulators and the Office of Fair Trading that the net result is that capital becomes more and more difficult to attract, nobody wins—the consumers because costs will rise; the environment because leakages and airborne pollution go on far longer than they should; and the shareholders, whether large or small, because they will not receive the profits that they were either promised at the time of the various privatisations or have come to expect subsequently.

1309
It is fashionable for government Ministers to tour the world looking for better ways of doing things in this country. I hope that my honourable friend will go to America for exactly the opposite reason. It is true that he will find the ultimate in competition. But he will not find a happy state of affairs in the gas industry. Information has reached me that, although it is cheap and environmentally friendly, it has been losing market share consistently throughout the 1970s and 1980s. From 1970 to 1988 figures show that the gas market share fell from 39 per cent. to 34 per cent. of the United States energy market. That is a different picture from that in the United Kingdom where, over the same period, it has quadrupled.
A little research will show whether or not my information is correct. I am told that supplies are becoming more and more unreliable; the regulatory authorities have changed policy several times and the market is fragmented, often resulting in the purchaser being responsible for the transport from the wellhead. The last point I take particularly seriously as, not only is the leakage figure said by some to be an unbelievable 15 per cent., but also because I was proud to play a part in the Oil and Gas Enterprise Bill in the early 1980s which not only put transport of gas firmly where it rightly belongs—with the supplying company—but also opened the pipelines to other producers of oil and gas. When that was reformulated in the Gas Act 1986 it was extended to cover any supply company, a form of competition of which I am sure the whole House would approve.
I have not answered my own questions. All I have achieved is to produce a few thoughts for the Government's consideration. In this House we are delighted that the Government have agreed with your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Community that energy and the environment are inextricably entwined; that they believe in cheap energy and a multiplicity of primary producers. I hope that this debate will result in showing how the Government intend to unify all these rather disparate strands.
6 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, in his absence, I would like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for making this debate possible. I am sure that we all join in wishing him a speedy return to this Chamber and completely fit. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord HolmPatrick on making such a splendid maiden speech in adversity, one might say.
In such a wide-ranging debate as this I think it important to narrow down to specifics. I wish to speak about three things; the first is the Drax power station, the second is the Lloyd's building and the third is birth control. All three, strangely, form a sort of trinity or the three legs of a tripod, one could say. The first leg of the tripod is Drax. It is our biggest power station and generates five gigawatts electric. Noble Lords will know that National Power are retrofitting scrubbers to this mighty edifice, which is coal-fired and which therefore emits sulphur dioxide. The scrubbers will cost more than the original power station and they will
1310
need power to operate them—indeed, 4 per cent. of Drax's total generating capacity. Thus, while Drax will emit less sulphur dioxide it will emit 4 per cent. more carbon dioxide. In terms of greenhouse gases the Drax scrubbers are bad news.
At Drax there are also material handling problems. On top of the thousand of tonnes of coal fed into Drax 24 hours a day there will be thousands of tonnes of limestone hauled in and then converted by the scrubbers to gypsum. Then thousands of tonnes of gypsum will be hauled out. All that movement will generate more heat. The good news is that Drax is using some of its heat. The greenhouse gases are ripening tomatoes in a vast complex of real greenhouses nearby. It is thus a rather peculiar type of combined heat and power plant.
At this stage I must declare my interest as being the present president of the Combined Heat and Power Association and also tell noble Lords the good news that my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton will soon be succeeding me. From what he has said so far, he clearly has a much better grip of the subject than I have gained in the past three years. But I hope that my specific example of the tomatoes at Drax has illustrated to noble Lords that CHP is a versatile, elegant and sophisticated technology that is certainly environmentally friendly. It is not necessarily simple enough to solve the greenhouse gas problem worldwide. Even at Drax one problem begets another. The scrubbers emit the carbon dioxide; the carbon dioxide grows the tomatoes; but then the tomatoes themselves have to be moved from Drax in their millions and the vehicles carrying the tomatoes emit yet more carbon dioxide.
The second leg of this somewhat peculiar tripod is the Lloyd's building in the City. I must mention that on my way there, as it were, CitiGen's new combined heat and power station in Charterhouse Street will produce 90 megawatts electric when completed. It is similar to the Lloyd's system, in that they are not really combined heat and power stations so much as combined cooling and power stations. The need in high-rise office blocks nowadays is to lower the temperature and not to raise it. I gather that even on the coldest January morning that is the case. True, at around 7 o'clock on a Monday morning in particular, the underwriting floors at Lloyd's are cold and they should be heated up to around 20 degrees centigrade, which I believe is the optimum working temperature.
But by 2 p.m. that 20 degree centigrade will be 23 or 24 degrees and that is simply due to the body heat of the 5,500 underwriters, each of whom gives off 200 watts. In fact, the underwriters are generating 1.1 megawatts thermal themselves. Lately, indeed, some might have had cause to wonder whether underwriting insurance is not a rather less attractive option than turning oneself into a very small power station. One syndicate of five underwriters equals one single bar electric fire. Syndicates apart, it proved very difficult in the early days to keep the Lloyd's building cool enough. Parts of its rose to 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Once more, the solution lay in combined heat and power.

1311
Lloyd's air conditioning system is complicated indeed. It is based on an Alice Through the Looking-glass law of thermo-dynamics which seems to be that cold air rises and hot air sinks. The cold air is pumped through vents in the floor and extracted by fans in the ceiling. It is drawn up to the top of the four service towers, by which time it is fairly hot. It is then pumped down through voids in the windows, which are triple-glazed. Then it is cooled by water. The water in its turn becomes lukewarm at about 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
The elegance of the system is that this warm water is then further heated until it is hot enough for the washrooms, showers and kitchens. Thus, Lloyd's has a remarkably efficient combined heat and power system which both cools its building and produces cheap hot water. But, as with Drax and the tomatoes, there is a much more serious downside, or danger. The tanks of cooling water at 90 degrees Fahrenheit provide the perfect environment for the growth of the legionnella bacterium. Noble Lords will recognise how deadly that can be when they recall that similar water tanks on the roof of the BBC in Portland Place became infected and killed people walking in the streets below. The only way to stop that bacterium multiplying is to clean the tanks to the point of sterility. There is thus a downside to every elegant solution that heats as it cools as it lights and as it powers efficiently. The downside can usually be overcome, but at a cost.
CHP is certainly a very attractive option abroad, as my noble friend Lord Wade has already remarked, particularly in the former communist bloc—for instance in countries where there are already rather inefficient networks, such as Poland. Poland has a district heating network of pipes carrying water which is very hot at 200 degrees centigrade, but at least half of that escapes through cracks in the pipes and is wasted. At this stage, I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench this question: is there yet a successor body to that headed by Colin Moynihan in the previous Parliament? In short, which Government Minister is at the moment in charge of alternative energy, or is no one yet in charge of it?
As the combined heat and power president, I am tempted to plead specially that our technology is the ultimate answer to all the world's energy problems. But on economic grounds I cannot do that. CHP has its place, but the main place must be taken up by the third leg of the tripod, which is contraception; a simple rubber sheath, cap or coil. People use energy; more people use more energy; fewer people use less energy. Birth control is cheaper than clean technology. It is cheaper than efficient technology. The least polluting power station is the one that is not built. It is for that reason that the ultimate challenge for those at the Rio summit must be to limit the world's population. That is indeed our best long-term energy strategy.
6.9 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his absence, for raising such an important issue and to the noble Lord,
1312
Lord Tordoff, for stepping into the breach at such short notice. I must also congratulate my noble friend Lord HolmPatrick on an excellent maiden speech and on a very good choice of subject matter. Wind power may seem rather distant to many of us but it is an important issue. It is one to which I intend to return later in my own thoughts.
I start with the problems being created by our current dependence on coal burning for energy. At present 80 per cent. of British coal is burned in coal-fired power stations to produce 77 per cent. of our current electricity consumption. Whatever the future of British-mined coal, sources of cheap imports elsewhere in the world ensure that coal will remain a significant source of electricity for us. However, burning coal in power stations is environmentally disastrous, resulting in substantial emissions of both carbon dioxide and the two principal constituents of acid rain—sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.
It is somewhat chilling when one learns that 64 per cent. of British trees show some damage from acid rain; that 25 per cent. of our trees show moderate to severe damage and that severe damage also affects roughly 35 per cent. of Europe's trees, equating to an area of approximately 50 million hectares. The extent of the damage reflects the fact that, for every single tonne of coal burned, 12 tonnes of wet flue gases are released. Therefore, a medium-sized 500 megawatt power station pumps out about 15 million tonnes of those gases every year—and those are just acid rain gases.
Acid rain is also responsible for the corrosion of buildings and other structures, and for the leaching of heavy metals from our soils into our watercourses. While rain in Britain is now between 10 and 16 times more acid than it was, a 1988 sample in Pitlochry recorded rain with a pH as low as 2.4, which is 1,000 times more acidic than pure rainfall. At this level, the aquatic life of our rivers and lakes is seriously threatened—not to mention those downwind of us in Norway and Sweden.
However, the dilemma lies not so much in what is happening as in how we should be responding. The flue-gas emissions of coal-fired power stations must be tackled, but the task is hugely expensive, costing some £200,000 per megawatt of installed capacity. Therefore, for a 1,000 megawatt power station, the bill will be £200 million. For a new power station to be built with ready installed flue-gas desulphurising technology, capital costs rise by 30 per cent. Our obligation at present is to treat 8,000 megawatts of our current 35,000 megawatt installed coal-fired capacity. From a purely environmental standpoint, that may be disappointingly small, but financially the capital cost of treating just 8,000 megawatts could be £1.6 billion —and there are operating costs on top of that.
Who is going to pay? Is this a burden that falls to the taxpayer—or, on the principle that the polluter pays, should the operator, and therefore the user, be paying—or should it be a combination of both, with some government grants and some loans? Charging it all to the user will be controversial for those users who do not have any choice and will attract the attention of the Office of Electricity Regulation, which is obliged

1313
to hold down electricity price rises. Where users do have a choice, coal-fired sources will have problems competing with cleaner sources of power. But where does this leave the prospects of a privatised coal industry, given that the power stations are its principal market?
Charging the taxpayer, however, ignores the polluter-pays principle and distorts the marketplace by subsidising the external costs of coal-burning. This will act as a disincentive both to cleaner sources of power and to market-led environmental research and development.
This is an important repercussion. Clean coal and coal gasification technologies, for instance, remain too primitive for power stations exceeding 250 megawatts, and it is estimated that it will be 18 years before they will be sufficiently advanced to install in 1,000 megawatt power stations. My noble friend the Minister could perhaps tell us whether the Government intend to continue, and if so to what extent, their research into clean coal-burning technologies. It is also important, in the shorter term, to know who is going to be funding the cleaning up of existing flue gases in the light of the privatisation of the coal industry.
There are no easy answers to many of these problems. The only solutions that could be effective in the short term are massive in their scale and consequences. For the next two decades, coal has got to be either unacceptably dirty in terms of its environmental repercussions or unacceptably expensive in terms of its economic and social repercussions. Furthermore, paying for and installing FGDs not only fails to tackle carbon dioxide emissions but actually increases them. My noble friend Lord Mersey has illustrated that point.
There are two other complications. By the year 2010, for instance, two-thirds of our existing coal-fired power stations will be at or beyond the end of their designed lifespan. What happens next? And what decisions should be taken now in anticipation? The complexities underline the importance of a long-term strategy for energy generation and use; and, as with any long-term strategy, it is only going to be effective if it provides the framework within which short-term decisions are made.
The future of coal-fired power stations is just one fundamental issue where short-term policy must not lose sight of long-term strategy. There are others. Already subject to considerable debate is the role of gas-fired and nuclear power stations, and their relationship in the marketplace with electricity from coal sources.
Also subject to some attention are the means of encouraging energy conservation and efficiency. On this issue, there is the need for yet greater determination, as such measures promise to be extremely cost effective. One likely problem, however, is that, if the sources, generators and distributors of energy are private companies, the market will be dominated by interests vested in greater consumption. How, then, does one drive home effective energy conservation and efficiency initiatives? One possible
1314
solution has emerged in California, where the power companies sell not only power, but also the goods and services that are required by their customers for its conservation.
One of the most important elements of a long-term strategy on energy generation, and therefore deserving of comparable status in short-term policy-making, is the role of renewable sources, which several noble Lords have mentioned. Many are familiar with hydro-electricity and pump storage; but what remains poorly acknowledged is the potential of other methods of water-driven generation, and the potential of solar, wind and biomass sources. Even where potential is actually proven, organisation, incentives and funding are very often disappointing. We are still waiting for the publication of the findings of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, which was due first at the start of the year and then in March. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell us if and when this will happen.
Altogether more significant is the 1998 cut-off of the levy on fossil fuels. The immediacy of 1998 is constraining those involved in the research, development and operation of renewable sources of energy. Such technologies can often take 15 to 25 years to bring into full production. Perhaps I may suggest that we should have a rolling period rather than a cut-off that operates right across the board.
It is misguided and misleading to treat renewable energy sources as a Cinderella while lavishing attention on the older and uglier step-sisters. The United Kingdom, for instance, has the best wind potential in Europe, with 40 per cent. of the continent's wind energy resources. In 1988 the Department of Energy estimated that 20 per cent. of our total electricity consumption could be met by our on-shore wind resources, while 50 per cent. could be met by our off-shore winds. Energy experts, furthermore, point out that this off-shore study assumed that wind generator sites would be more than 15 kilometres from the coast. Without this parameter, the potential contribution of off-shore wind generation could be considerably more.
The important point is that for the United Kingdom wind generation is not a marginal asset and should not be treated as such in short-term policy. However, without sufficient recognition and encouragement, the technologies involved and the benefits that will accrue will both be unnecessarily delayed.
Also subject to delay will be the proper resolution of any perceived drawbacks that attach to wind generation. Wind power, after all, throws up an intriguing dilemma. It is a perfect alternative to the polluting emissions of coal-fired power stations and to the consequences of acid rain; but to exploit this potential effectively may involve siting wind generators in sites noted for their natural scenery.
Wind power remains an unfamiliar concept and therefore the prospect of generators being visible either from one's own backyard or from an area such as a national park is unnerving. My noble friend Lord HolmPatrick touched on that point in greater detail. The public's perception will be important to the

1315
development of wind generation. My noble friend mentioned the wind farm at Delabole in Cornwall, to which there has been a surprisingly good response, much better than the backers and operators had anticipated. Of passing interest is the fact that it has been popular with the local tourist industry because the wind farm itself has become a visitor attraction. In Denmark, where the wind generation industry is much better developed, there has been a good public response to the technology that has had to be installed.
Looking ahead to the possibility of many machines in many areas, the public should be made fully aware of what the benefits and options are. On a national level, the benefits are obvious, but at an immediate local level, the impact of wind generators may be less digestible. My noble friend Lord HolmPatrick mentioned the noise problem. I understand that the latest wind machine technology is considerably less noisy than the earlier machines.
The fact that wind machines are visibly intrusive has been unwittingly aggravated by the 1998 cut-off of the fossil fuel levy. The uncertainty and the ever-shortening timescale is forcing wind energy operators to seek average wind speeds of no less than 7.5 metres per second in order to cover costs. They therefore have to be sufficiently high on hillside sites, which increases their propensity for intrusion. If the protective timescale was extended, making average wind speeds of 6.5 metres per second viable, the number of potential sites would double to include many less conspicuous locations.
Notwithstanding what I hope is only a short-term aberration, the positive reaction in Cornwall bodes well. That assessment would be further enhanced if the districts and communities involved could become more closely involved. It might, for instance, be possible for them to derive some benefit from that wind power which is locally produced but sold to the national grid. Local surpluses are highly probable in some areas. A 1990 study for Dyfed county council concluded that, with existing technology alone, the county's entire electricity consumption could be met from renewable resources, while anticipated technology could enable it to produce 12 times that figure. Also of relevance to the public perception is the fact that wind generators should not be confused with the blundering severity of pylons. It is important to counter the assumption that anything that smacks of being a wind generator must automatically be ugly. They need not be ugly, and they need not be unpopular. But, despite this, wind generators will present a challenge for planners and will be an interesting source of comment for the public.
It is also important to realise that being relatively well endowed with renewable resources allows us not only to exploit them for our own needs but to exploit the associated technology for everyone else's needs. One source predicts that, at a global level, as environmental problems increase and the reserves of fossil fuels decrease, the development and export of this technology will be as valuable to the next generation as the trade in computer technology has been to this generation.
1316
The United Kingdom must not miss out, though, if we hang around, we shall. Denmark has had many successful onshore wind energy projects and now has two offshore wind energy projects. The Swedes have joined them on this offshore bandwagon. India is aiming for 5,000 megawatts of installed wind power by the year 2000 and California is probably the furthest ahead of the game. On a global basis, it was estimated last year that wind energy alone is already offsetting some 2 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year.
How sensible, therefore, is the uncertainty that surrounds the finish of the fossil fuel levy in 1998? My noble friend the Minister might take this opportunity to remove the uncertainty. It is becoming a disincentive to valuable research and development; it is undermining potentially huge export earnings in the future; and it is slowing the advent of one of the most environmentally friendly methods of power generation. As with the future of coal-burning power stations, this, surely, is an issue where a long-term strategy is fundamental to short-term policy.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have the very pleasant duty of being the first speaker from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord HolmPatrick, on his excellent maiden speech. If he can make such a good speech under somewhat unusual circumstances, I very much look forward to hearing his future contributions.
When we deal with a Motion on energy policy we find ourselves touching on a large variety of subjects. Modern society is addicted to energy. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred to computers. Computers use electricity. We need electricity for most things. There is always a price to be paid for any consumption of energy.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord HolmPatrick, dealt largely with wind power. Even with wind power we have to put up with a little noise pollution and a slight inconvenience to one or two views. Ultimately we have to pay a certain number of prices. It is probably better to look at an environment which has a few trees remaining on it and has one or two wind farms than a place which has been completely stripped of all foliage by acid rain. We must be more realistic about these choices. If we are to live in any way that relates to our current energy-rich lifestyle, we must encourage lower consumption of energy by utilising the technology that is available to us now. We must be capable of cutting down dramatically the amount of energy we use in what we regard as our daily way of life; for example, on the way we heat and cool our houses and offices.
We must also consider transport policy. In this country the fact that the subsidy given to company cars is around five times that given to British Rail suggests that we shall have a hard decision to make in the future. Is the car to be regarded as a normal mode of transport for virtually all forms of journey, short, medium and long term, or is it to be restricted to medium-term transport, allowing public transport of various types to take over the longer and shorter term journeys? I suggest that the many pressures on us with

1317
regard to environmental damage and the conservation of fossil fuels, such as petrol and oil-based fuels, mean that we shall have to look hard at trying to produce some form of carbon tax which will create a disincentive to using cars as frequently as we do at present. We must also have education on this issue. It is regarded as a status symbol to have a large car. We have a cycle of expectation which means that there is less incentive for central authorities or even private investors to provide other forms of transport. If the Government have more initiatives on education about the consumption of energy and the way we live our lives, I shall be pleased to hear about them.
On these Benches we are also concerned about nuclear power, a subject which has already been mentioned in the debate. Nuclear power carries a terrible latent risk. No matter what happens there is always a risk. On these Benches we are keen to see nuclear fission reactors taken out of mainstream use. We believe that that could be accomplished by the year 2020. It is not because we are completely opposed to nuclear power. It is because we realise that there is always a waste product and there is always danger.
Many of the points that I wanted to make have already been made. However, I wish to ask one or two questions of the Government. Although they have taken certain initiatives—for example, on lead free petrol—when will there be a more centralised energy policy with longer term objectives? I appreciate that the Government intend to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000 as opposed to the year 2005. When will they finally form a policy which attracts all the different strands of energy consumption? How does energy consumption tie in with their vision of how the rest of the world will be living? Will we, for instance, be having tighter regulations about maximum efficiency in the use of machinery?
6.27 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord HolmPatrick, on an excellent maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in the future. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, on an excellent speech which gave us a wholly new angle on Lloyd's insurance. I wonder whether the fact that five Lloyd's brokers equal a one-bar electric fire may explain why so many members get burned. I worry that his explanation of a further down side, as he called it, at Lloyd's of a lethal disease lurking on the roof will worry many and lead to a further exodus. I also wonder in passing whether stop loss policies could be adopted and adapted to the energy sector.
If I may focus on the central issue, the Motion is wide and very important. I should like to take up the international dimension from the original Motion and point out that the future increase in demand for energy will come from the developing countries. Their total consumption will soon overtake that of the developed countries. That has important environmental implications. I note in passing that Eastern Europe is responsible for nearly a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. With China and India
1318
industrialising, the pollution problems in the future are potentially quite terrible. The world's atmosphere knows no environmental boundaries. That situation, linked to Rio, points to programmes of technology transfer—for example, in the clean coal technology area—which will enable economic growth to continue in the developing world, while being compatible with environmental protection. Such programmes are of importance to us all.
Even more pertinent to the main issue, I should like to ask both the Minister and the House: how can the Government develop an international dimension to energy policy? How can they develop their part in the EC energy policy or in the real aspects of environmental protection when, basically, we do not have a national energy policy for the United Kingdom? I feel that that was symbolised by the abolition of the Department of Energy. I, for one, certainly regret that development. It gives the wrong signal in this crucial area.
Historically, the United Kingdom's approach to energy has, admittedly, always been pragmatic and usual reactive to international oil crises. I believe it is true to say that we have not actually had a White Paper on fuel policy since 1967; that is, before oil had been discovered. Of course, since the 1980s that pragmatism has been replaced, or perhaps larded, by the ideology that positively rejected the idea of energy policies and strategies and relied on the free market through privatisation, coupled with a touch of regulation. I believe that the result is the present confusion in the energy area and certain damaging developments.
Energy privatisation has not created competition; it has produced private monopolies and oligopolies. It has led to a situation where the electricity generators are dashing for gas and we have had massive coal imports. Moreover, our coal industry has been rushed towards extinction and our natural gas reserves are being rapidly depleted. In fact, that energy muddle —as I would call it—cannot be allowed to continue, bearing in mind that the United Kingdom faces a future where our energy self-sufficiency will end early in the 21st century, where the environmental constraints will grow and where, specific to the sector, I believe that all our generating plant must be replaced within 25 years. Therefore, I think that the Government must develop a coherent energy strategy. It cannot be left to the regulators who have no responsibility for an overview, and no responsibility for the national interest.
Government must develop that coherent strategy. They must do so for a number of important reasons; namely, energy, economic, environmental, social and industrial reasons. The intrinsic energy reasons exist because it is necessary to identify a desirable balanced mix of energy sources which will ensure security of supply. The latter must be a basic objective. We must also ensure a responsible depletion of the limited indigenous sources that we have. That particularly concerns gas and oil which are in limited supply and coal which is virtually unlimited but environmentally difficult.

1319
The environmental reasons are that our economy must have secure supplies at reasonable prices. Therefore, in my view, it must not be wholly subject to the whims of overseas suppliers or to the fluctuations of import prices at various currency variations. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government actually have a view on the value of energy self-sufficiency for the United Kingdom. Alternatively, are the Government content to expose our economy to the uncertain costs of energy imports?
The environmental reasons are obvious to anyone following the current conference in Rio. The Government obviously must have an environmentally-sensitive energy policy. The four main causes of pollution are all energy related. They are, first, electricity generation; secondly, transport consumption; thirdly, industrial consumption; and, fourthly, household consumption. The three energy technologies which are the most clean are conservation, renewable sources—that is, sun, wind and water—and nuclear. Against that background, the Government must encourage the correct environmental priorities among the energy-sourcing options available to them to constitute a coherent energy policy which is sensitive to the environment.
The social reason, which very much concerns this side of the House, is that the changes in the pattern of production and supply have profound implications for employment and social life in our regions. Here, one is especially referring to coal. The industrial reason why the Government must be involved in the matter and cannot stay out of it is that the electricity and gas industries are monopolistic. Therefore, the energy market is fundamentally imperfect. The public interest cannot be left to ad hoc regulation; it needs government policy and intervention.
That is the case for a coherent energy strategy which is mentioned in the Motion. But what should it be? I shall try briefly to set out the components involved. We should begin with greater conservation, which must be pursued more vigorously. In 1988 the then Department of Energy said, and most experts agreed, that there was scope for 30 per cent. energy savings through conservation. Can the Minister say how much of that 30 per cent. has been achieved, and when the new department responsible will achieve the remainder?
Therefore, conservation comes first. The next consideration must be a policy for electricity generation which is at the heart of many of our energy concerns and problems. I believe that government policy should place a series of obligations on the electricity generating industry. First, there should be an obligation to maintain security of supply which used to apply before privatisation. That, by implication, includes maintaining the UK coal industry and ensuring that there is care for the rate at which natural gas is depleted. Secondly, there should be an obligation to encourage conservation, which I have already mentioned. That should apply specifically to the electricity generators because, currently, their sole incentives are to expand production and sales and not to conserve. Thirdly, there should be an
1320
obligation to pursue environmental protection especially as electricity generation is a major source of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions.
It follows that the electricity industry should be expected to devote more research and development expenditure to clean coal technology, and not less, as has been the case since privatisation. The generators should also be required seriously to encourage renewable energy sources. That means through long term contracts. I support very much the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Those are all matters of national interest for government, not just for regulators.
More specifically, and as I have already mentioned, the coal industry has been rushed towards extinction, with perfectly viable and profitable pits recently closed as the power generators have turned to foreign coal and to gas. That process of industrial assassination has apparently just been halted under pressure to preserve some coal profits for privatisation. But, again, there are wider policy concerns and considerations than simply the commercial profit interests of British Coal and the generators; namely, security of access to domestic coal. For that reason, I repeat the fact that the development of clean coal technology for the UK to transfer to the new industrial nations such as India and China should have the highest priority in a coherent energy policy.
Energy policy must cover transport, now the largest energy using sector. It overtook industry and subsequently the domestic sectors in the late 1980s. Transport demand has increased by more than 100 per cent. in the past three decades. That will continue with enormous environmental implications. We need government initiatives affecting the individual use of cars through regulation, fiscal instruments, road pricing, vehicle standards, traffic management and above all the provision of more efficient public transport.
Finally, I turn to energy research where the Government's expenditure is very low by international standards; mainly on nuclear research. I link that again to the need for more research into clean coal technology and transport consumption of fuel.
I believe that we lack a proper energy strategy as called for in the Motion. We need such a strategy, meeting our energy, economic, environmental, social and industrial considerations in a coherent way. I have tried to set out the basic necessary components and I look forward to hearing whether the Government have any such vision of Britain's energy future.
6.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I am extremely sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was unable to introduce today's debate. The cause of his absence must, by its fact, be serious. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in hoping that it is temporary. We must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for allowing us to continue with the debate, in particular so that we could hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord

1321
HolmPatrick. I join wholeheartedly in the congratulations. I shall only say that I hope that the risk factor of tug-of-wars does not mean that injuries will prevent him from speaking to us again in the near future.
The subject of this debate is important and it was important that the debate took place. There is no doubt that the production and use of energy is fundamental to the development and growth of economies across the world. The substantial increase in energy consumption which has occurred since the end of the Second World War has been instrumental in helping to raise the standards of living of people throughout the world. If developing countries are to enjoy the benefits which the developed world has taken for granted, then a future rise in the demand for energy will be inevitable. Advances in energy technology, improvements in the efficiency with which energy is supplied and used, and the continued discovery of new energy resources have so far managed to out-strip rising demand. The world's proven reserves of oil and gas are seen to be higher than ever before. Coal and uranium reserves remain enormous. The potential also exists for considerable supplies of energy from renewable sources, as we have heard this afternoon, if and when they can be harnessed in an economically feasible fashion. But, that does not mean, of course, that we can afford to be profligate in using these resources. Nor can we afford to ignore the implications for the environment. Quite the contrary, for no source of energy is totally environmentally benign. That is why we all—governments, producers and users of energy—have a responsibility to work to limit the environmental consequences of supplying energy needs.
In the UK we are in the fortunate position of having considerable resources of coal, oil and gas and long experience of civil nuclear power along with the potential to make greater use of renewable sources of energy. I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that there is not the muddle that he fears. The Government's policy is to ensure that the nation has adequate, secure and diverse supplies of energy at competitive prices and in an environmentally responsible fashion. I hope that that policy statement will reassure my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale too. This requires that we maintain diversity and flexibility in the types of fuel we use to reduce the risk of dependency on any particular fuel. I am sure that it was not necessary for a Gulf War in order to bring that message home. It requires that an efficient and effective regulatory regime is in place.
We have given effect to this policy through the following measures: privatisation of gas and electricity; liberalisation of the energy market coupled with effective regulation; supporting nuclear power and renewables through research and development and the non-fossil fuel obligation and the fossil fuel levy; ensuring that the taxation of our considerable oil and gas resources provides companies with the incentives to explore and develop fully these resources; by carrying out a major investment programme to modernise our coal industry to enable it to compete—and the size of that investment was
1322
referred to earlier; and by devoting considerable effort and resources to energy efficiency. By these means we have ensured that the UK has substantial energy resources covering a broad balance of fuel types capable of meeting the requirements of our consumers well into the future at the lowest possible cost of supply.
In the past, UK governments have tried to reconcile the competing claims of coal, gas and oil and nuclear energy by centralised planning. In fact, central planning and energy policy became synonymous in the minds of many and, unfortunately, there are still many who think this way. Without exception, these indicative plans failed. Governments are simply not omniscient in predicting future relative prices of fuels and levels of supply and demand in energy markets nor, indeed, in anything else. And, more important, concentrating decisions in this way stifled enterprise, ensured that when mistakes were made they were made on a major scale and made decision-making vulnerable to special pleading of organised interests.
The exploration and production of energy resources has long since been a global business. More recently, the global dimension of energy consumption has been recognised in the debate over environmental pollution and global warming. The UK Government have been very much at the forefront, taking a constructive role in this debate. I am pleased to reassure my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury that we are very much concerned with policy in Europe.
Within the European Community we attach considerable importance to the completion of the internal market in energy. The Commission has produced draft directives on electricity and gas designed to reduce the very considerable barriers which currently exist to trading these fuels. The Government fully accept this objective and intend to make it a high priority during the forthcoming UK presidency to facilitate these moves towards an open and more transparent energy market in Europe. It is ironic that these most basic of commodities are not yet traded in a single internal market. I am sure that all noble Lords will be pleased to hear of the government's focus in this area.
The European Commission announced on 13th May that it proposed to send a draft directive for a carbon and energy tax to the Council. We have yet to receive a copy of their proposal, but we will clearly need to study it carefully. There is no question of taking premature decisions on this important issue. We understand that the Commission has said that the introduction of the tax would be conditional on other countries adopting similar measures. We see this as a welcome development on their previous proposals for a unilateral European tax.
I have referred to the global issues raised by energy consumption and the growing concern about the ability of our planet to go on absorbing the waste and related products from continued increases in energy production without causing growing damage to our global environment. This matter concerns many noble Lords who have spoken today. The UK Government are pleased that a Framework Convention on Climate Change has now been agreed for signature in Rio.

1323
Under the convention, developed countries will be committed to taking measures aimed at returning emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
The UK announced on 30th April that, provided other countries take similar action, it is ready to return CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2000, rather than by 2005, as previously announced. To achieve the conditional target, UK measures in the short to medium term include increased energy efficiency, switching to less polluting fuels for electricity generation and more renewable energy. In the longer term, we accept that energy prices will have to rise by taxation or other means.
As my noble friend Lord Mersey pointed out, the energy needs of developing countries are rising, reflecting population growth and economic development. It is essential that these are met in an environmentally sustainable fashion through the responsible use of all economic energy resources. This represents an enormous global challenge. Far too many countries, both in the developed and developing world, subsidise or otherwise manipulate energy prices for social or other policy reasons. That encourages wasteful use of energy.
However, I am pleased to note that there are signs throughout the world community of a much greater understanding of the role energy markets play, particularly of pricing, in the production and consumption of energy. This was seen, for example, in the conference organised by the International Energy Agency in Paris earlier this year.
Meeting the world's rising needs for energy in an environmentally sustainable fashion has been one of the major underlying themes in the deliberations of the Preparatory Committee for the Earth Summit taking place this week in Rio and in the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. In those and other contexts, some have argued that sustainable energy development requires agreement by governments on global energy strategies which they would then impose on their economies.
I have already indicated that such policies did not work in the UK and the common experience of top-down command and control strategies the world over is that they do not succeed. At best, they lead to gross inefficiency and mis-allocation of resources and at worst they directly lead to the tragic economic collapses we have witnessed, for example, in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Indeed, it is highly relevant to record the comment of a representative of the Russian Federation at one of the Rio Preparatory Committee meetings during a discussion of this approach. He observed that his country was emerging from a 70-year experiment in centralised state planning which had demonstrated beyond doubt that such an approach led to economic and environmental disaster. That is why his country and many others are eager to convert as quickly as practicable to market-based economies.
Accordingly, the market operating within an effective framework of arrangements to safeguard health, safety and the environment is widely and increasingly accepted as the most effective and efficient
1324
mechanism for meeting world energy needs. The pricing of energy at its full cost, together with improvements in energy efficiency, is the key to ensuring sustainable energy development and consumption. These issues are vital and much has been done to improve the general understanding of the problems and the role of markets. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to build on international co-operation and understanding, to ensure that all countries in both the developed and the developing world use energy resources efficiently and responsibly.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale expressed sympathy for me at the range of topics that would be covered in today's debate. The great range of experience and knowledge of noble Lords did not prove him wrong. My noble friends Lord Wade of Chorlton and Lord HolmPatrick drew attention to the fact that biofuels offer a particularly attractive response to heightened environmental concern. There can be a net benefit to the local environment from waste disposal and alternative farming and forestry practices which provide a source of renewable energy.
In addition, in common with all renewables, global and regional environmental impacts are reduced when biofuels displace fossil fuels. If, simultaneously, it helps the rural economy, for which my noble friend Lord Wade has continuing anxiety, it will be a bonus.
The use of crops as fuel is an important area. We agree that there is a significant future potential for the use of willow by short rotation coppicing. The Government have extensive research and development programmes involving trial plantations and harvesting. The Forestry Commission has introduced grant aid, through its woodland grant scheme, to encourage planting. Several noble Lords raised important points about this.
The question of combined heat and power was raised by my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton and, with much skill, by my noble friend Lord Mersey. I agree that there is significant potential for combined heat and power and community heating to be applied to domestic dwellings in urban areas. Although progress is slow at present, I am nevertheless encouraged by developments in this field. There are now large, established schemes running, for example, in Nottingham and Sheffield. In addition, there are medium-scale community heating schemes and a number of smaller schemes in residential developments such as sheltered housing, using small-scale combined heat and power units. Like my noble friend Lord Wade, I should like to see our skills sold abroad.
I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Mersey on drawing attention to a Lloyd's problem, to which there is an effective and welcome solution. I wonder whether he has considered that there could be a possible market opportunity for combined cooling plants not too far away from this Chamber. In talking about DRAX, my noble friend illustrated the difficulty of environmental decisions and how there will never be simple solutions.
We were fortunate to have a major contribution from my noble friend Lord Lindsay who brought much knowledge to the debate, for which we are

1325
grateful. I am pleased that the future of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group is currently under consideration by Ministers. I acknowledge the considerable role that Mr. Moynihan played in setting it up and keeping a focus on it.
The question of the 1998 removal of the levy for renewables was also raised by my noble friends. Again I am pleased to say that the Government are in discussion with the European Commission with a view to making any future renewables orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation extend beyond 1998.
The Government's policy on renewables is to stimulate their development and application wherever they have the prospect of being economically viable and environmentally acceptable by research, development and demonstration programmes removing barriers to their deployment and providing an initial guaranteed market via the non-fossil fuel obligation. Today noble Lords made clear how important in their minds that was.
I was interested to hear my noble friend say that wind farms offered small firm growth potential in the tourist market. I have seen the one at British Nuclear Fuels which has generated considerable income in the area. That byproduct is perhaps not always mentioned.
Several speakers have touched on clean coal technology. The Government recognise the importance of the development of this technology and careful consideration will be given to it in the context of privatisation. The department is providing £170,000 to enable a working party to examine what needs to be done to take the Topping Cycle to the next stage of development.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury correctly identified the fact that the coal industry can look forward to privatisation. The Government's privatisation policy stems from the belief that business flourishes and provides the best service to customers where management is free to manage without interference in commercial matters from government.
Both my noble friends Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Shrewsbury touched on the matter of methane generation from waste. I agree with them that there is potential both in the UK and overseas to use methane from landfill sites and from farm waste as a fuel. I am pleased to point out that the UK's use of landfill gas is second only to that of the USA. There are 37 commercial plants operating and many more are expected to come on stream as a result of the non-fossil fuel obligation.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury also asked about the relaxing of the regulations concerning the tonnage of coal taken from opencast sites. Those of us with Midlands connections have seen the prosperity that that process can bring to an area. The relaxing of the regulations will be considered in the context of the main privatisation Bill on the coal industry to be introduced later this Session.
I realise that some noble Lords are concerned about the Energy Select Committee. That is a matter for the Leader of the House in another place but I understand that it is under consideration. My noble friend Lord
1326
Skelmersdale emphasised the need for cheap energy. He assessed its importance correctly as being equal to the need for cheap food. Cheap energy is a prime factor in nations achieving a worthwhile quality of life. My noble friend said it was fashionable for Ministers to tour the world looking at examples of good practice. I should point out to my noble friend that Ministers involved with small firms seem to tour the UK. Wolverhampton and Rotherham are towns that loom large in their tours. I shall take pleasure in drawing to the attention of my right honourable friend the need to look at some of the mistakes that have occurred in this area and some of the examples of bad practice in the United States. Attention has been drawn to that bad practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, drew attention to the need for conservation. That is absolutely clear. Conservation is an aspect of this matter where solutions can be found that offer the least number of disadvantages. In terms of the conservation of energy the problem of risk benefit is easier to solve. I hope the noble Lord will be pleased with the new energy saving trust that my right honourable friend at the Department of the Environment launched last month. The noble Lord also drew attention to the problems that the car creates in terms of energy conservation and to the difficulties that will arise as regards drawing up cost benefit formulae in that area. The noble Lord rightly pointed out the necessity for cultural change as regards the attitude towards the motor car.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, mentioned the international aspect of atmospheric pollution. This is obviously a global issue. The developing world's emissions of carbon dioxide are growing and will continue to do so. It is important to note that the UK's emissions of carbon dioxide are less than 3 per cent. of the world total. We agree that co-operation in technology has a key role to play in promoting sustainable development in all parts of the world. It is sometimes forgotten that a solution to environmental problems will have to be provided through technology and engineering. Our education system must consider that issue.
We have had a wide-ranging debate. I hope I have not missed too many of the points that were made. However, if I have done so, I shall be happy to consider them outside the Chamber. I am grateful to those who have participated in the debate. I hope that when he reads this debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will be delighted with the contributions that have been made. I thank the noble Viscount in his absence for having given us the opportunity to draw attention to a responsibility that we all have as regards protecting our assets for future generations.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that wind-up speech. I fear that I have no further news to give to the House about the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, but clearly he has had an accident or is feeling indisposed and has been detained somewhere. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who is about to speak on his Unstarred Question was not in his place, and, realising that the

1327
debate could have been allowed to last for another 55 minutes, I made a few notes, most of which I shall not now use.
I hope the House will permit me to say a few words on energy, as it is a subject that is close to my heart, having been associated with the petro-chemical industry, and therefore indirectly with the energy industry. It is my view that fossil fuels should be used for making chemicals and should not be used as a form of energy. That is a basic tenet that I hold.
It is quite clear that fossil fuels, however great a quantity may be left in the ground, are finite. For the sake if not of our children then of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, we must ensure that at some stage in the future when fossil fuels begin to run out there will be alternatives available so our successors may sustain their lifestyle.
I regret that for obvious reasons I was not able to be present during the whole of the debate. However, I noted a few remarks that were made. If for no other reason than being able to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord HolmPatrick, on the subject of wind energy, I was glad I was able to get this debate under way. The noble Lord's speech was extremely interesting.
I am sorry that I missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as I understand that he said something about the developing world. The Minister mentioned coppicing, which is obviously an important aspect of the third world's production of wood fuel. We should not forget the need for improved intermediate technology to make sure that the wood which is being burnt in the third world is used efficiently. One of the most damaging results from an environmental point of view of third world countries' use of wood as a fuel is the deforestation of even marginal scrub land, as that can lead to soil erosion and all kinds of other problems. This is a complex subject and it ranges over the whole area of fossil fuels, nuclear fuel and various kinds of replaceable forms of energy. The subject also covers the whole area of intermediate technology.
I was interested to hear the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, as regards Lloyd's. The noble Baroness has stolen the only joke about Lloyd's that I had in my book but I must say that the way this House is ventilated, or rather not ventilated, being hot in summer and cold in winter, is a matter that the Science Research Council or some other body could look into. I am quite sure there is a resource here, even if it is only the kind of hot air that I am turning out at the moment.
I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. As the noble Baroness said, I am sure that, when my noble friend reads this debate, he too will be grateful to those who have taken part in it. On his behalf I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dentistry
7.9 p.m.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for the future development of dentistry in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for giving me an extra couple of minutes in which to recover. I normally expect to travel from my surgery to the House in about 12 minutes, but I had reckoned without Beating Retreat on Horse Guards and I had to walk my bicycle a rather long way round. Hence my late arrival.
I am grateful to the usual channels for allowing me to raise this important subject this evening and to other noble Lords who are to contribute to the debate. Your Lordships will be aware that discussions about dentistry and its future within the National Health Service have been in the news during the last few weeks. I hope to be able to make some constructive comments which may help the department in its considerations.
I declare an interest as a practising dental surgeon. Following qualification in 1967 I had 15 years' experience of working in the National Health Service. My sentiments this evening are purely personal, although I have consulted the British Dental Association and the Dental Practice Board. I am also grateful to Tom Farrell, David Phillips, Kevin Lewis and the Forum for the Future of Dentistry for information and advice. Regrettably much of the paperwork arrived too late for inclusion this evening but I know that it will be useful for future discussions on dentistry.
As I said in the debate on Her Majesty's gracious Speech on 12th May, the next few months will be the most significant for the dental profession since 1948. Just before the election my right honourable friend the Prime Minister intervened to suspend the proposed 13.8 per cent. cut in fees which the Department of Health had suggested, potentially ignoring the normal processes by which dental remuneration is decided. During the past three months payments have continued at the 1991 level and the department has now estimated that a cut in the region of 23 per cent. is necessary to balance the budget.
There have been various meetings between the department and the British Dental Association, which have resulted in a proposed reduction of 7 per cent. in fees and a promise from my right honourable friend the Minister of a fundamental review of the way in which dentists are paid. I hope this evening to be able to make some suggestions for her consideration, as it is quite clear that the present system needs complete overhaul.
I am also concerned that, unless there can be a period of relative stability, dentists, who will be uncertain of their financial future, will try to balance their budgets by working even harder, causing a continued increase in payments and substantially compounding the problem, or even opting out of the National Health Service to the detriment of patient care and government commitment.
Although the dental remuneration system has worked well in the past, it has evolved into a highly complex scheme which is simply not working now. Although the Government are implementing in full the 8.5 per cent. Dentists and Doctors Review Body settlement and allowing a continuing excess payment, the result is generally perceived as a reduction in income.
That 7 per cent. cut drives some fees back below the October 1989 levels and will not spread the burden of recovering the overspend. For the practice with low or average practice expenses the effects are serious, but for the practice with above average costs the results are devastating. In 1991–92 the average practitioner's overheads consumed about 60 per cent. of gross fees earned. Assuming the same workload in 1992–93, a 7 per cent. fee cut would see that dentist's profits falling by 29 per cent. Lower practice costs of 50 per cent. or higher costs of 70 per cent. would see profits fall by 22 per cent. or 41 per cent. respectively, but there are many practices where costs are as high as 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. Here profits would fall by 51 per cent. and 65 per cent. That will cause serious problems.
A brief history might be useful. Dentistry came within the NHS at its conception in 1948 as a free service for all, and dentists were paid on a fixed fee per item of service basis. It was not until 1951 that charges were first introduced and patients made a contribution towards the cost of false teeth. That was followed in 1952 by a charge for other treatment as well as dentures, with all treatment limited to a maximum patient's charge. In 1977 separate charges were made for crowns in addition to dentures and other treatment, subject to an overall maximum. In 1985 the concept of a maximum charge of £17 plus 40 per cent. of the excess over that figure was introduced for other treatments in addition to charges for dentures and crowns up to an overall maximum. In 1988 non-exempt patients were required to pay 75 per cent. of all fees up to the maximum.
The new contract introduced in 1990 used a basic capitation system of registration. It is the success of the new contract, which was accepted by the profession under duress but made to work by the profession, which has caused the problems we see today. That new contract has greatly changed dental practice, which, despite reports to the contrary, is a great success and not in danger of imminent collapse. At the end of March about 27 million patients were registered, with an overall take-up rate of 52 per 100 adults and 57 per hundred children. Now 18 per cent. of all children under the age of two years are registered with GDS dentists. Very few children of that age would have been seen under the old contract and the introduction of young children to dental care involving dietary advice must be a move towards prevention, one of the objectives of the new contract.
It is the success of the new contract which has caused much of the trouble. Any increase in treatment means that the funding available for dentistry has to be shared out among more treatments, thus necessitating a cut in fees. The amount of money paid to GDS dentists in England and Wales in 1991–92 was
1330
20 per cent. higher than in 1990–91. That increase is higher than was expected and occurred for a number of reasons. When the new fee levels were set to achieve the average dentist earnings recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body, they were calculated on the basis of a forecast drop in output of 3 per cent. That resulted in a fee scale increase of 8.6 per cent. from 1st July on new courses of treatment. In the event, output increased during the year. Had that level of output been forecast, fee scale increases would have been lower or non-existent.
Some of the increase in output—about 2 per cent. —was the result of the work flow at the Dental Practice Board, which was able to decrease the amount of new contract work accumulated at the board. That made a significant contribution to the increase in output, but the larger part of the increase in claims was generated by dentists. They can do that in a number of ways: by working longer hours or faster, or by making greater use of auxiliary personnel for those treatments or advice they are qualified to provide. The changes made by the new contract, involving many changes to the narrative, may have had an impact on the balance of child and adult patients, the range of patients seen and the treatment pattern provided. For example, there may have been changes in the type of examination required, the type of treatment needed and the laboratory cost involved, and the dentist may have been called out to provide emergency cover. Any such changes have an impact on total GDS gross fees.
Dental remuneration is determined by a simple formula. The average dentist should earn the target average net income (TANI) of £35,815 as recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body, plus an element in excess of £45,000 to cover practice expenses. The total is referred to as the target average gross income (TAGI).
I very much regret that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in her various interviews on dental remuneration repeatedly referred to the fact that:
"a third of dentists earned over £100,000—which is a very substantial figure".
She also said that:
"a third over £100,000 is quite a lot—gross".
Although I cannot argue with her figures I believe that the statement gives the false impression that that is the sort of figure that many dentists actually take home. Practice costs, which can vary from between 40 per cent. to 70 per cent., are deducted from that figure. Therefore, I believe it is a mistake to give an impression of dental earnings being in the £100,000 range. A view of net earning potential would have provided a fairer comparison.
A substantial part of the expense element is made up of staff wages and rent, so that the average dentist is reimbursed for those items, plus other expenses, via the fee scale. Not all dentists are average. They do not all treat an average number of patients with an average amount of treatment of average quality. The aim is to enable the average practitioner to reach the target gross income, but the calculations are so

1331
sensitive that one false assumption can change the fee for a given item, which might affect the prescribing pattern in favour of or away from that item.
Over the past two decades 55 per cent. to 60 per cent. of all practitioners have not achieved the target gross income. Some exceed the target quite easily and some can achieve three or four times the target. That is why so few practitioners can relate to that average label.
I remind noble Lords of the Tatersall Report in 1964, which stated:
"In short, nobody can assert with conviction that any individual dentist is getting what he is entitled to, let alone what he deserves".
The fee scale is meant to be neutral, in that it rewards all types of treatment at exactly the same level, but that is not the way the system works. In the current NHS system the winners inevitably will include those who have low fixed costs, can work very quickly and stick to basic dentistry, referring out anything troublesome or unprofitable, as well as those who invest as little as possible of their profits in their equipment and practices and use the cheapest materials. The losers are those in high-cost areas where overheads are more expensive and where the practitioner may take more time and trouble setting high standards and investing in modern equipment, a pleasant environment and good quality laboratory support and materials.
Nothing epitomises the folly of NHS averaging better than capitation. Although I am well aware of the differential in need for dental treatment in different parts of the country, to be paid the same rates whether one is treating the high-need or low-need patients, whether one's area is fluoridated or unfluoridated, or whether one practises in the cheapest or most expensive locality, is divisive, hurtful and demoralising to those on the wrong end of the system. If one sets high standards, works more slowly and is in a high-cost area, the NHS holds nothing but problems; movement into the private sector becomes the only alternative.
The uniform expense factor is of great concern to most dentists. Not only is it uniform throughout Great Britain, taking no account of varying overheads around the country, it acts to the advantage of the large practice and the high earning dentists. The constant overhead costs, such as rents and, to a certain extent wages —which are not directly proportional to the number of dentists in a practice—are spread among more than one dentist and the expense element for those items is a lower percentage per dentist in multiple practices. Also, for the high earning dentist, the expense element represents a smaller percentage of gross fees.
For those reasons there is a good case for the direct reimbursement of staff wages and rent as well as business rates—which already occurs. At present medical practitioners receive direct payments of 70 per cent. of expenses. That would probably be about right for dentists. Indeed, the concept of the fund-holding practice, which is already a great success in medicine, could be considered a valuable alternative.
Dentists are aggrieved by what they see as the inequalities of the balancing mechanism which,
1332
because it operates three years in arrears, seems manifestly unfair to many dentists, especially newcomers, those earning below the average and practitioners nearing the end of their career. The Dental Rates Study Group calculations have resulted in over-payments to dentists in each of the last three years, building up a very worrying potential debt for future dental practitioners to face. On the other hand, it must be government policy to encourage dentists to work hard, increase their productivity and give a better service. I am sure that serious consideration must be given to finding alternatives to the balancing procedures.
In the longer term—I appreciate that fundamental change to the new contract would probably not be considered at this time—moves toward a larger measure of capitation than exists at present for adult patients would be an advantage to the average practitioner. At present dental practitioners receive 47 pence per month for each adult registered with them. That figure could easily be increased to cover, say, the cost of any examinations and diagnostic procedures provided. Again, that would slightly reduce fee levels and dampen down high earners' gross fee levels. Overall, dentists would still receive the majority of their income from item of service fees, which is important.
An added bonus which would result from the inclusion of some small common items in capitation is that it would reduce the paperwork, since dentists would not have to submit an estimate to the Dental Practice Board if the only treatment required was that covered by the capitation fee; namely, examination, radiograph and reference models. I am informed that that represented about 20 per cent. of adult claims in the quarter ending March 1992.
One of the difficulties of moving adult treatment slightly more into capitation is the problem of patients' charges, which at present are 75 per cent. of the cost of treatment up to a maximum of £225. The monthly continuing care payments are free of patients' charges at present. The question of how to claim the patient's charge would have to be resolved, but I am sure that it is not insoluble. I suggest that the Government could easily reintroduce the free dental examination within that slight move towards adult capitation without having to return to the original system.
The proposed lowering of the prior approval threshold to £200 is a dramatic quick-fix control on the fee-per-item overspend. It was predictable enough in principle, if not in scale. But, for it to be effective in slowing or reducing costs, it will have to entail increased bureaucracy and delays in treatment. Prior approval for the more complex dentistry represents more stringent prescribing restrictions than for very many years, although now targeted to total treatment volume rather than the type of treatment. However, I have to say that a review of treatment patterns at the Dental Practice Board does not suggest long-term swings as prior approval requirements are changed. From that it is safe to assume that the vast majority of dentists provide treatment that they consider to be clinically necessary. The increase in some items and

1333
the decline in others is more likely to be related to other factors, such as changes in treatment philosophy.
The cost of a course of treatment has moved from £3.40 in 1964 to £28.20 in 1989–90, before the new contract came in. When those figures are adjusted to the 1989–90 level the figures are £25.30 and £28.20 respectively. In other words, the cost of a course of treatment has not increased as prior approval restrictions have been lifted. Those practices which never had a serious option of leaving the NHS may even be relieved that the fee cut announced is only 7 per cent., but they must remain disheartened. To maintain the same income the average practitioner will need to increase productivity—to work longer hours at the expense of time that he should be able to spend with his family.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to undertake the promised fundamental review of dentistry. It should be wide-ranging, comprehensive, independently led and, above all, free from domination by the representatives of the provider groups, such as the General Dental Services Committee. Unless that is assured, it is difficult to maintain the public interest in the context of determining the priorities of dental health and public expenditure. We cannot allow another meddling exercise to occur between the GDSC and the department, leading to another short-term solution.
There is no doubt that individual general dental practitioners in the United Kingdom give the most effective and efficient dental service in the industrial West. The NHS already represents very good value in terms of public expenditure. Nevertheless, the system of payments to dentists, particularly with regard to the provision of services to those in greatest need, is in need of urgent review. I have great doubt whether the profession's existing negotiators will be able to bring that about. Ordinary family dentists are not convinced that the negotiators are totally representative. Evidence must be heard from a full range of dental practitioners and interested parties, including the most important people in the scenario: the consumer and taxpayer.
In view of the debate last week on the Committee work of the House and the conclusion that the work of the ad hoc committees was impressive and should be widened, I venture to suggest that your Lordships' House should consider the appointment of a committee to inquire into the future of dentistry. I should be delighted to help in any way possible.
7.28 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, for introducing this topic. Having been yesterday in the situation in which he is today, I should like to offer my heartfelt sympathy. Unusually, I should like to declare an interest. It is one not where I fill but where I am filled. I declare an interest as a consumer and taxpayer. The noble Lord said that I am therefore one of the most important people. I should like to think so.
1334
Over the years I have got to know my dentists very well, sometimes—I hope they will forgive me for saying this—rather better than I should have liked.
A long time ago during the Prime Ministership of Sir Edward Heath, I came to the conclusion that never again should we elect a Prime Minister with good teeth. That view, alas, has not yet gained general currency. One of the reasons that made me return to this country from the United States was the availability here of the National Health Service dentistry. I was finding its absence serious indeed. Therefore when I declare an interest in the debate I mean it literally. We should note how consistently the producer and the consumer—allegedly opposed interests—in fact speak with a single voice against the intrusion of a state which has got its costs wrong.
During the debate we shall hear a good many figures. The Secretary of State gave some. The Conservative Central Office press release contains some. I should like to know who are the dentists with whom the Secretary of State has talked. From what source does he receive information about figures?
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, described the system of the target average gross income. It is easy to mistake a hypothetical income for an actual income. The hypothetical income is what it would have been if the dentist's expenses had been as predicted. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is entirely right about averages. A great many dentists' expenses are not as predicted. Therefore the dentists' actual net income may have nothing to do with calculations taking place centrally of what the dentists' income might have been.
I am briefed by my own dentist whose anxiety about the issue is deep and intense. He has always been dedicated to the health service. He has been extremely anxious about his future in it ever since the introduction of the dental contract which, in his view —it seems correct—is where the trouble stems from. If there is not an urgent resolution of the immediate issue, then I believe that he will leave the health service. Since he is a very good dentist—when I declare an interest, I mean it—that would concern me deeply.
We have not only a long-term problem. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that there is a strong case for overhauling the way in which dentists' remuneration is calculated. There is also the urgent short-term problem of a shortfall of income, as many dentists perceive it. Since the Adam Smith principle that a deal must be in the interest of both parties is perfectly sound, if the dentists are not satisfied with the deal that they are offered they will not continue to undertake the work. Since there is private dentistry, there is competition. The Government must face that.
The contract calculated expenses by a gross formula applying a flat rate nationally. Every Londoner will tell you that that simply does not work. Anyone who pays the same rent for premises in Sheffield as he would pay in London is not a good man of business. Anyone who pays the same laboratory costs in London as he would in Sheffield is probably

1335
not a good man of business. The laboratory costs, in particular in a good practice, are a vital part of the costs.
Secondly, it is not only a national flat rate formula. It is also an inaccurate calculation of costs. Over the years this Government have been extremely prone to that. But it seems to be almost on the level of the miscalculation of the standard spending assessments at the introduction of the poll tax. If nothing is done about the miscalculation, the effects may be equally serious.
I understand that there is a need to watch costs, but it is not intelligent to pretend that items cost less than they actually do. If you are cutting costs you must do so by undertaking the work you can afford and by not doing the work you cannot afford. Cutting costs by pretending that costs are lower than they are is an exercise in fiction. Watching such a style of cost cutting I am sometimes reminded of a devastating onslaught by one literary critic on another when he observed on the fifth page, "He is not one of the abler practitioners of this form of criticism." Similarly one may say that the Government are not always among the abler practitioners of this form of cost cutting.
The effect of the contract was to reduce my dentist's income in a practice, newly and very well equipped, to £11,400 a year. Naturally he reacted as you and I would do by working all the hours that God sends and a few that He did not. I have much cause to be thankful to my dentist for doing so.
That extra effort by the dentists produced earnings which led the department to allege that there was an overpayment. It was money which the Government had not expected them to earn. They were given an economic incentive which they took. I believe that anyone holding Conservative principles would have recognised that they would do so and should praise them for it. When people have worked six days a week from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. or on one of those days until 9 p.m., the shock at having such an incentive taken away makes them consider leaving the health service.
We should consider the steady trend towards longer hours in all the public services. The paradigm public servant of the 1980s was the signalman raised to unfortunate immortality in the Hidden Report who was working so long that he had simply lost any ability to concentrate on what he was doing. In medical matters, that is, to put it no higher, unfortunate.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, also referred to the cut in the prior approval threshold from £600 to £200. As he said, that is an occasion for a great deal more bureaucracy which involves a great deal more cost. The department should consider whether the operation of that system will lead to a reduction in costs or whether the administrative costs may be close to the amount of dental saving. From the dentists' point of view, as from that of a university teacher, such a factor causes intense irritation and leads to remarks that one would not repeat in this Chamber.
I make one final point. During the election campaign I listened to the Prime Minister on the Walden programme repeating his pledge to a publicly funded health service, funded out of taxation, and free
1336
at the point of delivery. Unlike some, I recognised that pledge as totally sincere. On the other hand, as I listened I felt a great deal of doubt as to whether he would succeed in delivering the pledge. In order to succeed in doing so, he must get his costs right; and that is a matter on which the Government do not have a good record. He made no exception of the dental service. I did not understand him to intend to make any exception of it. Therefore if he is to make good one of the most significant of his election pledges—without which it is a wide open question whether the election would have gone the way it did—he must make sure that dentists make an honest living and stay in the health service.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it probably seems strange to your Lordships that I have put down my name to speak in this debate. I did so for three reasons. The first is that dental health is very important to every consumer. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I speak as a consumer. It is important to every consumer—to every person—in this country and I have always been intensely interested in anything that affects the consumer.
The second reason is that the future of dentistry seems to me to hinge on the absolute necessity to ensure that the management of change is effected in the most economic and socially acceptable way. As someone who has to cope with that difficult and demanding task on a daily basis I felt that I might have something to offer on that score. The third reason is that the future of any organisation, function or concept depends on the current state of that organisation, function or concept, and the current situation of dentistry gives me some cause for concern which I should like to share with your Lordships. That concern was described in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn.
Both the previous speakers spoke in depth about the contract, TAGI and TANI. I shall not go over that ground again. I want to talk about the future of dentistry. Dental health is something that we take very much for granted. It looms large in our lives only when we have a raging toothache. My generation, and those of an even older generation, still regard a visit to the dentist as a really terrifying experience. In fact, I often say to my banking colleagues that a visit to a bank, with its forbidding surroundings and strict tellers behind bullet-proof glass, is third in the list of the least-pleasant forays of the average consumer after the dentist and the self-service petrol station. Incidentally, lest any of my banking colleagues should perchance come across what I have just said I must put the record straight; banks are improving their customer care. But a visit to the dentists is no less terrifying!It is a mark of how wonderful the developments in dentistry have been that today's generation does not have anything like the same level of fear. It is also a situation that leads one to the conclusion that dentists are now victims of their own success. Those of us who had a mouth full of fillings before the age of 12 and those of us who had schoolfriends who had false teeth

1337
while still at school, find it hard to believe that nowadays the young people who have fillings—even one or two—are the exception rather than the rule. The dental profession has achieved remarkable success during a relatively short period of time in being largely instrumental in bringing that about. It has been due partially to regular examinations and due partially to its mission to save teeth and not to drill and fill at random. The improvement in dental health is also due, of course, to better education—schoolchildren are encouraged to look after their teeth —and also, I am quite sure, to something as simple as TV advertisements. The third reason for improved dental health must be fluoride—however controversial that whole issue has been.
Those are some of the very real plus points. But I have already made the statement that I think that dentists are the victims of their own success; and that very success questions the future shape and size of the profession and the emphases that will have to be laid upon the training of the entrants to the profession. The future of the profession is fraught with the problems of change.
Change is one of the most difficult issues that face any of us in our daily lives and the management of change is the biggest single issue facing us in our business and commercial lives. Dentists are not immune to this problem and I believe that it will become an even greater issue in the immediate and longer-term future.
As I read the situation the demand for dentists is bound to reduce if the dental health of the nation continues to improve so significantly. That demand will not tail off for some time while people such as myself still have to rely on the dentist for considerable "care and maintenance" due to the problems encountered in early childhood (in another country, I hasten to add!). But I can see a situation developing where in about 10 or 15 years' time the numbers of new intakes into the profession could be reduced significantly. This change will have to be managed. That is no easy task as the management of change in a declining market is the most difficult problem of all.
In order to ensure that the great strides made by the profession are not jeopardised it is imperative both that cognisance is taken of that now and plans to cope with the future drawn up.
Of course, no one can foretell the future and my tentative assessment of what might happen is as likely as anybody else to be completely wrong. But one way of making an attempt to forecast what the future of dentistry might be is to extrapolate from the present. And what a sorry picture emerges to those not intimately connected with the profession. I confess that my knowledge of the current position is at best scanty, told to me by my dentist when he had me captive in his chair of torture while I had no chance of answering back or of asking questions. Doubtless the rights and wrongs of the current situation will be well detailed this evening and we have already heard many. Suffice it to say that I feel very sad that a profession
1338
which has served the consumer so well—the nation so well—should be threatening to strike, or the equivalent.
It is also a sad irony that the dentists, despite their tremendous service to the nation's well-being, do not have a great deal of support from the public. That is understandable: they are not a high-profile body; usually the dentist is not the person at the centre of a life or death situation; the dentists' waiting rooms are not filled to overflowing by the hypochondriacs who want a quick fix in the form of Valium. All of this suggests that they will have little or no support from the general public for their action. The dentists are demoralised and I believe it behoves the Government to try as hard as they can to sort out this problem.
It also behoves the dentist to defuse the situationthere— has been some fairly inflammatory writing coming from their side of the divide (if divide it is). I fear that such sanctions as the dentists propose will not grab the headlines and that the two groups of people to suffer will be the dentists themselves and those of the population who are genuinely unable to pay for the increased consultation and treatment fees.
Dentists admit that there have been some rotten apples in the barrel; that some people have charged for treatment not undertaken. It is sad that those dentists who do all in their power to help their patients are being tarred by the same brush. I am sure that there are many NHS dentists who, like mine, put themselves out constantly for their patients. My dentist opens on Saturday morning to treat people, like me, who cannot visit their dentist during the normal working week. He also insists on visiting my extremely disabled husband at home, after a long and hard day's work, in order to ascertain whether the problem can be dealt with at home rather than subjecting my husband to the difficult manoeuvring of a wheelchair in a dentist's surgery. There are rotten apples in almost every barrel one cares to look into. Proper policing of the new contracts must be undertaken until such time as we have a more widespread sense of honesty in our nation.
The action that is proposed must by its very nature be short term. Everybody refers to short-termism in the City—it is a pity that it should be present also in the professions. That short-term action could jeopardise the long-term orderly development of the dental service just at a time when all the indications are that some pretty fundamental examination should be undertaken into the services that in future should be provided by the dentists.
I should like to ask a couple of questions. Why should the taxpayer pay for cosmetic dentistry? Perhaps the answer is that the psychological health of the patient is impaired without it. However, the dental health of a patient is almost certainly not impaired. I am told that a truly permanent filling material is not yet available, but when it is the demand for renewals should be considerably reduced. The demand for dentists might be limited to maintenance and repair and to orthodontics, both of which should be provided under the NHS dental contract; but I believe

1339
that everything else should be paid for. It appears to me that we are in the age-old dilemma of needs versus wants.
There is only one way to solve the current problem which, in turn, will lead to an orderly development of the future of dentistry. It is that the heat should be taken out of the current situation and that the Government should assist the profession to plan for the changed future. The suggestion that the negotiations group should be widened is excellent. I hope that in reply the Minister will give us some hope that the current uneasy state of affairs is containable, and capable of being resolved in such a manner as to ensure that there is an orderly, managed process of change leading to a great future for dentistry in this country.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Colwyn for setting out the complexities of this Question in such meticulous detail.
I thought I might address the Question on the future development of dentistry from the point of view of the steadily improving oral health of the population and how that links with the aims of the health authority. As my noble friend said, the new contract has successfully changed dental practice and that is demonstrated by the increasing numbers of both adults and children now consulting a dentist.
As chairman of a district health authority, I am particularly interested in anything which contributes to health gain and the quality of life of the population for which my authority is responsible. Sounder teeth staying put for longer must count on both those scores. Under the National Health Service reforms, emphasis has shifted from funds attached to hospital beds and other health services funded on an incremental basis to capitation funding based on the health needs of the population. As we all know, the consequence is that the money follows the patient and health authorities enter into contracts with the providers of the services.
An important part of the process of deciding which services to purchase is assessing what will be needed. At the same time, we attempt to identify illness which can be prevented. Oral health has a substantial contribution to make to improvements in general health. One of the local indicators used by the health service as a measure of the general health of the population is the incidence of tooth decay.
In order to encourage the health service to concentrate on promotion and prevention, targets are set. In that regard, a thread of government policy can be traced through first, Working for Patients, continuing through the Citizen's Charter to the Patient's Charter. That policy advocates the setting of targets both nationally and locally. Local targets are of particular interest and also feature in the Green Paper, Health of the Nation. Those local targets could be relevant in the field of oral health.
Statistics show that there is a wide geographical disparity in the incidence of decay. I give just one example. The best record for a health district of
1340
decayed, missing or filled teeth per five year-old child is 0.5, or one for every two children, and the worst is 3.5 or seven times as bad. It may be that local targets would encourage an improvement.
It would be possible to continue that line of thought to consider the benefits of fluoride in the public water supply, but that subject on its own stimulates many lively debates which are perhaps better not continued with now.
The recent history of oral health and the contribution which the new contract makes, with its implications for continuing care, is another interesting aspect of the subject under question. A few facts and figures give us some insight into what has happened. Bearing in mind that the adult population increased by 11 per cent. between 1968 and 1988, the number of adults during that period with some of their own teeth increased by 41 per cent. The total number of teeth in the heads of the adult population increased from 0.5 billion to over 0.75 billion and the number of wholly sound teeth increased from just under 300 million to just under 500 million. Perhaps most remarkable of all, the number of teeth repaired and saved by dentists during that same period has increased from 156 million to 268 million.
Looking forward—and that is where the benefits which the contract brings come in—total tooth loss is predicted to fall over the next 35 years to 1 per cent. from a level of 20 per cent. in 1988. However, what is far more important than strings of numbers is the relief from stress, pain and discomfort that modern dental practice can bring. It is now well known that the new contract has resulted in more people attending the dentist, thus preventing decay and removal. As my noble friend Lord Colwyn said, children between 0 and two years old have been registered. That is new and is part of the scheme of continuing care with emphasis on prevention. However, we must not forget that it is early days. Prevention takes a while to shine through and 18 months is a short time in which to see results.
In order that the dental service should continue to attract the highest calibre of practitioner, it is clear that the present complexities which exist in the remuneration arrangements for the service need to be tackled. No doubt the proposed fundamental review will address those questions.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will excuse me for inserting myself in the gap but I wanted to make a few remarks in support of our dental profession. I speak because I am chairman of the School Council of the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals. I wish to make it quite clear that I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, has just said about the need to attract good people into dentistry for the future.
Our dental profession has played its part with the rest of the world's dentists in ensuring that we face up to the problems of caries from sucrose and sticky sweets. It has faced up to the possibilities of prevention through fluoride in our water. It has done

1341
remarkable work in improving the technique of dental care following the Nuffield inquiry into four-handed dentistry, as it is called. I should like to say that those of us who have enjoyed four-handed dentistry have been moved quite quickly from the fear of the old dentist situation to a much happier circumstance. It is now true to say that one lies down in the kind of space-ship situation, one is given an injection to take the pain out of it all and it is all so quick. The super speed drills and the four hands managing the whole operation have greatly changed dentistry for the patient. I believe that our dentists should be given full credit for that.
As has been said, in some ways dentists are doing themselves a disservice. They have increased their productivity. I asked one of my professors at Guy's about this and he pointed out that in one group 6.6 million cases had been treated in 1980 and 7.3 million in 1981, which is a sizeable increase in throughput. Therefore, although four-handed dentistry involves more cost because you have to have an extra member of staff on your payroll, it provides a nicer form of dentistry.
The other important matter which I should convey in my brief intervention is that our dentists are accepting increasing responsibility for overall health; and I am glad to have heard that from an active member of the administrative side of the health service. Dentists are becoming oral doctors. At the moment we must realise that there is a very severe risk of AIDS affecting some young people, and AIDS is not infrequently diagnosed in the dental chair.
The other point which is neglected is that oral cancer has become statistically the sixth most common cause of new growth of cancer. That has been detected by our dentists much more than by the other parts of the medical/dental professions.
I hope that in their consideration of the future of dentistry, the Government will cosset the dentists and their morale. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, those who produce more work will be able to cosset their bank accounts and their holiday opportunities.
We did not welcome the Minister properly when she first appeared in a debate in this Chamber to speak from the Dispatch Box. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has a fairly tough assignment because she is coming into a situation where demand for community care will escalate, and there is no doubt that something must be done to help our dentists. I wish her well.
A few years ago I led an inquiry into dental research. We found that British dentists provided 9 per cent. of the world's published dental research. It is true that compared to some parts of the dental world our dentists were not using molecular biology and monoclonal antibodies to anything like the same extent. I believe that if they had the opportunity to use them in the dental schools, they would.
I must make a plea for more research in dental schools. Otherwise we will not attract the kind of people the dental profession needs. There has been a reduction in the number of applicants—boys and girls in school can find out about the fluoride effect on
1342
caries. There has also been a tendency for A-level standards to be worrying for dental needs. We must put the situation right. It is in our own interests to ensure that the dental schools attract good quality applicants and take in good students so that our children do not encounter the dreadful fears about dentists that we had.
I conclude by saying that my dentist has completely cured me of anxiety. I do not look forward to seeing him, but I do not fear it.
8 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, was able to interpolate his remarks in the gap. They were extremely important and I hope that they will be carefully considered by the Minister and others interested in this subject.
Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, addresses your Lordships' House he always does his homework with great care. As a result, his speeches, on whatever topic, are always worth listening to and studying. I suspect that on this occasion the noble Lord has not had to do much homework. He has been speaking to us on a subject with which he has lived for many years and which is at the forefront of his mind most of the time.
It is perhaps a pity that much of the noble Lord's speech, and other speeches made in this debate, concerned money. Although I say it is a pity, it is inevitable. I know a great many dentists. It always seems to me that they are starving fairly comfortably. However, that does not mean that they do not have genuine grievances regarding remuneration. They do. Unless those grievances are remedied the national dental service will disappear. They must be dealt with and soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, went through the history of the matter and the way in which the present system of remuneration was arrived at. I go back to the beginning. When the National Health Service began on 5th July 1948 I was a general practitioner. At the time I regarded dental health as a crucial and vital part of ordinary health. I looked with great care at the way in which the dentists were then working. Noble Lords may remember that dentists' remuneration was fixed in a different way from that of general practitioners.
I perhaps wander from the point when I say that general practitioners entered the National Health Service on a system of pay which was unknown at that time. The Spens Committee was set up under Sir Will Spens and general practitioners were told that their remuneration would be in accordance with the recommendations of that committee. In the meantime they were paid provisionally. After around three years the Spens Committee reported and the Government fulfilled their obligation by adjusting the pay to that recommended by the committee. But they did not backdate it to the 5th July 1948. That caused a serious grievance.
In the end the matter went to arbitration and before the courts. The doctors and the Minister of Health went before Mr. Justice Danckwerts. He came down wholly on the side of the doctors and we all received

1343
back pay for the three years. As a result of that my children always went to sleep with the words, "God bless Mr. Justice Danckwerts".
There was another consequence. It meant that when one spoke about remuneration to a Minister of Health and mentioned going before the courts or to arbitration, the Minister of Health ran a mile. The department had been bitten once and did not intend to be bitten again. Therefore I say to my colleagues in dentistry, do not rely on going to arbitration or before the courts because it will not be allowed.
One of the most important elements of the history of the development of the dental remuneration system given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, concerned expenses. Dental expenses are repaid by a calculation in which they are included in piece-rate pay. That is an absurd system. Of course, dentists were always paid piecework. As I said, when we started and waited for the Spens Committee to report, the dentists were immediately on piecework. The payments were based on what was then thought to be a proper level of chair hours' work which a dentist could do in a week. It was thought at that time that a conscientious and efficient dentist could manage only around 32 or 33 chair hours a week with real efficiency. In fact they were working 70 hours a week. My noble friend Lord Russell mentioned "all the hours God sends". Of course they earned a fortune. The rumour then got around that here were all these people making vast amounts of money. But in many ways they made it at the professional cost of dentistry. They worked far too hard.
Dentistry is now an intricate and delicate matter. It has changed a lot in my time. Whenever a friend tells me he has some delicate dental manoeuvring to be carried out by a dental surgeon, my advice to him is always to make his appointment for the morning, rather than the evening. By the time evening comes the dentist is dead beat and the standard of his work is nothing like as high as it is in the morning. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will confirm that.
The reimbursement of expenses was the method used with general practitioners in the National Health Service for many years. At that time Mr. Kenneth Robinson and Sir Derek Stevenson went into purdah and held discussions. They came out with a new contract for general practitioners which suddenly reimbursed doctors for the expenses that they had actually incurred. That is the only sensible way to proceed. If a dentist, for the benefit of his patients, provides extremely expensive equipment—and it is extremely expensive; if he has an efficient staff to help him, which again is for the benefit of his patients; if he spends a lot of money and always provides a good service, then he is entitled to direct reimbursement for what he has spent. Why cannot we employ that kind of arrangement? As the noble Lord illustrated, the present arrangement is absurd. It leads to a lot of anomalies and a great many injustices.
The noble Lord mentioned the capitation fee. The present one is derisory. The system has perhaps been a good one where at long last a patient is registered with a dental surgeon who becomes nominally responsible for that person's care. If a decent
1344
capitation fee was paid it could cover the provision of at least an annual dental examination which would be free, and any further investigations which arose as a necessity from that examination. That also is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred.
To arrive at a decent system of remuneration for dentists, when one is relying on a piecework system, is a complex matter. It will not be easy by normal systems of negotiation. It was calculated—and was certainly true in my time—that dentists tended to reach their maximum earnings capacity around the age of 32. They were fit and well and could do long chair hours and therefore get through a great deal of work. After the age of 33 or 34 their earnings dived sharply. That is the opposite to what happens in other professions. Some noble Lords may be barristers and I doubt that they would say their earnings dived sharply when they reached the age of 33. They do not even arrive at any earnings until they are much older. That is something to be considered and in doing so we must bear in mind that dental surgeons efficiently can only do a certain number of chair hours. They should not be induced to do a great deal more. It is important to remember that.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Eccles of Moulton, mentioned fluoridation and then both backed rapidly off the subject. I was astonished. They came along and dipped their toes into the water and then rapidly plucked them out again as if it were very cold. They should not be so reluctant. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, with us. I am sure she will agree with me that the fluoridation of water has been of immense benefit. It is partly responsible for the striking and spectacular decline in the incidence of dental caries. I do not know what it is like now, but there was a time when most of Birmingham's water was fluoridated. It had no patients with dental caries for the students to study, so patients had to be bussed in from places such as Dudley and other less fortunate places which did not have fluoridated water.
We spent hours and hours in your Lordships' House passing the water fluoridation Bill which removed any uncertainty about the legality of adding fluoride to water in certain circumstances. But many of the water authorities have been extremely reluctant to take the necessary action. In many parts of the country we still have water authorities which have not yet seized the opportunity which your Lordships' House and the other place gave them. That is also an important matter.
I repeat that dental health is a very important part of general health. It is important that we maintain a national dental service in the same way as we have a National Health Service. If the service proceeds as it is now, with the kind of difficulties which have been introduced in recent years, I can see a time when we shall have no national dental service at all. When the noble Baroness replies can she say whether it is the Government's intention to retain by some means or other a national dental service within the meaning of those words or whether they are prepared to see it gradually wither away and disappear?

1345
That could be done gradually. When I was last in general medical practice in Worsley and Salford, just outside Manchester, in a group practice, next door we had a dental practice with two partners who did very good work. They also had a private practice in Dusseldorf. These two chaps worked turn and turn about. One week one would be in Worsley and the other in Dusseldorf. The following week they would reverse their roles. With inducements a dentist can make an immense amount of money by leaving the national dental service and going elsewhere. There is an inducement for many dental surgeons working under the National Health Service to give it up and to go for wholly private work. In those circumstances we are doing the National Health Service itself very great damage indeed. When the noble Baroness replies to this debate I hope that she will tell us clearly whether it is the Government's intention to retain a national dental service or whether the Government are prepared to see it wither away.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, for tabling this Question and to congratulate him on his impeccable timing, not just in getting here but on the date of the Question. I am not sure that the Minister will agree about the timing. Noble Lords know that I have an involvement in agriculture, both inside and outside this House. I believe that the Minister also has a family connection with agriculture. Does she agree with me that the complexities of the system for remunerating dentists make the common agricultural policy look quite straightforward?
The facts are quite clear. On 10th February this year the review body on doctors' and dentists' pay recommended an 8.5 per cent. increase in dentists' net pay. That was called the target average net income. The Government accepted the recommendation in full and without phasing. On the same day the Government announced that in order to achieve the 8.5 per cent. increase in net pay they proposed a reduction in dental fees of 13.8 per cent. from 1st April. On 20th February the Government panicked and suspended the proposed fee cut, ostensibly until the Dental Rates Study Group (DRSG), met in May. I note in passing that it was clear then that a general election was likely to be called some time before the DRSG was likely to meet.
We now have the new package proposed by the Government on 2nd June. The fee cut now proposed is 7 per cent., thus showing that there was something badly wrong with the 13.8 per cent. cut proposed in February. With all these facts in mind it is clear that the Independent newspaper got it about right yesterday in its leader column which said:
"The concept of overpayment in a system in which standard fees are paid, on a piece-rate basis, for particular services is one that would only occur to the most dedicated of bureaucrats. What has happened is that the dentists have been too successful for their own good in implementing the government policies".
The article continued:
1346
"The present system is complex, rigid, pays no attention to regional variations in costs and does nothing to encourage price competition between dentists. It should be replaced".
This whole exercise of two steps backward and one step forward calls into question the competence and quality of the machinery which is used for these complex calculations. The figures themselves are fiendishly complex. But there is an aspect of the calculations that I find puzzling. I understand that a departmental survey indicated that dentists' net income was of the order of 33 per cent. of turnover. That means that, by difference, expenses must be 67 per cent. of turnover. The department's estimate of expenses for 1992–93 is about £47,000. That implies a turnover of the order of £70,000 and not the much higher figure that the Government have calculated of £92,000.
Perhaps the Minister can explain this rather curious conflict in the calculations. The basis of the expenses estimate is in the order of £47,000. If that is 67 per cent. of the turnover then that turnover is of the order of £70,000 and not the £92,000 figure which the Government have used.
As regards expenses, I find it hard to understand why it took three years for these matters to be calculated. I do not know whether noble Lords have seen the advertisements in the newspapers this week which point out to company directors that if they do not get their accounts in within six months they stand to be fined by the Companies Office. One of the most worrying aspects of the situation is the declining number of dentists prepared to offer treatment on the health service. A departmental survey carried out earlier this year indicated refusals by 75 per cent. of dentists in some parts of London; 73 per cent. in Kingston and Richmond; and 67 per cent. in Bromley. Other figures apply to other districts and they reduce to 36 per cent. in Bolton. This matter was discussed on 16th January in a Starred Question.
Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have updated the January figures? What is the department's estimate of the number of dentists who are likely to leave the health service as a result of the most recent proposals? We know that the Labour Party has been criticised by the Government for giving a number of warnings about a two-tier health service. That is certainly happening now in the dental service which is also most definitely not free at the point of delivery. The percentage of fees paid by patients has increased from 16 per cent. in 1976 to 38 per cent. in 1991.
The other aspect of the Government's proposals concerns reference to the Dental Practice Board (DPB) for approval of all courses of treatment which cost over £200. The figure was formerly £600. That is bound to lead to bureaucratic delay and thus to increased pain and discomfort for patients. In their statement the Government say that these proposals will apply to about 3 per cent. of treatments. Can the Minister say what is the number of references to the DPB represented by 3 per cent. of treatments? How many actual references will there be? Also, can the Minister tell the House of the Government's estimate of the time taken to process the applications? The British Dental Association estimates that it will be in

1347
the order of three to six months. Do the Government agree with that figure? If not, will the Minister say what is the Government's own estimate?
Entirely properly, the Government are worried about the reaction of the public and the dental profession to their proposals. To enable Conservative MPs to handle their constituents' questions the Conservative Research Department issued a brief to Conservative MPs dated 2nd June, the same date on which the Government's proposals were announced. It contains the following sections: "Key Points", "Questions and Answers", "The Dental Service—The Government's Record", and including,
"Annex A. Draft paragraphs for MPs to use in reply to letters from Dentists"
and,
"Annex B. Draft paragraphs for MPs to use in reply to letters from Patients".
The document is headed:
"Prepared For: the information of Members, to coincide with the Secretary of State's meeting with dental representatives".
The brief has the same date as the Government's proposals and clearly contains information that is part of the confidential position paper that was prepared for the Dental Rates Study Group. Indeed, it includes some figures that were not in the Government's Statement. Given that it, too, is dated 2nd June and contains information from the confidential paper, perhaps the Minister can tell the House how the Conservative Research Department obtained that information. Was there some consultation with officials at the department, or is it a specialised version of open government?
In February, the Government said that they were proposing a thorough review of the remuneration system—we can all agree with that statement—and that undertaking was repeated in the Statement of 2nd June. Can the Minister tell the House the timetable for the review? When is it expected to be completed and when will it report? Will the review result in the setting up of a system that is simpler and fairer and which avoids the miscalculations of recent years?
On 5th December 1991, the then Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Waldegrave, referring to miscalculations in 1988–89, said in a Written Answer:
"The principal reasons for the overpayment were that the calculation of the 1988 dental fee scale was based on forecasts which over-estimated dentists' practice expenses and underestimated the volume of treatment to be undertaken by dentists … We shall be reviewing procedures with a view to avoiding such large scale variations in processing rates in the future and to insulate the dentists' pay system from these". —{Official Report, Commons, 5/12/91; col. 201.]
That was in 1988–89, but despite that assurance from the Secretary of State the same mistakes were still being made this year. Obviously, therefore, the system had to be overhauled.
Will the proposed review deal with the cogent suggestions that were made by the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Pay, which noted the lack of incentive to invest in modern dental equipment? That point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. The review body suggested the principle that a higher proportion of dentists' income should come from capitation-based payments as opposed to the more volatile "piecework" payments, to use the words
1348
of the review body. It also recommended greater direct reimbursement of both revenue and capital expenditure and said that any system should avoid the problems arising from the averaging of expenses and of target incomes. We are all familiar with the old phrase that averages murder all truth, —which is certainly the case with the calculation of dentists' pay.
The proposed review has a great deal to do and time is short. We must hope that while it is in progress the Government and the profession can find an interim solution that makes the care of patients a paramount objective and not just a secondary function of abstruse and extremely complex calculations.
When the new contract was formulated in 1990, I understand that it was expected that 18 million patients would be treated. In fact, dentists treated about 24 million people. I understand also that the Government actually advertised in order to encourage demand, incurring expenditure of about £3,000 for the family health service authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said that about 27 million patients are now registered, but I have been told that 30 million patients were registered in April 1992. It would be interesting if the Minister could give the House the up-to-date figure. It is certainly very much greater than the figure that was expected when the contract was formulated.
We all know that the Government believe in an internal market for health care. There are two sides in every market —supply and demand. The demand for dental services is clearly present. It is the Government's job to set up a system of remuneration for dentists which will produce the supply.
8.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Colwyn for introducing this interesting and timely debate. As always, he was in tune and on time. During the debate we have heard many important and stimulating points and I should like to return in detail to some of them later in my speech.
However, I start from a position on which we can all agree. We should judge the success or otherwise of National Health Service dentistry by the quality of the service available to patients and by the state of the nation's dental health. Despite the concerns voiced this evening, I believe that on that basis we have every reason to judge the NHS dental service very favourably. I heartily endorse the view of my noble friend Lord Colwyn that, contrary to much of what is said, dental practice in this country is a success. That view was also expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and my noble friend Lady Eccles of Moulton, who has already been very active in counting the nation's teeth.
Over recent years dental health in this country has improved markedly, so much so that many other countries envy our progress. As has been said, the dental health of children in particular has advanced in leaps and bounds. We now look forward to the day when decay in children's teeth can be virtually

1349
eliminated. We have already met the World Health Organisation's target for the year 2000 of 12 year-olds having, on average, no more than three decayed, missing or filled teeth. In our Green Paper The Health of the Nation, the Government have proposed an even more ambitious target.
These improvements in the early years should be carried on throughout life—and they will be. Within the next 20 years, we can expect that only one person in every 10 will ever have to rely on dentures. As my noble friend Lady Eccles of Moulton said, that presents a remarkable comparison to the position just 20 years ago when nearly four people in every 10 had no natural teeth at all.
The advances have not come about unaided. To a large extent, they result from substantial improvements in the dental care available in this country over the last decade. The statistics bear this out. Since 1979, annual gross spending on NHS dental services has risen by 43 per cent. ahead of inflation. Over the same period, the number of dentists in Great Britain has grown by 27 per cent. There are now over seven million more courses of adult dental treatment carried out every year—an increase of nearly 43 per cent. since the Government came to power. That record underlines, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will note, the Government's strong commitment to the NHS dental service.
But an effective dental service is not built on numbers alone. It is the quality of care that counts. To improve that quality the Government introduced in October 1990 a new dental contract. The new contract establishes the concept of all-round continuing care. It promotes the prevention of disease and offers a full range of dental care to patients. It brings in emergency cover and treatment plans. Patients can now have certain restorations repaired or replaced for free if they go wrong. They have better information about dental care and oral health.
The new contract is not only good for patients. It is good for dentists. It gives them greater clinical freedom in the materials and treatments at their disposal. It encourages them to keep their clinical knowledge up to date, with the new post-graduate education allowance. We introduced new maternity and long-term sickness payments, and dentists can now get their business rates directly reimbursed. The new capitation payments for children and continuing care payments for adults give the dentists greater stability of income.
These are significant gains. They are the way towards a better dental service and better dental health, bringing tangible improvements in the quality of people's daily lives, as several of your Lordships have mentioned. It is against that background of advance and improvement that we must consider the current issues facing NHS dentistry.
I have noted what many noble Lords have had to say about the difficulties of finding an NHS dentist in certain parts of the country. However, we must be careful not to exaggerate the extent of the problem. Today's problems, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred, tend to centre around the South East
1350
of England. Significant levels of private dental practice are virtually unheard of elsewhere. NHS dentistry is available in all areas and there was, in fact, a small net increase in Great Britain in the number of NHS dentists in the first year of the new contract. Our most recent survey showed that over three-quarters of dentists were accepting all patients for NHS treatment, and 85 per cent. are accepting children as NHS patients.
Of course, the Government are concerned about the difficulties that do exist. Their commitment to the NHS dental service is neither partial nor regional. It is absolute. We will take what steps we have to to ensure that the commitment has true meaning for everybody. Patients who experience a problem finding an NHS dentist should contact their local family health services authority, which will be able to put them in touch with their local NHS dentists. If the FHSA has real difficulty in finding an NHS dentist, then it can, and should, employ a salaried practitioner who will provide NHS services for those who need them. The department will be writing to all family health service authorities shortly to remind them of this possible course of action.
A number of commentators have sought to make a connection between difficulties in finding an NHS dentist and the proposals for a reduction in dental fees made by my right honourable friend to the dentists last week. The British Dental Association is, I understand, considering whether my right honourable friend's proposals are a matter for resignation or other forms of industrial action by dentists. Like the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I hope that it does not come to that, for in the event it would be patients who suffered. Certainly, it need not, for I find the BDA's line of reasoning hard to follow. Even after the proposed reduction of 7 per cent. in dental fees, the average dentist would still be left with a net income of around £40,000 a year. Most people would, I think, be glad to earn as much. It is hard to see how such an income adds up to a case for resignation.
More generally, I believe that the proposals made by my right honourable friend are both fair and reasonable. They are fair to dentists, not least because the proposed reduction is substantially less than the full 23 per cent. cut that would have been needed to bring the average dentist's income down fully into line with the figure of £35,815 recommended for them by their independent pay review body. Dentists will be paid that recommendation in full. Moreover, even after the proposed reduction in fees, the average dentist would still earn some £5,000 a year above that figure.
The review body's recommendation itself represents an 8.5 per cent. pay increase above the figure for 1991–92. This increase is well above inflation and similar awards for doctors and nurses. It simply would not have been fair to other health service workers to have done nothing, allowing dentists to keep every penny of a substantial payment over and above the review body's recommendation, when that recommendation was itself well above the award for others. The Government's proposals preserve equity in the NHS.

1351
At the time that the review body made its recommendation of an average net income for dentists of £35,815 there was not, as I recall, a great outcry in the profession. There was no talk then of resignation or industrial action. So I am bound to wonder why there should be this talk now, when my right honourable friend's proposals would leave the average dentist with an income £5,000 above the review body's recommendation. Those prepared to work for an average £35,000 must surely be content with £40,000.
Some people look for the reason for the current unhappiness among the various calculations of dentists' expenses, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Colwyn and the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Carter. But in fact the Government have been quite fair and reasonable here as well. The allowance for expenses proposed by my right honourable friend for this year is £47,228—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness's pardon for intervening. Can she tell us how this figure, in particular the £40,000 a year, was arrived at? Is it based on actual income and expenses of individual dentists, or does it rest on an average?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall be coming to that point in a little more detail later on. It is of course an average and that is the point I shall come to in a moment.
But in fact the Government have been quite fair and reasonable with regard to expenses. The allowance for expenses proposed by my right honourable friend for this year is £47,228, 11.6 per cent. above last year's figure. Taking this together with the review body's recommendation for dentists' net income in 1992–93 of £35,815, gives dentists a gross income of £83,000. And of course, I repeat, that even after my right honourable friend's proposals, the average dentist would actually receive around £5,000 more than that figure. All in all, average gross earnings per dentist would be around £88,000.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the point which I made. On the figures that the noble Baroness has just given, which I fully understand, it means that the department is working on a figure that expenses as a percentage of turnover are 57 per cent. However, the department's internal survey, which I believe is unpublished, shows that the figure is 67 per cent. There is something rather odd in the calculations somewhere.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I cannot answer the detail of that point but I shall write to the noble Lord.
The Government's proposals are also fair to patients. As a result, many would pay less for their dental treatment than would otherwise have been the case. Those who allege that my right honourable friend's proposal is an act of "creeping privatisation" might do well to ponder on the fact that it is an odd sort of privatisation that cuts what people have to pay for their NHS dental treatment.
Finally, the proposals are a reasonable step to control expenditure. In fact, £1,400 million was spent on the general dental service last year—a vast sum.
1352
But, under the current fee scale, payments to dentists are running some half a million pounds above budget every day. The sensible control of public expenditure demands that action is taken to rectify this problem.
I should now like to turn to some of the specific points which have been raised in the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to his local dentist, whose earnings are low—under £12,000 a year, or they were originally before they were increased. They are without a doubt towards the very bottom of the scale of earnings for NHS dentists. Without more detail it is very difficult for me to comment on a specific case and I know that the noble Earl will appreciate that.
The noble Earl also asked about expenses and said that they did not reflect regional variations. I well understand that and I think that the fundamental review will have to tackle that issue head on. It also has to tackle the question of averages—average income, average dentists. I share the view expressed this evening that there is no average dentist. That person does not exist. That is one of the flaws in the present system. Again, hence the need for a fundamental review. However, to lift a phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, it is not the Government's wish that anyone should starve, even comfortably.
I turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. As chairman of the Schools Council of the United Medical Schools, his views clearly carry great weight in this Chamber. I am sure he will he pleased to know that at present there are two applicants for each dental school place and that the standard of applicant, taking the United Kingdom as a whole, has slightly improved in 1991 over 1990. In other words, dentistry continues to attract many high quality candidates for the degree places available, a very necessary development, bearing in mind the increase in the incidence of cancer and the onslaught of Aids, as mentioned by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, set the historical scene for us. I am grateful to him for that and for giving us sound advice on making a dental appointment. I hope that I have covered many of the other valuable points that he and the noble Baronesses have made this evening in some of the comments I have made in summing up. I know that all these views will be taken into account when we come to consider the fundamental review. However, like other shrinking Baronesses tonight, I shall resist the temptation to enter into the fluoride debate. I shall also resist the temptation to get into the vagaries of the common agricultural policy, despite the seductive invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about claims for prior approval. Lowering the cost ceiling for prior approval is still only a proposal. The administrative detail of processing claims at the Dental Practice Board will be worked out in detail if the proposal is adopted. I believe that we should bear in mind that the proposal will cover a mere 3 per cent. of treatments, or around 1 million, and the fact that the performance of the DPB has markedly improved over recent years. I do not believe that the BDA has real grounds for concern.

1353
Questions were also raised about the proportion of dentists' income which is expenses related. That refers back to an earlier point. The Government's current estimate is 57 per cent., not 67 per cent. Another question which needs to be addressed is: when will the fundamental review begin and why has it not started now? The review was delayed while we concentrated on the reasonable and fair proposals that my right honourable friend offered the dentists. She wanted to hear at first hand the dentists' views on the form of the review before deciding how to carry the work forward. She discussed the matter with the BDA at a meeting last week. Officials will meet with the association again tomorrow to talk it through. My right honourable friend will take a decision shortly afterwards.
In closing, I should like to say a little more about the fundamental review of dental remuneration, to which my noble friend Lord Colwyn rightly gave weight in his speech. I hope that the review will pick up some of the interesting points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, which also have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The current problems have thrown into sharp focus the fact that the way in which dentists are paid is not all that it should be. That point was made by the noble Earl. The
1354
system is unnecessarily arcane and complex. It is not delivering the objectives that the Government would like to see.
It is important to the Government, to dentists and to their patients that the system by which dentists are remunerated is both fair and effective. We look to the fundamental review to deliver that objective. We all owe a great debt to the dental profession for its commitment and hard work. The Government want a better and more stable system for dentists' pay in the future. The points made today by noble Lords, and earlier by my noble friend, will provide useful grist to the mill.
The review will build upon the Government's substantial and enduring commitment to the NHS dental service. It will build upon the service's many strengths to improve the system for dentists, for patients and for the nation's dental health. I very much welcome today's debate, out of which, as ever, has come much wise and important comment. It will assist the Government in their task of building a better NHS dental service for the future.

Cattewater Reclamation Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT
  LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT
  POTATO MARKETING BOARD
  POTATO MARKETING BOARD
  NOISE CONTROL
  NOISE CONTROL